Change the Tone/Genre
This approach is not used very often, but it does happen. This is one of the more polarizing approaches to redirecting a franchise, since it is usually (though not always) turns a horror film into a comedy. As I have mentioned before, horror comedy is not the most accessible of sub-genres, even for horror fans. Examples of this include Bride of Chucky, The Texas Chainsaw Massacre 2, Hello Mary Lou: Prom Night II and pretty much the every film in the Alien franchise.
Turning a horror franchise into a parody is a bold move, as it’s not something horror fans expect when walking into the theater. Marketing can be tricky too, since you don’t want to turn off people who loved the original films with the comedy but you also don’t want to bait-and-switch them either.
Would it surprise you to know that Bride of Chucky made $47.1 million at the domestic box office? While it doesn’t surpass the box office take of Child’s Play or Child’s Play 2 ($66.7 million and $51.8 million, respectively), it nearly doubled the $26 million brought in by Child’s Play 3 arguably the worst film in the franchise until Seed of Chucky was released in 2004 (which was a critical failure and took in an underwhelming $21.4 million). Audience reaction was somewhat mixed, with some viewers lamenting the comedic elements of the film. Of course, the Child’s Play franchise always had some humor in it (it’s about a killer doll, for crying out loud), but some believe that Bride of Chucky went too far. Also, it’s trailer didn’t look very funny, unless you count the ironic use of Billy Idol’s “White Wedding” as funny, which is understandable.
Of course its self-referential meta-humor was inspired by Scream (Bride of Chucky was released just two years later), but it was successful enough financially to reboot the franchise, leading to the much-maligned Seed of Chucky six years later.
A similar abrupt change of tone was present in Tobe Hoopers The Texas Chainsaw Massacre 2. There are still horror fans today who loathe Hooper’s sequel for making a mockery of his original film. Others, find that it works as a standalone film. Still, it’s box office take of $17.3 million compared to the originals $148.6 million is nothing to scoff at. People were not please that the villain that once terrified them was now a laughing stock.
What is bizarre about this film is that Hooper though the darkly comedic elements in the sequel were present in The Texas Chain Saw Massacre, but audiences didn’t notice them because of how shocking the film was. Needless to say, not many people agreed. Today, the film has garnered a cult following, but the franchise would not gain back the respect it initially had until the 2003 remake, which brought the terror back to the franchise and is arguably the best installment since the original (though it’s Rotten Tomatoes score wouldn’t have you believe that).
A film where the change in tone helped a franchise from a creative (but not financial) standpoint was the little-seen Hello Mary Lou: Prom Night II. The original Prom Night is considered a classic, but it was unloved by critics at the time and even considered the weakest out of all of Jamie Lee Curtis’ early 80s horror films (which also included Terror Train and The Fog). While reception was lukewarm, a $42.4 million box office take is nothing to scoff at, so a sequel was made seven years later. Where as the first film was a by-the-numbers slasher film, the sequel was a supernatural horror comedy. Think of it as A Nightmare on Elm Street meets Carrie.
The film only took in $5.4 million domestically, so it was a huge flop, but it is surprisingly the better film when compared to the original. Originally titled “The Haunting at Hamilton High,” it an extremely meta film (a common trend with these horror comedies), featuring references to other horror films, and even names some characters after Wes Craven, John Carpenter and George A. Romero. It was a huge departure from the original film, and was a sequel in-name only. You have to admire how brave the filmmakers were to go in this direction. Besides, how can you hate a film that features a possessed teenager killing a fellow classmate by crushing her in a locker to the point where her brains come out of the vents (this year’s The Lazarus Effect would completely steal this idea, to lesser effect).
Finally, we have what may be the greatest success story of changing a film’s tone and genre. It’s not as drastic as the previous films mentioned, mostly because it doesn’t inject any comedy into the film, but Aliens is stylistically and tonally different from its predecessor in nearly every way.
Considered to be one of the few sequels that is better than the original (though some fans would fight you to the death in that argument), Aliens was a sci-fi war film with horror elements, rather than the haunted house film in space that Alien was. The box office numbers didn’t lie, either. While the first film grossed $258.5 million, Aliens would go on to gross $184.7 million. While it didn’t match its predecessor in terms of money, that amount is still nothing to scoff at.
Aliens does what all sequels should do: it takes what made Alien the perfect film that it is and expanded upon it. Instead of one alien, we get a lot. Ripley gets a backstory. The Weyland-Yutani corporation becomes its own character in Paul Reiser’s sleazy henchman Carter Burke. The violence and intensity is ramped up to 11. Rather than feature suspense all throughout the film, Aliens is a visceral assault on the senses (though there is suspense, to be sure).
Aliens would go on to win two Academy Awards (and was nominated for seven). When compared to the two nominations and one win for Alien, that’s quite impressive. Its success was so great that it’s surprising Alien 3 went in the direction it did, though the production issues with that film are probably more famous than the film itself.
Changing the tone of a genre is an extremely risky move for a franchise to do. If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it, am I right? However, if it is broke, maybe a fresh path is warranted. Or if you don’t want to risk a “more of the same” quality to a sequel, change it up a bit. Looking over the films listed above, it’s clear that if this new tone is handled delicately, it can work in the franchise’s favor, be it monetarily, creatively or both.