You’ll see all kinds of familiar titles whenever you go to the movie theater these days. But not necessarily in a good way. Sequels & spin-offs, as well as reboots, are a normal part of the lineup, and it’s mostly because a few viewers enjoy returning to the same worlds. However, many other people feel like the studios are stretching stories longer than they need to. Let’s find out exactly why people are feeling this way.
First off, it’s important to understand why film studios rely on sequels in the first place. Nostalgia does play a part in this, of course, but one of the main reasons is that repeat brands feel financially safer for the studios. It’s actually something researchers have looked into. Media economist Mike Pokorny found that studios increasingly relied on sequels between 1988 & 2015 as a way to reduce uncertainty in ticket sales.
How does that work? Essentially, producing sequels reduces the financial risk for studios because they know that audiences are familiar with the property. The outcomes are easier to predict than a brand-new movie that has no built-in audience. A sequel will come with name recognition & existing fans, so the chances of success are a lot higher.
Another study by David Filson of the University of Colorado Boulder looked into how global film franchises perform when they have more installments, whether prequels or sequels. His work found a clear pattern, beginning with budgets normally increasing with each new installment. Audience & critic ratings tend to decline with each subsequent release. This led to the return on investment (ROI) falling as the franchises grew.
However, while the revenue became more predictable, it was often less impressive than previously. It seems to suggest that having more entries in a franchise can help to bring steadier revenue, but the reception to these entries is usually weaker. It’s one of the main reasons why people complain about franchises being “dragged out.”
In practical terms, it means that studios are able to better forecast their earnings from a well-known brand than from a one-off or experimental film. Sequels may not outperform the original movie. But they’re much less likely to completely fail, and that’s rather important, given that a single film can cost several hundred million dollars.
Take “The Exorcist” franchise as an example. The 2023 movie, “The Exorcist: Believer,” was a revival of the franchise, but the most recent entry currently sits at a 22% critical rating & 57% audience rating on Rotten Tomatoes. It’s quite a big difference from the original 1973 movie. That has a 78% critic score and an 87% audience score on the same platform.
You can also see this with the Jurassic Park franchise. The first film in the series has a 91% critic score on Rotten Tomatoes, but later entries saw declining ratings. The 1997 sequel, “The Lost World: Jurassic Park,” has a 56% rating, and 2001’s “Jurassic Park III” is at 49%. The 2015 reboot, “Jurassic World,” did fare better at 72%, but 2018’s “Jurassic World: Fallen Kingdom” scores 47%. “Jurassic World: Dominion” did even worse at 29%. The most recent entry, 2025’s “Jurassic World: Rebirth,” is only marginally better, with a 50% critical rating and 70% audience score.
Interestingly, this sense of exhaustion in movie franchises is something that researchers have also looked into. A 2024 study by Tobias Einwächter & Pia Jensen looked into an audience’s sense of series fatigue. Their work did focus on serialized TV. However, you can easily apply the same experience to film franchises, especially those where you have to watch several previous entries to understand the newest one.
They documented how audiences feel overwhelmed when long-running screen stories continue expanding, as viewers struggle to keep up with extended narratives & interconnected storylines.
Of course, not every repeat movie fits into the same category. Reboots, for example, work differently from sequels because they don’t necessarily continue the same story. Reboots “reset” the franchise in a way that keeps brand recognition while also creating a new continuity. The difference between the two is important. Some viewers hate endless sequels, while others tend to feel that the reboots come too soon after the original versions.
It’s also not fair to say that every sequel fails or that all audience members hate them. There are a few franchises that continue to see good ROI after releasing a dozen sequels, although these tend to be the exception, not the rule.
So what does all of this mean? What we’re seeing in the movie theater is that studios are continuing to expand their franchises because they give them a sense of familiarity & steadier financial forecasting. At the same time, audience enthusiasm & ratings for each entry drop as the installments pile up. Repetition sells, yes, but it also wears people down.
