Which "Fast and Furious" film almost destroyed the entire franchise because it didn't have enough
stars? Keep watching to find out about the most disastrous sequels in history!
For a solid decade from 2002 to 2012, Will Smith could do no wrong at the box office.
Smith did it largely without relying on sequels, headlining ten hits that were star vehicles,
including risky big-budget movies like "I, Robot" and "Hancock."
However, Smith's "butts-in-seats" drawing power started to slide with 2013's "After Earth."
When most movie stars' careers start to slide, they hit the panic button
and go back to the franchises that made them famous in the first place — and sure enough,
Smith went back for a third "Bad Boys" film in 2020. But as a movie star, he really got his
start with "Independence Day," a 1996 surprise hit that brought in $817 million worldwide.
So why wouldn't Smith star in its 2016 sequel "Independence Day Resurgence"?
According to Smith, he wanted to do "Suicide Squad" instead. So, Fox plowed ahead with the
sequel without their biggest star, even if actors like Jeff Goldblum and Bill Pullman did return.
The film bombed with $384 million worldwide on a $165 million budget,
while "Suicide Squad" nearly doubled that with $746 million worldwide. As it turns out,
moviegoers didn't just want to see evil aliens; they wanted to see Will Smith punching them.
A common cliche in movie fan culture is: "Nobody cares about the humans in a monster
movie." So nobody cared about Ripley in "Alien?" Or Ann Darrow in "King Kong?"
Yes, you go to a monster movie for the monsters, but you care about it because of the characters.
A good case in point is 2014's "Godzilla." "Godzilla's" trailer was one of the best
of the past 20 years, headlining a marketing campaign that put Bryan Cranston front and center.
Now, Cranston isn't necessarily an A-list movie star, but in 2014 he was just coming off his
career-defining work in "Breaking Bad," so his presence lent "Godzilla" serious credibility.
However, while Cranston was marketed as the lead, he was killed off in the first half-hour.
As a result, Cranston wasn't in "Godzilla: King of the Monsters" at all.
Without any clear connection to the forgettable 2014 film, "Godzilla: King of the Monsters"
opened to a tepid $47 million and ended its run at $383 million worldwide on a $170 million budget.
Not a bomb, but definitely a disappointment compared with the original's $529 million. The
lack of Cranston wasn't the cause, but a symptom: Moviegoers do care about humans in monster movies.
There are some movie stars that audiences simply enjoy watching in special effects
movies. Jim Carrey is different — he is his own special effect. So making
sequels to Jim Carrey movies without Jim Carrey may be the most nonsensical thing
ever. Yet it happened not once, not twice, but thrice: "Dumb and Dumberer:
When Harry Met Lloyd" in 2003, "Son of the Mask" in 2005, and "Evan Almighty" in 2007.
Why no Carrey? He doesn't like sequels,
and if these were the scripts he was being offered, it's easy to see why.
"Dumb and Dumberer" face-planted first, earning $28 million worldwide on a $30 million budget.
You would think such a performance would put the brakes on "Son of the Mask" and "Evan Almighty,"
but surprisingly "Son of the Mask" followed with Jamie Kennedy in the lead, earning $59 million
worldwide on a mind-boggling $100 million budget. Then "Evan Almighty" came out, with Universal
spending an incredible $175 million son the Steve Carrell vehicle to earn back... $174 million.
When the smoke cleared, the studio had spent more than double the "Bruce Almighty" budget
on a Jim Carrey sequel without Jim Carrey. That just defies explanation.
"Do you want to explain yourself, congressman? What is going on?" "Oh. These… are birds!"
"Ghostbusters" was a genuine cultural sensation in 1984, and while the film's
1989 sequel isn't well-regarded, it was still a huge deal, earning $215 million
worldwide. Then the franchise went dormant for 27 years until it was rebooted in 2016.
This reboot was simply called "Ghostbusters," but many folks referred to it as some variation
of "The Girl Ghostbusters Movie," because it had female leads, with Bill Murray, Dan
Aykroyd and Ernie Hudson only appearing in brief "torch-passing" cameos. But moviegoers who waited
decades for another sequel didn't want to see any torches being passed — they wanted the originals.
