Artistic integrity can't interfere when tentpoles are at stake

Three is no longer the fitting number for movie sequels when it comes to maintaining artistic credibility. It's now a matter of how long the studios can keep making money from these sequels because Hollywood is just too addicted to tent poles and the instant stream of revenues they create to be able to maintain any artistic integrity anymore. What comes to mind when I say this is the fact that Shrek, Spiderman, and Pirates of the Carribean are all going to be releasing a fourth installment of their series in movie theaters, despite the fact that despite great starts and sophomore outings, most critics and viewers agree the franchises all sputtered out of gas by the time they hit the back-ends of their trilogies.

What most viewers don't know is that except for the two Star Wars trilogies (the prequels and the originals), Shrek, Pirates of the Carribean and Spiderman have been the three biggest trilogies ever to hit the box office, boasting a combined four films in the top 10 highest-grossing films of all time and 8 in the top 30, so far. Even when the quality of their films declined heavily in poorly reviewed third installments, they were still able to gross monstrous amounts based on name recognition alone, when viewers set massive opening weekend records in May of 2007 when all three film trilogies came out. Before anyone qeven had time to tell their coworkers when they got back to work on Monday, just how bad the films were, these films made their money back in three days, and that's likely what will happen when the franchises come back again in part IV, until people wisen up and break their moviegoing habits.

Even worse in this trend is that studios can't afford to give their star properties much breathing room anymore. Look at The Incredible Hulk, Star Trek, James Bond, Batman and the previously mentioned Pirates of the Carribean in comparison to Star Wars and Indiana Jones.

Indiana Jones and Star Wars were films that essentially stopped after their stories were done being told. Due to fan demand and an appropriately long enough hiatus, these two franchises came back 16 years later in the case of Star Wars and 19 years later in the case of Indiana Jones. Part of the justification was that the stories could be introduced to a new generation. Although neither one of these franchises were particularly good when they were rebooted, one can't deny that the hype, anticipation, and ultimately, their opening weekend grosses, were far greater than that of any of the films in the first category.

In the first category of films, there was virtually no time to wait until a generation had passed. Hollywood tides move much faster than they used to and no one can afford to wait 15 or more years to not capitalize on a hot property of theirs. Thus we have:
-James Bond rebooted after a measly four years (Die Another Day 2002-Casino Royale 2006)
-Star Trek reappearing in theaters after only a 7 year break (Nemesis, 2002) and a 4-year break since the Star Trek franchise dissapeared on TV (Enterprise in 2005)
-Batman taking only a seven year break between Batman and Robin (1999) one of the decade's biggest failures and Batman Begins
-Hulk rebooting after only a five-year break without even pretending to be any sort of sequel or prequel. It was simply marketed as a "do over."
-Pirates of the Carribean set to appear only three or four years after Pirates of the Carribean III was lampooned by most critics

Casino Royale and Retooling Franchises (full review)

Full-Length Review of Casino Royale:

The 20th Bond installation of Die Another Day was more of a celebration that the franchise had lasted 40 years and 20 pictures than it was a look to the future of the Bond franchise. Die Another Day was somewhat self-referential (the imdb trivia section claims DAD there are references to each of the first 19 films) and maybe that reminded us of how sick of the old James Bond we were getting. I generally love James Bond pictures because I watch them as I would genre films. The formula is always the same: gadgets, girls, Q, Moneypenny, M, exotic locations, the villains, extravagant world domination plans and accompanying control centers. With each picture, the fun is in watching and comparing exactly how each film navigates its way through each of the checkpoints.

I have loved watching all of this except there's always one element of the series I have never quite cared for and that is Bond himself. I am sick of how Bond never bleeds, never gets dealt a bad hand in poker, how he'll compromise the mission to sleep with a girl, and how when a room full of soldiers fires at him, the bullets happen to miss. I'm also sick of how M forgives him at the end of the mission (especially Licence to Kill but also On Her Majesty's Secret Service).

