The Sequels Of Summer 2019: Which Franchises Are Alive And Which Ones Should Be Laid To Rest?

Sequels aren't a new invention, but more than a century after what was probably the very first one (Is the Elephant Still Dead?, 1904, Edison Studios) they've grown to become fairly reliable sources of profit. They frequently get a bad reputation even before release, but as with remakes and mother-in-laws they're rarely as terrible as some people suggest. 2019 has already seen the theatrical release of twenty-nine sequels, and a whopping twenty of them came out this summer.

That's twenty sequels opening across the four months from May 3rd through August 30th, and if that seems like a lot that's because it is. Studios and distributors may have thought there was safety in numbers, but even a cursory glance at the end of summer results reveals that sometimes the only sure things in life are Disney and John Wick. Quite a few of the sequels that don't fall under one of those umbrellas left Hollywood accountants sweating this summer for reasons that don't involve the heat.

We're taking a look at all of this summer's sequels, but since this is a conversation about winners and losers I'm going to knock out four right up front that barely even stepped into the ring. Non-English films are popping up more and more in theaters, and while that's great news it means that sometimes foreign language sequels hit domestic shores too. The odds are that you not only missed these four but have also never even heard of them. Student of the Year 2, Chasing the Dragon 2: Wild Wild Bunch, The White Storm II, and Line Walker 2: Invisible Spy earned roughly $1.7 million combined in the U.S. – we won't label them as losers seeing as this is a secondary market for them, but they're not exactly winners either.

Keep reading for a deeper look at the sixteen remaining sequels of summer 2019.

Studio action movies, both the good ones and the bad, aren't always memorable for their action sequences. That seems silly, but it's true. Instead they rely on big stars, big set-pieces – these don't always equal action – and big personality. When the first John Wick came along in 2014 it was something of an eye-opener for audiences unfamiliar with action cinema beyond our shores as in addition to featuring personality, set-pieces, and a star it also delivers a fantastic blend of fight scenes, vehicular mayhem, and shootouts. 2017's sequel upped the game in every way, and this summer's Chapter 3 continues that trend delivering one hell of a stylish and thrilling ride. The audience has grown alongside the films meaning this most recent entry earned more than three times what the first managed.

Is this franchise thriving, living, or dead? Oh, it's most definitely thriving, and the only thing at risk of slowing it down is Keanu Reeves' age. He's 55 years old, and with a fourth chapter a couple years away he'll be pushing the limits of his body. While leads in other franchises – i.e. ones where the star isn't heavy into doing the action themselves – can work around it, Reeves' close up involvement is a big part of why the John Wick franchise is so beloved.Verdict: Thriving in the Continental's penthouse apartment.

I know what you're thinking... when does Dark Phoenix open? But I'm here to tell you that it actually opened this summer to become the 12th highest grossing entry in the X-Men film franchise. I should mention that's out of twelve. Its global box-office capped out at $252 million which might have been vaguely respectable had the film not cost a reported $200m (plus marketing) to bring to theaters. How exactly does that happen in a world that loves superhero movies? The X-Men franchise already has diverging timelines, but maybe this alternate take on Jean Grey/Phoenix's shift towards darkness was just one new variation too many for audiences tired of trying to keep up. The film's also the lowest rated by both critics (23% on Rotten Tomatoes) and audiences (B- per Cinemascore which is nuts seeing as even X-Men Origins: Wolverine managed a B+), so clearly this is a case of viewers simply not responding to what the filmmakers gave them.

Is this franchise thriving, living, or dead? This is a loaded question due as much to studio shenanigans as it is to the film's actual performance. All things being equal, 20th Century Fox would most likely press pause on the franchise and then simply reboot it in a few years because the X-Men are still a lucrative property, but the studio was recently eaten alive by Disney – the corporate behemoth that already pulls the strings at Marvel – meaning the more likely outcome is a few years hiatus and then a surprise post-credits scene in Captain Marvel 3 showing Brie Larson smirk as adamantium claws enter the frame. I'm saying Fox's franchise might be dead, but the X-Men will live on in other actors' bodies.Verdict: Dead, but guaranteed to rise from the ashes.

The first Men in Black film came out twenty-two years ago... and that's nuts! It was followed five years later by a sequel and then ten years after that with a third film, and all three did out of this world business (to varying degrees). The fourth entry arrived after a seven year wait and swapped out the original leads (Tommy Lee Jones, Will Smith) for a pair of fresh new faces (Chris Hemsworth, Tessa Thompson), and audiences showed up in fewer numbers and with lesser enthusiasm. It earned $370 million less than the last film's $624m global haul, and audiences gave it a B on Cinemascore compared to the B+ earned by each of the previous entries. There are a few factors at play here starting with the long gap between sequels, but as the wait between parts two and three was longer I don't see that as the issue. F. Gary Gray took over as director from Barry Sonnenfeld who helmed all three of the originals, but Gray's no franchise curse – he also directed the second-highest grossing entry in the Fast and the Furious series. That leaves us with the cast change. Hemsworth and Thompson may be stars in the MCU, but neither has proven themselves capable of opening a picture outside of it. Also, if you're going to call your film "International" you should really move beyond native English speakers and cast the likes of Léa Seydoux and Song Kang-ho. I would have seen that movie ten times in theaters.

Is this franchise thriving, living, or dead? $253m worldwide on a $110m budget (plus marketing) is not great news, so the odds of a direct sequel here seem nil. The only chance this franchise has of continuing is if they bring both Jones and Smith back again, and while I wouldn't rule that out I also wouldn't hold my breath.Verdict: Dead, and already dressed for its own funeral.

Was a fourth film necessary after the closure of Toy Story 3 (2010)? Is any film necessary? You might argue no, but with results like these it's easy to see why a studio would consider the movie to be a necessary one. Sure it's only the second-highest grossing of the franchise, but it still cracked $1 billion which ain't too shabby. Audiences once again ate it up as Pixar has the formula down and brings both heart and a fantastic voice cast along for the ride. The animation studio still focuses mostly on original fare, but their sequel game is on point (when it isn't called Cars).Is this franchise thriving, living, or dead? Come on, this one was never in doubt. The franchise is as strong as its ever been, and while Pixar will no doubt deny plans for another sequel you just know they'll return to the well if and when the "need" arises. This film's introduction of even more toy characters mean a spin-off could be the way they go in the future – who among us wouldn't watch a Duke Caboom feature? – but don't count out a proper Toy Story 5 in the next decade.Verdict: Forking thriving.

Some sequels are inevitable, some are unexpected, and others are... on the other side of heaven, apparently. The 2001 original is memorable solely for the presence of Anne Hathaway as the protagonist's love interest and eventual wife, but she doesn't return for the sequel. (Our missionary instead takes up a position with an imposter.) The sequel only made $3 million less than the original, but the original made under $5m total so, yeah, it's a real good news/bad news situation. Faith-based films aren't typically high earners and are almost never costly to produce, so odds are this wasn't much of a losing investment.

Is this franchise thriving, living, or dead? Writer/director Mitch Davis is the man responsible for both films, and while the first is an adaptation of a book the second stems wholly from Davis' mind. Clearly he felt it was an important story worth revisiting eighteen years later, but with the minimal response to this one the odds seem slight he'd follow it up with more alliterative shenanigans.Verdict: Dead, but a third film wouldn't be the first time something Jesus-related theoretically rose from the dead.

Do you remember 1998's I Got the Hook Up? Me neither. The comedy earned $10 million in theaters with its tale of two street hustlers who find themselves targeted by both the police and the mob after acquiring some stolen cell phones, and now two decades later they're at it again. More specifically, a younger generation is at it again, but unfortunately for them the audience didn't get the message. Original stars Master P and Anthony Johnson return in supporting roles, but the biggest name in the credits is 'Tiny' Lister so make of that what you will.

Is this franchise thriving, living, or dead? It's unclear why anyone thought anyone else wanted this, and the results seem to confirm that they didn't. With only $250k at the box-office I'd wager the original film's fans didn't even realize the sequel exists, and while it might make a bit more on home video it won't be enough to justify a third go round.Verdict: Dead signal.

2016's The Angry Birds Movie brought in a respectable $350 million  meaning more bird vs pig warfare on the big screen was inevitable, but just three years later the game turned movie franchise has crashed and burned. This sequel only cost $65m to produce, but while that's remarkably low for a CG animated film these days the box-office take of $77m means the film still lost a good chunk of change. The same voice talents returned and the film is by all accounts an improvement over the first, but the interest just wasn't there. Is the game being played less? It certainly seems to be talked about far less, but it's unclear if the disinterest in one medium would automatically transfer over to another.

Is this franchise thriving, living, or dead? There's no way this continues as a theatrical film franchise, but it could go the way of some other series and shift into direct to video sequels. It's unclear if there's even enough interest in that, though, and since the big name voice talents probably wouldn't follow it to video the odds diminish even further.Verdict: Dead before it hit the ground.

The final sequel of summer 2019 is one most critics – and audiences, unfortunately – dismissed, and while I understand their hesitation I'm also a little saddened by it. Gerard Butler talking smack out the side of his mouth while stabbing and shooting bad guys in the head is just good wholesome entertainment, and the trilogy will go down as a fun little series of distinct (from each other) action pictures. Olympus Has Fallen (2013) is a highly entertaining siege movie, London Has Fallen (2016) is a bloody nod to the Cannon Films releases of the 80s, and the latest is a silly, sweet tale about family reunions and people who have the misfortune of exploding.

Is this franchise thriving, living, or dead? This one's still in theaters as I write this, but it looks like its box-office will only just be covering its budget meaning Butler's Secret Service agent can finally retire from the field to spend time with his family. Luckily, the film saw this coming and serves as a fitting finale to the character and franchise.Verdict: Dead, because while Butler can stop assassins' bullets he's just no match for indifference.