[civilian_number_two]

Maybe it's just how I am, but if I saw a movie that I didn't like, why would I ever see the sequel? That mentality baffles me...

And again, I don't think of those films were made with the idea that you'd draw in people who didn't see the first film or didn't like it. I think expanded box offixe is expected by getting all the people who saw the first one to come in, which usually expands once you include original theater run and video sales. Anything else is just going to be cake due to good reviews and/or word of mouth. But I highly doubt anyone banks on making a film with the idea, "oh yeah, NOW we'll get all the people who hated the first one!" That just doesn't make any sense.

Some of what you're saying makes sense. If you hated the original, you'd skip the sequel, yes.

The rest is non-sequiter and ignores Jordan's personal experience, as well as common sense. NO MOVIE STUDIO EVER would make a sequel to any film, no matter how successful it was, if all they could tell the investors was that they hoped that it would attract the exact same audience that the first one attracted. There is ALWAYS some expectation that the advertising for the first one will interest folks in watching the original one before rushing off to the sequel. This is even true of remakes. Notice how the original KING KONG was released on DVD while the remake was was in the theatres? It may be madness, yes, but there is some method in it.

Anyway, none of this has anything to do with my comment, which was that the review basically said you'll like CLERKS II if you already like it before seeing it; that is, if you meet it more than halfway. I did NOT suggest that everyone who liked CLERKS would like CLERKS II. That would be a prediction of oberwhelming success, which I am not making. True, most of the people seeing it will be fans of the original film, but I've attended loads of sequels where in the quiet before the trailers I heard some dude explaining to his date what had happened in the original. So yeah, there are folks who will see a sequel without having seen the original. Also, most of the people who liked the first one, and then see the sequel, will offer a lackluster review, just like the one in the Onion. Because, dude, this sequel just has to suck.

[MyPantsAreOnFire]

The rest is non-sequiter and ignores Jordan's personal experience, as well as common sense. NO MOVIE STUDIO EVER would make a sequel to any film, no matter how successful it was, if all they could tell the investors was that they hoped that it would attract the exact same audience that the first one attracted.

How is what I said not common sense? I'm saying that only starting point you can assume is that you'll get back the people who saw and liked the first film. Anything beyond that is only going to be due to good reviews or word of mouth. You're not going to get a significant number of people who sit around thinking, "y'know I never saw/hated the first movie, but what the hell, I'm gonna be there opening day to the sequel of a film I never saw/hated!" I'm not saying it's impossible to exceed the business of the first film with a sequel...I'm saying it's ridiculous to go into it thinking that the opening audience is going to have a ton of people who never saw or disliked the first film. Again, unless positive reviews and/or word of mouth takes over, it ain't happening. Then you'll get people willing to check out the first film on DVD, or give the second one a chance even though they weren't too fond of the first...without a positive "buzz," what possible incentive is there for people to see a sequel to a film they never ever watched or didn't like at all? A sequel is a gamble, pure and simple, unless the first film was a runaway success.

Also, most of the people who liked the first one, and then see the sequel, will offer a lackluster review, just like the one in the Onion.

Diff'rent strokes for diff'rent folks. I don't see the review as loving the film, nor do I see it as "lackluster"...it says you get what you expect, whether you want to like it or dislike it. Personally, I think the review is as lazy as the movie is...

[civilian_number_two]

How is what I said not common sense? I'm saying that only starting point you can assume is that you'll get back the people who saw and liked the first film.

Here is how your assessment does meet equal common sense. Every sequel made since the 80s has been made in the hope that it will make more money and sell more tickets than its predecessor. It has to its advantage many times that it is a followup to a title that is a household name. CLERKS II will sell more tickets than CLERKS did. That is given; how many people saw CLERKS in the movie theatre? The hope, too, that studios have is that rentals of the first will allow newcomers to catch up; copies of the original film are sold to video rental stores in order to ensure this. Why this strategy is successful, I don't know. But it is employed because it is successful. Living as you do inside the community in which this strategy is employed, year after year, I have to say that if you haven't recognized yet that this is what Hollywood is doing, if you think that sequels are risky gambles by necessity guaranteed to do less business than their predecessors, than you haven't been paying even casual attention to the way films are marketed. I say therefore that your assessment lacks common sense. Really what I mean is it is in defiance of common knowledge. NO STUDIO ON EARTH would put money into any sequel ever if it was understood that by necessity it would make less money and sell fewer tickets than the original. For PROOF of this I refer you to Variety magazine, whose articles may offer you some insight into the business of film marketing.

Jordan has already pointed out that in his informed opinion, earned from working at a video store, this is exactly what happens. Folks rent the original that they never saw in order to prepare themselves for the sequel. He also offered you a list of sequels far more successful than their predecessors.

