Dave –
Here are a few facts to negate your “we need sequels to make money” argument. The following movies are on the top 100 grossing films of all time list: Ghostbusters, Jaws, Back to the Future, The Exorcist, Grease, Gremlins, and Dr. Dolittle. None of the sequels to any of these movies are on the top 100. There are some families of movies that have both the original and the sequel(s) on the list: Jurassic Park, Home Alone, Batman, Indiana Jones and Beverly Hills Cop. In all these examples, the sequel made less money than the original (by an average of around $90 mil.) while the money spent to make the movie increased. There are also a few situations where the sequels made more than the original: Rush Hour 2, Austin Powers 2, American Pie 2, etc. but in my opinion, the originals of these were sleepers, and gained more popularity through video rentals than theatre tickets. Also, the budget to make the movie increased. In other situations where the sequels surpassed the original: Lethal Weapon 2, Terminator 2, the budget increased dramatically, while years passed and ticket prices cost more.

Fact is, original ideas can make a lot of money without needing a sequel, and sequels rarely make more than the original (but they always cost more). As far as I know, Titanic, Forrest Gump, Twister (not that this was a good movie, but we’re talking dollars here), Mrs. Doubtfire, Ghost, Liar Liar, and so on and so on all are on the top 100, and they don’t have sequels. For you to say,

"There is no way a studio will put real serious money into a picture that has no chance at creating a new series of pics. That is just not practical in this day and age."

is just wrong. What day and age are you living in? Titanic spent how much to be made? $200 mil? Pearl Harbor spent $153 mil.? The Grinch spent $123 mil.? These movies won't have sequels, and I paraphrase my original arguement: Why jeopardize the good feeling people have about a family of movies, like Indiana Jones, by risking it on a new one.

Yes although the studio spent an ungodly sum on titanic, a picture with no hope of a sequel, they felt that the subject matter and the director, JAMES CAMERON, was so well known, that it would have a potential for returning thier investment. Did you know that the studio nearly pulled the funding half way through because the budget went way too high? It was a film that may have never seen the light of day, but JC gave his salary back to win back thier trust. So don't have too much faith in the studios yet.

My core argument is not that "we need sequels to make money", by the way, you stated that as if that were a direct quote of me, and it wasn't! Please do not infer quotes that are not accurate. It is not very professional.

My argument is that people prefer FAMILIARITY, which for the most part comes in franchise pics. With titanic, we had it in a JAMES CAMERON PICTURE, with many well known actors. This provides people a form of familiarity in a situation that does not provide for a series of pictures.

This argument also comes in the films like SHREK with the well known and well advertized voice talents of MIKE MEYERS, JOHN LITHGOW, EDDIE MURPHY, and CAMERON DIAZ. Would that film had made the same money it did if they advertised it with the voice talents of bobo the dancing monkey?

Now to a quote you took from me, however quite out of context...

""There is no way a studio will put real serious money into a picture that has no chance at creating a new series of pics. That is just not practical in this day and age.""

The part FOLLOWING that qoute with the original part, goes like this...

"""There is no way a studio will put real serious money into a picture that has no chance at creating a new series of pics. That is just not practical in this day and age. There are a few exceptions to every rule, even this one. There are some great movies that have no chance at sequels. This helps to balance out the large load of crap that they keep spewing at us at breakneck speed! Films like Oceans 11 or Insomnia will attract people and make money, but not all films have this chance. Most films like this have well known actors or directors attached to them in order to sell them, and even with that, there is the familiarity clause in the argument."""

Chad, I would like to see some examples of movies that made real money, real money that came from huge investments into pictures with no known talent, that brought in major cash. I would like to know a picture where they spent $100 million to get half a billion in return using people that nobody knows.

And for last, yes it is sad that ORION is gone, the entire industry felt that blow when it bankrupted. A series of bad film investements cost them dearly, and they could not properly account for thier money when it came time to. Every other studio learned a valuable lesson from this loss. Part of that lesson is that you need to balance art with entertainment. How many people travel each year to Farmington Utah to visit LAGOON? Well from utah, plenty, but most people travel to DISNEYLAND. Pure eye candy people. Thats where the money is.

Dave

YES PEOPLE.... its the original STAR WARS!!!

They had a decent budget of ten million, which at the time was quite a bit of change. They used a bunch of nobodys, and a director that although had American Grafitti, was not yet a dining room converstation at this time.

Studio after studio turned it down, producer after producer, slammed thier doors. It was one person at fox, who worked with GL on AG, and saw the treatment, and gave it the green light. FOX had originally said no, not once, but twice. This one man caught it in the pile of dont bother projects. He recognized the name. He called GL and told him that he didn't get it, but anything he did was ok with him.

So the studio didn't have any real insight into what it could do, just one guy liked GL's work on AG so much, that GL got SW off the ground.

And alas, Little anakin skywalker was born!

Dave

Gee Dave, seeing as how there is currently only one movie in history to make half a billion domestically, that's a pretty stupid question.

 |  IP: Logged

And Chad, I must say, your constant attacks on me are pretty childish at this point. Calling me stupid? What is this? A schoolyard fight? I thought this was a place to discuss items of interest, not to find a way to antagonize and insult people!

It appears that you may in some way actaully agree with my argument, but you seem to be somewhat offended by the fact it was me that said it. So if it makes you feel better, I lay down my sword and surrender this fight to you sir.

Besides, I have better things to do than try to discuss the finer points of film studio marketing strategies with you.

Have a nice day, and please, if you are going to call me some more names, try to put some gusto in it! Ive heard it all before, so I need something original!! You know, like these original movies you like so much.

Bottom line, for me, is that the sequels to Raiders of the Lost Ark have been disappointments, and they don't age well. Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom was especially horrible. I mean, make Indy's side-kicks a kid who can't speak English and a prissy girl? What? And then put them in search of magic rocks (which the audience has never heard of and doesn't care about)? Who writes this garbage?

As for Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade, they pointed themselves back on track with a worthy side-kick, and a quest which the audience had actually heard of. Plus they brought back some characters from the original movie which were actually worth bringing back. But, no, this movie still hasn't aged well.

At least with a franchise like Star Wars George Lucas had a much larger story in mind before he started. So the sequels weren't nearly as bad as the "Let's re-hash the first movie just to make some more money" sequels we normally see. At least there's going to be a story driving the return of Lord of the Rings and Harry Potter to the big screen this year. But when that happens be prepared for completely vapid installments in the long-dead Star Trek and James Bond franchises.

All of you who think of George Lucas as a has-been should consider what a has-been Steven Spielberg is. Starting with Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade his movies seem more motivated by his desire to work with a certain star rather than his interest in telling a specific story. (I make that general statement knowing that some high-profile movie will be used as an example to shoot me down.) "Wouldn't I be a cool director if I worked with someone cool like River Phoenix or Sean Connery?" Why did he make A.I.? Because he wanted to tell a great story? No. Because he wanted to immitate Kubrick and work with Haley Joel Osment. So... he got exactly what he wanted. I see no good reason for another Indiana Jones movie... unless they actually have a great story (which is possible since they've already waited this long for the "right" script... but I doubt it).

I will disagree at this point that star trek is long dead. I do agree it should have died, but there is a glimmer of hope that the new star trek ten picture, due out DEC 13 this year, will actually be a good picture, and may actually do some decent business. It has John Logan as the writer and Stuart Baird as the Director, with well known actors such as Ron Perlman and Tom Hardy as well as others, attached as co stars with the regular cast. It has potential, and I am sure I will enjoy it at least once.