In this Bond film, some of the old parts I love seeing are not here: Moneypenny, the villainous girl, and especially Q. Bonds toys don't really look like Q's gadgets, they just look like those high-end gizmos you find in your sky mall catalogue. At the same time, it's refreshing to see Bond bleed, Bond lose a hand of cards, and Bond actually fall in love. I'm not sure which version of Bond I like better, but maybe it was the right time for a change. It also helps that James Bond is played by an Oscar-caliber actor (he hasn't won an Oscar yet, but he could easily win one in between James Bond films, he got buzz for Munich and Infamous and was also in Road to Perdition) who could go way above and beyond Bond if need be. Pierce Brosnam never seemed to be more than an action hero, and his best roles outside of Bond, After the Sunset and Matador, are notable only because they parody his action hero type.

On another note, I also can't say I like to see franchises reset from point zero, because that's a kind of invalidating of what's come before it. Much of the press released since Casino Royale was released is saying things like "This is the first Bond film since Connery played the part since I enjoyed," when I happen to think that Moore, Dalton and Brosnam each had at least one good film (Live and Let Die is my favorite in the series), and I'm also willing to bet that many of those reviewers gave at least a few good reviews somewhere between Live and Let Die and Die Another Day. Goldeneye, Live and Let Die, and Spy Who Loved Me (although I personally hate it) are all generally regarded as successes.

Some other films I've seen in 2006

These are the films I saw from 2006 ranked in order. Brief Reviews at:

http://sophomorecritic.blogspot.com/2007/01/first-30-pictures-i-saw-this-year-brief.html

The ones I've seen since then are in bold:

1. Little Miss Sunshine
2. The Departed
3. Blood Diamond
4. Prairie Home Companion
5. Hollywoodland
6. Cars
7. Bobby
8. Da Vinci Code
9. X-Men 3
10. Stranger than Fiction
11. Lucky Number Sliven-A sweet Hitchkokian thriller with a couple twists and a well-rounded cast. It's too bad that this film came out between January and April where it kind of gets relegated to being forgotten. The score and cinametography are also noteworthy
12. Talladega Nights
13. Good Shephard
14. Casino Royale-The 20th Bond installation of Die Another Day was more of a celebration that the franchise had listed 40 years and 20 pictures, than it was a look to the future of the Bond franchise. In other words, I think that by the time Die Another Day came out, people were getting a little sick of the old James Bond. The Bond who never bleeds, who never gets dealt a bad hand in poker, who always gets the girl and will compromise the mission if a girl is in the way, etc. I can't say I like to see franchises reset from point zero, because some of the old hat tricks are not here: Moneypenny, Q, and the villainous girl. But at the same time, it's refreshing to see Bond bleed, Bond lose a hand of cards, and Bond actually fall in love. I'm not sure which version of Bond I like better, but maybe it was the right time for a change
15. Lady in the Water
16. Accepted
17. Queen
18. Borat
19. Poseidon
20. You, Me and Dupree
21. Invincible
22. Children of Men
23. World Trade Center
24. All the Kings Men
25. Employee of the Month
26. Inconvinient Truth-The message is one that needs to be told so I support the film in that respect, and hats off to Al Gore for his efforts. At the same time, pointing a camera at a guy giving a powerpoint presentation doesn't make for good film.
27. Pirates of the Carribean 2
28. Devil Wears Prada
29. Happy Feet-It has a theme loosely tied to Inconvinient Truth so that should win people over, and it came out a year after the March of the Penguins. In short, it's a film that just came along at the right time to be a critical darling, but it's plot about a penguin who would rather dance than sing just makes me scratch my head. The casting also isn't put to good use: Robin Williams is massively underused and Hugh Jackman is someone who I'd perfer in person rather than just his voice, but he's pretty decent in his role. It does have its moments though and a plot that rounds out nicely..
30. For Your Consideration
31. Last King of Scotland
32. Catch a Fire
33. Superman Returns
34. Deja Vu
35. The Black Dahlia
36. Man of the Year
37. Click