For years, it has felt like almost all of Hollywood’s biggest releases come paired with some homework required to fully enjoy the films. Before even buying a ticket, audiences may be asked to remember the three previous films, catch up on a spin-off TV series and recognize various characters who all come with years of stories of their own. Recent box office trends suggest the beginning of a shift in audience interests, however. In the past few years, audiences have shown themselves increasingly willing to trade the workload of cinematic universes for unique standalone experiences – movies where the only thing expected of the audience is that they sit and watch.
The shift is visible in the unexpected box office successes of original films in the past two years. One such film is Ryan Coogler’s “Sinners,” a southern vampire story that blends horror, crime, drama and music, which ended up making over $370 million worldwide. Zach Cregger’s “Weapons,” a horror-mystery film about the sudden disappearance of 17 children in a small town, was another smash hit, earning $270 million worldwide. Both of these films had no prior franchises connected to them, immediately setting them apart from other box office hits that year.
Then came the most surprising hit of all – Curry Barker’s “Obsession.” Barker’s twisted horror film, made with roughly $750,000, cemented itself as one of the biggest theatrical surprises of the 2020s by passing $500 million worldwide and becoming the highest-grossing original film of the decade. The film’s premise of a man using a magic wish to receive the love of his crush with twisted and horrifying results hardly sounds like the setup to a modern blockbuster. In spite of this, audiences continued to show up in theaters for the movie. It even ended up increasing its box office earnings each week for the first four weekends of its theatrical release, a pattern that’s almost unheard of for the horror genre.
The biggest appeal of these movies is not the smaller scale, but freedom and accessibility to audiences. Everybody can enjoy these movies without having to delve into a franchise. Anybody can watch “Sinners” without knowing anything about the setting or characters beforehand. “Weapons” does not require any subscription or investment in a cinematic universe to understand the premise. These movies feature complete journeys that begin and end on their own terms.
This also gives filmmakers the freedom to experiment with risky new ideas for these films. “Sinners” jumps between genres and dynamically switches its aspect ratio for action scenes. “Weapons” structures the mystery around pieced-together perspectives from multiple different characters. “Obsession” embraces the strange logic of a surreal nightmare instead of smoothing its edges and becoming something familiar like its producers originally wanted it to be.
Even Paul Thomas Anderson’s nearly 3-hour-long political epic, “One Battle After Another,” which garnered widespread critical acclaim in spite of its theatrical losses, represents a similar bet. That bet being that audiences will be more willing to spend their time and money on a filmmaker’s vision rather than an established franchise in today’s media landscape.
The appeal for these films may be simpler than it seems. After years of receiving a watchlist before every theatrical release, audiences are gravitating toward movies that reward them for giving their attention and nothing more.
Cinematic universes are not leaving any time soon, but filmmakers are starting to realize that approaching films as art is just as viable for success as creating a blockbuster franchise.
Be the first to comment