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.
By the time I was a kid watching Saturday-afternoon sitcom reruns, Gilligan’s Island was a staple of the syndication market. I loved the show’s inventiveness in constructing all of life’s necessities from a few coconut shells and banana peels, and, in retrospect, the show reminds me of a live-action Flintstones: The appeal was not in the plot but in the over-the-top island adaptations of modern gadgets and gizmos. 
