Recently, thousands of giddy teenage girls and some extremely lonely, middle−aged cat ladies rushed to theaters to see the latest "Twilight" installment, "New Moon." The film's rabid fan base, powered by the most dynamic duo known to man — Robert Pattinson's cheekbones and Taylor Lautner's abdominals — helped to propel "New Moon" into the box office record books. "New Moon" currently holds the highest midnight opening and third highest opening weekend.
Fair enough. After all, we boys have Megan Fox and belligerent robots that turn into cool cars in the "Transformers" films. We have our guilty pleasures, so it's only fair that women get theirs, too.
What does upset us is the fact that Summit Studios will release the follow−up, "Eclipse," in June 2010, just seven months after "New Moon." By speeding up the production process, these executives have shown their utter disregard for creating a film with artistic merit and their simple desire for more money. In fact, the turnaround was so quick that they had to change directors; Chris Weitz was still handling post−production on "New Moon" when "Eclipse" starting filming. These shotgun movies are becoming exceedingly common, which is bad news bears for film quality.
Studios feel the need to capitalize on whatever is en vogue. Since most fads have the life expectancy of fruit flies, there is a need to strike while the iron is hot. We take offense at this. Apparently all the suits in Hollywood fear that Americans suffer from ADD. But, come on people, have a little more faith in us. Are we Americans really going to lose interest in Harry Potter in the course of one year? Definitely not. So why release the two halves of "Deathly Hallows" (2010, 2011) eight months apart? A two−year wait didn't hamper the sixth film's financial success — in fact, it galvanized the fan base and built up hype. A gap between films can lead to pent−up interest. A bigger lapse also allows the fan base to broaden, as we saw with the "Twilight" series. Curse you, Dakota Fanning!
If anything, time between movies is important as it gives viewers a chance to breathe. You don't want audiences to tire of a series. The expression, "time heals all wounds," is particularly noteworthy here. If a movie leaves a bad taste in your mouth, it's often best to give the audience time to forget about it.
Case in point: "The Matrix" series. The Wachowski brothers (well, technically siblings, since Larry's habit of dressing up like a woman and calling himself "Lana" was made public) released the second and third Matrix films in May and November of 2003, respectively. The sequel, "The Matrix Reloaded" (2003) was an action−packed disappointment. While the fight scenes wowed, the story left many scratching their heads. Less than six months later, Warner Bros. pinched off the series' concluding chapter, "The Matrix Revolutions" (2003). Considered both a financial and critical failure, its box office receipts were less than half those of "Reloaded."
Shoehorning a summer popcorn flick into the November lineup is never a good idea, particularly so soon after the mediocrity that was "Reloaded." If they had waited until June or July of 2004, more people would have gone to the theatres to get their bullet−time fix.
At the end of the day, the quality of a film and its sequel will determine the success of the franchise. The annual nature of the "Lord of the Rings" trilogy worked because Peter Jackson took the time to make good films. On the other hand, the gap between "The Boondock Saints" (2000, 2009) films left too much time for the Saints to fall out of the public eye. It's all in the timing.
--
Zach Drucker and Chris Poldoian are sophomores who have not yet declared majors. They can be reached at Zachary.Drucker@tufts.edu and Christopher.Poldoian@tufts.edu, respectively.