I appreciate now that you are saying that the review is not entirely positive. However initially you presented it to counterpoint some negative comments. That left the impression that you were suggesting that the review was positive. See, that's how counterpoints generally work. Also, your link read "Although they did like the movie." Having read the review, I don't think they really did.

[MyPantsAreOnFire]

Well, I disagree, I think they did like it, they just didn't think it was a great or stellar or exceptional or whatever hyperbole you want to slap on there film.

And again, nobody has countered my point/question of when do you ever have a sequel that is supposed to draw in people who NEVER saw the first film? This was my initial post:

How often do you get a sequel that's supposed to draw in new fans who never saw the first one?

I'm not disputing that sequels often and actually usually make more money than the films that came before them...I was taking issue wth your comment about Clerks II and it's inability to "charm new viewers"...sequels aren't meant for "new viewers" to a series. They're meant for someone who has already seen the film before...in theaters, on TV, on video, on their computer on DVD, wherever...my point is that sequels are not made with the idea of catering to or significantly drawing on people who have NEVER seen the first film in any way, shape or form, hence why "charming a new viewer" is a moot point with this kind of film. If you're a new viewer, you're going to be totally out of your element with a sequel 99.9% of the time, so being "charmed" is the least of anyone's concerns.

Sequels are a gamble in regards to drawing in people who have, again, NEVER seen the film(s) that came out prior to it.

[civilian_number_two]

I completely uinderstand your point and it need not be restated. If you are revising it to read "no one will see a sequel without having see the original in any format," then I refer you to the guy I saw explaining Supermans 1 and 2 to his girlfriend before SUPERMAN RETURNS. But even if that is your point, it is sophistry. After all, what is the distinctioin between "never having seen the original" and "rushing out to rent or buy it in time to watch the sequel?" Sequels are meant to make money off the popularity of the first film, and producers make sure to remarket and release on video the original film in order to enhance the sequel market.

Sequels are NOT risky. They are based on tested material, and they are the suret thing in film marketing. If they were so damn risky you wouldn't see about a dozen of them every summer.

[MyPantsAreOnFire]

Trust me, when I say "never," I really am meaning "never." Sequels simply don't work for those folks, and if they bother to go, honestly, tough shit for them. Movies shouldn't have to cater to people seeing sequels to films they never saw.

I think Superman Returns is a bit of an exception to the "never seen" rule since it's Superman. He's up there with Jesus in terms of global recognition, so you don't really need to sweat the details and it can be, for the most part, seen by people who haven't seen the earlier films. Clerks II, on the other hand, is the "usual" kind of sequel...a specialized property that really isn't going to be known to the public at large in any kind of detail like Superman is.

I guess when I say a sequel is more of a gamble than a non-sequel is because a non-sequel, the sky really is the limit with the audience. Anyone can, in theory, go and see it. A sequel has a built in limitation with typically relying on people who have somehow seen the prior film. That's not to say they can't be successful, because they almost always are...but when they're made, it's almost as if a line is being drawn since it mostly hinges on that first film being seen or even being seen AND liked. A non-sequel is just out there, open to anyone. There is no line to be drawn. But you're right, that's not really a risk...more just a safe bet with a sort of limitation.

[civilian_number_two]

.... sigh.

We may have to agree not to understand one another. JUst in case it's possible, here's one last kick at the can.

I am saying, and the film industry, and Jordan in this forum, back me up on this one, that sequels are not limited in the way that you say. A good many sequels, CLERKS II being one of them, will sell far more tickets than their predecessor ever did. These movies have word-of-mouth on top of the initial advertising, and folks who have not seen the original prior to the marketing for the sequel often will rent or buy the original just so they can see the second one. That's fact. There are dozens of sequels every year because they are not risks, and they tend to do better business than prior installments, for the reasons already stated, unless they happen to suck more than expected. Sequels are pretty much sure things. They are big Hollywood business. Every seriously successful film incites Hollywood producers at least to entertain the idea of a sequel. Folks go to sequels who did not see the original in the theatre. NO line is drawn, since they can catch the original on video, and they do. The producers of the sequel go out of their way to make this easy by releasing or rereleasing the video just before the sequel, and making it cheap. Contrary to your "sky is the limit" argument, sequels are more sure things than original films, because seldom do studios make sequels to unsuccessful films. I can't think of any other way to make the point more clearly.

[MyPantsAreOnFire]

You keep bringing up things I'm not contesting...my only real points have been that sequels are not designed to draw in people who have never seen the previous film in any way and that sequels are not made to be seen in terms of having to be obligated to "charm new viewers." That's it. I have no idea why you keep talking to me like I'm saying sequels can't make money or can't be more successful than the films they're sequels to. I guess I can see why you're so hung up on the "risk" idea, it was a poor choice of words on my part, but in regards to something like Clerks II, I still think it's somewhat apt, and it's that film I was bringing it up about in the first place. I very clearly said sequels are NOT a risk if the first film was a runaway success. That's the case with most sequels. The first Clerks was NOT a runaway success. Yes, compared to it's cost, it made a very large profit and it has become an iconic cult hit, but it's nowhere even close to being at the level that pretty much any film that gets a sequel is at. It's a risk making a sequel like Clerks II because it wasn't a box office smash the first time around AND it's been a decade since the first film. That is, by no means, a sure bet. And that's what made me bring it up in the first place, since this thread was about Kevin Smith and his latest film.

