EX3: Franchise Fatigue or Bad Marketing?

Let's take a look at the recent release of The Expendables 3. Now, while some may just write it off as "nobody wanted another movie about a team of action geriatrics", which would adhere to the franchise fatigue theory, there may be more to it than meets the eye.

In order for a film sequel to do well or match/increase over its predecessor, the film must offer something fresh and different. The addition of Arnold Schwarzenegger and Bruce Willis (in a meatier roles), Chuck Norris, Jean-Claude Van Damme, Scott Adkins, Liam Hemsworth and Yu Nan to The Expendables 2 didn't add much to the box office performance in the US, so I don't know why Avi Lerner, Stallone and Millennium Films assumed that approach would work in this third outing by adding Harrison Ford, Antonio Banderas, Wesley Snipes, Mel Gibson etc. (which I admit are some big names from the action genre of the last 30 years). These stars are not box office draws anymore. It's cool to see these stars in one film, but that novelty ran out shortly after The Expendables in 2010. This formula is no longer enough to convince the general movie-going population to cough up $8 to $10 to see the film in cinemas.

Knowing that adding stars to the franchise does not add much to the demand of these movies, it is baffling why this franchise seems to take such an uninspiring angle when marketing the prospect to a general audience. The fans of the genre (and specifically of the series) already bought their tickets months ago, so there is absolutely no immediate need to aim any marketing directly at them (they love anything that is released with the words 'The Expendables' written on it). The key to success (at least in the US) is to change the opinions and attract a new audience; people that haven't decided on whether they will see it yet. Why then, do they continue to market these films the same? Three Expendables movies later and they are all marketed identically; "Let's get the gang to just stand there in a line. That'll bring in new viewers!". Evidently not.

Now there are other reasons why The Expendables 3 is not performing as greatly as its predecessors. Approximately 1 month before its release in cinemas, a leaked version appeared online. Prior to its release, 22 million downloads were recorded worldwide. That's single downloads. Not to mention the tons of people that will watch the leaked version with friends and then maybe even send that copy to others. The damage is detrimental to any film, especially a film that had an uphill battle to begin with.

The Expendables 3 was also the first film in this franchise to be rated PG-13 (12A in the UK), which means the film is allowed one F-bomb and no excessive gore (which means that when Stallone and the gang kill anyone, the baddies will just fall to the floor and/or the scene will be cut before the blood was shown). This is a very strange decision by Millennium Films, Avi Lerner, and Stallone as it instantly alienates the film's core audience that pay to see the action/violence of the 80s in a modern film with the action stars of that same period. This risky strategy, while assuredly upsetting its fans, is also not a guarantee to pull in the younger audience (that this decision was made in order to attract). So the film loses out on both demographics. To teenagers, these action stars are not in demand right now. They're old, doing old stunts, telling old jokes, and appealing to older people. Why even try and interest them in a film that they have no interest in? It's a very strange strategy. Trying to emulate blockbusters such as Fast Five, Fast Six, and The Bourne series by lowering the rating is an odd idea and suggests that the producers don't truly understand their own product and its core audience. Vin Diesel, Matt Damon and Dwayne Johnson are appealing to the younger crowd. The Governator, John Rambo, and Indy; not so much. So why risk so much for such little potential gain?

The trailers for the film, while exciting to fans of the franchise, also did little to give anybody else a reason to see the film. Each trailer effectively positioned itself as roll-call trailers because the cast is so huge that it takes nearly a minute to go through each cast member, that by the end there is only enough time left for some jokes, guys laughing, an explosion or two and that's it. Where is the hook? Anybody can see all of those things from any of the films of the last 30 years from each of the big-named action stars in The Expendables 3. To put it bluntly; there was no value proposition. People didn't expect to see anything different than they had already seen in The Expendables or The Expendables 2, and they decided to show that with their action of not buying a ticket.

Now, each movie in this franchise has some memorable or interesting piece of marketing (usually in the early stages and usually from Comic-Con), but when it hits the home straight, it gets awfully generic and we start to see every poster as a line-up of heroes instead of showing us the brilliance/uniqueness of each film. The Expendables 2 produced its own version of "The Last Supper" which, while still a line-up, managed to stand out and set the film apart. The Expendables 3 had its super-colourful poster montage. But why wasn't this built upon?

So what do you think; The Expendables 3; Uninspiring Marketing or Franchise Fatigue? or a little bit of both?