Films like Baahubali, Ponniyin Selvan, KGF merited a sequel because of their huge canvas and their vastness. But of late sequels have become a trend hoping to quickly capitalise on nostalgia.
Post the success of the Baahubali series there has been a trend of films — particularly big-budget productions — coming up with sequels. The latest to follow the trend are Kalki 2898 AD and Indian 2 — both of which left viewers on a cliffhanger to varying degrees of effectiveness. Indian films are not the only ones on this bandwagon — in fact, Hollywood has franchised the hell out of ‘cinematic universes’ in the last decade, Marvel being the worst offender churning out sequel after sequel for every character imaginable. Recently, Mission Impossible 7: Dead Reckoning Part One, ended on a cliffhanger as well. And the audience has to wait for at least a year to find out what happens next.
The big question however — is the trend worth it? Are sequels actually leaving viewers excited and invested in stories being told on screen while also making money for the producers, or is the latter the only motive, leaving the audiences frustrated, almost feeling cheated out of real cinematic experiences?
To answer the question, the one important facet to consider is the story. Does it deserve sequels — like Baahubali, Ponniyin Selvan, KGF did because of their huge canvas and their vastness? Or are they being forced for the sake of it, with makers hopping on a trend to capitalise on nostalgia?
Scene from Baahubali 2
Film critic Subha J Rao says that a sequel makes sense from a marketing perspective, because the producers don’t have to sell a whole new idea to the audience. “However, whether in India or abroad, I think only some sequels work. Sometimes, the original film is a cult classic or popular purely due to nostalgia. A sequel kills the nostalgia and calls for unnecessary comparison. For example, James Cameron’s Avatar was much-loved, but its sequel did not charm as much, though it made some profit,” she says.
In Kollywood, Lyca productions has invested in a series of sequels – 2.0, Chandramukhi 2, Ponniyin Selvan 1 and 2, Indian 2 (Indian 3 is yet to be released). Barring the Ponniyin Selvan series directed by Mani Ratnam, the other films were pointless sequels, made only to cash in on the success of the original.
After director Shankar’s I (2015) bombed at the box-office, the filmmaker resorted to making sequels to his older films – 2.0 derived from Enthiran (2010), and Indian 2 from Indian (1996). There are also speculations that he may remake his film Anniyan (2005) in Hindi with Ranveer Singh playing the lead. While Shankar could be in a crisis after the loss of writer Sujatha Rangarajan, with whom he collaborated on several projects, unnecessary sequels may not be the horse he should be betting on. In fact, with Indian 2 performing poorly at the box-office, he may already have big losses on his hands with Indian 3, which has already been shot. The initial plan it seems was to make only one film, but since the film’s length was too long, Shankar opted to release it in two parts instead.
Scene from Ponniyin Selvan 2
.jpg?w=640&auto=format%2Ccompress)
Scene from Kalki 2898 AD
On the other hand, the recently released Kalki 2898 AD starring Prabhas and a host of other big names has emerged hugely successful, with seemingly enough material to churn a franchise. The mythological drama set in a dystopian future, directed by Nag Ashwin, was released on June 27 and continues to have a successful run at the box-office. But the film still faced criticism for just offering a glimpse into its world without a satisfactory conclusion to the first part. To get to know the full story, the audience will have to wait for another three years at least, because the sequel hasn’t even been shot yet. Tamil filmmaker Vetrimaaran’s Viduthalai also faces the same problem.
The idea of making a two-part film carries a huge risk. What if the first film bombs at the box-office? Can the movie makers still lure in the audience for the second part? Actor Kamal Haasan while promoting Indian 2 said that he is more eager to watch Indian 3, suggesting that the next film is going to be promising — almost as if asking the audience to endure a terrible film just to get its promised epic conclusion in the later film.
“The trend began with Baahubali — but director SS Rajamouli had a clear vision for the two parts right from the beginning. I think that is lacking with the later films which only want to cash in on the trend,” says film critic Aditya Shrikrishna, the co-founder of The Other Banana podcast focusing on south Indian cinema. “Mani Ratnam did it the right way with Ponniyin Selvan — they shot both the parts together so that the audience is assured of two completed films coming not too far apart. Also, in his case he had the backing that the eponymous novel is well known and has a sprawling universe, so nobody would question the reason for two films,” he says.
“But as a “trend” — with Salaar, Indian etc and even Kanguva — it is just taking the audience for granted and delivering diluted cinema according to me,” Aditya adds.
