avatar bloodshot deadpool_2 scuicide_squad spiderman_coming_soon casino_royale fast-and-furious godzilla harry_potter ice_age IT_2 star_wars black_panther

From the silent films of the late 19th century to today’s billion-dollar franchises, cinema has evolved into a rich tapestry of stories, characters, and sagas. At OnceUponATimeInData, we invite you on a journey through time, spanning from 1880 to 2024, where every graph, statistic, and visualization tells a chapter in the grand narrative of the movie industry. We will try to find the different motivation and trends that makes the movie industry produce non-original stories.

From the silent films of the late 19th century to today’s billion-dollar franchises, the evolution of cinema is like stepping into a time machine. “Did they really make movies in the 1800s?” my little brother asked. “Yep,” I replied, “and now we’re diving into everything that’s changed since then, from simple stories to massive sagas.”

At OnceUponATimeInData, we’re taking you on a journey through the history of cinema, from 1880 to 2024, using graphs and statistics to uncover the trends that shaped the movie industry. “So, why are there so many sequels and remakes now?” he asked curiously. “Good question !” I said. “That’s exactly what we’re exploring, why the industry keeps going back to non-original stories.”

In this blog, we’ve combined insights from the CMU Movie Summary Corpus with data from TMDB (see how we preprocess data on the dedicated page). Together, we’re examining how classics inspired modern remakes, how books and comics were brought to life on screen, and how sequels continuously drew audiences back into beloved worlds. “Wow, like Harry Potter and Marvel?” he added. “Exactly! It’s about finding out what makes these stories work.”

Every chart here is a step into the narrative of the movie industry, revealing not just the numbers but the motivations and decisions behind them. From the rise of sequels to the enduring appeal of remakes, we’re uncovering over a century of cinematic storytelling. “Are we ready to start this journey?” I asked. “Let’s go!” he said excitedly.

The phenomenon of non-original movies

More and more movies

When we look at the current landscape of current movie releases, we see that a majority of well-known movies are not original. This trend has been accelerating over the years. Different motivations drive the production of non-original movies. Where historically, books where the main source of inspiration, we see that comic adaptations are becoming more popular, especially in the last 20 years.

Note that the dataset is not the same before 2010 and after. We will be careful when analysing the data, in particular when analysing the evolution between before 2010 and after. In absolute value, we are not losing the data from the CMU dataset for movies after 2010, but we are losing about half of the TMDB dataset if CMU was updated until 2023. However, most of the movies lost seem to are old movies, so the effect is not as strong as losing half of the movies after 2010.

In the following graph, we plotted the number of movies, sequels, book adaptations, comic adaptations, and remakes released each year. We see that there is an increase in the number of movies released each year.

Choose a category to see how it evolves over years.

However, the number of sequels, book adaptations, comic adaptations, and remakes has been increasing at a faster rate. It is interessant to see the different trends in the number of movies released. Book adaptation have seen a linear rise since the early 20th century. This is probably due to the will of filmmakers to adapt well-known stories to the screen, make it their own, and bring it to a new audience. We could also see it as a form of legitimization of a rising movie industry.

Sequels however, have seen their rise in the 70s, with the rise of the blockbuster. Movies like Star Wars, Jaws, and Indiana Jones have shown that sequels can be as successful as the original and are the beginning of franchise movies that are still popular today. Comic adaptations have seen a rise in the 2000s, the trend that was starting in the CMU dataset has been confirmed in the TMDB dataset after 2010.

Non-original movies are accelerating

The number of movie releases has been increasing over the years, so the trend seen is not that surprising. That would be fairly correct for the case of book adaptations. Indeed, they remain at a fairly constant rate before the 2000s. Sequels also seem to have had its peak in ratio around the 80s. However, keeping only the CMU dataset would make you miss the main rise in comic adaptations and remakes, as well as the resurgence of sequels in the 2000s. The TMDB dataset shows that the trend of all non-original movies is accelerating. This is worrying, as it could mean that the movie industry is playing it safe and is using the same stories over and over again. Studios have indeed been more and more reticent to take risks, placing their bets on established franchises and familiar stories to ensure box office success.

