Is Going Back to the Well Always Bad?
Friends and loyal readers—I apologize for the week off, but hope you enjoyed your Memorial Day! Monday I will be back to discussing theater before giving my Tony Award predictions next week. Today, I want to discuss something that is in no way a new trend but perhaps a troubling one.
The last four movies I saw in theaters were Black Panther, Avengers: Infinity War, Deadpool 2, and Solo: A Star Wars Story. Put another way that is an original movie set in a cinematic universe with 17 previous existing films, a sequel set in the same universe, a direct sequel, and a prequel in one of the most successful film franchises of all time. Other films coming out this summer include: The Incredibles 2, Ant-Man and the Wasp, Ocean's 8, Jurassic World: Fallen Kingdom, Mamma Mia! Here We Go Again, Mission: Impossible Fallout, and several other familiar titles.
Why do studios keep going back with tried and true measures? Here are the top grossing films of 2017:
1. Star Wars: The Last Jedi -- $620,181,382
2. Beauty and the Beast -- $504,014,165
3. Wonder Woman -- $412,563,408
4. Jumanji: Welcome to the Jungle -- $404,480,885
5. Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 2 -- $389,813,101
6. Spider-Man: Homecoming -- $334,201,140
7. It -- $327,481,748
8. Thor: Ragnarok -- $315,058,289
9. Despicable Me 3 -- $264,624,300
10. Justice League -- $229,024,295
So of the top 10 movies, three were rehashing previous intellectual property (Beauty, Jumanji, It), three were sequels (Star Wars, Guardians, Thor, Despicable Me), and the other three existed in ongoing cinematic universes (Marvel Cinematic Universe: Spider-Man and D.C. Extended Universe: Wonder Woman and Justice League.) This is the first time this has happened since 2011, when the top movies included the final Harry Potter movie, a Transformers sequel, and one of the Twilight movies. For reference, the top grossing 2018 film to not be either a sequel or rehashing existing characters was Pixar's Coco at 13, which made north of $200 million and also at least three tears for every dollar spent.
Let's say this: Hollywood studios are obviously going to make movies that make them money, and the proliferation of streaming services and on-demand stuff allows movies to be seen by masses that might not previously have been able to see the movie. This is a super good thing.
Let's also admit this: I saw 8 of these movies: apologies to Jumanji and Despicable Me 3. I really liked a lot of these movies and thought they were a lot of fun. That's what I look for in my blockbuster films. If I'm going to be paying to see your movie on the big screen (or using my MoviePass, shout out MoviePass until it goes under) then I want to have a good time or be moved in some way—I don't think that is too much to ask. If I feel a movie is made solely because the studio wants to make money, then I'm out. It is an ever present tension that I find is especially present in sequels and the like.
The top film franchise that violates this for me is the Transformers film series. I liked the 80s cartoon a lot. I am incredibly geeky, and I should be the perfect audience for the movies. I was decently entertained by the first one. The second one was abysmal. I didn't even bother seeing any of the rest. If you put less heart into your property then the 80s cartoon, which was designed *solely* to sell toys, then you are perfectly violating this simple expectation. Did the Transformers movie need to exist? No. But not all movies do—if something doesn't need to exist, it better at least be fun. Were they fun? No.
Another property I feel got close to this is Pixar's Cars. Pixar has made some incredible, poignant, touching films. Toy Story and its sequels are all incredible, as is Up, WALL-E, and Coco. Whether original or sequels, they are moving films that are simultaneously fun and a little emotionally devastating to watch. The first Cars was a fun movie, though not terribly memorable, and it probably sold in toys the same amount of money that several countries average in GDP. The second Cars lacked that heart. It didn't have the same fun drive that Pixar films are known for. Every new character felt like it was designed solely for toy releases. What did they do next? Made a third Cars film.
I don't think there is anything wrong with seeing blockbusters. I really enjoyed the newest Avengers and Deadpool movies. Black Panther has obvious cultural significance. Solo is under performing what I imagine Disney desired, but I actually had a fun time watching it. That's all good and fine, but I think it is equally important to note and support new, fresh ideas. It is why I'm incredibly excited to see movies like Sorry to Bother You and Hearts Beat Loud.
Ultimately I think the takeaway is to be aware of the prevalence of sequels and the like and ask a simple question: am I seeing this movie because I really want to or am I solely doing so for a sense of completion? If it's the former, go see the movie. Reward the studio for making a fun movie that you enjoy. If you're seeing a fifth sequel just to see what happens with a character you used to like but no longer care about, then don't see the movie. Wanting to see a fun movie and seeing one is fine. If you are seeing a movie because you feel you need to see the characters, then you will end up spending money at a theater to see something like Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull. Don't do that to yourself. Don't do that to a beloved character. Don't do that to anyone.