# Why don't RomCom's get sequels? **URL:** \ **Category:** Cafe Society\ **Created:** [June 15, 2010, 8:49am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-dont-romcoms-get-sequels/543274 "2010-06-15T08:49:44Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![Superhal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/b4bc9f/32.png) [@Superhal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Superhal)\ **Post date:** [June 15, 2010, 8:49am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-dont-romcoms-get-sequels/543274/1 "2010-06-15T08:49:44Z")
I’m reading a [NYT article](http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/13/movies/13scott.html) about the number of sequels this summer, and they comment on how romantic comedies rarely get sequels. Come to think of it, other than the rare chick-flick action movie like Charlie’s Angels, I can’t remember any chick flick that got a sequel. Probably the closest would be Meg Ryan and Tom Hanks in the nearly identical You’ve Got Mail and Sleepless in Seattle, or Jack Nicolson’s As Good As It Gets and Something’s Gotta Give. Any theories why romcom’s don’t become franchises? ---
**Author:** ![shijinn](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/cc9497/32.png) [@shijinn](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/shijinn)\ **Post date:** [June 15, 2010, 9:04am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-dont-romcoms-get-sequels/543274/2 "2010-06-15T09:04:15Z")
bridget jones? i guess there’s not much else to say after “happily ever after”, and doing so would just break the illusion of the happy ending. ---
**Author:** ![Grumman](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/43a26b/32.png) [@Grumman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Grumman)\ **Post date:** [June 15, 2010, 9:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-dont-romcoms-get-sequels/543274/3 "2010-06-15T09:05:52Z")
> [@Superhal](#): > > Any theories why romcom’s don’t become franchises? I don’t watch romantic comedies, but I’ve got a guess, based pretty much solely on what I’ve gleaned from trailers: Romantic comedies are about Person A and Person B getting together. Once they actually _get_ together you don’t have much room for a sequel, unless you break them up again. In other words, the romantic comedy protagonist can only win once, unless their partner dies of a heart attack or something, while a protagonist to an action movie can win as many times as there are antagonists to defeat. ---
**Author:** ![TWDuke](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/e495f1/32.png) [@TWDuke](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TWDuke)\ **Post date:** [June 15, 2010, 9:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-dont-romcoms-get-sequels/543274/4 "2010-06-15T09:13:25Z")
> [@Grumman](#): > > Romantic comedies are about Person A and Person B getting together. Once they actually _get_ together you don’t have much room for a sequel, unless you break them up again. > > In other words, the romantic comedy protagonist can only win once, unless their partner dies of a heart attack or something, while a protagonist to an action movie can win as many times as there are antagonists to defeat. **Jewel of the Nile / Romancing the Stone** did this, but they were romantic comedies disguised as action movies. ---
**Author:** ![Sage\_Rat](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/sage_rat/32/399_2.png) [@Sage\_Rat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sage_Rat)\ **Post date:** [June 15, 2010, 9:18am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-dont-romcoms-get-sequels/543274/5 "2010-06-15T09:18:31Z")
I suppose that in a polygamist/polyamorous world you could have a sequel to a romance. ---
**Author:** ![Baboonanza](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/f475e1/32.png) [@Baboonanza](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Baboonanza)\ **Post date:** [June 15, 2010, 9:29am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-dont-romcoms-get-sequels/543274/6 "2010-06-15T09:29:43Z")
Why would you need a sequel? All RomComs are _exactly the same movie_ already. ---
**Author:** ![Superhal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/b4bc9f/32.png) [@Superhal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Superhal)\ **Post date:** [June 15, 2010, 9:36am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-dont-romcoms-get-sequels/543274/7 "2010-06-15T09:36:26Z")
> [@Baboonanza](#): > > Why would you need a sequel? All RomComs are _exactly the same movie_ already. You know, almighty dollar, scraping the bottom of the barrel, etc. If they somehow found the money for sequels to Are We There Yet, Next Friday, and even Starship Troopers, a sequel to say 10 things I hate about you must be beyond repugnant (i.e. a guaranteed money-losing proposition) for studios. Of the ones that did get sequels, e.g. Legally Blonde, I wonder why they completely abandoned the romcom elements in the sequels. ---
