Member Center

The blockbusters nobody loved | Sir Critic on Cinema
 

Home > Blogs > Sir Critic on Cinema > Archives > 2007 > July > 23 > Entry

The blockbusters nobody loved

By Eric Robinette | Monday, July 23, 2007, 09:53 AM

One of my regular readers, ME, asked the other day, “what is our obsession with sequels … why do they work sometimes and many times not?”

The simple answer is that most sequels are, as Roger Ebert once defined them, filmed deals. They’re not pieces of art so much as pieces of commerce. Hollywood keeps cranking them out, because, in most cases, they’re guaranteed cash cows. That being the case, quality ends up diminishing as time goes on.

For the audience, sequels are like comfort food. Going to a sequel is like walking into a fast food restaurant. Barring maybe a few offbeat menu options, we know what we’re going to get. With Spider-Man we know we’ll get a lot of action sequences and a lot of angst. With Shrek, we know we’re going to get the snarky anti-fairy tale with a sentimental core. With Pirates of the Caribbean, we know we’ll get a lot of high-octane swashbuckling with kind of a goofball, old-fashioned charm.

Or do we?

I think a new phenomenon has set in: the blockbuster nobody loves.

It wasn’t so long ago that if your movie made $300 million, that meant people loved it. Now we’ve entered an age where even a $300 million movie can be unloved. Three big examples are the ones I cited: Spider-Man 3, Shrek the Third, and Pirates of the Caribbean: At World’s End.

These threequels have all made mountains of money. To call them “failures” would be wrong. But for all the box office records they’ve broken, I think malaise has set in among moviegoers. Lots of people like these movies, but do lots of people really love them? I’m not so sure.

Let’s take a look at the big three.

Spider-Man 3: Grossed $151 million in its opening weekend because people love the first two films. Anticipation was high. But complaints abound that the new movie is bloated and not nearly as good as its predecessors. Looks to top out around $335 million. Not bad at all, but it’s a low for the series.

Shrek the Third: Has made about $318 million so far, but I just don’t sense that people adore this movie like they did the others. Most of its success can be attributed to love for the first films, not anything in this third film. The second, by contrast, made $441 million.

Pirates of the Caribbean: At Word’s End: Had a boffo opening of $140 million. People loved the first two. But I sense that even people who liked the third chapter didn’t give it the repeat business the other movies had because they didn’t want to give up three more hours of their time. Will finish somewhere around $315 million, but part 2 made $423 million.

When did this phenomenon of the unloved blockbuster start? I think the earliest example of a $300 million-plus grosser that “disappointed” is perhaps Star Wars Episode 1: The Phantom Menace. It made $431 million - the most successful of the prequels. But can you find anyone (besides me) who claims to like it all that much? Heck, to hear most people talk, it shouldn’t have made $43 million, much less $431 million.

But again, it made a ton of money because people loved the original trilogy - and because geeks went back to it again and again trying either to find a reason to like it or figure out why it wasn’t working.

This touches upon a principle very few people talk about: that how much money your sequel makes depends largely on how much love there was for the prior chapter. Take Back to the Future, where the seed was sown for the unloved blockbuster. The second movie opened very well in 1989, because the first film was beloved. Now it’s generally agreed that Part 3 is a much better movie than Part 2 - but Part 3 made less because the mean-spirited Part 2 turned people off. Now we’re starting to see magnified examples of this with Spider-Man, Shrek and Pirates.

So what’s the result of all this? Oh sure, we’ll get more sequels. Sony has announced its intention to make at least two more Spideys. DreamWorks will make two more Shreks then stop (so they say). A new Pirates movie isn’t on the boards yet, but of course, the door was left open for it.

But I ask you: Are you really all that excited about these prospects? With the exception of maybe Spider-Man, I know I’m not.

Am I on to something here? Is there such a thing as an unloved blockbuster? Would you go see Shrek the Fourth, Ocean’s 14 or Fantastic Four 3: The Bane of Cardboard Acting?

