No Right Answer: New IP vs Sequel

New IP vs Sequel

Is it better to revisit the comfortable, or strike out and try something new? Do we want Dredd 2 more than we want a new Pixar film? Tough decisions to make today!

Watch Video

I with the new IP wagon. Seriously Hollywoord need to grow a pair and be bold with new IP than to rely on its safety net with its sequels.

Ok sure not all sequel are bad, I just got a problem with sequel for old films.
I mean we got-
Dumb and Dumber 2
Terminator 3 and Genisys
The Thing (ok it's a prequel but still)
Alien Ressurection
Indiana Jones and the Crystal Skulls

I would prefer to just legally do away with the distinction and see what happens.

Is Disney's Beauty and the Beast a "New IP" or the adaptation of a pre-existing story? Actually it's both: it's not based on a pre-existing copyrighted franchise per se, so there is no earlier "IP" that it's based on, but it is derivative too.

"IP" should be the phrase for a specific product's copyright control, instead of applying it to whole "universes" to create legal "franchises".

Just look at anywhere among works that were made outside of franchise controls: among historical classics that were made before copyright law, among the modern adaptations of pre-copyright works, or even among fanfictions (not the average hobbyist ones, obviously, just the ones that are counterparts to pro literature):

It's always the same story. Stop incentivizing franchise control, and while artists may feel free to use a famous premise or setting, they are also much more free to fill it up with creative reimaginations.

Sequels suck. They just expand the creative monopoly of corporations over culture.

New IPs suck. They are just cynical attempts at growing one's own generic new franchise to have that fleeced as well.

Iterative creativity FTW. The best genres always appear where artists are free to interact with any culture, but not particualry incentivized to cultivate a whole franchise as a single ownable "IP".

Wording it as "Dredd 2 more than a new Pixar film" isn't fair. I REALLY REALLY REALLY want Dredd 2 specifically, and I haven't watched a Pixar film in a very long time. Although normally I would take New IP over sequel, especially after 3 or so installments, but Dredd 2 specifically..come on, son.

There are tons of cases for sequels that were amazing (SH2, MGS3, LoZ:MM (imo))
There are many new IPs that bomb out

There are many sequels that suck
There are new IPs that are wonderful, and are likely to lead to franchises of their own.

All of it can be broken down on a case-to-case basis
(Not to say I didn't enjoy the episode because it was one of my favorite)

The one that's actually good.

Seriously, you can have good sequels, bad new IPs and vice-versa, one is not inherently better than the other, it's all apples and oranges and about quality execution at the end of the day.

Video game sequels have something going for them that movie sequels don't: Mechanics. While a movie might get better writing as they understand the characters more, and probably a bump to the special effects budget, with a new video game you are building something totally new that is often rough around the edges. Compare the free-running in Assassin's Creed I to ACII, or the combat in Arkham Asylum to Arkham City; it was a new idea, and pretty good, but a couple more years working with the engine turned "pretty good" into "amazing".

Also, at 5:20, I think Rocky V was the thing you wanted to type.

Interesting premise but if ever there was a debate worth the title 'No Right Answer' it was this one. The only point I would've made in favor of sequels is that new IPs often have to spend so much time worldbuilding that they don't get a chance to explore or develop a narrative as much as the sequels. This doesn't always happen (Crow 2) but I'm comfortable extending this theory to most 'second in the series' movies and games.

However, as the place in the series gets higher so too does the likelihood of lazy writing.

The one that's actually good.

Seriously, you can have good sequels, bad new IPs and vice-versa, one is not inherently better than the other, it's all apples and oranges and about quality execution at the end of the day.

Comparing apples to oranges is our bread and butter! (Now I'm hungry)

In the past, I think videogame sequels are better, as technology advances it alows more freedom to the creative team to fully realize their vision. Look at the first couple of Zelda games and compare that to something like ocarina of time. Or Half-Life 1 (a fantastic game and maybe even my all-time favorite) to Half-Life 2, there were vast improvements from one game to the next and these sequels didn't feel stale or unnecessary at all, in fact they were quite original despite being.sequels. But these sort of "quantum leaps" have slowed down remarkably of late. The graphics of course have continued to improve and overall fidelity of ai and other simulations are also steadily improving but what was the last game that completely blew you away because they had achieved something unheard of, unimagined, or previously thought impossible?

Well... I liked the Star Wars prequels...
I don't understand what people have agains Jar Jar Binks or medichlorians, but I guess I wasn't born yet when the original trilogy came out.

Rex Dark:
Well... I liked the Star Wars prequels...
I don't understand what people have agains Jar Jar Binks or medichlorians, but I guess I wasn't born yet when the original trilogy came out.

Jar Jar is awful. He sounds awful, he looks awful and everything about him and his stupid planet pisses me off. It might seem a bit silly to say that when you consider the bears of SW6...but even as awful and cutesy they were...they were miles better than Jar Jar & Co.

