Advertisement
YOU ARE HERE: LAT HomeCollections

Summer School Lessons

Families didn't flock to the movies that were aimed at children. But special-effect flicks with extraordinary plots got the bucks for their bangs.

September 12, 1996|JUDY BRENNAN | SPECIAL TO THE TIMES

With the prestige pictures of autumn and the holidays about to land, movie executives are trying to draw some final lessons from the vexing summer of '96.

It was a 17-week moviegoing period that featured huge blockbusters and ticket sales up 1% over last year, yet suffered an Olympic-sized box-office flameout from which the industry still hasn't fully recovered.

It was a tough time for numerous family films (anybody actually see "Flipper," "The Adventures of Pinocchio," "Alaska" or "The Stupids"?) and a mixed one for star vehicles (the disappointing "Cable Guy," "Striptease" and "Jack" were balanced by the success of "Nutty Professor" and "Mission: Impossible"). The biggest stars, however, were the special effects of "Independence Day" and "Twister."

And in a bit of counterintuitive thinking, Hollywood-style, the concept that small-budget films are riskier than big-budget ones was reinforced.

So exactly what lessons were learned depend, of course, upon whom you ask. And nobody knows if any of this will even apply next summer, with the "Jurassic Park" sequel and a bulging pack of "event" films already scrambling studio plans.

Martin Schafer, president of Castle Rock Entertainment, says he's learned to resist the temptation of some kid-friendly films.

"The death of the family movie--that is the footnote for summer '96," he said. "We had a beautiful film this summer called 'Alaska.' It cost $18 million and by any standard was extremely well-made for that price . . . a beautiful family film. Then you see other films like 'Kazaam,' 'Carpool,' 'Matilda,' 'Harriet' and 'Flipper' tank. Even 'A Very Brady Sequel,' which opened to strong critical reviews and followed the success of a previous hit, fell short.

*

"I guess the only thing anyone in this business can think is that parents are hypocritical when they demand kid movies but don't take their kids to see them," he added. "I'm sad to say this, but I will certainly think 17 times before I make another 'Alaska.' "

Even Disney's animated "Hunchback of Notre Dame," which has taken in $97 million domestically, didn't come close to the studio's earlier animated blockbusters, such as "The Lion King" and "Aladdin."

Bill Mechanic, president of 20th Century Fox, who hails from Disney and knows the genre inside out, saw the demise of traditional family fare coming.

"We made a strategic move to get out of the kid movie business as we've known it, a year ago," said Mechanic, whose studio released the summer's biggest blockbuster, "Independence Day." "Kid-oriented movies have been in trouble. [PG-13-rated] 'Nutty Professor' and 'Independence Day' have become the kid movies, the new family films. . . .

" 'ID4' worked this summer because it was fresh, something different. But if you look at the action genre overall, what you learned from this summer was that it needs reinvention. You can't get away with just explosions and a big action star anymore. Look at ones that didn't work as well as they would have in summers past."

A prime example is Arnold Schwarzenegger's costly "Eraser," which finally cracked $100 million at the box office this week--its 13th week in theaters. By comparison, Nicolas Cage and Sean Connery's "The Rock" and Tom Cruise's "Mission: Impossible" hit nine figures much quicker.

But all three of these star-studded action films were outdone by two films with far lower star wattage.

"I don't want to overstate the obvious, but there's a reason why 'Twister,' which was first out, and 'ID4' did well," Mechanic said. "Special effects was the star."

And now, he says, Hollywood will have to keep upping the ante in that realm as well. But such hefty spending makes pictures more, not less, appealing to produce, according to some in the industry.

"Except for the interruption of the Olympics midstream, a little armchair analysis would probably leave you with this: It is less risky to make five $80-million-plus pictures than five $20-million pictures," said Craig Jacobson of the entertainment law firm of Hansen, Jacobson, Teller & Hoberman, which represents several top Hollywood clients.

"Now that you've caught your breath try and understand the reasoning: Maybe the potential loss is so much less on a smaller-budget picture, but the hunger for movie spectacular is so much greater.

"Summer '96 was a high-stakes poker game. The winners were pretty much all big rolls of the dice, really not a modestly priced picture in that group. And success at that price raises the fear in this business to an entirely different level," Jacobson said.

For years, Warner Bros. has resisted shifting to lower-budget productions, continuing to pump out pricey, fanfare productions--a strategy that led to the success this summer of "Twister" (co-produced with Universal), "A Time to Kill" and "Tin Cup."

Advertisement
Los Angeles Times Articles
|
|
|