When my little brother and I looked at the number of non-original movies being released, the graph didn’t seem all that surprising. Sure, the absolute number of sequels, adaptations, and remakes is rising, but in terms of percentage? It’s still just a small slice of the total films released each year. So far, not too worrying.

But then we turned to the box office revenue, and that’s where things got interesting. My brother and I couldn’t help but notice how dramatically non-original movies, particularly sequels, have grown in financial success over the years. Starting in the 1980s, when big blockbuster franchises were just taking off, the box office revenue of sequels began climbing sharply. By the 2000s, these movies were contributing a huge portion of total box office earnings, consistently outperforming other non-original categories like book adaptations, comic adaptations, and remakes. “Look ! That’s why we all know about superhero movies and Harry Potter.” He wasn’t wrong. Book adaptations have had a steady influence on the box office for decades, with a noticeable peak in the early 2000s, thanks to major literary franchises like Harry Potter and The Lord of the Rings. “And don’t forget the Avengers,” he added excitedly. Comic adaptations are a more recent phenomenon, showing a sharp surge after 2000, propelled by the explosion of superhero blockbusters. As for remakes, well, they’ve had their moments, but they’ve generally played a smaller, more stable role in the industry. “Guess remakes aren’t as cool,” my brother quipped.

What we both found fascinating was the cumulative box office revenue of all non-original movies combined. The graph revealed an unmistakable trend: as sequels rose to dominance, they pulled up the entire category of non-original films with them. By 2020, these movies represented a significant share of total box office revenue. “Wow, studios must really love sequels,” my brother said. He’s right, of course. The data shows that reusing and extending existing intellectual properties isn’t just a trend, it’s a cornerstone of the industry.

The average revenue per movie tells another compelling story. Sequels consistently earn more on average than any other type of non-original film, reflecting their reliability as financial assets. Book adaptations, with their peaks driven by beloved franchises, also perform well, while comic adaptations have shown a sharp rise, aligning with their global popularity in recent years. Remakes, on the other hand, often struggle to achieve the same level of success, suggesting that they come with higher financial risks.

My brother summed it up best: “It’s all about giving people what they already love.” He’s onto something. The rise of sequels and adaptations tells us a lot about the film industry: familiarity sells, and franchises with built-in fan bases offer a safer bet for studios. While original films still have their place, they’re no longer the driving force of box office success. For better or worse, the age of non-original movies is here to stay.

In conclusion, the data reveals a fascinating trend: while the number of non-original movies is increasing, their financial success is growing at an even faster rate. Book have always been a stable source of revenue, while comic adaptations have seen a sharp rise in the 2000s. Sequels, however, have become the dominant force in the industry, consistently outperforming other non-original categories.

Do sequels live up to the hype ?

Who knew that Bambi has sequels? Maybe my little brother… but if we don’t know it, it’s probably due to the lackluster success of the collection. The first movie significantly outshines its sequels. Bambi’s original release achieved a staggering $5 billion in box office revenue, while its sequels grossed only around $50 million, highlighting the rare case of a classic film that remains iconic, with its sequels barely remembered by most audiences.

But one thing is clear: my little brother and I both know the legendary spy and the fascinating young wizard with the lightning scar on his forehead. Unlike Bambi, mega-franchises like James Bond and Harry Potter tell a completely different story. The James Bond series boasts an incredible $17.2 billion total, with sequels consistently delivering strong box office results, proving the enduring appeal of the iconic spy. Similarly, the Harry Potter franchise earned $ 10 billion collectively, with all installments maintaining high audience appreciation and impressive revenue. These franchises showcase how a beloved universe and consistent quality can elevate every movie in the series.

Fortunately, my little brother will (hopefully) never discover the Human Centipede sequels—better yet, he’s too young to even know about the first movie! Perhaps it’s for the best… as the collection didn’t perform well anyway.

