*** Burke Commentary ***
To me, the long and short of this article above is that the sequels and “re-imaginings” that studios have put in theaters this year have under-performed. That’s all there is to it. I can’t imagine that the public at large is “sick of sequels” as this article suggests. I think that the public at large is sick of these sequels, though. Let’s consider the major films released in the last month, the first of the big summer season (May-Aug), and see what we think: is “Sequelitis” an industry problem?
Shrek Forever After? I know Shrek the Third was an immense success, which these days guarantees a sequel. My question is how can the Greed portion of the following equation [Greed + Fear = Hollywood] really call Shrek Forever After a disappointment? Per <the-numbers.com>, Shrek 4 has already made $210 Million. Has opening weekend really become that essential? Will I be able to complete this entry with only questions?
Now, Robin Hood, this is potentially more so what the studio execs are concerned about: here’s what looks on paper to be an automatic cash cow. After all, with the exception of the wine country movie, the following equation usually holds true – [Russell Crowe + Ridley Scott = Mucho Cash Money]. Robin Hood is a quality character: particularly in today’s economic waters, you’d think the old story of robbing from the rich and distributing amongst the poor would work, right? And from the trailer, the picture looks action packed… so, what happened? OK, we’ll count this as a case of Sequelitis (see footnote 1).
I think we can count Sex & the City 2 as case number two of Sequelitis: consider the first one made over $70mm in its first weekend. Again, guaranteed sequel. What I think the studio potentially missed on was the changed economic environment: these four spoiled chicks were fun in the summer of ’08 (see footnote 2), but today, they look kind of obnoxious.
Finally, we count MacGruber as a third case of Sequelitis. A Saturday Night Live skit typically works as a skit, not a full length film (See Footnote 3). I’m not sure what research went into the green-lighting of this film, but its unfortunate opening is indicative of the moviegoing audience saving its piggy bank money for Toy Story 3 or the latest Twilight or another guaranteed hit that their friends will be talking about.
Footnote 1: Sequelitis can be anxiety and apprehension experienced while viewing a sequel or a re-make/re-imagining of a TV Series or previously made film.
Footnote 2: In the end, I think sequels and re-imaginings are fun for audiences and money-makers for the studios. At least generally, everybody should win. However, the sense of frustration the studios are feeling this summer is directly related to the seasonality of their slates. As I said before, I think audiences are sick of these sequels.
Consider that in 2008, audiences had nearly exactly the same choices:
May 2, 2008 – Iron Man May 7, 2010 – Iron Man 2
May 9, 2008 – Speed Racer May 14, 2010 – Robin Hood
May 21, 2010 – MacGruber
May 16, 2008 – Chronicles of Narnia 2 May 21, 2010 – Shrek Forever After
May 30, 2008 – Sex & the City May 28, 2010 – Sex & the City 2
Is comparing Speed Racer with Robin Hood & MacGruber a stretch? Perhaps. All I know is that all three of these films under-performed dramatically and all three were supposed to be spectacular.
Footnote 3: For me, MacGruber should be tossed in the same bucket as Step Brothers. These two films are prime examples of knowing what your material is and not trying to turn it into something it’s not. For me, MacGruber is an ideal SNL skit: short, to the point and you’re on to the next skit. Similarly, Step Brothers would have made an ideal web-short series. In fact, it might still be going on if it was a web-short series! But instead, they tried to take these two absolutely idiotic characters and give them a sit-com style lesson at the end of the film. Did not work. I can only imagine MacGruber did something similar with its storyline, but regrettably, can’t confirm this as I’ve not seen it!