Depressing lack of standalone films

MakeEmLaugh

I was looking at a list of the highest-grossing films of all time recently (not adjusted for inflation) and was staggered by how many of them were either sequels or films which began a franchise.

Of the top 100, a mere 19 either did not have a sequel, or were not sequels themselves. I'm excluding the likes of The Incredibles, Finding Nemo and Avatar because, although they are currently standalone films, sequels are in production at the moment.

I included Maleficient, despite it being a 'reworking' of Sleeping Beauty.

Incidentally, the 19 films, in order of the amount of money they grossed, were

1. Titanic
2. Frozen
3. Inception
4. E.T.
5. Independence Day
6. 2012
7. Maleficent
8. Up
9. Gravity
10. Forrest Gump
11. The Sixth Sense
12. Hancock
13. Ratatouille
14. The Passion of the Christ
15. Mamma Mia!
16. Life of Pi
17. War of the Worlds
18. The Croods
19. I Am Legend

Sad Professor

To be clear, though you are talking about mainstream American films that play in the local multiplex, right? Because there are loads of excellent standalone films that aren’t sequels or remakes. So many in fact that even most passionate filmgoer can’t keep up with them. These films may not get much if any marketing and may only play in the cinema for a week or two, if at all, but they are being made.

Frank Lee Midere

The "not adjusted for inflation" makes that list invalid.

simplybam

Now a sequel to Titanic would be funny

Owryan

simplybam wrote: »

Now a sequel to Titanic would be funny

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Titanic_II_(film) not quite a sequel but still.....

simplybam

Owryan wrote: »

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Titanic_II_(film) not quite a sequel but still.....

LMAO, just when I thought I've seen it all :eek:

And from the description:
The film is set on a fictional reproduction of Titanic that sets off on the same day and route of the original's voyage, but global warming and the forces of nature cause history to repeat itself on the same night, only on a more disastrous and deadly scale.

More dead bodies but no nude Kate Winslet - hmm, think I'll give that a miss.

Zubeneschamali

MakeEmLaugh wrote: »

I was looking at a list of the highest-grossing films of all time recently (not adjusted for inflation) and was staggered by how many of them were either sequels or films which began a franchise.

I don't think you should hold it against a movie if it spawns sequels/prequels. If you don't like sequels don't watch them. Jaws is not diminished by Jaws 4: The Revenge.

It's also pointless to look at an all time list that isn't adjusted for inflation, since it massively exaggerates the popularity of the most recent movies. Frozen, Inception, 2012, Malificent, Up, Gravity, Hancock, Ratatouille, Mamma Mia, Life of Pi, War of the Worlds, The Croods and I am Legend are all outside the top 100 domestic box-office in adjusted dollars.

Using the unadjusted list will probably throw up movies which will spawn sequels, being so recent, and disqualify themselves later. I wouldn't bet against Frozen 2 and Croods 2.

Warper

MakeEmLaugh wrote: »

I was looking at a list of the highest-grossing films of all time recently (not adjusted for inflation) and was staggered by how many of them were either sequels or films which began a franchise.

Of the top 100, a mere 19 either did not have a sequel, or were not sequels themselves. I'm excluding the likes of The Incredibles, Finding Nemo and Avatar because, although they are currently standalone films, sequels are in production at the moment.

I included Maleficient, despite it being a 'reworking' of Sleeping Beauty.

Incidentally, the 19 films, in order of the amount of money they grossed, were

1. Titanic
2. Frozen
3. Inception
4. E.T.
5. Independence Day
6. 2012
7. Maleficent
8. Up
9. Gravity
10. Forrest Gump
11. The Sixth Sense
12. Hancock
13. Ratatouille
14. The Passion of the Christ
15. Mamma Mia!
16. Life of Pi
17. War of the Worlds
18. The Croods
19. I Am Legend

That list cant be right - Maleficent 7th, Hancock 11th, Ratatouille etcc??? Where are the Star Wars etc??

charlie_says

So originality doesn't sell well?

Surprise!

Got to agree with Sad Professor, there is more than a lifetimes worth of excellent standalone films to be watched. They just don't get the time in the box office to make that list.

Successful =/= quality.

Wossack

Warper wrote: »

That list cant be right - Maleficent 7th, Hancock 11th, Ratatouille etcc??? Where are the Star Wars etc??

after removing anything with a sequel, thats how the top 100 turns out

Jikashi

In terms of original pieces of work, I Am Legend, War of the Worlds, Mamma Mia, Forrest Gump and Frozen are all remakes or adaptations.