This post has been edited by MyPantsAreOnFire: 30 July 2006 - 10:38 AM

[civilian_number_two]

Ok I'll say it again. Sequels ARE marketed to attract people who did not see the first film. This is what the producers want. They want the new viewers to hurry out to rent or buy the original so that they can see the sequel. These new viewers would likely never have rented or bought the original if the sequel had not come out, so like Jordan says, they are drawn to the sequel directly. They watch the original only to prepare themselves. If you try to exclude these people so that you can say that sequels are only marketed to fans of the original ("people who saw the original in any way"), then that is sophistry (or is it tautology? Slade?) The fact is anyone who sees the original only to prepare himself for the sequel was not a fan of the original film. It was the sequel that drew him in. And yes, this is what producers want, and it is to draw in the base of fans PLUS new viewers that inspires them to green-light several of these projects each year.

As for the sure thing: a sequel like CLERKS II, a low-budget followup to a cult success, is in fact the sort of thing most likely to make money. More likely than a sequel to PIRATES OF THE CARIBBEAN, although that seems to be doing ok. As an experiement, try this: let's say that Quentin Tarantino announced that he was making a prequel to RESERVOIR DOGS that would have Mr White, Joe and Nice Guy Eddy in it. Let's say his budget was under $5 million (the budget of CLERKS II). Or let's say that Martin Scorsese convinced Robert de Niro back for a low-budget followup to TAXI DRIVER? Neither first film made a lot of money, but I bet the followups would do a killing.

As for CLERKS II being a sure thing, it seems like it's made its money back, which wasn't much, but in terms of "success," it's a flop. Just curiosity alone should have earned it more money that JAY AND SILENT BOB STRIKE BACK or DOGMA. STRIKE BACK got $15 million in its opening weekend to CLERKS II's $9 million*. So yeah, it's guaranteed success, like the sure thing that it was, but that sort of success should be considered failure. I guess word of mouth from his fans killed it, since just about everyone is saying that it sucked.

* figures from Kevin Smith himself.

[MyPantsAreOnFire]

Ok I'll say it again. Sequels ARE marketed to attract people who did not see the first film. This is what the producers want. They want the new viewers to hurry out to rent or buy the original so that they can see the sequel. These new viewers would likely never have rented or bought the original if the sequel had not come out, so like Jordan says, they are drawn to the sequel directly. They watch the original only to prepare themselves. If you try to exclude these people so that you can say that sequels are only marketed to fans of the original ("people who saw the original in any way"), then that is sophistry (or is it tautology? Slade?) The fact is anyone who sees the original only to prepare himself for the sequel was not a fan of the original film. It was the sequel that drew him in. And yes, this is what producers want, and it is to draw in the base of fans PLUS new viewers that inspires them to green-light several of these projects each year.

Really, I have no clue why you keep repeating this like I'm ignoring it. I am not now nor ever have disputed that sequels get people to watch the damn first movie. That still excludes all of the people who NEVER see it. Ever. Everevereverever. Odds are, they're not going to see the sequel AND, most importantly, they shouldn't be considered at all when making a sequel, thus making the idea of "charming new viewers" completely moot.

So once again, basic points, sequels have an inherently limited audience, moreso than non-sequels, since they tend to hinge on people who have somehow seen the previous film. This is not to say, nor has it been said, that people will not seek out the first film, nor that the sequel will not make money. These latter two points are not in dispute and never were, so rest easy. And my other main point, like I said above, is that "charming new viewers" shouldn't be a concern for filmmakers when it comes for sequels, since seeing a sequel without ever seeing the previous film(s) is a rather pointless and ridiculous idea, bound to leave the person doing so tremendously confused and unsatisifed pretty much no matter what they see.

I really don't think either of us have been arguing anything actually opposing for a while now.

This post has been edited by MyPantsAreOnFire: 30 July 2006 - 10:20 PM

[civilian_number_two]

This is not to say, nor has it been said, that people will not seek out the first film, nor that the sequel will not make money. These latter two points are not in dispute and never were, so rest easy. And my other main point, like I said above, is that "charming new viewers" shouldn't be a concern for filmmakers when it comes for sequels, since seeing a sequel without ever seeing the previous film(s) is a rather pointless and ridiculous idea, bound to leave the person doing so tremendously confused and unsatisifed pretty much no matter what they see.

