Per THR:
Hollywood still hopes to shake off early symptoms, but there is spreading concern that the summer boxoffice will be plagued by a nasty case of sequelitis.Conditions are ripe: Studios have planted 11 sequels or franchise reboots in the fertile May-August span, up from nine last summer and seven from the 2008 season. But those opened so far have underwhelmed, with seasonal boxoffice off by a double-digit margin and studio executives beginning to feel woozy.
Most recently, Warner Bros.’ “Sex and the City 2″ was expected to outpace its 2008 predecessor and top the Memorial Day weekend. Instead, it lagged the original’s bow dramatically and debuted with a tarnished bronze medal, trailing even Disney’s disappointing “Prince of Persia: The Sands of Time.” (A would-be franchise starter, “Persia” will need outsized international contributions to reach profitability.)
DreamWorks Animation’s “Shrek Forever After” finished first in the frame. But that was of limited relief, as the Paramount-distributed four-quel missed consensus forecasts for its opening by a nauseating $30 million.
Reaction to the latest disappointments came swiftly.
“There very well could be some burnout with moviegoers, who are looking for something new and fresh,” a top studio exec lamented Tuesday.
I love these knee-jerk reactions that always land in the press after one or more movies of a type either tanks or kicks ass at the box office, the former driven by fear that a business paradigm may be faltering, the latter an embrace of a new wrinkle in business strategy and a way to create another layer between life as a studio exec and fear.
More on fear in Hollywood here.
Let’s see how the next sequel fares: Toy Story 3. I’ll bet it’s in the “kick ass” category.
Coming tomorrow: Reflections by its screenwriter Michael Arndt on working with Pixar.
I wonder if this represents a fear of sequels specifically or just a fear of bad movies in general. Shrek 4 did badly because Shrek 3 was awful. I think people will always be interested in seeing a sequel to a good movie.
I think Patrick is on the right track. People will come to sequels if they're good. The problem with "Sex and the City 2" and "Shrek 4," etc. was that they weren't all that good. And "Shrek 3" was pretty weak too. Plus, "Prince of Persia" doesn't fit in this group because it's not a sequel.
YES.
I currently have a chipmunk living between two cracks in the foundation of my home. He is out quite a bit but in a constant state of sheer blind terror since my family and I depart, arrive, play on the lawn, splash in the pool, etc. He darts, he dodges, he ducks, he flees. I fear he will be prematurely dead because of this lifestyle of unbridled panic and apprehension.
And I've, after reading this blog post, lovingly named him "Studio Executive."
The SHREK franchise took a turn for the worse because the very ideas behind the first and, to a lesser extent, second installments were completely anarchistic… almost Python-esque in blowing fairy tale (and thus, Hollywood) conventions out of the water.
However, someone decided, by the third one, to embrace everything Shrek lampooned against. And it ultimately became just another sad grab for cash… and Happy Meals!
As for Sex in the City? Jeez, I don't understand that franchise AT ALL. These films show women being really heinous and selfish and horrific and being rewarded for their actions? I actually enjoyed moments of the series but the seamless, veritably plotless, and, in the end, useless first feature film left me shaking my head and reaching for the vomit bags. I'm stunned that women gobble this crap up. It's more than a little offensive, I would think???
I read some user reviews on CNN dot com regarding Sex in the City 2 and the (presumably) female writers raved "God the outfits were so gorgeous" so I guess I'm not exactly the target audience for it anyway.
The overall underperformance of Prince of Persia must stem from a quality issue, I would think. Everything about it just look twice-baked and rehashed. And THIS TIME, audiences called 'em on it.. by staying home.
Could it be that audiences may not be so easily hornswoggled anymore by cheap gimmicks (3-D) and junk?
God, don't let THAT notion get out. Then you'll really see the chipmunks darting and scampering along Hollywood and Vine!
I'm pretty sure we tired of sequels a couple years ago when we had the SUMMER OF BLOCKBUSTERS.
Spiderman 3, Pirates 3, Ocean's 13, Shrek 3, Fantastic Four 2, and during Halloween Resident Evil 3, and Saw (I can't count that high).
Those are just the sequels I can name off the top of my head from that year.
None of those sequels were remotely good. Maybe that one summer of shitty sequels has left a bad taste in our mouth? Ya think?
I think we writers have a lot to do with the current state of cinema. If we aren't pushing the envelope, then it's ALL the same rehashed crap.
Studios have a good idea in going for "pre-branding," but at the same time, someone still has to write a good movie.
Sometimes the studios screw it up, sometimes the director, more times it's the writer.
Land of The Lost was a great concept but it got really screwed up. Sometimes I think the studios don't believe that people will "get it."
To look at Sex and the City you can see that it was "new" for theaters. 4 women with only relationship conflicts????!!!
I'd have to say it was the dialog. But then dialog is what did in Land of the Lost – ok it was one of the things.
There is no luck in cinema, there is enjoyable fare and not so enjoyable fare.
The fear of people "not getting it" may be a factor. In my day job, I write business "shows" — live presentations with elements of entertainment, humor, etc. One of the biggest battles I fight with the people who will actually be on stage delivering the material is their fear that the audience won't "get" the jokes.
And so, we often end up killing any humor by a) telegraphing that a joke is coming, and b) explaining the joke. I see the same thing all the time in movies (and TV) — especially with the "insult my intelligence" exposition in which some character explains the whole thing even though it was abundantly clear if the viewer was paying even a little attention.