But as long as it's a good film, what's the harm. Also discounting a movie because it was popular enough to spawn sequels shouldn't be a negative, especially when many movies aren't made with the foregobe decision of there being sequels, unless it is an adaptation of the first in, say, a series of novels. In fact it should be a credit to the success of the film, be it an original or an adaptation

Zubeneschamali

Warper wrote: »

Where are the Star Wars etc??

It's the top 100 in unadjusted dollars with all sequels, prequels and movies with sequels or prequels removed.

But not remakes, re-imaginings or derivative trash.

Red Nissan

simplybam wrote: »

More dead bodies but no nude Kate Winslet - hmm, think I'll give that a miss.

No nude nobody? Grrrr. I'll watch it anyway later, though I've a feeling I've seen it a few times already under different scenarios.

Bacchus

I fail to see the problem here. The more hugely successful the movie, the more likely it is to have a sequel. Are you arguing that studios should stop making sequels to their most successful movies? Granted, more often that not, the sequel isn't a patch on the original but it does not diminish the quality of the original. Movies that spawn sequels can still be excellent stand alone movies.

To me, the more "worrying" trend looking at the top 100 money maker list is the amount of movies there that ARE sequels or franchise movies. It's not surprising though. They are typically the big blockbuster, summer tentpole type movie that rake in the cash.

Mickeroo

I don't see why people get so caught up in a film being a remake or sequel or reboot or whatever. Who really cares if the film is actually a good film? Judge a film on its own merits.

Riskymove

Owryan wrote: »

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Titanic_II_(film) not quite a sequel but still.....

Pretty sure there was a "Return to the Posieden Adventure" or some such

basically about some crooks trying to retrieve treasure from the wreck?? Michael Caine was in it

MakeEmLaugh

Okay, using the adjusted for inflation list throws up a lot more standalone films. But still, half the top 100 highest grossing films are still either sequels or films with sequels. Even films which you may not know had sequels, such as American Graffiti (More American Graffiti) or Lawrence of Arabia (A Dangerous Man: Lawrence After Arabia).

And of those 50 standalone films, nine of them are Disney animated features (which no doubt would've spawned sequels had they been released in the 1990s or later). Exclude the Disney animated films and we're left with a mere 41 films.

And yes, I'm aware that there are a world of excellent films out there. However, the amount a film grosses is directly proportionate to how many people see it. I wish more people had seen Blue is the Warmest Colour and Stories We Tell than Iron Man 3 and Despicable Me 2 last year, but that didn't happen.

1. Gone with the Wind
2. The Sound of Music
3. E.T.
4. The Ten Commandments
5. Doctor Zhivago
6. Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs
7. 101 Dalmatians
8. Ben-Hur
9. The Sting
10. The Graduate
11. Fantasia
12. Forrest Gump
13. Mary Poppins
14. The Jungle Book
15. Sleeping Beauty
16. Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid
17. Love Story
18. Independence Day
19. Pinocchio
20. Cleopatra
21. Airport
22. The Robe
23. Around the World in 80 Days
24. Bambi
25. Blazing Saddles
26. The Bells of St. Mary's
27. The Towering Inferno
28. My Fair Lady
29. The Greatest Show on Earth
30. National Lampoon's Animal House
31. The Passion of the Christ
32. The Sixth Sense
33. Tootsie
34. West Side Story
35. Lady and the Tramp
36. Close Encounters of the Third Kind
37. The Rocky Horror Picture Show
38. The Best Years of Our Lives
39. Twister
40. The Bridge on the River Kwai
41. It's a Mad, Mad, Mad, Mad World
42. Swiss Family Robinson
43. One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest
44. M.A.S.H.
45. Mrs. Doubtfire
46. Aladdin
47. Ghost
48. Duel in the Sun
49. House of Wax
50. Rear Window

Mickeroo

I don't think a made for TV movie from the 1990's should disqualify Lawrence of Arabia as being a stand alone film tbh.

What's the point exactly? Lawrence of Arabia doesn't deserve it's stature as a true classic because it has a sequel??

MakeEmLaugh

Mickeroo wrote: »

I don't think a made for TV movie from the 1990's should disqualify Lawrence of Arabia as being a stand alone film tbh.

