Today I got to thinking about the up-and-coming 2007 summer of sequels, and here's what I came up with: What's the one thing that's guaranteed to rake in the big bucks at the box office? A sequel. And not just any sequel. A sequel to a movie that, in all of its infinite glory, grossed millions of dollars. If you look at the top grossing films of the last decade (in America), seven of them are sequels or movies that spawned sequels within the next few years. The verdict is in. All the studio money is in the franchises, and it seems like nobody's going to see anything else.
This concerns me. Why? Well, I remember the surge in the late '90s when really great, award-winning movies were being made left and right, and people were actually going to see them. I just conducted some research on the box office numbers of all films the Academy nominated for Best Picture in the last decade, and I found this: Each year from 1997 to 2000, at least two of the films nominated for Best Picture raked in over $100 million, and 2000 was the only year that didn't have at least one nominated movie exceed $200 million. However, 2000, the year of ""Gladiator,"" was the most successful year across the board, with only ""Chocolat"" coming in under the $120 million mark. Of all the nominated films from 1997 to 2000, none of them had sequels, and none of them generated franchises. It was 2001 that changed everything, because in 2001, we got ""The Lord of the Rings.""
Since ""The Fellowship of the Ring,"" we've seen two more ""LOTR"" sequels. We've seen not one, not two, but nearing on five ""Harry Potter"" movies. We're coming on the third ""Spider-Man."" The third ""Pirates."" We have three ""X-Men"" movies. Two ""Fantastic Fours."" Three ""Shreks."" Two ""Matrix"" sequels. ""Star Wars"" episodes 2 and 3. And more. Pardon my French, but holy shit. And here's my favorite: since 2001, the highest grossing movie each year has been either a sequel or the first of a series.
Also, since ""LOTR"" stopped storming the Academy in 2003, the drop-off in the number of people going to see Academy Award nominated films is immense. Between 1997 and 2001, only five total movies nominated for Best Picture made less than $60 million. In 2004, ""The Aviator"" was the only movie nominated to (barely) break $100 million. In 2005, none of the nominated movies broke $100 million, and only one broke $60 million. Now, it is safe to say that the only movie nominated for 2006 that received box office numbers of more than $60 million was ""The Departed."" A mob movie directed by Martin Scorcese. And it doesn't even TOUCH ""Dead Man's Chest.""
What I'm trying to say is that, since ""LOTR"" began in 2001, the film franchise has been on the rise, and it's tilting the box office scale. Last year, ""Pirates 2"" made more money than all the Oscar-nominated gems combined. Is this because the American film-goer has become less in-tune with unique filmmaking? I don't think so. I think the film franchise has become so important to studios that they give little priority (and the limited release status) to anything else.
I also think that the studios are afraid to make movies like ""Mystic River"" and ""Seabiscuit,"" because movies like this don't stand a chance against ""Pirates 3"" and ""Harry Potter 5."" Sure, ""Brokeback"" was awesome, and ""Crash"" blew my mind, but these are the movies hitting the backburner because of $257 million budget sequels like ""Spider-Man 2."" Does this sadden me? A little. Am I sympathizing with the Academy? Sort of, yeah. I love ""Spider-Man 2,"" but I miss good movies that needn't depend on a franchise to succeed. Don't you? Even a little?
