We've all seen a disaster film. Some that come to mind for me are World War Z (2013), Interstellar (2014) and San Andreas (2015). The world crumbles, things get blown up/away and everything falls apart.
The most recent example of the genre is Don't Look Up. Based on the premise of a meteor hitting earth and wiping out humanity, the film gathers a group of scientists and average people as they attempt to convince humanity that there is a meteor and they must listen to the facts.
Unsurprisingly, the blockbuster did remarkably well on Netflix, and is nominated for Best Picture at the 2022 Oscars. But, why did it do so well? My consensus is that because people related to it. They drew parallels to the real world and the pandemic, saying that this is a more exaggerated version of real life.
But, is the point of a disaster film to be relatable? The case of Don't Look Up is questionable as it was arguably made to satirise and display what the world would be like if a meteor was really going to hit Earth. I don't think I could say the same for 2022's Moonfall.
The past two years have transformed and shaped the future forever. We've had a pandemic, a presidential election, and now we're on the brink of war. It was inevitable that this would translate to the world of film. For many, film is an escape. People don't want to pay to see the world destroyed when they can go outside and watch it for free.
The stats don't lie, either. Costing $150 million dollars to make, Moonfall only took $10 million dollars in its opening weekend.
After the past two years of non-stop news and harsh reality, viewers want a new world to escape to without waiting for something bad to happen.
Meanwhile, Licorice Pizza (released only two months before Moonfall) smashed the box office. Variety reported that 'From only four theatres in the country — two in New York and two in Los Angeles — “Licorice Pizza” brought in $335,000 in total and $83,852 per location, more than any other speciality film in nearly two years.'
What you have there are two very different films, on two polar opposite ends of audience response. One is set in the sunny and slick '70s, whilst another is from the bleak present day. Could these debuts overwhelmingly illustrate the end of disaster films? Cinema-goers want to escape. After the past two years of non-stop news and harsh reality, viewers want a new world to escape to without waiting for something bad to happen.
Take the Marvel franchise for example. Spiderman: No Way Home raked in an impressive $260 million dollars on its opening weekend (in the United States alone!). This ability to escape is what made the film so successful. Viewers can sit back and relax knowing it's set in a fantasy world with characters they adore. Yes, bad things may happen, but nothing that compares to the real world.
So, where do we go from here? Will Hollywood always churn out disaster films and expect success at the box office? Or, will the genre dissipate with cinema-goers simply looking outside and getting a free trip to the epic cinematic disaster that is our current lives? I guess we'll have to watch and see.
