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

Reading through oversimplified blurbs

Yesterday in USA Today, there was a blurb that read as follows:


"Matt Damon is filmdom's sexiest moneymaker. His The Bourne Ultimatum outgunned The Simpsons at the box office ($131.6 million for Bourne in its second week vs. $128.1 million for The Simpsons). The under-the-radar leading man was named most bankable actor by Forbes. Maybe Ocean's Thirteen co-star George Clooney had the inside track last year when he said Damon should be People's next Sexiest Man Alive?"

The main takeaway from this is that Forbes Magazine really needs to stick to non-movie analysis.

It's true that the "Bourne Ultimatum" is successful but to be considered a bankable actor over the course of your career, you should have to show two hits in a row on your resume. The last movie that starred Matt Damon (an ensemble piece like "Ocean's 13" doesn't really count) was "The Good Shepherd" which netted only $59 million domestically. Not too long before that, "Syriana" netted in just $50 million despite high critical praise and Terry Gilliam's "The Brothers Grimm" earned $37 million.

Box Office Mojo calculates the average gross of a Matt Damon film to be $80.4 million dollars. If we remove the four films (not including cameos) he appeared in prior to his breakout role in Good Will Hunting ("School Ties", "Geronimo", "Courage Under Fire", and "The Rainmaker") that's adjusted to $90.2 million which is still not as good as the unadjusted figures for Jim Carrey ($102 million), Steve Carell ($108.6 million), Tom Cruise ($99.9 million, although he's averaged $120 million since his breakout role in Top Gun), Harrison Ford ($106 million), or Orlando Bloom ($207 million).

One wouldn't expect a Matt Damon movie to necessarily do well because he usually chooses roles like "Bourne Ultimatum", "Syrianna", and "Good Shepherd" with political subtexts that could tend to polarize audiences like Sean Penn. This is not to say Matt Damon is not a truly gifted and admirably intelligent actor because he is. Damon is not a bankable actor but that is because he chooses not to be: He chooses roles carefully and diversifies his challenges.

The problem is to prematurely label him as the new "It boy" in Hollywood and pin lofty commercial expectations on him and his future projects.

Lastly, who's to say "The Bourne Ultimatum" is successful? It's only been out 2 weekends, and it had a 52 percent falloff rate on the second weekend whereas 40-45 percent is considered the average drop off. The article also says it beat the Simpsons movie's 10-day total, but who cares? "The Simpsons" movie was only the sixth highest ten-day total of the summer. "Bourne Ultimatum" didn't beat "Transformers" or "Harry Potter" which didn't have the advantage of being the back-ends of trilogies.

The lesson: Do not read too much into oversimplified blurbs that are written by people with short-term memory. They're created out of little more than a need to throw a couple of facts together into a paragraph to make copy look interesting

Another case in point: USA Today's movie round-up on the front page of the Life section in this very same issue:

"Transformers at No. 11 this weekend, becomes the fourth movie to cross the $300 million mark this year, a record number. This summer is on par to become the largest of all time, with ticket sales up 6% over 2004, the current record holder."

On the contrary, this summer is highly disappointing if ticket sales are up only 6% over 2004. Transformers is the fourth movie to cross the $300 million mark but considering that past installments of the "Shrek", "Spiderman" and the "Pirates of the Caribbean" series have each grossed over $400 million* the third installments were in a position to easily sleepwalk their way into $300 million grosses, which is precisely what they did. The critical consensus is that "Shrek the Third" was an entirely unnecessary tack-on, "Pirates of the Caribbean: At World's End" was incomprehensible, and "Spiderman III" was arguably decent with some definite cringeworthy moments. The fact that the back-ends of the three most successful summer movie trilogies of the decade were all premiering this summer and none of them grossed more than $340 million is an indication of how they disappointed audiences. "Transformers" is an unabashed success but it's still too early to tell if "Bourne Ultimatum" or "Harry Potter" will join them.

*Pirates of the Caribbean: Curse of the Black Pearl, Shrek II, and Spiderman are among just seven movies to gross over $400 million. Spiderman II grossed $373 million which places it among the top 10 all-time

Directors by total gross earnings

Here's an interesting chart I compiled through box office mojo. Richar Donner I had to make an . Michael Bay and Brett Rattner (currently at #24 with 840) should have an easy time crossing one billion dollars with Transformers gaining more and more money each week and Rush Hour opening this weekend.

This list goes to show:
-How Stephen Spielberg is on a whole other stratosphere. He averages a very healthy $149 million per picture and that includes films from the 70s and the 80s when he was starting out that were not designed as commercial vehicles like "Sugarland Express" "1941" and "Color Purple."

