Worst performing movies to receive a sequel?

Submitted by punkmuppet t3_z37g0m in movies

Just a thought that came to me earlier today, there must be a movie out there that is the worst performing movie at the box office to receive a sequel. Whether it's lowest total takings or worst return on investment, does anyone know what they are?

Googling it just gives me the worst performing sequels

1

Comments

You must log in or register to comment.

so1i1oquy t1_ixkbx57 wrote

Tron.

Blade Runner.

Donnie Darko.

19

mediarch t1_ixkcob6 wrote

Manhunter maybe

15 million budget only made 8.6 million

"Technically" Silence of the Lambs is a sequel

3

mediarch t1_ixkd0hm wrote

Replying to so1i1oquy (#642,773)

Tron did fine. It still made money at the box office. Also it made a metric butt load in merchandise sales. They made more in Merch sales than it did at the theater.

4

2DEE831 t1_ixkd3so wrote

I don't know, I'm watching R.I.P.D. 2 and didn't realize anyone watched the original or even wanted a sequel

13

WatchMoreMovies t1_ixkdoif wrote

Bloodrayne maybe? Made 3.7 million and still ended up as a trilogy somehow.

5

TrickNatural t1_ixke537 wrote

Highlander made less than its budget back and then got a sequel (Highlander II) which also made less than its budget back.

8

Earguy t1_ixkj8wv wrote

Breakin'. But it inspired some genius to film a sequel. The sequel sucked too, but if not for them, there wouldn't be the greatest sequel title ever: Breakin' 2: Electric Boogaloo.

2

wildshard13 t1_ixkug5k wrote

Replying to ninjas_in_my_pants (#644,643)

It was a shitty film, it was badly acted, badly scripted, cliche , and stupid… the main plot of anger zombies was literally a rip off of transformers return of optmius prime, and they did it better and more believably . We knew where the plot was going and how it was going to end about 15 minutes in.

−6

TeleBrief6431 t1_ixl5vyd wrote

Quite a few B-movies and exploitation films. Too many to list.

1

uncultured_swine2099 t1_ixla919 wrote

Blade Runner was a box office flop, then they made a sequel that was also a box office flop. Both films are excellent (though the post-theatrical director's cut of the original was when it really got acclaim).

1

wildshard13 t1_ixmu5t5 wrote

Replying to [deleted] (#646,516)

Yup… 100% aware, which is why its shocking that a mediocre cartoon from the mid 80’s aimed at 6 year olds did a better job then the turd that is 28days later

But here we are

1

DRUGEND1 t1_ixo14zx wrote

I think the first Austin Powers didn’t do great box office, but it found an audience on home video which lead to the (hugely successful) sequel.

1