By Evan Zhang ‘26

As a screen nerd, I make it my business to keep track of the latest updates in film and television culture. Oftentimes, I get excited to see news of upcoming movies from popular studios and can’t wait to check them out. However, a trend has emerged in recent years that casts a dangerous shadow over the future of entertainment.

This phenomenon is what I refer to as the “sequel epidemic,” a concerning increase in unoriginal content that has plagued Hollywood as of late—primarily in the form of direct sequels, but also via prequels, reboots, adaptations, live-action remakes, and spin-offs.

Exhibit A: Walt Disney Studios. At Disney’s latest D23 convention, the corporation released information about its 2024-2027 roster, which contained a few original proposals such as Hoppers and Elio, but for the most part, consisted of a long list of titles ending in numbers. For reference, Frozen 3, Incredibles 3, Zootopia 2, Tron: Ares, Freakier Friday, and the abomination that is Toy Story 5 were only some of the many instances of sequel-mania slated for the coming years.

Disney, though, is not the only prominent studio infected by the epidemic. Sony and Universal Pictures have caught the contagion too. While Sony Pictures’ upcoming list of releases is not as egregious as the former’s, the company still plans on extending a number of its major franchises: Karate Kid: Legends, 28 Years Later, and Jumanji 3 being prime examples.

Similarly, Universal is kicking off this summer with a sequel to the hit horror movie M3GAN, and films such as Nobody 2, Five Nights at Freddy’s 2, and the live-action How to Train Your Dragon are expected to follow later this year. If you think that’s unnecessary, take a look at what’s in store for 2026. And don’t even get me started on Shrek 5.

While I may look forward to several of these movies, Spider-Man: Beyond the Spider-Verse and Minions 3 included, it is saddening to see them accrue at this level. Indeed, studios like Disney appear to be producing more sequels than original media.

So what could be the reason behind this sequel infestation—why do studios seem to value them over new ideas?

The proof, as it turns out, is in the payment. According to Associate Professor Steve Granelli from Northeastern University, sequels are guaranteed to appeal to their existing fanbase, an advantage that they have over original filmography. Therefore, the counterargument could be made that they are an excellent way for production companies to make bank.

Certainly, on the surface, sequels appear to be huge hits at the box office. Of the Wikipedia top 20 highest-grossing movies of all time, without adjusting for inflation, only a mere eight are not direct sequels.

Nevertheless, despite what studios may think, money is not the best motivator. Alex Bass, a former Data Scientist at Meta, conducted an analytical study on roughly 1200 movie-sequel pairs. Utilizing data from IMDb and the Movie Database (TMDB), Bass weighed the financial success, budget, and reception of various original films as opposed to their first sequel.

Contrary to popular belief, many sequels actually break even and are not particularly profitable. On the other hand, original films generally do better than their follow-ups.

Even when they do earn revenue, they tend to perform similarly in comparison to the movie before them. Additionally, figures suggest that the more time has elapsed, the worse a sequel will do. Interestingly, studios appear to trust in their sequel’s success more, with most receiving higher budgets than their predecessors.

While the spotlight has fallen on these films’ fiscal performance, what about their ability to meet and surpass audience expectations? Rather than cash cows, are they people pleasers? Unsurprisingly, the answer is a resounding “no.”

*A chart created by Alex Bass, depicting IMDb scores for original films versus their first sequels.*
*Courtesy of* *Alex Bass*

In terms of audience reception, sequels are often rated lower than original movies. In fact, the median IMDb rating of a sequel is 0.8 points lower than the median rating of the original. Mirroring this finding, the popularity scores of originals on TMDB, on average, exceed that of their sequels.

As observed by the Editor-in-Chief of the Stuyvesant Spectator, Morris Raskin, a likely reason is that sequels take less time to craft and are typically profit-driven as opposed to plot-driven. The tight time period in which they are made comes at the cost of their writing, planning, and editing. Moreover, they generally lack originality, becoming carbon copies of the first movie.

In order to gauge how the Catlin Gabel School (CGS) community felt about the sequel epidemic and the general quality of unoriginal media, I conducted a survey of 60 students; 50 responded, resulting in a response rate of 83.3%, which is above the minimum necessary to collect reliable data. Even so, some participants, upon denial or failure to respond, were replaced, which could cause a possible bias.

