Is it time to retire the 'fourquel'?

Article by: STEVEN ZEITCHIK , Los Angeles Times
Updated: August 20, 2012 - 3:57 PM

"The Bourne Legacy" is among the films that tell us that yes, that might be a good idea.

hide

Jeremy Renner as Aaron Cross in "The Bourne Legacy."

Photo: Mary Cybulski, Universal Pictures

Camera Star Tribune photo galleries

Camera view larger

0
comments
resize text
print
buy reprints

Tweet
share

email
Email share

your name

your email

recipients email

+ add a comment add a comment

We're now deep into the trend of the "fourquel" -- you know, when Hollywood decides that three movies in a series aren't enough and opts for a fourth, usually a number of years later, sometimes in different form.

The latest such franchise extension is "The Bourne Legacy." Like nearly every other of its kind, it performed worse than its immediate predecessor.

Jeremy Renner's "Bourne" took in $40.3 million its opening weekend, respectable enough but lagging well behind the opening for the third film, Matt Damon's "The Bourne Ultimatum" from 2007 ($76 million when adjusted for inflation).

But "Bourne" studio Universal shouldn't feel too bad. The fourth movie in nearly every Hollywood franchise has performed worse than the third.

Sometimes that dropoff is a nosedive ("Scream 4," down from $118 million for the previous film to $38 million). Sometimes it's a small slippage ("Live Free or Die Hard," down from $150 million to $134 million).

And sometimes it's somewhere in-between ("Pirates of the Caribbean: On Stranger Tides," $361 million to $241 million, or $1.07 billion to $1.04 billion worldwide).

Those three were basically straight sequels. Attempts to wipe the slate clean or go off in a new direction don't fare much better -- consider "Bourne," or the recent "Amazing Spider-Man" ($372 million to $255 million, or $986 million to $690 million).

Backers of these fourth movies will point out that fourquels are sometimes conceived at lower budgets. That's true sometimes (though not frequently). And in any event, it disguises the larger point -- we're usually pretty tired of these movies by the time a fourth one rolls around.

The argument against the fourquel has been that it runs a character or mythology into the ground, and even can cast a pall over what came before. But you need not be a purist to question them; the economics are shaky, too. Making a fourquel means you're guaranteed to be leaning heavily on a franchise that's steadily bleeding off fans.

Something for studios to keep in mind as they contemplate the inevitable fivequel.