What do “Beetlejuice Beetlejuice” and “Twisters” have in common? Both are big box office hits that are successful because they capitalize on decades of nostalgia and invite audiences back into the comforting embrace of the pop culture properties of yesteryear.
It is important to understand that the success of these legacy sequel films isn’t just thanks to the fame of the franchise; the sequel must also be relevant and offer much more than just a rehash of the original. The recent phenomenon of the “legacy sequel” has taken over the way Hollywood approaches making franchises, leading the film industry to focus on all the wrong lessons.
When history-making blockbusters like “Star Wars: The Force Awakens,” “Top Gun: Maverick” and “Jurassic World,” continue to be successful past their prime, studios dive into whatever recognizable content they have in the hopes of luring both the original fans and a new generation of converts to theaters.
Unfortunately for them, sequels aren’t guaranteed to be successful every time they reuse the same actors and slap on a cheesy new subtitle. The most recent sequels to “Terminator,” “Independence Day” and “Indiana Jones” are historic bombs due to their failure to become compelling revivals because they didn’t offer anything beyond the core hook of the success of their legacy films. The quality seen in films such as “Blade Runner 2049” doesn’t save film companies from financial ruin if the marketing fails to convince audiences that they should spend the $15 on a movie ticket for a movie that could very well be a regurgitation of something they can rent at home for $3.99.
The success of sequels is often dependent on how well they appeal to the current generation of moviegoers. Relying solely on the old guard of fans isn’t always enough to garner a triumph in the box office. Risky bets such as “Jumanji: Welcome to the Jungle” and “Mad Max: Fury Road” excelled with audiences because they fundamentally changed their approach to the material while staying true to the merits of their predecessors. Other examples like “Creed” and “Ghostbusters: Afterlife” found success due to the promise of old fan favorites rearing up a new generation of heroes – this kind of success is harder to come by.
This phenomenon is widespread among different genres as well. Recent comic book films have utilized the concept of the multiverse to bring back past cinematic iterations of iconic characters. These characters join forces with the current lineup of iconic superheroes which is a gimmick with roaring success. “Spider-Man: No Way Home” and “Deadpool & Wolverine” are prime examples of this. “The Flash” faltered because it promised the return of versions of characters and stories that people no longer care about. “X-Men: Days of Future Past,” which came out in 2014, served as a precursor to the colliding timeline craze, as it combined the original and new casts of its franchise – arguably more intelligent and satisfying than its more shameless successors.
There might not be a specific formula for crafting the “perfect” legacy sequel, but there are ways to make one that isn’t anticipated as a pandering corporate product, even if it is one. This phenomenon has diluted much of the creativity that comes with making a franchise. It seems that Hollywood is still content with resurrecting less-than-relevant properties of old films instead of cultivating new ones – despite clear financial evidence that the legacy sequels that work are the ones that differentiate themselves from their roots, no matter the franchise’s success.