My two questions were designed to measure how student viewers’ interest in films differed from the original movie to the sequel. When asked to select from the below collection of films which ones they enjoyed seeing, participants’ answers were highly enthusiastic—only one individual chose the “None” option. Notable fan favorites were Frozen with 70% choosing it, the animated How to Train Your Dragon with 74%, and Despicable Me with a remarkable 84%.

*The first bar graph represents past movies that respondents enjoyed watching.*
*Courtesy of* *Google Forms*

Interestingly enough, this excitement varied extremely with each of these movies’ direct sequels, spin-offs, or live-action adaptations.

When students were prompted to choose from an identical list in the same order, only this time with the previous films’ upcoming sequels, their selections dropped by up to half the original percentage. In the cases of How to Train Your Dragon and Toy Story, the differences in percentage points were as large as 38% and 40%. A higher 12% of responders said they were not excited to see any of the 13 movies.

*The second bar graph represents upcoming movies that respondents were excited to watch.*
*Courtesy of* *Google Forms*

Next up, I had CGS students rate their agreement with the statement that sequels, remakes, and spin-offs were typically worse than their predecessors. Unlike the last time I asked this type of question on a survey, participants were quick to align themselves with my opinion. Thankfully, an outstanding 84% of all responses either agreed or strongly agreed with this idea.

*The chart shows respondents’ rankings of their agreement with the above statement.*
*Courtesy of* *Google Forms*

For many of these students, the main issue with sequels was, like Raskin cited, an inability of writers to craft a genuine plot. In the words of sophomore Nate Lydem, “most sequels will have to manufacture a new conflict, which…undercuts the original story.” A junior, who wished to remain anonymous, seemed to share these sentiments, adding that “it’s tricky to come up with a new storyline…when so much of the world is already familiar to viewers.”

Adding on to the theme of uncreativity, others expressed frustration with the predictability of sequels when it came to changing up the original arc. Senior Elise Kim observed that “sequels usually follow the same themes,” delving deeper into a character’s family or exploring a romantic plotline.

Furthermore, multiple participants picked up on the underlying intentions behind studios’ decisions to greenlight these films. “More often than not, the remakes are just trying to make more money,” put senior Sana Shah bluntly. As junior Ari Wilda shared, “Sequels suck the artistic life out of a work. The original critique, messaging, and meaning is destroyed as the motives change.”

In total, only eight people ranked themselves as disagreeing with or neutral on the statement. Among this group, the most common defense to be made was for sequels’ entertainment value, which was a definite plus for some. “If done well, the sequels can be amazing or even better than the original,” argued Eliza Frank, a freshman.

Alas, the problem is just that…sequels are almost never done well, and the multitude that are developed poorly, cheaply, and hastily severely overshadow the rare gems. Judging by the ratings comparison from Alex Bass’ study, the quality of movies drops significantly from the first to the second.

Another justification for sequel production is the affection that audiences have for pre-existing characters. On that note, junior Priya Klein stated, “I think there's some real merit in nostalgia” and the benefits of expanding a developed universe “outweighs my disdain of uncreative ideas.”

Regardless, it is better to leave a beloved story untouched, rather than to run the risk of ruining it. Inside Out 2, Toy Story 4, and Ant-Man and the Wasp: Quantumania are evidence in favor of this opinion, each of which ended their respective series’ on a swing and a miss. In the same vein, Professor Granelli mentioned how bad reboots forget to “bring in what people loved about the original series,” a logic that can be applied to sequels as well.

Proven both by statistics, professional input, and popular decision, sequels (and other unoriginal content of the same cloth) are no more than cheap knockoffs designed to turn a profit at the expense of audience enjoyment. Tragically, they even fail at this objective, given that they do not stand out in terms of box office numbers when placed next to their associated original movies.

Yet there is still hope!

I requested in a final optional question for survey participants to outline what made some sequels as good or better than the first film. As freshman Andrew Cole explained, “if they introduce good, new plots that feel full and separate from the first movie” or wrap up an unfinished storyline, a follow-up can have potential.

Also, several people mentioned that book series adaptations tended to bode well with them—while not entirely original, at least these franchises are made with love instead of pure profit in mind.
At its core, the common message I gained from my research was clear: sequels are awful, but they don’t have to be. With the right intent and approach, they can be more showstopping than the previous installments. To quote Shrek, a franchise with one of the greater sequels of all time, the good ones are like onions…they have layers!

OPINION: Sequels suck, and here’s why