Even the Jimmy Fallon/Queen Latifah caper Taxi sold more tickets in America than two of the three Transporter films, as did Jet Li's 2001 thriller Kiss of the Dragon as well as the ghastly recent Robert De Niro/Michelle Pfeiffer comedy The Family. For example, Zoe Saldana's Colombiana earned $61m worldwide. Now those two sequels are the biggest-grossing Luc Besson-produced films on a global basis outside of the Taken films and arguable outliers Lucy and The Fifth Element. But they don't stand out as an uber-valuable franchise that must be saved at all costs. Transporter and Transporter 3 earned $25m and $31m in America while Transporter 2 earned $43m domestic. All of these films cost around $25-$30m to produce. The original Transporter (2oth Century Fox) earned just $43m worldwide in 2002. Not adjusted for inflation, The Transporter 3 (Lions Gate Entertainment) earned $109 million worldwide in 2008 while The Transporter 2 (20th Century Fox) earned $85m worldwide in 2005. More importantly, they are not that much more successful than a stereotypical "one-and-done" Luc Besson action movie. But here's the rub: The Transporter movies are not all that successful. But let's be honest, George Lazenby didn't work out and it wasn't until Roger Moore's third entry ( The Spy Who Loved Me, which followed the genuine flop Man with the Golden Gun) that the franchise escaped Connery's shadow. When Sean Connery left after his fifth 007 film, the producers had to recast as they were coming off a string of massive hits ( Thunderball and Goldfinger both earned over $500 million in adjusted-for-2015 ticket sales) and the Ian Fleming source material and the franchise tropes were arguably enough to keep it going. If the Transporter franchise were a super-duper successful action franchise, I could totally understand the powers-that-be wanting to keep it alive even via recasting what is the prime reason for its popularity. Without the headliner, it's just another random action movie. But continuing The Transporter without its key component is a lot like making a new Rambo movie without Sylvester Stallone or making a new Die Hard film without Bruce Willis. The franchise was successful because Jason Statham was a lot of fun in them and the surrounding movies (especially the second one) were tolerable enough to justify the ride.
The franchise wasn't (relatively) popular because audiences were thrilled by the world in which in inhabited, nor were they dazzled by the world of underground criminal transporting. Just when old-school action heroes were being supplanted by boy wizards and superheroes, the first Transporter felt like a genuine throwback to 80's style action movies, and Statham looked like a genuine attempt to fashion a new action movie star. The reason people saw and/or liked the prior three Transporter movies is because of Jason Statham's genuine star power/screen charisma. Yet, the question remains, why exactly did the folks at Europacorp decide that this franchise needed to be kept alive without its marquee star? And The Transporter is the Live and Let Die of Transporter films. Thus in this new fourth installment, Ed Skrein plays noted "guy who drives other people around and gets into fights" dude who really should have been referred to as "Not Jason Statham" by the film's supporting cast. The only reason it's not being discussed in straight sequel terms is because Jason Statham didn't want to come back and thus Europacorp just went and recast his character. Yes, it's intended to reignite interest in the franchise, but it doesn't retroactively negate everything that came before it. Batman Forever is a sequel. Technically speaking, The Transporter: Refueled isn't a reboot either. I know we like to call almost anything a reboot, but there is a difference between a sequel, a remake, and a reboot. Rise of the Planet of the Apes was a reboot.
0 kommentar(er)
