With box-office revenue in the U.S. and Canada expected to
come in at only $3.9 billion for the summer of 2014, or 15% lower than the year
before, and no film hitting $300 million domestically,[1]
the question is whether the dip could be explained by a cycle or some larger,
irreversible trend. I contend that two factors push the answer past the typical
response that most of the movie franchises would be out in force in the summer
of 2015.
Most importantly, the well-trodden recipe for box-office
cash may have gradually willowed away good story-telling. The number of flops
is astounding. They included “The Expendables 3,” “Sin City: A Dame to Kill
For,” “Edge of Tomorrow,” “How to Train Your Dragon 2,” “Hercules,” “A Million
Ways to Die in the West,” and “Sex Tape.” Out of twelve sequels, only three
managed not to nose-dive. According to The
New York Times, audiences had had enough with “same old, same old.”[2]
“Maleficent” did well because it proffers audiences “a
revisionist story line with an unexpected twist.”[3]
Of course, Angelina Jolie in bondage gear might have had something to do with
the box-office success too. Likewise, Scarlett Johansson might have pushed
“Lucy” to its $115.1 million in North American sales; her sulky voice had
certainly stole the show in “Her.” Yet without fresh, captivating yet not
overly complex narrative, the drought in so much of California at the time
could easily be said of Hollywood too.
It is no secret that aspiring screenwriters are told both in
print and by writers in the business that Hollywood producers look for certain
kinds of scripts that are known to sell well, especially if they can be readily
made into franchises. In The
Screenwriter’s Bible, the author barely hints that stories can have bad
endings; The ending had better turn out good if you want to sell your script in
Hollywood. Such capitulation to distorting narrative to meet what has sold well
in the past is often a “no-brainer” to beginning screenwriters who desperately
want in the game. Perhaps they should not be so sycophantic—so much in need of
Hollywood. Perhaps screenwriting is best pursued part-time, as a hobby that
could wind up paying well, rather than as a career. Yet Hollywood too is to
blame, for it has been too easy for producers to go the road most travelled at
the expense of good story-telling and thus the film industry’s own best
interest.
Alternatives stemming from online streaming, dvds, and
better home screens increasingly push movie theaters to justify the value for
price that they provide. Films such as “Gravity” and the “Transformers”
franchise can justify their appeals to be viewed on the huge screens that only
a movie theater can provide, whereas dramas lack such a rationale, and may be
more comfortably watched in bed anyway. Films not meeting the raised bar
visually probably will not see much action in theaters. Whether visually
stunning on a mammoth screen or not, a film must have excellent narrative to
draw audiences, at least ideally. The arteries can become blocked, however, as
entrenched producers and screenwriters presume erroneously that only the
deepest grooved paths lead to the Emerald City. The wizards, detached from the
city’s other residents and thus the way things are done, are the screenwriters
who dare think outside the box yet are not so far gone as to lose touch with
the mainstream audience.
[3]
Ibid.
