Mark Kingsolver

English 1201
Professor Morean
July 5, 2015

Too much attention on franchise films is detrimental to the film industry!

Barnes, Brooks. Movies Have Worst Summer since 1997. The New York Times. The New
York Times, 29 Aug. 2014. Web. 28 June 2015.
This article, written by Brooks Barnes for The New York Times, discusses the box office
performances of movies released in the summer of 2014. Barnes goes into detail about which
movies released during the summer months, May through August and what may or may not have
contributed to their strong or weak box office returns. It discusses that movies like
Transformers: Age of Extinction and The Amazing Spiderman 2, which are both parts of
franchise films underperformed at the box office while at the same time movies like A Million
Ways to die in the West, Sex Tape, and Oblivion; which are original properties underperformed as
well. The main point of the article was to highlight the statistic that the film industry in summer
2014 had the worst box office performance of the summer since 1997 and broke down the
numbers in detail.
Barnes purpose in this article seems to drive home the point that in a summer of so many
sequels, the top 10 films of the summer were all part of some existing property. Since the film
industry fell to its lowest since 1997, the overall theme seems to suggest that Barnes is blaming
this fact on the industries reliance on franchise films instead of investing in original properties
such as Lucy or Oblivion. The audience for this article seems to be anybody who cares about
learning about the box office trends of the film industry and want to know how the box office
results of some of the biggest films of the year break down.
Upon further investigation about the author, it is revealed that Brooks Barnes has been a
feature writer for The New York Times for 8 years and before that worked for The Wall Street
Journal where he writes on a broad array of entertainment issues with both periodicals. His
credibility seems to be well established. In terms of the credibility of where it was published,
The New York Times is thought to be by the majority of the public to be a reputable paper. Since
the article mainly uses the box office performances of movies released in the summer of 2015,
the information is easily verifiable by researching that the figures discussed in the article are
correct.

I will use this article in discussing the film industrys reliance on existing properties to
fuel their box office returns. The article does a good job at discussing original movies, like

Oblivion that should have seen larger returns than what it achieved based on critical consensus.
One reason that I will argue causes original properties to fall below where they should be is the
film industries investment in existing properties and that this causes less attention to be paid to
the new movies. I will use this article to reinforce this position.
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/08/30/movies/movies-have-worst-summer-since-1997.html?
_r=0&module=ArrowsNav&contentCollection=Media&action=keypress&region=FixedLeft&pg
type=article

Brown, Eric. Chinese Audiences Souring On American Sequels, Spelling Bad News for
Hollywood. International Business Times. 11 June 2014. Web. 28 June 2015.

The author of this article, Eric Brown, addresses the issue of the most emerging
international market for the film industry, the Chinese market. The main point of the article is to
explain how it seems that Chinese audiences arent embracing American made sequels as much
as they are the new, original movies that are made in China. The article discusses that the box
office growth that are tied to Chinese made movies is much higher than the box office growth
rate of American made movies, that tend to rely on big-budgeted franchise films.
The audience for this film seems to be individuals who are interested in learning about
emerging territories for the film industry and how the film industry are responding to trends in
large markets like China to ensure box office success in these territories. The theme of the article
seems to imply that Chinese audiences, which represent such a large opportunity for film
companies want are more willing to pay to see original movies more than franchise films.
The author, Eric Brown and the website The International Business Times seems to meet
the credibility of a reputable site to use as a source. The site provides insight into a broad slew of
business and financial issues from around the world. The information provided in the article is
mostly financial numbers that are easily verifiable from other sources, so the information listed
on this site seems to be reputable.
I will use this source to highlight reasons that it would be more beneficial for American
film studios to invest money and marketing into original properties instead of focusing such a
large amount on franchises. Using the information given about the emerging Chinese market,
the fastest growing market in the world, I will highlight the point that it would be more beneficial
towards making more money for the studios.
http://www.ibtimes.com/chinese-audiences-souring-american-sequels-spelling-bad-newshollywood-1598846

Duca, Lauren. "Everything Is A Sequel Now, And It's Your Fault, America." The Huffington `
Post. TheHuffingtonPost.com, 18 June 2015. Web. 28 June 2015.

This article serves as an opinion piece that details the authors, Lauren Ducas belief that
Americans wanting more and more sequels is the reason that the movie industry seems to focus
so much attention on creating additional entries of existing franchises. So, since the audience
seems to clamor for sequels, the film industry spends time, money and marketing to bring these
sequels to the market, even though more than a few of these sequels fall below expectations and
causes audiences to wonder why they wanted to see a second, third or even fourth entry of the
franchise.
The major theme in this article is about since the American audiences demand for bigger,
louder sequels seems to entice the film industry bosses to produce more sequels of every kind of
genre, regardless of whether the demand is high enough for a specific film. An example of this
could be Jurassic World, since the film has done so well this past summer, the film studios will
likely produce a sequel to this property. However; this demand from the audience to produce a
bigger sequel to such a big-budgeted film could entice studios to produce a sequel to a title that
did better-than-expected box office numbers, even though the audience doesnt necessarily want
to see a sequel made. The audience for this article seems to be the people who regularly attend
the movie theater, in an attempt to change their viewing habits.
The credibility of the source is mild. Going into reading the article, you already know
that it is an opinion piece about the state of the film industry. However; with the article being on
The Huffington Posts website, which has a credible reputation of being reliable, I believe that
this article is credible enough to be included as a source.
I will be using this source to highlight reasons as to why the film studios seem to want to
make so many franchise films. There is also one point in the article where the number of sequels
that are currently scheduled to be released in the near future that I will utilize in my paper to
highlight my point of having a saturation of sequels in the marketplace.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/lauren-duca/

Gleiberman, Owen. "How Many Superheroes Is Too Many?." Entertainment Weekly 1165
(2011): 56. MasterFILE Premier. Web. 28 June 2015.

