Seems like every film you go see these days at the MEGAMOVIEPLEX has a number in the title. METAL-MORPHO-ROBO-BASHERS VI, HACKSLASHSTAB  IV, RADIOACTIVE CARIBOU MAN 12.5...and so on. The word franchise is as telling as any about the present state of filmmaking. In the past the word franchise used to be synonymous with fast food chain restaurants (often characterized with anthropomorphic cows, chickens, and pigs encouraging you to tuck into their various succulent body parts) but in recent years has come to include any sufficiently popular property that can be exploited over and over again. Remade. Re-imagined. Rebooted. Re-cycled.

Regurgitated.

Why be original, when you can make as much money shilling the same old sh*t in a shiny new package?

Comic book properties (and now, the latest Hollywood trend, board games) are ideal in that they come with a built-in recognition factor and thus come pre-publicized. No matter how bad the final product is, the recognition alone is guaranteed to put bums in seats. Often film studios already know how much they stand to make without even one frame of film being exposed. It's a low-risk investment. As film budgets and marketing costs soar ever higher, so do producers' anxiety. Nobody wants to risk a hundred million dollars unless it is a sure thing, and that's why most studio blockbusters are formulated to appeal to the lowest common denominator. You.

That's right. John Q Public is largely to be blamed for the oncoming Tsunami of cinematic sewage. Often too lazy to deal with the mental calisthenics required for dealing with something new or unusual, the moviegoers fall back on something familiar. At $20 a pop (not to mention $20 for a pop at the concession stand), who wants to take a chance on an unknown?

No, the latest 'Sequel: Part II' may be crap, but at least we know it's crap...'cuz that's exactly what we ordered! If the filmmakers are lazy, it's because we, as an audience, became lazy first.

It's a Catch-22. Climbing movie and video prices have made us risk averse, which makes studios risk averse. Is lowering prices the answer? Would you be more willing to take a chance on an independent or foreign film if the financial stakes weren't so high? Sure you would. But it'll never happen. No, the studios don't want you paying less or seeing a film they didn't finance. No, they want to sell you their own proprietary SUPERSIZED deal; flashy, candy-coated, but ultimately empty...just like the popcorn you're hustled at the concession.

Reviewing a franchise blockbuster can usually be summed up with either "cool" or "sucked."  What's more to say than that? I'm not saying don't see the occasional Michael Bay film. Heck, even I want a greasy cheeseburger, fries and cola from time to time. But next time, why not take a chance outside your comfort zone? See something unusual or foreign. That's where the real interesting stuff is because independent filmmakers are not bound by the same impotent mindset in which the big studios are stuck. These are the mavericks, the ones who take the chances and buck the system. You may like it, or you may not, but one way or another it will stimulate thought, opinion, and present you with ideas or cultures you may never have experienced before. That is what the best films do...and isn't that worth the price of admission?