Super Franchise: Why it's NOT a Good Idea

In what may be a less than surprising announcement, Warner Bros. declared today their desire to spawn several more Batman movies in the near future, as well as expand other franchises like Superman and Sherlock Holmes. Its not hard for the execs at Warner Bros. to do the math: The Dark Knight was the second-highest grossing movie of all time, second only to Titanic. If they can replicate even half that success, the studio would be rolling in dough, which is why they are most definitely keeping the possibility of a sequel open. But while the concept may be good for the bottom line, is it good for the franchise? The answer to me seems to be no.

First off, these movies that are such great success, like Dark Knight, are often because all the right players both behind and in front of the camera came together and almost magically clicked into place. Its rare to continue duplicating that success, as anyone can tell you who's watched a series play out its life. Look at the life of the Spider-Man films. The first one was pretty good, the second one was amazing...and then came number three. I had such high hopes for that film, that came crashing down around my ears. Overdone special effects, bad writing, and too many villains made for a colossal train wreck. Perhaps it was not as bad as it appeared to me, but because expectations for myself and the rest of the public were so high, we were greatly disappointed when the film failed to be merely adequate. And that was a sequel that had all the principle players still in line. The longer these film franchises go on, the more people will start drifting away. Actors often don't want to be type-cast, and sticking with one string of films is a surefire way to get locked into a stereotype. Will Christian Bale want to keep playing Batman? Will Michael Caine stick with Alfred, or will he perhaps retire from acting? As people leave, they'll need to be replaced, and the odds are that the chemistry will be lost. All it will take is for one failure of a sequel to drag the name of the original films into the mud.

Of course, series of films have been done in the past with some success. But when I say "the past," I am referring to the 1940s and '50s, when the studio system ruled and B-films were in fashion. Then it was easy to keep a tight control on talent and ensuring they went to the projects you wanted. It was also the heyday of the B-film, the acceptably low-budget picture that could be made quickly and easily. It was during this time period you got Hopalong Cassidy, Charlie Chan, Sherlock Holmes, and other series films that starred the same actor getting into a new scrape every few months. Nowadays, the B-film is dead, and everything has to be big budget or not at all. It also follows that a film has to make good money in order to cover the expenditures.

Will these franchises succeed in getting the go ahead? Spider-man has already gotten the green light for pictures 4, 5, and 6. Despite luke-warm reviews, the film made out big at the box office, and the same movie-goers will most likely turn out in droves for the fourth film because it has name recognition; it may be hypocritcal of me, but I most likely will see it as well, in the hopes that the third film was a fluke. But Hollywood doesn't seem capable of keeping a storyline fresh and creative for more than a few films. A franchise is either enormously successfull in its initial run and bombs in its second, or it starts strong in the first film, peaks in the second, and crashes in the third. As Christopher Nolan once asked a reporter, how many good third movies can you name? Very very few. In fact, there are barely any film franchises that have lived beyond three films beyond the horror genre, though that trend is starting to reverse; besides Spider-man, Pirates is making a run at a fourth movie as well.

I would love for Hollywood to be able to successfully create these movie franchises. It would give me great moving-going pleasure. But I am cynical enough to doubt that Hollywood is capable of turning out anything other than less-than-adequate sequels which will quickly become a joke. What do you think readers? Do I need to find faith again in Tinsel Town or am I justified in my skepticism?

What happened to the "Pop Oscars"?: Oscar Nominees Announced

Back in October, I wrote a post responding to a New York Times article which stated "Welcome to the pop Oscars." It fussed over the Wall-E, Iron Man, and a little known film called The Dark Knight, and said that big box office is threatening to dominate the Academy Awards. I now have in my virtual hand the list of the 2009 Oscar Nominees and I now ask the New York Times: What on earth were you worried about? The Dark Knight did not receive a nomination for Best Picture OR Best Director, and although Heath Ledger did get his nod for Best Supporting Actor, the rest of the film's nominations were for the most part in the less media friendly technical categories, such as sound-mixing and editing. Wall-E, which the NYT feared was going to encroach on Best Picture territory, was kept firmly in its place in the Best Animated Feature Category. The rest of the acting, directing, and Best Picture fare went for the most part to the traditional end-of-the-year releases, such as Frost-Nixon and Golden Globe favorite Slumdog Millionaire. The only "pop-ish" nominee I could find apart from Heath Ledger's much deserved acknowledgement was Robert Downey Jr.'s Best Supporting Actor nomination for Tropic Thunder (Though I haven't seen the film, I've heard high praise for his performance).

