Thu, May 8, 2008

The writers at the Onion's A.V. Club entertainment "magazine" site are pretty much like every movie nerd you know. They can deliver fascinating conversation about the sort of minutiae that movie-lovers love, but movie critics often ignore. But they can just as easily get drunk off their own farts and look down their noses at something just because they think they're too evolved for it.

Their summer movie preview for this year is headlined "Say Goodbye To The Blockbuster." You guess which category that falls into. The premise is that the movies of summer 2008 are destined to kill the concept of the blockbuster. They can't honestly think that Hollywood will cease making mass-market high-concept action movies – that's simply impossible. It would be great if we were talking about killing the idea that the blockbuster is infallible – that realization is long overdue. Studios dive for the lowest denominator to grab the broadest audience, and they miss more often than they succeed. But that's not what A.V. Club means: for one thing, that shows no signs of stopping; for another, they're talking about "blockbuster" in terms of ticket sales. Their thesis is that audiences "will undoubtedly turn their backs on this year's films."

To become a blockbuster, a movie must rake in a stratospheric amount of money (years ago, this was $100 million; today it has to be $150 million or maybe $200 million). This may be achieved by a variety of means:

1. Mindless, fun entertainment. When people (especially movie critics and film nerds) talk about "summer tentpole blockbusters," their voices usually betray a soupçon of derision along these lines: it's a huge movie, everyone will see it, but it's empty entertainment. Transformers, obviously, is the reigning champion of this approach. No theory of film appreciation would describe it as a good movie, but hell, we all wanted to see it anyway; it was the summer thing to do.

2. Incessant, pervasive marketing. The opening weekend of Devlin/Emmerich's Godzilla comes to mind. The movie might be good or it might not, but the ad wizards got asses in the seats. Blockbuster.

3. If all else fails, make an awesome movie. People see the movie, and it is very, very good. They can't wait to see it again; they tell all their friends about it. Maybe it opens at #1 and maybe it doesn't, but it's got "legs" (staying power) and it reaches some impressive grosses. Pixar movies usually achieve a significant amount of their grosses through staying power.

Apparently, the A.V. Club requires that a movie satisfy all three or else it's contributing to the demise of the blockbuster. What kind of sense does that make? Studios can't turn out Jurassic Park and The Incredibles every single summer. People would eventually get tired of it. (Not me, personally. But some folks. Back east.)

Granted, the A.V. kids have their tongues in their cheeks: "Is this the end of the summer blockbuster? For the purposes of hysterical overstatement, let's just say yes." But even served with a wink, the premise doesn't hold. After a very profitable summer last year, this year's movies look even better. There are ten on my list already, and that's not even counting the "maybes." Next summer's slate will take a hit from the writers' strike – bitch all you want next year. But this year sports the quality of 2007 with half as many sequels; it's impossible to feign disappointment in this lineup.

But they do anyway.

Movies A.V. Club Deems "Not Good Enough"

Speed Racer (May 9) is slammed for being "unnecessary" and "over-the-top" – hardly the first to violate those in its quest for blockbusterhood. They also wail it'll tarnish the Wachowski brothers' "cachet," which is a ship that sailed years ago, when Matrix: Reloaded came out and joined the ranks Matrix imitators that copied its whiz-bang effects while ignoring the mind-bending philosophical underpinnings. Speed Racer isn't a movie I'd pay to see, but the ticket I won't be buying will be bought by ten teenaged boys. The cartoon has a huge cult following, and this looks exactly like the sort of movie people crave at summertime. If the sneak preview line in Jacksonville on a Tuesday night is any indication... blockbuster ahoy! As the Club itself writes, "summer blockbusters are about brainless gawpery." Damn straight; that's the American way. So why is an unnecessary, over-the-top movie so unlikely to be a blockbuster?

The Incredible Hulk (June 13) and Wanted (June 27) are under fire for being incoherent or suffering story trouble in their adaptation of popular comic books. Story problems and incoherence – so, they're too action-movie-ish? Yeah, that'll turn off audiences in droves.

