The summer is almost over, and many studios are asking the same question over and over again: What happened? How could so many seemingly sure-fire hits have crashed and burned with such surprising totality?

     Silent Hill. Material Girls. The appropriately titled Failure to Launch. My Super Ex-Girlfriend. Snakes on a Plane(expected to fail by nearly everyone except myself, but I still stand by my positive review of it).
And of course, the summer’s most visible big-bucks failure, Superman Returns. Some of these films had very likable stars like Hilary Duff or Uma Thurman. Some had very bankable stars like Kevin Spacey or Samuel L. Jackson(recently voted the most bankable star in Hollywood, based on the number of movies he’s been in, which have returned several times over on their investments).

     So what happened? How is it that Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Man’s Chest is poised to follow in the footsteps of James Cameron’s Titanic and pass the $1 billion mark(worldwide box office to date: $923.8 million), while the relaunch of the Superman franchise—eagerly awaited by many fans for years—is still limping along with a paltry $400 mil? This figure is paltry by Hollywood and W.B.O. standards, of course: the movie cost around $300 million to make(even though Warner Brothers recently used some Harry Potter-ish magic to chug out the implausible budget figure of $209 million), which means it needed to make $600 mil to break even. It won’t happen, unless a Christmas miracle occurs come Decem-ber, when the DVD is released. Even then, it faces stiff competition from the remastered-with-extra-footage Christopher Reeve original Warners will be releasing at the same time.

     Even Snakes on a Plane, considered a summer dark horse by many, was expected to nab the number one spot at the box office its opening weekend with far more than the pathetic $15 mil it did take in. While the movie only cost $30 million to make(including reshot scenes), it is doubt-ful it will do any better in subsequent weeks, unless word of mouth—which carries many films, such as it did the original Pirates of the Carib-bean—pulls many more people into theaters besides the fans who lobbied for it on the internet. Many a girlfriend will have to be dragged kicking and screaming into the theater, in order for Samuel L.’s pet pro-ject(no pun intended) to warrant the sequel which has been rumored/ discussed.

     So what does it take to make a blockbuster? What factors weigh in, for better or worse? How come something like The League of Extraordin-ary Gentlemen—with so many famous and popular sci-fi figures out of classic literature—tanked at the box office, while Blade, based on a minor Marvel Comics character no one cared about on the four color page, did well enough to warrant two sequels and a TV series? How can a movie starring Sean Connery, the original James Bond, be beaten out by Wes-ley Snipes, best known before Blade for dressing in drag in Too Wong Foo, Thanks for Everything!—Julie Newmar? First off, let’s examine some hits…

     Expect the Unexpected: At the outset, the trailers for the original Blade were just cool as hell. Wesley Snipes was known fairly well by audiences, who usually embrace him because he’s a solid actor. The story promised vampires—always set to pull in some type of audience, due to the inherent sexual underpinnings of their nature—and someone bad-assed enough to beat them. In most vampire tales, it’s usually us poor, pathetic humans stumbling about; first accidentally figuring out that vampires do exist, then using every last resource possible to dispose of them. Blade gave us a character who already knew everything there was to know about his enemy, and was on solid and equal footing with them in the abilities department. The line about “he possesses all our strengths and none of our weaknesses” in the trailer hinted that Blade was one mother of an ass-kicker in the Vampires Killed While U Wait department, and delivered on its promises. Winner.

     Spider-Man 1 & 2. One of the most recognizable and beloved comic characters, possibly positioned somewhere between Superman and Bat-man(we’ll get to the Dark Knight in a moment). The first Spider-Man movie was nearly everything a comic book movie should be: it was a flat-out origin story, detailing how our wimpy main character breaks out of the ordinary grind of life to become something better than what he thought he could be. Something we all aspire to, which is why Peter Parker/Spi-dey has been so popular for so long. It delivered a villain who could match him in smarts and power, while simultaneously giving us charac-ters we cared about, whether they were central or supporting. Yes, the Green Goblin’s costume sucked…yes, there was a(justifiable) outcry from the ranks of fandom for making his web-shooters organic. Parker has always been a scientist, but it wasn’t until the sequel that this was brought into account. And when the sequel was announced, people were clamoring for it. Unforeseen by all, Spider-Man 2 was one of the rare sequels that was better than its predecessor, joining the illustrious ranks of Star Wars: The Empire Strikes Back and Terminator 2: Judgment Day. Winner.

