Over the past few years, many moviegoers and film buffs have noticed a rising trend in the filmmaking industry. The so-called "Era of the Sequel" is upon us and many are worried that the extinction of filmic originality altogether is not far behind.
As the title suggests, this new class of movie takes three forms: the sequel, the remake, and the more recent reboot. To clear the air of any confusion: a "sequel", by definition, is a movie that continues a story that began in a previous movie; a "remake" is identified as a re-envisioning of an older movie; a "reboot" describes a fresh start at a previously established movie or movie series, considering all prior attempts irrelevant.
The ushering in of these new varieties of movies has caused much grief for avid movie watchers like myself, and has forced us to pose questions such as "why are they making another movie about the Hulk?" or "what is the purpose of a fourth Indiana Jones movie?"
The answer to questions such as these is simple: money. Just like any other business, the film industry's main concern is making money, and how can you blame them? After all, they, like us, are people who have bills to pay. The real question, however, is whether or not this justifies lack of original content. Workers in the film industry would say yes.
The bottom line is that movies make money, and sequels, remakes and reboots of those movies make even more money. For example, the extremely popular Terminator 2 saw a 433 percent increase in profits from the first in the series.
In addition, the year 2007 saw more than $4 billion in revenue from box office sales. The main contributors, supplying at least $200 million each, were "Spider-Man 3," "Pirates of the Caribbean 3," "Transformers," "Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix," "Ratatouille," "Shrek the Third," "300," and "The Bourne Ultimatum." Is it surprising that five of these films are direct sequels to a previous movie?
It also should not be surprising that out of the top 10 grossing films of all time, six of the films on the list are sequels - "Shrek 2," "Star Wars: Episode I - The Phantom Menace," "Pirates of the Caribbean 2," "Star Wars: Episode III - Revenge of the Sith," "The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King" and "Spider-Man 2."
These are all examples of sequels - what about remakes and reboots? Some popular (both financially and publicly) examples of these include, but are not limited to "Batman Begins," "Rob Zombie's Halloween," Superman Returns," "Scarface" (the cult classic with Al Pacino is actually a remake of the 1932 film of the same name), "The Italian Job," and "Ocean's Eleven."
Though these types of movies possess a certain degree of banality, you have to admit that they have certainly stimulated the economy.
Although sequels, remakes and reboots can be extremely profitable, the question we must next ask ourselves is "where do we draw the line?" Apparently the sky is the limit.
Just ask the folks over at Lions Gate Entertainment, who anticipate "Saw VI" in theaters by 2009, or ask the producers of "The Land Before Time" series, who have spat out 12 sequels between 1994 and 2007.
The mere speed at which these sequels are being thought up and produced is also something that should be taken into account.
For example Michael Bay announced he would be piloting the sequel to the 2007 summer blockbuster, "Transformers," merely days after its release. On a related note, a sequel is already in the works for the action flick "Wanted," which comes out later this week.
Am I the only one who thinks it is a little excessive to plan sequels before the original film is even released? The extent to which some of these sequels are produced seems highly irrational.
In the case of "Saw," this is especially true, considering the main characters were killed off in the third installment. In addition, the film industry is also looking into remaking Hollywood classics, as seen with 2004's "The Manchurian Candidate" with Denzel Washington (remake of the 1962 film of the same name, starring Frank Sinatra), and the planned remake of Alfred Hitchcock's "The Birds."
Classics, such as these, seem to be untouchable in comparison to the films that remake it. However, what happens when a film is remade, and the remake becomes the standard in future generations? The original will eventually be wiped from our memories. How much money is worth this becoming a reality?
Here is what it comes down to: The film industry's drive to produce high-grossing films seems not only to hinder its ability to produce original, creative works of art, but also takes advantage of other already-established films.
The final question to ponder: "To what extent is this acceptable?"
Ian Bostick can be reached at bostick.21@osu.edu.
is a member of the 
