The unambiguous success of “Barbie” and “Oppenheimer” sent a clear message to Hollywood: audiences are dying to see more auteur-driven, standalone blockbusters and will show up in droves if the movies are good. In a just world, the two films would kick off a new era of unprecedented Hollywood creativity. In our world, we might have to settle for 45 more Mattel movies.
The toy giant is moving ahead with an ambitious slate of film projects at various stages of development. Everything from Polly Pocket to UNO is on the table as studios try to extract another “Barbie” from the company’s IP library. While most cinephiles would be quick to point out that their interest in “Barbie” stemmed from the involvement of Greta Gerwig and her top-notch cast, Mattel seems to believe its other toys can generate similar levels of excitement.
You can’t blame a studio for trying. The gravity of the Marvel Cinematic Universe spun Hollywood off its axis years ago, centering already-popular IP as the money-printing sun of our storytelling galaxy. Hollywood’s love of a good sequel was nothing new, but traditional franchises were always limited by the time-consuming process of making a movie. Between balancing talent schedules and allocating time for long shoots, you were guaranteed a two or three year gap before a series could return. But the concept of cinematic universes blew up that formula. By making movies that simply exist in the same world as other movies, a studio can flood the market with a limitless supply of content that ensures nobody ever has time to miss their favorite franchises.
Things are bleak, and even those responsible for that bleakness know it. Anti-franchising commentary permeates film culture to the point of such spectacular self-parody that “Scream V” — er, “Scream” (2022) — and “The Matrix: Resurrections” effectively made the same joke about sequels within a month of each other. The Most Online movies push that shallow self-awareness even further, blatantly capitalizing on corporate partnerships and sucking up to brands in the process. Look at “Free Guy” and “Ralph Breaks the Internet”: kids’ films that personify and effectively canonize business logos as characters in entertainment alongside video games’ greatest heroes and Disney’s beloved princesses.
IP humor is more cloying than cute these days. But waxing philosophical about the tail-chasing disaster that is modern movie franchising is in itself a redundant activity. So rather than wallow in the sudsy sadness of the entertainment washing machine, we’re taking a stroll through the graveyard of franchise disasters we get schadenfreude from revisiting.
The following 11 disasterpieces represent some of the biggest swings-and-misses in TV and film. Not all of them are crossover events or feature explicit multiverses. But every project outstayed its welcome, and reminded audiences that sometimes once is enough.
With editorial contributions by Wilson Chapman and Marcos Franco.
-
The Mattel Cinematic Universe
Image Credit: ©Warner Bros/Courtesy Everett Collection What it interconnects: All of the unrelated toy brands owned by a single corporate entity. Hot off the success of “Barbie,” Mattel reportedly has 45 other films in various stages of development about toy properties including Hot Wheels, Magic 8 Ball, and yes, UNO.
Why that doesn’t work: To be fair, the Mattel Cinematic Universe has a 100% success rate so far. Greta Gerwig’s “Barbie” was the kind of zeitgeist-conquering success that every executive wishes they could develop. But it’s not a cinematic universe until you have at least two films, and Mattel’s future plans give us cause for skepticism. “Barbie” was a lightning-in-a-bottle moment that saw one of our most exciting filmmakers teaming up with an elite cast and an iconic property. Its success should be attributed to the market for high quality original filmmaking, not widespread interest in the Mattel brand. While we’re game to see Mattel try and recapture that magic, future projects like a Blumhouse-produced thriller about the Magic 8 Ball, an UNO movie starring Lil Yachty, and a Polly Pocket movie directed by Lena Dunham don’t inspire the same confidence. Here’s hoping the company keeps picking exciting filmmakers and affording them the same creative freedom that Gerwig enjoyed. —CZ
-
The Cars/Planes Transportation-Verse
Image Credit: ©Walt Disney Co./Courtesy Everett Collection What it interconnects: Cars that are inexplicably sentient and planes that are inexplicably sentient.