Mike Myers's The Love Guru (June 20) looks atrociously unfunny and DreamWorks's Kung Fu Panda (June 6) with Jack Black strains A.V. Club's last nerve in the trend of "ensembles of wacky animals with celebrity voices." Hey, brother. Me, too. But when was the last time either of those violations torpedoed a film's box office chances? "Myers remains inexplicably popular with filmgoers who apparently enjoy having the same lazy shtick shoved down their collective throat," A.V. Club writes, "The more contempt he shows his fan base, the bigger the box-office gross." Sounds about right to me – why bet against it? Comedy blockbusters are more rare than action ones, but family comedies do just fine in summertime, and these two seem cynically crafted to fit that bill. Despise it if you want – I do – but it's not likely to bring down the blockbuster.

You Don't Mess with the Zohan (June 6) is another comedy that doesn't pass muster. I see little to redeem it either, but Sandler still draws a crowd and the trailer has plenty of his trademark moments. Plus, Robert Smigel and Judd Apatow wrote the script. There's every chance it's funny enough to build a little word-of-mouth. But you can't expect every movie that comes out during the summer to necessarily pursue blockbusterhood, anyway. Why are What Happens in Vegas (May 9), Sex and the City (May 30), and Meet Dave (July 11) even on this list? Their studios would love to rake in $100 million or more, but there's no way they expect that. Norbit didn't crack nine figures. Sex and the City could've come out any weekend – it's not a big event movie, it's just slated for summer as a way to pick up a few more women who are exhausted by all the action fare. It ought to make $70 million easily – maybe a little more – but not because it aims to be a "blockbuster."

Also maligned in this section are Fred Durst's directorial debute The Longshots (July 25) and a Nicolas Cage thriller called Bangkok Dangerous (August 22). I've never heard of these movies – I think it's safe to say they don't have blockbuster aspirations.

Movies A.V. Club Deems "Not Profitable Enough"

Sequel fatigue is blamed for the fates of The Chronicles of Narnia: Prince Caspian (May 16) and Hellboy II: The Golden Army (July 11) – the former will fall to audiences' boredom with grand computer-generated vistas of epic fantasy battles, and the second won't get started because 2004's Hellboy didn't turn a profit. I couldn't agree more about the epic fantasy CG spectacles, but it's not as though they're losing much audience share. I have a feeling Bill Donohue will have his minions out in force to make sure Caspian outperforms the Academy Award-winning Golden Compass. And Hellboy was awesome, moving, and very well visualized. I'd love to see its DVD numbers – plenty of fans likely warmed to it at home and are ready for more. Now that writer-director Guillermo del Toro's name is even more familiar to audiences, this shouldn't be an altogether tough sell. It won't outpace Indiana Jones, of course, but it doesn't deserve to be relegated to the shitheap, either.

Movies A.V. Club Deems "Not Popular Enough"

They don't think Mamma Mia! (July 18) sounds very appealing, which to me can only mean one thing: none of these writers has ever taken in the stage show. It's a delight. Hindsight tells them that musical adaptations of Broadway shows like Hairspray spell boffo box office, but ABBA doesn't promise enough cultural cachet. (Ah yes, John Waters - that mainstream household name.) There's no question that audiences will love Mamma Mia! – its tunes are catchy, and its story expertly weaves them together with fun characters and dance numbers. If the film can capture the vibrance of the stage show (and the trailer says, probably so), there's no danger of Mamma Mia! performing so poorly that Hollywood shutters its doors between May and August next year. It may not earn $100 million, but I doubt it ever expected to.

