“To get an Oscar would be an incredible moment in my career…But the ‘Lord of the Rings’ films are not made for Oscars, they are made for the audience.” – Peter Jackson Where does blockbuster filmmaking go moving into the 21st century? Based on what big-budget, high-grossing films have become synonymous with the 2000s, it seems that studios have shifted away from the sci-fi adventure films that defined the 1980s and 1990s and pursued fantasy and superhero stories instead.
So, without further ado, here are some of the best blockbuster movies from the first decade of this century. Harry Potter and the Sorcerer’s Stone (2001) In the mid-1990s, British film producer and founder of Heyday Films David Heyman was searching for a children’s book to adapt for the silver screen. After his staff brought up J.K. Rowling’s 1997 fantasy novel “Harry Potter and the Philosopher’s Stone,” Heyman pitched the idea to American film studio Warner Brothers. Two years later, Rowling sold the rights of the first four books in the “Harry Potter” series despite her initial hesitations about WB making their own movies in the world of “Harry Potter” not based on her stories. Steven Spielberg was in talks to direct, but his vision for an animated movie to adapt the first book in the series was turned down and he went on to direct A.I. Artificial Intelligence instead. Several other directors engaged in talks with Warner Brothers, from Terry Gilliam (Monty Python and the Holy Grail, The Fisher King) and Jonathan Demme (The Silence of the Lambs, Philadelphia) to Rob Reiner (Stand by Me, The Princess Bride) and M. Night Shyamalan (The Sixth Sense, Unbreakable). Due to his work on family films like Home Alone and Mrs. Doubtfire, Pennsylvania native Chris Columbus was chosen by Warner Brothers to direct the movie (Rowling preferred Gilliam as an admirer of his previous work). American screenwriter Steve Kloves (Wonder Boys, The Amazing Spider-Man) was hired to adapt “Harry Potter and the Philosopher’s Stone,” but Rowling retained much creative control over the film during pre-production (which both Columbus and Kloves did not mind). One of her most well-known conditions for selling the film rights to her series was that the cast be kept strictly British or Irish unless it made sense within the story otherwise. Many of the notable characters were officially cast in August, from Alan Rickman (Die Hard, Sense and Sensibility) and Maggie Smith (The Prime of Miss Jean Brodie, A Room with a View) to the three child leads: Daniel Radcliffe, Emma Watson, and Rupert Grint. After collaborating with the British government, Warner Brothers kicked off principal photography in late September of 2000. Notable filming locations include Alnwick Castle in Northumberland and Gloucester Cathedral in Gloucestershire (both served as principal locations for Hogwarts scenes), Durham Cathedral in Durham (for some additional Hogwarts scenes), and London Zoo (for Harry and the Dursleys’ visit to the zoo). After two days of shooting in Bracknell, Berkshire, the remainder of the Privet Drive scenes were moved to a constructed studio set at Leavesden Studios in Hertfordshire. Filming concluded in late March of 2001. Released in the United States on November 16, 2001, Harry Potter and the Sorcerer’s Stone received largely positive reviews from critics. Roger Ebert, for example, called the film “a classic,” while others found its many strengths overcoming some of its notable weaknesses. By the end of its initial theatrical run, the film had earned 974 million dollars on 125-million-dollar budget, making it one of the highest-grossing films ever at the time. As a result of a re-release during summer last year, the film has officially grossed a tad over one billion dollars. Furthermore, the movie received nominations for Best Art Direction, Best Costume Design, and Best Original Score at the Academy Awards but won none of them. Today, the film’s legacy was cemented by kicking off an eight-movie franchise that ended in 2011. In total, the eight Harry Potter films have grossed 7.7 billion dollars. In addition, the two films released thus far from spin-off Fantastic Beasts franchise have grossed nearly 1.5 billion dollars (with a third entry on the way next year). While not a diehard fan of J.K. Rowling’s Wizarding World, I was an avid fan of both the film and novel series as a child and love going back to the eight Harry Potter films next year in the lead-up to the third Fantastic Beasts movie. That being said, I’ll be diving deeper into my thoughts on the franchise as a whole in the future so I want to just focus on its first entry. Harry Potter and the Sorcerer’s Stone is one of the best introductions to a fantasy world in film/television of the last several decades. Chris Columbus nails the balance of whimsy, mystery, and understated danger that defines the iconic locations of the world of wizards and witches (from Diagon Alley to the various corners of Hogwarts itself). However, much of the brilliance of the film’s narrative structure is by introducing the audience to this world of magic through the eyes of its loveable protagonist. While a wizard-by-blood himself, Harry has grown up knowing nothing about Hogwarts and magic which makes it that much more effective when he learns about the ins and outs of this world in all of its hidden secrets just as we do. By the film’s end, I feel satisfied not only with the journey that Harry has gone on as a character but how the filmmaker and cast and crew have brought the world that J.K. Rowling conceived of on a train ride to life in such vivid aesthetic and enticing world-building. Admittedly, I am not an expert on the books and thus lack a strong emotional investment in how much the later films deviate from the source material. That being said, Harry Potter and the Sorcerer’s Stone might not be the best film in the franchise but it is undoubtedly one of my favorite ones. It evokes so much happiness from my own childhood and has an undeniable and wondrous allure to it that the film’s infectious charm makes me feel like I am seeing it for the first time whenever I rewatch it. ‘Nuff said. 😊 The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King (2003) There had been several attempts to adapt J.R.R. Tolkien’s acclaimed fantasy novel “The Hobbit” (1937) and “The Lord of the Rings” trilogy (1954-55), spanning the late 1960s to the late 1970s. However, the film rights to Tolkien’s Middle-earth passed through the hands of a multitude of studios before landing in the laps of United Artists. Additionally, several big-name producers (from Samuel Gelfman to Walt Disney) expressed interest in putting the story of Bilbo and/or Frodo Baggins on the big screen. As a child, New Zealand director Peter Jackson (Heavenly Creatures, King Kong) was unfamiliar with Tolkien’s original text and was instead exposed to Middle-earth by watching the 1978 animated film directed by Palestinian native Ralph Bakshi (Heavy Traffic, Wizards). Despite being interested in adapting the books for live-action, Jackson waited until the late 1990s to seriously consider undertaking such an endeavor believing that bigger, more experienced names in Hollywood would do so and that he was out of his depth to even attempt such a feat. With the advancement of computer-generated imagery as exhibited by Spielberg’s 1993 sci-fi adventure film Jurassic Park, Jackson set out to plot out a high-fantasy story of his own. However, he and his partner Fran Walsh ended up always coming up with something so derivative of Tolkien’s work and decided to track down the current status of the film rights to “The Lord of the Rings.” After some prolongated negotiations with the holder of the adaptation rights, Saul Zaentz, (with Miramax acting as the middleman) Jackson became discouraged and took an offer from Universal Studios to film a remaking of the 1933 film King Kong. However, this remake was put on hold in 1997, and Jackson and Walsh returned to their efforts in sorting out the film rights to Tolkien’s novels. Once they both decided to turn their two-film story treatment into three films, Miramax rejected their offer. So, they cut several elements of Tolkien’s story to crunch everything back into a two-film treatment with a proposed budget of 75 million dollars and Miramax accepted their proposal. After more than a year of screenwriting, Jackson and Walsh (with some help from Stephen Sinclair and his partner Philippa Boyens) produced scripts for two films that were over 140 pages each. In addition, they had devised a 110-day production schedule which aimed for releases on Christmas of 2000 and Memorial Day of 2001. Due to the total budget quickly climbing to 150 million dollars, Miramax went to Disney and DreamWorks for help with funding but were denied and thus requested once again that Jackson combine the two films into one. After months of prolongated studio politics in which Miramax pressured Jackson into making one film, Jackson decided to begin shopping the project around to other studios. After being rejected by Sony Pictures and 20th Century Fox (the rest of the studios never even reviewed the scripts), Jackson snagged a meeting with the CEO of New Line Cinema (his friend, Mark Ordesky, was an executive there). Once Jackson picked up on the fact that New Line was quite interested in making a trilogy of films, he became enthusiastic about working with them. Thus, Jackson, Walsh and Boyens went to work on restructuring their two scripts into three which allowed them to fit more of the story in as well as prioritize satisfying story beats and climaxes over exposition. Furthermore, three scripts allowed the writers to flesh out the world and expand the battle sequences. Pre-production officially began late in the summer of 1997, involving Jackson and his team storyboarding and overseeing the design of Middle-earth for the silver screen (including, but not limited to, creating the armor, weapons, prosthetics, costumes, sets, and creatures for the films). Two years later, in October of 1999, principal photography kicked off in New Zealand. Spanning over 150 unique locations throughout the country, filming lasted over a year until December of 2000. Specific to the third entry in the trilogy, the Battle of the Black Gate was filmed at the Rangipo Desert with New Zealand soldiers hired as extras, the Mount Doom exteriors were shot at Mount Ruapehu, and the Ride of the Rohirrim was filmed in the town of Twizel. The final scene filmed was of the four Hobbits being bowed to by the inhabitants of Minas Tirith, including Aragorn himself (😊). The Return of the King, the third and final entry in Jackson’s The Lord of the Rings trilogy, was released in December of 2003. Riding high off of critical and audience anticipation following the release of The Fellowship of the Ring and The Two Towers two years and one year prior, respectively, the film grossed over 1.1 billion dollars worldwide (becoming the second highest-grossing film of all time upon its release). Both audiences and critics deemed it a massive cinematic achievement, and it garnered eleven wins out of eleven nominations at the Academy Awards, including Best Picture (tying Ben-Hur and Titanic for the most Oscars won by a single film). Today, The Return of the King remains for many one of the greatest films ever made. In the hopes of dedicating a whole blog to Peter Jackson’s film adaptation of Tolkien’s high-fantasy trilogy, I will reserve much of my specific praise for and criticism of The Return of the King for that. That being said, I found myself during my second viewing of The Lord of the Rings trilogy enjoying the third entry the most―in that respect, Jackson and his cast and crew accomplished their goal of making a satisfying conclusion to a (in my humble opinion) less-than-fulfilling fantasy story. Both times viewing The Fellowship of the Ring I was (for the most part) bored out of my mind. And while I enjoy the latter 90 minutes of The Two Towers, the rest of it (excluding Gollum’s character) is either uninteresting or flat-out revolting to get through. But The Return of the King does what it needs to do for me; provide an action-packed and exciting climax to the epic tale of Frodo Baggins, Samwise Gamgee and Aragorn while also wrapping up their storylines in a way that feels deserved and worthy of Tolkien’s legacy as an expert storyteller. That being said, I greatly respect the years of blood, sweat and tears that went into making this film trilogy. Undeniably, the director, writers, cast, and production team put everything into making this adaptation the best that it could be. But, that doesn’t make me enjoy the trilogy anymore or less. Still, The Return of the King is a solid ending to a well-crafted story that just doesn’t keep me hooked from start to finish. And I can at least relish in the fact that Jackson and his team were allowed to see their version of Tolkien’s Middle-earth through to the end. That is a rare thing in cinema history, and I appreciate it for that if nothing else. Iron Man (2008) Throughout the 1990s and early 2000s, the film rights to an Iron Man project bounced around studios, from Universal to 20th Century Fox, and various actors (notably Nicolas Cage and Tom Cruise) expressed interest in playing the genius-billionaire-playboy philanthropist. (😊) Also, such directors as Quentin Tarantino (Pulp Fiction, The Hateful Eight) and Nick Cassavetes (The Notebook, My Sister’s Keeper) were at various points in talks to helm the project. However, when Cassavetes’s deal with New Line Cinema fell through, the rights to Iron Man reverted back to Marvel. By late 2005, relatively-new film wing of the comic book company Marvel Studios began development of the film from scratch. Iron Man would become the studio’s first independently-financed feature film, as Tony Stark and his metal-clad alter-ego was Marvel’s sole major character who had not already received a live-action adaptation (á la Spider-Man and Hulk, among others). After approximately 30 writers passed on the opportunity to write a script, the studio gathered data from a multitude of focus groups in an effort to develop a plan to make the general public more knowledgeable about some of the character’s basic traits