I really don't think either of us have been arguing anything actually opposing for a while now.

We are, really. We're saying entirely different things. You are agreeing (above) that folks who have not seen the first film will see it on the basis of the marketing of the sequel. Then immediately after that, you are saying that sequels do not attract new viewers (also see above). These notions are contradictiry: those folks who see the first film only on the strengtrh of the advertising for the sequel are by definition new viewers. They would not have seen the first film had the sequel not been made. You are saying that folks who ruch out and rent the first film just so they can see the sequel don't count as new viewers, and I am saying they do. That is where we're disagreeing.

Sequels therefore do not have intrinsically limited audiences. They have the full audience for the first film, plus new followers who thought the trailer for the followup looked nice.

The only limitation sequels have, and I'm surprised you haven't mentioned this yet, is the set of folks who paid good money to see the first film (I didn't pay to see CLERKS; I had a film festival pass), and who thought it sucked and who wouldn't see the sequel (I didn't think CLERKS sucked, but I'm not interested in the sequel). That would be a real limitation, but it doesn't refute the notion that sequels can and do attract new audiences. More folks will pay to see CLERKS II than paid to see CLERKS. More folks went to ALIENS than ALIEN. More folks saw T2 than THE TERMINATOR. Etc. Sequels do attract larger audiences a lot of the time, and it is the hope of producers that they will do that. This is why sequels get made.

[MyPantsAreOnFire]

I agree with most of what you said.

What you seem to keep inexplicably trying to take isse with is the idea that odds are if someone never sees the previous film, they're not going to see the sequel. I'm not not talking about people who see it eventually, or rush out and see the first film...people who NEVER seen the first film no matter what are more than likely not going to see the sequel. That's a built-in audience limitation. Of course, sequels can and usually are very successful in spite of this. My point is that that factor is out there, and it makes the making of and marketing of sequels different than "normal" films, especially when it comes to making a film "comfortable for new audiences."

A non sequel can just be seen by anyone no matter what.

A sequel pretty much requires people to see the previous film(s) for full enjoyment. Bottom line, a lot of people are going to see that as "work"; this is a very lazy society, and people want things to come easy for them...even seeing another film to view a different one is going to make people decide against it. Of course, plenty of people will do just that...more than enough to make a sequel a success. But bottom line, it's a "limitation" in comparison to a non-sequel film that doesn't require any kind of homework to see it ahead of time.

Sequels can and usually do make a ton of money, usually more than the previous film...but I just take issue with the idea that their profit margins are as equally "sky's the limit" as a non-sequel. But don't worry! Both kinds of films can make lots of money and everybody's happy.

[civilian_number_two]

I agree with most of what you said.

What you seem to keep inexplicably trying to take isse with is the idea that odds are if someone never sees the previous film, they're not going to see the sequel. I'm not not talking about people who see it eventually, or rush out and see the first film...people who NEVER seen the first film no matter what are more than likely not going to see the sequel. That's a built-in audience limitation. Of course, sequels can and usually are very successful in spite of this. My point is that that factor is out there, and it makes the making of and marketing of sequels different than "normal" films, especially when it comes to making a film "comfortable for new audiences."

A non sequel can just be seen by anyone no matter what.

A sequel too can be seen by anyone no matter what. What they do, after being attracted by the sequel's advertising, is they rent the first film. Like Jordan said, this is common. So folsk who never saw the first film can see the sequel. They just go out and see the original first.

I appreciate that you are NOT talking about people who rush out to see the first film in order to see the sequel. That's where you are wrong, and hence the disagreement. You should NOT consider these people outside your equation, or imagine that they are like all other viewers of the original film. They are NOT. If the only reason they see the first film is to see the sequel, then they were drawn in by the sequels advertising and can only be seen as new viewers.

The video market makes viewing the first film easy, unlike in the early days of filmmaking, when sequels were less common. Now anyone can get the video at any time, and nowadays sequels are commonplace, making up for much of a studio's profits. This is because there is no built-in audience limitation. To forget all a priori arguments and to simply look at the industry, the fact that there are sop many sequels is because they are a sure thing. The video market has made this so.

This is where you can say "I finally get your point, but disagree," rather than to say that my point is "inexplicable." You may still disagree if you like; I won't be offended, and I'll stop being amazed by this apparent lack of communication.


PS: On topic, I bet CLERKS II sucked.

[MyPantsAreOnFire]

Actually, it was very amusing. Nothing Earth-shattering, good or bad, but it was a fun way to spend an evening.

This whole thing is pretty much nothing but a pissing match at this point, so I'll just agree to disagree.

[civilian_number_two]

Sigh. You don't have a choice; we disagree. My concern was that you don't even understand what we disagree about. But on second thought now, given the number of times I repeated it and the nmumber of times you've repeated in some way that you don't understand me, now I think that's kind of awesome.