8 Reasons Hollywood Will Never Stop Making Sequels

The big difference between modern sequels and the sequels of decades past is that now franchises are no longer a series of single events linked by characters, but part of a bigger narrative. You obviously have the shared universes of comic book franchises, but this has been a mainstream obsession since the turn of the millennium, when The Lord Of The Rings was produced back-to-back and the ten-years-in-the-making Harry Potter endeavour kicked off.

There's a strong storytelling element to this, of course, but you don't have to look far to see why it's financially beneficial also. So much of the pre-production work (especially on a visual side) can be carried over, as can the specific knowledge of the crew, while casting is a much simpler task if the leads are sorted. In fact, on that casting point, this is where having a multi-picture deal really helps - you can lock talent down for much longer on a set rate (the only problem is when that runs out and the likes of Robert Downey, Jr. demand ridiculous amounts).

So while Batman V Superman: Dawn Of Justice was one of the highest grossing movies of all time, some of its costs are spent on laying foundation for future projects and thus the whole thing is a lot more stable; once the franchise ball is rolling, it's much easier to go bigger.

Compare this to standalone blockbusters that are vying to become a franchise - they have to hold back because everything needs to be on-screen in this one movie should things not go to plan. Warcraft and Deadpool are two great recent examples, where financial concerns impacted various creative choices, something that is unlikely to be an issue in the sequels.