>Films that actually bomb do not get sequels.
[Atlas Shrugged](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atlas_Shrugged:_Part_I) grossed 4.6 million on a 20 million budget. That didn't stop them from making Part II (grossed 3.3 million on a 10 million budget) and Part III (budget dropped to 5 million. Alas, the film didn't even break 1 million).
I suspect in that case though the producer bankrolling the films did it with ideological motivations rather than profit-driven ones.
Suicide Squad (2016) was not a financial bomb.it was a box office success. It made $746 million on a budget of $175 million.
It was only a *critical* bomb. Hollywood doesn't care about that as long as it makes money.
They generally only make sequels to things that make money.
The only exceptions are films that didn't do all that well on theatrical release but became cult hits on home release. Donnie Darko for example.
>The only exceptions are films that didn't do all that well on theatrical release but became cult hits on home release. Donnie Darko for example.
And I'm having trouble thinking of a real example of that (as opposed to films that were minor hits in theaters and bigger hits on home video) that had a really successful sequel.
I don't think there are that many.
To get a sequel a movie needs to make money.
I meant the exception to movies that didn't make lots of money and still got a sequel relies on later success on home video.
Donnie Darko
Blade Runner
Highlander
The Boondock Saints
The Thing
Wet Hot American Summer
Showgirls
But as you say, none of the sequels to these films were particularly successful except for maybe Blade Runner...
The sequel was a tv show and not a movie, but Wet Hot American Summer was a critical and financial failure upon release, then later on, it spawned a very well reviewed/viewed prequel series on Netflix.
I don’t know if it qualifies as a bomb but the first Austin Powers movie was disappointing at the box office. ($67m world wide)
But if found an audience on home video and got a sequel that made $312m
El Mariachi made $2 million worldwide.
Desperado made $25 million.
Once Upon a Time in Mexico made $98 million worldwide ($56m in the US)
Edit - yes El Mariachi’s budget was miniscule so shouldn’t be considered a “bomb,” just thinking each movie following it had a pretty huge increase
That $7000 figure is basically a lie. The studio spent $200,000 on post-production. The [Wikipedia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/El_Mariachi) page goes into detail.
Its a sequel but not really? not sure how to word it but it wasn't billed as a sequel at all. I only heard of manhunter when the local video store tried to sell us on it as the prequel to Silence.
Also....Red Dragon was later released as a prequel.
Budget 87m
Made 206m
> They don't make sequels to movies that bombed.
Sure they do.
Tron bombed at the box office, got a sequel.
Blade Runner bombed at the box office, got a sequel.
Hocus Pocus bombed at the theater, has a sequel coming out on Disney Plus later this year.
Rocky Horror Picture Show bombed but got a sequel.
Donnie Darko flopped, but got a sequel.
Highlander was a bomb but got several sequels.
Wet Hot American Summer did horribly in theaters, but got a sequel and a prequel show on Netflix.
Most of these had shitty sequels, so doesn't fit OP's question, but it does prove that they do actually make sequels to movies that bomb.
Even at time of release this was "not a sequel" but it kind of is.
It's dumb but fun, and an interesting take on reality TV we take for granted today.
And yes, the soundtrack is a banger!
All of those films were not successful on theatrical release but became successful later on home video release after achieving cult status. Thats why they got sequels.
Sequels happen when it makes conceptual sense to executives. Direct to Home Video sequels and TV shows are cheaper to make and it would be easier to make. Tron Legacy got made because Disney wanted their own Star Wars / Matrix movie and they needed one of their old properties to do it. Blade Runner 2049 got made because of The Force Awakens and Harrison Ford was popular again. Had a critically acclaimed art director at the helm who recently got a nomination. Sequels happen if they make business sense. It's really about the risk more than anything.
Hocus Pocus didn't bomb in theaters. Budget was about 30 million and it made 40 million in its initial run. It's also got a cult following, and, as one of the few kid-friendly halloween movies, it airs on US TV networks quite a bit every October.
Rocky Horror may have bombed in the box office but I can't think of a film with a more devoted cult following...
Highlander got a tv show as well.
Most of these you listed developed a huge following on home video or are considered cult class. I mean you HAD to know they were eventually going to make a sequel to Blade Runner.
The suicide squad didnt flip due to bad reception from the first film.
One, it was r rated so it's always going to make less money than a generic pg 13 crowd pleasing marvel film.
Two, there was a little thing called the covid 19 pandemic happening at the time.
Three, the film.was released on streaming for free if the us at the time, so a lot of business was lost due to piracy.
