Are sequels equal?
Back-to-back follow-ups a high-stakes gamble
As recent history shows, this strategy doesn't always turn out to be a savvy financial or creative move.
Consider Universal's "Back to the Future" follow-ups in 1989 and 1990 and Warners' "Matrix" sequels in 2003.
Filmmakers built cliffhangers into the second installment. But "Future" and "Matrix" showed that no cliffhanger can make up for a lack of audience enthusiasm.
Variety lamented the lack of "warmth and seemingly effortless brio of the original" in "Back to the Future II," and noted that there was just no getting around the fact the "Matrix" sequel was not as fresh and daring as the original.
In both cases, the back-to-back sequels were hatched following surprise success of the original, as with "Pirates." In each earlier case, the second pic opened huge but petered out relatively quickly. Both times, the third installment was a bust.
Each time, back-to-back production seemed to make sense: Michael J. Fox and the Wachowski brothers became more expensive after the original films, making it more economical to lock them into two pics at once. Ditto Johnny Depp.
After a strong opening more than double the original take, "Back to the Future II" ended up with $90 million less than its predecessor. "The Matrix Reloaded" did gross more than $100 million more than the original, its boffo $91.8 million three-day opening weekend suggested even greater returns.
In both cases, the third film was the worst reviewed of the trio, and with auds significantly less enthused after the second than the first, B.O. performance followed suit.
At the very least "Dead Man's Chest" will aggressively test the theory that some films are critic proof.
Variety's Todd McCarthy said, "there is a sense of bloat and where-do-we-go-from here aimlessness to this unconscionably protracted undertaking" (see review, page 21). Entertainment Weekly's Lisa Schwarzbaum moaned the pic "is a theme ride, if by ride you mean a hellish contraption into which a ticket holder is strapped, overstimulated but unsatisfied."
The New York Times' A.O. Scott calls it "a long, ungainly movie, which for all its busy, buzzing parts, is incapable of standing on its own."
Still, not everyone was negative. USA Today's Claudia Puig enthused it is a "bountiful good time" and rottentomatoes.com concluded that it had 61% positive reviews -- below the 75% for "Superman Returns," but far ahead of the 30% for "Click."
Disney can also take heart in another trilogy: "The Lord of the Rings," which New Line filmed in succession. Second installment, "The Two Towers," thrilled auds and critics as much as the first and each successive film made more than the previous franchise entry.
Of course, "Rings" was conceived as a trilogy, which likely made a big difference.
