Are you forgetting about Home Alone 3, Home Alone 4 and Home Alone 5?
The poster was saying that the franchise should have stopped after number 2.
I think the point the poster was trying to make earlier on about franchises being a 'modern' concept was that in the past the vast majority of films were made with the attention of being stand alone pieces and sequels were only made if there was a decent business/artistic reason to do so. Obviously there were the exceptions where studios developed films based on long running book series and there would have always been the intention to continue with the 'franchise' if the first one did well.
These days a studios deliberately creates a lot of their blockbuster films with the intention that sequels will be made. They've realized that it's a lot easier and cheaper to market a sequel than an original films, so even those that do mediocre can be guaranteed a return. Studios will design contracts and plan shooting calendar so that back to back sequels are shot as soon as the performance of the original is confirmed.
I'd say it started in modern terms with the Lord of the Rings trilogy.
Elizabeth (1998) - Elizabeth: The Golden Age (2007)
Elizabeth is a good film. I haven't seen The Golden Age, though. Maybe it shows her death, so there's no chance of a sequel. Dunno.
The third has always been planned, think they're leaving a large gap until the last one so she will look more credible as older Elizabeth.
Comments
The Matrix shouldn't have even had one sequel. Both sequels are woeful.
I was just about to post this, G3 slightly tarnishes the brilliance of 1&2.
Are you forgetting about Home Alone 3, Home Alone 4 and Home Alone 5?
The poster was saying that the franchise should have stopped after number 2.
I think the point the poster was trying to make earlier on about franchises being a 'modern' concept was that in the past the vast majority of films were made with the attention of being stand alone pieces and sequels were only made if there was a decent business/artistic reason to do so. Obviously there were the exceptions where studios developed films based on long running book series and there would have always been the intention to continue with the 'franchise' if the first one did well.
These days a studios deliberately creates a lot of their blockbuster films with the intention that sequels will be made. They've realized that it's a lot easier and cheaper to market a sequel than an original films, so even those that do mediocre can be guaranteed a return. Studios will design contracts and plan shooting calendar so that back to back sequels are shot as soon as the performance of the original is confirmed.
I'd say it started in modern terms with the Lord of the Rings trilogy.
Since they're saying it should have stopped after 2, they're clearly not forgetting 3, 4 and 5.
102 Dalmatians
28 Weeks Later
Babe: Pig in the City
Blues Brothers 2000
Father of the Bride Part 2
Son of the Mask -Shudder-
Teen Wolf
Grease
Ghostbusters
The Mask of Zorro (1998) - The Legend of Zorro (2005)
Elizabeth (1998) - Elizabeth: The Golden Age (2007)
I've seen both Zorro films. I like the first one, but not the second.
Elizabeth is a good film. I haven't seen The Golden Age, though. Maybe it shows her death, so there's no chance of a sequel. Dunno.
The third has always been planned, think they're leaving a large gap until the last one so she will look more credible as older Elizabeth.