On June 24, 2016, "Independence Day: Resurgence" was released. Not being a huge fan of the original, I didn't have many expectations for this sequel. And after watching the movie and talking about it with friends, I noticed an offbeat trend with movies that are being released this summer. Hollywood is churning out sequels that absolutely no one has asked for. Judging by this past weekend's performance, "Independence Day: Resurgence" is shaping up to join the myriad of films coming out this summer that feature sequels to movies that no one particularly wants to see.

Just look at the performances of other 2016 sequels such as "TMNT 2," "Alice Through The Looking Glass" and "Now You See Me 2." They are all films that have been made simply because their originals had bewildering box office success.

When sequels like these come out, nostalgia is a key factor. And it can only be exploited when people remember the original for fond reasons. There is no wistfulness for the original, so how can there be box office success for the sequel? These follow-up movies are built on nonexistent nostalgia.

Nostalgia can be used only when people want to remember something. If people don't remember or care about the original, what's the point?

This is not always the case. Look at the sequel to "Finding Nemo," "Finding Dory." "Finding Nemo" was one of the most successful and iconic movies of the early 2000s. It resonates in pop culture even today. My orthodontist's office from fifth to ninth grade even featured a massive mural of the memorable bag poking scene. "Finding Dory" was so successful because people have a deep love for its original, "Finding Nemo." Fans were excited for the prospect of more stories with these characters. Nostalgia works when there are still warm memories for the original. When those warm memories are absent, sequels have a difficult time finding success.

Many of these movies that receive sequels were only successful in the first place do to a stroke of luck. Take "Alice Through The Looking Glass" for example. It is the sequel to 2010's billion-dollar-grossing "Alice In Wonderland." The sequel failed domestically, grossing $75 million on a $176 million budget—its only saving grace being that it was able to make its money back in the foreign market. The original, "Alice In Wonderland," was so successful because of three things. Its use of 3-D when 3-D films were still a new concept, the director Tim Burton being at the helm, and Johnny Depp playing the Mad Hatter during his career peak. None of these elements were featured in the sequel. 3-D films have become more mundane, Tim Burton declined to be a part of the film, and Johnny Depp has been steeped in controversy since the beginning of the year, losing many fans. Without the elements that made it so successful in the first place, the movie was destined to fail. And the same goes for the rest of the failed sequels of the year.

Hollywood really needs look into what made these movies so prosperous in the first place instead of trying to strike lightning twice. Stop trying to reinvent the past with unwanted sequels. Try to make sequels to movies we do have keen memories of or try to make new original films that resonate with us—that make us yearn for more. Learn your lesson, Hollywood, or you will continue to make the same box office mistakes.