Jump to content


This is a read only archive of the old forums
The new CBn forums are located at https://quarterdeck.commanderbond.net/

 
Photo

Variety: Sequels sink sans stars


35 replies to this topic

#1 zencat

zencat

    Commander GCMG

  • Commanding Officers
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 25814 posts
  • Location:Studio City, CA

Posted 15 May 2005 - 05:12 PM

Interesting article in today's online Variety about how sequels/franchise movies that jettison their star to save on the bottom line tend to fail (sometimes spectacularly). Of course, this is exactly what Eon is doing at the moment, jettisoning their established franchise star Pierce in favor of a cheaper actor. Will this article impact the Bond 6 search?

Maybe this article won't frighten Eon who I think tries to stay above the Hollywood common "wisdom", but I think Sony, reeling from the failure of xXx 2, have GOT to be a bit worried.

Sequels sink sans stars
Studios misjudge auds tastes

Will a rash of lackluster sequels dampen Hollywood's franchise fever?
With the exception of "The Ring 2," the first eight sequels of 2005 have proved to be a desultory group, calling into question some of the basic assumptions of Hollywood's spinoff strategy.

It's long been argued that sequels are a panacea for the volatility of opening weekend box office. They're pre-branded and therefore easy to market; they're part of a series and therefore lend themselves to DVDs, videogames and other ancillary markets.

But witness the disappointing returns of this year's sequels to date -- among them, "XXX: State of the Union," "Son of the Mask," "Elektra," "Beauty Shop" and "Miss Congeniality: Armed and Fabulous." In each case, studios and producers badly misjudged the audience appetite for another bite of a hit movie.

That's not to say sequels are a lost cause. The first quarter of every year tends to be a box office wasteland, and this year was no difference.

But increasingly, studio sequels fall into two categories: -- high-profile juggernauts like last summer's "Shrek 2," "Spider-Man 2" and "Harry Potter 3" and low-profile duds like most of this year's crop.

The most painful look to be Sony's "XXX 2," starring Ice Cube, and New Line's "Son of the Mask," starring Jamie Kennedy. In both cases, studios decided to save money by not using the respective stars -- Vin Diesel and Jim Carrey -- from the original films.

"When you make a 'XXX' film without Vin Diesel, you're taking away what made the first film distinctive," one agent notes. "It's almost an admission to the audience that there may be something wrong with it."

The original, with Diesel portraying a sort of Generation X version of James Bond, grossed $276 million worldwide in 2002; the sequel looks on track to take in perhaps $25 million domestically and $50 million on the foreign side.

It didn't help matters that the sequel pretty much shed the original's antiestablishment feel, and that the basic premise was stretched so thin it drew hoots from the critics (Roger Ebert described it as "theater of the absurd").

Additionally for Revolution, the dismal performance by "XXX: State of the Union" came at a delicate time in the midst of negotiations of a new deal with Sony.

New Line execs concede they erred on two fronts on "Son of the Mask" by going without Carrey and relying heavily on special effects.

"I think the town is going to take a more cautious approach and realize that many ideas are not repeatable," one producer laments. "Isn't it just common sense to ask whether anyone wants to see another film about some secret agent named XXX or Sandra Bullock being an FBI agent named Gracie Hart?"

Not only is it hard to imagine a third "Mask" or "XXX" getting greenlit, it's also chilled the climate, for now, for sequels that lack high-wattage star power.

Take, for example, "Miss Congeniality 2." It's finished at $47 million domestically and may get to $50 million overseas -- less than half the $212 million the original grossed four years ago.

"I think you wind up with a problem when you take films that were sort of borderline successes or sleeper hits like 'Analyze This,' 'The Whole Nine Yards,' or 'Get Shorty,' " one exec asserts. "You may have gotten a little lucky the first time around, but that doesn't mean that lightning will strike twice."

The rule of thumb with sequels has been to hope for a match of the original's gross and be satisfied with two-thirds -- e.g., "The Ring Two," "Be Cool," "Barbershop 2: Back in Business" and "Blade: Trinity."

Besides "Star Wars: Episode III," the upcoming slate for the rest of 2005 is relatively light on sequels -- "Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire," "Batman Begins" and "Deuce Bigalow: European Gigolo."

"Deuce Bigalow is just enough of an iconic character to merit a sequel," one producer offers.

Whether or not that's true, "Deuce Bigalow 2" is certainly a small risk compared with next year's blockbuster spinoffs, "Pirates of the Caribbean 2," "Mission: Impossible 3," "Rush Hour 3" and "X-Men 3."

