I've been a poster here for a while, and I've said the same thing over and over again, since first coming here in 02. I don't understand why it is so hard to grasp, I've never changed my argument, yet look at my predictions:

Matrix Revolutions- 130 million
Spiderman 3- 340 million
Pirates of the Caribbean 3- 315 million
Shrek 4- 250 million
Pirates of the Caribbean 4: Sub 250 million
Transformers 3- Sub 330

This is seriously becoming the most undisputed way to predict a film. Once a series has reached Mass general audience appeal beyond the original film's core audience, the next film will see a considerable drop off. Why you ask? Because the film before or in most cases the original tacked into something, looked amazing, or developed Huge WOM to bring in casual moviegoers. However most of these films are always hard to please everyone, even with good WOM, about 25-50%of the audience that turned in to bring that Mass Appeal don't get the hoopla surrounding these films, so they opt out for the next one I don't care about 3D, or inflation (especially under 5 years time) This goes even as far back to original dominant franchises like Indy, Star Wars, Jurassic Park, BTTF, Beverly Hills Cop, Rocky, Terminator, etc. It doesn't matter where the Appeal hit, it's ALWAYS happens once its been reached.

People on here into some delusional fantasy that there's always room to go more, because if one film can go that far, the next will as well. I've wanted to believe that as well, and have predicted some films to do such, but it has Never happened!

There have been only 3 exceptions to the rule: Large time lapses between films or complete overhauls (Star Wars, Bond, Star Trek) Films based on books with Obsessively loyal followings (LOTR, Harry Potter, and Twilight) And then of course film series that despite being major successes, never reached the MASS General audiences (Austin Powers, X-Men, etc)

Yet almost every single new year, people are completely astonished by what franchises like Back to the Future, Indy and even Star Wars taught us long ago. Even our precious Dark Knight Rises will see a considerable drop off as well, absolutely everything went right (And has horrible as it sounds that includes Ledger's untimely passing) for that film. This rule has been going almost 40 years strong.

The only other thing I will say that is different from 2000 on is that these films are being saved more and more from the explosion of overseas markets. But come on people, The Madness must stop!

To what address should we ship your medal?

I don't need a medal, maybe I should write a book though, the kind that people stop at the title in a library, before they move their hands over to a more interesting film book

First of all, gun, you're exactly right that there is simply a mass audience level, and that a certain point, a sequel will reach it and through no fault of its own, drop.

That said, a couple quibbles:



The common thread for all of these films (save Spider-Man) is that the previous film had mixed word-of-mouth. The only franchise still going strong at this point was Spider-Man, and 3 opened accordingly -- huge[. But audiences didn't like it.



I agree and disagree. Agree because The Dark Knight reached such a penetration level that it will be monstrously difficult to build audience on top of it, even if Rises is just as good if not better. Disagree because, what if Rises is better? In the modern era, the only franchise we've seen hit three home runs in a row was The Lord of the Rings, and it did increase each time. (Granted, The Two Towers didn't explode over the leggy Fellowship of the Ring, so there was more room to grow for the second sequel.)

TF3 dropping from TF2 was always a lock but then it had 3D so I expected it would increase slightly in gross.

Bourne.

Yeah, I think Bourne could be a good possible comparison reception-wise and leg-wise. Problem is the series never got as HUGE as TDK. Retaining 80% of its audience would be great, though.

Maybe Austin Powers? Obviously not on the same level as TDK, but the second one did achieve a mass audience level, and that didn't stop the third from slightly increasing in gross.

It must have been very quiet here for your first couple of years.

I posted a thread in 2007 regarding this sort of thing (tabling all the franchises and their increases/drops). Only LOTR, Bourne, Powers and X Men increased with every film (first 3).

Though I agree with gun's thread regarding TF3, I think most really expected it to drop but early on some (as 2001 mentions) thought 3D would make up the difference. However with 3D proving to be a disaster for the industry now, the drop in admissions and gross is certainly expected, especially after TF2.

I can see a lot of people haven't read my whole first post. Please do so you at least what I mean when I say exceptions.

I've already discussed Austin Powers, I think we can safely agree that a 200 million earner is not Mass Audience. I think for a franchise to even be considered to reach Mass audiences (Meaning all genders and demographics) is at grossing at least 350 million adjusted in the US.

Bourne Identity never reached Mass Appeal, and is a mix of Exception 2 and 3.
Austin Powers- Exception 3
LOTR- Exception 2 (Hobbit can be the highest grossing of the series, but will add in Exception 1 to do it)
TDKR- Dark Knight was both parts of Exception 1, crossed with the largest media angle ever to hit a film (Ledger, you could almost never go on TV or read a paper without reading something on his obsession with the role being the death of him for months prior tot he films release)

I agree with your post completely. It is wonderful reading the arguments

Are you implying that a comedy making 200M domestic is a disappointment and not good at all?? Really Gun??? I mean how much did a movie like Austin Powers and it's sequel cost to make??? For a comedy, I'd say it had a mass audience just like MEET THE FOCKERS did and look how much that made Domestic???? Gun, you take this shit too seriously for your own good..

Of the several factors that contribute to how a sequel opens, the WOM of the previous film is #1 in general. It's usually not given enough credit, and usually not discussed in a properly objective manner.

Are you kidding me BKB, did you even read my post or grasp the idea of this thread? It has nothing to do with success or disappointment. Austin Powers was a massive achievement for comedy franchises. The Franchise however being loved by many many people, never reached the large mass audiences that I'm talking about in this thread. It is referenced as an inaccurate way to predict a sequel's potential only. Please try reading from now on! Meet the Fockers reached its mass potential, hence the third film's drop off is evidence.

The whole, "Bah humbug, Austin Powers and Bourne don't count, they don't suit my needs!" angle discredits you, IMO.

I understand what he's saying. Something like The Dark Knight reached such a massive level that, really, how many more people can there be who'd go to a sequel? Whereas AP and Bourne were huge, but their grosses never reached uber-blockbuster level; there was always some room to grow.

You're right, I didn't. I was only responding to what The Dark Shape said.

Maybe if you weren't so hopelessly self-aggrandizing and self-important, more people would actually read what you have to say.

I think Spider-Man 3, if anything, disproves your rule more than your other examples. What if it was well received as the second one? It certainly would have gotten the $30m extra gross to beat 2, and may have even crawled past the first.

It's not that there's some mythical "rule" that dictates a film can only possibly gross so much, it's that studios/directors/etc. keep being complete tards and making shoddy sequels and threequels.

QFT

Heres your crown your majesty

I don't get it.

Spiderman 3 could have passed Spiderman 2 imo if it was a much better film easily imo.

I think the moral of the story is Shack is always wrong when he makes a thread in the BO forum. viewtopic.php?f=12&t=63481 This has been a brutal summer even by my lowly standards