New at BOP: Review: Matrix Resurrections Movie Review: Moonfall Movie Reviews: Scream The #1 Movie in America November Forecast The Many Saints of Newark October Forecast New Trivia Question All site updates Share & Save   Tweet Print this column

David Mumpower: John Hamann had asked me a couple of weeks ago what I thought of the prospects for Battle: Los Angeles. He thought it could wind up in the upper 30s. My arguments against such a proposition were that it seemed too smallish for that, it probably gets unfairly dinged by comparison to Skyline, the last District 9 knockoff and I also worried about the fact that people won't watch V for free and that one has name recognition. In short, I thought that there was anything but a level playing field for this release. As such, I think everyone is being a bit too withdrawn in their praise for a movie that nobody seems to like that had so much going against it opening (just) north of $35 million.

Technically, the genre was oversaturated this weekend alone.

Kim Hollis: Do we think these District 9/Skyline/Battle: Los Angeles type films can work indefinitely, or is the genre already saturated?

Matthew Huntley: Already saturated for sure, but as long as they keep making money, studios will (unfortunately) keep green-lighting them (Skyline might have been one to hurt the genre, but it only cost $10 million to make).

I've yet to see Battle: Los Angeles, but it looks so derived from District 9 and Independence Day that it almost seems deliberate and I, for one, am growing tired of these movies. They're fun for a while, but aside from District 9 and its thoughtful social commentary, there's no fresh spin on any of them. It's either aliens or natural disasters that always are wreaking havoc. Surely there must be something else out there that can cause destruction. Screenwriters, start brainstorming!

Brett Beach: Having recently seen District 9, I would want to protect its reputation by not lumping it in with Skyline and this. Among other things, I was glad that the creatures in that film were so unique and creatively designed. From what I read in Ebert's scathing smackdown of Battle: Los Angeles, the "aliens" are machines that are complete and utter eyesores and the characters are one-note ciphers. No genre is dead in Hollywood as long as a team of individuals approaches it with a fresh eye (or at least the marketing team designs a trailer that portrays the film as such).





Edwin Davies: It's a genre that seems pretty easy to do (aliens + digital, handheld aesthetic x explosive, trailer-friendly money shots = [ever decreasing] piles of cash) but difficult to do really well. District 9 seems to be the pinnacle of the genre, though, like Brett, I'd be loath to lump that film in with Battle: Los Angeles. It's a much more intelligent and inventive film which is largely why it captured the imaginations of people in a way which its imitators have not been able to. (District 9 opened to a slightly higher $37 million but went on to earn $115 million, a 3.1 multiplier that no one could seriously expect Battle: LA to replicate.)

As long as the trailers look spectacular enough to get people interested and the budgets are kept low, these kind of gritty invasion films will continue to have good enough opening weekends to justify their existence but it's going to take something really special to turn one of them into something other than a one-weekend wonder.

Reagen Sulewski: Personally, I think these last two films could poison the well for the genre with how bad they are. It's not really rational behavior, but audiences tend to think of a film's quality by the most recent film in that genre they saw. Think about how your expectations for comic book movies diminished after Spider-Man 3. Personally, I wouldn't advise any studio to be the next one out with a film like this.

Kim Hollis: I agree, Reagen. Let's stay away from this type of subject matter unless you're the District 9 sequel...or prequel. Audiences are definitely going to shy away from anything that they perceive as being in this "genre" right now, and rightfully so. I'm not so sure why we've got to be all excited to destroy the world anyway. It always seems in such poor taste to me, even on weekends when we don't have some sort of massive real-life natural disaster.

David Mumpower: I disagree with Brett and Edwin's differentiation of District 9 for the simple reason that it's the causality for the release of the others. Matthew is correct to describe that one as special due to its "thoughtful social commentary", and that's the problem we frequently see with these derivative releases. They ape the wrong part of a popular project. District 9 without the "thoughtful social commentary" looks just like Skyline and Battle: Los Angeles. That's exactly what it is without that one special component that sets it apart and makes it noteworthy. The problem is that the imitators are sullying its good name with the lazy duplications of the general theme of, "Aliens show up, Earth goes boom". For better or for worse (in this case, the latter) this is the new variation on monument porn.

Also, the one aspect of this that I'm uncomfortable to bring up that I think had crept in everyone's mind is whether the tragic events in Japan would diminish people's taste for an in-release disaster flick. With only a 34% decline from Saturday to Sunday and a 2.65 internal multiplier (weekend box office divided by Friday box office), it's fair to say that Battle: Los Angeles was (largely) unaffected. For comparison, Skyline had a 2.47 and District 9 had a 2.64, meaning it (marginally) outperformed a vastly superior film.

Continued:       1       2       3