Why that doesn’t work: After years of consistently releasing thoughtful modern classics, Pixar’s “Cars” franchise always exuded the energy of a once-diligent parent throwing up their hands in apathy and letting their fourth kid eat pork rinds for dinner while watching Skinemax. The complex world-building and nuanced allegories were thrown to the wind in exchange for “cars, but they have eyes and mouths.” The franchise is riddled with contradictions (Sometimes they eat human food! Sometimes they just drink gasoline!), because the only thing that really matters is that it keeps kids occupied for two hours and sells toys.
It’s entirely unsurprising that someone at Disney Animation eventually wondered, “Hey, what other vehicles can we bring to life?” The direct-to-video “Planes” and its sequel “Planes: Fire and Rescue” give you all the shamelessness of the “Cars” franchise with none of the star power or intellectual heft. If the bulk of Pixar’s library is a testament to the idea that kids deserve quality cinema, The “Cars” and “Planes” universe is a rebuttal in favor of colorful drivel. —CZ
-
The Wizarding World
Image Credit: Courtesy Everett Collection What it interconnects: The beloved original eight film “Harry Potter” saga with Warner Bros.’ spinoff “Fantastic Beasts” series. Based on a tie-in in-universe field guide from the original “Harry Potter” books, the film series managed three movies released between 2016 and 2022 before flaming out due to declining box office returns.
Why that doesn’t work: Putting aside the J.K. Rowling of it all, “Harry Potter” worked because of the simple but universal wish-fulfillment fantasy it provided. It allowed us to imagine being the most special important chosen one of all time in the richly detailed setting of Hogwarts, which gave fans a perfect backdrop to project their own adventures on. Once the “Fantastic Beasts” films left behind the thrills of boarding school for the blah lives of a bunch of adult warlocks, the glaring flaws of Rowling’s Wizarding World became all the more apparent, and the magic ran dry all too quickly. —WC
-
The Hasbro Cinematic Universe
Image Credit: ©Paramount/Courtesy Everett Collection What it interconnects: The “Transformers” and “G.I. Joe” movies.
Why that doesn’t work: Up to now, even the most blatantly opportunistic cinematic universes made a cursory attempt at hiding their cynicism under a veil of narrative coherence. But the newly-launched Hasbro Cinematic Universe doesn’t even afford audiences that courtesy. The final scene of “Transformers: Rise of the Beasts” sees Anthony Ramos’ robot-wrangler recruited by a secret government agency that’s fighting a vague “intergalactic war.” Its name? G.I. Joe. The narrative gymnastics required to link the unrelated properties makes it abundantly clear that we’re simply watching a celebration of the fact that two toy brands are owned by the same corporate entity. Whatever crossover event Hasbro and Paramount are cooking up will almost certainly be exhausting, but things should get more interesting if they find a way to work Tonka Trucks and Monopoly into the mix. —CZ
-
The Dark Universe
Image Credit: Courtesy Everett Collection/Chiabella James What it interconnects: Universal’s latest attempt to monetize its library of classic movie monsters was an adult-oriented cinematic universe that started (and ended) with the 2017 Tom Cruise vehicle “The Mummy.” Despite lining up an A-list talent roster — whcih included Russell Crowe as Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde, Johnny Depp as The Invisible Man, and Angelina Jolie as the Bride of Frankenstein — the studio never convinced the moviegoing public that these legacy monsters were worth caring about.
Why that doesn’t work: This one is particularly tragic because there’s no real reason that it couldn’t have worked; Universal just failed to execute. It made the classic cinematic universe rookie mistake (side note: it’s absolutely tragic that such a term can even exist) by putting the cart before the horse and announcing the entire cast before a single film was released. All of the great cinematic universes gave the illusion of building organically, allowing audiences to fall in love with each character before wowing them with a team-up. When “The Mummy” opened as a critical and commercial failure, any hype for the would-be franchise instantly fizzled out. It was a tough break for a studio that controls virtually no valuable 20th century IP. But hey, there’s always more “Fast and Furious” movies to make. —CZ
-
The Conjuring Universe
Image Credit: Courtesy Everett Collection What it interconnects: James Wan brings together “The Nun,” “The Curse of La Llorona,” “The Conjuring,” “Annabelle,” and all sequels therein for an eight-film ode to supernatural malaise.
