Why Stop At One?

It's all about the Franchise. Studios are almost solely looking to green-light flicks that have the ability for sequels. Obviously there's exceptions, but they are just that. Exceptions to the rule. Most recently, the Harry Potter franchise is the pinnacle of success in this model. It spawned eight different movies, that have grossed close to eight billion dollars, on a total budget of just over one billion dollars. We're talking about a lot of money here. And the studios are uber-aware of this potential. They know it can be done, it's just a matter of tapping into the flavor of the month(genre/story/star-wise), and catering the franchise to that. Subsequent releases should deal with current social themes and trends if possible, within the framework of the original story. After the initial release and the first sequel are successes, you can pretty much bet that the following installments will gross about the same if not more, even if the content is lacking. By this time, your audience is sold. You can almost mail it in. Overall though, it is easier said than done, and though there's a semblance of a template for this strategy now, it's far from a science. 

You may not like the Harry Potter movies, but there not altogether bad. Im not a fan per say, but I can tell you that I think they're well cast, nicely designed, and the visually stunning. Acting isn't necessarily top priority with films like this, but even still, I wouldn't say its poor. It started out as a kid flick that had enough going on to keep adults occupied. In franchises geared towards the youth, that's the idea, no? When Shrek first came out it was a movie for kids, that adults found just as fun because of the subtleties, double entendres, and of course, Mike Myers. Harry Potter may not be funny or have Mike Myers, but the effects and story are certainly gripping enough at times. Plus, after the third installment, they upped the ante to PG-13 for the remainder of the films. 

This strategy does fail more than it succeeds, though. For every Iron Man, there's a dozen Daredevils. For every Pirates of the Carribean, a Godzilla. And I get it believe me, I do. It's not enough to sign on for a one-off, the studio's want staying power. They want to know that the idea can remain relevant and fresh enough to continue making money long after the first movie is out on video. They plan for sequels right from the get go. It used to be all about the trilogies (Star Wars, Die Hard, Lethal Weapon, Jurassic Park), but eventually they realized putting a number on these things was limiting. Why stop at three when you can make eight? Why stop at Iron Man 3 (slated for 2013), and the second attempt at Hulk in five years, and Captain America, when you can have all those and The Avengers. Even television shows these days look to recreate the success of an original (i.e. Law and Order, CSI, NCIS). 

The vampire invasion is a good example of this idea. Underworld is still making sequels, as is Twilight. Other filmmakers have tried to catch a ride on the wings of these supernatural suckers as well, although not as successfully, and believe it or not we're still seeing the advent of some new players in the genre (i.e. Dark Shadows and Abraham Lincoln: Vampire Hunter). The HBO hit, True Blood looks like it has legs for at least another couple seasons, and the CW's Vampire Diaries is in a primetime evening slot. 

The comic book genre (as I like to call it) has also had some huge successes, and astronomical failures. It's another good way to summarize the franchising idea for good and bad. But perhaps the longest standing tradition of franchising in film is within the Horror genre. Horror fans are like the Metalheads of music, they're loyal. Almost to a fault at times. I'd be willing to bet there's a lot of crossover between the groups too. Horror fans don't always care if the "last one sucked," they'll still go out in droves to catch the next installment. Halloween, Freddie, Freddie vs. Halloween (Jason), all highly successful. Even the shittiest of them often have legs, though "Jason in Space" (Jason X) was a flop, thank god. 

The horror genre is constantly doing re-makes, and always banking on sequels. The Scream franchise is essentially what made Dimension Films enough money to support itself and Miramax through all its flops and award attempts (even though they had the overhead of parent company Disney). The same can be argued for the Scary Movie franchise that Dimension fathered (and its revenue supporting Miramax and The Weinstein Company). I think a lot of it does in fact have to do with the genre itself. Horror movies have one goal; to surprise. To shock, to scare, to suspend, and ultimately to surprise you, and catch you off guard. People crave that feeling, and that's what they're looking for. The acting is often secondary, the effects often gore ridden, and the plot can be insincere and full of holes. But again, that's not always what's important to the viewer in this genre, so re-makes and sequels become ideal. To be clear though, they're not all like this. Some Horror films are very well written, acted, and made. But I'd say its not a prerequisite for success.

At the end of the day its about making a buck. And then some. They want to milk the cow long after it's dry. It's a business, like anything else. The music industry too is driven by the dollar, but it's a bit different. You can franchise an artist, but an album? Well, I don't know about that. Sure if it's a successful album you can re-release it, box set it, and try to re-package and build upon it in different ways, but that's hardly comparable to what's happening in film. In music, it's the artist that you're interested in. If they're the talented, trendy, next best thing of the time, then you've got your franchise. Jay-Z is a franchise. Beyonce too. They've got that staying power for now, where no matter what they put out, it's going to get eaten up by the public. That's what the big record companies are looking for.

And if the record companies decide they want to drop an act because they don't think that they have the staying power, or their next album wont bring in the dollars, they can. With comparatively less loss. The film studios can't afford to make a hundred-million dollar franchise investment, and then dump the sequel if the premiere doesn't hit the numbers. I  mean, they can and do, but not without a very significant loss. Could you imagine if the original Pirates of the Carribean was a flop? Thats $190,000,000 down the drain. And that kind of thing happens a lot, just not on that scale. Because at the end of the day, art is a gamble. You're putting a price tag on, or creating a monetary goal for, "Art." It's very hard to predict with exact certainty whether something will be a hit or not. In the case of Harry Potter, I think it's safe to say that the popularity of the books lent favor to the idea that it would be successful as a film. The demand was there. And once the first film grossed as high as it did, they knew they had a cash cow that would keep giving. Once the second film topped the first, they knew they could get away with it for as long as the story went on. Frankly, I'm even surprised they stopped at 8.