• Why Hollywood can’t stop making sequels that add nothing new

If there’s one universal truth in cinema, it’s that Hollywood simply cannot resist making sequels nobody asked for. 

After watching ‘Wicked: For Good,’ the follow-up to the 2024 ‘Wicked,’ The Sunday Morning Brunch found ourselves returning to that familiar discussion. While this remains a personal opinion, and one that some may disagree with, the experience raised broader questions about the purpose and execution of sequels, especially when the original narrative already feels complete.

To be fair, ‘Wicked’ is not a conventional Hollywood sequel. The Broadway musical was always structured in two acts, and the filmmakers chose to mirror that by dividing the adaptation into two parts. 

In that sense, ‘Wicked: For Good’ is not an extra story but simply the continuation of the first film. However, this framing makes the result all the more perplexing. 

The second half of the stage production has long been criticised, even by devoted fans, for being rushed, uneven, and thematically incoherent. With that in mind, the film presented a rare opportunity to refine and strengthen material already known to be the weaker half of the musical.

Moreover, the original stage production runs just over three hours, while the two films combined span nearly five. With such an expanded runtime, one would reasonably expect deeper character development, improved narrative pacing, or thoughtful reworking of known weak points. Instead, the creative team remained remarkably loyal to the source material, yet somehow still managed to squander the additional time without meaningfully enhancing the narrative.

And that brings us to the larger issue: if you are going to greenlight a continuation of a beloved story, whether a true sequel, a second act, or a franchise extension, shouldn’t the goal be to build on it? To elevate it? More money, more time, and more star power do not automatically create a better film, and ‘Wicked: For Good’ proves that all too clearly. 

While the first ‘Wicked’ movie was widely appreciated, the second felt like a strange fever dream: visually overwhelming, unevenly paced, and full of questionable creative decisions. It is the kind of film that reminds viewers that ‘bigger’ is not the same as ‘better.’

The nostalgia machine

Hollywood’s relentless obsession with sequels and adaptations is not new, but it has become increasingly difficult to ignore just how saturated the landscape has become. The industry’s reliance on nostalgia has reached a point where audiences are no longer being invited to revisit beloved worlds; they are being inundated with them. 

Nostalgia sells; it evokes comfort, familiarity, and the illusion of emotional safety. But there is a threshold beyond which this sentiment stops feeling charming and begins to feel exhausting.

When the majority of films released in a year are continuations of existing franchises rather than original works, viewers naturally begin to crave something new. Yet 2025 has not been the year of originality. Instead, we find ourselves drowning in sequels, prequels, reboots, remakes, and reimagined adaptations, a constant reminder that ‘new’ is often simply a rebranded version of the old.

So really, it is no surprise that audiences are so fatigued. It’s not that sequels are inherently undesirable; some are genuinely excellent. Rather, the frustration stems from their overwhelming dominance. Originality has become the exception instead of the norm, and that imbalance is beginning to show. Online communities, critics, and casual viewers alike have reached a similar conclusion: the balance has tipped too far.

A year of endless sequels and reboots

As 2025 draws to a close, it becomes evident that this year has been overwhelmingly defined by follow-up films. From mega-franchises like ‘Mission: Impossible – The Final Reckoning’ to lighter fare such as ‘The Bad Guys 2,’ the industry has produced an extensive array of sequels catering to every demographic. The volume is staggering but unsurprising; sequels remain a safer, more predictable way for studios to capitalise on existing success.

It is a common frustration, we believe, that while sequels feel familiar, the creative risk-taking that once made films memorable is increasingly rare. ‘Jurassic World Rebirth’ illustrates the problem. Despite impressive visuals and suspenseful moments, it faced criticism for its unoriginal plot and weak character writing, a familiar pattern for sequel fatigue. It became yet another reminder that narrative necessity often takes a backseat to commercial opportunity.

Still, 2025 has produced its share of strong sequels. ‘Final Destination: Bloodlines’ defied expectations with a 92% Rotten Tomatoes score and high audience approval. As some critics remarked, the film managed to continue the franchise with creativity and energy, proving that sequels can succeed when they are crafted with care rather than obligation.

A cycle Hollywood can’t seem to break

Looking at the year holistically, 2025’s sequels reflect the full spectrum of outcomes: some failed spectacularly, some quietly disappointed, and a few managed to revive or even elevate their franchises. Yet for every sequel that succeeds, audiences must sift through dozens that feel redundant, rushed, or creatively hollow. 

And for those weary of the constant stream of franchise extensions, the deluge is far from over. Major releases still await in the final months of the year, including ‘Avatar: Fire and Ash’ and ‘Zootopia 2.’ 

These releases will almost certainly reignite debates about which sequels genuinely earn their place in cultural memory, and which ones merely reflect Hollywood’s persistent inability to let a story end when it should.

In the end, audiences don’t dislike sequels; they dislike sequels that add nothing new. They dislike stories extended not out of creative necessity but out of commercial obligation. As long as Hollywood continues to prioritise familiarity over innovation, viewers will continue to ask the same question: why make a sequel if you’re not going to make it better?