and characteristics. By spring of 2006, Marvel Studios hired Jon Favreau (Elf, Chef, The Jungle Book) to direct the film. It was Favreau who oversaw much of the character’s story being updated for modern times (i.e. Tony selling weapons to the U.S. Army in Afghanistan, not Vietnam). Initially, Favreau wanted Sam Rockwell (The Green Mile, Matchstick Men, Three Billboards Outside Ebbing, Missouri) for Tony Stark, but after seeing the screen test of Robert Downey, Jr. (Zodiac, Tropic Thunder) the director became dead-set on him playing the titular role. Favreau managed to override Marvel Studios’ trepidation about casting Downey in the lead role, as the director felt that Downey’s past struggles with addiction and his recovery in the early 2000s made him the perfect person to play Tony Stark. In an effort to ground the film even further, Favreau enlisted the talents of Oscar-winning special-effects artist Stan Winston (Aliens, Terminator 2: Judgment Day, Jurassic Park) to oversee the design of the three different versions of the Iron Man suits. The Mark I suit that Tony builds in a cave was both a 90-pound wearable suit and a lighter, more durable version with only the top half visible. In addition, the “Iron Monger” worn in the film’s climax by Obadiah Stane (Jeff Bridges) was an 800-pound animatronic that required five operators at any given time. Principal photography kicked off in March of 2007 and lasted until June, spanning from the Olancha Sand Dunes and Edwards Air Force Base in California to Caesars Palace, Nevada. Notoriously, there was much dialogue improvisation during filming which was encouraged by Favreau in an effort to make the film’s character-centric scenes feel more natural. Downey and Bridges periodically rehearsed by swapping characters to see how their own improvised lines sounded. Furthermore, news of the Nick Fury cameo in the film broke onto the Internet just days after being filmed so Kevin Feige, the President of Marvel Studios, had the scene removed from all preview prints to keep the surprise. Regarding this now-famous post-credits scene, Nick Fury’s alternate take referencing “radioactive bugs” and “mutants” had to be cut to avoid legal issues with Sony Pictures and 20th Century Fox. Iron Man had its domestic theatrical debut on May 2, 2008 and became an unexpected hit at the box office, having the second-best premiere for a non-sequel (behind Spider-Man) and the fourth-biggest opening for a superhero film at the time. Not only did it end up grossing over 580 million dollars, but it also received near-universal positive vibes from critics who showered much of their praise onto Downey for his electric performance as Tony Stark. It ended up receiving two Academy Award nominations for Sound Editing and Visual Effects, but won neither. While not a massive Oscar hit, the legacy of Iron Man cannot be questioned. Not only did it help usher in a new era for comic book cinema (alongside The Dark Knight), but it also kicked off Marvel Studios’ cinematic universe filled with powerhouse superhero performances from Captain America and Spider-Man to Black Panther and Captain Marvel. To date, the Marvel Cinematic Universe (consisting of 23 films with many more on the way) is the highest-grossing film franchise having collectively raked in over 22 billion dollars (Star Wars is in a distant second place at 10.3 billion dollars). Having just rewatched Iron Man less than two weeks ago, I firmly believe that its contribution to the comic book genre and its significance to the Marvel Cinematic Universe cannot be understated. While the film in and of itself is imperfect, it offers enough charm, action, comedy, and character work to make me care more and more about Tony Stark every time I watch it. As a film, it’s not without some problems. Notably, the second hour is not nearly as strong as the first. Once Tony officially debuts the Iron Man suit to the world via saving some civilians in Afghanistan and battling two U.S. Air Force jets, the story struggles to racquet up the dramatic tension any further. Unfortunately, much of that has to do with Obadiah Stane’s very sudden transformation from a seedy corporate villain conniving behind the scenes to a flat-out cartoon embodiment of evil. It’s simply not nearly as convincing as Tony’s character arc nor the presence of the secondary characters that surround him (from Yinsen to Pepper Potts). But, I don’t want to harp on its flaws because Iron Man is such a damn good movie. The way that Favreau introduces Stark’s characters in the opening HUMVEE scene to showing us his genius play out in escaping the cave and what that leads up both thematically and emotionally for his character is some great screenwriting and story crafting. And by the last five minutes, when Tony reveals his superhero identity to the world, I am completely enraptured by Downey’s portrayal of this larger-than-life ego that has learned to be selfless while still being an eccentric, narcissistic jackass. Needless to say, Iron Man is not only a fantastic superhero origin story but has also earned its place in comic book-movie history as the literary and aesthetic foundation of arguably the most impressive achievement of a franchise in the history of cinema. Need I say more? 😊 The Dark Knight (2008) Prior to the release of Batman Begins, screenwriter David Goyer developed an idea for two sequels which centered around the iconic DC villains Joker and Two-Face. Goyer took inspiration from writer Jeph Loeb’s and artist Tim Sale’s mid-1990s limited series “Batman: The Long Halloween”. By the summer of 2006, Warner Brothers officially announced pre-production for the follow-up to Batman Begins with Christopher Nolan (Memento, Inception, Dunkirk) returning to direct. Christopher Nolan, along with his brother and co-screenwriter Jonathan, looked to the first issue of “Batman” in 1940 and Rudolf Klein-Rogge’s performance as the eponymous character in the 1933 German film The Testament of Dr. Mabuse as inspiration for writing the Joker. In addition, Nolan desired to avoid telling the origins of the Joker in order instead to emphasize the “absolute” nature of his presence in the story. Overall, the sequel aimed to escalate the emotional and stakes established in his first Batman movie as well as develop Bruce Wayne into more of a detective character. Principal photography spanned April to November of 2007 on location around the world, from Chicago and London to Hong Kong. Due to Nolan’s desire to take on the challenge of shooting in IMAX, this film became the first mainstream movie to shoot partially in IMAX 70 mm cameras. Notably, Nolan used this technology to shoot Joker’s introduction (part of the total 28 minutes of IMAX footage in the final product). On set, actors such as Aaron Eckhart and Gary Oldman noted how special the late Heath Ledger’s performance as the Joker was going to be (long before Ledger earned his well-deserved accolades for his portrayal of the Joker). One of the more intimate and powerful special effects from the movie is Harvey Dent’s scarred face. Nolan sought to ground the look to make it more real and, therefore, horrifying. Akin to the motion-capture of Andy Serkis as Gollum in the Lord of the Rings trilogy, it is one of the best computer-generated special effects in film from the 2000s and achieves much of what the desired effect is. Upon receiving its wide domestic release on July 18, 2008, The Dark Knight grossed 997 million dollars worldwide during its initial run. Adamant for the film to cross the one-billion-dollar mark, Warner Brothers re-released it early the next year (which pulled off the milestone). Furthermore, the film became universally praised by critics and audiences alike, cementing a legacy of one of the best films of the 2000s and one of the best comic book movies ever made. Of everyone in the film, Ledger’s performance as the Joker undoubtedly received the most praise. Ultimately, Ledger was posthumously awarded the Oscar for Best Supporting Actor. Last year, The Dark Knight was selected for preservation by the Library of Congress for its cultural, historic, and/or aesthetic significance. Having been incredibly impressed by Nolan’s first superhero flick, 2005’s Batman Begins, I was somewhat pessimistic that the follow-up could match―let alone exceed―that level of accomplishment. And, to be perfectly honest, I was not in during the first hour of the film. While the Joker’s introduction was cool, it wasn’t until Batman saving Harvey Dent (Aaron Eckhart) from Joker’s ambush of the convoy that I saw what everyone else sees in this movie: pure cinematic genius. And then it just got better and better. Once the film centered around Joker’s manipulation of Batman via putting the lives of both Dent and Rachel Dawes (Maggie Gyllenhaal) at risk, I was sold on The Dark Knight being a masterpiece of both storytelling and visual art. The way that Nolan keeps the drama and tension heightened by playing Batman and Joker off of each other to explore the virtues of order and chaos and their “yin-yang” relationship is so fascinating to be swept up into. And it was clear from there on out that so much attention was paid to making the audience care about every single main character involved in this insane yet gripping story of corruption and insanity. For me, however, it is the tragic downfall of Harvey Dent (pulled off so well by Eckhart) that makes the film as compelling and powerful as Ledger’s performance as Joker makes it heart-pounding and horrifying. The humanity exhibited by Dent from his firm commitment to order and how the loss of Dawes turns him assuredly into a misguided anti-hero is such an underrated aspect of this film in light of Ledger’s Oscar-winning performance. So, praise for Eckhart and the attention paid by the Nolan brothers to Dent’s character arc and how important it is for the film’s overall story. Without question, The Dark Knight will go down in history as one of the best films of the 21st century and one of the best superhero films of all time. It deserves this praise, and I can only hope that another expertly-crafted piece of cinema on its level will be brought into the world in my lifetime. Avatar (2009) In 1996, two years after writing an 80-page story treatment inspired by science-fiction and adventure novels from his childhood, director James Cameron (The Terminator, Aliens, Titanic) partnered with the Los Angeles-based visual effects company Digital Domain to make his movie with computer-generated actors. However, as the technology necessary to achieve his vision was not up to his standards, Cameron temporary shelved the project. By 2006, Cameron returned to actively developing the project due to the advancements in CGI reflected in characters such as Gollum, King Kong, and Davy Jones. In addition to filming a proof-of-concept clip with ten million dollars from 20th Century Fox, Cameron spent months writing a script, developing the culture of the aliens in the story, and overseeing designing of the alien homeworld. He also sought out USC linguist Dr. Paul Frommer to create the aliens’ language (inspired largely by Ethiopian Amharic and New Zealand Māori). Due to Fox seemingly wavering on its commitment to backing the film getting made, Cameron shopped the concept around to other studios (notably Walt Disney Studios). However, once Fox received word of this Fox ultimately made a firm commitment to the project in spite of its nerves surrounding the movie’s 237-million-dollar budget (not including 150 million dollars for marketing). Thus, by April of 2007, principal photography on Avatar began. Due to Cameron’s special-effects-heavy vision, the production became a hybrid between live-action cinematography and CGI-laced techniques of filming (i.e. motion capture). Notably, Cameron used his own version of a virtual camera system in order to direct scenes of the actors’ digital counterparts in real time. The film’s production was defined by many other advancements and innovations in visual effects, from new approaches to lighting, a massive motion-capture stage, and a custom-made camera apparatus designed to capture the actors’ facial expressions in real time and more accurately than ever before. The excessive amount of data being stored in the process required Weta Digital, the film’s lead visual effects company, to develop a brand-new cloud computing system. Ultimately, one minute of the final cut of Avatar accounts for over 17 gigabytes of storage. Released on December 18, 2009, Avatar became (and continues to be) the pinnacle of blockbuster moneymaking. Less than two months later, the film became the first in history to earn over two billion dollars worldwide during its initial run (excluding re-releases, only three other films have achieved this milestone). As of now, the film has raked in over 2.8 billion dollars at the box office. Critically, it was universally praised for its innovations in visual effects (with many comparing it to what Star Wars did for film in the 1970s). However, some critics took issue with its political and social commentary. While the film generally received for its perceived anti-war, pro-environment message, some pointed out its unbalanced portrayal of Eastern spirituality. Others, though, simply derided the film as derivative and embracing problematic storytelling tropes. While Avatar was nominated for nine Academy Awards (including Best Picture and Best Director), it only won three awards for technical achievement (Art Direction, Cinematography, and Visual Effects). It's been years since I watched Avatar, but I vividly remember seeing it for the first time in theaters. While on an indoor campout at my local mall, I saw the film with the rest of my Boy Scout troop and recall being captivated from beginning to end. It might be one of the first times I felt completely swept away by a movie theater experience. And every repeat viewing since then, my enjoyment of Avatar was never really diminished. I’m a sucker for good world-building, and I think Avatar does a great job crafting a fascinating sci-fi world with a pretty unique alien identity while still being relatable to the audience. In many respects, Cameron outdid himself as a storyteller with this film since the story of Jake Sully (Sam Worthington), Neytiri (Zoe Saldana), and the various humans and Na’vi surrounding their burgeoning romance is both universal and intimate. Of course, Avatar’s biggest achievement is in its use of special effects to craft the world of Pandora. The performance capture for the actors, military vehicles and native creatures on the planet remain stunning and show that the film is more than deserving of its Oscar accolades for being a watershed moment for visual effects in cinematic history. All that being said, however, I am somewhat hesitant to comment too much on Avatar as I have not rewatched it in some time. Sometime next year, I plan on writing my thoughts on all of James Cameron’s directed films and am very excited to rewatch the film then. Will it hold up? I guess I’ll have to wait and see. As with the 1980s and 1990s, there are plenty of other blockbusters from this decade worth talking about. Notably, the first two entries in Jackson’s The Lord of the Rings trilogy grossed a combined 1.8 billion dollars. Additionally, the latter entries of the Harry Potter franchise grossed anywhere from 797 to 942 million dollars. And the lesser-known but equally-profitable film trilogy of the decade was none other than the Johnny Depp-led Pirates of the Caribbean films; released from 2003 to 2007, this swashbuckling trilogy raked in a whopping 2.7 billion dollars. Which of these 2000s blockbuster films is your favorite? What other 2000s blockbusters that I did not mention here do you think are important? What opinions of mine do you find absolutely ridiculous? Let me know in the comments below. Until next time, this has been… Yours Truly, Amateur Analyst
