A few weeks back, when the best film of the summer, Batman Begins, opened, I posted expressing my hope that its opening weekend might end the worst U.S. weekend box-office year-over-year recession in 20 years.
Well, it didn’t… nor did any of a slew of other highly anticipated movies, including War of the Worlds, Revenge of the Sith, Cinderella Man, Kingdom of Heaven, and The Longest Yard.
According to studio estimates, though, the 20-week recession was finally broken… and to add insult to injury, the film credit with the achievement is another comic-book super-hero movie that’s as terrible as Batman Begins is great: Fantastic Four. (Get the story.)
So, what’s the lesson here? Why did Fantastic Four — an ensemble film with no star power from a fledging director based on a venerable but only moderately popular comic book — outperform Steven Spielberg and Tom Cruise, Batman, Star Wars, Russell Crowe and Tom Howard, and Adam Sandler?
More pressingly, why did a lousy, badly reviewed film with only two tepid action sequences, one-note characterization, awful casting, mostly bad acting, dreadful dialogue, trashy humor, and lame special effects outperform an array of films that outshine it on almost every level imaginable?
Was I wrong to conclude in my earlier post that the message of the box-office recession was that moviegoers want better movies? Is the lesson here that quality doesn’t matter after all? That Marvel fans are a more reliable (or more forgiving) market than DC fans?
First of all, a plug: Jimmy and I will be discussing this and other movie-related topics today on Catholic Answers Live.
Second, a little perspective:
- Fantastic Four’s opening domestic take of $56M is stronger than most of those other films — but not all of them. War of the Worlds actually opened much stronger, with a three-day opening weekend total of $64.5M — a figure that’s actually deceptively low, considering that much of its opening business wasn’t even in the Friday-to-Sunday period, since it opened on a Wednesday before the July 4 holiday (its six-day total was $112.7M).
- Batman Begins likewise opened with a three-day take of $48.7M, somewhat lower than FF’s $56M — but here too Batman opened on a Wednesday, so its opening business wasn’t all concentrated into that three-day weekend total. Batman’s five-day opening take was $72.9M.
- Fantastic Four isn’t single-handedly responsible for the end of the box-office recession. It was the convergence of FF plus continued strong performance from War of the Worlds and Batman, as well as other films. Had FF opened a month ago, likely it would not have broken the recession, and some other film would have.
- It’s still too early to certify FF a hit. The figure that really matters now is the percentage of dropoff in the next week or two. Batman has been holding up well over the weeks, slipping a very modest 35% this past weekend to a $172.1M If FF tanks in its second or third weekend, as so many films do these days, it could still be a box-office turkey.
Still, with all that said, the question remains: Why did this film do so well?
Here is what I think is an important part of the answer:
Until FF, the big movies of summer have all — quite rightly — come with warnings not to bring the kids.
Even properties with built-in kid interest, such as Batman and Star Wars, have been the subjects of media and critical cautions that these films are too intense for young kids. And they are — and there’s nothing wrong with that.
As a result, though, the family market has been neglected. Yes, there have been traditional “family films” like Herbie: Fully Loaded and Madagascar. But families seem to crave films outside of the “family film” mold, i.e., cartoon-style comedies (whether live-action or animated) about children / families or anthropomorphic animals, cars, robots, etc, flatulence humor, kicks in the groin, etc.
Based on its marketing, FF, supposedly a “funny family action film,” seemed to fit the bill. Its initial success, like last year’s National Treasure (also not a great film, although much better than FF), may suggest that family audiences crave the same kind of thrills and action as teenagers and young adults, but without the heavy violence or sexual content. In fact, families may be so desperate for acceptable fare of this type that they will even embrace movies that are mediocre (National Treasure) or lousy (FF).
Unfortunately, it also seems, at least at the moment, that it may not be necessary that the movie be actually family-friendly — only that it be marketed and perceived that way. With FF, a running thread of trashy exploitative content, mostly in connection with the character of Johnny Storm, keeps it from being family-friendly, but it didn’t keep the studio from marketing the film to families.
And families, at least this weekend, seemed to buy it. Time will tell if word of mouth prevents the strategy from working in the long run… or whether family audiences really are the suckers some Hollywood studios think they are.
Listen today to Catholic Answers Live for more.
Great points, Steven.
One reason (besides your review) I didn’t see the FF movie over the weekend is because of the marketing juggernaut – I was sick of the commercials 2 weeks ago, & that alone scared me off. When I was a starving actor in LA in the early 90’s, my fellow starving actors & I had a rule of thumb about movies: If the poster is on every bus & bus stop in the greater LA basin, it’s gonna be cow dung on wheels. The rule never failed! I was afraid FF wouldn’t even be “so bad it’s good” material so I stayed away.
I’ll bet the PG-rated Charlie & the Chocolate Factory, which has child & (nostalgic) adult appeal, will go huge on Friday & cool FF off faster than the Human Torch in a swimming pool!
As somebody who watched FF on Saturday, all I can say is that I fully agree with you. The movie sucks. I don’t know what was worse, the bad performances, the absurd plot or the characters themselves, namely the Human Torch.