What's the point exactly? Lawrence of Arabia doesn't deserve it's stature as a true classic because it has a sequel??

No, I love Lawrence of Arabia and I love many sequels (The Godfather Part II is in my top five of all time, above the original).

My point is that, usually, sequels are a lazy cash-in on the original. There must be literally thousands of unused scripts full of original ideas sitting in drawers somewhere, that with a little help from marketing and strategic use of familiar names on the poster, could enrich Hollywood's output significantly. But they won't ever receive financing from a Hollywood studio because Hollywood is run by greedy people unwilling to take a chance.

NyOmnishambles

Number 9 on the list The Sting

There is The Sting II which has different characters so might not be a direct sequel but has the same set up as the first

That asied I don't really see the point in excluding movies which produced sequels, whilst there are many poor sequels it doesn't diminish the first movie in the slightest

Saying that you wish more people had seen Blue is the Warmest Colour than Despicable Me 2 just seems a little odd when you consider that the majority of those who saw Despicable Me 2 were kids. Comparing them in any way at all just doesn't work and while I know where you are coming from, expecting people to warm to a 3 hour long, 18 cert film in French can be quite the undertaking.

Anyone who complains about lack of originality or stand alone films being released really needs to look beyond the local multiplex, though to be fair the number of smaller, independent or even "art house" (I really hate that term) fare being screened in cinema chains such as IMC is impressive. It's been years since all we had to choose from in cinemas was Hollywood fare and with a Ghibli season taking place in IMC cinemas across the country next month it looks like things are going to get more diverse.

If you want to experience great cinema which isn't made to kick start a franchise then you really are spoilt for choice. Off the top of my head, in the past year we have had Big Bad Wolves, Dinosaur 13, Immigrant, Christmas, The Lunchbox, Boyhood, Grand Piano, The Congress (technically this was released last year), The Sacramen, Frank, Life Itself, The Grand Budapest, We are the Best!, Cheap Thrills, Le Week-end, Nymphomaniac, Tim's Vermeer, The Raid 2, Tracks, Gun Woman, Ernest and Celestine, Only Lovers Left Alive, Blue Ruin, Under the Skin, The Wind Rises, The Double, Snowpiercer, Cold in July, Joe, Enemy, Locke, The Unknown Known, The Case Against 8, God's Pocket, Mood Indigo, A Most Wanted Man, The Rover, The Two Faces of January and I'm sure there's a dozen others I'm forgetting. That many if not most of those saw a theatrical release over here says it all.

Jikashi

MakeEmLaugh wrote: »

My point is that, usually, sequels are a lazy cash-in on the original. There must be literally thousands of unused scripts full of original ideas sitting in drawers somewhere, that with a little help from marketing and strategic use of familiar names on the poster, could enrich Hollywood's output significantly. But they won't ever receive financing from a Hollywood studio because Hollywood is run by greedy people unwilling to take a chance.

Let's look at Toy Story (1995), an expensive movie by a new animation studio exposing audiences to a risky new type of animation they were not used to and unlike many other Disney products at the time was not their take on a well known tale. No intention at the time to make a sequel. Movie was a huge sucess. But gets omitted becauseit had two sequels five and fifteen years later?

Back to the Future (1985), an original movie coming out in a time when science fiction was dismissed as hokey and with no audience interest. Again no sequel immediately planned at time. Movie is a success and becomes one of the most beloved films of all...time...
The sequels serve to complete the story, rather than just tacking some artificially extending crap on the end.


Night of the Living Dead (1968). Very risky for many reasons: a B&W film in the age of colour, an African American protagonist, directed by a little known independent director, and introducing a new subgenre of the already frequently dismissed horror genre, the zombie flick. Again becomes a milestone in classic movies and gets a sequel ten years later that improves on everything.


For a much more recent example, Guardians of the Galaxy (2014) a risky move, even from the on-a-roll Marvel Studios, by adapting a comicbook that even massive comic nerds like myself knew little to nothing about, with no A-list comicbook characters to help boost audiences. Movie will sequel as well as tying into the greater Marvel U, but works really well as a standalone story (much more than Amazing Spider-man 2 which spent half its runtime setting up sequels) and has been blessed by the box office, the audiences and the critics, looking to be a surprise hit of the year.


Sequels should not take away from the quality of the original.