0 Comments
Image by mohamed Hassan from Pixabay “If you set your goals ridiculously high and it's a failure, you will fail above everyone else's success.” – James Cameron When examining the evolution of the “blockbuster” over the last fifty years, one may conclude that the 1980s remains unmatched by any other decade regarding its output of award-winning, money-making, big-budget crowd pleasers. But, there are plenty of industry-defining blockbusters from other decades worth dissecting. Some from the 90s, perhaps? 😊
So, without further ado…LET’S GET STARTED!! Terminator 2: Judgment Day (1991) In spite of its relative financial and critical success, the 1984 science-fiction action film The Terminator was not guaranteed a sequel. In addition to director James Cameron’s busy schedule with 1986’s Aliens and 1989’s The Abyss, two companies each owned a significant portion of the intellectual property rights of the franchise. After some urging from Arnold Schwarzenegger himself, then-studio head and founder of Carolco Pictures, Inc. Mario Kassar purchased the exclusive rights to the property for five million dollars. This move coincided with Cameron, Schwarzenegger and Linda Hamilton being free, and thus pre-production on a sequel kicked into high gear. Cameron was initially hesitant about making a sequel to The Terminator due to the limitations of computer-generated imagery (CGI) at the time that would make filming his concept for an ungraded Terminator assassin, the T-1000, virtually impossible. However, the innovations done in collaboration with Industrial Light & Magic (ILM) during production of his film The Abyss boosted Cameron’s confidence that he would be able to bring his idea to the silver screen. While working with his co-producers to find suitable filming locations in southern California, Cameron also finished a final shooting script with co-writer William Wisher on May 10, 1990. All in all, filming on Terminator 2: Judgment Day took nearly six months, from October 1990 to March 1991. Despite the film’s high production budget of approximately 100 million dollars, the studio made its production money back prior to release due to selling worldwide rights, video rights, and television rights, totaling 65 million dollars. Following its wide release on July 3, 1991, Terminator 2: Judgment Day ended up grossing over 520 million dollars, becoming the highest-grossing film of the year and the highest-grossing R-rated film at the time, surpassing Pretty Woman from the year before, until it was superseded by 2003’s The Matrix Reloaded. (Today, it is the 16th-highest grossing R-rated film ever, unadjusted for inflation). In addition, the film was nearly universally praised by critics and won four of the six Academy Awards that it was nominated for. Admittedly, I remain pretty underwhelmed by both of James Cameron’s Terminator films. Having seen each of them twice in the last few years, I just do not connect with them as much as I hoped I would. To be clear, I can thoroughly enjoy some dumb-fun action movies from both the 80s and 90s (shoutout to They Live and Total Recall, am I right?). There’s just something about both 1984’s The Terminator and 1991’s Terminator 2: Judgment Day that doesn’t work for me. To focus on Terminator 2 for today, I want to begin with the positives. Undoubtedly, this film is a vast improvement over the first film in the franchise not only in terms of special effects and action choreography but also in terms of story and characters. I really enjoy the use of Arnold Schwarzenegger’s T-800 as an ally to Sarah and John Connor whose stoic presence makes his demise during the film’s climax a shockingly emotional moment (even though it ain’t the tear-jerker that Cameron wants it to be). Also, Linda Hamilton’s transformation from a scared damsel in distress as she was in The Terminator to a borderline-psychotic soldier for the future in Terminator 2 is a great use of the badass female protagonist in the sci-fi action that is typically so fueled by pure testosterone. Too bad that this device is done much better in Cameron’s previous film Aliens 😉. In spite of these highlights, I still wind up lacking any sort of real investment in both the overall plot of Terminator 2 and the characters’ journeys. It is virtually impossible for me to not compare this film to Aliens in so many ways. For example, Sarah Connor’s character arc in Terminator 2 comes off as somewhat stale when paralleled with Ellen Ripley’s transition in Aliens from a scared, lucky survivor to a badass leader and protector. Furthermore, the xenomorphs in Aliens (both because of their numbers and predatory nature) are a much more effective antagonist (in my humble opinion) than the T-1000. While intimidating as a seemingly undefeatable android, the T-1000’s ultimate demise makes his presence as a villain in the rest of the film feel somewhat cheap. All that being said, I think I ultimately respect Terminator 2 more than I enjoy it. It clearly set a standard for sci-fi action sequels that most other follow-ups in this genre failed to achieve. And while I will not deny that the movie is entertaining in numerous scenes, it just does not grip me in the same way that many other films like this (released both before and after) are able to do. Jurassic Park (1993) In October of 1989, one year before the publication of Michael Crichton’s novel about cloning dinosaurs, Steven Spielberg learned of the novel from Crichton himself while working on a screenplay with him. Spielberg was fascinated by Crichton’s grounded, science-based approach to telling a story about bringing dinosaurs back from extinction so that they might live among mankind. In that sense, he viewed it as more than just another monster movie. Several studio-director teams were vying to purchase the film rights to Crichton’s novel, from Tim Burton and Warner Brothers to Richard Donner and Columbia Pictures. Ultimately, Universal Studios acquired the rights in May of 1990 and attached Spielberg to direct the project. Since Spielberg was ready to make Schindler’s List, the studio greenlit that film on the condition that Spielberg adapt Crichton’s novel first. Spielberg agreed, aiming to up the ante from Jaws and drew inspiration from some classic monster films (primarily kaiju movies like 1956’s Godzilla, King of the Monsters!). Initially, Spielberg wanted to create life-sized dinosaurs but ultimately decided that they would look too fake and thus not make them worth the money they would cost to make. So he hired special effects gurus Stan Winston (Aliens, Terminator 2: Judgment Day), Phil Tippett (Star Wars, RoboCop), and Dennis Muren (The Empire Strikes Back, E.T. the Extra-Terrestrial), among others, to oversee the creation of animatronic dinosaurs for the film. Additionally, paleontologist Jack Horner was chosen by Spielberg to supervise the production and ensure that the dinosaurs were designed with historicity in mind since he wanted them to be seen by the audience as real animals and not fantastical monsters. While Crichton was paid half a million dollars by Universal Studios to adapt his novel into a screenplay, Spielberg oversaw a number of rewrites that fleshed out the main characters and alter some of their personalities in order to make the film more palpable for a general audience. Both William Hurt (who turned it down) and Harrison Ford were offered the role of Dr. Alan Grant before Sam Neill was cast. While Jim Carrey’s audition for the role of Dr. Ian Malcolm was well received by the film’s casting director, Jeff Goldblum was ultimately chosen. Also, Robin Wright turned down the role of Dr. Ellie Sattler and Spielberg was able to cast his first choice: Laura Dern. After just over two years of pre-production on the project. Jurassic Park began filming in Hawaii in August of 1992. Notably, Spielberg took advantage of the passage of Hurricane Iniki a few weeks into principal photography by shooting scenes in the middle of the storms caused by the hurricane (It was the damage these storms caused that resulted in Samuel L. Jackson’s scripted death scene to be cut since the set was destroyed as a result). Much of the remainder of filming happened in studio in California, wrapping up in November just twelve days ahead of schedule. After many more months of post-production, the film was finally completed at the end of May the next year. Premiering domestically on June 11, 1993, Jurassic Park became the highest-grossing film ever at the time by grossing 912 million dollars during its initial theatrical run (due to re-releases, its current worldwide gross is over one billion dollars). Due to its entertainment value and groundbreaking special effects, the film was largely praised by critics despite many criticisms aimed at the lack of characterization and humanity at the heart of the story. Still, the film rode on its reputation as a cinematic milestone to win three Oscars for sound, visual effects, and sound editing. Today, Jurassic Park is remembered as kicking off a five-film (soon-to-be six-film) franchise that has grossed over five billion dollars worldwide as well as marking a new age in combining practical special effects with CGI to create a truly stunning film to look at. As I imagine most film fanatics are, I am a pretty big fan of much of Spielberg’s work (I’ll be writing a two-part blog later this year to delve deeper into the highlights of his directing career. Simply put, I LOVE so many of his films. Unfortunately, Jurassic Park is not one of them. Akin to my take on Terminator 2: Judgment Day, I tend to respect Jurassic Park more than I actually like it. To begin with the positives, it is undeniable that Jurassic Park took what films like Terminator 2 did regarding seamless integration of CGI with practical visual effects and one-upped it. The scene that famously introduces the T-Rex easily goes down as one of the best scenes in modern horror cinematic history. And a lot of that has to do with the believability of the dinosaur as a hungry animal that is actually there walking around and roaring. Honestly, virtually any scene with the T-Rex is thrilling and seeing Spielberg and his team force me to suspend my disbelief to the extent that I believe it is actually chasing and eating people is pure movie magic. Unfortunately, I personally feel that the other important aspects of the film (specifically the plot and characterization) are lacking the same level of sophistication and attention to detail as the special visual effects. For example, I know that many people love Dr. Ian Malcolm (Goldblum) in this movie but I feel like those people forget that is barely involved in the story after the first act. His injury makes him useless, and he isn’t really given any charming or empowering moments after the first T-Rex attack. Furthermore, the central emotional arc of Dr. Alan Grant (Neill) coming around to liking children feels ultimately hollow. All of this evolution as a character for Grant comes from the stupidity of John Hammond (Richard Attenborough) who, for some absurd reason (hubris, I guess?), has his two grandchildren Lex (Ariana Richards) and Tim (Joseph Mazzello) come to visit the dinosaur-ridden island that has yet to be fully tested. And once everything goes to shit, Grant is left tending to these two kids purely out of possessing a base human morality which nearly gets him killed several times over. Easily my favorite character in the film is Dennis Nedry (Wayne Knight). Perhaps my love of Seinfeld makes me excessively biased, but I just love watching Knight’s hammy scheming to fuck everyone on the park over and then die horribly. If you ask me, though, he’s one of the few characters that deserved to survive the events of the film as he actually has a well-thought-out strategy that only goes awry because of the intense weather. Pretty much every other person on the island lacks the street smarts to convince me that they should have lived. All in all, Jurassic Park is a movie that I struggle to understand why it is considered a masterpiece…in some ways. In other ways, I respect its ambition and what it did for blockbuster filmmaking. And while I enjoy it more than Terminator 2: Judgment Day and most of other films in the Jurassic Park franchise, I have never come to adore it in the way that I do some other blockbusters from this era. The Lion King (1994) For a summary of the production and release of The Lion King, click here. I was initially hesitant to write about The Lion King again since I have written about it so recently. But, I felt that a