Movie retreads on the skids

In recent years, everyone in the movie business has been scrambling to churn out sequels, remakes and retreads, justifying the unseemly artistic results by trumpeting the killing they’ve made at the box office. Well, if you’ve been keeping tabs over the past six weeks, the scorecard reads: Moviegoers: 5. Risk-Averse Studios: 1.

If you’d put your ear to the door at almost any studio in town last week, you could’ve heard someone saying, “Geez, maybe getting audiences to spend $9.50 for a half-baked update of a (fill in the blank: TV spy show/’30s adventure movie/’60s thriller/’70s art-house classic) isn’t such a slam-dunk after all.”

The muttering was especially loud at Sony Pictures, where the studio’s supposed sure thing “I Spy” staggered into the theaters with a feeble $12-million opening weekend. “The Four Feathers,” a lavish remake co-financed by Paramount and Miramax, did even worse, making $18 million in its brief stay in theaters. “Swept Away,” the Madonna-starring remake of Lina Wertmuller’s 1975 original, disappeared after making a paltry $598,000 in its short run. Jonathan Demme’s “The Truth About Charlie,” an update of Stanley Donen’s “Charade,” has stumbled badly, barely doing $4 million in its first two weeks. Even the $90-million “Red Dragon,” a third installment in the Hannibal Lecter series that was supposed to be Universal’s big moneymaker this year, has been such a lackluster performer that it probably won’t hit the $100-million mark, a steep drop-off from last year’s $165-million-grossing “Hannibal” sequel.

The only retread to have a solid opening was Disney’s “Santa Clause 2,” which has made about $60 million in its first two weeks. Even it will be hard-pressed to top the original, which made $144 million in 1994 and was so well-liked that it did better in its third weekend of release than its first.

The common denominator with nearly every failure was a woeful absence of originality, not to mention ambition. No matter how hard Hollywood tries to brainwash moviegoers into embracing familiarity, when we gather in the dark we crave something fresh and new. Maybe that’s why films such as “The Ring,” “My Big Fat Greek Wedding” and “Barbershop” have found such surprisingly large, loyal audiences.

Making movies is never going to be a risk-free business. In recent years studio chieftains have extolled franchise movies the way 1999-era stock analysts used to puff up dot-com IPOs. Sequels were the showbiz equivalent of easy money, providing a soothing predictability to a notoriously topsy-turvy business. Even the vocabulary changed -- studio tycoons began talking about movies as if they were part of a stock portfolio. Asked last year about Warner Bros.’ studio-wide efforts to launch dozens of different franchises, Chairman Barry Meyer enthused, “We’re looking to extend these properties over multiple platforms” -- now there’s a phrase to get moviegoers’ hearts pumping.

But not every property has been a winner like “Austin Powers” or “Rush Hour.” Billed as this summer’s big kid hit, “Stuart Little 2” was a crushing disappointment. “The Scorpion King,” a much-touted spinoff of the “Mummy” series, did less than half the business of the “Mummy” sequel.

Studios are now making sequels out of films that didn’t even make $60 million at the box office. “It used to be that a film had to make $100 million to justify a sequel,” says industry box-office expert Paul Dergarabedian, president of Exhibitor Relations Inc.

“Now all a film has to do is have a big opening weekend. Sometimes people don’t even look at the end results.”

“I Spy” was viewed as a can’t-miss hit, but now the industry’s Monday morning quarterbacks are searching for answers. It’s deeply ingrained in Hollywood culture that there must be an explanation for every flop; no one likes to admit that audiences turned up their noses because the movie -- heaven forbid -- was unwatchable.

Most of the blame for “I Spy’s” demise is being placed on the usual suspects: the marketing campaign, which was especially insipid even by major studio standards, and the stars, in particular Eddie Murphy, who has now headlined three consecutive bombs, with “I Spy” following “Pluto Nash” and “Showtime.” Murphy’s casting offers a classic example of how clueless Hollywood can be. “I Spy” was aimed at a young male audience, which looks at Murphy and sees ... Bill Cosby. The right star for the picture would’ve been DMX or Ice Cube, hip-hop icons who have credibility with young male moviegoers. (Witness Eminem, whose film, “8 Mile,” had a huge opening this week- end.)