It also probably didn't help that online chatter in the months leading up to the film
revolved around dumb, petty arguments about whether women could/should be Ghostbusters.
It's rarely a good sign when instead of talking about how excited people are to
see your upcoming movie, they're angrily debating such nonsense.
Ultimately, despite the star power of Kristen Wiig, Melissa McCarthy and Kate McKinnon,
the film closed with $229 million worldwide ($67 million less than "Ghostbusters" 32
years earlier). While many blamed sexism for the movie's failure, another possible culprit
was making a "Ghostbusters" movie without the original Ghostbusters.
"We came, we saw, we kicked its ass!"
Harrison Ford's box office earnings are $5.2 billion domestically and $10 billion worldwide.
One of his many hits was 1993's "The Fugitive," which earned $183 million domestically and $353
million worldwide, finishing third at the year-end box office. While Tommy Lee Jones
won an Oscar for his role as U.S. Marshal Samuel Gerard, it was Ford who put the butts in seats.
So, perhaps "U.S. Marshals," a sequel to "The Fugitive" focused on Gerard,
was doomed from the get-go because it lacked the key ingredient to the original's popularity:
Harrison Ford. The film did add in Wesley Snipes and Robert Downey Jr. but "Marshals"
failed to find an audience, earning $57 million on a $60 million budget in 1998.
While it doesn't seem like Ford should have played the titular fugitive again,
it does seem clear that "U.S. Marshals" probably shouldn't have been made in the first place.
In 1997, Will Smith and Tommy Lee Jones combined their star power with "Men In
Black," which earned $587 million worldwide. And while two "Men In Black" sequels failed to reach
the same pop culture heights, both made a lot of money. "Men In Black 3" actually made more
worldwide (thanks to the benefit of 15 years of inflation and a bigger international market).
In 2019, though, Sony Pictures tried to reboot the franchise without Smith or
Jones, replacing them instead with Chris Hemsworth and Tessa Thompson.
"Men In Black: International" closed with $80 million domestically and $253 million worldwide,
$188 million less than the previous franchise low, "Men In Black II", earned way back in 2002.
Thanks to a modest $110 million budget, "Men In Black: International" probably squeaked by
with a small profit, but the writing was on the wall. No Smith, no Jones, no audience.
"The Fast and The Furious" franchise has been a wild ride — on screen and behind-the-scenes
as well. The franchise went from popular and profitable in the early 2000s to a
billion-dollar blockbuster franchise in the 2010s, all while charting the
character's perfectly natural progression from LA street racers to international super spies.
"The Fast and Furious" franchise does have one black sheep, however: 2006's "The Fast
and The Furious: Tokyo Drift." Where this prequel/sequel/spin-off fits into the overarching
"Furious" timeline is a topic for debate among fans, but this much is clear: It crashed, badly.
On an $85 million budget, "Tokyo Drift" earned only $62 million domestically and $157 million
worldwide. The impetus seems clear: it starred none of the original cast, largely because
stars like Vin Diesel and Paul Walker left and were building their careers elsewhere.
"Drift" nearly killed the franchise — but a closing scene-cameo from Diesel gave hope for
a return. So, Universal got the band back together for 2009's "Fast and Furious",
saving the series and adding billions of dollars to their bank account.
The key takeaway? You can't break up the family.
It's one thing to make a sequel without the original cast — but without the central premise?
It'd be like making a "Jaws" sequel without a shark.
Enter "Halloween III." "Halloween" invented the modern slasher film in 1978, putting a face to the
invisible killer of 1974's "Black Christmas" with a charismatic uber-baddie named Michael Myers.
Perhaps just as critical was Jamie Lee Curtis as scream queen Laurie Strode and
Donald Pleasance as Michael's haunted hunter Sam Loomis. Together, the trio propelled the
original "Halloween" to $70 million worldwide on a $325,000 budget. While the $25 million of
1981's "Halloween II" was a big drop-off, on a $2.5 million budget it did just fine.
