Nine out of ten major blockbusters (maybe more?) of the last few years were based on pre-established names and brands. While the usual suspects produced completely awful movies, you’d be forgiven for hoping that Hollywood would learn some lessons from the more entertaining and satisfying successes. But when studios see something like “Pirates of the Caribbean” succeed, they don’t think, “Oh, the audience craves high adventure and witty humorous comic interplay.” They think, “We don’t even need backstories to get saps to buy tickets to a name they recognize.” ‘Pirates’ was certainly somewhat enjoyable, but would it have made $300 million domestic had it been titled, “The Pirates of the High Seas”?
Which brings us to the Game Movie. We haven’t seen it yet, but threats of megabudgeted versions of “Monopoly” and “Candy Land” linger on the horizon, with 2012 serving as a launch pad for a $200 million “Battleship” movie. Granted, this movement might owe a lot to the vice-like grip Hasbro has on Universal‘s balls (a must-read, that link) but it also comes from consumers reacting stronger towards a brand that they know rather then something more obscure. Enter “Rubik’s Cube,” the movie rights of which now belong to talent agency CAA. Apparently, CAA is going from studio to studio asking if they can figure out a way to craft a movie around the popular puzzle box, suggesting that one of their popular clients might be willing to sign on should someone produce a script.
What would the story be like? Rubik’s Cube really just makes us think of “Hellraiser,” but this doesn’t seem like an R-rated tentpole, since kids (circa 1989) love the Rubik’s Cube! You Tube fails us, but this joke was already made in the 90s when a character on the cult series “The Critic” pitched a Rubik’s Cube movie where a colorblind cop needs to solve the title contraption to avoid blowing up a plane filled with supermodels. We believe his partner was a dog.