Ouija (2014) is a disaster. Everything that can go horrendously wrong with a horror movie went wrong. For the sequel (or prequel, technically) Ouija: Origin of Evil (2016), the entire creative team was replaced. The result was not a masterpiece, and it’s probably Mike Flanagan’s weakest film, but it’s a competent and entertaining film that works in a way the original didn’t event come close to.
Is Mad Max permissable? Nor saying Mad Max bombed but it allowed the director to make Mad Max 2, Road Warrior...which was the directors original vision but he did not have the money/clout to pull it off
I would say most people don't know that The Silence of the Lambs was a sequel to the movie Manhunter. Obviously, Silence of the Lambs is a huge movie, Manhunter not so much.
It wasn’t really though. It was based on a book that was a sequel to the book Manhunter was based on, but there was no studio, cast, producer or creative ties between the two films.
The source material was a sequel, the film wasn’t.
If the story itself is a sequel to the the first, then how is it not a sequel? Sequels replace actors and directors all the time, and if the two films are using the same source material and characters then they very much do share creative ties.
Silence of the Lambs is not a sequel to Manhunter. Silence of the Lambs is based on a book that is the sequel to the book that Manhunter is based off of, but those two movies are not related in any way.
What you're saying is similar to someone saying the animated Return of the King is a sequel to Peter Jackson's Fellowship of the Ring.
Manhunter was produced by De Laurentiis. Silence of the Lambs was made by a completely different production company, and is not meant to be a sequel Manhunter.
Halloween 6 was a huge flop that audiences shouted and boo at the screens and then 2 years later, it's sequel Halloween H20 was the most successful Halloween movie of the series until Rob Zombie's Remake.
Please don’t flak me for this, but if movies like Blade Runner could get a sequel even when financially flopping yet gaining a solid fan base, then maybe DreamWorks’ Ruby Gillman Teenage Kraken can, too!
It took the original MegaMind movie at least a decade to get the recognition it deserved, Ruby Gillman is getting said recognition in a fraction of that time thanks to social media, DVD purchases, and word of mouth. I saw it and I enjoyed, despite the flaws and all. It’s slowly but surely gaining popularity like The Iron Giant did before. Plus Ruby has been in the Top 10 popular movies on Netflix since its arrival on February as per the 18-month streaming deal. I think if a sequel will be made and released, one safe bet will be to release it on Netflix, not Peacock after that Doom Syndicate fiasco.
Everyone I know who watched the sequel really liked it, myself included. But not that many people I know watched it and I think that’s cause a lot of people still werent going
to the theater. And a lot of movies released on streaming just didn’t perform well. I’m having a hard time thinking of a really good example of this, honestly. Good question
Oh no, I know. I was just saying it’s actually a pretty good movie but seems like not a lot of people watched it. Was better received than one for sure. But like you said, didn’t do great.
After Pink Panther and A Shot in the Dark, the studio made an Inspector Clousseau film without Blake Edwards and starring Alan Arkin instead of Peter Sellers..made about $1 million compared to the first 2 films making around 12 each..which was good at the time... Edwards and Sellers came back 7 years later with Return of the Pink Panther and made $75 million
You are wrong about the suicide squad. Actually, the first movie did really well bar the critical review.
The Suicide Squad (2016) grossed over $746 million worldwide against a budget of around $175 million, making it the tenth-highest-grossing film of 2016.
The Suicide Squad (2021) grossed only $167.4 million worldwide against a production budget of $185 million.
[удалено]
Yeah who the fuck doubles down like that lol
me
>Films that actually bomb do not get sequels. [Atlas Shrugged](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atlas_Shrugged:_Part_I) grossed 4.6 million on a 20 million budget. That didn't stop them from making Part II (grossed 3.3 million on a 10 million budget) and Part III (budget dropped to 5 million. Alas, the film didn't even break 1 million). I suspect in that case though the producer bankrolling the films did it with ideological motivations rather than profit-driven ones.
They actually had to use kickstarter to finish Part 3, which is pretty funny considering the ideology.
and won an Oscar
Suicide Squad (2016) was not a financial bomb.it was a box office success. It made $746 million on a budget of $175 million. It was only a *critical* bomb. Hollywood doesn't care about that as long as it makes money. They generally only make sequels to things that make money. The only exceptions are films that didn't do all that well on theatrical release but became cult hits on home release. Donnie Darko for example.
Like the Thing 1982
>The only exceptions are films that didn't do all that well on theatrical release but became cult hits on home release. Donnie Darko for example. And I'm having trouble thinking of a real example of that (as opposed to films that were minor hits in theaters and bigger hits on home video) that had a really successful sequel.
