Monday Morning Poll: Does every hit film deserve a sequel?

I don't know if it's even a hit yet. Sure the movie had a $56 million opening weekend, but as word gets out, I expect it to drop like a stone and be all but gone from theaters by August. Will there be a sequal? Sadly, yes, but it doesn't really matter. FF4 won't be the worst movie to get spun into a franchise.

Reply

I am so sick of sequels and remakes of classic films. Imagine if this happened in Hollywood's golden age. "Casablanca II", "Gone With The Wind II", or "The Wizard of Oz II" ? I don't think so. That would have been great examples of perhaps tarnishing an everlasting image. Today we can really use original concepts and innovative screen writing to overcome this sequel mania spin.

Reply

I just made a reply about how I felt this film is being wrongly received by critics a few posts down, so I won't repeat myself, but add something on.

Yes it will, and yes it SHOULD get a sequel. I feel like word of mouth was probably pretty good on this, as it certainly got no help from the newspapers or the web. Being released so hot on the heels of Batman Begins, Fantastic Four had the wrong type of expectations to live up to; the years between the this film and it's almost certain sequel will allow Marvel time to properly educated the critics (the money shows that the fans already know) what type of comic is actually being adapted here.

Where Batman broods and hides alone, the Four clown and mug for the camera. The bat cave is... well, it's a fucking CAVE, but the Four live in a penthouse with a giant sign on it that says THE FANTASTIC FOUR LIVE RIGHT HERE.

Marvel decided, it seems, that since Batman Begins and even Spiderman to an extent have recently done so well with the more dramatic aspects of the comic book genre that they'd simply piggyback Fantastic Four on and just ship it as yet another comic book movie. What they should've done was properly market it as a comic book comedy, but now that people know the real deal (and some felt they learned the hard way) it should be much smoother going into the next, with much more realistic expectations.

Reply

No, I don't think every movie should get a sequel/prequel, even though many of them will. I have to agree with mick du russel up there, my taste for sequels and prequels has completely dried up, if not gone a little sour.

It seemed, coming out of the initial showings, that either audiences hated this movie or completely fell in love with it. I think that so long as people remotely enjoy a film that turns a quick buck, a sequel/prequel will be made. Is this right? I'll leave that to the critics.

I think it hampers the creativity of some otherwise-decent producers when forced to produce pointless sequels, since they can't move on to other projects and help broaden what type of movies are shown in the theatres. It will eventually get to the point (I feel) that even the sloppiest and least-earning of titles will get a sequel - and then, *that* will be the defining time as to whether or not movie audiences will stand for it any longer.

Aintitcoolnews.com has a story about the next film in the Focker saga - "Meet the little Focker." I'm not sure if anyone agrees with me, but I felt that "Meet the Fockers" was terrible, departing from the roots of "Meet the Parents." Does it really deserve yet another sequel? I don't feel it does. But, I'll guarantee it'll make money.

Eventually, it will come down to: If you liked the original, you'll see the sequel(s)/prequel(s), if you didn't...good luck finding an original title out there. Audiences should be entertained, but there are other ways besides endless remakes, sequels, and prequels.

Reply

Hollywood has a bean-counter-driven culture; the suits listen to spreadsheet heads more often than our stomachs can handle. The "sequelability" of a picture is usually determined by 3 factors: 1) contractual stipulation, 2) box-office reality, 3) the collective will of the production team. Every big-budget so-called "event movie" now has excruciatingly legalistic language regarding sequels written in everyone's contract. Chances are, by Sunday night, after the better-than-expected box office number of "Fantastic 4" was confirmed, some lucky screenwriter had already been awarded the contract of writing "F4 - the Sequel".

Your question touches on the fundamental philosophy of Hollywood: do studio execs really care about making good movies? Or do they only care about making money? I doubt those Wolfgang-Puck-restaurants regulars can give you a straight answer. Ironically, if you walk into the spacious executive suites of these movers and shakers, you'll be surprised that some of them have original Kadinsky or Chagall on the walls, and if you look close enough, a few even have "Camera Lucida" on their bookshelves, but when you sit down with them, they want to talk about how they sat next to Jessica Alba last night in a banquet and got her private cell number.

Reply

$56 million dollars worth of people should just be shot.
Yes, there will be a sequel, no one will see it, by that time everyone will forget why they saw this thing in the first place.
I blame the terrorists. A bombing occurs in London, and what do we do, go to the movies. They want to be distracted from the reality that does not include an ego centric man who flies through the air on fire.
Damn you terrorists.
To Mick, Dramas and musicals rarely get sequels, so it wouldn't matter, even in those days hollywood sequelized everything.

Reply

This whole issue is rediculous. Fantastic Four was not ANYWHERE NEAR the filth that critics are claiming it to be. I would put it in my top 5 comic book adaptations OF ALL TIME. Not Marvel, Not DC. All comic movies. Above any Superman movie. Above X-men 1. It was that good at retaining the spirit of the comics. No, it wasn't meant to be an Oscar Nominated, Award winning experience, but a fun, humorous, story-driven summertime movie, and it succeeds at that in droves - never trying to be something it is not. Of course there will be a sequel. There will even be a sequel to the "hated" Daredevil. In the comic universe, there is always a sequel. As soon as Marvel regains the the movie rights to certain properties, you are no doubt going to see movies done like comic books (like Spider-man is so AMAZINGLY being done before your eyes and you probably don't even realize it). You will see longer stories told over the course of smaller stories. You will see crossovers. You will see comic movies the way they should be. Once movie studios (especially Fox) stop trying ruining adaptations (e.g. Elektra and Daredevil [SEE THE DIRECTORS CUT, Gary Foster should never be allowed near a movie ever]). I am just glad that Fox didn't mess up FF; they pretty much nailed it. Ottoman's score left something to be desired, and the Mr. Fantastic effects were noticeably CGI (but still very fun and well done in accord with the comics). But overall it was everything I hoped it would be and was not disappointed at all. I agree that there is now a supreme lack of originality in Hollywood (the remakes are getting rediculous now, I count 4 remake/re-envision movies in the last 2 months at least, not counting Charlie and the Chocolate Factory which is the first attempt at ACTUALLY adapting Dahl's book to screen), but criticizing a successful franchise is just petty and sad. You don't have to go see the movie, but obviously there is an audience for it. I will go see FF 2, and FF 3, and Spider-man 3, and X3, and Daredevil 2, and even Hulk 2. Stop criticizing FF for doing what no other movie has been able to do for the last 19 weeks, in spite of all the crap that it has got. Who is more likely to be wrong, the people who spent $56 million this weekend, or Roger Ebert? or the 200 superficial, self-centered 'reviewers' on rottentomatoes. Do the math.

Reply