A Moratorium on Referendums in Pop Culture

Before I get too deep into this topic, let's just get one thing clear: box office tracking is as trustworthy as snake oil. In essence, I'm going to be railing against media reaction to box office tracking, but bear with me. There are stories today, which amount to concern trolling, wondering/worrying that Super 8, the new JJ Abrams movie that is a Steven Spielberg-sanctioned homage of Steven Spielberg movies, will not do very well at the box office when it opens this Friday. I want to clarify: while I have not yet seen Super 8, I'm very excited to do so. More to the point, making a Spielberg homage is fine by me, as long as we're focusing on his earlier work (basically, anything up to Jurassic Park). Since the movie is set in 1979, I'm not too concerned.

And, before I get too worked up, it's important to also point out the obvious: Super 8 might make $10 million this weekend, or it might make $100 million. It won't matter one bit if I don't like the movie, because unlike with, say, television, the movie's qualitative success isn't tied to its quantitative success. Sure, if the people who made the movie would love to tell more stories with the characters, they may need it to do well at the theaters to get a sequel. But it doesn't matter to me if a movie is a blockbuster or staggers to a payday that's half its budget. I've always feverishly followed TV ratings, and while it's a frivolous hobby to do so, it makes some sense. When I start watching a show and begin to enjoy it, I want more of it. It's rare for a TV showrunner to create and write one season's worth of episodes and be done with the whole affair. Shows like Community and Parks and Recreation need to get good ratings (well, NBC's version of good) to continue airing new episodes. Super 8 does not need to make a certain amount of money this weekend for me to see it. (What's more, based on what I know of the film, I don't foresee Abrams working on a sequel, unless it makes so much money that he's legally forced to.)

What galls me is a term that was used in an article on Vulture today. This isn't meant to be a slam about Vulture, a pop culture blog I quite enjoy. The inciting word is "referendum." The article, by Claude Brodesser-Akner, posits that Super 8 is something of a referendum in Hollywood because, while it's clearly heavily influenced by the films of Steven Spielberg, it is technically original. The film has an original script (by Abrams), it's not based on a book, graphic novel, play, etc., and it's not a remake or sequel. I don't have the schedule in front of me, but Super 8 is one of the only truly original movies to open this summer. The most recent original summer movie (possibly the only other candidate) was Bridesmaids, which, as we all know, was the referendum on whether ladies can be funny without being played by Kate Hudson.

Can we stop with the whole "referendum" argument? Last July, the same meme played out with Inception, the enormously successful thriller from writer-director Christopher Nolan. There are, of course, many differences between Super 8 and Inception, most notably that the former film boasted many well-known actors, while the latter film has Kyle "Coach Taylor" Chandler and Noah Emmerich. The other notable difference--that Inception was Nolan's first film since The Dark Knight--is somewhat moot. Arguably, the concept of Inception is a harder sell than the concept of Super 8. And yet, the point is this: what happened in between last July and now? There was a referendum on original movies then and, based solely on the box-office returns, the public voted in favor of originality, right? Inception pulled in over $800 million worldwide, so the issue is laid to rest, yes? Ah, but of course not, because we've all forgotten about that movie by now. No, now, we have to focus on the latest trend, which the media has decided is once again whether Joe Public is smart enough to not always want to watch movies based on toys, comic books, or books.

We've come to a point in our culture, unfortunately, where talking about what audiences like to watch is absolutely pointless. More than likely, even if it doesn't make as much as Paramount Pictures wants, Super 8 is going to be this weekend's number-one movie, if only be default. Will it be a massive hit? Perhaps. Will it be a disappointment? Perhaps. But the idea that one movie represents the future of originality or the future of women in comedy is laughable for so many reasons. If one movie did represent the future of a trend in Hollywood, then why is this summer and the next one and the next one filled with movies based on preexisting properties of any kind? Why am I reading about a movie based on Battleship? Why am I reading about the potential of a third Hangover movie set in Amsterdam? (Kudos on the obvious choice, rumormongers.) Because, shockingly enough, the media can try and set trends, but if people continue to see movies just because...well, the movies are there, nothing will change.

Maybe a better way to put it is that audiences aren't always going to be sheep. While I roundly reject the dual ideas that Bridesmaids being a success equals manna from heaven for ladies and that it was the female version of The Hangover, the movie has done very well in theaters, having crossed the $100 million mark last weekend, even without any majorly bankable actresses. However, as soon as you get too happy about Bridesmaids doing well, you notice that the latest Pirates of the Caribbean movie--which you'll remember, I did like somewhat--has made more than $800 million worldwide in less than a month. I'm sure people at the studios know this, but some media writers don't acknowledge this too often: regular, non-industry people go to the movies for the same reason that they watch television. It's there. When you give people lots of options, they will spread the wealth, which can be a good thing (see: the slow but steady rise of cable programming over the past 2 decades) or a bad thing (see: the rapid decline of broadcast network ratings over the past decade). If you make movies like Bridesmaids, enough people will seek it out. If you make movies like Pirates of the Caribbean, people will seek it out. Make both types of movies, and you are doing something the studios should be doing more: encouraging people to go to the movies. What studios are doing now is just assuming that we'll go and spend money on anything. Though that's mostly true, it's clear from the last few 3D-centric releases that...well, that economy's getting pretty though and a pair of easily discarded glasses ain't gonna fix it.

The whole point of this post is to say that Super 8 is as much of a referendum on original product as Inception was, which is not one at all. I hope to enjoy Super 8 and can't wait to see it this weekend. I'm not worried about the movie's success, and no one outside of the industry--hell, no one outside of Paramount--should be worried about it. I'm more concerned with studios not getting the message about what people want to see: more of everything. We want choices. Give us choices, as long as it's not between 2D and 3D.