How long is too long ?

This graph highlights the diverse release patterns of movie franchises and the varying impacts of time gaps between sequels.

Some classics like 101 Dalmatians (released in 1961) remain widely known and loved, but their sequels, such as the follow-up released decades later, have struggled to gain the same recognition. When I asked my little brother if he knew 101 Dalmatians he said: “Of cours, everyone knows that movies !” But when I mentioned there were sequels, he looked puzzled. Similarly, Cinderella, first released in 1950, is a timeless story still celebrated today, yet its sequels ( Cinderella II and Cinderella III) are far less memorable.

On the other hand, franchises like Harry Potter demonstrate the power of consistent and efficient releases. With all movies released between 2001 and 2011, the series maintained a steady momentum, keeping audiences engaged without long waits between installments. The Hunger Games franchise initially followed a similar pattern, with four movies released annually from 2012 to 2015. However, the graph shows a significant gap before the release of its 2023 prequel: The Ballad of Songbirds and Snakes, showcasing how studios often return to successful universes to revive audience interest.

As we scanned further, my little brother spotted Star Wars. “Oh, I love Star Wars! But why does it start at number five?” I laughed. “Actually, it starts at number four, and then they went back later to make the first three movies. The release order was very original!” We marveled at how Star Wars began with The Empire Strikes Back (1980) and became one of the most beloved franchises, despite its unconventional order.

Some franchises, such as Bambi, illustrate extreme gaps between installments. The original Bambi was released in 1942, but its sequel didn’t appear until 2006, a remarkable 64-year gap, highlighting the challenges of building upon a classic decades later. “That’s probably why nobody knows about the Bambi sequel” my little brother added.

Interestingly, horror movies like The Exorcist show exceptional longevity. Spanning from pre-1980 to beyond 2020, this franchise demonstrates the enduring appeal of horror films, which often continue to attract audiences across generations. When I saw my little brother’s surprised face, I reassured him: “Don’t worry, we’ll explore it later, no need to be impatient.”

we can see how timing of sequels can make or break a franchise. While some benefit from efficient releases to sustain audience momentum, others rely on nostalgia or genre appeal to remain relevant over decades.

The cost of success

Standalone or first movie in sequels ?

An intriguing aspect of the film industry is understanding why studios choose to produce sequels. To explore this, we analyzed two key metrics: box office revenue and audience ratings for standalone movies versus the first movies in a collection, focusing on films released between 2010 and 2024. The data revealed a clear trend—movies that spawned sequels consistently clustered in the upper-right corner of the graph, indicating higher revenues and slightly better average ratings. This suggests financial success and strong audience reception are critical factors in a studio’s decision to greenlight a sequel.

To validate these findings, we conducted statistical tests. A t-test for audience ratings, which followed a normal distribution, showed a significant difference, while a Mann-Whitney U Test for box office revenue, suitable for skewed data, confirmed the financial disparity. These results reinforce the idea that studios prioritize movies with proven success, leveraging audience attachment to familiar stories and characters as a safer investment strategy compared to standalone projects.

“But how can we validate this ? Are we sure about it ?”, “I’m not sure if you’ll understand the math behind this, but let me explain it to you, little brother”.

The results of these tests confirmed our initial observations. The t-test for average vote showed a significant difference, indicating that movies leading to sequels indeed tend to have higher audience ratings. Similarly, the Mann-Whitney U Test for revenue reinforced the conclusion that higher box office revenue is a strong predictor for sequels.

“Oh, so if a movie is really liked by people and makes a lot of money, it tends to get a sequel. That makes sense.”, “ Haha, yes indeed. Remember when you watched your first Shrek? You were so impatient to see the next one.”

