Why Do Some Sequels of Top-Rated Movies Flop While Others Succeed?
- Basia Panko
- 6 days ago
- 5 min read
On hearing the news that Zootopia 2 would be released this year, I jumped out of my seat with excitement at the thought of seeing a sequel to one of my favorite childhood movies. I could already picture Judy Hopps and Nick Wilde back for part two, following the dynamic duo’s adventures and enjoying more of their witty banter in the vibrant, scary, and sometimes unpredictable city of Zootopia. The memories of laughing at the scene of the slow-working sloths at the DMV (Department of Mammal Vehicles) and gripping my seat when Manchas was the first to turn savage after being darted with a psychotropic Night howler flower serum, rushed back and heightened my anticipation for the sequel. Yet, as the excitement settled, I started to wonder if any sequel could match the perfection of the original and whether producers should have left Zootopia (2016) as a standalone. While sequels to our favorite films can risk diminishing the original’s impact, they also have the potential to deepen their messages in ways that make them even more compelling.
This tension made me curious about why producers keep churning out sequels to top-rated movies like Zootopia—think the four Toy Story movies and upcoming fifth; Shrek 1, 2, The Third, and Forever After; Finding Nemo and Finding Dory, Inside Out 1 and 2, or Sing and its sequel. One possible explanation is the success that comes with capitalizing on nostalgia. Films people watch as children tend to stay with them, and sequels offer people the chance to revisit these impactful movies alongside their own children. In this way, sequels connect generations, letting parents and kids share the excitement of seeing familiar characters in new stories. While not every classic film parents show their children receives a follow-up, those that do can bridge age gaps and keep iconic moments in cinematography alive in the imagination of many generations.
Another explanation is the economic motivations. Producers are eager to profit from the success of their first film even when they lack a strong idea for a sequel. They know audiences who loved the original, or are simply curious about where the story might go next, will buy tickets. The film can generate a short burst of income even if the film doesn’t earn high ratings on RottenTomatoes or become a lasting classic. For example, the built-in fanbase of Zootopia lovers like me creates much lower risk for producers. From a business perspective, it makes sense: new concepts are riskier. This logic mirrors patterns in economics, where many investors prefer to ride the wave of successful stocks rather than gamble on a start-up that could go bankrupt overnight. In the end, Hollywood is also a money-making scheme, so the structure looks similar: why gamble on something that’s never been tested when you can rely on a proven formula?
A third factor, though, is what might be called willful ignorance. Executives sometimes don’t put the effort into understanding what truly made the original a hit. Often, a classic film resonates with audiences not just because of its plot, but because of the particular cultural moment in which it was released. Yet, the nostalgia cycle keeps it a hit even as cultural moments change. Trying to recreate that original success by recycling the brand, while changing the form, plot, and sometimes even the main characters, often falls flat. What makes it ironic is that studios assume old ideas are safe, yet they misunderstand why those ideas worked in the first place. It’s a kind of Dunning–Kruger effect, a cognitive bias in which people overestimate their understanding of a subject, as studios overestimate their understanding of what made the original film a success while underestimating the potential of new, original concepts.
While sequels are often judged poorly against the originals, there are some acclaimed exceptions such as The Godfather Part II (1974), Star Wars: The Empire Strikes Back (1980), Toy Story 2 (1999), or even Paddington 2 (2017). But what makes these sequels successful? Consider the recent case study of Top Gun: Maverick (2022), which earned more than $1.49 billion worldwide, became the highest-grossing release of 2022, and was at the time the 13th highest-grossing film of all time. Few expected much from a sequel released so many years after the original, which made its success all the more surprising. The movie’s success can be attributed to its ability to evoke nostalgia without relying on it too heavily and embracing new filming technology. Through advanced aerial cinematography and IMAX-certified Sony Venice 6K cameras small enough for in-cockpit filming, the film achieved realism with minimal CGI, making for an immersive viewing experience. Equally important were the casting choices: keeping Tom Cruise in his main role as Pete "Maverick" Mitchell while introducing recent stars such as Glen Powell and Miles Teller. The combination of new filming technology and nostalgic elements broadened the appeal for both younger and older audiences.
What about a less successful sequel? Jaws 2 (1978). While it grossed $208 million against a budget of $20 to $30 million, it received a largely negative reception due to its lack of original plot and unfinished script. Because financial incentives appeared to be the main motivators for the sequel, Jaws’ original director Steven Spielberg had no interest in directing it. However, not every unsuccessful sequel stems from greed or profit motives; sometimes, creative burnout, a rushed production schedule, or even unrealistic audience expectations can also lead to failure. In the case of Jaws 2, though, the focus on replicating the success of the original without having its own unique value left audiences with an unsatisfying feeling once they came out of the theater.
Sequels tend to fall short of the originals that inspired them, both creatively and in terms of financial success. Not only are sequels less popular, but they also risk viewers rethinking or questioning the strength of the original movie. A poorly-executed rushed sequel can undo the work of the original and taint its name, leaving audiences disappointed and making them question the depth or charm of the original. When a sequel doesn’t capture the same innovation or warmth of the first and instead recycles old themes, it can feel like a betrayal of the original story and artistry. Even if the sequel is just as ambitious as the original, like in the case of The Matrix Reloaded (2003), if the impact is diluted, it divides the fanbase and questions the unanimous appeal of a fan favorite movie.
The differences in the reception of the two sequels highlighted above show that when sequels are driven by innovation in the storyline, they can achieve success. When motivated solely by money, however, audiences can quickly sense the absence of genuine artistic intent and depth. While nostalgia can be a powerful force to draw the fanbase to theatres, as it reminds audiences of their childhood and connects generations, it should inspire creativity rather than serving as a means for easy profit.Producers creating sequels like Zootopia 2 should be driven by artistic vision over easy profits. While financial stability matters in Hollywood, true art, like any field, requires risk, which is why the industry should take chances on stories that may not appeal to everyone but can still push boundaries and contribute to Hollywood in new ways. Our favorite movies succeeded because they took risks and addressed bold and sometimes controversial messages. So the next time you go to the theater, rather than leaving disappointed that the sequel to a childhood favorite failed to live up to your expectations, consider supporting an independent film with little publicity, and see where it leads you!
Basia Panko is a freshman in the SFS from New York City. She is planning on majoring in International Economics with a minor in Chinese. Her Duolingo streak is more than five years!