Despite the title of this article, this will not be some blood sport pitting the concept of franchises against the notion of original concepts – both can, and do, have a place in the media landscape. That said, it does seem that as of late there has been a wild swing of imbalance between the two, if not an outright inversion of relative representation. If you’ll allow me (though, honestly, you can’t stop me), I’d like to explore this dichotomy a bit further and see just how far down the rabbit hole we can go.
Definitions
At this point, to avoid confusion, I feel it is important to define what exactly it is I mean when I use phrases like “original” stories (ideas, sequels, franchises, etc). When I refer to an Original Idea I mean a concept or story that has not yet been seen in the medium of film (or TV). Under this definition, both newly created material and adaptations of media from other mediums (books, photography, music, etc.) count as original (as would new adaptations, provided they are so wildly different from the last as to be nearly indistinguishable). Sequels are stories that pick up at some point in time after an original story and follow either the same characters, plotline, or world. Spin-offs are a subset of sequel which typically exist in the same world as the original, but have only a tangential connection to the previous material. Prequels are basically just sequels (or spin-offs) that take place primarily prior to the original story. Remakes are, as the name suggests, an attempt to re-tell the exact same story as has previously been told in the original, albeit with new technologies, actors, and sensibilities. They typically have no canonical connection to the original story. Reboots are an attempt to do a de-facto remake (copying much of the same story structure and plotlines) while still technically keeping it canonical with the original. And finally, a Franchise is a collection of all of the above (in whole or in part) as it relates to an original story. While some of these definitions might seem obvious, it felt prudent to make sure I defined my terms before hitting the meat of my argument. With that out of the way, let’s continue!
In the Beginning
When the medium of film first began, everything was original. Not in the sense that each and every idea or theme explored had never been tackled previously, but in the sense that they had never been expounded upon in moving pictures before. This burgeoning medium allowed a different way for artists to engage with, and entertain, their audience – ideas that had once been ephemeral (existing only via text made manifest in the mind of the reader), or locked into still images, were now free to come to life on the screen. True, certain types of stories (particularly in the early days) lent themselves more easily to this new medium, and thus appeared more often, but (generally speaking) most tales where wholly separate and district from what had come before. At the very least, they shared no tangible canonical connection with other prior films.
According to the internet (so, you know, take this with a grain of salt) the very first full-length feature sequel occurred in 1916 with The Fall of a Nation, a sequel to The Birth of a Nation from one year earlier. Given the fact that The Birth of a Nation was the highest grossing film of all time until Gone with the Wind overtook it in 1939, it is perhaps unsurprising that someone had the great idea of capitalizing on that success by making a continuation. In fact, in the following decades the notion of making sequels, spin-offs, and remakes to existing films only grew – and this was a good thing. Audiences got to see more of stories they loved, producers got to make more money, and films which were made at a time with more archaic forms of filmmaking were able to be re-interpreted and presented to a new audience. I won’t try and paint this time in film history as some sort of gold standard for how the industry should be operate (there were a LOT of problems that I don’t have the time nor inclination to dig into here), but it did manage to strike a fairly healthy balance of original stories to continuations of existing ones.
The Rise of the Sequel
While today we think of sequels as commonplace and almost expected, that wasn’t always the case. While they certainly existed (sometimes en mass – looking at you Godzilla), it was relatively rare for all but the biggest of successes to have a follow up. All of that changed around the 1980s when the industry started producing more and more sequels. While this trend isn’t the result of any one franchise, it likely has something to do with the rise of Star Wars and the slasher genre boon. In any case, studios realized that making direct continuations of popular movies resulted in higher attendance rates than gambling on a new property. This didn’t mean they stopped producing original stories of course, just that the relative amount of sequels was on the rise.