Another analysis from across the web: Tom O'Neil of Gold Derby at the Los Angeles Times writes an article of some of the suprising snubs in the nominee list. He, too, was surprised by The Dark Knight's lack of appearence among the top two categories, but perhaps more suprised by the fact that Kate Winslet was only nominated once. Brad Brevet at Rope of Silicon is more satisfied with the nominations and makes some interesting predictions about who will win Best Picture based on who was nominated in other categories. Brevet is concerned, however, that Dark Knight lackluster showing in the top categories puts Heath Ledger's chances for a win on shakier ground. Over at Slash Film, David Chen is much more outraged with the results of the nominations. Interesting side note:, a common thread running through these articles is a suprise that Bruce Springsteen's song "The Wrestler" did not get a Best Original Song nomination. Last but not least, In Contention, which makes its living doing Oscar predictions, is completely dismayed with the nomination list, especially Dark Knight's abandoment, and the raising up of The Reader, which they see as a flash in the pan that will be forgotten in a few years.

And what of Brook Barnes who, together with co-worker Michael Cieply, was the harbringer of doom-and-gloom by announcing the coming of the "pop Oscars?" They are quietly parsing the nominee list, expressing how wonderful it is that the Oscars "have the power to catapult a niche film into the mainstream and rewrite Hollywood's pecking order." And what of Tropic Thunder's acting nomination? No mention. Wall-E's confinement to Best Animated Feature? Not a word about the category at all. And of The Dark Knight's snubs and Ledger's nomination? Very little to say at all. In fact, in the entire 1017-word article, this is the only mention of the Caped Crusader's film: "Christopher Nolan failed to gain attention for his direction of The Dark Knight." Thirteen words to sum up that perhaps the New York Times read the pulse of Hollywood wrong when they eyed The Dark Knight with such apprehension as a comic film that would dare tread on the Holy Ground of the Academy Awards.

To be fair, most pundits--including the humble writer here at the post--thought The Dark Knight was a lock for at least Best Director, if not Best Picture. But as I predicted here last year, the Academy voters aren't going to change their ways anytime soon. For now, the Oscars will remain the domain of the loftier December releases that often provoke the daring statement when mentioned to a member of the common public: "I've never heard of it."

Oscars, Oscars: Comments on Award Hype and the Status of the Awards Show

Last time at The Vault, I posed the idea that current Oscar hype is unnecessarily overwhelming. Given 24-hour news services, we are inundated with constant updates on the smallest tidbit of information that could affect who is in the lead in the race to secure an Oscar nomination. These updates are often superficial, sometimes including analysis of movies that have not even come out yet. But, as reader Teddy Riley points out in his comment on that post, not all Oscar coverage is necessarily bad. Looking at promising upcoming films is a good way to alert movie audiences of films that might otherwise slip under the radar. There is a fine line, however, between critically parsing a film's components to look for Oscar worthiness and bestowing an Oscar crown just because the plot and the lead actor sound like they fit the Oscar formula. I went out into the world wide web in hopes of finding Oscar predictions that can be examples of the better ways to handle our innate desire to choose the winner of any competition--even if the contest is still five months off. I found what I was looking for at Cinemablend.com, where Katey Rich recently wrote her thoughts about current contenders for the Oscar race in her post "Oscar Prediction Mania 09: Let the Games Begin!" What sounds like another superficial post based on little more than hype is actually a thoughtful, well-put-together look at films who may be Oscar contenders, based on word from previews at film festivals and Ms. Rich's own viewing of films that have actually been released. On top of looking for decent analysis of the Oscar race, I also looked at responses to the recent announcement of who will produce the upcoming 2009 Oscars, namely Laurence Mark (right side of picture) and Bill Condon (left side), who respectively produced and directed Dreamgirls. This announcement has created a flurry of debate in the blogosphere and elsewhere on the state of the Academy Awards Ceremony itself, comments that are summed up nicely in a post entitled "Can the Oscars Be Saved?" by Patrick Goldstein of The Big Picture, a blog that is featured on the Los Angeles Times's website. For ease, I have posted my comments down below, as well as the links where you can find the original article and comment.

