Last week, I was reading a box office analysis that was addressing why The Lone Ranger failed to generate good returns, and was, for all intents and purposes, a box office flop. The report had all sorts of factors, such the lack of pull of the Western genre, Johnny Depp fatigue, a no name lead, it being a “new franchise film,” and other silly judgments. Then it talked about how Red 2 didn’t play up to the target demographic, and how although it was a sequel to a moderately successful first entry, THAT film itself was a fluke. Or something, whatever, who cares. The point is, would you like to know what both of these analyses failed to mention? THAT BOTH OF THESE MOVIES SUCKED.

I’m so sick and tired of this trend of box office over analyzation, because it doesn’t make any sense, and I feel it does more harm than good. When Green Lantern came out to tepid ticket sales, people were ready to decry the end of Ryan Reynolds’ career, as well as the decline of the super hero film genre. But I don’t think it had anything to do with Mr. Reynolds or the genre – I think they just made a film that sucked, and no one wanted to go watch it.

It’s so simple – I feel like I’m taking crazy pills here! The analysts are desperately searching for reasons why their terrible film, which got bad reviews and will only lead to bad word of mouth, isn’t motivating people to spend 10 dollars to watch it in theaters. Rather than blaming the genre or the audience or the position of the moon in relation to opening weekend, why don’t you just make a good movie? And if that’s harder to do than you’re capable of, don’t be so surprised when the film doesn’t do well.

Now, there are exceptions to this rule, of course. Dredd comes to mind as a pretty good movie that didn’t perform well. And plenty of bad movies do rake in a large amount of money. But the point is, when a terrible film makes a profit, don’t see that as the norm, or any sort of causation. Just because they keep making those terrible movies by “two of the 30 writers that wrote that one movie that was only okay,” doesn’t mean that should be the barometer by which all box office success is measured.

When Batman Begins was released, the analysts predicted failure. They cited issues such as a little known director making a tentpole film, Batman fatigue, and the colossal failure of a movie that was Batman and Robin. When Begins released, the sales met all of these analysts predictions…until they didn’t anymore. Begins was such a solid film that word of mouth gave it incredible box office legs, and the film went from “flop” to success, paving for the way two sequels you may have heard of and serving as one of the earliest examples of what superhero films can achieve when taken seriously.

The point is, don’t blame Johnny Depp for the failure of The Lone Ranger (unless you want to question him accepting the role in the first place). Don’t blame Ryan Reynolds for the messy plot and the “would have looked bad in 2005” special effects of RIPD. Stop overanalyzing and just accept the simple truth: good movies tend to perform well. Bad movies don’t.