1. Go to the movies any weekend and you’re almost guaranteed to discover an abundance of sequels, reboots, and films based on popular books or games. This Halloween season, for example, includes Saw X, the latest addition to the long-running Saw franchise, and The Exorcist: Believer, a sequel to the iconic 1973 film. However, amidst all the horror, there’s Martin Scorsese’s Killers of the Flower Moon, a unique adaptation of David Grann’s best-selling book. The movie raked in $23 million in its opening weekend in the U.S. and an additional $21 million internationally.
2. In his groundbreaking book, You Are What You Watch, author Walt Hickey delves into the reasons why Hollywood continues to churn out sequels, spin-offs, and reboots. While financial gain plays a role, it’s not the sole driving force behind this trend. According to Hickey, movies like the Creed series within the Rocky franchise are more likely to make it to the big screen because they carry lower financial risks.
3. Let’s turn our attention to Hickey’s book for a moment. Bursting with vivid charts and graphs, You Are What You Watch covers a wide range of intriguing topics. From exploring the fate of parents in Disney movies, to uncovering the superpowers of Marvel Comics characters, the book also dives into how films and TV shows influence our choices in baby names, the dogs we own, and even our vacation destinations.
4.The following excerpt from the book focuses on the prevalence of sequels:
Reboots are not a recent phenomenon. In fact, the idea of reimaging old stories has been around almost as long as the original tales themselves. Take The Aeneid for example, a reboot of Homer’s works with a more relatable protagonist. And let’s not forget that Shakespeare borrowed heavily from Plutarch’s writings. Even the US Constitution can be seen as a reboot of the Articles of Confederation, although a significant improvement on its predecessor.
5. Hickey explains that while there may be several reasons why a filmmaker decides to revisit a franchise after a hiatus, financial gain is usually the main driving factor. Returning to a familiar world allows the creators to build upon their previous work and tackle new themes. However, it also means less risk of losing money. It’s quite plausible that a person who spent their life boxing in Philadelphia would want to confront their own aging through a film about an underdog fighter. And perhaps there’s a burning desire to delve into where exactly the Minions were during the years 1939 to 1945?
6. Despite the perception that reboots automatically rake in more cash than original films, this isn’t always the case. Profit isn’t the sole concern of Hollywood executives. Most producers prioritize avoiding substantial losses over making significant profits. On average, original films without preexisting intellectual property have earned 2.8 times their budget at the global box office since 1980. This is considered a good return on investment and puts them in a financially favorable position. Surprisingly, original films based on adaptations, such as comic books or TV shows, have made 2.5 times their budget back, slightly less than purely original screenplays.
7. However, sequels have proven to be even more successful, making an average of 4.2 times their budget at the global box office since 1980. Sequels based on original ideas have achieved an even higher return, making back 4.7 times their budget. This is understandable given that the groundwork has already been laid in the first installment. As advertising and reaching audiences become more expensive, so does the cost of promoting a film. But sequels possess the advantage of carrying the momentum from their predecessors. It’s no wonder that filmmakers, such as Pixar, Studio Ghibli, Christopher Nolan, M. Night Shyamalan, and Quentin Tarantino, who have established a recognizable brand, have the freedom to create original content, albeit with some personal financial risk.
8. So why don’t studios invest more in new, original films with the aim of building new franchises? The answer lies in shareholders and return on investment. If investing in an original film yields a 2.8 times return, those funds could potentially be invested in a sequel that guarantees a 4.2 times return. Shareholders and investors prioritize minimizing financial risks. Furthermore, there’s always the fear of not recouping the budget, placing directors at high stakes. Only 44% of non-sequel films make back their budget domestically, and a mere 21% double their budgets in profit domestically. These figures hold true for both adaptations and original screenplays.
9. In contrast, 66% of sequels make back their budgets domestically, with 29% doubling them. Globally, 92% of sequel films recoup their investments. Betting on a sequel provides a three-fold increase in the odds of reclaiming the budget domestically. Although there are exceptions, such as spin-offs and remakes, these subcategories generally underperform compared to the average film.
10. Interestingly, major studios are often hesitant to take risks when starting new franchises. While they may distribute these films and fund future sequels in the event of success, it’s rare to find a major studio that took the initial leap of faith. Avatar, for instance, was released by 20th Century Fox, but its funding came from James Cameron and two private equity firms. The Bond franchise was kickstarted by independent producers and remains under the Broccoli family’s close watch. Tyler Perry had to create his own Hollywood in Atlanta to bring his successful franchises to life. Marvel Cinematic Universe began as an independent self-funded comic book company that later got acquired by Disney. Even the Star Wars prequels, the largest and most financially successful independent films in history, were financed by George Lucas through preselling toy rights. Peter Jackson’s The Lord of the Rings trilogy emerged from the director’s relentless battle against Harvey Weinstein to secure funding. The Hunger Games, plagued by financial difficulties, relied on preselling international rights and an $8 million tax break to cobble together its $88 million budget.
Reference