-His protege Rob Zemeckis is also at #2 with hits like "Forrest Gump" ($300+ million), and Back to the Future and Cast Away which have grossed over $200 million and if you take away his first two unsuccessful films ("Used Cars" and "I Wanna Hold Your Hand"), his average gross is $147 per film)
-How much a single trilogy like Pirates of the Carribean, Spiderman, or Lord of the Rings can help push these figures up for a director like Gore Verbinski, Sam Raimi, or Peter Jackson, respectively. These film trilogies single handedly earned billion dollars in domestic revenue for their studios, which makes your resume look very good. In actuality, a terrible third edition of a trilogy like Pirates 3 or Shrek 3 can pay off over 100 million in an opening weekend en route to 300 million total before anyone notices that it's really not that good of a film.
-How prolific Clint Eastwood is rather than how commercially successful he is. He made 26 films which means that he just barely passes the $1 billion dollar mark with a pretty low $38 million average. Only two of his pictures grossed more than $100 million dollars and those are the ones he won an Oscar for, meaning that they were able to benefit from post-Oscar releases

This list does not show:
-Much about how commercially successful any director before the last 10 years was because inflation at the box office is not accounted for here. It is true however that the advent of block busters has grown stronger in the last 10 years as people have
-An accurate representation of Andrew Adamson who was one of three directors working on Shrek 2, which has the 3rd highest box office total of all time
-An accurate representation of George Lucas, considering that he is not credited as director of Return of the Jedi or Empire Strikes Back
-An accurate assessment of a comic director like Jay Roach. Roach directed Austin Powers trilogy and the Meet the Parents/Meet the Fockers series, which were successful more due to the talents of Mike Meyers in the former and the Robert De Niro/Ben Stiller chemistry in the latter than the director.

Directors with total earnings in billions (top 3 films in order):

1. Stephen Spielberg 3.447 (E.T., Jurassic Park, Jaws)
2. Rob Zemeckis 1.718 (Forrest Gump, Cast Away, Back to the Future)
3. George Lucas 1.700 (Star Wars, Star Wars Ep. I: The Phantom Menace, Star Wars III: Revenge of the Sith)
4. Ron Howard 1.606 (How the Grinch Stole Christmas, Da Vinci Code, Apollo 13)
5. Chris Columbus 1.568 (Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone, Home Alone, Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets)
6. Gore Verbinski 1.306 (Pirates of the Carribean: Dead Man's Chest, Pirates of the Carribean: At World's End, Pirates of the Carribean: Curse of the Black Pearl)
7. Peter Jackson 1.271 (Lord of the Rings: Return of the King, Lord of the Rings: Two Towers, Lord of the Rings: Fellowship of the Ring)
8. Sam Raimi 1.248 (Spiderman, Spiderman II, Spiderman III)
9. Tim Burton 1.235 (Batman, Charlie and the Chocolate Factory, Planet of the Apes)
10. James Cameron 1.146 (Titanic, Terminator 2, True Lies
11. Richard Donner 10.96 (Lethal Weapon 2, Lethal Weapon 3, Superman)
12. Michael Bay 1.071 (Transformers, Armageddon, Pearl Harbor)
13. Clint Eastwood 1.002 (Unforgiven, Million Dollar Baby, Space Cowboys)
14. Andrew Adamson 1.001 (Shrek 2, Chronicles of Narnia, Shrek)
15. Ivan Reitman 0.996 (Ghostbusters, Ghostbusters II, Twins)
16. Joel Schumaker 0.962 (Batman Forever, A Time to Kill, Batman and Robin)
17. Tony Scott 0.943 (Top Gun, Beverly Hills Cop 2, Enemy of the State)
18. Jay Roach 0.927 (Meet the Fockers, Austin Powers in Goldmember, Austin Powers: The Spy Who Shagged Me)
19. Tom Shadyac 0.878 (Bruce Almighty, Liar Liar, Patch Adams
20. Barry Sonnenfeld 0.880 (Men in Black, Men in Black II, Wild Wild West)
21. Roland Emerich 0.850 (Independence Day, Day After Tomorrow, Godzilla)

The Box Office June Update

As I mentioned in my May update, it looked like the summer was going to peak in May on the movie front. Shrek 3, Pirates 2 and Spiderman 3 were undoubtedly the biggest movie picture events.

The last installment of Shrek at 441 million dollars was the 3rd highest grossing film of all time behind only Star Wars and Titanic. The original Spiderman launched this whole megablockbuster era that we have today by being the first film to gross 100 million dollars in a single weekend (this is akin to the film industry's version of breaking the 4-minute barrier) and Spiderman 2 got immense love from a large fan base and critical respectability. Like Spiderman, Pirates of the Carribean has created a cult fugure (and an oscar nomination as well) out of Jonny Depp's Captain Jack Sparrow and left its marks all over the box office record books setting opening day, opening weekend, and opening 10-day records before becoming the second highest film of the decade.

