It’s been a woefully unpredictable year for sequels at Blumhouse. “M3GAN 2.0” was tonally baffling and financially disastrous. “The Black Phone 2” was a bold artistic vision that still divides critics and audiences months later. Now, “Five Nights at Freddy’s 2″ is surpassing box office projections by giving fans exactly what they expected, for better or worse. That’s reason enough for genre regulars to renew their faith in the horror studio and a good argument for Blumhouse to keep treating franchises more like comfort food going forward.

Despite some scathing reviews on Rotten Tomatoes — where returning director Emma Tammi’s follow-up film currently holds a 15 percent with critics but ranks 88 percent among consumers — “Five Nights at Freddy’s 2” just had a $109 million global opening. Like the first film from 2023, the sequel adapts the megapopular video game series created by Scott Cawthon, who came back to write this script solo.

Related Stories

Earning a “C-” from IndieWire, the new movie was lambasted by cinephiles as illogical, messy, and packed with cliches. Of course, die-hard “Freddy’s” fans ate it up just the same. That audience doesn’t come to the theater for prestige swings. They come for lore drops, jump scares, inside jokes, and memeable moments with bulbous animatronics. Blumhouse delivered that unapologetically, and ended its year of shaky experiments with a proper event that could help drive future sequels toward greater success.

“M3GAN 2.0” Swung Big and Flopped in Every Way

Combining camp, horror, and satire, the original “M3GAN” was a sensation in 2023 because it felt uniquely attuned to that moment. “M3GAN 2.0” veered off that path spectacularly — ditching the high-tech killer-doll carnage that made the first movie feel like a feverishly updated “Child’s Play” for a sequel that was firmly rooted in sci-fi action territory. Critics panned its tone, fans felt alienated, and ticket sales quickly reflected that disconnect. The movie barely made it to an international total of $39 million compared to the $180 million earned by Blumhouse’s earlier juggernaut.

‘M3GAN 2.0’ (2025)©Universal/Courtesy Everett Collection

Founder and CEO Jason Blum addressed the studio’s failure publicly back then. On an episode of The Town podcast, he said the team “over-thought everything,” assuming the pint-sized character was so iconic she could survive a drastic genre shift. She couldn’t. In trying to make M3GAN a snarky superhero instead of a slasher villain, the sequel abandoned the specific tone and energy that made her go viral in the first place. Blumhouse swung for reinvention when audiences wanted repetition, and the result was a sequel that failed on every front — spurring “M3GAN” supporters to question if the studio understood the IP it spent oceans of money producing and promoting at all.

“The Black Phone 2” Did Well Financially, but Divided Opinion

“The Black Phone 2” was Blumhouse’s brightest spot all year. It didn’t quite out-perform the original film from 2021 but it successfully expanding beyond the novel that movie was based on (with the help of author Joe Hill) and earned nearly $132 million worldwide. Fans of the first release showed up in droves beyond opening weekend, and many critics praised filmmaker Scott Derrickson for his sequel’s surprising emotional depth. But “Black Phone 2” also split the franchise’s base with the shift from serial killer horror toward supernatural terror rubbing purists the wrong way.

Horror franchises have survived and even thrived thanks to big pivots like that before; see “Evil Dead II” and “Wes Craven’s New Nightmare,” for starters. But they’ve also crashed spectacularly; see “M3GAN 2.0” “Black Phone 2” landed somewhere in the middle. It was admired by some, tolerated by others, and reviled by those who either didn’t like the series to begin with — or didn’t want Derrickson turning Ethan Hawke’s dramatically grounded portrayal of The Grabber into a “Nightmare on Elm Street” ripoff.

‘Black Phone 2’ (2025)©Universal/Courtesy Everett Collection

Derrickson and co-writer C. Robert Cargill have said they won’t make a third film unless they have an idea that genuinely inspires them, with Cargill noting “The Black Phone 3” would only work if the pair could justify “putting a year of our life” into that hypothetical script (via Polygon). That’s a tall order after expanding a literary world once, but doing it twice without baiting catastrophe is exponentially harder. “Black Phone 2” didn’t flop by any means, but it also didn’t give the franchise the frictionless momentum a horror world needs to become a decades-spanning institution at the movies.

“Five Nights at Freddy’s 2” Set and Met All Expectations

With “Five Nights at Freddy’s 2,” Tammi and Cawthon didn’t reinvent much of anything — they didn’t have to. Using the same core cast and mimicking countless narrative beats from the first film, the sequel recycles its paint-by-numbers formula to reinforce the identity the “Freddy’s” built its community around last time. With a tone that oscillates between sincere attempts at horror filmmaking, and spoofable internet culture that barely looks like its trying, the result really works for those who wanted it.

‘Five Nights at Freddy’s 2’ (2025)©Universal/Courtesy Everett Collection

That predictability turned “Five Nights at Freddy’s 2” into an international event capable of supporting pricy popcorn buckets and costumed screenings. Fans showed up less interested in picking apart the intricacies of art and more like they were watching a beloved sports enter a new season. The franchise already has its playbook, and judging by social media reactions, Blumhouse ran it without improvising for the win. Horror mainstays have done that forever with classics like “Friday the 13th,” “Halloween,” and “Scream” taking their own detours but ultimately coming to live and die by the ritual in modern media.

There’s no question “Black Phone 2” is an all-around better, higher quality movie than “Five Nights at Freddy’s 2,” but judging by its cliffhanger ending, Cawthon and Tammi’s sequel has a stronger shot at joining the ranks of franchises with real longevity. The film didn’t aspire to prestige or shock value, instead giving its gamer fanbase the replayable experience they expected. That’s why it worked.

For Blumhouse Sequels, Predictability > Prestige

With “Five Nights at Freddy’s 3” already building buzz, and projects like “Ma 2” in development, Blumhouse has a choice to make after the reception rollercoaster that was its 2025. Does the studio keep chasing prestige-pivot sequels that could draw in fresh audiences but also risk pushing away old fans? Or does it embrace the model that has defined the studio from the beginning: low-risk, high-return horror films that know exactly who they’re for — even if they don’t please everyone?

In an increasingly claustrophobic and draining artistic space, the future of the studio’s image could hinge on leaning into predictability, not as a creative cop-out but as a brand identity you can trust when you buy a ticket. Fans of these franchises don’t always crave novelty; they’ve got A24, Neon, Shudder, and more audacious genre competitors for original stories like that. No, they come to Blumhouse for formulas executed with confidence, and they’ll keep doing that so long as the studio respects that compact.

*“Five Nights at Freddy’s 2” is in theaters now. *