30
Jan 2012

Sequels and Prequels and Requels: The Continuing Success of Film Franchises

Creating an enduring film franchise may not be an easy feat, but if done right it can mean box-office gold. In 2011 alone, the top seven grossing films in the US were all sequels, with Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows: Part 2 at number one, and Cars 2 rounding out the list.

A film franchise, for the most part, is made of multiple films with linking story lines or characters. They can be films that stretch a storyline among different parts, like Lord of the Rings or Star Wars, or simply tell different tales of characters who were introduced in the first film as in the American Pie comedy franchise. As outlined in Filmsite.org, it takes a minimum of three films to make a franchise; they can be sequels, prequels and sometimes remakes. In terms of genre, they typically fall in the category of horror, sci-fi, fantasy and adventure; or, at least statistically speaking, most of the successful series fall under one or more of these classifications.

Getting it right means gaining a dedicated audience who will go back for more; be it to resolve a storyline, or continue the adventures of a favourite character. This being said, the audience still needs to be hooked from the first film, or already have an appreciation for the characters or storyline. According to The Economist Online, the current Hollywood franchise model “starts with the advantage of name recognition. It has also become keen on what the studios call ‘pre-sold’ films – stories based on a book (like Harry Potter) or a toy (like Transformers).”

Harry Potter is one of many film franchises that have established literary roots. Lord of the Rings and Twilight had reading audiences before spectators. The first of the “blockbuster era”, Jaws, which was followed by three sequels, started off as a Peter Benchley novel of the same name. Many of the 22 James Bond films are based on Ian Fleming’s 007 books. The long-running franchise was only recently surpassed by the Potter films after the eighth instalment took the top spot for total accumulated box-office revenue.

Not all franchises, though largely founded in fiction, are based on pre-existing characters from novels or comic books. Horror franchises like Nightmare on Elm Street (8 films in total) and Friday the 13th (now up to 12 films in its roster) seem to have a life of their own. Both of these franchises have seen remakes in the past couple of years, and have even been combined by pitting one villain against the other in Freddy vs. Jason; two ways producers have kept the undead from dying for good.

Speaking of coming back from the grave, the rebooting of an older franchise is fairly common. Last year’s Rise of the Planet of the Apes was a prequel to the Apes series that started in 1968; both X-Men: First Class and Wolverine are “origin” stories. Even Casino Royale can be considered a loose prequel; at least in terms of providing a background for Bond’s life. Otherwise, the 007 series has managed to stay alive by replacing the lead role with the “latest and greatest” leading man six times since its inception in 1962.

As Eric Gozlan, of Goldrush Entertainment points out: “Franchises are not easy to come by; while most production companies don’t focus on them, if they do come across a great formula they can strike gold”. Though Goldrush is not necessarily franchises-focused at the moment, Gozlan says: “Because of its lucrative nature we are always looking for projects that can be franchised.”

Whether the promise of conclusion, a new adventure of an iconic character or introducing a different actor to bring a flagging series back to life, the top box office results of 2011 has proven that franchises are a huge draw for audiences. What series will be brought back to life in 2012? Will the next major franchise be based on a book? We’ll just have to wait to find out.

To be continued…

  • Facebook
  • Mixx
  • Google Bookmarks
  • Blogplay
  • LinkedIn
21
Dec 2011

Three Time’s a Charm: Cinema’s Third Wave of 3D looks like it’s Here to Stay

“There isn’t a film that I’ve got in my queue — and I’m four deep right now in projects that I’ve got scripted and want to shoot — that I wouldn’t want to make in 3D. I’m betting the frickin’ farm on this.” That’s what Cameron told Varity back in 2006, and now with the biggest grossing film, Avatar, under on top of his resume and two more sequels said to be in the works, it looks like the odds are in his favour.

From stereoscopic Real-D and IMAX 3D films to 3D animation, every major studio seems to be utilizing the latest advancements to cash in on box office returns. These days, movies ranging from Harold and Kumar to Hugo are proving that there are no genre bounds for this high-tech treatment.

3D film technology has come a long way from those classic red and cyan anaglyph glasses that filtered superimposed images. It was during the age of CinemaScope and Technicolor when 3D first became popular; and was used to market the original House of Wax and Hitchcock’s Dial M for Murder. The 1950s novelty soon wore off and, 3D pretty much waned until a short resurgence in the 80s. Though, not unlike most earlier efforts, studios were using it as a gimmick to attract audiences to the third instalments of b-grade action and horror films like Jaws 3D and Amityville 3D. The problem was, it wasn’t just the dismal films that were causing headaches and eyestrain, the technology, still in its infancy, wasn’t helping either.

It wasn’t until 2003’s Ghosts of the Abyss that there finally reputable technology with a format people actually wanted to see, and could see – this of course was brought to us by the same person who would revolutionize the technique with Avatar. And, we can’t dismiss the eye popping Polar Express that started the wave of 3D animation films back in 2004.

The difference between old and new 3D technology isn’t just in the less goofy looking Real-D polarized glasses. Odeon Greenwich’s Nik Blair told BBC in that a lot of it has to do with the switch from film to digital, which holds the image still and doesn’t cause dizziness:

“If you have a traditional 35mm projector, you’ve got motors running, you’ve got belts running, there’s cogs and there’s film being pulled through it – so, with all the good will in the world, you will always get some picture shake. But 3D is picture perfect. It’s absolutely stable.”

The basic difference between 2D and 3D is that with 2D the same image is shown in both eyes; the left and right eye sees different images which are shot with two different cameras. While most films are still filmed in 2D but converted into 3D in the post-production stage, films like James Cameron’s Avatar, which used a system called Fusion Camera System, an advanced digital camera system that allow movies to be shot directly in stereoscopic 3D.

With advances in Motion Capture technology 3D animation has been finding its way into 2D live-action films. For Lord of the Rings, Andy Serkis’ movements were recorded and mapped to a computer 3D model that produced the same movements as the live model – and that’s how we got Gollum. Live actors have also been captured to enhance animated films like Polar Express and Beowulf for which actors were filmed in front of green screens to add a photorealistic quality to his characters.

  • Facebook
  • Mixx
  • Google Bookmarks
  • Blogplay
  • LinkedIn