Movie Franchises Past Their Prime: A Dearth (or is that Darth?) of Creativity and Relevance

If the year 2008 has moviegoers experiencing strong feelings of deja vu, it's not without good reason. Let's travel back in time for a moment to the summer of 1989, which was probably the first of the really big blockbuster summers at the box office.

The big players that year: Tim Burton's eagerly awaited rendition of Batman, with Jack Nicholson whooping it up as the Joker and interest further stoked by the controversial casting of Michael Keaton as the Caped Crusader. There was also Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade, with Harrison Ford and Sean Connery doing the father-son thing. James Bond returned in Licence to Kill, in the person of the intense and no-nonsense Timothy Dalton. And the Starship Enterprise launched once again in Star Trek V: The Final Frontier.

Fast-forward to 2008: Christopher Nolan will continue his take on Batman this summer with The Dark Knight, which again features the Joker, but likely a very different take on the character from Heath Ledger (and if I were a betting man, I'd guess that Jack will be pretty much forgotten once we see Heath's performance). Indiana Jones will be back looking for the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull, and rumor has it again doing the father-son thing, only this time Harrison Ford is the dad and Shia LaBeouf is his son by Karen Allen, who returns as Marion Ravenwood from the original film. Nobody connected with the film will confirm this, but it's been a persistent rumor, and probably true.

James Bond will be back for his 22nd official big screen adventure, in the person of the intense and no-nonsense Daniel Craig. And the Starship Enterprise will launch once again before year's end with the J.J. Abrams reboot of Star Trek, in which Captain Kirk and his crew will all be recast with younger actors, although Leonard Nimoy will return as a considerably aged Spock.

There are a lot of great things to look forward to here, although clearly none of them are new or original concepts. These are all franchises that have been around for years. Is the interest still there? Are they still relevant for today's moviegoing audiences?

Well, with the exception of Indiana Jones, each of these series have been on their deathbed at least once (sometimes more than once) and somehow been miraculously resuscitated. Some of them, arguably, should not have been resuscitated, based on the poor quality of previous installments. There have been plenty of examples in the past of series that should have left well enough alone, but insisted on making one or more too many trips to the well.

Take Batman. The Dark Knight is now the sixth Caped Crusader film since his big screen launch back in 1989. The argument can be made that Chris Nolan's films are a separate franchise from the four that came earlier, but it was really a miracle that Nolan ever got his chance to explore Gotham City, given what Joel Schumacher did to the Bat-films during the 1990s. Tim Burton's first two films were brilliant and dazzling, from a visual and production design standpoint, although clearly his take on Batman was not exactly the same as the DC Comics version. But on its own terms, it worked, much like the way Stanley Kubrick took Stephen King's book The Shining, changed the focus and emphasis of the material and created something that is arguably better than what the horror maestro set down in print. But Burton's second Batman film met with critical disapproval and not as much boffo box office, and so he was basically pushed out of the director's chair and Schumacher was brought in.

Schumacher's first attempt, Batman Forever, was fairly mediocre, but still not so bad that the idea of further Bat-films was out of the question. That would come with his second try, 1997's Batman and Robin. Clearly, Michael Keaton was right to run for the hills after Burton was shown the door. Batman and Robin had all kinds of problems, from miscasting (George Clooney as Batman) to hammy overacting (Arnold Schwarzenegger as Mr. Freeze) to incredibly stupid story decisions. There was the character of Batgirl, played by Alicia Silverstone. We already had Robin by this point, so why does Batman need yet another young sidekick? Then there was that whole movie of the week subplot in which Alfred is dying of some disease. And then there was Bane, who suffered a fate much like Venom did in last year's Spider-Man 3. Here are two great villains from the comics who the fans were eager to see on the big screen after so many years, and both get half-baked treatment. In the case of Bane, his muscles and veins look fake. Couldn't they have found a real bodybuilder to play the part? It's not as though any serious acting chops were needed.