Get Smart (June 20) and Tropic Thunder (August 15) are also given long odds to connect with an audience. A.V. Club is tired of old TV shows being adapted for the big screen. (Well so am I, but you throw Steve Carell in there and make it as funny and actiony as the trailers I've seen, and I'll damn sure reconsider.) They also think Robert Downey, Jr.'s turn as an actor who undergoes a cosmetic procedure to play a black Vietnam soldier in Tropic Thunder might rub people the wrong way. Am I reading the wrong Onion? "If that joke doesn't play," they predict disaster. If you've seen the trailer, you know there's no chance that joke doesn't play. That joke plays on absolutely every level, and Downey's performance elevates him to genius territory. Get Smart and Tropic Thunder have "family comedy blockbuster" and "adult comedy blockbuster" written all over them.

Admittedly, A.V. Club is closer to the mark when it worries about The Mummy: Tomb of the Dragon Emperor (August 1) and M. Night Shyamalan's latest mysterious violin extravaganza, The Happening (June 13). The Mummy isn't exactly a thrumming franchise, and Night has fallen mightily since his last truly excellent movie, The Sixth Sense. The Happening is billed as an event movie of the highest order, and may well draw "event" crowds – but people have heard this before, and may just as well stay home. If they do, 2008 will be remembered as the summer that some of the movies were less successful than their studios had hoped, and those studios will shutter their doors and go into business selling waxed beans. Of course, right?

Backlashes will doom both Step Brothers (July 25) with Will Ferrell and John C. Reilly and Pineapple Express (August 8) with Seth Rogen, James Franco, and a dozen other Apatow collectibles. A.V. Club worries America has tired of Will Ferrell, adding, "The demand for this kind of goofy, oddly penetrating R-rated comedy seems to have dropped precipitously since the boom times of summer '07." So, the problem with this kind of summer comedy blockbuster is that we haven't had any since the summer comedy blockbusters of last year? Sounds about right. A.V. Club admits that director Adam McKay has the best track record steering Ferrell to comedy gold. Damn straight, so what's the issue here? The concern is similar for Pineapple Express: "the sheer ubiquity of [producer Judd Apatow's] name has bred contempt." I've sensed this myself, absent any actual evidence, because you tend to hear about a backlash these days almost as soon as anyone strings two hits together. I think it might be a media concoction. Superbad and Knocked Up both cracked last year's top 25, totaling $270 million in domestic earnings. Forgetting Sarah Marshall has a 67 metascore and has nearly doubled its budget in three weeks of release. Yeah, people fucking hate anything Apatow puts his name to. In both cases, A.V. Club grants that the films may not be total box office duds because their directors should give them adequate visual flair. Fuck the heck? We're talking about mainstream studio comedies, right? What American moviegoer chooses those by visual flair?

Also listed are mid-range movies like The Strangers (May 30) (never heard of it) and Star Wars: The Clone Wars (August 15) (middling franchise offshoot), either of which would be delighted to earn $40 million or so – why are they responsible for carrying the torch of the blockbuster?

Then there are the mid-range comedies like Anna Faris in The House Bunny (August 22) – of which A.V. Club admits "[Faris is] almost always the best thing about anything she appears in." Fuck yes, she is. And here she plays a former Playboy bunny who whips the geeky sorority into shape. Anna Faris in a silly comedy and a skimpy outfit: guarantee this movie will double its budget. The Sisterhood of the Traveling Pants 2 (August 8) is also subject to cruel sarcasm, just because it isn't the type of movie these nerds want to watch:

Why it'll help kill blockbusters: Early word says that the CGI effects do not match those employed in the first Sisterhood of the Traveling Pants movie.

Why it might help save them: It might not live up to the fevered anticipation that's built since the first Sisterhood of the Traveling Pants (or SOTTP, as those in the know call it), but if it does... boy howdy!

Okay, why be assholes? You've cherry-picked the movies to include in your list, and for no reason at all, you've included almost a dozen which never claimed to be anything near a blockbuster. Why are they even relevant to the discussion? Not every summer movie wants to break records in gross receipts. Is A.V. Club really unaware that 12-year-old girls go to movies? (And go back, again and again?) What else are they going to see this summer? Sisterhood 2 has them right where it wants them. And DVDs aren't mentioned once in the whole article, when we all know theatrical releases serve only to kick off the promotional push for lucrative DVD sales. Sisterhood 1 made a solid profit in 2005. If The Sisterhood of the Traveling Pants 2 hasn't broken $38 million by its sixth week of release, I will personally go see it.