"Spider-Man 3" arrives in 2007; Paramount's holding its breath that George Lucas, Steven Spielberg and Harrison Ford can agree on the Jeff Nathanson script for "Indiana Jones 4."

In the meantime, though, producers who want to do a nontentpole sequel are finding a tough road due to the difficulty of replicating the elements that made the original work.

"You can tell by the number of subpar sequels that it's very tough to get it right," notes David Friendly, producer of "Big Momma's House 2," in which Martin Lawrence's character plays an undercover nanny. "Getting the story so that it's organic and not contrived, waiting the right amount of time, getting the stars back -- there's nothing easy about it."

That doesn't mean he'll stop trying. Friendly's already got a plan percolating for a sequel to "The Honeymooners" if the comedy hits when it opens in June.
Date in print: Mon., May 16, 2005, Weekly


#2 Loomis

Loomis

    Commander CMG

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 21862 posts

Posted 15 May 2005 - 05:19 PM

Bond's a totally different kettle of fish. 43 years, 21 films (counting CASINO ROYALE).... and five lead actors so far. Bond isn't, say, Rambo, or John McClane, who can only really be played by one man.

And unless Daniel Craig is a big fat liar (or has been very seriously misquoted), Sony offered him 007.

#3 David Schofield

David Schofield

    Commander

  • Discharged
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3026 posts

Posted 15 May 2005 - 05:22 PM

Not sure, though, that any movies quoted by Variety sacked their stars because they were plainly too old for the movies the producers had in mind.

#4 zencat

zencat

    Commander GCMG

  • Commanding Officers
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 25814 posts
  • Location:Studio City, CA

Posted 15 May 2005 - 05:27 PM

Bond's a totally different kettle of fish. 43 years, 21 films (counting CASINO ROYALE).... and five lead actors so far. Bond isn't, say, Rambo, or John McClane, who can only really be played by one man.

View Post


Very true, and I'm sure this is what Eon would argue. However, I wonder if this is what the folks at Sony are thinking? Hollywood doesn't exaxtly pay attention to history, they tend to make decsions based on what happened at the box office last week.

Not sure, though, that any movies quoted by Variety sacked their stars because they were plainly too old for the movies the producers had in mind.

View Post


I think the sacking of Pierce is for reasons that are 50% financial, 30% personal, and 20% creative.

#5 Loomis

Loomis

    Commander CMG

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 21862 posts

Posted 15 May 2005 - 06:13 PM

If Brosnan comes back, I don't think it'll be because The Powers That Be felt that there was a serious danger that CASINO ROYALE would flop without him; I think it'll be because Jackman and Owen weren't interested and it proved impossible to find someone suitable and available for the Bond role.

#6 Roebuck

Roebuck

    Lt. Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPip
  • 1870 posts

Posted 15 May 2005 - 07:21 PM

This article is complete nonsense. 'Miss Congeniality 2' had the same lead as the first film and still bombed. Original pictures like 'Kingdom of Heaven' are struggling just as badly at the US box office as some of there sequels. 'xXx 2' is performing poorly but should ultimately do better than 'Hitchhikers Guide'(another non-sequel) which opened strongly but is now sinking the way bricks do.

Big studio pictures have been performing poorer than expected for several years now and this is a continuation of that trend. None of this should have a major impact on 'Casino Royal'.

#7 zencat

zencat

    Commander GCMG

  • Commanding Officers
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 25814 posts
  • Location:Studio City, CA

Posted 15 May 2005 - 07:24 PM

Good points, Roebuck.

#8 007 Agent

007 Agent

    Discharged

  • Discharged
  • Pip
  • 119 posts

Posted 15 May 2005 - 07:42 PM

Bond is the exception to the rule. It's 100 percent unique. I bet all the Hollywood executives... you cast a really handsome man as Bond, plus someone with charm and a bit of danger and Casino Royale will do well. Not sure who this guy should be, but Bond is like no other franchise and can endure with the right man and a reasonable screenplay. From all accounts, it wasn't just the fact Vin Diesel wasn't in XXX 2, the story was said to be terrible.

#9 Loomis

Loomis

    Commander CMG

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 21862 posts

Posted 15 May 2005 - 08:29 PM

I think there are what you might call "quality" franchises: Bond, Bourne, DIE HARD, Indiana Jones, STAR WARS, the Terminator.... these always succeed. Why? Well, although they're undemanding popcorn entertainments aimed at the lowest common denominator, and so on and so forth (and there should be no pretending otherwise), they are nonetheless markedly and obviously superior to the likes of XXX and, I don't know, SPACE CHAINSAW NINJAS III. XXX 2 falls squarely into the category of blood and thunder action dreck that only the most undemanding and easily pleased of viewers would wish to check out. Something like Bond, or REVENGE OF THE SITH, or BATMAN BEGINS, on the other hand, will draw diverse audiences: not just hardcore genre fans and brainless teenage tearaways, but university professors, members of royal households, people of all classes and all walks of life. XXX, THE MASK, FRIDAY THE 13TH, POLICE ACADEMY - such franchises are for the lower end of the market.