Why that doesn’t work: Critiquing the Conjuring-verse is risky business. On the one hand, the connective tissue between the original 2013 demonic possession flick and its seven(!) underwhelming follow-ups is easy to argue. The films are primarily tied together with symbolism and a painfully obvious reliance on the same six or so styles of jump scare. Not to mention, they share a washed-out appearance that’s been dull for more than a decade.
On the other hand, questioning that narrative connectivity is tantamount to challenging the existence of Satan — since the whole franchise is ostensibly rooted in the real experiences of paranormal investigators. So I’ll just say — as a matter of film critique alone — Wan’s sprawling cinematic universe fails to frighten because of its unending sameness.
Whether it’s the knockoff Regan McNeil-type in “The Devil Made Do It” or all the Catholic antics (Cathlantics?) of “The Nun,” the Conjuring Universe is shakily built on copycat tendencies and directors haunted by their predecessors’ mistakes… and victories. Only two of these are directed by Wan, and it shows. Standing alone, they might seem stronger. —AF
-
Sony’s Spidey-Less Spider-Verse
Image Credit: Courtesy Everett Collection What it interconnects: A hodgepodge of films starring characters connected to Spider-Man, without good old Peter Parker ever making a proper appearance. Consists of the delightful camp classic “Venom” in 2018, its more self-aware sequel “Let There Be Carnage” in 2021, and the Morbillian morbuck-grossing film “Morbius” in 2022. For maximum confusion, characters from the proper MCU have made crossovers via multiverse shenanigans. Future projects include films about Kraven the Hunter, Madame Webb, and El Muerto, and an Amazon TV series about the character Silk.
Why that doesn’t work: So far, the Sony universe films have only crossed over with each other via halting references in “Morbius” to the events of the “Venom” film series. But when more movies come out and the inevitable crossovers and team ups begin, the universe will be forced to confront a very fundamental flaw: these films star characters who are connected to each other by Spider-Man — whose very existences revolve around the web-slinger — but are expected to carry projects themselves while Sony loans out the iconic character to the MCU. How the leads in these films might bounce off each other without the crucial character that webs them all together is a problem worthy of setting off one’s Spider-Sense. —WC
-
The Expendables
Image Credit: Courtesy Everett Collection What it interconnects: Every aging action star whose alimony and child support obligations outweighed his earning opportunities in 2010.
Why that doesn’t work: The original “Expendables” found success by uniting the biggest himbos of the ’80s in a throwback to the kind of over-the-top, testosterone-fueled action flicks that once ruled the box office. And its 2012 sequel was justified by the fact that Arnold Schwarzenegger was free of his gubernatorial duties and able to appear in more than just a brief cameo. But by the time cast members drove tanks down the Croisette to promote “The Expendables 3″ at the Cannes Film Festival, it was clear that the series had overstayed its welcome. In hindsight, the franchise started to go off the rails when its lost sight of the fact that it was always meant to be a nostalgia-invoking novelty act. Attempts to build a larger cinematic universe hinged on the flawed notion that anyone knows or cares what an “expendable” is. A spin-off called “The ExpendaBelles” that would have featured the world’s deadliest female operatives going undercover as sex workers was mercifully scrapped in 2014, but franchise creator Sylvester Stallone is still developing a TV series that would take the action to the small screen (and probably slash the star power in the process). Here’s hoping he lets the series go out with a bang when “The Expendables 4” hits theaters this fall. —CZ
-
The (Still) Walking Dead
Image Credit: Courtesy AMC What it interconnects: AMC’s sprawling story of a zombie apocalypse, which sent shockwaves of thrill, excitement, and fear down the spines of gore-loving viewers — at first.