Movies Where A.V. Club Simply Loses Its Mind

Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull (May 22) and The Dark Knight (July 11) are on this list. That's how you know they've gone insane. Iron Man is nowhere to be found – if you're going to leave obvious blockbuster material off the list, why not skip Indy and Batman, too? There's no chance they won't make crazy money. However, "expectations [for Indy] are extremely high" – so watch out for hopes to be dashed and Americans to run wailing into the sea. And it's "impossible to promote The Dark Knight without playing up the untimely death of Heath Ledger, which will either turn potential audiences off or, more disturbingly, bring them in." What?! The claim is: if The Dark Knight makes money, it's due to audiences' morbid curiosity about the late Heath Ledger. And Warners can't avoid "playing up" his death. I call bullshit, and bullshit again. But what can you say about these two guaranteed mega-blockbusters in an article about the imminent demise of successful summer movies? Nothing, except "We are sorry. This was a bad idea for an article, and we are sorry."

Pixar's WALL-E (June 27) is also in here, not because of its daring hybridization of animated family fare with avant-garde experimentalism (the film is largely dialogue-free). But because it "promises to be a charming, funny, inventive, sweet new animated classic." (In other words, a Pixar movie.) And, "if a movie like that fails to find an audience, what's the goddamn point?" What's your goddamn point? Why the hell would it fail to find an audience? Who's even suggesting that? Leave it off your list of blockbuster-killers.

Hancock (July 2), starring Will Smith as a drunken, surly superhero and Jason Bateman as his publicist, "looks like the rare blockbuster with a bracingly dark undercurrent." And, in the negative column, they say it "looks to be one of the summer's few bright spots, creatively and commercially." So, what's the beef? Well, "if [IF!! –Ed.] it tanks with audiences or critics [...] the summer will begin to look awfully grim." That sound you hear is the sound of your article's premise eating its own spleen.

Hancock seems to be held responsible for doing a post-modern "reinvention" of the blockbuster, taking the successful popcorn tentpole elements of mass appeal and intertwining them with cinema-grade screenwriting and good performances. This is no small challenge: Hulk snared Ang Lee in its attempt, and it was a dismal failure. Spider-Man drafted Sam Raimi and Michael Chabon, and had more success, though returns diminished as the franchise aged. I dare say Iron Man might have pulled it off, bringing comics fanboy Jon Favreau together with Hawk Ostby and Mark Fergus of the acclaimed (some would say over-acclaimed) Children of Men, and adding powerhouse actors to the mix. Might be a little hasty to hold up Iron Man right now, since my brain pan is still sizzling from the after-effects of its brilliant visuals and scintillating performances. Still, if this is your definition of "saving the blockbuster," prepare for the blockbuster to die. We get lucky if one movie accomplishes this in five years. If Hancock pulls it off, fantastic. If not, they tried. But I guarantee people will spend at least $100 million to find out.

The X-Files: I Want to Believe (July 25) should also do just fine. There's little chance "it will remind people of TV, and they'll stop watching theatrical movies." Devoted fans should turn out, and that's all Fox can ask. They showed up last time, and the movie made enough money that the studio didn't mind waiting ten years for another one.

Obviously, not every movie that comes out this summer will turn a profit. But this summer shows no signs of slumping compared to last year. Creatively, there's a solid handful of must-see movies. Mass-audience-wise, another dozen. The year will turn out, if anything, above average. Some movies will surprise us with huge numbers, some will surprise us as duds. Same as every year. The blockbuster will live on – not because it must or even because it should, but simply because it will. There are plenty of reasons to roll your eyes at Hollywood's offerings, but this summer's slate – taken on balance – isn't one of them.

© onebee · all rights reserved