Orbi Camp
  • Communities
  • Create Post
  • Create Community
  • heart
    Support Lemmy
  • search
    Search
  • Login
  • Sign Up
TheImpressiveX@piefed.socialM to movies@piefed.socialEnglish · 2 months ago

New image from "Jumanji 3"

i.postimg.cc

message-square
38
fedilink
54

New image from "Jumanji 3"

i.postimg.cc

TheImpressiveX@piefed.socialM to movies@piefed.socialEnglish · 2 months ago
message-square
38
fedilink
  • djsoren19@lemmy.blahaj.zone
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    10
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    2 months ago

    No, because they’ve been doing them since before I was born. Are you over 60 years old? because if not, they’ve been doing them since before you were born too.

    • Onomatopoeia@lemmy.cafe
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      arrow-down
      5
      ·
      edit-2
      2 months ago

      Not like today, by a long shot.

      I’d say today’s trend began in the 90’s and has exploded since.

      Edit: Some sources

      The proportion of top-grossing films that are sequels roughly doubled in the 2000s / 2010s compared with the 1990s

      Sequels and Remakes in Hollywood, 1991 to 2010

      Letter: Sequels and franchises, still the film business holy grail

      • djsoren19@lemmy.blahaj.zone
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        2 months ago

        I’ll agree that there are more sequels now because studios are even more adverse to new ideas than before, but let’s not pretend shit like the slasher franchises of the 80s aren’t examples of needless sequels becoming the trend. Studios have been on the search for money since Hollywood became a cultural force. Hell, look up some of the beach party franchises of the 60s, do you think any of those sequels were necessary?

        • Onomatopoeia@lemmy.cafe
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          4
          ·
          2 months ago

          And yet, the numbers still show rhere are far more today.

          The movies you bring up were the few sequel-based things out there, and were the exception.

          • Honytawk@feddit.nl
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            2 months ago

            So what if they were the exception? That shit has been going on since at least the 1960.

            There are a total of 25 James Bonds, there was basically a new one every year in 1960.

movies@piefed.social

movies@piefed.social

Subscribe from Remote Instance

Create a post
You are not logged in. However you can subscribe from another Fediverse account, for example Lemmy or Mastodon. To do this, paste the following into the search field of your instance: [email protected]

A community about movies and cinema.

Related communities:

  • [email protected]
  • [email protected]
  • [email protected]
  • [email protected]

Rules

  1. Be civil
  2. No discrimination or prejudice of any kind
  3. Do not spam
  4. Stay on topic
  5. These rules will evolve as this community grows

No posts or comments will be removed without an explanation from mods.

Visibility: Public
globe

This community can be federated to other instances and be posted/commented in by their users.

  • 219 users / day
  • 1.28K users / week
  • 3.36K users / month
  • 7.96K users / 6 months
  • 1 local subscriber
  • 2.4K subscribers
  • 1.51K Posts
  • 10.5K Comments
  • Modlog
  • mods:
  • atomicpoet@piefed.social
  • BoozeOrWater@piefed.social
  • TheImpressiveX@piefed.social
  • BE: 0.19.8
  • Modlog
  • Instances
  • Docs
  • Code
  • join-lemmy.org