Apparently, even Lionsgate knew the “Divergent” sequels were a failure – the studio didn’t even bother to complete the franchise.
“Insurgent.”
Andrew Cooper/Lionsgate
Following the mega-success of “The Hunger Games” franchise, all other dystopian young adult sagas were turned into a series of films (“Maze Runner”, “Ender’s Game”, “The Host”), but the only one that came relatively close to replicating that success was “Divergent,” which was released in 2014.
“Divergent” starred Shailene Woodley as Beatrice, a 16-year-old who lives in a society divided into five factions based on personality traits, but Beatrice has multiple traits and is known as “Divergent.” Confused? Naturally, perhaps that’s why the first film barely had a cultural impact and has a low 41% on Rotten Tomatoes.
However, two more sequels were produced (“Insurgent” from 2015, which has 28%, and “Allegiant” from 2016, which has 11%). As was the custom in the 2010s, the final book in the series was to be split into two films, “Allegiant” and “Ascendant”, but the reception of “Allegiant” was so poor that the conclusion of the franchise has been cancelled.
So, we wonder: Did we really need “Insurgent” and “Allegiant” if there was not a fourth and final film? The answer is no.