I came out of the theater absolutely despising him. Such a vain, shallow, self-centered, ego-maniatic character should NEVER be considered a ‘hero’, especially NOT in a ‘family movie’. He was an accident waiting to happen, and I wonder what message the kids are getting seeing a character like him being portrayed as a ‘hero’… (have fun at other’s expense without thinking of the consequences, everything is alright as long as you’re cool!) Geeze. To think I used to like his character when I was a kid and watched the old 80’s cartoon… *sigh*
I don’t see many movies, and Fantastic Four never looked that great to start with, but your review pretty much drove the nail in the coffin for me, Steve.
Especially since the second-greatest villain in comics history is all but unrecognizable, apparently. Does Doom even get one soliloquy? One reference to himself in the third person? Does he even get to make a comment about how things like pain, weakness, or love are for “lesser men”?
Great show today, Steve.
Well… I guess I will have to go against the flow here. Maybe I attached too many child (and adult) memories of reading the FF comics to this movie. I had a fun time at it and so did my girls. While not high art, it was F-U-N. I enjoyed it.
Would I have done some things differently? Of course. In the movie, Johnny is not that far off the comic character. He’s supposed to be young and immature. The back and forth stuff with the Thing is pretty standard stuff as comic relief. I would have liked to see less sexual innuendo, though it was far less than some movies. I would have liked to see Reed and Sue start off together rather than make that a triangle subplot. I also would have liked to see a bit less absent minded professor stuff on the part of Reed.
Still… I enjoyed myself.
You thought Batman Begins was a great movie? I seriously have to question your taste in judgement.
On the other hand, I think Hollywood needs a shake up in their corporate model. I think that low box office totals are what Hollywood needs to alert it to the declining quality of their feature films.
I might question my own taste before I’d question Mr. Greydanus’. Batman Begins was an incredible film.
I haven’t seen the FF movie yet, but with the cost of tickets I will wait for the DVD. I LOVED the FF concept as a kid. How disappointing. I guess they figured out that warning families about the content of the movie doesn’t really pay at the box office.
I am also extremely unlikely to give Charlie & the Chocolate Factory a go. How could anyone improve on that evil Veruca Salt in the first movie? Also, Gene Wilder’s Wonka was always proper, polite and completely rational. From what I have seen of the trailers, Depp’s Wonka is something of a nut job.
Decent Films is a great site, Steve, though I have to slightly disagree with you about Revenge of the Sith. I left the theater completely unmoved. I’d rather watch Strange Brew.
I’ll throw in my hat with Tim Johnson and admit that I enjoyed Fantastic Four. I do agree with some of SDG’s objections to the content, but that didn’t ruin the movie for me as it apparently did for him. I will point out (for those who haven’t seen it) that Johnny Storm *is admonished by other members of the Four* for some of his irresponsible behavior, especially after the *SPOILER, highlight to read* incident at the motorcycle rally where he tries to fly and quite literally crashes and burns. *END SPOILER*
The Spider-Man and X-Men movies are much better, though. I probably wouldn’t pay for a new copy of the F4 DVD when it releases. A used copy…maybe.
Arrrg…I tried to set the spoiler text in my message above to white. Didn’t work. Sorry about that.
That would be no, no, and no. 🙁
Young and immature is one thing. Insufferably egocentric is something else again, in my book. But I’m glad you had fun.
Taste in judgment? I don’t even know what that means. Anyway, de gustibus non est disputandum. You don’t get to question my taste. That’s why it’s called taste. 🙂
As for judgment, in general, I don’t believe in making judgments about peoples’ judgment based solely on a “thumbs up/down” opinion on a film. I think one needs to know why someone liked or didn’t like a film, and usually several films of various kinds, before one is in a position to make any kind of inference about someone else’s judgment. (That’s why I write reviews instead of just rating films.)
Fair point as regards the overall moral tenor of the film, but it doesn’t make the character, who is never chastened for a second, any more tolerable IMO.
Thanks for the positive feedback, folks!
Tim said:
Also, Gene Wilder’s Wonka was always proper, polite and completely rational. From what I have seen of the trailers, Depp’s Wonka is something of a nut job.
Ummmm. NOPE. How recently have you watched Wilder’s film? At the very least, the boat scene is surely not showing a “proper, polite … rational” Wonka at all.
I’ll see it, but may wait for the DVD.
Folks need to read (or re-read) the original Dahl books. Wonka disliked kids. That was kinda the point.
Wilder was wonderful & I love the original version. But the tone of that version was not the same as the tone of the book. I’m very interested in seeing how close Burton gets. I really liked the James & the Giant Peach he produces a number of years back.
Ya got me there, Naomi! Let me re-phrase my statement: Gene Wilder’s Wonka was always proper, polite and completely rational – EXCEPT when he was scaring everyone half to death by shrieking like a lunatic, while they were travelling at a high speed through a dark tunnel filled with a kaleidoscopic montage of horrific and grisly images.
There. That’s what I meant to say in the first place, but I always try to keep my comments “pithy” and to the point. 😉
The original Wonka was somewhat fun, but was nothing like the book. I didn’t appreciate Wilder’s take on Wonka at all. I’m also not a big fan of all the psychedelic weirdness and the lame musical numbers in that move.
Which is why I for one can not wait to see the new version. This film is right up Tim Burton’s alley!
It’s not enough to just go to a theater to see it either. I’m going to see this one at IMAX.
Online poker freerolls.
Online poker freerolls.