The fourth Bat-film was clearly the death knell for the original franchise. Miraculously, we got another chance with the Nolan films -- and, so far at least, he seems to be doing everything right. There is a parallel to be made with the Alien series, which started out with four films focusing on the character of Ripley and then turned into arguably another franchise known as Aliens vs. Predator, which has spawned two films so far. I haven't seen the crossover movies, so I can't comment on them, but the original series (or, at least, the initial trilogy) is very near and dear to my heart. The first two films are undisputed classics. A lot of people do not like Alien 3; most of those people have not seen the expanded version on DVD, which puts back almost 30 minutes of footage that had been taken out for the theatrical release. The restored version is a good film, worthy of standing along its predecessors and rounding out a solid trilogy. But then, they had to go and make Alien: Resurrection.

The talent was there: Jean-Pierre Jeunet as director, Joss Whedon as writer. But something obviously went very wrong. The band of diverse characters, which has been a key element in all the films in this series, just did not ring true this time, somehow. The idea of a Ripley clone was stupid. Why not just let her die with dignity and make the effort of creating a new hero? And then there's that whole business with her "offspring" -- the less said about that, the better.

Both Batman and Alien were cases where a trilogy would have been enough, and a fourth film was clearly a bad idea. Unfortunately, Hollywood never seems to learn its lesson. Another case in point: Die Hard. Last year, we got a fourth dose of John McClane, sort of. The character had the same name, and was played by the same actor, but that's where the similarities stopped. In the original film, which is now a classic, the appeal of McClane was that he was an ordinary guy, NOT a superman, who was trapped in a claustrophobic, seemingly impossible situation where he had to rely on his wits to win. The second and third films were basically faithful to this concept; granted, the third film had McClane running all over New York rather than being trapped in a relatively confined setting, but the movie still worked. But last summer, Live Free or Die Hard (a stupid title, by the way) had McClane as Terminator, basically, jumping onto jet planes and doing all sorts of impossible, death-defying feats that totally contradict why we loved the character in the first place.

As I said, Hollywood never learns its lesson. Now we're threatened with more visits from the ghosts of blockbusters past. Sylvester Stallone is coming back as Rambo -- why? Because he can? Then we're told another whole Terminator trilogy is coming. Didn't anyone learn anything from the Star Wars prequels? I suppose we also have not seen the last of Shrek, Spider-Man, Jason Bourne or Captain Jack Sparrow. It's enough to put you off popcorn.

I talked earlier about relevance. Clearly, Nolan has made Batman relevant again, by giving us a gritty Gotham City that at least is more plausible than Burton's Gothic fantasy rendering. So I'm going to give his films to come the benefit of the doubt. But Alien is a series whose time has passed, and so are all the others that I just mentioned. Spider-Man 3 had lots of problems, and I think they should just leave well enough alone. Since it sounds like the director and stars do not want to return anyway, I'd prefer they just put Spidey to rest. All the good villains have been used up anyway. As for Terminator, the last installment of that series was a letdown -- basically a lukewarm rehash of what had already been done far better by more skilled directors. And John Connor is becoming like Felix Leiter or Ernst Stavro Blofeld: every time you see him, he's played by a different actor. Now it's supposed to be Christian Bale -- the current Batman. I guess those films aren't paying him the big bucks, as this clearly smacks of being a financial decision on his part.

My prediction for 2008: the big (surprise) hit will be Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull. This is the one series that has really had no duds so far. Some people may not have liked Temple of Doom, but it was well received overall and a big box office hit. Plus, Indy brings with him a nostalgia factor, for all those 30-somethings like me who grew up with him. I think he's the one holdover from the summer of 1989 who is a guaranteed success.

And if Indy is a hit, will four chapters then become the mark of a successful series? Unlikely. Many series, as noted, have already gone four films with poor results. Unless we're talking about an extended saga, like Star Wars or Harry Potter (and Star Wars obviously had its problems), then four would seem to be a decidedly unlucky number.