Regarding the commercial performance of Godfather Part 2, have you considered using a film's box office ranking for the year it was released, or something along those lines, as a more universal metric of commercial success? Obviously a #1 film of the year that makes $3 billion isn't the same as one that only made $100 million, even adjusting for inflation. But it might make comparisons between older and newer films a little more equivalent in that arena. I agree that commercial performance is an unavoidable part of judging a film's quality, but I'd be interested to see what other kinds of metrics could be used to capture that aspect.
Also, I'll echo the sentiment that the LOTR films aren't really sequels, since LOTR is technically a single book, and they were even filmed all at once. It's really a three part movie. Not to say you shouldn't include them in this discussion necessarily, but they definitely have a bit of an asterisk next to them in my mind.
I personally don’t regard LOTR The Two Towers and Return of the King as sequels - all 3 movies are a trilogy, filmed as one big movie. I believe the two films would have been released in some way independently of the success of the first one. Whereas many other sequels, even as part of an already determined trilogy, would not exist without the success of the first movie, e.g. Dune, Hunger Games or Twilight. Good example for that is the Golden Compass: actually a trilogy, but the movie was a flop, so books 2 and 3 weren’t made into film.
All this talk of budget and box office is ridiculous. Get real. Before Sunset is the greatest movie sequel of all time. Army of Darkness is not far behind. Godfather II ain’t no slouch.
In addition to what you said, I think it's just an overall lack of time, talent, and passion on the participant's parts.
The LOTR films were exceptional, but The Hobbit movies sucked, despite being from the same filmmaker in the same universe because the former stopped caring about the latter.
Now, imagine a different Hobbit (and I do mean that singularly) in the hands of a filmmaker who was still invested in the franchise?
The Furious films were never better than half-way through the franchise under the direction of James Wan, who cared and had something to prove. Now, they're just calamity.
So my message to Hollywood: If you want these sequels to succeed, hire talented filmmakers who care passionately about them, and give them the time and space to cook.
We used to LOVE when a movie would tease a sequel. My earliest memory of it is was Back to the Future, but maybe it happened earlier. Now it's so ubiquitous that we watch credits even when we don't expect it just in case there's a stinger. Sometimes we even dread it after watching a bad film. I think it was around the time that Dark Knight was in theaters that I first noticed a film marquee, with a dozen or so films on it, and every single one of them was either a) a sequel, or b) a TV-to-film adaptation. So it feels like we've been in this pervasive sequels era for a fairly long time.
Another thing to consider about sequels is how much the line between television and film has been blurred. It used to be that "TV" actors were seen as a little lesser than "film" actors. It was considered making a leap to go from having a TV show to starring in films, and that was true, I'd say at least into the '00s. Now it seems almost more... "desirable" by elite actors to star in their own HBO drama. So serialized content is now more ubiquitous/accepted by those who themselves as doing higher art.
Lastly, while it's always been the case that some of the best films were books first, it seems that Hollywood is now more willing to tackle epic content that seemed hard-to-adapt before. LoTR and Dune are good examples, but Amazon's Wheel of Time might be a better one. GoT obviously had something to do with the WoT decision, but I doubt we get GoT without LoTR coming first, and what previously was seen as unadaptable, is now seen as a deep well of material for futures seasons, sequels, and spin-offs. We have to look no further than MCU and DCU to see this mentality shift.
Thanks for clarifying. I had the same question. Can you share how inflation is taken into account? Also, do numbers account for increased distribution? 25 years ago not all blockbusters played everywhere. I spent the last 7 months traveling and was able to see all major releases in cinema at roughly the same time as North America.
This implies the aggregate market has increased and that rate probably skews results?
This analysis does take inflation into account, but there are so many other social and economic factors that make directly comparing box office numbers between different time periods essentially futile.
You know, it's funny, I've been counting Wicked as a standalone story, given how detached the IP feels from The Wizard of Oz—but, functionally speaking, it is a prequel.
Also, when I first calculated that stat, "IF" was in position #20. Now it looks like Mufasa has edged it out.
Regarding the commercial performance of Godfather Part 2, have you considered using a film's box office ranking for the year it was released, or something along those lines, as a more universal metric of commercial success? Obviously a #1 film of the year that makes $3 billion isn't the same as one that only made $100 million, even adjusting for inflation. But it might make comparisons between older and newer films a little more equivalent in that arena. I agree that commercial performance is an unavoidable part of judging a film's quality, but I'd be interested to see what other kinds of metrics could be used to capture that aspect.