  Test Result p-value
Revenue (U_stat) 328073.5 7.6e-108
Vote (t_stat) -7.9952 1.5e-15

Collection Investments

Before Harry Potter took the spotlight, the James Bond collection held the crown for the highest box office revenue, amassing nearly $20 billion over its long-running franchise. The Harry Potter collection, though, towers above most others, with a staggering box office revenue exceeding $ 10 billion. But it’s no mystery why, this collection is also among the highest-budgeted, with each movie requiring over $100 million to bring its magical world to life. “Well, it’s probably hard to make all those special effects, even if we know that Hogwarts Castle is just a miniature!” Despite the high cost, Harry Potter consistently sits far above the return on investment curve, proving that investing big can also mean earning big.

Interestingly, we noticed that most collections, hover above the return on investment line. This means that, in general, collections are profitable ventures for studios. Only a few collections fall below the curve, representing those rare cases where large budgets didn’t translate into financial success.

Then came a shocker: Terrifier. “What? Almost $17 million in revenue with barely a $300 thousand?” my little brother exclaimed. It’s true, Terrifier is one of the standout examples of incredible return on investment. Horror collections, as it turns out, often follow this pattern. The Exorcist (budget: $380M, box office: $3.83B) also caught my little brother eye. “Oh, that one again! It’s one of the biggest earners too!” he said, noticing its approximately $5 billion revenue. “Guess I’ll start watching horror movies soon.” I quickly reminded him, “Maybe wait a few years before diving into those…”

However, not every high-budget collection follows the typical financial story. The Fast and Furious collection, for instance, claims the top spot for the highest budgets, soaring above $100 million per movie. “It’s true that all their broken cars must have cost a lot” he joked. Still, its impressive box office revenue proves that even the priciest collections can be worth the investment.

Overall, the graph reveals a fascinating trend: while some collections achieve incredible returns with tiny budgets, like Terrifier, others, like Harry Potter and James Bond, show that massive budgets can still pay off handsomely. Most importantly, it highlights the diversity of financial strategies in the film industry, some opt for high-budget blockbusters, while others succeed by turning small investments into big hits.

Genres and adapations

Unsurprisingly, adventure is the standout genre, particularly for comic adaptations and sequels. “That makes sense,” I thought to myself as I looked at the data. Indiana Jones, for example, shines as a classic comics adventure.

Science fiction also proves to be a strong performer for comic adaptations. It’s hard not to think of Marvel and DC movies here, franchises that blend superheroes and futuristic themes into blockbusters that rake in massive revenues.

On the other hand, remakes continue to struggle. It seems audiences may prefer the humor of original comedy stories to rehashed jokes in reimagined versions. “I don’t really like comedy remakes,” my little brother commented. “They’re just not as funny as the originals!” “I get what you mean,” I replied, nodding. In general, remakes only rarely manage to surpass the revenues of their standalone counterparts, which aligns with the trend we’ve seen throughout the analysis: remakes face significant challenges in replicating the success and charm of their originals.

“Oh, look, when you’re tall enough, don’t start watching horror movies based on comic adaptations. They’re not that good” I told my little brother.

Overall, the data reveals the complex dynamics between genre and type, showing how certain combinations, like adventure sequels or science fiction comic adaptations, can drive incredible financial success, while others, like family remakes, face a difficult battle to resonate with audiences.

Click play to watch the graph evolve over movies

In this analysis, we focus on identifying the most profitable collections and genres. Specifically, we examine franchises with a minimum of five movies and showcase the evolution of their return on investment (ROI) through a dynamic race chart. Interestingly, after five movies, the James Bond franchise emerges as the leader in ROI. This is hardly surprising, as the series has been a cultural phenomenon since the 1960s, with Goldfinger standing out as one of the highest ROI films of all time and a hallmark of Hollywood’s success.

Following James Bond, franchises with the highest ROI predominantly belong to the horror genre. This trend is logical as horror films typically require lower production budgets compared to action or science-fiction movies, which demand expensive special effects and stunts. Additionally, the success of horror movies often hinges on the atmosphere and emotional impact they create, rather than elaborate dialogues or star-studded casts, which are critical in other genres.

“I might start making horror movies, they seem like a good business,” he said. “Haha, you’re too young for that, I already told you”

What’s the audience’s opinion?

Does the first movie set the standard ?

