Connect with us

Business

The year of the 'lega-sequel': What 'Gladiator II' and 'Twisters' say about Hollywood

Published

on

The year of the 'lega-sequel': What 'Gladiator II' and 'Twisters' say about Hollywood

It’s been 24 years since audiences first saw Ridley Scott’s vision of the brutality of Rome’s Colosseum. Twenty-eight years since they chased an F5 tornado with Helen Hunt. Thirty-six years since they said a certain bio-exorcist’s name three times.

But this year, all three properties have made, or will make, a comeback to theaters with sequels. And so far, these decades-later legacy sequels — or “lega-sequels” — have helped boost a box office still recovering from the pandemic and fewer big titles due to last year’s dual Hollywood strikes.

Why belatedly add chapters to a seemingly long-finished story? For one, audiences love nostalgia, and seeing actors return to their original roles (or, in some cases, a fresh new cast in familiar modes) can be a powerful box-office draw. An added bonus — advancing an established and successful story is relatively low-risk.

“That’s just an easy shortcut — and it’s not even a bad thing,” said Amanda Ann Klein, professor of film studies at East Carolina University. “Reusing these same stories is a good way to sort through everything that’s out there.”

Scott’s “Gladiator II” from Paramount Pictures is the latest sequel to return after a decades-long hiatus. So far, the film is tracking for a solid opening weekend with a projected haul of $66 million, according to forecasting site Box Office Theory. The movie hits theaters Nov. 22, alongside the highly anticipated “Wicked.”

Advertisement

If its lega-sequel predecessors are any indication, “Gladiator II” could be bound for box-office success.

This summer’s “Twisters,” released by Universal Pictures, grossed nearly $371 million worldwide and is the sixth highest grossing film domestically so far this year, according to film performance tracker Box Office Mojo. The film didn’t even return key original cast members like Hunt or Bill Paxton, though there are callbacks to the original “Twister.” Instead, young stars Glen Powell and Daisy Edgar-Jones lead the cast.

In the fall, Tim Burton’s “Beetlejuice Beetlejuice” burst from its grave, grossing almost $451 million worldwide, and ranking fourth in this year’s domestic box office. The film continued the story of Winona Ryder’s Lydia Deetz, now an adult, and returned Michael Keaton to his eponymous role of Beetlejuice.

Some of the main actors’ high visibility on Netflix may have helped the film appeal among younger viewers, including Ryder on “Stranger Things” and Jenna Ortega in “Wednesday.”

For studios, there’s a major upside to bringing back beloved films. Familiar intellectual property has already been tested with audiences, in the same way that films based on video games, comic books or novels have a built-in base.

Advertisement

“It’s a continuum of there’s this IP you can mine, you’re thinking about how you can tap into both older audiences and newer audiences in a risk-averse environment, while still exploring genres that are relatively safe,” said Alisa Perren, director of the Center for Entertainment and Media Industries at University of Texas at Austin.

Then, in the new film, you tap into what audiences remember fondly and show off.

For “Twisters,” that was the special effects that made the tornadoes look realistic. For “Beetlejuice Beetlejuice,” it was the practical effects, which made extensive use of prosthetics, puppets and some stop-motion animation.

There’s also something comforting for audiences in seeing familiar faces on the screen, like Tom Cruise in 2022’s “Top Gun: Maverick,” which returned to the flyboy’s story after a 36-year hiatus, or Will Smith and Martin Lawrence in 2020’s “Bad Boys for Life,” which came 17 years after the franchise’s last installment.

But getting the right people together in one place is often a tall order, and could be why some of these films arrive decades after the last one.

Advertisement

“These legacy series, they’re big-screen movies, they deserve to come back,” said David A. Gross, who publishes the FranchiseRe movie industry newsletter. “It’s a question of the prime movers, the director, the star. There are so many heavy pieces that have to be lifted and put into place, and if one of them isn’t ready, then it’s going to have to wait.”

A long interval between film installments doesn’t always matter to audiences. When a sequel returns four years or less after its last airing, it typically has a 17% lower opening than the previous film, Gross said. Sequels that come back after more than four years tend to open down 19% compared to the prior movie, he said. That’s a negligible difference, Gross said, and means that films don’t need to be held — or sped up — before they’re ready.

Also, a successful prior film doesn’t always guarantee a win for a long-returning sequel.

“Blade Runner 2049” brought back Harrison Ford in his replicant-hunting role after 35 years but flopped at the box office. The Eddie Murphy-led “Coming 2 America” — which came in 2021, 33 years after the original — brought back many of its cast members but was limited to a streaming audience after its original theatrical distributor, Paramount Pictures, sold the film to Prime Video due to the pandemic. (Former Times film critic Justin Chang said at the time that the film “exists in its predecessor’s shadow.”)