blog about the best blockbusters of the 1990s would be severely lacking without mentioning one of the greatest and most successful animated films of all time. So, instead of simply talking about the film in and of itself, I want to contextualize my thoughts on it in light of my recent viewing of the 2019 “live-action” adaptation directed by Jon Favreau. When I sat down to watch this photorealistic take on The Lion King, I knew that I would not like it. And in the back of my head, I was almost wishing to either kind of like it or really hate it so at least I would have very strong feelings either way. Ultimately, however, I just ended up being underwhelmed and disappointed. And watching it reminded me of all the reasons why I like the 1994 animated film, from the colorful, vibrant animation and the heart-pounding musical numbers to the wacky, thrilling characters. Simply put, there is a magic to the traditional animation of the original that no “live-action” version seeping with excessive and stale CGI can ever recreate. To this day, The Lion King from 1994 remains one of my favorite animated films of all time and I think it is more than deserving of its place in the pantheon of modern blockbusters. Independence Day (1996) While promoting the 1994 sci-fi adventure film Stargate in Europe, director and co-writer Roland Emmerich (The Patriot, Midway) informed producer and co-writer Dean Devlin (The Patriot, Flyboys) of an idea for their next film: a story about 15-mile-wide alien spaceships arriving on Earth. As they stewed over the concept, they agreed to deviate from alien invasion movies of the past (i.e. Invasion of the Body Snatchers) by having the aliens “make a big entrance.” After completing the script during a month-long getaway to Mexico, Emmerich and Devlin sent it to 20th Century Fox who greenlit it the next day. Throughout the course of pre-production, it was clear that more than 3,000 special effects shots would be required to make the film, an unprecedented amount at the time. However, rather than overly relying on CGI the production team prioritized using on-set and in-camera techniques to keep costs down and create more authentic-looking pyrotechnics. Additionally, the production more than doubled the number of miniatures built for any other film to create buildings, city streets, aircraft, and famous landmarks. The Greco-French production designer Patrick Tatopoulos (Bram Stoker’s Dracula, Dark City, I Am Legend) designed the aliens in the film based on Emmerich’s desire for a creature that was “both familiar and completely original.” The film kicked off shooting in July of 1995, going from New York City to the Bonneville Salt Flats in Utah until November 3 of that year. English composer David Arnold (Stargate, Casino Royale) composed the music for the film, which ended up winning a Grammy Award. After being released on July 3, 1996, Independence Day grossed over 817 million dollars on a 75-million-dollar budget. While many critics praised the film’s entertainment value and special effects, the film’s dialogue and lack of compelling characters were often critiqued. Ultimately, the film won the Academy Award for Best Visual Effects and went on to be regarded as one of the best summer blockbusters of the decade. Independence Day is one of those films that never really asks you to believe that it’s good, and I respect that. Rather than try to win over the high-falutin critics and cinephiles, Emmerich offers up a solid plate of dumb-fun entertainment. And I love it! This movie is an absolute joy every time I watch it, with the main cast always being entertaining. I specifically love how the two main arcs of the movie―played by Will Smith and Jeff Goldblum―combine into a super-fun, buddy-cop story involving their two characters sabotaging the alien mother ship with a nuclear bomb. HOW CAN YOU GET ANY MORE INSANELY FUN?!? Aside from its sheer entertainment value, Independence Day actually holds up from a technical standpoint. I think that particularly the dogfights between human fighter jets and alien spaceships as well as the practical creature effects make this film stand out when compared to many other VFX-heavy movies from the same time period. Overall, this movie is a great watch and worth checking out again either for the first time or to revisit the badassery of repelling an alien invasion if it’s been awhile since your last rewatch. Titanic (1997) Before becoming obsessed with filmmaking, James Cameron initially went to college to study physics. Throughout much of his life, he remained fixated on shipwrecks. Despite feeling that he was too old for an actual undersea expedition, Cameron was inspired by the 1992 documentary Titanica to seek out Hollywood funding to head beneath the surface of the Atlantic Ocean and capture footage of the RMS Titanic. After writing a “scriptment” (a film treatment with elements of a script incorporated, primarily dialogue), Cameron met with 20th Century Fox who, according to Cameron, showed virtually no interest in what he pitched as “Romeo and Juliet on the Titanic.” Despite the studio’s lack of confidence in its commercial potential, Fox greenlit the project in the hopes of keeping Cameron coming back to them for future projects. To market the film, Cameron then convinced Fox to film the actual shipwreck which could also double as the opening of the film. While capturing footage of the actual wreck, Cameron felt an increasing moral responsibility to memorialize the hundreds of lives lost in the tragedy. So, before writing the screenplay he spent six months researching every single passenger and crew member aboard the Titanic for its maiden voyage. Additionally, he utilized the input of a number of historians to help him adjust the story which he worked to structure around the timeline of actual events happening aboard the ship during its last few days. Ultimately, Cameron felt that Titanic would not be a disaster film but rather “a love story with a fastidious overlay of real history.” In order to build a reconstruction of the ship, the crew gained access to original blueprints presumed lost before, acquired 40 acres of waterfront in Mexico, and created every prop for the interior from scratch to accommodate the fact that the ship was brand new during its voyage. All of this was done by Cameron in an effort to make the set as authentic to the original Titanic as possible. However, some practical adjustments were made. For example, the lifeboats were shrunk down by ten percent and the Grand Staircase (a prominent set in the film) was widened by 30%. Principal photography officially began in July of 1996 in Nova Scotia to capture the expedition scenes set in the present. By September, production shifted to the RMS Titanic set that was built in Mexico. Notably, the first scene that stars Kate Winslet and Leonardo DiCaprio shot together was Jack sketching Rose nude. In retrospect, Cameron has since stated, “I couldn’t have designed it better.” Ultimately, however, other aspects of production were troubled to the point that the shooting schedule stretched from a planned 138 days to 160. Many of the cast and crew suffered from colds and the flu throughout filming. Furthermore, it was while making Titanic that Cameron’s unapologetic reputation as one of the most difficult directors in Hollywood was cemented. Once the film’s budget reached an at-the-time unprecedented 200 million dollars, 20th Century Fox panicked and tried to convince Cameron to cut down the film’s three-hour runtime out of concern for losing money. Cameron held steadfast, offering to fork over his share of the film’s profits as a compromise. After shooting wrapped early the next year, post-production was underway involving seamlessly incorporating practical special effects with greenscreen backdrops and CGI to make the Titanic set (specifically its flooding and sinking) appear realistic. During months of editing, Titanic was initially planned for a July 2, 1997 release so as to capitalize on the summer moviegoing environment when blockbusters had generally fared better. However, the extensive post-production schedule resulted in its release date being pushed back to December 19. Despite the studios’ concern over this change, the Internet buzz surrounding positive receptions from the film’s early screening in Minneapolis sustained goodwill among theatergoers until the film’s wide release later in the year. Titanic became a landmark in blockbuster filmmaking. It replaced Jurassic Park as the highest-grossing film of all time (eventually overtaken by Cameron’s next film, Avatar, released in 2009) and it became the first film to gross one billion dollars during its theatrical run (which lasted from December of 1997 to October of 1998). Furthermore, it remained the highest-grossing film at the box office in North America for 15 consecutive weeks , a record at the time. With two re-releases in the 2010s, Titanic has ultimately made just under 2.2 billion dollars. These box-office results defied all expectations. Critics, the studios, and even Cameron himself assumed the film would bomb due to its long production process and delay from July to December. But Cameron won in the end, as the film ultimately turned a net profit of 1.4 billion dollars (amounting to approximately four billion dollars today when adjusted for inflation). When released, critics generally liked Titanic for its cultural, historical, and political themes, production design, visual effects, and strong emotional core. A vocal minority of critics singled out the film’s dialogue and story as being somewhat weak. Yet the film went on to win a record 14 nominations at the Academy Awards, taking home 11 (including Best Picture and Best Director). Today, Titanic has cemented a legacy as one of the most important blockbuster films of the modern era. Titanic is one of the first films I remember making a huge impact on me as a child. From beginning to end, I was fully immersed in the world of the characters and of this ship’s maiden voyage across the Atlantic Ocean. From the boarding to the sinking and its aftermath, I was completely engaged in the story that was being told and thought about nothing else. And what’s amazing about Titanic is that this is my experience every time I watch it. Simply put, there are very few movies that can do this for me nowadays. And I’m not sure I know for certain why this is. But, there are undeniably a few elements for me that contribute to my sustained fascination with, and appreciation for, what is arguably James Cameron’s masterpiece. First and foremost, the damn-near perfect pacing. This, of course, is innate to telling the story of a sinking ship, but Cameron does such a good job in structuring his story. From the modern-day introduction to the RMS Titanic itself and the “Heart of the Ocean,” we get a suitable context for the ship itself and the strong motivations for why the jewel is so sought after. From there, the first act expertly transitions to a period piece filled with rich scenery, vibrant characters, and a budding romance that is both nuanced and timeless. And, of course, none of that build-up works on its own but does so well to serve the pay-off of the destructive and tragic third act. Yet none of the pacing could work without our two protagonists keeping the audience’s interest. Arguably, the romance between Rose (Winslet) and Jack (DiCaprio) is the weakest part of the story but I personally don’t see it that way. While it may be overly sentimental at times, the chemistry between these actors makes becoming invested in their connection effortless and watching them try to survive the night of the sinking heartbreaking and empowering all at once. I think the other aspect of Titanic that helps it more than earns its place in cinematic history is the destruction and sinking of the ship itself. After the first two hours being a historical drama and romance story, the film transforms into an action and horror film simultaneously, and thus becomes my favorite (and arguably the best) disaster film of all time. From the initial ramming into the iceberg and the caging-up of each floor (even with people still in them) to the ship breaking in half and bobbing on the surface before eventually submerging to the depths below, all of the blood, sweat, and tears that went into making the sinking of the RMS Titanic immersive more than paid off. Titanic is not just one of the best blockbusters of the 1990s or of all time. It is (in my humble opinion) one of the greatest films of all time. Period. End of story. As with the 1980s, there are plenty more notable blockbusters of this decade that I did not write about. From the controversial reintroduction to the Star Wars franchise The Phantom Menace to M. Night Shyamalan’s psychological thriller The Sixth Sense, the decade is filled with both historically significant and utterly amazing big-budget films (even though it lacks the synonymity with blockbuster filmmaking that the 80s clearly has). That being said, the next blockbuster-themed blog will move into the 21st century by examining some of the best blockbusters of the past twenty years. What will they be? Stay tuned… 😊 Which of these 1990s blockbuster films is your favorite? What other 1990s blockbusters that I did not mention here do you think are worthwhile? What opinions of mine do you find absolutely ridiculous? Let me know in the comments below. Until next time, this has been… Yours Truly, Amateur Analyst Image by Gaëtan GUINÉ from Pixabay “Blockbusters run the mainstream industry. We may never again have a decade like the 1970s, when directors were able to find such freedom.” – Roger Ebert Two weeks ago, I wrote about four films that laid the foundation for the “blockbuster” film not only for their financial success but also for their contemporary acclaim and cultural legacy. I continue that journey today by examining several of the most successful and impactful “blockbusters” of the 1980s. The decade was dominated by a back-and-forth between George Lucas and Steven Spielberg, two titans of “blockbuster” filmmaking. For many people today, it also has become the “nostalgic decade” to be glamorized and mythologized for its impact on popular culture to this day.