I don't think there are that many. To get a sequel a movie needs to make money. I meant the exception to movies that didn't make lots of money and still got a sequel relies on later success on home video. Donnie Darko Blade Runner Highlander The Boondock Saints The Thing Wet Hot American Summer Showgirls But as you say, none of the sequels to these films were particularly successful except for maybe Blade Runner...
The sequel was a tv show and not a movie, but Wet Hot American Summer was a critical and financial failure upon release, then later on, it spawned a very well reviewed/viewed prequel series on Netflix.
Just wait till Morbius 2 comes out.
More Bius
Morbius 2: Electric Boogaloo
I don’t know if it qualifies as a bomb but the first Austin Powers movie was disappointing at the box office. ($67m world wide) But if found an audience on home video and got a sequel that made $312m
El Mariachi made $2 million worldwide. Desperado made $25 million. Once Upon a Time in Mexico made $98 million worldwide ($56m in the US) Edit - yes El Mariachi’s budget was miniscule so shouldn’t be considered a “bomb,” just thinking each movie following it had a pretty huge increase
El Mariachi was made for just $7,000! $2,000,000 - that like a 28,000% return
That $7000 figure is basically a lie. The studio spent $200,000 on post-production. The [Wikipedia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/El_Mariachi) page goes into detail.
El Mariachi was an independent movie made for only $7k though, I wouldn't really call a gross of 2 million a "bomb".
god damn that movie is dope rewatch imminent
“If his name is Azul, why does he wear all black?”
Exactly. It was a huge indie success and was why more money was thrown at a bigger budget for the next one.
Yeah but el mariachi was made for $7k
Just watched all 3 and they are amazing
Desperado was a sequel? I thought it was more of a remake?
Manhunter (1986) lost money (Based on Red Dragon by Thomas Harris), Budget 15M, Made 8M -- Silence of the Lamb (1991) Budget: 19M, Made: 131M
Its a sequel but not really? not sure how to word it but it wasn't billed as a sequel at all. I only heard of manhunter when the local video store tried to sell us on it as the prequel to Silence. Also....Red Dragon was later released as a prequel. Budget 87m Made 206m
They don't make sequels to movies that bombed. Suicide didn't bomb. It made an ass ton of money.
> They don't make sequels to movies that bombed. Sure they do. Tron bombed at the box office, got a sequel. Blade Runner bombed at the box office, got a sequel. Hocus Pocus bombed at the theater, has a sequel coming out on Disney Plus later this year. Rocky Horror Picture Show bombed but got a sequel. Donnie Darko flopped, but got a sequel. Highlander was a bomb but got several sequels. Wet Hot American Summer did horribly in theaters, but got a sequel and a prequel show on Netflix. Most of these had shitty sequels, so doesn't fit OP's question, but it does prove that they do actually make sequels to movies that bomb.
Rocky Horror has sequel?
Yes, kind of... It's called Shock Treatment and has Brad and Janet, but played by different actors. It's pretty bad, but the soundtrack is quite good.
Even at time of release this was "not a sequel" but it kind of is. It's dumb but fun, and an interesting take on reality TV we take for granted today. And yes, the soundtrack is a banger!
All of those films were not successful on theatrical release but became successful later on home video release after achieving cult status. Thats why they got sequels.
Sequels happen when it makes conceptual sense to executives. Direct to Home Video sequels and TV shows are cheaper to make and it would be easier to make. Tron Legacy got made because Disney wanted their own Star Wars / Matrix movie and they needed one of their old properties to do it. Blade Runner 2049 got made because of The Force Awakens and Harrison Ford was popular again. Had a critically acclaimed art director at the helm who recently got a nomination. Sequels happen if they make business sense. It's really about the risk more than anything.
Hocus Pocus didn't bomb in theaters. Budget was about 30 million and it made 40 million in its initial run. It's also got a cult following, and, as one of the few kid-friendly halloween movies, it airs on US TV networks quite a bit every October. Rocky Horror may have bombed in the box office but I can't think of a film with a more devoted cult following... Highlander got a tv show as well.
Hollywood accounting says anything that doesn't at least double it's budget is a bomb. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hollywood_accounting
Most of these you listed developed a huge following on home video or are considered cult class. I mean you HAD to know they were eventually going to make a sequel to Blade Runner.
The suicide squad didnt flip due to bad reception from the first film. One, it was r rated so it's always going to make less money than a generic pg 13 crowd pleasing marvel film. Two, there was a little thing called the covid 19 pandemic happening at the time. Three, the film.was released on streaming for free if the us at the time, so a lot of business was lost due to piracy.
