Last year the four top box-office films in the US were Spiderman,LOTR-TTT, Attack of the Clones and Chamber of Secrets.
Has there ever been a year where the four top films have been special-effects films that too of well-known franchises? Such films have been around for decades of course but 2002 seems to mark a new high for such films at the box-office.
This is likely to continue in 2003 with ROTK, The Hulk, the two Matrix films and T3. If the Daredevil film does well you could even have the top 6 films from well-known sci-fi/fantasy/comic-book franchises. The toughest competiton is Finding Nemo from Pixar which is a special effects film in its own right.
Is this trend likely to continue beyond 2003 or will it reach a point of diminishing returns? There will be Spiderman 2 but beyond that I am not sure whether comic-book films will succeed to the same extent since each of the big three, Superman,Batman and Spiderman will have been done more than once. It will be hard to replicate the LOTR success though there may be a Hobbit film. The Harry Potter films will probably decline in box-office terms over successive episodes. And of course Star Wars will be over with the next film.
Are there any other potential franchises in the sci-fi/fantasy/comic-book genres or will Hollywood be forced to look elsewhere for its mega-blockbusters?
Well, I think we need to separate it out. Special effects are pretty much par for the course with any big budget hollywood film these days.
Did you know that in Ocean’s 11, a hand was digitally recreated so that its angle could be manipulatedand it would be more visible to the audience? That’s a special effect right there.
There’s a difference between special effects for the sake of the effect and special effects to advance the story. One is eye candy. It will render the movie obsolete in a few years when even better technology comes along to make an even more realistic robot or monster or whatever.
Special effects that are used creatively to help advance the story will remain great even 20 years down the line because they’re just one tool in the toolbox one uses to construct the tale.
You never know from where the next hit is going to come.
And really Spiderman 2 could be a flop. Look at Stuart Little and Stuart Little 2. Look at Blair Witch (no fx really) and Blair Witch 2.
They didn’t ‘know’ that LotR would be a big hit and very few though it would be a big as it is.
As far as future franchies? Well Wonder Woman is still in development. The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen is coming this summer. They could be huge, or not. Shreck 2 is coming. Jack Ryan wasn’t totally ruined by the last fillm.
Of course there are still some tv shows that haven’t had their big screen treatment yet. Plus disaster films still seem to have potential. And even still very popular books are still being written today.
OK I am referring to films where the special effects are central and which would be impossible to make without them. Star Wars, LOTR, Spiderman and Harry Potter clearly fall in this category whereas Ocean’s 11 doesn’t.
Alternatively think of the sci-fi/fantasy/super-hero genres ie. genres which focus on things not seen in the real world. My basic question is whether such films will continue to dominate at the box-office.
I would guess that they will continue their dominance. People love to tell and read these fanciful stories, and have always done so via spoken word and print. Witness the Sci/Fi/Fantasy genres.
Until recently, it was impossible or massively expensive to translate these fantasies to film. Now that the technology is becoming cheaper and better, I’d expect a continued increase.
Wumpus,
Thanks for the list. Clearly some years come close though what makes 2002 unique is that each of the four films was both a franchise film and special-effects heavy. Perhaps 1989 comes closest though I don’t know if Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade would be classified as a special-effects film (clearly not to the same extent as any of last year’s four films)
As for a definition of franchise I would argue that the first film in an original series isn’t a franchise film but sequels are. So Matrix isn’t a franchise film but the two sequels are. Of course this doesn’t apply to films like Spiderman which are already based on established comic-book franchises.
Big budget, special effect movies will continue to dominate movie ticket sales because people go to the movies to see the effects. At least I do. Most comedies and dramas I wait to come out on DVD so I can rent them for a lot less money. There’s no need to see it in the theater to get the full effect.
SpiderMan is a much better movie when it has the giant screen, surround sound speakers, and other audience members. On a TV, special effect laden movies still get the story and acting across but the WOW factor is diminished. Smaller budget movies with little to none special effects lose little in the transfer to the smaller screen. Therefore the “need” to see the big-budget movies in the theater is much greater.
There are franchises and then there are franchises. LOTR, Spiderman, and Harry Potter all had literally millions of pre-sold fans lined up on opening day.
Daredevil has, at best, a couple hundred thousand pre-sold fans, and the League of Extraordinary Gentleman even less. So those properties are not truly film franchises … yet. If the movies are successful, these properties may turn into franchises
The Hulk is somewhere in between, thanks to the old TV show.
Say what you want, but My Big Fat Greek Wedding was a major hit without any special effects.
But yes, the big blockbusters will always push the envelope with special effects…it’s fun to see things that are totally out of the realm of possibility…Independence Day, Titanic and Twister are just a few example of films that had no real plot or story, but everybody wanted to see those action scenes on the big screen.
Then again, there was Battlefield Earth, Cutthroat Island, Pluto Nash and other big budget disasters that nobody wanted to see.
If anybody could always predict what will be a hit, they would be a gazillionare in Hollywood. (think Spielberg)
And then there was Blair Witch…a bunch of nobodies with a 500 dollar video camera in the woods…one of the all time highest grossing films vs investment.
And although now it seems like a no-brainer with Lord Of The Rings, let’s not forget that was a HUGE risk. Fans (like myself) were dubious when it was first announced that they were going to film a live action version. New Line put every nickel they had in that gamble…if it bombed, they were going bankrupt…no ifs, ands or buts about it. My personal belief is that LOTR will become the most successful film series of all time…and those three film DVD’s will remain at the top of all sales for the next 20 years…if not longer.
To look into the future:
New films are being made that will only be shown in IMAX format.
There is a new 3D technology that will soon blow away the competition regarding special effects.
Some of the biggest money making films will be simple little productions created by a bunch of kids on a shoe-string budget - but with an original plot and simple computer driven effects.