So, without further ado…LET’S GET STARTED!! The Empire Strikes Back (1980) In spite of the inevitability of a sequel to his immensely successful 1977 film Star Wars, George Lucas was not eager to make another film set in a galaxy far, far away right away. The incredible stress of making the first film, in addition to sequels being generally frowned upon at that time, discouraged him from the prospect of a follow-up to Star Wars right away. And yet, the prospect of expanding his space opera into a true fictional universe for the silver screen in order to make an even better film convinced him to change his tune fairly quickly. While looking back on the financial success of Star Wars may indicate that Lucas would breeze through financing the sequel, that was not the case at all. By establishing several subsidiaries to ensure less financial risk on his part, Lucas financed the sequel himself via loans and his earnings on the first film. By doing so, Lucas’s studio, Lucasfilm, maintained complete creative control over the film and would end up raking the overwhelming majority of the profits if the film made over 100 million dollars at the box office. As he moved into more of a producer/special effects supervisor capacity, Lucas hired his former USC (University of Southern California) professor Irvin Kershner to direct the film and science fiction author Leigh Brackett to write the first draft of the screenplay. Brackett and Lucas collaborated on several ideas, from introducing the Emperor to having Han encounter a gambler/friend from his past. They also developed some subplots for the film, including a love triangle between Luke, Leia and Han, the use of Obi-Wan Kenobi as a ghost, an arctic planet, and Luke’s new Jedi mentor in the form of an elderly, froglike alien creature. Brackett turned in her treatment in February of 1978, but Lucas was unable to express his issues with it before she died. Now burdened with writing the second draft himself, Lucas concocted the major plot twist [SPOILERS] of Darth Vader actually being Luke’s father. It was during the writing of this draft that Lucas fleshed out the backstory of Anakin Skywalker’s turn to the dark side and concluded that this sequel would not be “Chapter II,” as originally planned, but instead the middle of one trilogy referred to as “Episode V.” With this fleshed-out second draft done, Lucas hired screenwriter and Miami native Lawrence Kasdan (Raiders of the Lost Ark, Return of the Jedi, The Force Awakens) to complete a third draft to show to producers Gary Kurtz, both of whom felt the sequel would be a more serious, mature film than its predecessor. Filming lasted from March to September of 1979, and the sequel to Star Wars took three times the money to make with a budget of $33 million dollars (one of the most expensive films ever made at the time). The Empire Strikes Back received its wide theatrical release on May 21, 1980 and ended up grossing approximately 550 million dollars. While today the film is viewed as one of the best sequels ever made, critics at the time were somewhat divided: some viewed it as silly, laborious, and repetitive of the first film, while others lauded it as a cinematic achievement in scope and a more impactful follow-up to the original Star Wars film. While the film was nominated for three Academy Awards, it won only for Best Sound (excluding its Special Achievement Oscar). Today, The Empire Strikes Back is seen by many as the best of the Star Wars franchise and one of the greatest films ever made. While the first Star Wars film is my personal favorite, I cannot argue in good faith that its sequel is better and thus the best film in the franchise. The Empire Strikes Back does so much so well that I will only focus on some of my personal favorite aspects of the movie. Thematically, it does a great job subverting audience expectations by taking the fun-loving, space-adventure vibe of its predecessor and injecting a subdued maturity and existential fear into the story of Luke, Leia, and Han. Furthermore, the story fleshes out the story of the Jedi and the nature of the Force in a way that makes the payoff of Luke’s emotional journey during his battle with Darth Vader all the more worth it. Of course, I cannot keep going without discussing my favorite character in all of Star Wars: the little green Jedi master himself, Yoda. From a big-picture standpoint, he embodies all the best of this franchise as an example of how special effects can be used to not only create characters but such incredibly memorable ones. In addition, Yoda’s entire approach to teaching and mentoring Luke on Dagobah is funny, smart, and fulfilling to see from beginning to end. And of course, arguably the best moment in all of Star Wars has Yoda front and center lifting Luke’s X-Wing out of the swamp to show him the capabilities of the Force. And what does he say when Luke admits disbelief at such knowledge of the Force? “That is why you fail.” Needless to say, The Empire Strikes Back packs an emotional punch as both the second film in the franchise and the middle entry in the original Star Wars trilogy. It not only deserves the money that it earned, but the accolades it received and the cultural weight that it still carries for millions of the people around the world to this day. Raiders of the Lost Ark (1981) The initial idea for an adrenaline-junkie archaeologist came from George Lucas (American Graffiti, Star Wars), who was inspired by serial films from his childhood. He named his adventure hero “Indiana” after the Alaskan Malamute dog that he had in his youth. For a while, he shelved this concept in favor of developing his idea for a space opera that would become Star Wars. In 1975, two years later after he first conceived of the character, Lucas spent two weeks with his friend and screenwriter Philip Kaufman (The Outlaw Josey Wales, The Right Stuff) who discouraged Lucas from making “Indiana” a womanizer and nightclub patron and suggested the Ark of the Covenant as the focus of the adventure due to the Nazis’ (specifically Adolf Hitler’s) fascination with the Occult. Unfortunately, Kaufman was unable to direct the film and Lucas was unable to find someone until 1977. Awaiting the box-office flop that Lucas feared Star Wars would be, he invited friend and fellow filmmaker Steven Spielberg (Jaws, The Color Purple, Saving Private Ryan) to join him and his wife on vacation in Hawaii. While Spielberg was more interested in directing a James Bond film, he became interested in Lucas’s concept after hearing the pitch and, eventually, was asked by Lucas to direct. In January of 1978, Lucas hired screenwriter Lawrence Kasdan (The Empire Strikes Back, Return of the Jedi) to write another draft with him and Spielberg. During hours-long meetings with them, Kasdan quickly became the person to string together all of the disparate set pieces of the film that Lucas and Spielberg were brainstorming together. It was also during these meetings that the protagonist’s last name was changed from “Smith” to “Jones” and refined his character to being a true, honest professor of archaeology who could be comedic and serious equally capably. Five months later, Kasdan had his first draft which Lucas and Spielberg worked together to trim down by cutting out several ideas and settings that would end up being used in the sequels (a minecart chase and a trip to Shanghai, to name a few). The final screenplay was done in December of 1979, but Lucas struggled finding a studio to fund to 20-million-dollar project because of Lucas’s desire to have complete creative control and licensing for sequels while the studio put up all the money for the project. Eventually, Lucas managed a compromise with Paramount Pictures, who imposed a strict 85-day shooting schedule. However, in an effort to avoid criticism for another film of his going overschedule á la Jaws, Spielberg self-imposed an even shorter 73-day shooting schedule. Filming lasted from June to September of 1980 on location in France, Tunisia, and Hawaii, with some on-set principal photography in England. By the time that Raiders of the Lost Ark was released on June 12, 1981, the film industry was struggling as most studios were failing to produce the next successful “blockbuster” but still putting up stiff competition that summer. Additionally, predictions showed little audience interest in Raiders of the Lost Ark until right before its release with Superman II being expected to dominate the moviegoing that season. Filmed on a budget of 20 million dollars, Raiders of the Lost Ark ended up grossing nearly 390 million dollars and was generally acclaimed by critics with many characterizing the film as being akin to an instant classic. Furthermore, the film was nominated for nine Academy Awards (including Best Director and Best Picture), winning five for editing, art direction, sound, and visual effects. It was tied for the most nominations that year, along with Miloŝ Forman’s drama Ragtime. This might be a hot take, but as a kid Raiders of the Lost Ark was always my least favorite film in the original Indiana Jones trilogy. I still always enjoyed it, but I tended to like the darker story of Temple of Doom and the father-son dynamic of The Last Crusade more than anything in the first film. After doing my research, I completely agree that Indy lacks any character development (minor or major) in the first film that is engrossing enough to make me really side with the character. Apart from his romantic past with Marion Ravenwood (Karen Allen) I never feel like I know who Indy is as a person. For many people, that’s the point of the character and that works for them. But for me, I prefer the films where Indy transforms from an enigma to someone with flaws and vulnerability that has an arc. Overall, though, every time I watch any of the Indiana Jones films, I fall in love with their adventurous spirit and how they absorb me into whatever crazy antics Indy is trying to pull off to either survive or save some treasure. Thus, it seems to me that Raiders of the Lost Ark deserves its place in blockbuster history even if it is not the masterpiece that some people think it is. E.T. the Extra-Terrestrial (1982) The inspiration for one of Spielberg’s most signature films is his imaginary alien friend from his childhood. The inception for this figment of imagination came as a result of Spielberg’s parents divorcing in 1960, and the childhood memories resurfaced while Spielberg was thousands of miles away from his family and friends filming Raiders of the Lost Ark. Within eight weeks, he wrote a script entitled E.T. and Me about a friendly alien named Buddy befriending a human child. Initially turned down by Columbia Pictures, who were working with the director to develop a sequel to his 1977 science-fiction film Close Encounters of the Third Kind, Spielberg was more warmly received by Universal Studios who bought Spielberg’s script from Columbia Pictures for one million dollars. (If only Columbia knew at the time the mistake they had made 😊). During pre-production, much attention was paid by Italian special effects artist Carlo Rambaldi (Close Encounters of the Third Kind, Alien) and producer Kathleen Kennedy (Raiders of the Lost Ark, Jurassic Park, The Force Awakens) to design an animatronic alien that could engage the audience on a deeper emotional level. Filming in California began in September of 1981 under a misleading production title because Spielberg feared the film’s true story being discovered and plagiarized. By the end of the November, the film was shot on a budget of less than eleven million dollars. Released on June 11, 1982, E.T. the Extra-Terrestrial surpassed Star Wars as the highest-grossing film at that time by raking in 619 million dollars worldwide during its initial theatrical run (two re-releases in 1985 and 2002 have brought the film’s unadjusted box office gross to 792 million dollars). Critics at the time universally praised the film as an engrossing exploration of childhood with great attention paid to technical prowess from Spielberg. Similar to Raiders of the Lost Ark, the film also won four Academy Awards out of nine nominations for original score, sound, editing, and visual effects. Richard Attenborough, the director of that year’s winner for Best Picture (Gandhi), was quoted as believing that E.T. the Extra-Terrestrial should have won the Oscar instead (talk about an upset). Admittedly, I was skeptical when I first sat down to watch E.T. I figured it would be too geared towards children and thus unable to hold my interest. Of course, I underestimated the storytelling talents of Steven Spielberg and found myself rather impressed by this film. It managed to balance two seemingly polar opposite tones without compromising on delivering either effectively nor losing the audience in the process. On the one hand, E.T. is a laid-back, happy-go-lucky adventure film about a bunch of kids who get caught up in caring for a gentle creature from outer space. On the other hand, though, it is a dramatic examination of losing innocence when faced with severe moral conundrums as a child and realizing that the world is not always a matter of “black-and-white” decision making. By never allowing the lighter, more humorous visage of the story get in the way of its darker undertone (or vice-versa), Spielberg manages to deliver a thoroughly engaging and entertaining story with more than enough heart to be viewed (in a certain light) as capturing the spirit of an art film (despite having the budget of a blockbuster). In short, E.T. is not my favorite Spielberg film. But it is undoubtedly one of the most unexpectedly great films from his early catalog. Return of the Jedi (1983) In line with the second film in the Star Wars saga, Lucas’s third outing in a galaxy far, far away was self-funded and not directed by him. While desiring Steven Spielberg to direct, this was impossible due to Lucas’s feud with the Directors Guild of America (DGA). Lucas then approached David Lynch (The Elephant Man, Blue Velvet), but he had virtually no interest in the project. Next, Lucas asked David Cronenberg (The Fly, Dead Ringers, A History of Violence), but Cronenberg declined as he preferred to make Videodrome and The Dead Zone. Eventually, Lucas hired Richard Marquand (Eye of the Needle, Jagged Edge) who frequently