It's all about the quality of the product. XXX 2 flops because it's patently cheap and nasty stuff, not because Vin Diesel was replaced by Ice Cube. To borrow from Johnson, it may be worth seeing, yes (if you're in the mood for brain-in-neutral thrills and spills), but it doesn't look as though it's worth going to see. Why bother with a cinema trip for the latest XXX or Freddy Krueger when it's probably the sort of thing that's best appreciated on TV, at home, with your buddies and a few beers? By contrast, CASINO ROYALE will succeed because it's Bond, and Bond has that guarantee of quality. The new 007 adventure is always An Event, worth seeing on the big screen, as opposed to just another cookie-cutter cash-in that all things being equal may as well have gone straight to video. That's not to say that the star is totally unimportant when it comes to Bond, but CR will do just fine, regardless of whether it's Brosnan, Owen, Craig, McMahon or some guy picked randomly off the street who's wearing the tux.

#10 Kingdom Come

Kingdom Come

    Discharged

  • Discharged
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3572 posts

Posted 16 May 2005 - 07:44 AM

My opinion; we have two producers who have let the series down since the 80s. They seem to me to have been stagnant for most of that time and surrounded themselves with second rate talent. Bond is no longer something that would excite actors as it usually is a career killer. I have a feeling offers (s) were made and turned down. I feel that the series needs a whole new breath of fresh air and not on/in the films but behind the scenes.

#11 SeanValen00V

SeanValen00V

    Lt. Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPip
  • 1518 posts

Posted 16 May 2005 - 11:47 AM

Getting the casting right though is no easy thing, other then the script, it's the most important thing linked to it, the right actor. I've seen alot of mistakes and lack of care by EON since Cubby died, I'm nervous about their choices.

#12 SeanValen00V

SeanValen00V

    Lt. Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPip
  • 1518 posts

Posted 16 May 2005 - 11:57 AM

My opinion; we have two producers who have let the series down since the 80s. They seem to me to have been stagnant for most of that time and surrounded themselves with second rate talent. Bond is no longer something that would excite actors as it usually is a career killer. I have a feeling offers (s) were made and turned down. I feel that the series needs a whole new breath of fresh air and not on/in the films but behind the scenes.

View Post



Totally agree, EON need a reshufflement, as much as Brocolli Barabara has kept it in the family, haven't made the wisest of decisions, and we don't know how much MGM has effected those choices, it's disappointing, I wouldn't let pualvis and wade write every bond story, there's so much talent out there, they change directors all the time, but the script is the most important thing, there's been a lack of innovative and fresh ideas, or ideas that were good, but not serviced propery by a weaker screenplay, TWINE should of had more Renard in it then christmas jones for example. And more Miranda Frost and No Jinx in DAD would of improved the 2nd half of DAD.

Edited by SeanValen00V, 16 May 2005 - 11:59 AM.


#13 Skudor

Skudor

    Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 9286 posts
  • Location:Buckinghamshire

Posted 16 May 2005 - 12:08 PM

Casino Royale isn't a sequel. It's the next James Bond movie - a breed different from all other types of movies. They don't need a star name in the form of a well known actor. They already have it in the character James Bond, cultural icon for generations.

#14 hrabb04

hrabb04

    Lt. Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPip
  • 1706 posts

Posted 16 May 2005 - 01:15 PM

Yep, they need new blood on Bond. Maybe Rick Berman and Brannon Braga could do it. I hear they have plenty of experience with mayhem and destruction of a franchise.

#15 Lady Rose

Lady Rose

    Sub-Lieutenant

  • Crew
  • Pip
  • 384 posts
  • Location:London,UK

Posted 16 May 2005 - 01:40 PM

This article is complete nonsense. 'Miss Congeniality 2' had the same lead as the first film and still bombed. Original pictures like 'Kingdom of Heaven' are struggling just as badly at the US box office as some of there sequels. 'xXx 2' is performing poorly but should ultimately do better than 'Hitchhikers Guide'(another non-sequel) which opened strongly but is now sinking the way bricks do.

