The state of modern blockbusters
Originally posted on January 4, 2010. Written during the previous week.
Blockbusters, when it comes to movies, are the types of films that shatter expectations. In the traditional sense, blockbusters are usually associated with explosive testosterone action flicks, Die Hard perhaps standing as the ultimate example. These are the sorts of movies that are roller coaster thrill rides; movies to be experienced, not merely witnessed. The typical blockbuster is the sort of kinetic monster that bombards the viewers with action and excitement; the sign that lets filmmakers know they’ve done their job well being when the audience walks out with an exhausted sigh of satisfaction, followed by the words, “Now that’s entertainment!” (preferably with the scent of buttered popcorn lingering in their breath).
Yet wall-to-wall action isn’t the only qualifier for blockbuster status. The block often being busted, in this case, is the block of financial expectation. When a film over performs by leaps and bounds, either by fully recouping a multi-hundred million dollar budget (Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen, The Dark Knight, Avatar, Titanic, Harry Potter), or by constantly multiplying a modest cost of production (Paranormal Activity, Blair Witch Project, Mad Max, The Hangover), such films earn the blockbuster label. These aren’t necessarily films designed thrill so much as they’re films which earn the title through success instead of receiving it by default due to its membership in the action adventure genre.
Considering the latter definition (the financial qualification), 2009′s top blockbusters were Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen, Avatar, Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince, Up, New Moon, The Hangover, Star Trek, The Blind Side, Monsters Vs. Aliens, and Ice Age: Dawn of the Dinosaurs.
Thinning the above ten movies by considering the former definition (the action qualification) as well as the latter, only Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen, Avatar, and Star Trek seem to qualify. X-Men Origins: Wolverine, 2012, G. I. Joe: The Rise of Cobra, Taken, Terminator Salvation, Inglourious Basterds, and Sherlock Holmes, would be next in line to fill out the remaining seven positions, assuming we’re skimming down the top grossing movies of 2009. The idea present being that not only were these the year’s big action/adventure movies, but also that these are the big movies that everybody seems to have seen. New Moon, The Hangover, and The Blind Side must be omitted from the list for being of the wrong genre. Up, Monsters Vs. Aliens, and Ice Age: Dawn of the Dinosaurs are films largely considered to be animated first, and action/adventure second. The case could certainly be made for Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince to remain on the list as a “true blockbuster,” but wands and wizards are something I consider to be a different kettle of chips from guns and explosions.
If it isn’t already clear from my unabashed eagerness to bend the traditional definitions of genre and success, I think it’s certainly worth pointing out now that this particular segment of my “Year in Review” is less fact based and more opinion based. That having been said, isn’t it peculiar how the movie most closely resembling a “true blockbuster” by fulfilling both financial and genre expectations is Taken, the 18th highest grossing film of 2009 made with only $25 dollars? To put that into perspective further, Taken had the lowest production cost of every aforementioned movie in this article. How much did it cost for an angst ridden teenage girl to swoon over a sparkly vampire for over two hours? $50 million. How much did it cost for four guys to get lost in Vegas for a weekend? $35 million. And what about the price of Sandra Bullock’s preachy feature pining for Academy recognition? $29 million. Yet Liam Neeson’s rollicking ninety minute international adrenaline rush, chock full of gunfire and car chase, cost less than the drama and comedy smashes that, while admittedly reasonably priced, shouldn’t necessarily cost that much in the first place.
Taken was far more of a blockbuster than most of the inflated monsters that swamped the box office in a mire of mediocrity in the summer months after its January release, which is why the modern blockbuster – the “true” modern blockbuster – feels like it’s currently in decline. Movies like Taken, and to a certain extent the Crank movies, are a dying breed. The straight forward actioners of yore which thrived on their protagonist’s sixth sense for witty one-liners and feature the simple pleasures of a thrilling car chase and a heroic dive for cover after the mother of all explosions are being replaced with cinematic naval gazing, cynicism, and titanic egos. Levity is being replaced with pathos, as people are beginning to favour the brooding enigma to the charming everyman. The delivery of “more of what you want in a movie” is done with extreme contempt as Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen aptly demonstrated by abandoning the fundamentals of basic moviemaking so that it could flaunt the depth of its pockets. A film’s director is no longer an omnipotence restricted to being revered by colleagues and staff as the word “visionary” is becoming an increasingly common prefix for the job; celebrity Twitter updates deluding people into believing they’ve established a covenant with God.
It’s not entirely hopeless, though. While the conflicted and complex childhood superheroes now thrust into the position of leading Hollywood for the foreseeable future are largely responsible for the recent demand for more blockbusters with humble and modest protagonists, perhaps it’s somewhat ironic that one of their own is now standing as a hotrod red beacon of hope. Iron Man represents the best elements of John McClane and Bruce Wayne, fused into my personal vision of the ideal superhero. The affluent billionaire who’s not above getting down and dirty, has no regrets or patience for trite sentiment and nostalgia, and can instantly charm the pants off any woman he chooses with or without the money, fame, and glory, is the subject of not only one of the best movies of the decade, but one of the premier summer blockbusters of all time. Is it so wrong to believe that the most impressive movies of the year should be as fun as they are successful?
Joy, spectacle, and wonderment should be products of an adroit and skilled filmmaker and not of coincidence from a pyromaniac frat boy told to run wild with $200 million. Here’s hoping that Iron Man 2 is no less than equal to its predecessor, and that more traditional blockbuster experiences begin their return to screens, with or without a superhero at the wheel.
Comments are closed.