Also, I'll echo the sentiment that the LOTR films aren't really sequels, since LOTR is technically a single book, and they were even filmed all at once. It's really a three part movie. Not to say you shouldn't include them in this discussion necessarily, but they definitely have a bit of an asterisk next to them in my mind.
Forgive me, I'm bewildered. How does Paddington 2 not show up anywhere here, even if only love from audiences and critics?
I wonder where Paddington 2 came out in this ranking. (Imho, best sequel ever :) )
It could be interesting to look at this based on improvement versus the original/previous franchise entry performance in each category?
I personally don’t regard LOTR The Two Towers and Return of the King as sequels - all 3 movies are a trilogy, filmed as one big movie. I believe the two films would have been released in some way independently of the success of the first one. Whereas many other sequels, even as part of an already determined trilogy, would not exist without the success of the first movie, e.g. Dune, Hunger Games or Twilight. Good example for that is the Golden Compass: actually a trilogy, but the movie was a flop, so books 2 and 3 weren’t made into film.
All this talk of budget and box office is ridiculous. Get real. Before Sunset is the greatest movie sequel of all time. Army of Darkness is not far behind. Godfather II ain’t no slouch.
"Why can't this films be good?"
In addition to what you said, I think it's just an overall lack of time, talent, and passion on the participant's parts.
The LOTR films were exceptional, but The Hobbit movies sucked, despite being from the same filmmaker in the same universe because the former stopped caring about the latter.
Now, imagine a different Hobbit (and I do mean that singularly) in the hands of a filmmaker who was still invested in the franchise?
The Furious films were never better than half-way through the franchise under the direction of James Wan, who cared and had something to prove. Now, they're just calamity.
So my message to Hollywood: If you want these sequels to succeed, hire talented filmmakers who care passionately about them, and give them the time and space to cook.
A few thoughts, in no particular order.
We used to LOVE when a movie would tease a sequel. My earliest memory of it is was Back to the Future, but maybe it happened earlier. Now it's so ubiquitous that we watch credits even when we don't expect it just in case there's a stinger. Sometimes we even dread it after watching a bad film. I think it was around the time that Dark Knight was in theaters that I first noticed a film marquee, with a dozen or so films on it, and every single one of them was either a) a sequel, or b) a TV-to-film adaptation. So it feels like we've been in this pervasive sequels era for a fairly long time.
Another thing to consider about sequels is how much the line between television and film has been blurred. It used to be that "TV" actors were seen as a little lesser than "film" actors. It was considered making a leap to go from having a TV show to starring in films, and that was true, I'd say at least into the '00s. Now it seems almost more... "desirable" by elite actors to star in their own HBO drama. So serialized content is now more ubiquitous/accepted by those who themselves as doing higher art.
Lastly, while it's always been the case that some of the best films were books first, it seems that Hollywood is now more willing to tackle epic content that seemed hard-to-adapt before. LoTR and Dune are good examples, but Amazon's Wheel of Time might be a better one. GoT obviously had something to do with the WoT decision, but I doubt we get GoT without LoTR coming first, and what previously was seen as unadaptable, is now seen as a deep well of material for futures seasons, sequels, and spin-offs. We have to look no further than MCU and DCU to see this mentality shift.
Wouldn't it be possible to do the box office numbers raking inflation into account, or some other similar metric that doesn't punish older movies?
The box office numbers take inflation into account 😊
Thanks for clarifying. I had the same question. Can you share how inflation is taken into account? Also, do numbers account for increased distribution? 25 years ago not all blockbusters played everywhere. I spent the last 7 months traveling and was able to see all major releases in cinema at roughly the same time as North America.
This implies the aggregate market has increased and that rate probably skews results?
My apologies. I should never have doubted the quality of your work.
This analysis does take inflation into account, but there are so many other social and economic factors that make directly comparing box office numbers between different time periods essentially futile.
Isn't it 18 out of 20? It Ends With Us and The Wild Robot are the only two non-sequel/prequel films I see in the 2024 top 20.
You know, it's funny, I've been counting Wicked as a standalone story, given how detached the IP feels from The Wizard of Oz—but, functionally speaking, it is a prequel.
Also, when I first calculated that stat, "IF" was in position #20. Now it looks like Mufasa has edged it out.
I've only seen 4 of the top 20 grossing films from 2024, and I think I liked #21 (If) better than any of them.
Although I suppose you could argue that LOTR is a sequel to The Hobbit, even if they were filmed in reverse order to the books.