PatD

Think of all the movie franchises that originated in the 80s that are still used today (or at the least being re-purposed like say, Ghostbusters or Vacation for example). And the 2000s? Quite a few served with distinction (Lord of the Rings, Harry Potter).

But, there's that long patch called the 90s. What in blue blazes happened? It was the decade movie franchises went to die (Back to the Future, Robocop, the Burton Schumacher Batman Franchise, the Sigourney Weaver-Alien movies). And the ones that sprang forth didn't have much lasting power (Scream, The Matrix, Men in Black, Austin Powers, The only exception was Jurassic Park whose sequel this year is the second highest grossing of the year.). And there were some franchises that didn't have a chance, say, Superman.

Most mainstream movies of the 90s were one and done. Why?

So, what was it about the 1990s that made it so unfriendly to franchise movies?

Matthew Chmiel

Tons of different factors.

A lot of films that didn't deserve sequels in the '80s and '90s ended up receiving sequels in the '90s. Nobody asked for them and there were never any more due to the films being dead on arrival. Most of these sequels were to films that never cost that much to begin with that ended up being sleeper hits, but again, nobody asked for a sequel to Problem Child or Sister Act. I think due to a lot of those films receiving sequels, people immediately had sequel fatigue.

All of the major horror franchises died in the early '90s as audiences were just burned out on the influx of horror films during the '80s. Jason Goes to Hell and Wes Craven's New Nightmare were the two biggest casualties whereas Child's Play saw three sequels in the 90s (90, 91, 98) and Halloween saw two (95, 98).

There was also the direct-to-video market. Disney ended up pushing most of their sequels, both animated and live action, into that new territory as it was far cheaper and pulled in more profits. There's also a slew of low budget franchises if you look into that market. The first Leprechaun saw a theatrical release, the sequels went direct-to-video. Most of the Ernest films ended up going direct-to-video after poor box office results. Charles Band and Full Moon had numerous franchises that had success in that market too.

While Back to the Future was one of the first franchises to shoot their sequels at one time, that was not duplicated until later in the decade with Lord of the Rings (in which all three films were shot together). While production on that began in the '90s, the first film didn't see its release until 2001. To be fair, that was a gamble as nobody knew if it would succeed or not. However, that film's success allowed studios like Warner to take gambles with shooting The Matrix films together and committing to an entire eight-picture franchise (Harry Potter). Harry Potter spawned off franchises like Twilight, The Hunger Games, Divergent, etc. Marvel's overwhelming success with creating an entire universe, which had not been done before, is now trying to be copied by every other studio. Again, we really didn't see these "franchises" popping up until the middle of last decade.

hbilly

Same with the Tremors movies.

hanshotfirst1138

Wasn't the DTV home video market at its most robust in the 90s?

Matthew Chmiel

The direct-to-video market has always been in place since the days of VHS, especially for films that simply failed to have a theatrical release in the US. However, it was the late '80s and early '90s when distributors and studios began producing films specifically for the direct-to-video market. It wasn't until the release of The Return of Jafar in which the major studios began realizing how much money was being left on the table by specifically not producing films for that market.

Look at Disney, they used their television animation studios to produce all those direct-to-video films. The production of the actual video tapes the films were released on cost more than the actual budget Disney spent to make those films. Disney was pulling in over $100M+ in profits for each of those DTV sequels during their peak.

Bluelitespecial

I dont think I would include BTTF in this conversation since it was planned for three movies, and no one wants to change that. Its kind of nice to see the filmmakers have kept there word to keep it a trilogy.

The Antipodean

Alternatively, the movie studios showed a bit more creativity and less willingness to strip-mine every moderately successful franchise of the 70s and 80s for more revenue. If I'd been told in 1994 they'd still be churning out or trying to churn out Terminator, Alien, Indiana Jones movies and more 20 years on I'd have laughed.

Franchises were pretty weak in the 1990s, but there was a LOT of really strong filmmaking outside of them which frankly seems a bit harder to find today outside of the omnipresent superhero and reboots/revivals of '80s movies (and hey, I'm a fan of superhero and '80s movies, but it's not all I want in my diet)

Solid Snake

Yeah. It was a daring time. Not 1970s daring but daring still. Even out of the US. A lot of crazy good shit was coming out.

While I kneejerked almost at the idea that strong filmmaking was hard to find but at the same time... that could be right. I mean, out of the independent sector... studios don't want to be daring or too wild. Franchises keep the studios going and safe bets are the nice cushion for the major guys. Not much risk. If you're a MAJOR filmmaker, the studio can risk it cuz you've a brand.

Mabuse

The lack of franchises is one of the reasons the '90s was the best decade of cinema since the '70s.

