LOL True. But what's funny is that this was presumably a 1985 programme (Ebert refers to upcoming/present films released during 85), but a lot of those mooted sequels, like Gremlins 2, Ghostbusters 2 and the third Indiana Jones film, weren't released for another 4 or 5 years. And Terminator, which he mentions, didn't get a sequel until 1991.
Good representation of the attitude towards sequels at that time. Studios viewed them as costing twice as much as the original, but making only half as much at the box office. There were a few big success stories in sequels that kept studios trying though, like Star Wars and Godfather. It wasn't until the VHS era kicked in right around the time this video was made when movies could suddenly build their audience up in the home market, and lead to the sequels outgrossing the originals. We saw that with Die Hard and Terminator. And, then, by 2000, studios started planning out entire series and ongoing movie franchises, starting with Lord of the Rings and Harry Potter. None of these approaches have been foolproof strategies, but it's still true that sequels tend to do well at the box office, probably more consistently than how Ebert says they performed in 1984.
Could it be argued that people gradually gravitated towards brand recognition when deciding what they wanted to see en masse? Also, did the price of a movie ticket increase much relative to inflation from then to now?
The bigger problem is the lack of new franchises today and Hollywood just not willing to take a risk. Original screenplays like Back to the Future or The Karate Kid would most likely never get made in 2024. Did the 1980s go overboard with sequels? Yes, but Hollywood was still making a lot of original movies and there were more studios which was better for the business/fans.
100%! In fact, it was the screencap of her that prompted me to watch this video. LOL! I'm now even tempted to watch the third Porkys movie despite having zero interest in that franchise.
@@jedijones I did some (IMDb/Wikipedia) research immediately after watching this video, and I'm very certain you're right. She appears to play a character called 'Inga' in 'Porky's Revenge' according to the IMDb credits/synopsis.
The tan, the smile, the big but stylish blonde hair, the overall look that exudes good health. I don't know why, but that whole look strikes me as intrinsically mid-to-late 1980s/early 1990s, and I mean that in a good way. It's also the period where I was 'coming of age' so to speak. She looks a lot like the type of woman who might have ended up on one of the early Baywatch seasons (before the unfortunate plastic look took over).
Interesting to note that most of the franchises mentioned in this clip (save for Gremlins, Cannonball Run) have all had sequels released recently or within the past year (though Terminator: Dark Fate was in 2019) either in theatrical release or through streaming.
That really shows how defining a year 1984 was for movies and pop culture. It was really the first year where we were entirely in the '80s culturally, with music, fashion and visual media that had advanced beyond what we had in the '70s. I also think Hollywood making the shift to target young people meant that a lot of the new productions imprinted strongly on the youth at that time, who have carried all of that into adulthood with them. Note that Transformers, He-Man and G.I. Joe also debuted as toy and media franchises right around that time. And Marvel and DC Comics had their first big comic book crossovers that brought all the characters together with Secret Wars and Crisis in 1984-1985. That alone ended up leading to the most successful movie franchise of all time 30 years later. The '70s, by contrast, had much less media targeting OLDER children and teens. The western genre that used to appeal to kids had died out. Movies mostly targeted adults (some of those, like Rocky, did manage to produce successful franchises). Sci-fi wasn't about action, but was still doing cerebral stuff like 2001. And "kids media" targeted very young kids with stuff like Disney and Hanna-Barbera cartoons and Herbie the Love Bug. Not the kind of stuff those kids would still care about when they got older. Star Wars changed everything. Teens were now the target audience, and ongoing movie franchises became the goal. Hollywood initially just tried to copy Star Wars by making sci-fi movies. But eventually they copied the entire grand franchise-building strategy.
@@jedijones It's interesting that the biggest films of each year during the 1970s, were often R rated and/or clearly adult-orientated fare like The Godfather movies, The Exorcist, and Kramer v Kramer, but besides Rain Man (which starred the hugely popular Tom Cruise), pretty much all the biggest films of the 80s were aimed at family audiences (i.e. the Star Wars films, Raiders, E.T., BTTF, Three Men and a Baby) or teens/adults in their early 20s (i.e. Beverly Hills Cop, Top Gun, Batman).
Roger Ebert has a poster of 3 Godfathers (1948) behind him, a John Ford-directed classic western. I definitely recommend the film, and I'm sure Ebert would too!
