[Greenskar]

Quote:

Originally Posted by nakobass

"Hollywood took a giant step backward this week when "The Amazing Spider-Man" swung into action Tuesday with $35 million in domestic box office, a record for a film opening on a Tuesday. The $35 million Tuesday crushed the previous record-holder, "Transformers," which opened with $27.9 million on the day before the Fourth of July in 2007.

So why is this a bad thing?

Well, it's not bad for theater owners, Marvel or Sony, but it is bad for people who like to see something new and different in theaters. The better-than-expected launch of a "new" "Spider-Man" shows studios that they don't have to continue taking minimal risks making sequels and big-budget adaptations of TV shows and board games.

They don't even have to risk making a film that's only slightly derivative.

No, a big studio can now make the exact same movie over and over and over again.

Why make "Poseidon"? Just re-cast Sigourney Weaver with a younger model and call it "The Amazing Alien." Don't be blue because you'll never top "Avatar." Take the next iteration of new technology and release "The Amazing Avatar." Howard Gensler, Daily News Tattle Columnist.

Have to admit, the guy has a point. What do you think?

While I can see the logic behind his thinking, the box office outcome for major flops (in terms of box office revenue) like "Battleship", "alien vs Predator", "Watchmen", "Punisher Warzone" and "Green Lantern" to name a few suggests that moviegoers don't just bite at anything familiar, they bite at the most popular epics hype can bring these days:

Batman
Spider-man
Star wars
Harry Potter
Twighlight
LOTR
Iron Man
Transformers

What do all of the above have in common? They are all movies based on pre- existing material (with the exception of Star wars which is in a league of its own) such as books/comics/cartons/toys that attract legions of fan boys/girls and new viewers alike. And while I cringe at including Twilight on that list there's no denying it follows the same formula as the majority of those franchises that are raking in Mega bucks these days.

Hollywood is taking note of that and also acknowledging that not everything equals an epic blockbuster just because a kid played with the toy in the 80's or appeared in comics that have a cult following only.

One need only look at the success of such TV series as the Walking Dead and Game of Thrones to substantiate that audiences are actually interested in these things not simply for the novelty, but because they are tremendously great stories. While I can't include Transformers in the Pantheon of great story telling, it did take an already beloved franchise and put big damn transforming robots on screen in a way that had never been done before which represents a combination of new technology interest plus huge fan following even with all the purists who hated it.

Its funny that it took this Spidey to make this ruckus when I certainly didn't hear it when the Incredible Hulk was rebooted right after Ang Lee's craptastic event only happened a few years prior or when Batman Begins revamped a franchise that died shortly after Tim Burton abandoned it. No instead it seems that people are selective in when they choose to bash something immensely successful while also ignoring the aspects that actually make them so fun to follow.

With the Exception of Avatar, which I have no explanation for why it was so successful given the most unoriginal story line ever, every other major successful franchise has a lasting iconic impact on audiences. Even Titanic, while not being a franchise, leaves a lasting impact on audiences for the heart strings it tugged on while depicting one of the most historical freak accidents ever on the big screen

...which reminds me. Should we include WW2 movies to the list of movie franchises that have raked in a shit ton of money that I don't hear columnists complaining about? No, complain about more WW2 movies in America? BLASPHEMY!