Spring Break
The Daily OrangeSequels are a production cash cow, but ruins old classics for viewers
By Stacie Foster
Posted: 11/3/09, 1:26 AM EST Section: Feature
There's no beating a night out at the movies. Popcorn, candy, your best friend-not to mention Leonardo DiCaprio and Julia Roberts-all create the perfect recipe for a good time. The best part about movies: they cater to your mood. The genres go on and on, and there's a one for everyone. But lately, movie selection has been quite disappointing. Originality has taken a back seat and sequels are driving the industry. Some of the biggest movies this year have been sequels, including "Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen," "Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince," "Ice Age: Dawn of the Dinosaurs," and "Night at the Museum: Battle of the Smithsonian."
That's not including the upcoming second installment of "The Twilight Saga: New Moon," which is expected to make even more money than its box-office crushing predecessor. According to online ticket seller Fandango, 57 percent of ticket sales being sold are for "New Moon" showings. Maybe it's just me, but I'm wondering how many times we have to watch Spider-Man beat up the bad guy before everyone is sick of it. The reason why sequels like "Spider-Man 2" keep getting made, despite their high production cost, is that they are guaranteed successes.
If you go see the first "Terminator" and you like it, you're going to go see the next one. Therefore, when a studio is launching a potential movie franchise, they put in as much effort as possible to make a good first impression. After they have one blockbuster under its belt, the same effort may not be put into its sequel.
Hence, the bad sequel syndrome. "The Matrix Reloaded" is a classic case. After four years of pent-up questions, hypotheses and sheer excitement, "The Matrix" follow-up was just a disappointment. The bad sequel epidemic has been growing for years, and movie producers just don't seem to get it.
John Travolta's response to "Saturday Night Fever" in 1983 called "Staying Alive" is a mess. The storyline was completely forced, and even Travolta's acting was under par, as if he no longer connected with his character. But I will give him credit, it takes a lot of guts to release a bad movie and then pose the way he did on the VHS cover. Oily hair and skin paired with sweatbands aren't your best look, John. This isn't to say that some sequels aren't just as good as their originals.
The critically acclaimed "The Dark Knight" is a sequel to 2005's "Batman Begins," and it's one of the most successful movies of all time. The only movie that grossed higher than "The Dark Knight" is "Titanic" in 1997.
In the end, we all just want to watch a good movie. Instead of making a film because it will sell tickets, studios should make a film because it's a good story, has an interesting plot and great character development. If that film is a sequel, I'm OK with that.
Stacie Foster is a sophomore magazine journalism major. She can be reached at snfoster@syr.edu
That's not including the upcoming second installment of "The Twilight Saga: New Moon," which is expected to make even more money than its box-office crushing predecessor. According to online ticket seller Fandango, 57 percent of ticket sales being sold are for "New Moon" showings. Maybe it's just me, but I'm wondering how many times we have to watch Spider-Man beat up the bad guy before everyone is sick of it. The reason why sequels like "Spider-Man 2" keep getting made, despite their high production cost, is that they are guaranteed successes.
If you go see the first "Terminator" and you like it, you're going to go see the next one. Therefore, when a studio is launching a potential movie franchise, they put in as much effort as possible to make a good first impression. After they have one blockbuster under its belt, the same effort may not be put into its sequel.
Hence, the bad sequel syndrome. "The Matrix Reloaded" is a classic case. After four years of pent-up questions, hypotheses and sheer excitement, "The Matrix" follow-up was just a disappointment. The bad sequel epidemic has been growing for years, and movie producers just don't seem to get it.
John Travolta's response to "Saturday Night Fever" in 1983 called "Staying Alive" is a mess. The storyline was completely forced, and even Travolta's acting was under par, as if he no longer connected with his character. But I will give him credit, it takes a lot of guts to release a bad movie and then pose the way he did on the VHS cover. Oily hair and skin paired with sweatbands aren't your best look, John. This isn't to say that some sequels aren't just as good as their originals.
The critically acclaimed "The Dark Knight" is a sequel to 2005's "Batman Begins," and it's one of the most successful movies of all time. The only movie that grossed higher than "The Dark Knight" is "Titanic" in 1997.
In the end, we all just want to watch a good movie. Instead of making a film because it will sell tickets, studios should make a film because it's a good story, has an interesting plot and great character development. If that film is a sequel, I'm OK with that.
Stacie Foster is a sophomore magazine journalism major. She can be reached at snfoster@syr.edu
Be the first to comment on this story