**Author:** ![GuanoLad](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/guanolad/32/42_2.png) [@GuanoLad](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GuanoLad)\ **Post date:** [June 15, 2010, 9:58am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-dont-romcoms-get-sequels/543274/8 "2010-06-15T09:58:05Z")
Because “Happily Ever After” is best left unexplored. ---
**Author:** ![Alessan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/alessan/32/465_2.png) [@Alessan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Alessan)\ **Post date:** [June 15, 2010, 10:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-dont-romcoms-get-sequels/543274/9 "2010-06-15T10:13:07Z")
Because in general terms, there are two sorts of conflicts in drama: external and internal. Action movies are based on external conflict, romantic comedies are based on internal conflict. The thing about internal conflict is that when it’s over, it’s over, and so is the story; whereas a character can always have another external conflict. ---
**Author:** ![PrettyVacant](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/49beb7/32.png) [@PrettyVacant](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/PrettyVacant)\ **Post date:** [June 15, 2010, 10:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-dont-romcoms-get-sequels/543274/10 "2010-06-15T10:20:49Z")
No one one wants to pay to see ‘they didn’t live happily ever after’, or that life is really a series of crushing disillusionments briefly broken up by periods of unrealistic, nee delusional, happiness. You’re welcome! ---
**Author:** ![Kamino\_Neko](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/kamino_neko/32/34_2.png) [@Kamino\_Neko](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kamino_Neko)\ **Post date:** [June 15, 2010, 10:50am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-dont-romcoms-get-sequels/543274/11 "2010-06-15T10:50:39Z")
> [@PrettyVacant](#): > > unrealistic, nee delusional I’ll have you know, Ms Delusional KEPT her maiden name when she married Mr Unrealistic. (The homonym you’re looking for is ‘nay’. ‘Nee’ is actually kind of bizarre in this context.) ---
**Author:** ![gwendee](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/35a633/32.png) [@gwendee](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/gwendee)\ **Post date:** [June 15, 2010, 11:58am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-dont-romcoms-get-sequels/543274/12 "2010-06-15T11:58:27Z")
They made a sequel to The Prince and Me.\* It’s like the understanding we all have of a copy of a copy being less good than a copy of the original. The first movie had a certain charm, without being at all intellectually challenging. Watching a sequel there is a sense of “they wouldn’t drag us back to the theatre to watch them break up, or have one of them die” so you know how it’s going to end. If you think about it enough, you knew how the first one was going to end, too. Are the Sex and the City movies considered romantic comedies? \*Actually, I believe they’ve made TWO, but I have ony watched one. ---
**Author:** ![Justin\_Bailey](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/justin_bailey/32/8792_2.png) [@Justin\_Bailey](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Justin_Bailey)\ **Post date:** [June 15, 2010, 12:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-dont-romcoms-get-sequels/543274/13 "2010-06-15T12:18:56Z")
> [@Superhal](#): > > Of the ones that did get sequels, e.g. Legally Blonde, I wonder why they completely abandoned the romcom elements in the sequels. Legally Blonde isn’t a romantic comedy. ---
**Author:** ![PrettyVacant](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/49beb7/32.png) [@PrettyVacant](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/PrettyVacant)\ **Post date:** [June 15, 2010, 12:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-dont-romcoms-get-sequels/543274/14 "2010-06-15T12:34:26Z")
> [@Tengu](#): > > I’ll have you know, Ms Delusional KEPT her maiden name when she married Mr Unrealistic. > > (The homonym you’re looking for is ‘nay’. ‘Nee’ is actually kind of bizarre in this context.) I wouldn’t say bizarre, the association is pretty clear. Just wrong! ---