"Oscar Prediction Mania 09: Let the Games Begin!" by Katey Rich
Comment:
Ms. Rich, thank you for your detailed thoughts about the Oscar race! I particularly like that you have managed to separate yourself from the superficial hype that many pundits engage in when covering the Academy Awards and instead ground yourself in films that have already been released, either in film festivals or to the general public. After all, if the film has not been released yet (or as you mention, even completed yet!) how can one make a genuine claim about its Oscar chances? On that note, you mentioned that with so many Oscar potential films being released in December, some are bound to "get lost in the shuffle." Do you think that this will lead to a new look at marketing strategies as films try to stand out among the myriad of Oscar hopefuls? For instance, the marketing department at Warner Bros. seems to be pulling out all the stops in their attempts to get The Dark Knight recognized, re-releasing it in January and offering free Blu-ray copies of the film to Academy voters. Do you think other studios will start looking at employing similar tactics, or is this something they are already doing? On a similar note, I'm interested in your prediction that The Dark Knight will increase Oscar viewership during the upcoming Awards ceremony. Do you think there is a chance that the lengthy coverage of Heath Ledger's Oscar chances will burn out potential audience members by the time the Academy Awards rolls around in February 2009? While I agree that people are attracted to rooting for films they've actually seen, there may be a chance that some people will be numb to Ledger Oscar talk since it has been on everyone's minds since his untimely death. It will be interesting to see if The Dark Knight does indeed have the effect you predict. Given how the Oscars have become such a slow, dragged-out affair, I remain doubtful that even The Dark Knight can pull its ratings out of the mire. Many of those who root for its success may be satisfied finding updates online instead of wading through the ceremony itself.

"Can the Oscars Be Saved?" by Patrick Goldstein
Comment:
This is an excellent look at the reactions to the appointment of Mr. Mark and Mr. Condon! It is helpful to have a compilation of the various views on the state of the Academy Awards so that they can be compared easily. You also have some interesting ideas about how to fix the Oscars. I am intrigued about your suggestion to split the technical awards off from the main awards ceremony. This would certainly have the benefit of shortening the main broadcast, as well as reducing it to the awards that viewers care the most about, such as Best Picture and the various Best Acting categories. But conversely, since the technical categories are the ones that people are the least interested in, is there any guarantee that anyone will watch them if they have their own awards show? True, the younger generation may be more attracted to categories having to do with special effects and the like. And, as you suggest, it might be a good place to experiment with new, more effective ways of handling the ceremony. I feel, however, that such an awards ceremony will be much less of a draw than the current incarnation of the Academy Awards and would not be a successful endeavor. Indeed, I am not sure that there is any real way to fix the Oscars. It is already a dragged-out affair. The skits, musical numbers and tributes do serve to break up the monotony from the slew of presenters handing out the awards. Unfortunately, this also lengthens the proceedings, creating the need for more distracting gimmicks, creating a vicious circle in an attempt to balance length with entertainment. The shortest way to handle the affair would be to cut the films down to just handing out the awards, but this obviously would be an extreme solution. Other than splitting the technical awards off from the show, do you have other suggestions for how to improve the Academy Awards? What changes should be made for the 2009 ceremony? Besides better-staged musical numbers, is there anything else you hope that Mr. Mark and Mr. Condon will bring to the show?

Buzzed Out: The Overdone Coverage of the Oscar Race

In a world of mass media, pundits predict award winners like they pick derby winners, while business gurus sit back and rake in the profit. Sound like a bad movie plot? You would not be far off. While the above may be a bit of an exaggeration, it is what the coverage of the Academy Awards has become. Commonly known as the Oscars, these awards are a way to recognize excellence in film. But while this remains true, the mass media has turned the Awards into a race blown out of proportion, something to be tracked and commentated on avidly, where predicting the correct winner is a cold calculation that has little to do with the individual merits of a film. Silently encouraging this disproportionate enthusiasm are the movie studios, who know that Oscar talk is a golden ticket to bigger profits.