Co-star Owen Wilson gets off easier, though many view him as an actor whose quirky charm goes over in Hollywood and New York -- and almost nowhere in between.

“I Spy” turned out to be an old TV title, like Will Smith’s “Wild Wild West,” which had no resonance with anyone under 40. Even its premise felt dated. There have been so many seismic changes in America’s youth culture over the past few years that the whole “I Spy” hook -- teaming a black hipster with a repressed white guy -- has a been-there-seen-that vibe with young moviegoers.

Talk about being behind the curve: Hollywood has become relentlessly brand-conscious at precisely the time when Madison Avenue has discovered that young consumers have less brand loyalty than ever before. Exploiting a brand is fine if you’re promoting family fare like “Harry Potter” or “Shrek” (parents live for the arrival of a reassuring brand), but it carries increasingly less weight with teens.

Today’s most effective advertising sells attitude, not brand. If movie execs want a scary lesson in diminished brand loyalty, just look at the music business, where fans have become totally song-oriented, leaving artists in the lurch. Alanis Morissette’s “Jagged Little Pill” sold 14.1 million copies; her follow-up album sold 2.5 million copies. Lauren Hill’s “Miseducation” CD sold 6.2 million copies; her follow-up CD, released earlier this year, has sold only 432,000 copies.

This audience capriciousness has already seeped into the movies: Just ask the makers of “Scary Movie,” whose sure-thing sequel did barely 40% the business of the original.

That doesn’t mean sequels are inherent evils: I wouldn’t miss “The Matrix Reloaded” or “Lord of the Rings: The Two Towers” or “X-Men 2,” and I’m looking forward to seeing what David Fincher can do with the “Mission Impossible” franchise and Alfonso Cuaron does with the third “Harry Potter.” But those films are in the hands of filmmakers who thrive on risk and daring. My hopes aren’t as high for “Scooby-Doo 2.”

*

(BEGIN TEXT OF INFOBOX)

The second time around

Here’s a look at a few upcoming sequels I’m betting have especially questionable commercial prospects.

“Tomb Raider 2”

The original made $131 million last year, but the number that counts is 59%, which is the amount the film dropped in its second weekend of business, a sign of deep dissatisfaction. More worrisome, the film’s star, Angelina Jolie, is no longer the industry’s It Girl. Her fan base has moved on to other female stars, and her last two vehicles, “Life or Something Like It” and “Original Sin,” were bombs. The sequel, due next summer, is being directed by Jan De Bont, who is many things but not a career rejuvenator.

“Final Destination 2”

New Line has lots of valuable franchises, but this isn’t one of them. The original was a low-budget surprise, doing $53 million in 2000. But the sequel, due next year, has a no-name cast and a first-time director who is best known as a second-unit director. The sequel is being positioned as a date-night thriller, but it’ll need a great trailer and release date to make you believe this will work any better than “Town and Country 2.”

“Jeepers Creepers 2”

The original, a low-budget MGM horror flick, made $37.5 million, but it opened on Labor Day, the least-competitive weekend of the year. The sequel, due in April, will be up against stiffer competition. “Scream” was a real franchise. Jeepers, shouldn’t this be a direct-to-video sequel?

“Shanghai Knights”

The original, “Shanghai Noon,” which teamed Jackie Chan with Owen Wilson, only did $57 million here (and even less overseas), despite the presence of Chan, who supposedly has a big international fan base. The sequel, due next year, will be a true test of whether Wilson can connect with a mainstream audience.

“Terminator 3: Rise of the Machines”

Due out July 4, 2003, this movie cost about $150 million, which is more than the total domestic gross of Arnold Schwarzenegger’s last three features together. Without “Terminator” creator James Cameron or a young name-actor on board, this looks like a huge financial risk. Warners paid $50 million for the domestic distribution rights, but the studio still has to persuade me that seeing Arnold battle a bunch of bad guys would be as interesting as watching him run for governor of California.

*

The Big Picture” runs each Tuesday in Calendar. If you have questions, ideas or criticism, e-mail them to patrick.goldstein@latimes.com.