I wonder if the pleasure I take in the Land of the Lost bombing last weekend is attributable to taking joy in bad movies going unwatched, or if I really think this will help curb the trend of movies only getting an easy green light if they were a children’s book or TV show many years ago.
Doesn’t there have to be some – even if it’s miniscule – case for better movies making more money than bad movies, regardless of the built-in audience? Would Land of the Lost still have tanked it if were a good movie, for example, or can the failure be entirely chalked up to the fact that it opened against Up and The Hangover and got killed?
I really like to believe that the reason The Hangover did so well was because it’s actually a good movie that got good reviews and carried reliable word of mouth. I’m sure it would have still done well if it was just OK – look at Van Wilder or Road Trip for example. But how much better did it do because it’s good?
I guess the question I’m trying to ask is: Can studios put a monetary value on good reviews? If a film will already do well at the box office, how many more millions of dollars will a good movie get over an average one?
As for taking joy in the taking of movies like Land of the Lost, Speed Racer, and – to a lesser degree – Terminator Salvation and X-Men Origins: Wolverine, it’s nice to see that the studios can’t crap out a movie with their built in audience and expect the same results as when they try.
Yeah there are plenty of examples of terrible franchises, updates and adaptations that still do well (why do you there there have been a dozen American Pie/nippled Batman sequels?), but every time a Land of the Lost bombs, I get a little bit of hope.