Why is Hollywood focused on sequels and reboots instead of new original movies?

1
Owen Wing

Professor Dr. Cynie Cory

ENC2135-0041

07/12/23

As I sat in the movie theater, my friend leaned over and said to me “I bet $10 that every

trailer they play is gonna be a sequel or reboot.” I took his bet, winning with only one movie

being original. This got me thinking about how often current movies are just based on

something else. There were probably 7 trailers before our movie started, and 6 of them were

sequels. The easy answer to this question would be money, but with a little research you can find

that this question has many different possible answers, with statistics and evidence to back each

one up. If you stick with me through my next 1800-2050 words, we're gonna go over all the

possible answers to my question. Whether it's because of money, because they're easier to make,

or some multiple other reasons, together we’re about to try and find the best possible answer to

why Hollywood makes so many reboots and sequels.

Once again, the most obvious answer would be that they make more money, with a

monetary value being brought up one way or another in almost every one of my sources. After

all, according to White in “White: Hollywood Has Run Out of Ideas” the top 10 movies from

2022 had inspiration from another form of media. However, it might not be as simple as people

think. To bring in a study that estimated the prevalence of sequels, they found some interesting

information on this topic. In the findings of Dhar, Tirtha, et al, in “The Long-Term Box Office

Performance of Sequel Movies.”, we can say that sequels get shown in a larger number of movie

theaters than non sequels (28). This would make it seem like they would make more money, but
 Why is Hollywood focused on sequels and reboots instead of new original movies?

2
Dhar, Tirtha, et al then claim that budgets for sequels are usually higher, resulting in lowered

gross profit margin. The profit margins are decreasing, meaning these sequels aren't really

making more money because they are costing more to create. Nevertheless, It's possible there's a

different monetary reason for all these sequels.

We have some evidence that points to sequels bringing in less gross profit, but an article

by the Journal of Cultural Economics gives another possibility for these movies being made. In

the article “When does it make sense to do it again? An empirical investigation of contingency

factors of movie remakes”, Bohenkamp et al find that “remakes do not increase revenues but do

reduce financial risk.” (2015). This happens because of things like the relationship to the original

movie, brand awareness and the familiarity of the project. This all has to be done very carefully,

with lots of different factors determining its success. It's difficult to remake some movies, as

they are considered timeless, and people think too highly of the originals to even think of the

possibility of a remake. They also have to be careful around movies with a signature character,

one that couldn't be replaced. An example of this is Slyvester Stalone as Rocky, who is an actor

that is indistinguishable to the character to most people. There is a little more leeway when

working on a sequel instead of a reboot in this situation. Which is why it was very smart that

when it came to the Creed movies, the studio didn't try to reboot the series with new characters,

they just continued the story, even bringing Stalone back as Rocky. As long as the studio takes

into account these factors, Bohenkamp et al believes that the majority of these sequels and

reboots will be successful. From an outside point of view I definitely see them as being correct,

especially when it comes to brand awareness and the familiarity of the project. Take for example

the Marvel Cinematic Universe(MCU), which is now the most profitable movie franchise of all

time. It is currently believed by many fans that the newer movies are doing a lot worse than those
 Why is Hollywood focused on sequels and reboots instead of new original movies?

3
that came before it. However for me and people like me, who have been watching these movies

since the very beginning, it doesn't affect our viewing at all. Some part of me goes in hopes of

the movie being as good as they used to be, and another part goes because I don't want to give up

on something I've been invested in for the past 15 years. Whatever the reason, I know that I will

continue to go see every movie they come out with, even if it doesn't seem that interesting, and I

believe that movie producers know this. They make these movies because there is always a

dedicated fan base for every movie franchise that no matter what will go and see a sequel they

make.

