A NUMBER after a movie’s title used to be a sure-fire sign to stay away.
“Charlie’s Angels 2”? No thanks. “Rambo 3”? “Rocky 4”?
“Nightmare on Elm Street 5”?
Never.
But these days, sequels aren’t as bad as they used to be. The early reviews of “Spider-Man 2,” which opens tonight, have been overwhelmingly enthusiastic. Most critics, including The Post’s, called it more exciting and emotionally satisfying than the original.
Ditto “Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban,” which won critical raves despite being the third film in the series, and “Shrek 2,” which has set new box-office records.
So how did Hollywood finally find the cure for sequelitis?
Credit the studios, say industry watchers, for finally putting more effort – and cash – into sequels, hoping to turn them into big franchises (think James Bond or Star Wars) with the potential of lots more movies – and profits – for
years to come.
“We want to keep telling these stories as long as we can,” says Avi Arad, CEO of Marvel Comics and a “Spider-Man 2” co-producer.
“But we only can do that if people still want to see them, so we have to make a good film.”
Studios used to just throw a sequel onto the screen as quickly and cheaply as they could, to make the most of the buzz from the original.
“They couldn’t save money on stars, because the original cast costs a lot more when they know you need them,” says Hollywood Reporter on-line columnist Martin Grove.
So instead the studios would skimp on the director, writers and specialeffects crews – with disastrous results.
Witness 1989’s “Friday the 13th VIII: Jason Takes Manhattan” or 1998’s “I Still Know What You Did Last Summer.”
But all the rules changed with 1999’s “Austin Powers 2: The Spy Who Shagged Me,” which grossed $205 million in the U.S., nearly four times as much as 1997’s “Austin Powers: International Man of Mystery.”
“Studios finally realized the money-making possibilities of a franchise character that would go on for movie after movie,” says David Poland, editor of the Movie City News Web site.
Since then, studios have been opening their wallets for sequels to make sure they have the best talent they can find.
“The Lord of the Rings: Return of the King” featured much more ambitious special effects than the first two “Rings” movies – in part because producers knew they had a hit on their hands and spent the extra money to make “King” look good.
Of course, just throwing money at a potential franchise doesn’t mean it will work.
Universal Studios spent more than $160 million on “Van Helsing,” and they were so confident the Hugh Jackman monster movie would become a hit that they left the set up and running, at the cost of $30,000 a month in rent.
But “Van Helsing” opened to mediocre reviews, and has grossed only $116 million so far.
“I don’t think we’ll be seeing any ‘Van Helsing’ sequels,” Poland says.
“And thank goodness.”