     While the first Spider-Man was almost everything a comic movie should be, Batman Begins was crowned the new king of comic adapta-tions. In some ways, its dissertation on the central character’s origins was better handled than even the original Christopher Reeve Superman, which set the bar back in 1978. This was a post-9/11 Dark Knight, trau-matized by the fate the world had set upon him, and determined to strike back at evil by whatever means necessary, because no one else could. More importantly, just because the pain was so damn bad. Any one of us could relate to him in this manner, and—Holy Hotrods, Batman!—that new Tumbler is the coolest thing on wheels since Bond’s Aston Martin. Christian Bale(what is it with successful super-hero movies starring guys named Chris?) became the definitive Batman/Bruce Wayne, to whom all predecessors(even you, Mr. West) must bow their heads in respect. The subtextual 9/11 psychological underpinnings also prove that even when dealing with a “comic book story”, a film should somehow reflect the times around it in order to connect with its audience. Winner.

     Now, the losers…

     If You Must Re-tread, Do So With Respect: X-Men: The Last Stand has more than made its $168 million budget back, with a worldwide gross to date of $444 million. It probably would have made at least the $500-600 mil Fox’s rival company, Warners, hoped for their man of steel at least, if not for a couple of problems. First off, the story was sorely lack-ing in cohesiveness and structure. Props were not given to the relation-ships cemented in the two very popular films prior. Magneto simply aban-doning Mystique when she’s injected with the cure for mutation? Jean Grey simply killing her longtime love Scott Summers with a casual thought? Halle Berry still being allowed to play Storm?(sorry, that last bit is just my own personal gripe…)

     For some reason, studios still haven’t realized that it takes a strong STORY to hold an audience’s attention, not just CGI. Suffice to say that Fox has realized they’ve taken the franchise as far as it can go(and besides, all their major stars—Patrick Stewart, Hugh Jackman and others —are all too expensive to reassemble) and will now journey out into the world of character spin-offs with both Wolverine and Magneto movies. We’ll stay posted and see how that turns out…

     The only thing I’ll say about Superman Returns is that it was far too much of a chick flick(which it should have been advertised as to some degree, at least on Lifetime perhaps, if only to draw in more of a female audience to help it at the b.o.) and not enough action on any scale. War-ners does want to do a sequel with Singer, who has promised more action. We’ll see if he can deliver, but it’s a sure bet the studio will seri-ously curtail his budget this time. The real super-villains of this piece? The deadly trio of Bad Planning, Overspending and Poor Marketing. No Superman could overcome those.

     Coming Attractions: Sadly, we have the following sequels to look for-ward to, the franchises of which are all way past their expiration date: Jurassic Park 4, Rambo 4, Jason vs. Freddy vs. Michael Myers(serious-ly!), Rob Zombie’s version of Halloween, Star Trek 11(why?!?), Aliens vs. Predator 2 and possibly Aliens 5(Alienseseses?) Amazingly enough, there is definitely going to be a Hulk 2—starring Ed Norton and Liv Tyler.
     Finally, on to two more sequels of a type, which only a handful of people are looking forward to, but which will both be eagerly and closely scrutinized the world over upon their release: the new James Bond film, Casino Royale, and Indiana Jones 4.

     MGM studios(now owned by Sony) made a grave miscalculation in removing Pierce Brosnan from the role of James Bond. A bit of backstory on Brosnan, for those of you who may not know: back in the mid-80’s, Pierce was introduced to the world via the hit television series Remington Steele, in which he played a suave, Bond-like character who appears out of nowhere to take over a flagging detective agency run by Stephanie Zimbalist. Steele’s mysterious past(he may have been a jewel thief, an underworld criminal or something altogether different) and the will-they-won’t-they fall for each other routine helped the show reach the top of the ratings very quickly, and launched Brosnan as a legitimate star to the point that the then-producers of the Bond series chose him as the new Bond when Roger Moore decided to retire from the role. Pierce was all set to take it, since at the time his show was close to going off the air. Yet NBC chose to renew the show and his contract in order to capitalize on Brosnan’s outing as Bond. MGM didn’t appreciate that, and felt that since the characters of Steele and Bond were somewhat similar, their movie might suffer from it(why go to the theaters to watch Bond when he’s on TV every week?) and so they cut Pierce loose from his turn.