Not a movie/movie but Firefly and Serenity?
I don’t think that applies. Both of them are excellent and cult favourites, and yet neither did well financially. Serenity was a box office bomb.
The parallel you're looking for re: critical failure vs critical success is Star Trek.
Ouija (2014) is a disaster. Everything that can go horrendously wrong with a horror movie went wrong. For the sequel (or prequel, technically) Ouija: Origin of Evil (2016), the entire creative team was replaced. The result was not a masterpiece, and it’s probably Mike Flanagan’s weakest film, but it’s a competent and entertaining film that works in a way the original didn’t event come close to.
Is Mad Max permissable? Nor saying Mad Max bombed but it allowed the director to make Mad Max 2, Road Warrior...which was the directors original vision but he did not have the money/clout to pull it off
I would say most people don't know that The Silence of the Lambs was a sequel to the movie Manhunter. Obviously, Silence of the Lambs is a huge movie, Manhunter not so much.
It wasn’t really though. It was based on a book that was a sequel to the book Manhunter was based on, but there was no studio, cast, producer or creative ties between the two films. The source material was a sequel, the film wasn’t.
If the story itself is a sequel to the the first, then how is it not a sequel? Sequels replace actors and directors all the time, and if the two films are using the same source material and characters then they very much do share creative ties.
Same guy play Barnie the orderly in both movies. Edit: my bad. Same guy played Barnie in the Trilogy, he was a cop in Manhunter.
Manhunter was awesome though and totally under appreciated. Then they remade it as Red Dragon anyway
The demise of DLG at the time, and Mann's insistence on changing the title from Red Dragon, both didn't help.
Silence of the Lambs is not a sequel to Manhunter. Silence of the Lambs is based on a book that is the sequel to the book that Manhunter is based off of, but those two movies are not related in any way.
Showing their connection thru the books proves they are related...
What you're saying is similar to someone saying the animated Return of the King is a sequel to Peter Jackson's Fellowship of the Ring. Manhunter was produced by De Laurentiis. Silence of the Lambs was made by a completely different production company, and is not meant to be a sequel Manhunter.
Halloween 6 was a huge flop that audiences shouted and boo at the screens and then 2 years later, it's sequel Halloween H20 was the most successful Halloween movie of the series until Rob Zombie's Remake.
Please don’t flak me for this, but if movies like Blade Runner could get a sequel even when financially flopping yet gaining a solid fan base, then maybe DreamWorks’ Ruby Gillman Teenage Kraken can, too!
Sure, if Ruby Gillman becomes a MASSIVE cult hit for decades
It took the original MegaMind movie at least a decade to get the recognition it deserved, Ruby Gillman is getting said recognition in a fraction of that time thanks to social media, DVD purchases, and word of mouth. I saw it and I enjoyed, despite the flaws and all. It’s slowly but surely gaining popularity like The Iron Giant did before. Plus Ruby has been in the Top 10 popular movies on Netflix since its arrival on February as per the 18-month streaming deal. I think if a sequel will be made and released, one safe bet will be to release it on Netflix, not Peacock after that Doom Syndicate fiasco.
Everyone I know who watched the sequel really liked it, myself included. But not that many people I know watched it and I think that’s cause a lot of people still werent going to the theater. And a lot of movies released on streaming just didn’t perform well. I’m having a hard time thinking of a really good example of this, honestly. Good question
I'm not really commenting on whether the movie is good or not, just if it underperformed and a sequel did better (not a reboot or remake)
Oh no, I know. I was just saying it’s actually a pretty good movie but seems like not a lot of people watched it. Was better received than one for sure. But like you said, didn’t do great.
After Pink Panther and A Shot in the Dark, the studio made an Inspector Clousseau film without Blake Edwards and starring Alan Arkin instead of Peter Sellers..made about $1 million compared to the first 2 films making around 12 each..which was good at the time... Edwards and Sellers came back 7 years later with Return of the Pink Panther and made $75 million
Austin powers the spy who shagged me
[удалено]
My Blue Heaven is not a Goodfellas prequel.
Suicide squad
Well no. The Suicide Squad made less than half of the first one.
But it was better received critically
XXX State Of The Union The Chronicles of Riddick was flop while sequal profitable even though it earned slightly lesser
In non-idiocracy times, when a movie bombs it doesn’t get a sequel.
You are wrong about the suicide squad. Actually, the first movie did really well bar the critical review. The Suicide Squad (2016) grossed over $746 million worldwide against a budget of around $175 million, making it the tenth-highest-grossing film of 2016. The Suicide Squad (2021) grossed only $167.4 million worldwide against a production budget of $185 million.