This trend increased in the 1990s and exploded in the 2000s. Along with the rise of home media, and with it direct to VHS movies, anything that was even marginally successful was given a sequel on one scale or another. Oftentimes these sequels were rushed or had no creative involvement from the original team (and were thus viewed as an easy cash-grab by the studio). While good sequels and franchises did well, those that weren’t faded quickly into obscurity. Even though the sheer volume of sequels had risen, their overall underperformance relative to exciting original stories ensured that they never dominated the market. This all continued until two separate but simultaneous events occurred: The MCU (Marvel Cinematic Universe) and a wave of cultural nostalgia. While I intend to discuss the MCU’s greater effect on cinema in the future, for now it is worth knowing that the success of this model of filmmaking (capped by the spectacle of the first Avengers film) inspired all other studios to attempt the same interconnected strategy of sequels, spin-offs, and crossover films.
The second, and perhaps more relevant, point – that of cultural nostalgia – was perhaps the biggest wave of such a feeling in decades. The public began clamoring for not only the media and world of the 1980s, but of all prior decades. Suddenly, the already strong allure of an existing title was increased many times over, and it didn’t take long for Hollywood to notice. As a result of these two factors, for the first time in cinema history, more major-release films were part of a pre-existing franchise than even before. The budgets (and successes) of such films ballooned, and original stories were relegated further and further to the back burner. Why take a risk that people won’t connect to a story when you can just give them something they already love?
Sequels are not the Enemy
It is at this point I feel I must stop and make it clear that I do not believe that the concept of sequels, or their existence, is in any way a bad thing. The fact that viewers (or consumers of any medium) have fallen in love with a certain group of characters or the world they inhabit is nothing but a testament to the quality of the original work. The fact that an artist might find not only a creative, but financial, justification for continuing their stories is wonderful and should be commended. No, the issue is not the mere concept of a sequel, but rather the perversion of it into the modern franchise model (something, again, I plan on looking into more deeply in the future).
A sequel, or franchise, that exists not out of some narrative or creative spark, but only to cash in on a pre-built audience, is hollow. It is how we wind up with rushed productions, incomplete scripts, and zombie franchises that shamble on long after anyone clamors for more. It is how an industry that markets itself as supporting storytellers ends up throwing away the very foundations of a good movie to hit an arbitrary production deadline. It doesn’t matter if it is good, only that it is out. While I am aware that such production issues are not exclusive to franchises, they are oftentimes much more common. After all, how often do you hear about a half-finished original script being picked up and thrown on the calendar? Not often. And it is precisely the reasons for that that I want to explore in the next section.
Original Recipe
While original stories are just as apt to be “bad” as a sequel, they are far less likely to be put into production if they are. As there are no existing fans clamoring for release, and no expectations for its existence, an original film is rarely made unless there is sufficient belief in the quality of the story. Though not a guarantee of such, this does have the de facto result of ensuring that original stories have a greater chance of being higher in quality than not. Their very existence is predicated not on what has come before them, but on the strength of their own inherent qualities (and, perhaps, trends in the marketplace).
Originals are also important as, for every franchise in existence, they serve as the necessary starting point. Every great franchise in any medium had to, at one point or another, begin with an original idea. Star Wars began with A New Hope, the MCU began with Iron Man, the Back to the Future Trilogy began with Back to the Future – the list is nigh limitless. It was these original ideas that captured the imaginations of audiences to begin with and what caused them to fall in love with the eventual franchises. Even in cases where it might be argued a later entry was superior (The Empire Strikes Back, The Godfather Part II, Aliens, Fast Five), they quite simply could not exist without the proceeding original idea.
Original Ideas vs Franchises
So, if original films are often beloved and sequels can sometimes be just as good if not better, what’s the problem? As alluded to earlier, the issue lies in balance – or in this case, the lack thereof. A creative culture works best when original ideas are produced at a rate higher than that of sequels. For much of the medium’s history, this was always the case. New ideas were the norm (and successful, given that the highest grossing films of all time – that is, the ones on the top spot of the list – have been originals until Endgame) and sequels only existed in those cases where they were creatively or most financially warranted. That is no longer the case in today’s media landscape.
