Mike's Musings: Hollywood's Giant Boo Boo
Hollywood is bruising from what was an awful summer. Many summer movies made a meager profit at best, but performed well below expectations. Some did horribly, with "The Lone Ranger" and "R.I.P.D" becoming two of the biggest box office disasters in history. Adjusted for inflation, it's number three (right before "R.I.P.D."). Without factoring it in, it comes in at number seven (again, right before "R.I.P.D."). "Man of Steel," the anticipated Superman flick that was supposed to make a borderline legendary killing at the box office, made only half as much as expected. $662 million (give or take) against a $225 million budget. A respectable profit to be sure, but not nearly what was hoped for or expected. Only "Star Trek: Into Darkness" did better than expected.
Clearly, things need to change. A lot.
One thing that needs to change is the reliance on special effects over story and dialogue. To be fair, once Hollywood figured out that audiences crave the "ooh" and "ahh" (or more likely, the lack of visual boredom) factor, summer movies depended on that. That's not the problem (not really). The problem is that they're taking place over characters and story.
The need for everything to be diluted and for storytelling to change to appeal to foreign audiences has concerned me for a while. Not because I'm xenophobic, but because they're taking away all the reasons to see the movies. While we like the adrenaline and the eye candy of the special effects and the action sequences, we ultimately return to the movies because we like the characters and stories. You think "Pirates of the Carribean" would have made as much money without Johnny Depp's delightfully weird performance as Captain Jack Sparrow? Not a chance. Had Depp played the character straight, Disney's pocketbooks would not have been singing as loudly (and they needed it, considering the one-two punch of "John Carter" and "The Lone Ranger" that came after).
Just look at "Man of Steel" for an example. It had a near-record breaking opening weekend ($116.6 million, the second highest of the summer and right behind "Iron Man 3"), and had the 20th highest grossing weekend of all time. What happened after everyone saw it opening weekend? Few people came back. Box office tallies dropped 65%, 68% counting the Thursday night screening. They had seen all the special effects once, and the lack of characters or any compelling story or dialogue meant that they didn't care to see it again.
What's the difference? For one thing, none of those movies were really good in the first place. That's the most important thing. Audiences don't give a damn about special effects or marketing tie-ins (unless they can see it for free) unless they think it was worth their time and money. The "Star Trek" sequel is going to be near the top of my Top 10 list this year because it told a compelling story with interesting characters who did more than explain the plot. "R.I.P.D." wasn't as bad as "Man of Steel," but it moved so fast that no one could even get sucked in before the end credits.
What needs to change? A few things. First off, the stories and characters have to be of more, or at least of equal, importance to the special effects. Movies like "Avatar" and "Titanic" set box office records (number one and two, respectively) because they used special effects in the service of a story. Everyone liked the special effects, yes, but they had an investment in the fates of Jack Dawson, Rose DeWitt Bukater, Jake Sully and Neytiri. They cared. I don't know about the die hard fans of Superman, but I really didn't care whether Superman saved the world or not in "Man of Steel."
That means bad news for people like Len Wiseman, who deal only in special effects. Music video directors can only shine if they know how to tell a story, and that is something that escapes Wiseman's meager talents (apparently, he left "The Mummy" reboot due to "scheduling conflicts," but I think there's more to the story here after his "Total Recall" debacle. At least the thought lets me sleep at night.)
Second, the reliance on remakes, sequels and built-in franchises also needs to be lessened. Once upon a time, a hit book or TV series was converted into a movie only when it was huge. It became an "event" movie. Now, books we've never heard of are being turned into franchises. It's become overkill and people are getting bored. Unless you're The Coen Brothers, chances are you're not making a movie from an original screenplay (although some of the movies on the yearly "Black List," the list of the years top 100 best-unproduced screenplays, are getting filmed...and that's a good thing, because they're usually good, or at least interesting, in the case of "Stoker").
Films should be allowed to speak for themselves. They should be allowed to stand on their own without their own marketing blitz. "Star Wars" was supposed to be a non-entity, but as word got around, people flocked to it and it spawned one of the best-known franchises in film history. People will always come to see a movie if they think its good.
