[Reader disclaimer: spoilers will be discussed].
 |
| Hellraiser: Inferno (2000) |
Have you ever gone for a meal and thought to yourself, 'you know what? I'll be cheeky and order dessert'. In essence, that's the function of sequels: you just can't get enough the first time round and you're hungry for more.
But, as we all know, sometimes more is too much. The Lord of the Rings works because every film (though connected by source material) work as singularities; if you look at the Hobbit series, 2/3 of the films are arguably lacklustre and co-dependent on the far more successful first instalment. A fan following can only take you so far, after all.
The horror genre is no stranger to sequels, often franchising and building a solid fanbase that follows suit. However, one might argue that franchising a film, no matter how popular it might initially be, can damage the reputation and enjoyment of the original story.
The Pros
 |
| Saw (2004) |
Let's look at the pros of franchising. For one, a sequel (or many) can be an exploration of the source material, a chance to expand the fictional universe. Long-time fans, even new ones, will seize any chance they get to see their beloved characters facing new challenges.
The Saw franchise, for example, brings something new with every instalment: sure, it's all the same torture-porn, characters essentially being punished by a sadomasochist with a God complex, but we enjoy the Saw films because of the creative traps. The simplicity of the first film left room for any crazy device imaginable: from a cuff around the ankles to the Rack in Saw III (2006) and the even more so impressive 10 Pints of Sacrifice from Saw V (2008).
 |
| A Nightmare on Elm Street (1984) |
Another pro of franchising is, of course, the money; a household name can become a cash-cow with the right kind of marketing. A Nightmare of Elm Street is one of the most recognisable franchises in horror history, not only for its creative kills but for its iconic antagonist, Freddy Krueger (played by Robert Englund).
So, if you slap Krueger on anything, it's highly likely that the fanbase will come running to watch it. Take Freddy vs. Jason (2003) for example: according to Rotten Tomatoes, it holds a score of 41%, a considerably low number in comparison to the original film (which stands at 94%). However, devoted fans of the franchise still appreciate and love the film because it retains its campy portrayal of the character. Even at domestic box office, it made a profit.
The Cons
 |
| The Conjuring (2013) |
Now let's look at the cons. One of the biggest issues that franchises face when churning out multiple films is that the lore can become inconsistent and sloppy, consequently creating loose ends and plot holes. The aforementioned Freddy vs. Jason, for example, creates tension by demonstrating Jason's weakness, which is supposedly water: long time fans of the Friday the 13th franchise will find this dubious, however, as Jason is no stranger to water and it's highly unlikely that he's suddenly developed a phobia of it.
The Conjuring series is also victim to this. Whilst the first few movies were actually credible, the following spin-offs (including Annabelle (2014) and The Nun (2018)) are arguably examples of weak storytelling, an overuse of tired tropes and ineffective jump scares. They don't hold the same gravitas as the original films, which actually take the time to create tension and build an interesting concept from the ground up.
 |
| The Babadook (2014) |
Some creators, such as Jennifer Kent, are aware of the dangers of franchising. Kent (who directed The Babadook) ensured that herself and her producers already owned the rights to a possible sequel because she didn't want there to be another one: in her own terms, it was "not that kind of film", in that The Babadook was intended to be an artful horror that acted as a standalone tale.
I believe that Kent (as well as visionaries such as Ari Aster or Jordan Peele) understands that it's not guaranteed that a film's integrity gets compromised by franchising, but that if a story is self-contained and well-rounded in its delivery the first time, then that process doesn't need to be duplicated. It would only be for money, after all.
Conclusion
 |
| Friday the 13th: Part 8 (1989) |
Franchising is not always a death sentence for films. In some ways, the audience and the creators greatly benefit from delving further into the stories we've grown to know and love. However, there's an undeniable correlation between sequels and their performances (both financially and entertainment-wise) that suggests that less is more in most cases.
I love the horror genre but even I have to admit that when it comes to franchises like Hellraiser, Friday the 13th and Saw, I often don't watch past the first three films because they lack in quality, uniqueness and entertainment in comparison to their original debuts. So, I'd argue that franchising is fun but be aware that if your favourite movies start churning out sequels like there's no tomorrow, then maybe it's best to stay clear of them.
- K