Subha says that the movie makers should be careful while delivering the film in installments. “Taking the audience for a ride is probably too strong a phrase, but a flabby first part only points to bad technique. You can set the tone for the film all you want in one film. But do give something for the audience to hold on to, to look forward to. They can’t be as excited as the filmmaker is, because it is not their journey.”
According to Subha, the sequel should be decided based on the story and not the box office. “If the team has decided on a sequel after writing/hearing the story, that’s still all right. You cannot be greenlighting sequel projects based on how the audience response is. That seems like an obvious way to mint money and little else. If your story is good, go ahead. If not, cut your losses and scrap projects when there’s still time.”
“I liked what SS Rajamouli did with Baahubali, what Hemanth M Rao attempted with Sapta Sagaradache Ello, what Prashant Neel did with the KGF universe, and Mani Ratnam with Ponniyin Selvan,” Subha explains, “They were the exception, rather than the rule. Baahubali was a rarity, because of the cliffhanger SS Rajamouli left us with in Part 1. And, part 1 was whole by itself, and was not like a teaser for the sequel. Like Sapta Sagaradache Ello had two distinct tonal variations, and the story had enough heft and performances to power it through two films. Plus, it was released within months of the first part, when the film was still fresh in people’s minds. KGF had its problems, but neatly tied in many threads across both parts, and ended with the promise of another. Ponniyin Selvan needed that time to narrate a story bestowed with vastness by writer Kalki.”
The other issues is that Indian films are yet to be on par with studios in Hollywood as far as scheduling is concerned. No definite dates have been announced for the sequels of Viduthalai, Salaar, Kalki 2, Indian 3, for instance, whereas Marvel Studios plans out its entire release in a phased manner, each film leading to the next installment in the Marvel Cinematic Universe. While directors like Prashanth Varma, Prashanth Neel and Lokesh Kanagaraj have their own cinematic universe, they do not have detailed plans like Marvel does.
In Tamil, a series of sequels have been announced – Viduthalai 2, Kaithi 2, Sardaar 2, Sarpatta Parambarai 2, Ayalaan 2, Thani Oruvan 2. Similarly in Telugu – Salaar 2, Pushpa 2, Double iSmart, Goodachari 2, Jai Hanuman etc – are awaited. In fact actor Prabhas is now mostly restricted to making franchise films. After the Baahubali series, his upcoming releases are Salaar 2 and Kalki 2. And there is no date set yet for the release of these films. The actor’s upcoming film includes Raja The Great with director Maruthi. One just hopes that there is no sequel to it. Speaking about this phenomenon, Aditya says, “Studios are avoiding risks. There is a global problem when it comes to theatrical films post the COVID-19 pandemic and nobody is sure what will truly work in the box office, they are not able to detect patterns apart from the existing franchises and sequels which will at least guarantee an opening.”
He says that studios everywhere need to take more risks and need to expand the slate of subjects they deal with. “At least in India, they cannot just contend with a male star headlining a film with the subjects restricted to action, gore and violence. This is a pattern that has run its course.”
“For all the faults we find in Hindi cinema of post-2015, it is still the language where women have better roles, there is more variety in stories and there are more writers at least experimenting with storytelling in the long form/Over the Top (OTT) space. OTT space too is going through a churn at the moment and we might not see great things there either for a while. But it is true that Hindi cinema is insecure looking at Tamil and Telugu biggies as they are not hitting those numbers or making impacts like Baahubali, RRR, Pushpa. But I like that while they are still looking for that golden goose, there is a wider array of stories that still get made,” Aditya says.
Appreciating Malayalam cinema which is not affected by this crisis thanks to their writers, Aditya says that the Tamil, Telugu, and Hindi film industries need to learn from them. “They need to be secure in their strengths, trust their instincts in stories that are organic to the land, and put money on it. Yes, studios may lose money initially — but they are not going to see disasters like Indian 2. It will expand the scope and we will have more genres and things will click eventually. Tamil especially needs an intervention like 2010-2015 when we had a great run of so many different films.”
In Telugu some films like Eagle 2, Skanda 2, Das ka Dhamki 2, were promised at the end of the film, hoping that the audience would still be interested to watch them. While Eagle was an exception, with the failures of Skanda and Das ka Dhamki at the box-office, it is highly unlikely that these films would have a sequel.