So to summarize, what all these numbers mean is that last month we had the final promised installment of the three biggest summer movie phenomenons of the new millenium and whether it was because they were all crammed together or not, they all dissapointed. They still made money but sequels automatically tend to do that anyway, and they did not make money in terms of satisfied customers.

Of the three, Spiderman 3 is probably the least dissapointment-proof. It is safely above 300 million dollars now and while it had some mixed reviews upon its opening, the general consensus was pretty positive. I personally thought it was a very uneven experience at first, but satisfying overall, and it served as a satisfying conclusion to the series. The main problem, I think was that so much was resolved in Spiderman 2 (Harry knows who Spiderman is, Peter and Mary Jane get together, Peter confesses to Aunt May for lying about Uncle Ben's death, etc.) that there was little tension left over for Spiderman 3. That left the first hour of Spiderman 3 boring and uneventful. It started to feel like a teen flick and reminded me that without the superhero element, Spiderman does not have as much to offer in terms of rich and dynamic characters. In other words, I don't feel that Peter Parker, Mary Jane, and Harry are interesting enough characters to base a film around if the superhero angle was taken out of the equation. Therefore, it was imperative for the film to not waste too much time with exposition and get into the superhero dynamics before the audience gets bored, which was the case with me. Once, the film found its groove, things started rolling, however. When Spiderman's suit turned from red to black (I'm sure there's some more technical term for what happened to him that some comic geek would know), you could really tell that Tobey MaGuire was having fun playing against type for the first time in his career and I felt the new additions to the Spiderman ensemble were all complimentary. My final verdict of satisfaction came about ultimately because the ending really was very effective and it's hard to feel satisfied by any ending that you've waited five years and sat through a combined 7 hours of film to see.


Shrek 3 I've heard pretty bad opinions across the board from the imdb.com comments that it just didn't measure up to its predecessors.

Pirates of the Carribean III, on the other hand, just didn't succeed as a film, in my opinion. I say
this as someone who counts the original Pirates of the Carribean as one of his favorite films of all time so needless to say, I was rooting for the film and gave it every benefit of the doubt. In the end, it was just a squandered sequel. It was about as bad as it could possibly considering the potential of the story and the greatness of these characters. The story was so convoluted, it made Pirates of the Carribean: Dead Man's Chest (which I complained was too confusing) look like Little Red Riding Hood. I was surprised that despite the fact that the movie was a failure and sequels usually have major trouble pleasing critics, Pirates of the Carribean III actually got some good reviews. My local newspaper and a number of others actually found the film to be pretty good.

Predicting Pirates will sweep the box office

I don't yet have a review of Pirates of Caribbean as I will see the movie tomorrow. Nevertheless, I am going to predict that Pirates of the Caribbean comes out on top this summer at the box office race and I just wanted to post it here before the box office report comes out.

My reasons:
1. It has more family appeal than Spiderman in my opinion, because Jack Sparrow might be more popular with kids. This is just my guess but Captain Jack Sparrow might be a little bit more appealing to kids at a slightly younger age, while Spiderman/Peter Parker is more of an adolescent hero. At the same time, Pirates might appeal to adults more because because many people in their 50s or 60s might have grown up on Pirate Movies as a kid and this is an effective homage to the genre. This is interesting because it's the first time the Pirates and Spiderman, the two biggest summer giants of the decade have squared off in the same season.

2. The release schedules. Spiderman 1's release at the beginning of the summer several weeks before any other movies came out was a strategy that paid off and shot the film northward of $300 million dollars. However, with two juggernauts being released within 2 and 3 weeks of Spiderman's opening in Shrek the Third and Pirates III, that is going to cut into its intake. Expect Spiderman to drop significantly this weekend. Pirates III has a wide open field that I doubt Ocean's 13 will do much to affect in a couple of weeks. The truth is that all three films will hurt their chances to realize their maximum profit by releasing their films so close to each other. And it's such a shame because it's all on memorial day, but Pirates will hurt itself the least. Pirates might not equal Spiderman's opening 3 day record, but it might gross higher in the long run. At least, I hope so because I am a pirate lover

3. Pirates has good reviews, whatever that's worth. It's even enough to get viewers on board who aren't familiar with the series, period.


