Sequel Statistics Chart ~ OR ~ Sequels Suck and We Have the InfoGraphic to Prove it ~ OR ~ Anchorhead was right! Tell your sister... Anchorhead was RIIIIIGGHT! ~ OR ~ Sequals (thx Boost!)

http://boxofficequant.com/sequel-map/

Pretty darn interesting.  Both up close and zoomed all of the way out.  Let's just say that Spinal Tap would like this chart.

I, of course, would rather see it trend all sequels, reboots, etc.. and not just the original and first sequel.  But I realize they would need a new method of infograph to do that.

Also, I think they should have used red/blue and shades of purple to represent the financial deltas between the sequels, as oposed to just the size of the bubble to represent box office of the sequel.

The site has a lot of other cool graphs too.

New thought: does this image prove that most sequels suck?  Or that critics are harsher on sequels?

Or maybe a little of both.

Er... you CAN zoom in.

Dave Nelson said:

As I predicted, we have something of a mutiny on our hands.

Mr. James said:

Oh yeah! You're completely under siege. Just like that guy in that... that movie... What's it called?

Dave Nelson said:

Under Siege?

Mr. James said:

Nope.

Dave Nelson said:

Under Siege 2?

Mr. James said:

Nope.

Dave Nelson said:

Under Siege 3?

Mr. James said:

That's the one!

Lisa Miller said:

Y'know, I don't think they made Under Siege 3.

Mr. James said:

Hey, I can dream, can't I?

Chart is good for inkblot rorschach tests. I see the Loch Ness monster!

1. Click on the chart to look at the raw .png.
1a. If your browser loads the huge pic, and then shrinks it down, clicking on it again will probably zoom it back to 1:1.
1b. If it's now too big, maybe just save it to your desktop, and use an image utility to zoom and pan at will.

So... you all are disappointing me.  No other discussion?

I. Star Trek II is an anomaly.  It's pretty clear why.  Most movies that suck as hard as Star Trek TMP wouldn't get a sequel.  Lucky for STII:TWoK, it's more of a sequel to an excellent TV series than it is to ST:TMP.  So, it's not so much an anomaly among sequels as it is an anomaly among sequel chartmanship, since the charts only consider two movies in what can otherwise be a complicated Intellectual Property.

II. Blade 2?  Really?

III. Airplane gets a 97ish and Airplane 2 gets a 39ish?  Really?  I mean, I like the first one best, but I don't think they're that different in quality.

IV (or IIII if you're a clock). How about Speed/II?  From 90 to 0?

V. How did State Property get a sequel?  The original got a 0 rating, and made very little money.

VI. Is it fair to say that about 80% of the movies are below the line? 

VII. Is it somewhat encouraging to see the biggest bubbles (with a few exceptions) are located at the extreme right of the graph?

VIII. What do you make of the two movie duos to get perfect 100%s?

IX. Who rated Mission: Impossible 2 that highly?

X. I like Ghostbusters 2.

Do I need to watch Blade 2 again?  I thought it sucked when I last saw it, which was in theatres.  I thought Blade 1 was smart and sophisticated (like its main villain?) and that Blade 2 was style over substance.   At least, I think I remember thinking that.  :)

In what ways do you consider Airplane! groundbreaking?

Anchorhead said:

Objection!!  Prosecution is leading the jury.

If it pleases the court;

I own & like all the Indiana Jones films, own & like all but two James Bond films, own & like three Star Trek films, and two Batman films.  Not counting some others I may have forgotten just now, I own & fully approve of at least 27 sequels.

 

*SHOCKED*

That's more shocking than the bit about Planet of the Apes in the other thread.

TV's Frink said:

Moar NewsRadio plz.

You got it, pal!

Matthew Brock said:

Boom! Right in the head, and so he was out, and Agent Zero came down and he uncuffed himself, and, "Dzjoo dzjoo dzjoo dzjoo!" Just, for no reason, he's just, like, shooting lasers around...and, and, and...just going crazy really, uh, kinda like Pacino in Scarface: "Dzoo, dzoo, boom! GARRRRRGGGGHHH!!" We should go see it next weekend, maybe! Well anyways, if, um, 'cause I'd see it twice if you don't mind...well, if you get this message, Bill, call me back. Umm...bye.

Hey, that reminds me of when the ancient Egyptians crash-landed on Earth!

Matthew Brock said:

So you can't make fun of somebody for what they believe in.

Lisa Miller said:

Right.

Beth said:

What if it's something crazy, like the ancient Egyptians were actually Martians who came to Earth looking for water?

Joe Garelli said:

And what exactly is crazy about that?

Bill McNeal said:

Let's see, I'm a Martian, I need water, I'm gonna travel who knows how many thousands of miles...

Lisa Miller interjected:

34.6 million.

Bill McNeal continued:

34.6 million miles to Earth and then land in the middle of a huge desert, makes sense to me.

Joe Garelli said:

It wasn't always a desert. Think about it.

Bingowings said:

ST:TMP...there is no suckage.

The whole conversation with Kirk and Spock about taking command seems to me to be a direct reference to Kirk's bumhurt of Decker in TMP something that wouldn't cross Spock's Vulcan mind.

TMP is much more epic and cinematic than the recent film and is about exploration both inner and outer which makes it more like the series to me than any of the other films.

The story samples a number of the classic episodes but so do some of the other films including TWOK which is more like a really good television movie than a piece of epic cinema.

Yeah, we're just going to have to agree to disagree on that one, buster.

(And for once, I have the movie critics (and an infographic) on my side!)

Anybody else notice that TMP is an anagram of TPM?

Dunn, dunn, dunnnnn...

Only when I wrote it that way earlier today.

It just reminds me of my friend who calls it "TFM" by mistake.  ;)