dealt with hands-on supervision by Lucas during principal photography since Lucas felt Marquand was too inexperienced working with special effects. Lawrence Kasdan returned to collaborate with Lucas on the screenplay, but a shooting script was not done before pre-production began so the crew relied only on story treatments and rough drafts to begin the production design for the film. One of the other headaches of pre-production was the uncertainty of Harrison Ford returning for another sequel, but Lucasfilm producer Howard Kazanjian managed to secure Ford’s return after negotiating a deal with the son of agent Phil Gersh over the phone (without Gersh’s knowledge). Finally, Ford, Marquand, and Kasdan all suggested that Han Solo be killed off at the start of the third act. However, feeling that such a move would hurt merchandise sales, Lucas vehemently rejected the idea. Filming went from January to May of 1982 with the project using the working title “Blue Harvest” to avoid the press and information-hungry fans learning the true nature of the production as well as prevent price gouging while securing locations for filming. In addition to shooting on-set in England, the project conducted principal photography on location in the Yuma Desert of Arizona, Death Valley, and the redwood forests of Northern California. Return of the Jedi, the end of George Lucas’s original space opera trilogy, was released on May 25, 1983 and grossed about 475 million dollars on a budget of roughly 36 million dollars. The film was considered by many critics to be a fulfilling end to the story of Star Wars, although some viewed it as a disappointing finale and the lowest quality of the three original Star Wars films. Also, it won none of the four Academy Awards that it was nominated for (score, art direction, sound editing, and sound), but was once again given a Special Achievement Award. Return of the Jedi was my favorite film in the Star Wars saga as a child, understandably so. It has fun war action with the underdog Ewoks taking on the Galactic Empire, an emotionally charged final showdown between Luke, Darth Vader, and the Emperor, and a truly epic space battle that remains (in my humble opinion) unmatched by anything like it to this day. And while I still believe all of this, it is no longer my favorite film in the saga. To keep it brief, when re-watching the film in 2019 in preparation for the release of The Rise of Skywalker the cracks in the narrative structure definitely became clear. Specifically, the outstretched second act (approximately lasting from Luke’s goodbye to Yoda on Dagobah to the Rebel fleet’s departure for Death Star II) lacks the punch that the film’s first and third acts have. I don’t want to solely blame the Ewoks for the second act’s snail’s pace. But…it’s mostly their fault. The film’s focus on the major characters being sidetracked by them lacks any forward momentum until well after Luke has surrendered himself to Vader and left the planet. My other disappointment upon a re-watch was the lack of character development for Han Solo. After getting rescued from Jabba and regaining his eyesight, he lacks the same satisfying arc that Luke and (to a lesser extent) Leia have by the end credits. And Harrison Ford seems to have sucked out much of the likeable charm from the character in exchange for a goofier version of Solo that fits well in this film but does not vibe as much with his previous performances. However, these are my only major complaint about Return of the Jedi. The first act is a solid re-entry into the story of the original trilogy with the rescuing of Han from Jabba’s Palace serving as a great, character-focused action set piece. Furthermore, the third act overall (but particularly the destruction of Death Star II and Luke/Vader’s defeat of the Emperor) is a nothing-but-astounding finale to the story that Lucas started back in the 1970s. Thus, Return of the Jedi is more than deserving of its status as a prime example of the 1980s blockbuster. Back to the Future (1985) Since 1980, Robert Zemeckis and Bob Gale had wanted to make a movie about time travel. However, coming off of the box-office flop I Wanna Hold Your Hand in 1978 and the financial wash Used Cars in 1980, they both recognized the importance of developing a coherent and satisfying narrative that would bring people into the theaters. But when Gale visited his parents and sifted through his father’s high school yearbook, he considered the potential of being friends with his father’s younger self and knew that such a thought experiment could be testable if only he could travel back in time. Later that year, he shared the idea with Zemeckis and they began their first draft. By early 1981, Gale and Zemeckis presented their first draft to Frank Price, then the president of Columbia Pictures, who wanted to work with the pair but felt that their screenplay required significant revisions. Over the next few months, they completed a second draft that honed in on the humor inherent to the time-travel concept (i.e. taking 1985 conveniences for granted when living in 1955) as well as refined the teenage protagonist’s burgeoning love triangle with his teenage father and mother from the past. After finishing the second draft in April that year, Zemeckis and Gale were denied funding by Price because he felt that, compared to other successful comedies of the era (i.e. Animal House, Fast Times at Ridgemont High), their script lacked enough edgy humor. Their second draft ended up being rejected a total of 40 times, and it was not until Zemeckis’s next film, Romancing the Stone released in 1984, that he regained the necessary confidence to begin pitching his time-travel screenplay once again. With a grudge against most of the major studios who had rejected in years earlier, Zemeckis gained the financial backing of Amblin Entertainment, the production company of Zemeckis’s friend and frequent collaborator Steven Spielberg (who was one of the only people in Hollywood at the time who liked Gale and Zemeckis’s script). Some issues over the rights to the concept caused the film to enter a lengthy pre-production process, which ultimately worked in its favor as it allowed Gale and Zemeckis to write a third draft (completed in July of 1984) that refined the narrative structure and update the humor. Perhaps the most notable aspect of the film’s early days of principal photography was that filming went on for over a month with Eric Stoltz (Mask, Some Kind of Wonderful, Pulp Fiction), who Zemeckis was eager to replace prior to the start of filming. With Spielberg’s help, the script for the film eventually got into the hands of Michael J. Fox (Casualties of War, The American President, The Frighteners), who agreed to play the role of Marty McFly without even reading the script. With scheduling issues resolved allowing Fox to play the character while accommodating his shooting for the sitcom Family Ties, Zemeckis met Stoltz on set on January 10, 1985 and fired him. Many of the scenes shot with Stoltz previously were reshot with Fox separately to keep production costs from going even more overbudget than they already had. Additionally, sets had to be adjusted and scenes needed to be reconceived to tailor them more to Fox’s performance and away from Stoltz’s. Filming finally on April 26, 1985, after 107 days of principal photography. Similar to when Raiders of the Lost Ark was released, this film’s producers were concerned about the recent dip in summer movie profits and thus the film was moved around several times before securing a release date of July 3, 1985 so as to avoid the stereotype associated with films released later in the summer at the time. Back to the Future ended up grossing over 380 million dollars worldwide from its initial release, becoming the highest-grossing film of the year beating out Rocky IV and Rambo: First Blood Part II. At the time of its release, critics mostly praised the film as a thoroughly entertaining flick with an exposition-heavy first act that paid off by the end. Some detractors, however, found Back to the Future to be overly zany and ultimately unfulfilling due to the inevitability of Marty’s successful return to 1985. The main cast, from Michael J. Fox and Christopher Lloyd as the two leads to Lea Thompson and Crispin Glover as Marty’s parents, were well received. Furthermore, the film won Best Sound Effects Editing at the Academy Awards, losing nominations for Best Original Screenplay, Best Sound, and Best Original Song. Undoubtedly, Back to the Future cemented itself as an instant classic and cultural phenomenon. Not only is it a touchstone of 1980s filmmaking and popular culture, but it is viewed by many film critics, cinephiles, and general moviegoers today as one of the most well-written films of the last half-century. As I have written more deeply about this film before, I shall condense my thoughts on it here for the sake of brevity. My lack of nostalgia for Back to the Future makes it hard to love this movie, but I greatly respect its place in the cultural zeitgeist and in the history of blockbuster filmmaking. First and foremost, the writing is top-notch with no second of screen time wasted to either develop character dynamics or setup plot for the future. Furthermore, the main performances are all super fun for what they are. While I enjoy Marty and Doc’s back and forth, as well as Marty’s dynamic with the younger versions of his parents, the standout performance for me is Thomas F. Wilson as Biff Tannen who might just be the best zany, campy villain in all of 1980s film. Overall, I lack the diehard adoration for Back to the Future that others have but I enjoy it every time I watch it. Thus, it deserves its place as the more moderately successful 1980s blockbuster in today’s blog. Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade (1989) To follow up Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom, the first sequel to Spielberg’s original film, he intended to cap off the trilogy with a film that recaptured the spirit and tone of Raiders of the Lost Ark. However, Lucas and Spielberg struggled to agree on a story for a third film. Early on, Lucas suggested that the Holy Grail be the focus, but Spielberg initially lacked interest in the idea. Lucas then shifted focus to a ghost story, entitled Indiana Jones and the Monkey King, which screenwriter and director Chris Columbus (Adventures in Babysitting, Home Alone, Mrs. Doubtfire) completed a draft of in May of 1985. Spielberg eventually warmed up to the Holy Grail idea, and suggested including Indiana’s father as a character to serve as a metaphor for the swashbuckling archaeologist’s search for the Holy Grail, but Lucas wanted to focus almost exclusively on the Grail itself. Spielberg hired Dutch screenwriter Menno Meyjes (The Color Purple) to write a second draft. Completed in January of 1986, it ended up being very different from Columbus’s script. Finally, Jeffrey Boam (The Dead Zone, Lethal Weapon 2) was hired to develop a treatment with Lucas that became the basis for the final film. Unlike the previous writers, including Lucas and Spielberg, Boam made the father-son relationship between Indiana and Henry Jones, Sr. the emotional core of the story and de-emphasized finding the Grail at the end. These changes came from Boam’s perception of a lack of character development in the first two films. Principal photography kicked off in Spain in May of 1988, with shooting in England, West Germany, Italy, Colorado, Utah, and Texas over the next several months. Completed on a budget of nearly 50 million dollars, Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade was released on May 24, 1989 and ended up grossing 474 million dollars (the highest-grossing entry in the franchise until Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull in 2008). While the film was mostly praised by critics, some viewed it as emotionally falling on deaf ears and unable to meet the dramatic depth that Indiana’s relationship with his father was calling for. Today, the film is lauded as one of the best conclusions to a film trilogy ever made and remains one of the most successful blockbusters of the 1980s. This remains my favorite film of the Indiana Jones franchise, largely because of its demythologization of the eponymous protagonist. As I said in my writing about Raiders of the Lost Ark, I tend to enjoy heroes being demystified and broken down in an effort to reveal more about their characters and, therefore, become more relatable. By exploring his less-than-ideal relationship with his father, the film makes Indy human in a way that he never was in the first two entries. On top of that, simply bringing in Sean Connery to play Henry Jones, Sr. and seeing his chemistry with Harrison Ford is utterly delightful to watch. Besides the characters, I thoroughly enjoy the set pieces in The Last Crusade. From the boat chase on the canals of Venice and Indy rescuing his father in Austria to Indy defeating a German tank in the deserts of Turkey, this movie never lets up with the adventure. If the characters do not suit you, the action almost certainly will. So, those are some of the best blockbusters of the 1980s. Of course, there are others like the criminal-killing Beverly Hills Cop, the high-flying Top Gun, and the caped-crusading Batman. Needless to say, one could argue that this decade is unmatched in terms of its blockbuster prestige. Or is it…? I guess you’ll have to wait and see with future blogs when I explore the best blockbusters of the 1990s, 2000s, and 2010s! 😊 Which of these 1980s blockbuster films is your favorite? What other 1980s blockbusters that I did not mention here do you think are important? What opinions of mine do you find absolutely ridiculous? Let me know in the comments below. Until next time, this has been… Yours Truly, Amateur Analyst “[Gone with the Wind] is going to be one of the biggest white elephants of all time.” – Victor Fleming As a relative newcomer to the world of cinephiles and film fanatics, I’ve always struggled with the debate over what types of movies are better: big-budget films, better known as “blockbusters,” or the low-budget, independently financed movies called “indies.” In spite of my lack of expertise when it comes to the making of cinema, I find this debate to be generally silly.