It all points to the power of known titles in an increasingly tough market for films. Superhero movies are no longer a surefire win at the box office, and so-called mid-tier films costing about $50 million to $100 million have become more scarce.

Advertisement

“In the attention economy … anything that gives you an advantage in terms of differentiating yourself,” Perren said. “It’s so hard to cut through.”

Continue Reading
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Business

‘Stranger Things’ finale turns box office downside up pulling in an estimated $25 million

Published

on

‘Stranger Things’ finale turns box office downside up pulling in an estimated  million

The finale of Netflix’s blockbuster series “Stranger Things” gave movie theaters a much needed jolt, generating an estimated $20 to $25 million at the box office, according to multiple reports.

Matt and Ross Duffer’s supernatural thriller debuted simultaneously on the streaming platform and some 600 cinemas on New Year’s Eve and held encore showings all through New Year’s Day.

Owing to the cast’s contractual terms for residuals, theaters could not charge for tickets. Instead, fans reserved seats for performances directly from theaters, paying for mandatory food and beverage vouchers. AMC and Cinemark Theatres charged $20 for the concession vouchers while Regal Cinemas charged $11 — in homage to the show’s lead character, Eleven, played by Millie Bobby Brown.

AMC Theatres, the world’s largest theater chain, played the finale at 231 of its theaters across the U.S. — which accounted for one-third of all theaters that held screenings over the holiday.

The chain said that more than 753,000 viewers attended a performance at one of its cinemas over two days, bringing in more than $15 million.

Advertisement

Expectations for the theater showing was high.

“Our year ends on a high: Netflix’s Strangers Things series finale to show in many AMC theatres this week. Two days only New Year’s Eve and Jan 1.,” tweeted AMC’s CEO Adam Aron on Dec. 30. “Theatres are packed. Many sellouts but seats still available. How many Stranger Things tickets do you think AMC will sell?”

It was a rare win for the lagging domestic box office.

In 2025, revenue in the U.S. and Canada was expected to reach $8.87 billion, which was marginally better than 2024 and only 20% more than pre-pandemic levels, according to movie data firm Comscore.

With few exceptions, moviegoers have stayed home. As of Dec. 25., only an estimated 760 million tickets were sold, according to media and entertainment data firm EntTelligence, compared with 2024, during which total ticket sales exceeded 800 million.

Advertisement
Continue Reading

Business

Tesla dethroned as the world’s top EV maker

Published

on

Tesla dethroned as the world’s top EV maker

Elon Musk’s Tesla is no longer the top electric vehicle seller in the world as demand at home has cooled while competition heated up abroad.

Tesla lost its pole position after reporting 1.64 million deliveries in 2025, roughly 620,000 fewer than Chinese competitor BYD.

Tesla struggled last year amid increasing competition, waning federal support for electric vehicle adoption and brand damage triggered by Musk’s stint in the White House.

Musk is turning his focus toward robotics and autonomous driving technology in an effort to keep Tesla relevant as its EVs lose popularity.

On Friday, the company reported lower than expected delivery numbers for the fourth quarter of 2025, a decline from the previous quarter and a year-over-year decrease of 16%. Tesla delivered 418,227 vehicles in the fourth quarter and produced 434,358.

Advertisement

According to a company-compiled consensus from analysts posted on Tesla’s website in December, the company was projected to deliver nearly 423,000 vehicles in the fourth quarter.

Tesla’s annual deliveries fell roughly 8% last year from 1.79 million in 2024. Its third-quarter deliveries saw a boost as consumers rushed to buy electric vehicles before a $7,500 tax credit expired at the end of September.

“There are so many contributing factors ranging from the lack of evolution and true innovation of Musk’s product to the loss of the EV credits,” said Karl Brauer, an analyst at iSeeCars.com. “Teslas are just starting to look old. You have a bunch of other options, and they all look newer and fresher.”

BYD is making premium electric vehicles at an affordable price point, Brauer said, but steep tariffs on Chinese EVs have effectively prevented the cars from gaining popularity in the U.S.

Other international automakers like South Korea’s Hyundai and Germany’s Volkswagen have been expanding their EV offerings.

Advertisement

In the third quarter last year, the American automaker Ford sold a record number of electric vehicles, bolstered by its popular Mustang Mach-E SUV and F-150 Lightning pickup truck.

In October, Tesla released long-anticipated lower-cost versions of its Model 3 and Model Y in an attempt to attract new customers.

However, analysts and investors were disappointed by the launch, saying the models, which start at $36,990, aren’t affordable enough to entice a new group of consumers to consider going green.