MakeEmLaugh

NyOmnishambles wrote: »

Number 9 on the list The Sting

There is The Sting II which has different characters so might not be a direct sequel but has the same set up as the first

Oops.

Zubeneschamali

Mickeroo wrote: »

Judge a film on its own merits.

I like The Empire Strikes Back more than Star Wars. Aliens more than Alien. Silence of the Lambs more than Manhunter.

And sometimes a project is just too big for one movie, like Lord of the Rings. Should those just never be made? How about a trilogy like Three Colours?

Mickeroo

MakeEmLaugh wrote: »

Oops.

Butch Cassidy & the Sundance Kid also had a (unofficial) sequel a couple of years ago called Blackthorn, it's actually really good!

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

I like The Empire Strikes Back more than Star Wars. Aliens more than Alien. Silence of the Lambs more than Manhunter.

And sometimes a project is just too big for one movie, like Lord of the Rings. Should those just never be made? How about a trilogy like Three Colours?

I agree.

Agent Coulson

The list gets smaller.

There is a The Jungle Book 2 as well and a 102 Dalmatians.

Love Story has a sequel called Olivers Story.

Around the World in 80 Days as been remade so many times I wouldn't call that a standalone either.

The Return of Jafar (Aladdin 2).

If it makes money Hollywood will try to make a sequel a remake a spin off a TV series. It's all about money.

Mickeroo

Mickeroo wrote: »

Butch Cassidy & the Sundance Kid also had a (unofficial) sequel a couple of years ago called Blackthorn, it's actually really good!

It also had a prequel directed by Richard Lester and starring Tom Berenger called Butch and Sundance: The Early Days. I picked it up on Blu-Ray last year and really rather enjoyed it. It's more a victorin adventure than out and out western and like the original there's a warmth to it that's hard not to warm to. There was also a made for TV remake of sorts a few years back which was intended to kick start a series but it never got picked up. It was called The Legend of Butch & Sundance and when it was released on DVD it got some rated good reviews and I've been meaning to check it out.

In the early 70s Glen A. Larson created a TV show based on Butch and Sundance called Alias Smith and Jones, and to this day it reamins one of the most enjoyable romps you are ever likely to see. You can get it on DVD and series 1 is well worth it, the second series is damn good too though after the suicide of Pete Duel the standard did drop. The cast and crew weren't allowed to take time of shooting to attend his funeral and the studio had the role recast within a day, telling Larson that if production didn't begin again immediately they would be suing him.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4nmxLeNd0ck

takamichinoku

Just as an aside here, according to wiki, Blue is the Warmest Colour cost €4 million to make and made $19.4 million at the box office. That's a resounding success for a 3 hour long (basically cutting its potential profits down by 33% immediately) French film (arrgh subtitles) by a not-super-well-known director (when the Secret of the Grain is your big prior hit, you're hardly mainstream).

Sad Professor

takamichinoku wrote: »

Just as an aside here, according to wiki, Blue is the Warmest Colour cost €4 million to make and made $19.4 million at the box office. That's a resounding success for a 3 hour long (basically cutting its potential profits down by 33% immediately) French film (arrgh subtitles) by a not-super-well-known director (when the Secret of the Grain is your big prior hit, you're hardly mainstream).

You have to add marketing and distribution costs on to that, though. Marketing is astronomically expensive. I don’t know how much was spent on Blue, but I’d imagine it was in the tens of millions at least. Hollywood blockbusters that cost 200 million to make often cost another 200 million to market. These figures are never included in the budget.

Someone I know who works in the marketing department for some major releases reckons that the cost of marketing Blue could be up to ten times the production cost.

takamichinoku

Aware of the extra marketing cost stuff but I'm basically ignoring it because 1) I've no clue what the marketing costs are for non mainstream films and would imagine it's nothing at all like your blockbusters, and 2) I'm comparing its box office to budget ratio in comparison to other awardsy non English types that lack that obvious cinema paradiso/amelie easy appeal.

e_e

Why is it depressing? It's not like they're preventing the literally hundreds of very good standalone films every year from getting made.

There seems to be a mentality among some people (not looking at you OP) that if a film doesn't make at least 100 million then it must not be worth discussing.

Brief_Lives

Zoolander was a good standalone movie.... Talladeega nights.... a few of those movies from Ferrel, Stiller, Wilson boys and the guy with the huge forehead...