To once again support that reboots and sequels have lower risk, we have another source

that backs this information. In the source “Why Does Hollywood Keep Making Reboots,

Remakes, and Adaptations?” by Alex Payne (2022), he states it's a no-brainer to put money into

something that is likely to do well. The belief that there's less financial risk is not the only thing

that Bohenkamp et al (2015) and Payne (2022) have in common, both touching on the topic of

new technological advancements. They do, however, talk about the advancements for different

reasons. Bohenkamp (2015) brings it up as just another factor that determines the success of the

reboot. By using this factor, they claim that movies that focus on special effects, like horror and

action movies, are going to be a lot more successful than moves that don't, like comedies and

dramas. Payne (2022) on the other hand goes in a completely different direction than what he

was previously talking about, now touching on the rise of independent digital filmmaking.

Since the 2010s, low budget independent films started to saturate the market, and

according to Payne the only way that big studios could beat them was with their budget. The

only downside to this being that if a movie didn't do as well as hoped, it was a major financial

risk. Having to spend all that money on the explosions, the CGI, the actors and the actresses,
 Why is Hollywood focused on sequels and reboots instead of new original movies?

4
could result in bankruptcy if the studio didn't make back their money. Because of this risk,

“studios turned to the built-in audiences” (Payne 2022) of already known and loved movies, like

what I mentioned with the MCU. Along with these two examples for technological

advancements, is one more research study done by Chuck Tyron about the upgrade of the movie

going experience (2013). When 3D movies became possible, the possibility of the amount of

movies to remake became incredible. Even by their own directors, with examples like when the

director of Avatar, James Cameron said that just a few years after the movie's release that the

projectors were inadequate for his vision. Even to this day new advancements and innovations

are being made in the cinema, with examples like the Dolby Cinema at AMC, IMAX, and RGB

pure laser illumination. It's very possible that some directors like Cameron make sequels and

reboots in order to capitalize on these new advancements in technology, making the most

visually appealing movies that they can.

To wrap back around to the argument of less financial risk one more time, we can go

back to what White wrote about in “White: Hollywood Has Run Out of Ideas”, and find another

reason to support this. He said “Consumers want to be sure that if they spend their hard-earned

dollars at the cinema, they are going to enjoy what they see.” Tickets are expensive, especially if

you're bringing multiple people, and for that reason people feel more comfortable if they know

they like the characters, story, or original movie. Like all things however, there are always

exceptions. In the past couple of weeks I've been to see multiple movies, most of them being

sequels. One of those movies was “Spider-Man: Across the Spider-Verse”(ATSV), the sequel to

“Spider-Man: Into the Spider-Verse” (ITSV). This example is the outlier for the study done in

“The Long-Term Box Office Performance of Sequel Movies”, while yes the sequel ATSV did

cost more to make, It nearly doubled at the box office, making $607 million and becoming the
 Why is Hollywood focused on sequels and reboots instead of new original movies?

5
32nd highest grossing animated movie of all time. This last weekend I also watched the new

Indiana Jones sequel, “Indiana Jones and the Dial of Destiny”. This movie is once again an

outlier, with it being an example of a sequel not living up to its intended potential. With a budget

of $300 million, “Dial of Destiny” has only made a measly $248 million global total. Which

sounds even worse when you learn that they need $600 million in order to be profitable. Yet

these statistics still hold true, there is less risk, but that doesn't mean there is no risk. Other

examples of sequels that didn't live up to the hype are movies like “Matix: Resurrections'', and

“Space Jam: A New Legacy”. With both of those movies, plus “Dial of Destiny" not doing what

expected at the box office, it must be noted that not all sequels are going to become amazing hits

like the original, even if it has famous actors like Harrison Ford or Keanu Reeves. We could use

the information found in “When does it make sense to do it again?” by Bohnenkamp et al to

develop some reasons why these movies underperformed. Just like Sylvester Stalones Rocky

was a signature character to the “Rocky” movies, so was Michael Jordan to the original “Space

Jam '' movie. This could be a major aspect as to why “Space Jam: A New Legacy'' flopped, as

they cast Lebron James instead of Michael Jordan. Now of course there are going to be

exceptions, but like what Bohnenkamp et al stated, reboots and sequels still have to be careful

when making a movie and it's important to keep those in consideration to ensure the least risk

possible. This article really got me thinking about some of the sequels that I've seen, and even

helped me realize why I don't like some even when I love the original movies. Now of course

there is another example that can be used with the MCU and superhero movies, but here I'm

going to talk about Star Wars. Star Wars is absolutely one of my favorite franchises, but like a lot

of people, I was not a huge fan of the 3 sequel movies. At first I didn't really know why I didn't

like them, but after looking at this article it became very clear; they completely changed the
 Why is Hollywood focused on sequels and reboots instead of new original movies?

