1) No more Prefab Decade-long Franchises. "Chronicles of Narnia" was supposed to be the next "Harry Potter" series - a seven-part series based on beloved childrens' books that could stretch out over an entire decade, guaranteeing dirty large grosses with its four-quadrant appeal, the kind of franchise that basically justifies an entire studio's existence, even with years between movies. (See also: Sony and "Spider-Man")
The main problem with this plan was obvious to everyone who had ever actually read the Narnia books. The "Harry Potter" series forms a coherent, overarching narrative story - the Narnia books are more haphazard, shedding main characters along the way (two of the stories, "The Horse and His Boy" and "The Magician's Nephew," introduce brand new main characters who never return except for occasional guest appearances.) In addition, unlike Rowling's novels, which pleased nearly everyone of all ages, the Narnia books really just appeal to children. They're full of imagination but lean on vocabulary, and the unambiguous presentation of good and evil can't help but seem adolescent compared to the shifting moral compass of the Potter books. Some of the later books are wonderful, dark, and weird (like "The Silver Chair," which few people remember specifically except as a subterranean pulpy nightmare), but at least one of them, "The Last Battle" is essentially unfilmable as a fantasy adventure film, since it's basically a series of speeches and a mindbending final twist. (Antonioni, Altman, or hell, Kevin Smith could work wonders with a novel like this, but who would give any of them a budget that big?)
After the crash of "Speed Racer" and the mediocre debut of "Prince Caspian," it's looking like this could be the summer when big budget prefab franchises finally hit a dead end. I don't mean that franchises should end - I love the "Indiana Jones" movies, and the second installments of "X-Men" and "Spider Man," and even can't wait for the second "Hellboy," but is anyone excited to see a third "Mummy? The first "Hulk" had the worst second weekend percentage drop of any film in history - what better indication could there be that people were tremendously excited about the movie, and that the movie itself was received so poorly? What could be less exciting than a sequel/reboot, so soon afterwards? It's as if the good people at Marvel, having made such wonderful plans for a "Hulk" franchise, want to prove that we, the people, were wrong - that "Hulk" should be a franchise, no matter how crappy the movie was.
This is the main problem with the post-Batman blockbuster era, as regaled in Tom Shone's genius, deviously straightforwardly-titled "Blockbuster." Starting with "Batman," the studios no longer had to wait and see what people liked (nobody saw "Jaws" coming) - now, they could make such a huge public to-do over a movie that they could tell people what they would like. I think that we may be seeing an end to this ploy. I'm more excited than anyone to see "X-Files" and I'm hastily running through the entirety of "Sex and the City" in time to see the movie, but can't we all agree that the later seasons of both shows weren't that great? What reason, then, is there for either movie to be created, except that studio executives see franchise possibility?
Prefab franchises - that is, franchises based on existing sources, with built-in fanbases - have been a part of the scene since at least "Lord of the Rings," when New Line made the crazy decision to greenlight three movies at once. That series was lightning in a bottle. Nothing that has come after it has been nearly as good, as epic, or as dangerous. After the shitty performance of "The Golden Compass," can it be that we're almost at the end of an era when studios dictate franchises, rather than audiences?
2) A resurgence, in a highly modified and far more meritocratic form, of the Star System. For my money, there are two reasons why "The Incredible Hulk" trailer has been received with shrugs (and why, I'm willing to bet anyone two dollars, the movie will underperform considerably), whereas the "Iron Man" trailer had people nearly choking on the awesomeness for a year in advance. That reason is a great actor and good, sarcastic script. Robert Downey, Jr, became a Hollywood star in the "Iron Man" trailer, with this one scene:
Reporter: You've been called the Da Vinci of our time, what do you say to that?
Downey: Absolutely ridiculous, I don't paint.
Reporter: What do you say to your other nickname - the Merchant of Death?
Downey: That's not bad.
Right away, you could tell that this movie was going to be fun, and different - this was not mopey Tobey Maguire, or fierce Christian Bale. This was darkly funny Robert Downey, Jr. This was a great actor, lifting good B-material into great audience fodder. (And it wasn't like the trailer gave away all the good points - it left out the end of the scene with the reporter, when they jump into bed; and it only hinted at the next scene, when Paltrow makes the wondrously subtle line about "taking out the trash.") There is not a single moment like this in the "Hulk" trailer - nothing that doesn't hit every bland note.
I think you can directly compare Downey's role in "Iron Man" to Johnny Depp's role in "Pirates of the Caribbean" - two great, very distinctive, very improvvy characters, being given the keys to the kingdom and the chance to show an audience of millions just how much fun they were having. I think that what happened to the "Pirates of the Caribbean" franchise is one of the great wastes (of talent, of money, and of narrative possibility) in film history. You could have made a sequel for half the money, at two-thirds the running time, focused entirely on Johnny Depp's character (who was, really, the only person anyone cared about), made exactly the same amount of money, and, as a partial bonus, ended up with a much better movie.
What does this mean? Well, despite rumors to the contrary, Hollywood still needs stars, but they need actors who can make instantaneous impressions - actors who can give performances which you can tell, even from tiny little trailer bits, will be wonderful. This sounds like I'm being vague. I'm not. There is absolutely a way to quantify how good an actor is. Look at how many movies he has starred in, how much range he has shown. Professionalism, dammit! Television has already figured out that the right underappreciated, hardworking actor in a good role can make an icon (see: James Gandolfini, Keifer Sutherland, Alec Baldwin)
3) The Painful Death of Walden Media. This tiny production company has made its name off of churning out kids' movies, usually based on beloved works of children's literature, and replacing all of the wonder with catchy digital effects. They somehow managed to take "Bridge to Terabithia," a wondrously low-fi tale of friendship, and make it look like the next Narnia/LOTR in its trailer. They also made "The Waterhorse" and "The Seeker" and "Nim's Island," all vapid kiddie flicks trying desperately to capitalize on the fantasy wave which, coincidentally, ended with the arrival of shitty movies like "The Waterhorse," "The Seeker," and "Nim's Island." (It also created "Mr. Magorium's Wonder Emporioum," and "Around the World in 80 Days," which bled money the way hemophiliacs bleed blood - all the way to deathtown.) Walden Media is also at fault for the upcoming "Journey to the Center of the Earth 3D," which may be lucky enough to be only the second worst Brendan Fraser adventure picture opening this sumer.
Walden Media essentially exists because it owns the rights to "Chronicles of Narnia," and their continued existence is directly linked to the franchise's success. (Much like United Artists, for many, many years, essentially depended on a new James Bond megablockbuster every couple of years.) Their exit strategy, if Wikipedia is telling me the truth, is to become the one-stop shopper for Brendan Fraser Action-Adventure 3-D movies (in addition to "Journey 3D," there's also something called "An Adventure in Prehistory 3-D" coming out in September - I can't find this movie anywhere else online, and it seems too bad to be true, but then again, this is Walden Media.)
(Aside: the trailer for City of Ember kind of looks sweet.)
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment