Actors Who Reluctantly Did A Sequel For The Money

Cinematic history is filled with sequels that equal or even surpass their predecessors, but there are so many lackluster follow-up films that public perception of sequels in general is still largely negative. The worst of them can often be so unpromising even from a script level that viewers wonder why the actors agreed to be in them. Often, it comes down to the fact that they're paid a lot of money to do so.

Despite the glitz and glamour associated with acting, it's still a job like anything else, and like so many workers, actors occasionally take jobs they aren't overly enthusiastic about because they pay well. Many actors keep quiet about their motives for making these kinds of paycheck movies, but sometimes word gets out, whether because of public salary negotiations or because the actors give statements confirming they weren't passionate about making certain movies. Here's a look at some sequels — a few good but many not so good — whose stars couldn't keep their disinterest a secret.

Comedian David Cross earned a loyal cult audience thanks to his HBO sketch series "Mr. Show," which served as a career-launching project for Cross and his partner Bob Odenkirk, not to mention beloved comedians Paul F. Tompkins, Sarah Silverman, and Scott Aukerman. "Mr. Show," followed by Cross' role on the low-rated but acclaimed sitcom "Arrested Development," garnered him a reputation for doing intelligent, biting comedy — a reputation that was damaged by Cross appearing in the first three "Alvin and the Chipmunks" movies.

Cross attracted criticism from his fellow comedians for selling out by doing the "Chipmunks" movies, and he responded by openly admitting he did them for the money. After making the first one, he posted a statement saying that "Chipmunks" gave him the money to put a down payment on a New York apartment, something that his "indie hipster cred" could not accomplish. While Cross was initially brash about his "Chipmunks" money, he changed his tune after making two more "Chipmunks" movies, an experience that left him wanting to "get the f*** out of there as soon as possible," collect his money, and "buy a summer home with the check." He especially hated making the third "Chipmunks," "Chipwrecked," which he called "the most unpleasant experience" of his career. 

Cross' honesty is admirable, even after the fact, and it ended up being costly: He lost out on a $150,000 bonus for publicly badmouthing the movies.

In 1969, James Bond was recast for the first of many times. Sean Connery resigned from the part, later telling Rolling Stone that he had grown tired of the constant press attention he faced while making Bond films. George Lazenby stepped into the part for "On Her Majesty's Secret Service," but rejected a million-dollar contract to return for future Bond films. For the follow-up to "Majesty's" in 1971, the producers decided to ask Connery to return to the part. He agreed, but not without some demands.

Connery's decision to reprise Bond in "Diamonds Are Forever" happened at least in part because he saw the film as an opportunity to boost both his bank account and his non-Bond film career. When asked to return, he only agreed after striking a deal that gave him a record-breaking salary, a percentage of the film's profits, a bonus if "Diamonds" went over schedule, and the opportunity to make two original movies for United Artists, Bond's distributor. "Diamonds" was a success, but Connery refused to star in the next Bond film, musing, "Of course the films will go on, but who'll play me I just don't know and can't guess." He was replaced by Roger Moore for the next Bond film, "Live and Let Die," although he eventually returned to Bond in 1983 — albeit at a different studio — for "Never Say Never Again," which reportedly paid him $5 million plus a percentage of the gross.

When an actor tells the press that they did a movie solely for the money, they typically wait until well after the movie in question has actually been released. Eddie Murphy is a rare exception: During a 1989 Rolling Stone interview, he was asked about the possibility of a second sequel to his hit action-comedy "Beverly Hills Cop," and he replied bluntly that "there's no reason to do it: I don't need the money, and it's not gonna break any new ground." He even told the interviewer that, should he end up making a "Beverly Hills Cop III," "you can safely say, 'Ooh, he must have got a lot of money!'." Five years after that interview, "Beverly Hills Cop III" was released.

Paramount paid Murphy $15 million to make "Cop III" in 1992, a time when he was coming off several box office disappointments. Entertainment Weekly reported that Paramount was nervous about Murphy's "box office clout," and Murphy himself seems to have been at a low creative ebb; his costar throughout the series, Bronson Pinchot, later described Murphy's mood on the set of "Cop III" as "very low-spirited, low-energy," which he believed was a reaction to the "bad stretch" of movies Murphy was on at the time. When released in 1994, "Cop III" continued Murphy's losing streak, grossing only $42 million in America, more than $100 million less than the domestic take brought in by "Beverly Hills Cop II" seven years earlier.

The production of "Thor: The Dark World" was torturous for more than one person. Natalie Portman was lured back for the sequel partly due to the presence of director Patty Jenkins — and then left reportedly enraged (but contractually obligated to stay) after Jenkins was fired. Jenkins' replacement, Alan Taylor, later claimed the theatrical cut represented a heavily altered version of his original vision, calling the experience "something I hope to never repeat." But the person who was most vocally displeased after making the movie was Christopher Eccleston, who swore off any more big paycheck movies after making it.

Eccleston had already had a bad experience starring in a blockbuster when he made "G.I. Joe: The Rise of Cobra," but he agreed to play the villain Malekith in the second "Thor" film anyway. When BBC host Graham Norton (via Digital Spy) later asked why he signed on for "The Dark World," he simply said, "Money. That's what I felt." But the money was no consolation for the process of actually making the movie. 

Eccleston claimed that Marvel didn't tell him how much prosthetic makeup he'd have to wear to play Malekith, with the process of applying it taking as long as eight hours before he could shoot anything. The arduous preparation for a movie he already wasn't invested in soured Eccelston on doing any more big-budget productions. He later reflected on "Thor" and "G.I. Joe" during an interview with the Guardian, saying that he "really paid for being a whore those times."

In 2004, Dustin Hoffman joined the cast of the "Meet the Parents" sequel "Meet the Fockers," playing Ben Stiller's father opposite Barbra Streisand as Stiller's mother. "Fockers" was an even bigger hit than "Parents," leading to another sequel, 2010's "Little Fockers." But Hoffman refused to sign on for "Little Fockers" at first, holding out for more than a year until he was offered a reported $7.5 million for five days of work. When asked why he finally agreed to appear in it, he responded simply, "The back end."

Hoffman's late deal meant that he was cast after principal photography on "Little Fockers" was already finished. According to Deadline, he was added to "Fockers" in reshoots when only a few of the other cast members were present, including Stiller and Streisand. Despite all the trouble that went into his inclusion, he did nothing to save a movie that got terrible reviews and made less money than its predecessor.

Jackie Chan's early career included more than one attempt to parlay his stardom in Hong Kong and China into success in the United States, including a supporting part in "The Cannonball Run" and two unsuccessful American starring vehicles, "The Protector" and "The Big Brawl." The film that finally made Chan a mainstream American star was "Rush Hour," an action-comedy that paired him with Chris Tucker. "Rush Hour" was a big hit, Chan's first $100 million-grossing film in America, but he wasn't overly thrilled about making it — or its sequels.

In 2007, when "Rush Hour 3" was released, Chan posted a message to his website saying that the "Rush Hour" movies held no appeal to him except as paychecks. He was not a fan of the American-centric humor and felt that the action wasn't up to the usual standards of his movies, believing that the series wouldn't appeal to his overseas fanbase. Despite his reservations, he returned for the sequels because he was offered an "irresistible" amount of money to make them. (Even the money he got for "Rush Hour 3" couldn't get Chan to say that anything "particularly exciting stood out that made this movie special.") While there have been years of rumors about another sequel, the most recent development dates back to 2019, when Chan's management team denied reports that he'd be appearing in a "Rush Hour 4."