The main culprit responsible for this inundation of awards coverage is none other than the mass media itself. With the rise of 24-hour news mediums, entertainment news outlets are pressed to fill their minutes and hours with any story they can find. And what better provides material than a long, extended race? This formula has already proven itself for political news media in the shape of the 2008 presidential election. For months, America has had daily reports, like this one by CNN, on the latest election polls, with analysis of every minute shift in the percentages. With a new poll every day, pundits are guaranteed to have at least one thing to talk about in their columns and television broadcasts. Entertainment news mediums unsurprisingly have duplicated this approach when handling the road to the Academy Awards. Everything from trailers to interviews is game to be analyzed for Oscar potential.

The handling of the coverage of The Dark Knight is one of the biggest examples of awards buzz gone wild. Rumors began as early as March that Heath Ledger was in the running for a posthumous Oscar for his portrayal of the Joker in The Dark Knight; as the film's release date approached, the number of articles seemed to increase exponentially. Now Warner Bros. has announced a re-release of the film in January, the time when Oscar nominations are made and votes are cast, undoubtedly in a last push to garner awards. If Ledger is successfully nominated for Best Actor, America will have had a full year of speculation and debate about the likelihood of his winning an Oscar. Undoubtedly, speculation about Ledger's prospects increased in part because of his death and in part because of his genuinely impressive performance. But the year-long coverage of his prospects is an overload and just one symptom of a culture dominated by mass media.

The biggest sign of how out of hand the Oscar coverage has come to be is not the daily columns dedicated to the subject, but the websites tracking probabilities of nominations and wins like bookies calculating the spread on a football game. A prime example is the website In Contention which takes Oscar tracking to an extreme. In Contention features a detailed set of predictions about the final composition of the nominations list. These predictions are not limited to the usual categories of Best Picture or Best Actor, but extend to such obscure categories as Sound Mixing and Art Direction. The vast majority of these films have not even been released yet. The image to the left shows their predictions for Art Direction, containing only one film that has shown in theatres. How anyone can claim to know that the sound mixing for Defiance is Oscar worthy before seeing (and hearing) the film seems to defy comprehension. Those who run this website have an idea of what kind of superficial components an award-winning film should have and seem to make their predictions on that basis alone. If predictions are to be made at all about who will win an Oscar, it should be made after a film is released and viewed, not before. For those who think that In Contention is merely an unusual case in the vast consortium that is the Internet, I invite them to take a look at Buzzmeter, a feature to be found in the Los Angeles Times's website. Like In Contention, this site tracks "who's hot and who's not in key awards races." This description is not the language of a website that is looking at the merits of a film, but of a website that is keeping a popularity poll.

But the media alone is not responsible for the continuous Oscar talk. The movie studios themselves have a vested interest in keeping the "buzz" alive, driven by what every corporation at heart is driven by: the need to make money. It is doubtful that a studio is troubled that people who have yet to see their picture are predicting it will be nominated for an Academy Award. And being nominated for, let alone winning, one of the more prestigious Oscars is a sure way to increase the profit margin.

Box Office Mojo, run by movie analyst Brandon Gray, provides the data to validate this claim. Michael Clayton, nominated for Best Picture of 2007, earned $55,000 the weekend before its nomination (Jan. 18-21) and over two million dollars the weekend following its nomination (Jan. 25-27), as we can see in the data table to the right. All Best Picture nominees for the 2007 Oscars show similar, if not as drastic, boosts in their weekend grosses following their nominations. Audiences are drawn to Oscar-nominated films because they want to see what all the fuss is about. With this monetary incentive, one can easily see why studios would like to bolster any discussion of their film's chances for an Oscar, even if it is only July.

The coverage of the Academy Awards has grown into a unwieldy creature that detracts from the value of the films that are under consideration. Admittedly, much of the coverage of any aspect of the entertainment world is somewhat superficial, focusing on the glitz and the glamor of a world that revolves around publicity. But many of the films that are nominated for an Academy Award have real merits which should be considered as the voting for the coveted Oscar commences. Quite a bit, though not all, of the media's analysis of Oscar films focuses on if the films fit the model of what an Oscar winner is, rather than an actual critical analysis of the components of a film. Unfortunately, this trend is not likely to end anytime soon. Our culture is one that thrives on the latest gossip and rumors swirling around Tinsel Town, and the latest whispered aside on a film's chances for the golden statue is just one more tidbit that people are ready to jump on. In the meantime, we will have to continue living through this rather bad movie plot until someone comes up with a better script.