     Fast forward into the mid-90’s, amid the wreckage of the Timothy Dal-ton Bond films(his second—and last, License to Kill, made only $8 million in its first weekend… the same amount as Gremlins 2: The New Batch, released at the same time). Remington Steele has been off the air a number of years, and Brosnan is up again for the Bond role. It’s been a hard time for Pierce: his wife died of ovarian cancer and he’s raising his kids alone while taking work wherever it’s offered, mostly TV movies and some obscure films. He wins the Bond title, and fans around the world rejoice because they feel Brosnan DESERVED it. His life experiences help him forge a newer, deadlier Bond which is a smash hit at each box office outing. Pierce—considered by many to be Sean Connery’s direct successor to the role—is unique in the part for a specific reason. No mat-ter how good or bad any of his outings are(good: Goldeneye/Tomorrow Never Dies. Bad: The World is Not Enough/Die Another Day) is never blamed for the poor content of the films, unlike George Lazenby, Roger Moore or Timothy Dalton, because audiences and critics adore him. They know what he went through to get the role, and can relate to his working-class struggle and success story.

     The only thing Brosnan wanted in order to do Bond for a fifth time was a raise. It’s well known these movies succeed or fail based on who plays Bond, which is another factor which goes into making a blockbuster: a star’s likeability, otherwise known as their Q-rating. There is a company—the Q Scores Company—which rates how much stars are liked or not by the public, and this is called their Q-rating. Brosnan’s has always been high up there, and there was indeed a public outcry when he was fired from Bond and replaced by the simian-looking Daniel Craig. Seriously, take a look at Craig’s face: he strongly resembles one of the gorilla co-stars of Planet of the Apes. Every time I see him in the Casino Royale trailer, I expect him to whip out a banana instead of a gun. In fact, that might be the way for whomever the new Bond villain is to defeat him. Pic-ture this: Craig has a gun drawn on the villain, who sits behind his desk. The villain, realizing he’s doomed, swiftly reaches into his desk drawer and pulls out a Chiquita banana, mesmerizing Craig. “Beppo want a banana? Beppo wanna ‘nana?” he intones playfully. Craig drops his gun and waves his arms around, yipping wildly. The villain throws the banana out the window and Craig dives after it, not realizing he’s 80 floors above street level. The villain closes the window, then goes about his plans for world domination uninhibited. Roll end credits.

     Seriously, though…Craig recently acknowledged in Entertainment Weekly that he’s well aware of the fan hatred of him. And it is hatred. Pierce was well-liked, Craig is not, and it’s all MGM/Sony’s fault. If the studio had simply allowed Brosnan to do Casino Royale(it was Brosnan’s idea, after all, to go back to Bond’s roots—not the studio’s, as continually purported by producer Barbara Broccoli) and then step down of his own accord, it would have been fine. They could have hired Daniel Craig or anyone else, and audiences would have given him a chance. Instead, they have forced upon us a Bond who is blonde(a source of contention because Ian Fleming, Bond’s creator, clearly described Bond as tall, lean and brunette), short—at 5’11, the shortest Bond ever—and as an actor, obviously incapable of handling fight scenes, as he lost two teeth in his first outing. There is even a web site called danielcraigisnotbond.com which is dedicated to espousing all things negative about the actor, whose current Q-rating must be somewhere in the negative numbers.
Will Casino Royale make money? Of course—because of the curiosity factor. People still want to judge for themselves, but most audience judg-ment in this case is already set in stone. People simply want to see Craig fail and many will stay away because of that. CR will more than likely not do great repeat business, which means that in spite of Sony already setting a release date for the next Bond film(Nov. 7th, 2008—pushed back from the original intended May 2nd release date), Mister Craig may want to polish his resume…just in case.