Big studio pictures have been performing poorer than expected for several years now and this is a continuation of that trend. None of this should have a major impact on 'Casino Royal'.

View Post



I agree 100%.It is not just sequels that are performing badly but movies as a whole.I have had no inclination to see a movie for months.There has been absolutely nothing that has made me think, 'must see that'.I dont think the Bond franchise need worry.As stated here already,Bond is a different cattle of fish that is very established,has had many changes in lead actor, direction and style.If it fails it will be because it is a poor movie.Not just because of a change in lead actor.

And zencat,I agree with you also in that Brosnan going ( if he goes) is not just about the money.

#16 Mister Asterix

Mister Asterix

    Commodore RNVR

  • The Admiralty
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 15519 posts
  • Location:38.6902N - 89.9816W

Posted 16 May 2005 - 01:46 PM

[mra]Unlike these other franchises Bond has already successfully made the leap of replacing its cast. Now the audience expects a new lead, and is ready to embrace it. That can

#17 Loomis

Loomis

    Commander CMG

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 21862 posts

Posted 16 May 2005 - 01:54 PM

Now the audience expects a new lead

View Post


Very true. "Who will be the next Bond?" has absolutely dominated the entertainment news for over a year. If The Powers That Be finally decide to "play it safe" and get Brosnan back for CASINO ROYALE, will moviegoers feel cheated of the new 007 they felt they'd been promised?

#18 Seannery

Seannery

    Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3440 posts

Posted 16 May 2005 - 02:05 PM

Now the audience expects a new lead

View Post


Very true. "Who will be the next Bond?" has absolutely dominated the entertainment news for over a year. If The Powers That Be finally decide to "play it safe" and get Brosnan back for CASINO ROYALE, will moviegoers feel cheated of the new 007 they felt they'd been promised?

View Post





I don't think they'll feel cheated either way.

#19 Loomis

Loomis

    Commander CMG

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 21862 posts

Posted 16 May 2005 - 02:11 PM

I don't think they'll feel cheated either way.

View Post


Well, personally, I'll feel cheated if we don't get a new Bond, and I reckon many other people will, too. Not that I'm suggesting that CASINO ROYALE will flop if Brosnan comes back - it won't. But I think plenty of casual fans and, y'know, regular moviegoers (as opposed to just hardcore Bond lovers like us) are expecting a new face for CR, and will be disappointed if they don't get one.

#20 Seannery

Seannery

    Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3440 posts

Posted 16 May 2005 - 02:18 PM

I don't think they'll feel cheated either way.

View Post


Well, personally, I'll feel cheated if we don't get a new Bond, and I reckon many other people will, too. Not that I'm suggesting that CASINO ROYALE will flop if Brosnan comes back - it won't. But I think plenty of casual fans and, y'know, regular moviegoers (as opposed to just hardcore Bond lovers like us) are expecting a new face for CR, and will be disappointed if they don't get one.

View Post





I KNOW you personally feel that way BUT I believe you are projecting to the regular casual fan. Pierce still wins all the polls he is in AND the fact is he is a popular Bond. And even with a bunch of new Bond news recently it's still not a landslide of news for the general public if you aren't looking for it. And also a lot of the news includes the caveat Pierce may still come back.

#21 Bon-san

Bon-san

    Commander RNR

  • Veterans Reserve
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 4124 posts
  • Location:USA

Posted 16 May 2005 - 03:05 PM

I don't think they'll feel cheated either way.

View Post


Well, personally, I'll feel cheated if we don't get a new Bond, and I reckon many other people will, too. Not that I'm suggesting that CASINO ROYALE will flop if Brosnan comes back - it won't. But I think plenty of casual fans and, y'know, regular moviegoers (as opposed to just hardcore Bond lovers like us) are expecting a new face for CR, and will be disappointed if they don't get one.

View Post





I KNOW you personally feel that way BUT I believe you are projecting to the regular casual fan. Pierce still wins all the polls he is in AND the fact is he is a popular Bond. And even with a bunch of new Bond news recently it's still not a landslide of news for the general public if you aren't looking for it. And also a lot of the news includes the caveat Pierce may still come back.

View Post


Yeah, to remind:

There have been lots of polls posted on the web, with results differing wildly. But all had total vote counts in the hundreds or low thousands. Conversely, that msn.com poll a few weeks back had votes numbering in the hundreds of thousands. And Brosnan had more than 50% of the votes. The poll also included Clive Owen, who had around 23% of the vote, last I checked.

I wouldn't mind a new Bond, but I can empathize with the sentiment that Pierce is not a bad choice either. Also, I still maintain that there are myriad folks out there who are completely unaware of any of the "Pierce is out, search for new Bond is on" business of the past year. These people are expecting Brosnan.