I mean can’t great films be made with 200 million or 200 thousand dollars? No-name actors or some of the biggest names that Hollywood can buy? Some of my favorite films of all time vary so widely in terms of production budget and money backing them. Undoubtedly two of my favorite films of all time, Damien Chazelle’s Whiplash and the Russo Brothers’s Avengers: Endgame, have more than 350 million dollars separating their budgets. Both are fantastic films not in spite of their production value, but because of that. Still, since nearly the beginning days of commercial filmmaking there seems to be an allure for many theatergoers for the “blockbuster.” What is it about these types of big-budget ventures that keep audiences wanting more? That’s why I’m aiming to find out in today’s first part of a multi-part series wherein I reflect on some of biggest moneymaking films throughout cinematic history. Today, I want to shine a light on what I think are some of the first films that could qualify as “blockbusters” in their respective eras. So, without further ado…LET’S GET STARTED! The Birth of a Nation (1915) To preface my examination of this first film, I want to make it clear that the political messaging and racist tones of it were upon release, and continue to be, beyond problematic. In this sense, The Birth of a Nation does not hold up at all. Yet it remains a landmark of cinematic history from both a technical and financial standpoint, so I felt that it had to be included in this discussion. The Birth of a Nation took about four months to film, from July to October of 1914. Initially budgeted at $40,000 (the equivalent of a little over one million dollars today), it spiked during filming to over $100,000 (about 2.5 million dollars today) and the director, D.W. Griffith, ended up shooting approximately 150,000 feet of film (lasting about 36 hours) which he eventually edited down to 13,000 feet (just over three hours). After being released on February 8, 1915, The Birth of a Nation ended up grossing anywhere from 20 to 100 million dollars based on a variety of estimates spanning back to the mid-20th century. In today’s dollars, a conservative estimate would equate that amount to about 1.8 billion dollars. (An incredible feat for any film, let alone one made in the silent era). While the film came out before the inception of the Academy Awards, critics and historians alike tend to agree that The Birth of a Nation was a landmark achievement in cinematography, editing, musical score, visual effects, and the use of kinetic action with hundreds of extras for dramatic effect. Having personally watched this film in its entirety fairly recently, I was rather impressed by how much the technical aspects of The Birth of a Nation held up more than a century later. Much of this comes from the first 90 minutes during the Civil War portion of the film as Griffith captures sophisticated battle sequences with some great cinematography. In that sense, I can see many peoples’ appeal for this film upon its release. To reiterate, I could write a whole other blog addressing the severe problems of this film’s political and social commentary, let alone how it so inaccurately and ineptly romanticizes such a dark period in American history (as someone with a Master’s degree in U.S. History, I have a personal stake in doing that). But, that is not my goal today. Regardless of how much The Birth of a Nation remains a stain on American cultural history, it undoubtedly deserves its place as both a technical pioneer and one of the first “blockbuster” films. Gone with the Wind (1939) Most studio heads, from Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer to Warner Brothers Pictures, were hesitant to purchase the film rights to Margaret Mitchell’s upcoming Civil War novel. After eventually being convinced by his story editor Kay Brown and business partner John Hay Whitney, David O. Selznick purchased the rights in July of 1936 for $50,000 for his own studio. The entire production process, from the first day of shooting until the end of post-production, lasted from January to November of 1939. The film had gone through three working directors, with George Cukor (The Philadelphia Story, A Star Is Born) being fired after the first eighteen days and Victor Fleming (The Wizard of Oz, Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde) coming on from that point on. In May, Fleming stepped away temporary due to exhaustion and was replaced by MGM cohort Sam Wood (Our Town, For Whom the Bell Tolls) for twenty-four days; Fleming shot the remaining ninety-three days of the production schedule. By the time the production was finished, Gone with the Wind cost nearly four million dollars which made it the second-most-expensive film ever made at that point (the 1925 silent epic Ben-Hur outranking it). In addition, with the overture, intermission, entr’acte, and exit music included, the film’s runtime stretched to a whopping three hours and fifty-four minutes. And after being released to the public on December 15, 1939, the film ended up grossing approximately 400 million dollars over the course of several intermittent re-releases from 1942 to 1998. Adjusted for inflation, Gone with the Wind is the highest-grossing film of all time with a massive box office gross of 3.74 billion dollars. In more ways than one, Gone with the Wind holds up more than The Birth of a Nation. From a technical standpoint, the Technicolor cinematography throughout is breathtaking and staging of the action sequences in the first half are engaging considering they were filmed over 80 years ago. That being said, its upholding of the “Lost Cause” mythology of the Civil War and Reconstruction periods remains just as outdated and misguided as they were back in 1915, and as much as they are now. After my first viewing of Gone with the Wind, what I kept going back to in terms of why I did not enjoy it was the characters and the story. The use of an epic film to tell such an uninteresting romance tale with such unlikeable characters was so disappointing. For a film often thought back on as one of the greatest movies ever made, I found myself bored after the first 90 ninety minutes. By the end, I just wanted it to end. That being said, however, it is clear to me that flicks like The Birth of a Nation and Gone with the Wind (almost in spite of their controversy) set the gold standard for the early “blockbuster.” Audiences throughout time continued coming back for the epics, from Ben-Hur and Doctor Zhivago to Titanic and The Lord of the Rings trilogy, and I don’t see that stopping anytime soon. But what are some more modern examples of early “blockbusters” that took this particular kind of move in a whole new direction? Jaws (1975) After purchasing the rights to Peter Benchley’s 1974 novel “Jaws” for $175,000, producers at Universal Pictures Richard D. Zanuck and David Brown sought out a director capable of adapting the story for the silver screen. After considering John Sturges (The Magnificent Seven, The Great Escape) and Dick Richards (The Culpepper Cattle Company, Farewell, My Lovely) before approaching an at-the-time up-and-comer: Steven Spielberg. Having just come off of his theatrical debut The Sugarland Express (which Universal Pictures produced and distributed), Spielberg was eager to adapt Benchley’s novel as he was captivated upon reading it. Despite some initial hesitations on Spielberg’s part out of fear of being typecast, Spielberg stuck with the project and principal photography kicked off on May 2, 1974. Notoriously the production on the film was troubled from the start. Struggles with shooting on the ocean, issues with the mechanical prop sharks, and the need to develop techniques for shooting underwater led to several delays and the film’s budget increasing from four to nine million dollars (three million of that increase went to special effects alone). Principal photography was initially set to take 55 days and end in June, but ultimately wrapped up on October 6 after 159 days of shooting. But the stress was worth it when Jaws was released on June 20, 1975 and ended up grossing 472 million dollars, becoming the highest-grossing film of all time at that point. Not only did the film make its mark at the time, but Jaws forever changed the film industry in more ways than one. It popularized saturation booking (when a film opens at the same time in thousands of movie theaters) and thereby forever changed the marketing and distribution approach of big-budget films. Furthermore, Jaws made summer the primetime for releasing big-budget, box-office contenders and sparked the emergence of high studio interest in “high-concept” films that can be easily marketed, made with high budgets, and rake in massive profits. In short, it changed Hollywood and moviemaking forever. But does Jaws deserve such a mantle? Absolutely it does! I’ll be diving more deeply into my thoughts on Spielberg’s decades-spanning career in a future blog to coincide with the release of his adaptation of West Side Story. That being said, I want to pay Jaws the respect it deserves. To state the obvious, it is a significant film in more ways than one. But I’ve already talked about all that. To put it simply, Jaws is just a damn good movie. Upon first watching it over a year ago now, I was not expecting a creature feature from the 1970s to hold up today. Fortunately, I was mistaken. For me, much of the magic of Jaws is its storytelling. Not only is the overall narrative structure and writing of the movie well-executed, but Spielberg’s approach to visual storytelling to build tension and craft human drama is more than impressive considering the time in which the film came out. Without a doubt in my mind, Jaws is more than deserving of its place in cinematic history as the movie that kicked off a new age of filmmaking with the modern “blockbuster” at the helm. But there is one more film of the 1970s that laid the groundwork for the birth of the modern “blockbuster.” Can you guess what it is? Star Wars (1977) After finishing his directorial debut THX 1138, California native George Lucas (American Graffiti) intended on adapting the Flash Gordon comic serials for the silver screen. However, he struggled to buy the rights so instead conducted his own research on the inspiration that Alex Raymond, the original author of Flash Gordon, had for the concept of a space adventure story. After United Artists passed on Lucas’s space adventure concept, he ended up going to Universal Pictures who agreed to distribute Lucas’s next film, American Graffiti, but also passed on the space adventure film. So, Lucas shelved it and spent the next two years working on his Oscar-nominated coming-of-age comedy film. When writing his original 13-page treatment for what would become Star Wars, Lucas had many influences and inspirations ranging from the politics of the Nixon era and the Vietnam War to the 1958 adventure film directed by Akira Kurosawa, The Hidden Fortress. Several studios declined to fund the project based on the treatment, from United Artists to Walt Disney Productions, which made sense at the time considering many studios believed science fiction to lack a commercially viable future at the movies due to the high budgets required to pull off the special effects necessary to make such a film look convincing to audiences. By 1973, Lucas managed to make a deal with 20th Century Fox to write and direct the film. However, after American Graffiti was released to overwhelmingly positive reception, Lucas used it as leverage to renegotiate his deal with the studio which included securing the rights to any sequels as well as the profits from any merchandising. Lucas ended up writing four drafts of the screenplay for Star Wars from 1973 to 1976, during which time many changes to the story occurred. One hilarious example is that in the first draft of the script, Han Solo was conceptualized by Lucas as a green-skinned, gilled creature; it was not until the end of writing the second draft that the character of Han Solo that is familiar to audiences today was conceived. Lucas’s third draft was as much as 300 pages long and included an outline for the original trilogy of films. But he knew it was too long, and thus edited it significantly. Notably, he moved the ending to what would become Return of the Jedi to the end of the first film (explaining the reason behind having two Death Stars in the original trilogy). It was while writing this draft that Lucas hired artist Ralph McQuarrie to paint specific scenes as concept art which Lucas ended up showing to 20th Century Fox upon delivering his final screenplay to them. Shortly after being awarded a budget of 8.25 million dollars, Lucas wrote his fourth and final rough draft and approached it differently than before in order to write scenes “on the cheap.” The final production script was completed in March of 1976, the same month that principal photography on Star Wars began. However, Lucas continued tweaking the script while shooting by changing the protagonist’s surname from Starkiller to Skywalker and adding in the death of Obi-Wan Kenobi at the end of the second act. Something I learned in researching this blog that I just have to include is the story behind the opening crawl. Lucas originally wrote six paragraphs of four sentences each, approaching the style and diction like a poem to make it easy for audiences to understand. However, when fellow director Brian De Palma (Carrie, Scarface, The Untouchables) read it, he offered to edit it for Lucas. He received some help in the editing process from film critic and screenwriter Jay Cocks (The Age of Innocence, Strange Days, Silence). As a result of 20th Century Fox disbanding their visual effects department, Lucas created his own company Industrial Light & Magic (ILM) for production of Star Wars. Headed up by Douglas Trumbull’s at-the-time assistant John Dykstra, the visual effects team assembled for the film pioneered new photography techniques in order to accomplish Lucas’s goal of including visual effects that had never been seen before. I will not bog down my blog today with the many stories of troubles during principal