As evidenced by Tesla’s continuing sales decline, the new Model 3 and Model Y have not been huge wins for the company, Brauer said.

“There’s a core Tesla following who will never choose anything else, but that’s not how you grow,” Brauer said.

Advertisement

Tesla lost a swath of customers last year when Musk joined the Trump administration as the head of the so-called Department of Government Efficiency.

Left-leaning Tesla owners, who were originally attracted to the brand for its environmental benefits, became alienated by Musk’s political activity.

Consumers held protests against the brand and some celebrities made a point of selling their Teslas.

Although Musk left the White House, the company sustained significant and lasting reputation damage, experts said.

Investors, however, remain largely optimistic about Tesla’s future.

Advertisement

Shares are up nearly 40% over the last six months and have risen 16% over the past year.

Brauer said investors are clinging to the hope that Musk’s robotaxi business will take off and the ambitious chief executive will succeed in developing humanoid robots and self-driving cars.

The roll-out of Tesla robotaxis in Austin, Texas, last summer was full of glitches, and experts say Tesla has a long way to go to catch up with the autonomous ride-hailing company Waymo.

Still, the burgeoning robotaxi industry could be extremely lucrative for Tesla if Musk can deliver on his promises.

“Musk has done a good job, increasingly in the past year, of switching the conversation from Tesla sales to AI and robotics,” Brauer said. “I think current stock price largely reflects that.”

Advertisement

Shares were down about 2% on Friday after the company reported earnings.

Continue Reading

Business

Elon Musk company bot apologizes for sharing sexualized images of children

Published

on

Elon Musk company bot apologizes for sharing sexualized images of children

Grok, the chatbot of Elon Musk’s artificial intelligence company xAI, published sexualized images of children as its guardrails seem to have failed when it was prompted with vile user requests.

Users used prompts such as “put her in a bikini” under pictures of real people on X to get Grok to generate nonconsensual images of them in inappropriate attire. The morphed images created on Grok’s account are posted publicly on X, Musk’s social media platform.

The AI complied with requests to morph images of minors even though that is a violation of its own acceptable use policy.

“There are isolated cases where users prompted for and received AI images depicting minors in minimal clothing, like the example you referenced,” Grok responded to a user on X. “xAI has safeguards, but improvements are ongoing to block such requests entirely.”

xAI did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

Advertisement

Its chatbot posted an apology.

“I deeply regret an incident on Dec 28, 2025, where I generated and shared an AI image of two young girls (estimated ages 12-16) in sexualized attire based on a user’s prompt,” said a post on Grok’s profile. “This violated ethical standards and potentially US laws on CSAM. It was a failure in safeguards, and I’m sorry for any harm caused. xAI is reviewing to prevent future issues.”

The government of India notified X that it risked losing legal immunity if the company did not submit a report within 72 hours on the actions taken to stop the generation and distribution of obscene, nonconsensual images targeting women.

Critics have accused xAI of allowing AI-enabled harassment, and were shocked and angered by the existence of a feature for seamless AI manipulation and undressing requests.

“How is this not illegal?” journalist Samantha Smith posted on X, decrying the creation of her own nonconsensual sexualized photo.

Advertisement

Musk’s xAI has positioned Grok as an “anti-woke” chatbot that is programmed to be more open and edgy than competing chatbots such as ChatGPT.

In May, Grok posted about “white genocide,” repeating conspiracy theories of Black South Africans persecuting the white minority, in response to an unrelated question.

In June, the company apologized when Grok posted a series of antisemitic remarks praising Adolf Hitler.

Companies such as Google and OpenAI, which also operate AI image generators, have much more restrictive guidelines around content.

The proliferation of nonconsensual deepfake imagery has coincided with broad AI adoption, with a 400% increase in AI child sexual abuse imagery in the first half of 2025, according to Internet Watch Foundation.

Advertisement

xAI introduced “Spicy Mode” in its image and video generation tool in August for verified adult subscribers to create sensual content.

Some adult-content creators on X prompted Grok to generate sexualized images to market themselves, kickstarting an internet trend a few days ago, according to Copyleaks, an AI text and image detection company.

The testing of the limits of Grok devolved into a free-for-all as users asked it to create sexualized images of celebrities and others.

xAI is reportedly valued at more than $200 billion, and has been investing billions of dollars to build the largest data center in the world to power its AI applications.

However, Grok’s capabilities still lag competing AI models such as ChatGPT, Claude and Gemini, that have amassed more users, while Grok has turned to sexual AI companions and risque chats to boost growth.

Advertisement
Continue Reading

Trending