     As for Indiana Jones 4(my choice for subtitle: Indiana Jones and the Bottle of Geritol), it might be best if Blade stepped in and killed a new breed of vampire: George Lucas. Lucas appears determined to suck the life blood out of any franchise he is attached to. He released a sub-par prequel to his Star Wars trilogy, is about to release a sub-standard DVD print of that selfsame beloved trio of stories, and is set to air not one, but two Star Wars TV series. The Star Wars cash cow’s udders must be very sore by now, and fans around the world can hear it begging for mercy. Forget Emperor Palpatine; Lucas is the true Phantom Menace(which he actually referenced in answer to what to expect of the new Indiana Jones’ plotline. Not good).

     Harrison Ford hasn’t had a hit movie in a long time. People are won-dering, after the sub-par A.I., the underwhelming The Terminal and the insipid War of the Worlds remake, if Spielberg has lost his touch as a director. How best for he and Lucas to go about reestablishing them-selves as kings of the jungle than by taking Indiana Jones on a new trip? Only two problems standing in their way: a good plot and old age. Lucas has gone on record as all but admitting that the trio has finally SETTLED on a story. Not chosen one, not agreed upon one, but settled(read the article at empireonline.com). Reading between the lines, this seems to show that Ford and Spielberg basically dragged their feet a bit on their decision to go with Lucas’ idea, which as he puts it himself was “the best one we’ve ever found”, which could be construed as “scraped the bottom of the barrel”. Spielberg has released the most minute details himself, stating that all of Indiana Jones’ female co-stars(with the possible excep-tion of his wife, Kate Capshaw) will be in the film. However, original gal-pal Karen Allen will be back for one scene only—a travesty, as she was the most-liked of all Ford’s costars in these films. It sounds like the story is currently all over the place, and there is no guiding map. When Raiders of the Lost Ark was released, it captivated audiences worldwide. Everyone knows its theme song(unusual for any but the most popular of films) and can recite several lines of dialogue from it. However, Ford’s erratic personal behavior of late(separating from his wife and trying to seem twenty years younger than he is by dating Calista Flockhart) and his string of box office flops(Hollywood Homicide with Josh Hartnett?!) show this move to re-visit the Jones character as one of ultimate desper-ation. In order to create a blockbuster, you have to do something new and fairly original. Messieurs Lucas and Spielberg, once a pair of the most original filmmakers around, seem to have forgotten this very import-ant point.

     So, what does it take to make a blockbuster? Creativity, for one(Blade). Originality(Pirates). If you’re doing a remake or reinvention, treat the source material with loving respect(Batman Begins, Superman: The Movie). Likeable or bankable stars(Pierce Brosnan, Tobey Maguire). And of course, as always, a STRONG STORY(Spider-Man 2, the original X-Men).

     So, let’s hope that someone in Hollywoodland reads this little analysis and takes it to heart. It would be nice if we could have more than one or two movies to actually look forward to next summer.
 
Official Archives of LanceReviews...
What Makes A
  Blockbuster?
(Defining the more well known cinematic hits and misses)
The biggest movie to ever hit the planet: Titanic hit the unimaginable billion dollar income mark, and redefined the term "blockbuster".
Romancing box office gold: Raiders of the Lost Ark spawned a whole sub-genre of imitator films.
In spite of its rabid internet fan base, Snakes on a Plane failed to take off.
By jettisoning the hideous cinematic history of its predecessors, Batman Begins earned its wings at the box office.
Audiences usually favor light comedies, yet My Super Ex-Girlfriend couldn't feel the love.
Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Man's Chest sailed into history as the 2nd film to surpass $1 billion in profit.
Superman Returns, although successful in general, failed to meet box office expectations, placing its intended sequel in serious jeopardy.
Spider-Man 2 was the rare sequel that was better than the first installment. It was a smash hit.
A Bond by any other name: Audiences did not warm to Daniel Craig's initial outing as agent 007.
Stuff of legend: No matter how bad Lucas' new trilogy, fans always clamor for the next installment.
Tarnished: Even Wolverine's adamantium claws couldn't slash through Brett Ratner's inept direction.
Shot on a relatively low budget(and with a tight story) Wesley Snipes' Blade caught audiences by surprise.
The gang's all back for the new Indiana Jones. It just remains to be seen how successful it will be...