One of the big themes of the film world recently has been the never-ending demand for sequels. Almost every major release is now part of a franchise, to the point that new standalone productions have become increasingly rare among big-budget Hollywood studios.
That said, this year we’ve seen several strong new IPs emerge from the horror genre: the vampire western Sinners, the psychological thriller Bring Her Back, and most recently, Weapons, one of the biggest hits of the summer. The latter, a completely original idea from Barbarian director Zach Cregger, has achieved both financial success and critical acclaim, quickly establishing itself as a new classic of the genre.
And yet, there are already talks of making a prequel.
Warning: the rest of this article contains spoilers for Weapons.
Cregger has confirmed that he is working with Warner Bros to develop a prequel for Weapons, exploring the backstory of its central villain, Gladys (Amy Madigan): a witch who uses dark magic to control people like puppets. She employs this power to abduct the children of Justine Gandy’s (Julia Garner) third-year class, setting in motion the film’s events.
While this can be exciting, there are valid reasons to be concerned about a standalone movie getting a new instalment. Warner Bros., after all, is the same studio that rushed out the DC Extended Universe with a string of hastily produced films to compete with Marvel, and which greenlit five Fantastic Beasts movies before the first had even been released.
But the issue isn’t limited to Warner Bros. The word of the day is franchising; everyone wants to be Marvel. In the last decade, success for a single film has rarely meant just one sequel—it now often comes with plans for an entire cinematic universe.
We’ve seen it with the Sonic films, which have already spawned three movies and a TV series in just four years. The 2023 horror comedy M3GAN became a surprise hit and was swiftly followed by a sequel and spin-off, both releasing this year. Even the other breakout original of the summer, K-Pop Demon Hunters, is already being lined up for two sequels, a streaming series, and even a stage musical.
There’s no denying the appeal of these sprawling franchises. If you love the characters and the world, you get to see more of them. But the overcrowding is starting to cause fatigue, even for the previously untouchable MCU. Audiences increasingly crave more standalone projects—films that tell a single story with a beginning and an ending, rather than endless revivals and a lack of conclusion for the sake of more content. That was part of the appeal of Weapons, and news of a prequel almost right after its release is a bitter pill to swallow.
That said, there is potential in a Weapons prequel if it serves as a natural extension of the first film. It would allegedly focus on the biggest mystery of the original: the backstory of sadistic witch Gladys. Throughout the movie, she literally pulls the strings of the other characters, yet we know very little about her. She hints at kidnapping the children to restore her life, but never elaborates. We don’t know where she came from, how old she is, or where her power originates.
This vagueness heightens the eerie atmosphere, but it’s hard not to be curious, especially since Cregger has admitted that the film was originally meant to include a chapter centred on Gladys, which was cut to reduce the runtime.
It’s reminiscent of another recent horror film: Pearl (2022). A prequel to the horror movie X (2022), it serves as an origin story for its antagonist, and many argue it’s the superior film. While X is an excellent slasher, Pearl expands on its themes of freedom and sexuality in ways that feel organic, adding depth to its titular character. A Weapons prequel could achieve something similar. There’s certainly enough potential in Gladys as a character to justify a new entry.
I understand the frustrations around endless sequels. The trend towards franchising every successful new IP is exhausting and often undermines the strength of standalone films. But that doesn’t mean sequels are never worthwhile. It depends on whether the new instalment genuinely complements the original and brings something meaningful to the table. The fact that the original director seems to still be on on board is also a good sign.
I may end up eating my words if a Weapons prequel proves unnecessary, but for now, I’m excited to see what it might have to offer.
Words by Alex Daud Briggs
Support the Indiependent
We’re trying to raise £200 a month to help cover our operational costs. This includes our ‘Writer of the Month’ awards, where we recognise the amazing work produced by our contributor team. If you’ve enjoyed reading our site, we’d really appreciate it if you could donate to The Indiependent. Whether you can give £1 or £10, you’d be making a huge difference to our small team.