Spider-Man 3 reviews

[mik3cap]

I keep reading and hearing Spider-Man 3 reviews, and they universally agree: the franchise is very tired, and though the movie is decent as a sequel, it can't stand on its own, and is sinking under the weight of its predecessors. And I do concur; Sony has a way of stabbing movie franchises in the heart when they should be peaking (see The Matrix). The big budget flicks are so dominated by the money-making imperatives of their great studio masters that there's no room left for art or innovation. That said, Spider-Man 3 probably did the very best it could to get out from under that, but as many others have already said before me - it simply wasn't enough.

At some point, the big studios may learn (perhaps too late) that audiences crave novelty and abhor formula. They don't realize it now because the only metric for new movie performance they have is the box office - and many of them only care (perhaps short-sightedly) about the BO money - but a movie can make more money if it has a long tail, where it maintains strength in a long box office run and then stretches into DVD sales. And the only way to get that is by keeping audiences returning and by having their word of mouth get their friends into the theaters. And that's only done with products that are fresh and novel.

For S-M 3, I am sure that its titanic production budget will offset its returns. It might break even, but it won't make much of a profit. In that regard, I think Pirates of the Carribean 3 will completely outdo Spider-Man 3, and will probably be a better performing franchise overall. Even though Pirates is basically a remake of the first Star Wars Trilogy, it's superficially novel enough to actually entertain its audiences.

Comments

[harrison-ripps.livejournal.com]

Are you saying that Orlando Bloom's character and Keira Knightley's character are actually brother and sister? Ew.

[mikecap.livejournal.com]

You kid... but we shall see in the final film, won't we??

[harrison-ripps.livejournal.com]

There is...another.

[kitteridge.livejournal.com]

I am dubious about the SW/Pirates connection (unless Kiera Knightly is Capt. Jack Black's sister), but I will reserve comment for a later discussion.

My real question is this: How did *Sony* kill Matrix 2 and 3? I thought it was just about a script that lost its oomph and got too complex for most viewers and couldn't follow through on the promise of the first. I didn't see it as a failure by the studio.

By the way, SM3 will be on IMAX, too.

[mikecap.livejournal.com]

SW vs. Pirates:

Luke = Orlando
Leia = Kiera
Han = Depp
Chewie = hairy 1st mate with sideburns
R2 & C3PO = fat and tall pirate comic relief

PotC 3 is "search for Jack" just like RotJ was "search for Han".

Trailers I've seen for the third movie indicate a giant naval battle; much like the giant space battle in RotJ. I've got an older post in my LJ that outlines the similarities, I'll dig up the link at some point.


Matrix:
I don't have any hard evidence for it, but I bet there were a lot of pressures on the scriptwriting from Sony on the second and third movies. Plus it was turned into this vehicle for a lot of Sony's musicians on the soundtracks and a big camapaign for Burger King... basically it seemed to me that the unexpected success of the first movie drew the attention of the giant, and Sony turned the full might of their marketing machine towards making the franchise a cash cow.

I imagine that anytime a company makes a major investment, they de facto exert greater control over all aspects of it, and it becomes less a work of the creators and more a work of the studio. Matrix 2 just *felt* that way to me, like it wasn't a work of the Wachowskis any more, and it made me wish that they'd only made the first movie.