#22 Mister Asterix

Mister Asterix

    Commodore RNVR

  • The Admiralty
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 15519 posts
  • Location:38.6902N - 89.9816W

Posted 16 May 2005 - 03:32 PM

[quote name='Bon-san' date='16 May 2005 - 10:05']Yeah, to remind:

There have been lots of polls posted on the web, with results differing wildly.

#23 Loomis

Loomis

    Commander CMG

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 21862 posts

Posted 16 May 2005 - 03:38 PM

These polls are very far from scientific and really tell us very little about who really wants what.


Exactly. Most of them are stuffed with joke candidates (Robbie Williams, Tony Blair, etc.), and then you've got to factor in people just making mindless mouse clicks at random....

#24 Bon-san

Bon-san

    Commander RNR

  • Veterans Reserve
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 4124 posts
  • Location:USA

Posted 16 May 2005 - 03:40 PM

[quote name='Mister Asterix' date='16 May 2005 - 10:32'][quote name='Bon-san' date='16 May 2005 - 10:05']Yeah, to remind:

There have been lots of polls posted on the web, with results differing wildly.

#25 Mister Asterix

Mister Asterix

    Commodore RNVR

  • The Admiralty
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 15519 posts
  • Location:38.6902N - 89.9816W

Posted 16 May 2005 - 04:39 PM

Certainly agree that no poll is decisive.  However, I was frankly surprised at the amount of support Brosnan received in that poll (esp. after all the reportage of the past year).  I was also impressed by the number of participants.  I believe (but I could be wrong) that in msn polls only vote is allowed from any isp, thus precluding stuffing. 

But anyway, isn't "passion" a good thing to have behind a candidate for an upcoming blockbuster that's going to costs scads of cash to make?

View Post


[mra]Sure, passion is great. However, We

#26 Bondian

Bondian

    Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 8019 posts
  • Location:Soufend-On-Sea, Mate. England. UK.

Posted 16 May 2005 - 04:46 PM

A fine analysis there Evan. :)

[quote name='Mister Asterix' date='16 May 2005 - 17:39'][mra]Sure, passion is great. However, We

#27 Bon-san

Bon-san

    Commander RNR

  • Veterans Reserve
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 4124 posts
  • Location:USA

Posted 16 May 2005 - 04:55 PM

[quote name='Mister Asterix' date='16 May 2005 - 11:39'][quote name='Bon-san' date='16 May 2005 - 10:40']Certainly agree that no poll is decisive.

#28 Mister Asterix

Mister Asterix

    Commodore RNVR

  • The Admiralty
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 15519 posts
  • Location:38.6902N - 89.9816W

Posted 16 May 2005 - 05:06 PM

Great pains to dispell the drawings of any conclusions from a poll with over 200,000 votes! (and yes I checked, and msn.com polls allow only one vote per isp account, fairly common on internet polls nowadays).

But even if it only "tells us that Brosnan managed to get his name clicked more times", I'd be thinking that might correlate nicely with, "Brosnan managed to get more bums in cinema seats" or something along those lines.

View Post



[mra]Right, but that

#29 Bon-san

Bon-san

    Commander RNR

  • Veterans Reserve
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 4124 posts
  • Location:USA

Posted 16 May 2005 - 05:11 PM

[quote name='Mister Asterix' date='16 May 2005 - 12:06'][quote name='Bon-san' date='16 May 2005 - 11:55']Great pains to dispell the drawings of any conclusions from a poll with over 200,000 votes! (and yes I checked, and msn.com polls allow only one vote per isp account, fairly common on internet polls nowadays).

But even if it only "tells us that Brosnan managed to get his name clicked more times", I'd be thinking that might correlate nicely with, "Brosnan managed to get more bums in cinema seats" or something along those lines.

View Post

[/quote]


[mra]Right, but that

#30 Seannery

Seannery

    Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3440 posts

Posted 16 May 2005 - 05:20 PM

[quote name='Mister Asterix' date='16 May 2005 - 18:06'][quote name='Bon-san' date='16 May 2005 - 11:55']Great pains to dispell the drawings of any conclusions from a poll with over 200,000 votes! (and yes I checked, and msn.com polls allow only one vote per isp account, fairly common on internet polls nowadays).

But even if it only "tells us that Brosnan managed to get his name clicked more times", I'd be thinking that might correlate nicely with, "Brosnan managed to get more bums in cinema seats" or something along those lines.

View Post

[/quote]


[mra]Right, but that