Deep Focus

Long, long ago, blockbusters ruled the earth. They were gargantuan compared to the productions of today; they featured casts of thousands, budgets in the hundreds of millions of dollars, and they attracted droves of eager audience members.

Sadly, their reign did not last long. Wintry economic conditions rendered their bloated budgets unwieldy, and each year audiences arrived in smaller and smaller numbers until they were insufficient to justify the spectacles orchestrated for their consumption.

Even worse, a new breed of smarter and faster films crashed the scene: the independents. Their pint-sized budgets and rapid production cycles made them worthy competition for the lumbering blockbusters. As quickly as it began, the age of the blockbusters came to an end. Or so Hollywood’s prophets of doom and gloom would have you believe.

These industry analysts are not entirely incorrect; according to The Hollywood Reporter, attendance slid from 1.54 to 1. 4 billion moviegoers between 2004 and 2005—an 8.7% drop. Unsurprisingly, revenue is down as well: the Motion Picture Association of America reports a 6% drop in domestic ticket sales and a 7.9% decline internationally.

Ironically, the direst predictions about the fate of the blockbuster come from the man whose mega-grossing films helped coin the term, George Lucas. In a recent interview with New York Daily News, the “Star Wars” mogul predicted that by 2025 the average budget of a studio film would be $15 million—less than most A-list stars’ asking salaries.

The most recent Academy Awards ceremony surely marked the ascendancy of independent filmmaking; four of the five best picture nominees were indies, and the lone big-budget picture—Spielberg’s “Munich”—yielded anemic box office results and failed to snag the top prize.

Likewise, the runaway success of niche films has been a source of consternation for major studios. “Madea’s Family Reunion”—Tyler Perry’s follow-up to his 2005 cult hit “Diary of a Mad Black Woman”—topped the box office for two weeks despite being targeted almost exclusively at African-Americans familiar with Perry’s stage productions.

Mel Gibson’s controversial 2004 film, “The Passion of the Christ,” enjoyed even greater success by casting itself as an anti-Hollywood production, and concentrating its publicity campaign in churches and other Christian-friendly venues. Seemingly, Hollywood has lost its hold on the imaginations of large segments of the film-going public.

High profile disappointments—like “Munich”—and slumping ticket sales are bound to send studio executives searching for unconventional movie concepts, but they are unlikely to entirely abandon the business of blockbuster film-making.

Consider the films currently in development: Warner Brothers is anticipating huge returns on their $250 million investment in the new “Superman” movie; Fox has high hopes for the third installment of its “X-Men” franchise; Disney is banking on “Cars” to justify the incredible expense of their Pixar acquisition; and Paramount is betting Tom Cruise’s tabloid antics won’t sink “Mission Impossible 3.”

The risks of blockbuster moviemaking are great, but they are offset by the potential for enormous profits. As long as big movies carry with them the possibility—however remote—of significant returns, someone will venture to make them.

And deep down, audiences want blockbusters. They are unique in their ability to unite vast numbers of individuals through a common cultural experience. The fanboys who camped outside of theaters to be first in line for the “Star Wars” prequels, the teenaged girls who watched and re-watched “Titanic” with their friends, and the office workers gathered around the water cooler all illustrate the social importance of the blockbuster; though the form may fall in and out of favor, it is too socially vital to ever go extinct.

—Staff writer Bernard L. Parham can be reached at parham@fas.harvard.edu.