But whe series creators John Carpenter and Debra Hill were asked to put together a third film,
they agreed to participate only if the "Halloween" name would
be used as more of an anthology title, with Myers being dropped.
Instead, "Halloween III: Season of the Witch" is about an evil conglomerate that turns kids'
heads into bugs when they wear a mask and watch a TV show. While "Witch" made money
($14 million on a $2.5 million budget in 1982), it was such a departure that the series took
a time out for six years. By 1988, Michael Myers was back, and he has been ever since.
It should be mentioned, however,
that despite "Season of the Witch" underperforming at the box office,
it has gone on to become a creepy cult favorite — in no small part because of its ominous, "London
Bridge is Falling Down"-inspired jingle from the Silver Shamrock Halloween mask commercial.
Despite its B-movie title, Paul Verhoeven's sci-fi satire "RoboCop" earned $53 million
worldwide in 1987, as well as a reputation for being one of the best action movies of the 1980s.
A big reason was the man wearing the robot suit: Peter Weller. Weller came back for "RoboCop
2," which earned $45 million in 1990, but was over the franchise by the third film in 1993.
As it turns out, moviegoers were too. With Robert John Burke stepping into the suit,
"RoboCop 3" bombed with a dreadful $10 million worldwide.
This is despite (or maybe because of) "RoboCop 3" being rated PG-13, not R like the first two,
presumably because the filmmakers wanted to expand the potential audience. So much for that.
While it's unfair to blame the "RoboCop 3" failure on Burke replacing Weller, it's hard to deny that
the drop between the first two films and the third — both in quality and box-office — was gigantic.
"I'd buy that for a dollar!"
"The Terminator" made stars out of filmmaker James Cameron and actor
Arnold Schwarzenegger. "Terminator 2: Judgment Day" made them icons. Hollywood
has been trying to recapture the magic ... again and again and again ... ever since.
"The Terminator" was an out-of-nowhere sleeper hit in 1984, earning $78 million worldwide on
a $6 million budget. "Terminator 2" took a $100 million budget and turned it into a $515 million
blockbuster, beating even Disney's "Beauty & The Beast" to top the year-end box office charts.
In hindsight, maybe the franchise should have thrown in the towel at that.
But there was more money to be made ... if only the studio could figure out how.
After the mild success of 2003's "Rise of the Machines," Warner Brothers tried
to relaunch the franchise without Arnold at all in 2009 for "Terminator Salvation,"
investing a bafflingly high $200 million in the sequel — and the most memorable thing to
come out of it was the controversy over Christian Bale screaming at a crew member during filming.
The movie bombed with $125 million domestic and $365 million worldwide. By 2015's "Terminator:
Genisys" not even Arnold could save the franchise, while "Terminator: Dark Fate" tanked worldwide
despite reuniting Arnold, Linda Hamilton, and producer James Cameron. Hasta la vista, baby.
If peak 1980s Arnold Schwarzenegger battling a 7-foot tall killer alien gets your blood pumping,
well, you're not alone. Moviegoers didn't "get
to da choppa," but they did flock to the theater in 1987 to see "Predator."
On an $18 million budget, "Predator" earned $59 million domestically and $98 million worldwide.
However, rather than become the "Predator" franchise's Lt. Ellen Ripley, Schwarzenegger
opted out of the film's sequel. So who would take his place? Stallone? Van Damme? Gibson?
Nope. Danny Glover.
Look, Glover's a fine actor and was great in the "Lethal Weapon" franchise,
but he wasn't quite a credible replacement for Schwarzenegger. Despite nearly doubling
the original's budget to $35 million, "Predator 2" managed a minuscule $28 million
domestically and $54 million worldwide. Ouch.
Check out one of our newest videos right here! Plus,
even more Looper videos about your favorite movies are coming soon.
Subscribe to our YouTube channel and hit the bell so you don't miss a single one.