Permalink | Comments (9) | Categories: Moviegoing

Comments

By Allie D.

July 25, 2007 5:27 AM | Link to this

I’m with Eric on this regarding the money. $100M means little these days, especially with these big-budget projects that usually skyrocket closer to the $200M mark in terms of production cost. The idea with these other movies is that the first installments grew mass appeal and the movie makers are trying to capitalize on that, and even if they make sub-par movies, people still go just to see how things turn out with their beloved characters. Anyway, Van Helsing was actually a commercial flop. That movie was supposed to become something of a franchise, but it was hard to avoid the fact that it sucked so hard that the movie theaters lost cabin pressure and moviegoers were losing consciousness from the level of suckage.

By Sir Critic

July 24, 2007 5:25 PM | Link to this

That still doesn’t meet the threshold of $300 million I established in the post (paragraph six). With rising costs, $100-$200 million aren’t what they used to be in the blockbuster world. $300 million is supposed to mean indisputable well-loved hit. Now it seems we’re crossing even that line.

By SRCputt

July 24, 2007 5:07 PM | Link to this

OK, Eric $52 mil in the 80s was still alot, but if we restrict this to movies that made over $100 mil, how about Van Helsing?

By ME

July 24, 2007 10:33 AM | Link to this

Thanks for the rundown. I think you are right on. I know it all has to do with the dollar. When will we get smart and just wait for DVD … Or I guess unless we read your reviews regularly we may go into one of these familiar movie restaurants begging for another meal, paying the high price for another no-so-good return.

By Sir Critic

July 24, 2007 10:12 AM | Link to this

Rich: You make a very valid point that movies in general are lacking today, but I focused on sequels for two reasons. First, the question was asked of me, and second, most of this summer’s big money-makers have been sequels. TV is a whole different aesthetic. They make “sequels” because they’re supposed to - major difference. Hollywood makes them mainly because they’re easy sells - and hence the quality often suffers. SRC and Derwood: As for Star Trek V, it did indeed suck, but it didn’t make $300 million, so it didn’t fit with the topic at hand, which was unloved BLOCKBUSTERS, not just sequels. In fact, V was so bad it didn’t deserve to make the $52 M it DID pull down in 1989.

By Derwood

July 24, 2007 7:11 AM | Link to this

I’m with SRCputt.. Star Trek V and VI

By SRCputt

July 23, 2007 4:59 PM | Link to this

I hope never to see Bad Boys 3. As to unloved sequels, How about Star Trek V?

By Rich

July 23, 2007 4:53 PM | Link to this

Why do we look at movie sequels as being somehow synthetic and totally lacking in creativity, while TV series are designed simply to carry on stories with familiar characters, week after week? A TV series, then, is actually nothing more than weekly sequels, lasting for months. Movie series aren’t by definition lousy — look at James Bond, which has had highs and lows, but still can definitely deliver the goods! Bad movies are the problem, not bad sequels. Many non-sequels are BAD; the question should be, are sequels MORE likely to suck than non-sequels? It’s probably true, though, that high profile sequels offer better targets for complaints.

By Allie D.

July 23, 2007 1:37 PM | Link to this

I think this post has your thumb firmly on the slackening pulse of what is wrong with Hollywood. It’s not about making movies that are great. It’s about making money. And with that money, they make more of the same. The industry has been turned into a giant assembly line that pumps out mediocrity. Much like GM. Excellent post. And as for whether I’ll be laying down any money for those aforementioned future sequels… Not sure. I still haven’t seen Spidey 3. I refuse to watch even the first Fantastic 4 (it looks too trite for me to want to give up that time), and I haven’t seen Shrek 3 (because honestly it looks like DVD fare). My love for sequels isn’t all that great, particularly beyond the second installments. The only exception is Harry Potter.
 

Things to do