Today, any film of even moderate success is given a sequel, whether or not there is any more story to tell. Worse yet, these sequels take up the limited theatrical space available, necessarily lowering the spots available for originals. To my mind, this limiting of the theatrical gene pool can only lead to creative and cultural stagnation. In fact, it says something that of the highest grossing films of 2018, only one of them was not part of a franchise (and that film was at number 10 and based on the life of a well-known public figure whose brand is firmly established):
| 1 | Black Panther | BV | $700,059,566 |
| 2 | Avengers: Infinity War | BV | $678,815,482 |
| 3 | Incredibles 2 | BV | $608,581,744 |
| 4 | Jurassic World: Fallen Kingdom | Uni. | $417,719,760 |
| 5 | Aquaman | WB | $335,061,807 |
| 6 | Deadpool 2 | Fox | $318,491,426 |
| 7 | Dr. Seuss’ The Grinch (2018) | Uni. | $270,620,950 |
| 8 | Mission: Impossible – Fallout | Par. | $220,159,104 |
| 9 | Ant-Man and the Wasp | BV | $216,648,740 |
| 10 | Bohemian Rhapsody | Fox | $216,428,042 |
If the above chart shows nothing, it does show that the current model of perpetual franchises can be extremely lucrative. That said, how many of those films are apt to become influential cultural classics in the same vein as Jaws, Halloween, Jurassic Park, or Finding Nemo? I’d argue likely none (with, perhaps, the exception of Infinity War). How many of those films are apt to inspire the next generation of filmmakers? Again, maybe the top two… maybe. But it is not the existence, or even popularity, of these films that I take issue with – it is the abundance. The dearth of original ideas in mainstream cinema has never been more pervasive nor more blatantly obvious. Look no further than Disney producing near shot-for-shot remakes of their classic animated originals to see just how far the bar has lowered when it comes to the justification for the existence of franchise films.
Despite the lessons learned by studios from the success of sequels, prequels, remakes, and reboots, the public is still hungry for original ideas. They are still enamored with being introduced to characters and worlds they have never seen before – and it is exactly why the television industry (along with streaming services) has experienced what amounts to a renaissance when it comes to the breadth and quality of original content they produce. From Orange is the New Black to Breaking Bad, culturally impactful (and popular) original series abound. Artists are given the license to craft new and unique stories unlike those seen before and audiences have responded with resounding support. Many of these original stories were so successful that they then caused corresponding changes to the types of content finding its way to the cinema (think of the abundance of zombie films made after the genre reinvigoration granted by The Walking Dead).
But studios could perhaps hand-wave all of this away as conjecture – the current model is making them all very rich, after all. And even if they (or you) disagree with the ideas put forth here, there is one other hugely important reason that original stories should be given a greater level of prominence when compared to franchises – beauty fades. The public, particularly as new generations with no attachment to the media of the past arise, will eventually lose interest in any given franchise. If we, as an industry, don’t create new content to fill that inevitable void of desire, someone else will. Look no further than the producers behind westerns that then went the way of the dodo when the market’s appetite for the genre evaporated. Much like a bridge or a stretch of road, the cultural landscape of visual media requires constant maintenance via the injection of new material. If the industry focuses too heavily on the short-term profits of rehashing the past, and not enough on building the foundation of tomorrow, it will find itself smack-dab in the middle of a cinematic recession.
Conclusion
If you’re expecting this to be the point in the article where I give you my take on how to fix this whole mess, you’d be exactly right – and it shouldn’t be hard to guess: Make more original stories and less franchise entries. It really is that simple. Not every movie needs a sequel, and not all franchises need to last forever. Back to the Future is an example of an original which creatively warranted a sequel and ended the franchise after the creative reason to do so was over (the credit for which goes entirely to Robert Zemeckis and Bob Gale for exercising their options to block further entries, despite Universal’s desperate desire to make more). If this was the tack taken by more studios, I genuinely feel that the industry would be in a much better, and more sustainable, position than the one in which we currently find ourselves.
Great stories have the ability to transcend time and influence generations. The existence of such media should free and inspire creators to craft their own worlds rather than force them to play in those that already exist.
Here’s hoping Forbidden Dish is able to spark some of that same magic in others.
Chris