I think it's funny that the point of Ebert's rant is "sequels are bad for creativity, and for business" an your response is "ohmygod I want to see that sequel to Ghostbusters!" Also note that it would have been Ghostbusters 2, meaning they went with the pale imitation instead.
@@adamlevine8274 That's the problem. This original concept is much better than somehow undoing all of the Ghostbusters' success between the two movies, and having them dealing with their failure in the sequel rather than their success. It's so much better when a sequel builds on the original movie, rather than trying to undo it just so they can repeat the same rags-to-riches story all over again. Star Wars: The Force Awakens made the same mistake.
Look up the video Candy Clark for "Amityville 3-D" 11/19/83 - Bobbie Wygant Archive. Candy Clark spends most of the interview talking about that scene. She was surprised in the interview that it was released to the press because she considered it a spoiler.
Not that there weren’t sequels or works that imitated things in the 80’s, but could it be argued that the quantity of sequels and remakes in the 2020’s is probably greater as a percentage of films released now than it was then?
It was still not nearly as bad as it is today. For example, if we look at the 20 highest grossing movies of the 80s, then we can see that still 13 of them were original movies. Compare that with the 2010s, where not a single movie of the Top 20 was original. So of course there were also a lot of sequels and IP based stuff in the 80s. But the difference is that those sequels didn't reached the same cultural significance, unlike today. Back then they were looked down upon and you would frequently see Siskel & Eberts have segments were they would complain about it (as in this clip). While the movie critics from today totally embrace this IP milking culture from today.
@@speedy3702Similarly in the 2000’s you’ll find only the 2009 Avatar, Finding Nemo from 2003, and the 2002 Spider Man among the top 20 highest grossing films that weren’t connected to a previous film (though Spider Man existed before 02 obviously). As for the 2020’s, we saw Barbie and Oppenheimer be two very high grossing films that weren’t connected to a previous film in 2023, and whether they will stay in the top 20 for the decade has yet to be seen.
This was posted 3 days ago. It feels like something that could have been spoken 3 days ago. You can't get a movie today that doesn't have a subtitle or a Roman numeral.
Boy if Ebert thought there were too many sequels then, he would be flabbergasted to see all the sequels out today totally out of new and fresh ideas some IP's going way beyond the 10 films mark. Fast & Furious, Transformers I lost count, Rocky, Ice Age, Pirates of the Carribean, Predator. I could say that the remake train is in full swing Robocop, Childs Play, Mad Max, Total Recall, Point Break, Karate Kid damn near any more that was successful in the 80s and early 90's is being remade as a pale imitation of the original film. Milking the franchises to the point where they forgot what made the base film great to begin with. Never understood why they would remake successful films that were great the 1st time around. If you couldn't top the original why remake it. The simple answer money.
Ebert gave some of these sequels and remakes good reviews in the 2000s before he died, including Total Recall. I would draw a very distinct dividing line between sequel and remake. Sequels like Top Gun: Maverick are far more likely to be successful than a remake which just copies the same story over again with new actors. Many sequels have been successes, but not many remakes.
@@jedijonesCould it be argued that in the case of most remakes, the only thing they end up creating is a new aesthetic, or new musical performance if it’s a musical film?
The 21st. Century mightily increased the rate of numerous sequels and numerous remakes that nobody asked for,which pretty much soured cinema of the last 20 to 25 years and especially for the last five years.
This wasn't the last time that Ebert took note of sequelitis. In his written review of Inception, he praised Nolan for actually coming up w/ a new blockbuster IP.
So ironic that Ghostbusters 2 basically had an opposite story to the one Ebert cites at 1:50 Far from dealing with success, the Ghostbusters in the 1989 sequel have been charged by the City for damages resulting from the events of the first film's climax, and are now struggling in deadbeat jobs.
Yep, and I was really disappointed in 1989 to see them do that story. Especially after having watched them run a successful company on the cartoon series for three years before that.
@@jedijones Personally, I do prefer the direction the second film went, because I find it much easier to relate to loveable losers than I do highly successful characters. Many of us have been in situations where we've done a good job and received no gratitude, and even in some cases, resentment and blame for the results of our actions, so, from that perspective, I enjoyed watching the Ghostbusters deal with the city's lack of appreciation for defeating Gozer in the first movie. It rang true.
The funny thing about Twisters is that although it trades on the 'Twister' brand, it's pretty much a standalone movie. I don't think there are any references to the 1996 film, including anything related to the various teams' research in that movie. I wonder how successful Twisters, which is doing huge business right now, would have been if it had been an entirely new IP.