“Tell me, big brother, we’ve compared standalone movies and the first movie in a series, but are the following sequels just as loved ?”, “Haha, let’s take a closer look at the sequels to find out!”

Sequels often come with a great deal of anticipation. When we head to the theaters to watch the latest installment of a well-loved franchise, it’s typically because we thoroughly enjoyed the previous movies and are eager to see the continuation of the story. However, this raises an intriguing question: does this high level of expectation influence how we perceive sequels? Or are we so invested in the franchise that our opinions about sequels become less objective? To delve into this, we analyzed the overall appreciation of sequels compared to the first movie in a series.

The following graph compares the rating of the first movie in a collection to the average rating of the rest of the sequels combined. The movies are ranked based on the score of the first installment, allowing for a clear visual representation of trends. The results are striking. It quickly becomes evident that the majority of sequels receive lower ratings than the first movie. Only a small number of franchises manage to achieve higher average ratings for the rest of the collection. Interestingly, after a certain threshold of first-movie rating, it becomes exceedingly rare for a collection’s average score to surpass that of the original.

“Oh, that could explain why I was a bit disappointed when I saw Shrek II.” “Yes, probably,” I said to my little brother, laughing.

Slide to reveal the hidden part of the graph

“But look at this one, it’s interesting. That’s not always the case…”

One notable outlier is the Lord of the Rings trilogy. Not only does the first movie boast one of the highest ratings, but the franchise remarkably managed to surpass this score with its sequels, a truly exceptional feat in the world of cinema. This example highlights how rare it is for sequels to outperform their predecessors, especially when the bar is already set exceptionally high.

On the other end of the spectrum, some studios have made the curious decision to produce sequels for movies with ratings below the average for standalone films. At first glance, this seems counterintuitive, as one might expect studios to focus their resources on expanding stories with strong audience and critical reception.

However, there could be several explanations for this phenomenon. In some cases, sequels may have been pre-planned and already in production when the first movie was released.

The chart shows a clear positive correlation between average movie ratings and box office revenue. Generally, movies with higher ratings tend to perform better financially.

There are clear outliers where movies with relatively low ratings achieve unexpectedly high box office revenues. These cases often represent franchises that benefit from blockbuster marketing strategies or strong fan bases, which can override critical reception.

For instance, the first Legally Blonde movie received a solid rating of 6.8. However, the ratings of its subsequent installments dropped dramatically, averaging just 2.85, bringing the overall series rating down to slightly above 3. Despite this, the Legally Blonde Collection—represented by a medium-sized bubble (indicating the number of movies in the series)—has managed to generate substantial box office revenue, nearing $1 billion.

This demonstrates how the franchise leverages its loyal fan base, cultural significance, and strong marketing appeal to achieve commercial success, even in the face of moderate critical reception. Franchises like Legally Blonde highlight the power of brand recognition and audience loyalty in sustaining a series, enabling it to thrive even without top-tier ratings.

Does spending buy approval ?

This graph takes us into the ups and downs of movie franchises! It shows, for the 5 firsts movies, revenue versus ratings, with blue dots for movies that outscore their predecessors and red for those that fall short.

What stands out? Well, second films often struggle, with many dropping in both ratings and revenue. But it’s not all downhill. Some franchises, like Harry Potter, buck the trend and show major improvements in later films.

We can also spot a tendency for first films to shine brightest, often leading in both revenue and ratings. Still, the graph reminds us: franchises don’t follow a fixed formula, some truly find their magic over time!

Once we adjusted for inflation, the results changed dramatically! The rankings shifted, with new winners emerging, and some of today’s biggest blockbusters no longer claiming the title of the greatest franchises in history. Context truly reshapes the narrative!

Prefered genre

Can we expect higher ratings for movies adapted from books, remakes, comic adaptations, or sequels? Does genre influence the rating? To explore this, we analyzed movies from 2010 to 2024 and created a heatmap to visualize how different genres affect the ratings of adaptations compared to the average rating for all genres.

