History Repeating: The Rise of the Sequel

This blockbuster season we will see the release of the fifth Transformers movie, the third Cars movie, the fifth occurrence of a Pirates of the Caribbean movie, the third Despicable Me, and a second Guardians of the Galaxy movie. What ‘works’ appears to be what makes money so it is no accident that sequels in successful franchises are what dominate the box office.

Scrutinising the listings at your local omniplex this summer, you would be forgiven for thinking you were viewing a kind of “reeling in the years” cinema edition. Interspersed with the sequels are several rehashes of old favourites, including Baywatch, The Mummy and Alien. Such regurgitations of the old reliables, albeit with updated star studded casts and ever more impressive effects, can also be depended upon to draw punters to the big screen. Capitalising on the nostalgia of viewers for the storylines they enjoyed as young people, these reincarnations are a sure thing for Hollywood and don’t demand any resources being wasted on creativity.  

Hollywood seems to be stuck on a loop, relying on safe bets and trusted formulas. Sequels encourage viewers to return again and again. They can use the same cast, sets, and gimmicks, saving time and money. Many of the heavyweight franchises rely on spectacle, using dramatic plots with long climaxes, a festival of theatrical digital effects, combined with rather pedestrian character lines in many cases.

It is no secret that modern cinema releases are money making endeavours. The primary aim of Hollywood filmmakers is not necessarily the “high quality” standard that those concerned with filmmaking as an artform desire. We are not seeing ambitious, distinctive plot lines. We are not seeing Hollywood take many risks. The moviemakers have to present their projects as profitable and thus viable, and movies are now often presented with sequels that are already in the pipeline.

Arguably, this marks a diminishing originality. However, Klein and Palmer, in
The Atlantic argue that “to dismiss movies, or TV shows, because they’re inspired by, or part of, a pre existing franchise or series, is to ignore the entire history of the moving image.”

It isn’t news that Hollywood is concerned with the bottom line. Neither are ostentatious blockbusters a new phenomenon. The biblical Hollywood movies of old such as King Kong, and more recently spectacles such as Star Wars, and Jurassic Park, had similar profit orientated ambitions.

For these writers “self-cannibalizing cycles and sequels” are “filmmaking strategies dating back to the industry’s first decade, not a symptom of contemporary culture’s inability to create anything new.”

However, despite their rejection of the idea that cinema as a “pure” art form has been tampered with, what makes this era of the sequel different is that these films keep on coming but the ideas don’t. The reboots and replications of old ideas get spewed up for viewers year after year.

Scrutinising the listings at your local omniplex this summer, you would be forgiven for thinking you were viewing a kind of “reeling in the years” cinema edition.

Audiences don’t turn up their nose at these money spinners. As Peter Travers writes in Rolling Stone, “Lousy movies wouldn’t be spawning sequels if the public wasn’t paying for them.” The public appears to enjoy the security of a familiar narrative that allows us to slip back into a story we already know, or one that takes us back into our childhood memories. Recent films even spin off familiar board games, such as as Hasbro’s board game which inspired a film of the same name, Battleship.

This phenomenon is termed “pre-awareness”. The audience is not going to be asked to do too much work. They won’t have to adjust to a new setting or narrative. They can rest assured in the comfort of characters like Captain Jack Sparrow.

It seems that not only are filmmakers relying on familiarity, audiences are too. Perhaps films shouldn’t be so comfortable. Perhaps the tradition of repetition has run its course. If we want films that engage audiences on a deeper level, we need to look at alternative routes.

Sequels and spinoffs aren’t even a form of escapism. They allow us merely to meander down old paths. The presence of sequels isn’t new, but the lack of non-franchise and rehashed movies being produced for mass audiences is.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *