So here's what's on tap two summers from now: an adaptation of a comic book. A reboot of an adaptation of a comic book. A sequel to a sequel to an adaptation of a comic book. A sequel to a reboot of an adaptation of a TV show. A sequel to a sequel to a reboot of an adaptation of a comic book. A sequel to a cartoon. A sequel to a sequel to a cartoon. A sequel to a sequel to a sequel to a cartoon. A sequel to a sequel to a sequel to a sequel to a movie based on a young-adult novel. And soon after: Stretch Armstrong. How did Hollywood get here? There's no overarching theory, no readily identifiable villain, no single moment to which the current combination of caution, despair, and underachievement that defines studio thinking can be traced. But let's pick one anyway: Top Gun.

The Day the Movies Died. (via)
posted by Horace Rumpole on Feb 20, 2011 - 146 comments

Hollywood ate my childhood [or] Why film remakes are desecrating our most precious memories. Hint: it's the money. [more inside]
posted by philip-random on Jul 23, 2010 - 276 comments

Toy Story 3 hits theaters today, and it's already winning universal acclaim as an enchanting and heartbreaking wonderwork, employing understated 3D and a "real-time" perspective that deftly capitalizes on the nostalgia and can't-go-home-again angst of a generation that grew up with the series. It has a strong pedigree, with 11-year-old predecessor Toy Story 2 the rare sequel to equal its forebear, 1995's Toy Story (itself the first CGI feature in history). And it joins a lofty stable of films: over the last 15 years, Pixar has put out an unbroken chain of ten commercial and critical successes that have grossed over $5 billion worldwide and collected 24 Academy Awards (including the second-ever Best Picture nom for animation with Up), a legacy that rivals some of the greatest franchises in film history. But there's rumbling on the horizon. Although the studio has been hailed for its originality (of the 50 top-grossing movies in history, only nine were original stories -- and five of them were by Pixar), two of their upcoming projects are sequels, both of them based some of their least-acclaimed films (Cars 2 in 2011 and Monsters, Inc. 2 in 2012). And while 2012 will also bring The Bear and the Bow Brave, the first Pixar flick to feature a female protagonist [previously], fellow newcomer Newt has been canceled. With WALL-E/Up/Toy Story 3 guru Andrew Stanton focusing on his 2012 adaptation of John Carter of Mars and with forays into live-action already in development, does this mark the end of the golden age of Pixar? Or is this latest entry lasting proof that even the toughest case of sequelitis can be raised to the level of masterpiece? [more inside]
posted by Rhaomi on Jun 18, 2010 - 227 comments

With Indiana Jones and the Crystal Skull restarting a franchise from the 80s, this is the perfect time to consider how to ruthlessly pillage the treasured movies of our youth. So, on that note, presenting: Back to the Sequels
posted by bove on May 21, 2008 - 25 comments

"See that pile of money on the floor? There's a hundred million there. All you have to do is pick it up. That's right, bend over, pick it up, and it's yours." Novelist and film critic Stephen Hunter on sequels, including his "Sequel Showdown." (via)
posted by bardic on Jun 11, 2006 - 50 comments

Slap Shot 2
The rumours are true. A sequel is coming.
posted by riley370 on Jun 9, 2001 - 12 comments

And so my jaw dropped, be looking out for a straight to video release of American Psycho II.
posted by tiaka on Apr 12, 2001 - 22 comments

Can a sequel be so bad that it could stop studios from producing them? Are remakes ever justified? Do we even want to stop the what mutations appear outside of the movies? All this as we may experience the most horrid sequel of all!
posted by john on Nov 9, 2000 - 11 comments