If it’s a direct-to-video sequel, I’ll do what I do with all direct-to-video sequels: ignore it. I am not a fan of franchising for its own sake, nor am I a fan of cashing in on an original property’s magic with a cheap follow-up. It’s just lame.
If it’s a theatrical release by Feature Animation, I’ll give it a chance.
Disney's Divinity wrote:
Would it have the same level of success?
I very much doubt that's true. Look at most of Dreamworks and Pixar franchises--the sequels do better than the original financially 99% of the time. The only cases I don't think this were true were Cars 2 and Shrek 4, but I'm not going to look it up.
Domestically, Monsters University
didn’t do much better in actual $s than Monsters, Inc
—worse, actually, in adjusted dollars and estimated ticket sales. Adjusted numbers for worldwide grosses aren’t available, though Monsters U
likely still comes out on top because a dozen years’ inflation still doesn’t make up a $200M difference in international attendance.
Returns fell off for the third and fourth Shrek
films—neither did as well as the second.
2 & 3 were drop-offs as well. Even without adjusting for inflation, the second film underperformed the first; adjusted, the first film did better than both the sequels (until international returns are added in). Production budgets for the last two are double that of the first…
Adjusted, the Ice Age
franchise has dropped off in domestic popularity since the first installment to the tune of and $80M difference over the life of the franchise—but the numbers worldwide went up exponentially with wider releases.
Franchising makes sense in that it’s easier to market a known quantity. I’d still rather see Disney focus on new projects, but I’m not in charge.Frozen
has set the bar awfully high. A sequel would have to have a good story and tell it well, and it’d have to strike a chord with an equally receptive market. I suppose we’ll find out.