The problem is that the studios are greedy. They're obsessed with chasing that billion dollar mark. It makes fiscal sense, sure, but they keep getting the recipe wrong. If you look at the difference between "Man of Steel" and "Pirates of the Carribean" (pick any, even the fourth one, lousy as it was), you'll see the difference. The movies have to contain something other than special effects. They have to contain a story.
Clearly, things need to change. A lot.
One thing that needs to change is the reliance on special effects over story and dialogue. To be fair, once Hollywood figured out that audiences crave the "ooh" and "ahh" (or more likely, the lack of visual boredom) factor, summer movies depended on that. That's not the problem (not really). The problem is that they're taking place over characters and story.
The need for everything to be diluted and for storytelling to change to appeal to foreign audiences has concerned me for a while. Not because I'm xenophobic, but because they're taking away all the reasons to see the movies. While we like the adrenaline and the eye candy of the special effects and the action sequences, we ultimately return to the movies because we like the characters and stories. You think "Pirates of the Carribean" would have made as much money without Johnny Depp's delightfully weird performance as Captain Jack Sparrow? Not a chance. Had Depp played the character straight, Disney's pocketbooks would not have been singing as loudly (and they needed it, considering the one-two punch of "John Carter" and "The Lone Ranger" that came after).
Just look at "Man of Steel" for an example. It had a near-record breaking opening weekend ($116.6 million, the second highest of the summer and right behind "Iron Man 3"), and had the 20th highest grossing weekend of all time. What happened after everyone saw it opening weekend? Few people came back. Box office tallies dropped 65%, 68% counting the Thursday night screening. They had seen all the special effects once, and the lack of characters or any compelling story or dialogue meant that they didn't care to see it again.
What's the difference? For one thing, none of those movies were really good in the first place. That's the most important thing. Audiences don't give a damn about special effects or marketing tie-ins (unless they can see it for free) unless they think it was worth their time and money. The "Star Trek" sequel is going to be near the top of my Top 10 list this year because it told a compelling story with interesting characters who did more than explain the plot. "R.I.P.D." wasn't as bad as "Man of Steel," but it moved so fast that no one could even get sucked in before the end credits.
What needs to change? A few things. First off, the stories and characters have to be of more, or at least of equal, importance to the special effects. Movies like "Avatar" and "Titanic" set box office records (number one and two, respectively) because they used special effects in the service of a story. Everyone liked the special effects, yes, but they had an investment in the fates of Jack Dawson, Rose DeWitt Bukater, Jake Sully and Neytiri. They cared. I don't know about the die hard fans of Superman, but I really didn't care whether Superman saved the world or not in "Man of Steel."
That means bad news for people like Len Wiseman, who deal only in special effects. Music video directors can only shine if they know how to tell a story, and that is something that escapes Wiseman's meager talents (apparently, he left "The Mummy" reboot due to "scheduling conflicts," but I think there's more to the story here after his "Total Recall" debacle. At least the thought lets me sleep at night.)
Second, the reliance on remakes, sequels and built-in franchises also needs to be lessened. Once upon a time, a hit book or TV series was converted into a movie only when it was huge. It became an "event" movie. Now, books we've never heard of are being turned into franchises. It's become overkill and people are getting bored. Unless you're The Coen Brothers, chances are you're not making a movie from an original screenplay (although some of the movies on the yearly "Black List," the list of the years top 100 best-unproduced screenplays, are getting filmed...and that's a good thing, because they're usually good, or at least interesting, in the case of "Stoker").
Films should be allowed to speak for themselves. They should be allowed to stand on their own without their own marketing blitz. "Star Wars" was supposed to be a non-entity, but as word got around, people flocked to it and it spawned one of the best-known franchises in film history. People will always come to see a movie if they think its good.
The problem is that the studios are greedy. They're obsessed with chasing that billion dollar mark. It makes fiscal sense, sure, but they keep getting the recipe wrong. If you look at the difference between "Man of Steel" and "Pirates of the Carribean" (pick any, even the fourth one, lousy as it was), you'll see the difference. The movies have to contain something other than special effects. They have to contain a story.
Comments
Post a Comment