So my predictions:
Spiderman III: $360 million
Shrek the third: $319 million (on the plus, there's no other kids' movies for competition, but May is a crowded month)
Pirates II:
Opening weekend: $124 million, total $387 million



Other summer films:
-Ocean's 13 will be an interesting choice. It's director Stephen Sodebergh won an oscar for his innovative film making in traffic and has since been nothing if not innovative and constantly experimenting with the medium (i.e. Full Frontal, Bubble, Good German). At the same time, a lot of these films are just plain awful. Unfortunately, Ocean's 12 fell under the same trap of a filmmaker so caught up in experimentation that he forgot to hold his story together with a coherent plot. Still, the greatness and potential of the director is evident and that might be enough for many to fill the seats. The film's gross is also hard to predict because the previous films were released during December and this one will be released in the Summer. Considering the first one made $183 million domestically, I'm gonna guess that this one can hit the $200 million mark if it gets decent to good reviews
Prediction: $49 mil opening $220 million

-Evan Almighty: the first film was a $200 mil+ hit. Evan Almighty has practically nothing to do with Bruce Allmighty in the sense that while Morgan Freeman still plays God, Jennifer Anniston and Jim Carrey are gone. This is just a cheap attempt to capitalize on Steve Carrell's rising stock and framing it as a sequel. So the question is how appealing is Steve Carrell? Well, the 40-Year Old Virgin did well but that was through good word-of-mouth, Steve Carrell as a break-out star, a catchy gimmick, and the revered reputation of writer/director Judd Apatow. I hear that if a guy is on a TV show, it's difficult to get anyone pay to see him in a movie when the TV show is free. I bet this one will be a little subpar on expectations
Prediction: $32 mil opening $121 mil

-Fantastic Four: The first one had bad reviews, a great opening weekend at $55.7 million, and a slightly above average total at $154 million total. In other words, this difference between great opening weekend and decent total means great hype but not-so-great word of mouth. I think the studio that funded this project underestimated the need for the sequel. Jessica Alba's growth as a star attraction will have to help move this film along. The film also needs to hope that comic book geeks will flock to the film for the added attraction of the Silver Surfer and unlike the first film, moviegoers might be more deterred by bad reviews if they occur a second time. This is what sunk Tomb Raider II and Charlie's Angels II.
Prediction: $44 mil opening, $152 mil

-Transformers: The transformers are a nostalgic trip for those raised in the 80s, but that's a small, small demographic, and I don't think live action will appeal as well. It's produced by Spielberg, which might sound like a sure thing, but remember: it's not directed or written by him. I predict this to be a bust, unfortunately. I am predicting this to be a humongous, humongous flop, by the way. This is the equivalent of predicting a 13 seed over a 4 seed in the NCAA tournament
Prediction: $19 mil opening, $100 mil

-Harry Potter V: The last Harry Potter movie to open in the summer was Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azhkaban which had a respectable opening en route to $249 million dollars. I see no reason why this film will do better or worse than that one. If people are falling out of interest in the series, (which I don't think they are), I think the quality of the films is increasing anyway. It's getting a great release date, about 6 weeks after people will get tired of Pirates, so I predict slightly higher
Prediction: $66 mil opening, $258 mil

-Simpsons: Let's face it, the Simpsons are on the demise. They haven't had a remotely original episode in 5 years, at least, and while some people could successfully argue that Family Guy won't ever be as good as Simpsons was 10 years ago, in 2007, I can't see the Simpsons generating enough buzz for a decent season premiere this September, let alone show up in mass droves for a movie premiere. The Simpsons' success has always been that of casual viewership, in my opinion. It's just something decent to watch at 6 or 7 pm while preparing dinner and nothing more. It's just a generic answer you might have if someone asked you your favorite TV show and you didn't want to answer with something too wierd. Just like George Clooney when he was on E.R. and trying to become a bankable TV star, people often won't want to pay for something that's on TV.
Furthermore, I predict it will be the failure of this movie that will get people asking the long overdue question, "Is the Simpsons really that culturally relevant anymore?"
Prediction: $13 mil opening, $79 mil total

-Knocked Up: This is going to be the sleeper hit of the summer and raise Judd Apatow's profile even more. He's rumored to be launching Tom Cruise's comeback next. I've heard from everywhere it's very good, but I don't believe that'll translate into a strong weekend opening. Not with Pirates still around.
Prediction: $25 mil opening, $132 mil total

-Nancy Drew: Is the next tentpole for a series like Harry Potter? It might have that crossover appeal that parents might want to watch with their kids but it's just not being marketed heavily enough.
Prediction: $21 mil opening, $112 mil total

-Liscence to Wed: It looks like summer filler similar to RV. I'm not saying Robin Williams is by any means going downhill, but with RV, Man of the Year, and Liscence to Wed he's starting to get into too much of a comfortable zone
Predictions: $10 mil opening, $68 mil total