I hate this. I was reading an article called “Sequel Fatigue: Are Movie Watchers Getting Tired Of The Same Old Story?” it is one of numerous articles out now about, as one anonymous studio executive put it:“There very well could be some burnout with moviegoers, who are looking for something new and fresh.”
This has all come about because Sex in the City 2 has not done as well as the studios had thought it would. Yes people didn’t go see Sex in the City 2 because they don’t like sequels. I am sure it has nothing to do with four late forty-somethings looking ridiculous drinking and gallivanting around in a country where it is legal for a man to beat his wife and Dubai. Why can’t we all just say the real reason why not that many people saw it… it looks like it a bad movie.
It reminds me of the summer of 2003 when Finding Nemo and Pirates of the Caribbean came out. I read an article where a similar anonymous studio executive explained that the reason those movies did so well, its that “moviegoers really like movies about water” Not that those movie were better or more entertaining. Nope, people just like movies about water. As if there was some Pavlovian response to seeing a commercial for a film with water in it, and running to the theaters to see what ever the hell it was. Kevin Costner should have saved Waterworld until 2003, he could have made a killing apparently.
Now I preface this with saying I am not the target audience for Sex in the City 2, but I saw the trailers and honestly, it looked bad. It looked stupid. The running joke when ever I or one of my friends saw the trailer was “Oh look they made a Golden Girls movie.” (R.I.P Rue McClanahan). And yes while I am not the target audience, I have a fiancé, she has friends, and none of them wanted to see it either. And the reason why has nothing to do with hating movies with titles that include a number at the end. It had to do with… IT LOOKS LIKE A BAD MOVIE.”
And here is the other dirty little secret no one likes to admit. Movies have gotten expensive. We saw Shrek 4 last weekend, and it costs $22 bucks and we didn’t even see the 3D version. (Those are $15 a piece.) What used to be a way to kill a couple hours during the day, has now become an investment. If I am gonna sink that much money into something, it only stands to reason, I want a good return on my investment. Why would I “waste” my money on something I do not have to do and I am not going to enjoy? If I am gonna pay to see a movie, I want a sure thing.
Ironic because the "sure thing" is why we get the never ending cavalcade of sequels, reboots and remakes. Because if you are an Anonymous Studio Exec that is going to sink 150 million into a movie, again you want a good return on your investment. Anonymous Studio Exec thinking before was "People only like what they know..." now its "People only like new and fresh..." Oh why can't people make up their mind! Life must have been so much simpler when people only liked movies about water.
Money and the movies look bad are the reasons I don’t see movies in the theaters. I wanted to see MacGuber but I heard it was bad, and I didn’t want to waste the money. People told me Robin Hood was no good, so I didn’t waste my money seeing that. Prince of Persia, Marmaduke and Just Wright all look God awful, so I probably won’t pay to see those either. And movies I am curious about like Get Him to the Greek or Splice… well they will be on Netflix in 3 months, and that only cost me 10 bucks a month.
So in response to the Anonymous Studio Exec, the reason I am not seeing movies is not because I want something "new and fresh". Don’t get me wrong that would be nice. The reason I am not seeing movies in the theater is because I can order a pizza and watch Netflix for what it costs to go see a movie in a movie theater. And…
Your Movies Suck.
Jason