Why that doesn’t work: After more than a decade of slaying walkers by the hundreds, the repetitive cycle of conflict for the survivors-turned-stars of “The Walking Dead” became exhausting to watch.
When the show first premiered in 2010, viewers glued themselves to a story so unpredictable its shocking deaths birthed a macabre new genre of YouTube compilation. It introduced beloved actors, including Jon Bernthol and Steven Yeun, to the world and would propel their careers. But as the series tore through more and more story — snagging and unraveling in the process — “The Walking Dead” slowed to a painful, undending crawl through lacking resources and power-hungry leaders looking to recruit and/or kill our heroes.
There’s a whopping seven “Walking Dead” series to date: the original 11-season show, which just ended last year, and six spinoffs-worth of other nonsense streaming now or on the way. “Fear the Walking Dead,” “The Walking Dead: World Beyond,” “Tales of the Walking Dead”: it’s all beating the same dead horse. —MF
-
The Simpsons Guy
Image Credit: Courtesy Everett Collection What it interconnects: Classic Fox animated comedies “The Simpsons” and “Family Guy” crossed over after years of snippy rivalry in the 2014 episode of the latter, “The Simpsons Guy.” Depending on how you interpret the canonical status of a few throwaway gags, both also share a universe with “American Dad!,” “Bob’s Burgers,” “Futurama,” and a few other animated series aired on Fox (along with the short-lived “Cleveland Show,” which was a “Family Guy” spinoff).
Why that doesn’t work: “The Simpsons” and “Family Guy” may be two long-running animated shows that caused controversy with their raunchy humor in their heydays, but the series have very different sensibilities: “The Simpsons” is lighter and more character-focused, while “Family Guy” has a meaner, zanier streak. Could those two different forms of comedy combine to create something great? If so, it certainly wasn’t what happened; with its tired jokes (including a baffling, incredibly unfunny “sexy car wash” scene starring Homer and Peter), “The Simpsons Guy” is one of the all-time worst episodes from either show, and proof that some good things just shouldn’t mix. —WC
-
The (First Draft) DCEU
Image Credit: Courtesy Everett Collection What it interconnects: The Warner Bros. library of DC superheroes in a style that can only be described as “the Marvel Cinematic Universe, but dark.”
Why that doesn’t work: The DC Extended Universe might be the least forgivable entry on this list, as Marvel’s success provided a lucrative playbook that Warner Bros. could have simply copied. Instead, the studio did everything wrong. Marvel took its time to build hype for “The Avengers” by gradually introducing Iron Man, Thor, Captain America, and the Hulk as characters worthy of their own standalone films before bringing them together in 2012. But the massive success of “The Avengers” prompted Warner Bros. to cut corners as it sprinted to launch its own all-star franchise. The studio hastily introduced Ben Affleck’s Batman in the polarizing “Batman v. Superman: Dawn of Justice” before forging ahead with “Justice League.” Zack Snyder’s infamous blockbuster was derailed by some unavoidable tragedies that forced Joss Whedon to replace Snyder towards the end of the shoot, but the end result was a clear critical bomb and a major box office disappointment compared to “The Avengers.” The DCEU really went off the rails from there. The slate of films that followed — which included “Aquaman,” “Birds of Prey,” and “Shazam!” — contained some hits, but it was also full of wild tonal inconsistencies that derailed the illusion of coherence.
The DCEU also suffered from a lack of leadership. Marvel’s decision to give studio president Kevin Feige final say over its entire film output might be creatively frustrating for cinephiles, but it’s an undeniably efficient way to ensure you’re churning out a slate of content that’s easy for fans to follow. The studio appeared to realize its mistake when it turned creative control over to new DC Studios co-CEOs James Gunn and Peter Safran, who are taking a Marvel-inspired approach to their first slate of films. —CZ