photography and post-production that would take up another several hundred words. In summary, Lucas ended up suffering from hypertension and exhausting over the course of making Star Wars due to production issues, falling behind schedule, an escalating budget, and studio pressure. When Lucas showed a rough cut of the film in February of 1977 to studio executives and some fellow directors, only Lucas’s friend Steven Spielberg reacted positively. All of the blood, sweat and tears that went into making the film paid off when Star Wars was released on May 25, 1977. Initially only showing in 40 theaters nationwide, 20th Century Fox worked quickly to broaden its release due to its immediate success at the box office. Lucas himself disbelieved that Star Wars would be successful, and ended up losing a bet to Steven Spielberg which resulted in the latter being gifted 2.5% percent of the profits of Star Wars. After several re-releases over the next few tears, Star Wars became the highest-grossing film at the time by raking in a whopping 775 million dollars. Today, it remains the fourth-highest-grossing film when adjusted for inflation (behind Gone with the Wind, Avatar, and Titanic). In addition, the film was nominated for ten Academy Awards (including Best Picture and Best Director), and took home six for Costume Design, Film Editing, Original Score, Art Direction, Sound, and Visual Effects. The Academy also awarded sound designed Ben Burtt a Special Achievement Award for his pioneering sound design. On top of both its financial and critical success, Star Wars remains one of the most culturally significant films in the history of cinema. I could write several blogs dedicated to just the original Star Wars, so I must restrain myself as much as possible. But today, I want to explain to any doubters or skeptics out there why this film deserves its moniker as arguably the most important “blockbuster” film of all time. It is hard to tackle this argument without comparing Star Wars to Jaws, so I won’t resist such temptation. As I said in the previous section, Jaws forever changed the business of moviemaking. It convinced studios that big-budget films could prove wildly successful with both audiences and critics by making their mark on both the box office and the Academy Awards. It offered an example of a film that utilized special effects, a well-constructed narrative, and compellingly likeable characters in a mesmerizing formula of cinematic genius. Without question, Jaws did it first. But Star Wars did it better. Not only in terms of its greater box office success and critical recognition, but Lucas’s masterpiece took what Jaws did pretty well and showed the world of both moviemakers and moviegoers the potential of “blockbuster” filmmaking. Everything about Star Wars―the characters, the story, the music, the action sequences, the special effects, the sounds―remains iconic and has carried on in many forms, from the two original sequels of the 1980s to animated and live-action shows that dominate the streaming world. While Jaws in and of itself remains great, Star Wars has taken on a life of its own and become a living, breathing cultural force of nature, so to speak, that is arguably only being matched by one other multi-film franchise. (Can you guess which one I’m referring to? 😊) So, there’s my examination of four films that played pivotal roles in early blockbuster history. But there are many more famous, impactful, and magical blockbuster movies that I will be discussing over the next several films. Which ones? You’ll have to wait and find out. Which of these early blockbuster films is your favorite? What other early blockbusters that I did not mention here do you think are important? What opinions of mine do you find absolutely ridiculous? Let me know in the comments below. Until next time, this has been… Yours Truly, Amateur Analyst “I would be measured by the soul. The mind's the standard of the Man” – Isaac Watts “But…the patronage and the success of quacks and quackeries are infinitely more wonderful than those of honest and laborious men of science.” – P.T. Barnum Cinema, like any other art form, is often best when it functions as a form of escapism. Many of my favorite films of all time, from Star Wars to Avengers, effectively transport me out of the real world and into a fantastical, fictional reality filled with starships and superheroes. Some critics and cinephiles find this form of film to be less-than, which I tend to think is ridiculous. But sometimes, the best of cinema is that which reflects the grueling realities of our lives and societies in order to grapple with issues that affect us in our everyday lives. I like that kind of movie, too…when done right. Today, I want to reflect on two movies that take very different approaches to highlighting the experiences of a specific group of human beings that have existed throughout history, currently exist, and will continue to exist long after we’re gone― “freaks of nature.” To be clear, I do not use this term with malicious intent but rather as a means to reflect upon how those with physical deformities and abnormalities have been “othered” since the first human-centric sideshow attraction was conceived of. Within the last year, I have watched two movies that deal with this subject in VERY different ways: David Lynch’s black-and-white drama The Elephant Man, and Michael Gracey’s musical biopic The Greatest Showman. Which one (in my humble opinion) does justice to the deformed, and which one squanders any chance of being deemed respectful in its portrayal? You’ll have to keep reading to find. So, without further ado…LET’S GET STARTED! Image by OpenClipart-Vectors from Pixabay The Elephant Man (1980) Film producer and Brooklyn native Jonathan Sanger (Vanilla Sky, Marshall) was given a script by his babysitter. Written by relatively unknown screenwriters Christopher Devore and Eric Bergren, the script adapted the real-life story of Englishman Joseph Merrick who suffered from severe deformities and was a freak show attraction before going to live at the London Hospital where he was studied by, and became friends with, surgeon Frederick Treves. At the time, Sanger was an assistant director for Mel Brooks (The Producers, Blazing Saddles) during the production of Brooks’s film High Anxiety. Sanger showed the script to Brooks, who loved it and decided to produce the project through his new company Brooksfilms. After his personal assistant suggested David Lynch (Blue Velvet, The Straight Story) to be the director (whom Brooks had never heard of), Sanger arranged a private screening of Eraserhead, Lynch’s directorial debut, for Brooks. Meanwhile, Sanger met privately with Lynch to show him the script and loved many of his ideas for the project. Brooks loved Lynch’s film, and Lynch loved the script: The Elephant Man was becoming real. In addition to directing and contributing to the screenplay, Lynch supervised the musical and sound direction for the film (he even tried doing the make-up himself, which ended up failing). Instead, Christopher Tucker (Star Wars, The Company of Wolves), a renowned make-up artist, was hired to create the prosthetic for the eponymous “Elephant Man.” Tucker’s prosthetic work on the project was universally acclaimed, and protest letters were sent to the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences deriding the fact that he would not receive a special award. In response, an Oscar category for Best Makeup was created the next year. John Hurt (Midnight Express, Alien, The Field), the actor hired to portray Joseph Merrick, would arrive on set every day at 5 a.m. for approximately seven hours of prosthetic make-up application. After shooting his scenes for ten hours a day, it took another two hours for the prosthetics to be removed. After the early days of principal photography, Hurt called his girlfriend and said, “I think they finally managed to make he hate acting.” After principal photography was complete, Lynch and Sanger screened the film privately for Brooks, who only suggested some minor cuts but assured them that the film would be released intact. Notably, Brooks was not credited as a producer per his own request because he did not want audiences to see his name associated with the movie and enter the theater assuming that it would be a comedy. The Elephant Man premiered in October of 1980, grossing about 26 million dollars in North America on a five-million-dollar budget. Upon release, the film was mostly praised by critics with many highlighting Hurt’s and Anthony Hopkins’s lead performances and the cinematography by Freddie Francis (Sons and Lovers, Glory). Notably, however, Roger Ebert found the film thematically confused. Nevertheless, the film tied Martin Scorsese’s Raging Bull for the most nominations at that year’s Academy Awards (including Best Director, Best Actor for Hurt, and Best Adapted Screenplay), but ended up winning none of the eight that it was nominated for. I do not consider myself to be a fan of David Lynch. I have failed to watch most of his films to completion because I find myself either dozing off, bored out of my mind, or utterly dumbfounded at his surrealist style of storytelling. In that sense, I was shocked when I found myself fully gripped by and invested in The Elephant Man. It is an exceptional film in more ways than one: the performances (notably the leads) are all great, the production design is more-than-serviceable, and the use of black-and-white adds a gritty realism to Merrick’s story that would come off to me as pretentious and try-hard in many other films. There’s a lot to like about this film, but what I love most about it is how the story of Merrick’s life is told. We follow Merrick from his days as a nearly-mute piece of entertainment to a sympathetic patient to an empowered man with a blossoming personality and people to call true friends. In other words, the writing, Lynch’s direction, and Hurt’s performance humanize Merrick and make him more than just a novelty of history or a “freak of nature.” Rather, the character transcends his outward appearance and identity to become a living, breathing person representative of the struggles of those like him from the dawn of mankind. For this reason, among others, The Elephant Man succeeds as a “freakshow” movie because it strips any pretense of who John Merrick should be given all of the abuse he suffered. Instead, Hurt plays him as a man with a quiet, inner dignity and genteel outlook on life that serves as a shining example of what true heroism looks like. The New York Times film critic Vincent Canby put it another way at the time: “Throughout the film one longs for an explosion. That it never comes is more terrifying…than John Merrick's acceptance of the values of others is inspiring.”[1] Needless to say, The Elephant Man accomplishes what many other films about real people (specifically abnormal people) struggle to do. But don’t take my word for it; check it out for yourself to experience the absolute near-perfect that this movie is. Image by Jonggun Go from Pixabay The Greatest Showman (2017)
During rehearsals for the Oscars ceremony in 2009, film producers Laurence Mark (Jerry Maguire, Bicentennial Man) and Bill Condon (Chicago, Dreamgirls) observed how much Australian actor Hugh Jackman (Les Misérables, X-Men: Days of Future Past) was similar to the stage persona of 19th-century showman P.T. Barnum. As Jackman expressed interest in playing Barnum, Mark and Condon hired Jenny Bicks, one of the writers of the Oscars ceremony that year, to co-write a screenplay about Barnum with Condon. The project was in development for seven years before a director was secured, a cast was chosen, and the songs were written. Principal photography took place in the fall of 2016 in New York City, and The Greatest Showman was released in December the next year. While it grossed over 400 million dollars on an 84-million-dollar budget, the film was largely scorned by critics for its shallow, oversentimental, and simplified portrayal of Barnum’s life and personality. However, some critics argued that the film was either effective as pure entertainment or clever subversion of Barnum’s darker side by glamorizing his story in a way that only he could appreciate fully. When I sat down to watch The Greatest Showman less than a year ago, I did not expect to love it. But I did think I would be entertained by it, and for awhile I was. Jackman certainly brings all of his effervescent charm in a full-throated effort to make Barnum the character likeable. Furthermore, the production values and music are enough to distract me from my vomit-inducing disgust towards the film. But only for awhile. The Greatest Showman is ultimately a failure because it does the opposite of what Lynch and Hurt did in The Elephant Man. Rather than humanizing its “freaks of nature” by telling their stories and allowing the social commentary to flow organically, this movie uses the “freak” characters (notably Keala Settle’s Lettie Lutz, the “Bearded Lady”) as tools to convey in-your-face lessons about tolerance and self-empowerment through song. On top of that, the film strips any nuance and intrigue from Barnum’s real-life story and transforms him into a fantastical cartoon (albeit a charming one). All in all, the movie (in my humble opinion) fails in almost every way to deliver a heartwarming or interesting story about social outcasts. I don’t think I need to tell you which of these films I liked better. 😊 Which of these films do you think more effectively tells stories about “freaks of nature”? What other movies that deal with this subject would you recommend? What opinions of mine do you find absolutely ridiculous? Let me know in the comments below. Until next time, this has been… Yours Truly, Amateur Analyst [1] Canby, V. (1980, October 03). 'Elephant man,' study in genteelness. Retrieved April 17, 2021, from https://www.nytimes.com/1980/10/03/archives/elephant-man-study-in-genteelness.html |
Austin McManusI have no academic or professional background in film production or criticism; I simply love watching and talking about movies. Archives
July 2024
Categories
All
|