**Author:** ![Thudlow\_Boink](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/thudlow_boink/32/320_2.png) [@Thudlow\_Boink](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Thudlow_Boink)\ **Post date:** [June 15, 2010, 1:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-dont-romcoms-get-sequels/543274/15 "2010-06-15T13:06:21Z")
> [@Justin\_Bailey](#): > > Legally Blonde isn’t a romantic comedy. But it is a response to the OP’s “I can’t remember any chick flick that got a sequel.” ---
**Author:** ![Rhythmdvl](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/85f322/32.png) [@Rhythmdvl](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Rhythmdvl)\ **Post date:** [June 15, 2010, 1:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-dont-romcoms-get-sequels/543274/16 "2010-06-15T13:26:33Z")
They could make a sequel to the greatest rom-zom-com of all time, but that would be [unnecessary](http://www.evolutionpictures.co.uk/shaun2.html). ---
**Author:** ![JohnT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/johnt/32/15048_2.png) [@JohnT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JohnT)\ **Post date:** [June 15, 2010, 1:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-dont-romcoms-get-sequels/543274/17 "2010-06-15T13:51:49Z")
> [@Baboonanza](#): > > Why would you need a sequel? All RomComs are _exactly the same movie_ already. Yeah, but you can say the same about action movies. They’re all the same, just with different costumes and settings… you know, just like RomCom’s. ---
**Author:** ![Oy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/bc8723/32.png) [@Oy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Oy)\ **Post date:** [June 15, 2010, 2:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-dont-romcoms-get-sequels/543274/18 "2010-06-15T14:37:22Z")
I’d say that it’s because romantic comedies, like most stories, are quest stories, wherein the quest is for the relationship (even though the quester(s) don’t necessarily understand that is the object when they begin). The relationship is supposed to be forever; otherwise the quest object is unworthy. If you produce a sequel in which the happy couple from the initial quest are no longer together, it negates the original story - the original quest was for an unworthy thing (unless one of them died - not the stuff of comedy). If you produce a sequel in which the happy couple are together, you have to give them a new quest, and that’s not easy, and is probably also no longer a romantic comedy. The best example I can think of this would be “Meet the Parents” and “Meet the Fokkers”, but neither of them is exactly a romantic comedy, in that mostly the humor does not stem from the interaction between the couple. ---
**Author:** ![Swallowed\_My\_Cellphone](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9d8465/32.png) [@Swallowed\_My\_Cellphone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Swallowed_My_Cellphone)\ **Post date:** [June 15, 2010, 2:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-dont-romcoms-get-sequels/543274/19 "2010-06-15T14:48:09Z")
Well, _Shrek_ is a “happy ever after” movie with lots of romcom elements. I think it’s possible to take a romcom and do a sequel, but it wouldn’t be easy. The premise of a romcom is will-they-orwon’t-they get together with the right person in the end. Once they do, where are you going to go from there? A mid-life crisis threatening to break them up? ---
**Author:** ![shijinn](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/cc9497/32.png) [@shijinn](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/shijinn)\ **Post date:** [June 15, 2010, 3:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-dont-romcoms-get-sequels/543274/20 "2010-06-15T15:06:04Z")
> [@Oy](#): > > … I’d say that it’s because romantic comedies, like most stories, are quest stories, wherein the quest is for the relationship (even though the quester(s) don’t necessarily understand that is the object when they begin). The relationship is supposed to be forever; otherwise the quest object is unworthy. If you produce a sequel in which the happy couple from the initial quest are no longer together, it negates the original story - the original quest was for an unworthy thing (unless one of them died - not the stuff of comedy). … that may not be the only reason though, for despite the same pitfalls action movies get sequels nevertheless. an example is _Alien 3_, a movie that is dead to me for this exact reason. right in the beginning of the movie, it completely negated all of Ripley’s heroic effort in _Aliens_. all in the space of a few minutes. ugh. [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-dont-romcoms-get-sequels/543274.md?page=2)