UAIOE

The three in bold are fantastic movies, and three movies that prove they really didn't need sequels or a franchise. They all got sequels, and I never hear anyone talk about how great they are.

Ash Ketchum

I would add to this by pointing out that for most of that decade, if you had asked me who the best working filmmakers in Hollywood were, I would have said: Martin Scorsese, Oliver Stone and Spike Lee. They were all working steadily and, for a time, turning out really good work. That all changed by the end of the decade. Tarantino was getting attention and acclaim but not yet a major factor, having completed only three features by the end of the decade. None of these films lent themselves to unwanted franchises.

Also, there were still a lot of satisfying mid-range genre films that made movie fans happy, including Walter Hill's work (TRESPASS, GERONIMO) and films starring Steven Seagal and Jean-Claude Van Damme, which played regularly in theaters until the end of the decade. John Woo came over from Hong Kong to make HARD TARGET, BROKEN ARROW and FACE/OFF. Again, no need for franchises. Why make DOUBLE IMPACT 2 when you can just make another Van Damme twins movie, MAXIMUM RISK, or the similarly titled DOUBLE TEAM? Both were helmed, like HARD TARGET, by imported Hong Kong directors.

Speaking of which, lots of great stuff was coming directly from Hong Kong in those days, including some great franchises in their own right: the ONCE UPON A TIME IN CHINA series (six films strong by my count) and the SWORDSMAN series (three films), not to mention the continuation of the POLICE STORY franchise with, arguably, its best entry in 1993: POLICE STORY III: SUPERCOP. And many of these found some U.S. release in the '90s, including SUPERCOP and several other Jackie Chan releases (e.g. RUMBLE IN THE BRONX). In fact, one notable Hollywood franchise to come out of the Hong Kong import wave starred Jackie Chan and did indeed start in the 1990s: RUSH HOUR.

Sean O'Hara

The last Toy Story film broke box office records and there's a fourth one in development; and Tom Cruise has a little series that's been chugging along since 1996.

Also, you're overlooking all franchises of the '70s and '80s that sputtered out after a couple movies, or managed a string of ever more disappointing sequels. Rush Hour, The Mummy and The Matrix may not have replicated the success of Star Wars or Indy, but they managed a lot better than Jaws, Gremlins or Ghostbusters.

bluetoast

BTTF didn't exactly "go to die." The story ended.

Hokeyboy

Ahh the 90s. Where franchises went to die/were non-starters, and cinema quality hit a high point bested only by the 70s and perhaps rivaled by the 40s.

What was the problem again?

orangerunner

By the early-mid 1990s commercialism in both films and music was becoming tiresome.

Music turned dark and serious (ie grunge) and audiences began tuning into the independent scene for films. Films like Pulp Fiction, Clerks, Dazed & Confused, Crying Game etc. began attracting larger audiences.

It's odd how many hit films never spawned a sequel. Independence Day, Armageddon, The Rock, Con Air, Crimson Tide, Dick Tracy, Days of Thunder, Maverick, Last Action Hero, Eraser, Last Boy Scout, Robin Hood, The Bodyguard, Pretty Woman, Cliffhanger, True Lies, Twister, Face-Off etc.

I think you still have to make a good original film before there's any hope of making a successful franchise - although The Mummy and Fast and the Furious are notable exceptions.

Hokeyboy

Last Action Hero was a hit film?

orangerunner

Touche'. Although we've seen lesser films spawn sequels.

PatD

There's an attitude that needs a sequel--nay--a franchise.

Drexl

Another thing to keep in mind was that adapting TV shows was a big trend, and those were sort of like sequels because they were betting on built-in audiences. But as films, many of those were one and done because they sucked.

Jason

Really? Last Action Hero was the epitome of everything that was (is) wrong with Hollywoo.

orangerunner

I can't say I disagree with you but everything that is "wrong" in Hollywood is often "right" when it comes to attracting a large audience.

Yeti4623

Last Action Hero was a mess, but had some cool ideas.

davidlynchfan

I think Pulp Fiction killed the action genre..cause after that, there was nothing but a ton of forgettable copy cat clones.

hanshotfirst1138

Maybe because it was fairly new in the 1990s and maybe because video rental stores were at their peak, but I recall a pretty big flood of DTV stuff back then, all of the cheesy softcore "erotic thrillers" and Cynthia Rothrock punch'em ups littered the racks back then. Plus, you could fudge the hell out of the production values when something was meant to be seen on a clunky CRT monitor like Disney's DTV stuff done by cheap TV crews, not to mention all of the mail-order tales-fansubs, legal anime clubs, etc.

dugan

*cough*