Why Franchises Killed The Blockbuster

INTRO

“It’s another form. And the theatres are almost like amusement parks in a sense. So these films now I think are more like theme rides.”

Many will already know that this is a quote from esteemed director Martin Scorcese in reference to Marvel movies, which blew up a debate around the cinematic value of the MCU.  At the time some fans strongly disagreed with this, while others supported Scorcese’s view.

Since I happen to agree with the statement to a large extent, I’ll use it as a jumping off point to examine the larger impact which I feel this trend of ‘theme park filmmaking’ has had on cinema.And how I feel it has contributed to the large scale decline of the original blockbuster.

THE CINEMATIC DIET

Rather than using Scorsese’s metaphor of theme parks, I thought I’d use another idea to set up the dichotomy between the two kinds of films I’ll be discussing.  That of healthy food versus fast food - to make things more easily digestible (if you’ll excuse the pun).

In the world of blockbusters - popular and financially successful films - I see healthy movies as those which provide both a level of mainstream entertainment as well as engaging with deeper emotional, thematic and psychological human ideas.

Like healthy foods they have substance and provide a type of nutrition which creatively nourishes us in a positive way.

Ever exit a cinema with a feeling that the movie had a deep impact on you that sticks in your brain for hours, if not days, and which affects your understanding and the way in which you feel about certain topics in the future. This is healthy cinema. Fast food films on the other hand provide transient entertainment, sure, but lack much meaningfulness beyond that.

In the moment they may be cool, funny, action packed and enthralling but they don’t linger in the mind much after that or provide a different or deeper insight on the human experience after multiple viewings.

When talking about these kinds of films I don’t mean to say that they are inherently bad or that there’s anything wrong with watching them. After all there’s nothing wrong with treating yourself to an occasional bit of junk food every now and then. The problem is that rather than being an exception, fast food food films are now the basis of what we consume. They have become the primary source of nutrition in our cinematic diet. 

I don’t mean to single out Marvel films alone.

I think fast food entertainment has become prevalent in recent years across the majority of  Hollywood big releases, which for the most part focus on superhero movies, reboots, sequels or franchises of some kind. But, more on this later.

STORY STRUCTURE

One of the defining differences between fast food and healthy films are how they structure their story. Healthy blockbusters of the past based their stories around suspense, characterisation and relatable, human-based emotion. Moments of action are sparsely punctuated throughout the overwhelming moments of human drama. This builds suspense and an anticipation for the big setpieces, which heightens those moments of action when they finally occur. 

Healthy blockbusters are also underpinned by larger themes which play out across the entire film. 

For example, E.T. uses the more obvious metaphor of an alien literally being alienated and seeking to return to his species to create a parallel between Elliot’s loss of his father through divorce and his search to establish a new home without him. The movie is not just about an alien, it’s really about how children deal with divorce.

Many fast food blockbusters of recent years take an opposite approach. 

Their stories are structured around action, character introductions and funny one liners that are punctuated with brief moments of real, human drama or emotion. It’s like they write the beats of the big fights and set pieces first and then work out which little scenes they need to insert in between those action scenes to make the story make sense. This throws off the narrative and explains the lack of emotional impact they have after you finish watching them. 

There’s little ebb and flow of emotion, there isn’t the same crafted, suspenseful build up. Action just happens. There’s a character introduction, some exposition, a funny line. Then more action. Repeat. 

With healthy films the action is just a byproduct of the story.

With fast food movies the story is just there to support the action. 

ORIGINAL IDEAS

Coming back to the idea that our cinematic diet now consists mainly of junk food entertainment, I think that the real reason it bothers me is that it goes against the very thing which drives art forward: originality. What most healthy blockbusters have in common is that they have a novelty factor, born out of original artistic ideas. 

Take Star Wars for example, it brought mainstream attention to the otherwise niche genre of the space opera. Fast food films on the other hand are built upon the same, established, formulaic structure. Just look at the Star Wars reboot.

They are formulaic both in terms of writing as well as in the actual creative production of the films. 

If you break down the basic photography choices of Marvel films, almost all of them comply to the same standards. They have to be shot in a widescreen 2.39:1 aspect ratio, with smooth, stable technocrane or dolly moves, with the same Arri Alexa digital sensor and a desaturated, low contrast colour grade. The fact that these key creative decisions are all standardised across a range of different stories and characters is troubling to me.

This may seem trivial but this is in fact the crux of the issue. 

I’ve never worked as crew on a Marvel film myself but the creative input of the individual filmmakers and technicians on these movies seem very limited. Decisions are made and enforced by corporate consensus in a board room, which are carried out technically by the director and crew. As opposed to the decisions being made by individual auteurs.

Historically in any art form, whether it’s painting, music, dance or film, bold, creative decisions made by individuals are what drives art forward.

When creative decisions are solely made by a committee motivated by profit they will naturally tend toward choices which are safer investments - this means taking less artistic risk. Committees didn’t produce music by Miles Davis, Black Sabbath or NWA. Individuals did. And those individuals pushed art forward. By making formulaic, consensus-based, fast food films the core of our cinematic diet, we are hindering the very medium of cinema.

STUDIO FUNDING

So, if this is the case, why do these movies continue getting made? Well, the easy answer is - money.

In the past Hollywood studios would approach movie funding the same way as traditional investing. They would use their capital to produce a broad range of movies at various levels: lower, medium and higher budget. Just like you’d invest in an index of companies. Some of these would succeed financially, some wouldn’t. But if the majority of the films attained success, which they almost always did, then the studios made a profit.

Somewhere along the way, this traditional model was replaced with an approach to investing which is more like cryptocurrency. Instead of putting less money into a broad selection of films, they decided to YOLO everything on Bitcoin, or in this case individual blockbusters like The Avengers. In doing so they took on more risk but stood to gain increased profit.

Look at Endgame for example. It’s budget was around $400 million.

Instead of making 10 $10 Million movies, 10 $20 million movies and 1 $100 million blockbuster, they used all those funds to make just one super blockbuster.

Unfortunately I can’t dispute their approach since all of these gigantic blockbusters they invest in tend to perform well...really well. The more money that is invested into one individual film, the greater the risk the studio takes on. So, how do they minimise some of that risk? 

Well, by passing all creative decisions through a giant committee, trying to appeal to the masses and, as a result, minimise original creativity and artistic risk taking as much as possible. 

In the process driving art backwards.  

CONCLUSION

What we are left with today is a cinematic diet largely populated with gigantic, fast food blockbusters consisting of sequels, franchises and reboots. A handful of healthy options produced in the low budget range which are seen by few.

 And the very, very occasional original blockbusters which are able to be made by only a select handful of directors who have maintained a successful financial track record throughout their careers.  

So, what’s the solution to this problem?

Well, I’m not sure. Perhaps salvation lies in the hands of the streaming services who have seen positive results from pushing original content to try to gain subscribers.

As streaming eclipses the cinema experience, maybe this is the best we as an audience can hope for going forward. All that is certain is that artists at every level should be encouraged to take risks and push creative boundaries through innovation, rather than replicating a formula. 

It’s then on the funders and gatekeepers to acknowledge the value of this kind of storytelling. As history has shown us, art thrives with a blend of lots of healthy movies along with the occasional fast food guilty pleasure.

This is the recipe to a perfectly balanced diet that we need to follow if we want to get our audience’s appetite for cinema back in shape.