What really ticks me off about the prequel trilogy though is Hayden C. He has to be the WORST actor in the world. I dont think I can name ONE other actor that not only is bland and a terrible actor, but I actually grow annoyed when looking at him. And the annoyance just grows into anger by the minute. And to have him portray one of the most iconic villains of all a failure of cosmic proportions.

I enjoy a good sequel. And when a sequel is about something I like, I'll most likely watch it, but as a consumer...I learn, if somewhat slowly. I loved the first Transformers. I loved the second (if we can subtract the homiebots, they come in right after Hayden C. on my annoyance scale). The 3rd...oh lawd. Mark Wahlberg made me see T4, and even if it was several notches up from anyone but the was still dumb.

What bothers me most about sequels is that they are SO often just wasted potential. Its like I can actually hear the suits go "That movie was a success. Hurry, spin a sequel so we can capitalize!"

And instead they could go "That movie was a success. Lets try to analyze it a bit and find out WHY it was a success, BUILD on that, and give the audience more of the same, just better. And then....they will come back for thirds, and even fourths! :O " How hard can it be?

I dont think sequels are a big problem, at some point they kill themselves off and we get new IPs either way, but bad sequels....that IS a problem.

mmmm I love Dead Space 1 and I love Uncharted 2
Can I have both?

It's kind of hard to see where they are going with this argument. Lots of new IPs have Bombed, but so have lots of sequels. The issue should be more of when is each appropriate.

For example this is much more common in games but when sequels jump Genre. Dead Space 3 followed Resident Evil in jumping from Survival Horror to action game. C&C 4 jumped from Real Time Strategy to Real Time Tactical. There are plenty of other examples as well. Some games genre hop pissed people off while others like the change because different people have tendencies to prefer one genre over another to begin with.

Genre hop is often done because the developers are trying to appeal to a "wider audience" or like in the case of C&C4 by developers who want to be working on a different genre so their influence pushes the game in that direction. However Genre hopping is also done as a platform to launch a new IP under an existing IP's name to boost sales. Take for example the FPS X-COM and the huge backlash it got by fans of the original Tactical combat game. When sequels are made as a simple cash grab or as a disguise to launch a new IP it is often viewed highly negative.

New IPs on the other hand have to sink or swim based on their own merits. Which also requires first lots of marketing to educate potential consumers that this new thing exist and why it might be something they would like. This can be a real challenge and is often why companies in both games and movies choose to make a sequel. Simply mention that a sequel is coming and fans of the original will start spreading the word on their own which greatly reduces the need for marketing.

Sequels are best when they expand or improve upon existing material, lore, and in the case of games the mechanics. The only time I really tend to see these type of debates come up with when they are either trying to expand on a story which had a great conclusion and thus adding more diminishes the work, aka "Less is more", which is often done as a cash grab. Or when they are using it as a pretense to launch what should be it's own IP but the idea is not strong enough to stand on it's own, which is often a dead giveaway that it's going to be bad.


"IP" should be the phrase for a specific product's copyright control, instead of applying it to whole "universes" to create legal "franchises".

but how else can people that do nothing but sign paperwork hold onto entire clusters of our culture and punish everyone that tries to experience it! dont you know what culture is evil as we keep making laws than ban it.

Sequels all the way.

In general:
- Sequels expand on concepts and iterate on mechanics to ideally improve them over time.

- Sequels bring us back to a world and allow for more depth to the story telling. You no longer need the audience proxy character who is learning all the most basic aspects of this world for the first time.

- Terminology and accessibility has been established. I don't need to re-learn what term this game opted to use for it's currency, it's health potion, it's elemental attacks, it's factions, etc.

- As a consumer, you immediately have a good idea of what type of game you're getting into and if you might enjoy it. You know the type of experience you'll be getting in a Mario or Zelda game.

- Sequels can evolve and offer unique experiences gradually over time. This effectively emulates what a new IP would try to accomplish anyways. Look at Resdident Evil 3 vs RE4. Look at the evolution of EA Sports games over the past 20 years. Compare Diablo 1 vs D2 vs D3 as each experience is unique to the other yet familiar. The Dragon Age franchise was much the same way.

All that said, this argument is clearly absurd since the answer is obviously both. Very few people would be truly happy with completely eliminating all new IP or all sequels forever. There's benefits to both especially in gaming.

Movies have proven to be a little different in that you could probably eliminate sequels and not a whole lot would change. Instead of 10+ Friday the 13th's you'd have 10+ slasher flicks starring a bladed murderer. Many of these movies would be forgotten while others would stand out.

Personal Note: The vast majority of the games I love stem from sequels so I can't help but be biased.


Reply to Thread

Posting on this forum is disabled.