Oh hey. The TASM Facebook page just announced a “just announced” announcement…

Marc Webb and Andrew Garfield set for sequel.

Not really sent into a suddenly state of shock and excitement… because like… um… duh.

BUT STILL AWESOME!!!

Granted, most sequels until these last ten years were always home release. But ever since the Shrek films this put out a message that if you give it effort and keep writing a theater worthy script to a big enough already existing franchise the seats will fill.

So we closed on four Shrek films (plus one spin off) in the span of ten years.

Shrek (2001):                        $   484,409,218 | 3,715 theaters
Shrek Forever After (2010):   $   752,600,867 | 4,386 theaters 
Puss in Boots (2011):            $   554,709,226 | 3,963 theaters

That’s one company making that much money in worldwide ticket sales over the span of ten years, putting out five films relaying on the same brand name. Now the sequel to Shrek made somewhere in the $9millions, doubling the gross of the first film. It came out only three years later (just enough time to get it made) and was clearly welcomed. But two movies later the final chapter couldn’t even go out with a big bang! It made didn’t even double the gross of the first film. And getting people to see the spin off? hardly benched what Shrek got ten years ago. No one cared anymore. And yet DreamWorks unabashedly keeps turning out sequels. The Madagascar Films weren’t even close to this well received, sales being between $3-5 mill, three films each 3-4 years apart.

Toy Story (1995):                  $   361,958,736 | 2,574 theaters
Toy Story 3 (2010):               $1,063,171,911 | 4,028 theaters

Dayum Pixar.

People were pumped for this, ten years after the sequel, fifteen years after the original. Well received is an understatement.

Did DreamWorks make more money off of Shrek than Pixar did with Toy Story (ticket sales)? Absolutely. But just look at how interest flat lines for Shrek and Toy Story has never been more popular. I more kids with the brand all over them than I ever did when I was a kid.

Ice Age (2002):                     $383,257,136 | 3,345
Ice Age: CD (2012):              $419,312,845 | 3,881 … IN A WEEK

 This is Sony/Blue Sky’s fourth installment within ten years. Clearly they’re already making back their budget if this is what they’ve grossed so far after opening just six days ago. But do you think it’ll double and make more than Dawn of the Dinosaurs? Which is why Ice Age is an interesting case, seeing as the first sequel just about doubled from the original but the third film was the peek. Was it because of the Dino factor?

The Cars sequel came out only five years after it’s original, like Toy Story 2. It only beat it’s original’s release by about a million dollars. Not quite a billion dollars, huh Pixar?

I’d like to see how Despicable Me 2’s numbers jump next year… How to Train Your Dragon 2 the next year as well as Monster’s University. Despicable Me 2 is being pushed out like you wouldn’t believe, HTTYD is off to a slow start but will in time become the Lilo and Stitch of DreamWorks, and Monster’s University is twelve years after it’s first installment.

Then I can really say if this is true: Get that major hit and let it marinate for ten is almost like free hype and viral marketing all on it’s own and people will still buy the tickets just as much if not more than forcing out a sequel every three years and make five within ten years. People will be less exhausted by your brand and far more excited to see what you’ve created after all this time. …And so far I think it’s already shown that they turn out much much better this way. (Continental Drift is my newest nightmare, so much regret.)

Who’s excited to see what they’ll do with Finding Nemo 2?