This article poses the question of how many movies involving the superhero genre is too
many? It talks about all the films that were in development at the time of its posting and
discusses whether or not the saturation of this in the marketplace is a good thing or a bad thing.
It delves into the belief that there could be a serious rerun factor in all these superhero films

being produced and that it audiences could experience a been there done that feeling when it
comes to having all of these superhero movies in the marketplace. Although this belief seems to
be prevalent within the audiences, the article ends discussing a reason that seems to exist for
audiences desire to see these films created. The fact that audiences feel a personal connection to
these characters present the greatest reason for audiences to flock to see them, even though there
is a been there seen that feeling to them.
The main theme of this article is that even though audiences may feel as though they have
seen a film or similar films, they will still show up to the theaters because of a personal
connection to the subject matter. That even though the audiences may feel the marketplace is
oversaturated by these films, they will still come out and watch them. The audience for this
article seems to be those who enjoy watching superhero movies, but want to have a deeper
understanding of why they do.
This article was published in Entertainment Weekly, so the credibility of it seems to be
strong since the magazine has been reporting on an array of entertainment stories for years.
I will use this article when discussing reasons behind why film studios produce so many
franchise films instead of focusing on original stories. Although the article is a couple of years
old, I believe that a lot of the same principals apply to this day and age of films. This article will
serve as an opposing viewpoint to my own thesis that the film producing companys constant
investment in franchise films is harming the industry as a whole.
http://www.ew.com/article/2011/07/22/how-many-superheroes-too-many/2

Lang, Brent. "'Jupiter Ascending' Flops: Why the Wachowskis' Failure Is Bad for Movies."
Variety. 8 Feb. 2015. Web. 28 June 2015

This article uses one films box office performance to prove the point that it is tough for
original movies to find a large audience in the marketplace. That film is 2015s Jupiter
Ascending, and its low box office returns point toward an existing problem in the industry where
it seems that franchise films do better than original fare. It discusses the audiences problem of
not liking something that they dont understand and already know the subject matter. So when a
movie that seems to contain a complex storyline, like Jupiter Ascending, audiences seem to not
to run to the theater to watch it. It further goes on to explain that the failure at the box office of
original movies, like Jupiter Ascending, the studios may resist the impulse to make original films
and instead make more entries of existing franchises instead.
The audience of this article seems to be directed at those who want to understand why
certain films fail. It analyzes reasons why the studios may avoid investing in original movies
and instead in franchises.

The article is posted Variety magazine and since this is a very reputable magazine, it
would seem that the article is very credible. The box office information is verifiable on other
mediums, so it is easy to fact check if necessary.
I will use this article, and the box office performance of Jupiter Ascending to highlight
my point that if film studios invested more time, money and marketing into original material,
that this material may be able to break through and gain a larger audience than it would have
attained with studios focusing so much time on their investments in franchise films.
http://variety.com/2015/film/news/jupiter-ascending-flop-wachowskis-failure-1201427887/

The Pixar Story. Walt Disney Home Entertainment, 2008. DVD.

This documentary tells the story of how Pixar Animation Studios started as a division of
LucasFilms and how it went on to become one of the largest animation film studios in the world.
The audience of this documentary seems to be anyone who wants to learn more about the
world of animation and on how the creators of Pixar went on to revolutionize the animated
movie industry. It goes into detail about the founders of the company, how they began producing
movies with Toy Story, how they have evolved in the marketplace and what the future may hold
for them.
Since this is a documentary, with accounts from the actual executives involved at Pixar, I
think the credibility of this as a source is very strong.
I will use this documentary and the story of Pixar as a way to prove my point that if a
production company decides to invest in original material as much as sequels, as Pixar has done
since its inception, that a production studio can still thrive in the marketplace.

Thompson, Derek. "The Reason Why Hollywood Makes So Many Boring Superhero Movies."
The Atlantic. Atlantic Media Company, 13 May 2014. Web. 28 June 2015.

This article discusses reasons why the movie industry seems to be investing so much
money into franchises instead of creating new original films. It discusses that ever since the
invention of the television, film studios have had to compete with audiences and so in order to
gain larger amounts of people to see their films, film companies tend to invest in films that they
believe are safe bets for their investments. This is the reason, Derek Thompson the author,
believes why we see so many franchise films and why we arent likely to see a decline in the
amount of them made.

The audience for this article seems to be those interested in learning a deeper reason as to
why film studios tend to put so much investments into producing franchise films instead of
original films. The audience seems to get a legitimate explanation of why this possibly happens
and why it is likely to continue in the future.
Since the article is posted on The Atlantic, a reputable periodical, I believe that the
credibility of the article is strong to use it as a source.
I will use this source in my paper as a way to attempting to understand why film studios
tend to spend so much of their capital on producing films from existing properties and not on
original ideas. This will be used as an opposing viewpoint to my viewpoint on the subject.
http://www.theatlantic.com/entertainment/archive/2014/05/hollywoods-real-superheroproblem/370785/