On Twitter Forbes movie critic Scott Mendelson was talking about how 2012's The Hunger Games was the last "new-to-cinema" franchise. I read the article mostly because I was confused what "new-to-cinema" means. I guess it means something that hasn't been made into a movie before. Though really a lot of the Marvel and DC properties like Ant-Man, Black Panther, Aquaman, and Shazam never had a movie made before, but I guess we're counting the larger MCU and DCEU in general.
Anyway, why is it that there hasn't been another big franchise adapted from a book or (gods forbid) original franchise since 2012? As I commented, it wasn't for a lack of trying. I mean, after Harry Potter, Twilight, and Hunger Games, Hollywood greenlit a lot of successful YA books and series like Divergent, The Maze Runner, Percy Jackson, Miss Peregrine's Home for Peculiar Children, The Girl With All the Gifts, Mortal Engines, The Golden Compass, The Giver, and older series like Narnia or A Wrinkle in Time. None of those really became huge franchises. Divergent and Maze Runner probably came closest but fizzled after two movies.
The only explanation I can come up with is none of those books/series were quite the global phenomenon of Harry Potter, Twilight, and Hunger Games. I mean they were obviously successful books, especially Narnia or A Wrinkle in Time that have been staples for decades, but they weren't really the kind of books where people were lining up around the block the day the latest book came out. The thing with those other three series is they were popular enough that not just teens and kids were reading them but adults too. And so when the movies came out, a large proportion of those readers would go watch the movies. A book/series that's successful but not wildly so has less of an audience to draw from. And one that has been read for decades probably just doesn't have the rabid fervor to generate a lot of ticket sales.
That's my theory at any rate. Maybe if I felt like doing a lot of research I could prove it. Another factor is since 2012 the MCU exploded with a bunch more franchises. DC came out with its ill-conceived universe. Star Wars and Jurassic Park made ill-conceived comebacks. It kind of makes it harder for other properties to get successful. There's only so much time and money available.
Maybe if another YA series gets wildly successful, it can become a huge success--provided it doesn't get scooped up by Netflix or another streaming service first. I think studios might be more willing to go that option as a "safe" alternative because you can spend less money and it's easier and less quantifiable to be "successful" on streaming than in movie theaters these days.
Besides YA, Hollywood has tried adapting other successful series like 50 Shades of Grey and those Lisbeth Salander books but those really fizzled after one movie, though I think they did make all those stupid 50 Shades books into movies. Some books like Gone Girl were adapted successfully but were not franchises.
The most successful series in this century really have been based off comic books, toys, and one or two originals like the Fast and Furious movies. Not a lot based off actual non-comic books.
1 comment:
It seems the era of streaming has changed things. Yet, the century is still young.
Post a Comment