6
original characters. They turned Luke Skywalker into practically a different person, and they did

the same thing with Princess Leia. They even brought back Emperor Palpatine, who was

supposed to have been killed in the climax of the original trilogy. The only character they kept

the same was Han Solo, who they then killed in the very first movie. By doing this, to me, and

I'm sure to many others they completely tarnished the story of the original movies, which is why

it's very important to recognize what Bohnenkamp et al said, and be careful with what the

signature characters do.

There is one final possible answer to my question that I would like to touch on, with this

one being what I believe to be the most interesting. This possible answer is that Hollywood has

been remaking old works since its very beginning. “Has Hollywood Run Out of Original Ideas?”,

written by Dr Lauren Rosewarne at the University of Melbourne, dives into this stance, saying

that some of the most famous works of all time, like The Wizard of Oz, were reboots and you

probably don't even know it (2023). If not remakes of old movies, then there were adaptations of

books and plays, but nonetheless there was always some source material that the movies have

pulled from. Going back to “Why Does Hollywood Keep Making Reboots, Remakes, and

Adaptations?”(Payne 2022), the author gives us the example of “The Squaw Man”. This movie

was remade only 4 years after its initial release, then remade another time just a couple years

after that. But then Payne asks if it really was always like that, claiming that it's different now

than how it was before. He gives statistics and facts to show how when you have to go all the

way back to Sam Ramis first “Spider-man” movie in 2002 to find a movie that isn't a direct

sequel on the top grossing films by year. To find a top grossing film from an original screenplay

you need to go even further back to 1998’s “Saving Private Ryan”. (Payne 2022)
 Why is Hollywood focused on sequels and reboots instead of new original movies?

7
As you can see, there are many possible factors and answers that could fit into my

question of “Why is Hollywood focused on sequels and reboots instead of new original movies?”

Though I believe the most important thing is money. Not that sequels and reboots make more

money, but that they are safer to spend money on. There are obviously times where this fails, as

presented before, and of course this isn't the only reason for these movies to be made. There are

a multitude of factors, and dozens of people deciding what movie gets made, so for each

different movie it's possible the reason can be a little different. But I would say the strongest

reason Hollywood is focused on sequels and reboots is because there's overall less financial risk

in making them.
 Why is Hollywood focused on sequels and reboots instead of new original movies?

Works Cited

Bohnenkamp, B., Knapp, AK., Hennig-Thurau, T. et al. When does it make sense to do it again?

An empirical investigation of contingency factors of movie remakes. J Cult Econ39,

15–41 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10824-014-9221-6

Dhar, Tirtha, et al. “The Long-Term Box Office Performance of Sequel Movies.” Marketing

Letters, vol. 23, no. 1, 2012, pp. 13–29. JSTOR, http://www.jstor.org/stable/41488764

Payne, Alex. “Why Does Hollywood Keep Making Reboots, Remakes, and Adaptations?” A

Little Bit Human | Mission-Driven Nerdiness, Feb. 2023,

www.alittlebithuman.com/hollywood-remakes-reboots-adaptations

Rosewarne, Lauren. University of Melbourne and Associate Professor Lauren RosewarneSenior

lecturer, School of Social and Political Sciences, Faculty of Arts, University of

Melbourne. “Has Hollywood Run Out of Original Ideas?” Pursuit, June 2023,

pursuit.unimelb.edu.au/articles/has-hollywood-run-out-of-original-ideas

Tryon, C. “Reboot cinema”. Convergence, 19(4), 432–437.

https://doi.org/10.1177/1354856513494179

White, Spencer. “White: Hollywood Has Run Out of Ideas.” The Minnesota Daily,

mndaily.com/274555/opinion/white-hollywood-has-run-out-of-ideas