Same shit, different year

Something is very, very wrong in Hollywood. There is rarely such a thing as a new idea. Take a look at this list of the films that have topped their weekends at the box office this summer season and tell me if you notice a pattern:

5/4: Spider-Man 3
5/11: Spider-Man 3
5/18: Shrek the Third
5/25: Pirates of the Caribbean: At World's End
6/1: Pirates of the Caribbean: At World's End
6/8: Ocean's Thirteen
6/15: Fantastic Four: Rise of the Silver Surfer
6/22: Evan Almighty
6/29: Ratatouille
7/6: Transformers
7/13: Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix
7/20: I Now Pronounce You Chuck and Larry
7/27: The Simpsons Movie
8/3: The Bourne Ultimatum
8/10: Rush Hour 3

Noticing a trend? That's right - in 15 summer weeks, four of the top-grossing films have not been sequels. Four. And even that number is a little generous in terms of what it means to the box office; Transformers is an updating of a known property and The Simpsons Movie, coming on the heels of 18 seasons of a popular TV series, might as well be a sequel for all the built-in audience it has. So functionally two #1 movies this summer were actually anything resembling original, and one of those was I Now Pronounce You Chuck and Larry.

Isn't this kind of a bad thing? I know that movie studios will cling to any popular franchise as long as fans want to see it - and fully seven of the movies concerned were at least the third in their series - but what does it say about the moviegoing public that audiences are so easily satisfied? It's one thing with Bourne Ultimatum, which actually got rave reviews, but Rush Hour 3? Spider-Man 3 seemed to have terrible word of mouth yet it still topped the box office for two weeks in a row. And it takes so little to generate sequels these days; Ocean's Twelve and Fantastic Four were both modest hits that were critically panned, yet that was good enough for the studios to crank out another film for each franchise. In some cases it was the sequels that didn't top the box office that were as emblematic of the trend as anything - Live Free or Die Hard only opened in second place, but it was probably the least necessary sequel of the summer, coming 11 years after the previous installment.

It's not just the American public that should take the blame here; a film like Ocean's Twelve would probably not have gotten a sequel if not for the additional $200m-plus it took in overseas, all of which was pretty much icing on the cake once the domestic gross just made back the production and advertising budgets. But we in America do often seem to lead the clamor for more of the same. Whatever happened to movies that knew to leave well enough alone? Or perhaps more accurately, why aren't people more willing to give those kinds of movies a chance? It seems like any sequel to a movie that was even remotely popular is guaranteed to make $100 million unless it's released years later. (And Live Free or Die Hard has made $130m so far, so not even that seems to be enough.)

Here's all you really need to know: Ratatouille, which got outstanding reviews, has made close to $200 million. And that's very good. But Shrek the Third, a second sequel to a movie which wasn't that great to begin with, and which got mediocre reviews, has made more than $320 million. There is surely not just one reason why, but one of the biggest ones is unquestionably "because kids want to see Shrek again." Dreamworks has already announced its intention to bleed that stone dry with yet more Shrek films, and why not? Until the viewing public is willing to not throw $300 million at a Shrek movie, Hollywood is going to keep making them.

If sequels and remakes bother you as much as they do me, here are some movies to avoid coming up in the next few months:

The Invasion
Halloween
Resident Evil: Extinction
The Heartbreak Kid
Saw IV
National Treasure: Book of Secrets
Alien vs. Predator 2

There look to be plenty of watchable movies this fall. I doubt we need to encourage any of these.