“Oh, the worst one seems to be comic adaptations from the horror collection, doesn’t it?” my little brother asked. “Yes, but look, horror as a genre is quite interesting…”

The results are striking: comic adaptations show the most variation. If you’re making a comic adaptation, horror is indeed a genre to avoid, as it results in an average rating decrease of -0.62. However, science fiction offers a much better option, with a rating increase of +0.72. Book adaptations, interestingly, perform best in the horror genre, boosting the average rating by +0.76, the highest for book adaptations. On the other hand, remakes continue to struggle, showing minimal variation across genres, except for animation, where they perform slightly better. Sequels also don’t show much variation in rating across genres.

This analysis offers valuable insights for studios choosing which genre to target when making an adaptation, as it clearly influences the potential success of the movie.

“So, if I understand correctly, if I were a studio, it’s important to be aware of these ratings to avoid spending money on an adaptation from a genre that doesn’t work well?” “You got it, little brother! Let’s talk about studio ”

Behind the scene

Slide to reveal the hidden part of the graph

Studios play a pivotal role in the film industry, shaping the projects they greenlight and steering their artistic direction. Over time, studios have increasingly leaned toward producing sequels, likely due to their rising return on investment. But which studios dominate categories like sequels, remakes, and adaptations, and how do they perform in these areas? To explore this, we created a violin plot for the top ten studios producing the most films in the categories of sequels, book and comic adaptations, and remakes. The plot visualizes the distribution of their movies’ ratings, offering insights into each studio’s performance.

In the sequels category, New Line Cinema stands out with a low density and widely spread ratings, indicating a mix of both hits and misses, with its mean and median being similar. Blumhouse Productions, however, shows a tight density around its mean, reflecting consistency in its sequel ratings. On the other end, Toei Company exhibits a peak density at the higher end, suggesting it excels at producing highly rated sequels. Paramount, by contrast, has a median below its mean, implying a handful of strong sequels but generally lower ratings for the rest.

When it comes to book adaptations, Warner Bros. Pictures leads with solid averages, albeit with a few poor outliers. Unlike sequels, book adaptations show more compact violin shapes, reflecting greater consistency in ratings across studios. This suggests that studios perform more reliably in this category compared to sequels.

Comic adaptations mirror the trends seen with sequels, with many studios showing inconsistent ratings. A notable exception is Marvel Studios, renowned for its superhero films, where the violin plot is wide and evenly distributed, with a solid median rating of 7.15.

For remakes, Universal Pictures displays a wide distribution, highlighting variability in its remake quality. Conversely, Touchstone Pictures stands out for its extreme consistency, with the densest distribution across all categories. By examining the violin plot shapes, we can glean valuable insights into how studios perform in different categories, helping us understand their strengths and weaknesses in producing various types of films.

Conclusion: What is waiting for us in the future

As we journeyed through the history of cinema, we discovered the intricate relationship between original movies and stories from preexisting sources. From the rise of sequels in the 1970s to the surge of comic adaptations in the 2000s, we have seen that in most metric the trend is accelerating. Movie studios have understood the tremendous potential of existing intellectual properties, leveraging them to create successful franchises that captivate audiences worldwide. Despite granting lower ratings in general, sequels, adaptations, and remakes have become a cornerstone of the film industry, driving box office revenues and shaping the cinematic landscape.

However, in what world will my little brother grow up? This current trend is not sustainable. Indeed, collections have a tendency to decrease in ratings over time, receiving lower crowd following. How will the movie industry adapt to this and will it ever run out of franchises. This is already the case for some studios, from instance Disney has seen disappointing results in their original productions, but remakes of their classics have been a huge success. But they are running out of classics to remake, in the future, they will have to rely on their new franchises.

The future of cinema is uncertain, but one thing is clear: the industry will continue to evolve, driven by changing audience preferences, technological advancements, and the creative vision of filmmakers. As we look ahead, we can expect to see new stories, characters, and worlds emerge, captivating audiences and pushing the boundaries of storytelling.