Blockbuster (entertainment)

• 1. Introduction

  ›

  Blockbuster is a word that began not in Hollywood but in the skies over wartime Europe. In the early 1940s, American newspapers were already using the term to describe a specific kind of aerial bomb, one powerful enough to level an entire city block. Then, in May 1943, a trade advertisement in Variety applied the word to a film for the first time, calling RKO's war picture Bombardier "the block-buster of all action-thrill-service shows."

  Publicists had found a metaphor that stuck. They wanted readers to feel the force of it, to picture the bomb's outsized impact and transfer that sensation to a movie. Within two years the phrase was appearing in ads for films like Bataan, No Time for Love, and Brazil.

  What started as a piece of marketing shorthand would eventually become the organizing principle of the entire Hollywood studio system. How did a single word come to determine which films get made, how much they cost, and when they open? And who pushed back when the logic of the blockbuster started crowding everything else out?

• 2. A Word Finds Its Meaning

  ›

  Throughout 1943 and 1944, the term was still loose, applied to any film with commercial energy. The industry had not yet settled on what a blockbuster actually was.

  That definition began to take shape after the war. Variety revived the word in 1948 in an article specifically about big-budget films. By the early 1950s, trade publications had standardized it: a blockbuster was a film large in spectacle, scale, and cost that was expected to earn a high gross. In December 1950, the Daily Mirror singled out Samson and Delilah as a coming box-office blockbuster. A year later, Variety placed Quo Vadis in the same company as Birth of a Nation and Gone With the Wind.

  One theory holds that the word traces to "block booking," the studio practice of selling packages of films to theaters rather than letting exhibitors pick titles individually. That practice was outlawed in 1948, however, before blockbuster entered common use, so the connection is probably coincidental. Another theory claims the word comes from illustrations in trade papers showing ticket queues stretching around the block, but there is no evidence the term was ever used that way. The publicists who coined it were simply drawing on the bomb's familiarity.

  By the time the term had standardized in the early 1950s, a new generation of filmmakers was already studying the visual grammar that would eventually power the blockbuster era. Film scholar Stephen Prince credits Akira Kurosawa's 1954 film Seven Samurai as "the clearest precursor" of the visceral Hollywood approach that would emerge two decades later, describing its "racing, powerful narrative engine" and "sense-assaulting visual style" as the template. Prince argues that Kurosawa became "a mentor figure" to the emerging American directors who would build that format, including Steven Spielberg, George Lucas, Martin Scorsese, and Francis Ford Coppola.

• 3. Jaws and the Summer Formula

  ›

  In 1975, Jaws resolved the question of what a blockbuster actually looked like in practice. Steven Spielberg's film was perceived at the time as a genuinely new cultural phenomenon: fast-paced entertainment that generated conversation beyond the theater, inspired repeated viewings, and produced what would later be called "buzz." It is now regarded as the first film of the blockbuster era.

  Two years after Jaws, George Lucas released Star Wars, which set box office records and ran in theaters for more than a year. Together, the two films became the prototypes for what studios would call the "summer blockbuster," a model in which major distributors organized their entire annual marketing strategy around a single large release timed to arrive by July 4. Lucas's 1973 film American Graffiti is also cited as a factor in shaping that summer strategy.

  After Jaws and Star Wars demonstrated what was possible, Hollywood producers began chasing similar "event" films. Studios started approving ever-larger budgets and deploying massive advertising campaigns ahead of theatrical releases. The decade also produced Superman in 1978 and Star Trek: The Motion Picture in 1979, both fitting the emerging pattern of wide commercial appeal backed by substantial production investment.

  The fifteen years that followed brought a run of titles that now define popular memory of the era: Alien in 1979 and Aliens in 1986; the first three Indiana Jones films across 1981, 1984, and 1989; E.T. the Extra-Terrestrial in 1982; Ghostbusters and Beverly Hills Cop in 1984; the Back to the Future trilogy across 1985, 1989, and 1990; Die Hard in 1988; Batman in 1989; Terminator 2 in 1991; Jurassic Park in 1993; Titanic in 1997; and The Matrix in 1999.

• 4. The Franchise Century

  ›

  Hollywood had long understood the value of sequels and series built on popular characters, but the twenty-first century pushed that logic further. Studios began investing systematically in franchises designed to run for years across multiple films.

  Early evidence of the model came from the eight-part Harry Potter series, starting with Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone in 2001, and The Lord of the Rings trilogy across 2001-2003. The superhero trilogies X-Men, running 2000-2006, and Spider-Man, running 2002-2007, reinforced the pattern.

  The turning point arrived with Iron Man in 2008, the first entry in the Marvel Cinematic Universe. The MCU grew to 43 films with a combined global box office of $31 billion and inspired parallel cinematic universes including the DC Extended Universe, the MonsterVerse, and the Wizarding World. Other major franchises of the era included Fast and Furious starting in 2001, Pirates of the Caribbean starting in 2003, The Dark Knight trilogy across 2005-2012, and Transformers starting in 2007.

  A related trend was the two-part blockbuster, particularly for book adaptations and series finales. Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows split into Part 1 in 2010 and Part 2 in 2011. The pattern was repeated with The Twilight Saga: Breaking Dawn in 2011-2012, The Hunger Games: Mockingjay in 2014-2015, Avengers: Infinity War and Endgame in 2018-2019, and Dune: Part One in 2021 and Part Two in 2024.

  Original blockbusters continued to appear alongside franchise entries. Avatar in 2009 and Greta Gerwig's Barbie in 2023 both performed as standalone hits. Top Gun: Maverick in 2022 demonstrated that dormant franchises could be revived decades after their peak.

• 5. Disruption and Backlash

  ›

  The streaming era and the COVID-19 pandemic combined to challenge assumptions that had held for decades. Films like Onward and Tenet, both from 2020, saw their theatrical runs curtailed or replaced with direct-to-streaming releases. No Time to Die was postponed from 2020 to 2021. Analysts debated whether shrinking cinema attendance would push studios toward blockbusters as the only safe bet, or whether it would open space for smaller films.

  Blockbusters also began competing with each other in shorter windows, rather than occupying the calendar as isolated tentpole events. Several expected blockbusters from 2024 were delayed to 2025 to spread the release slate.

  Long before streaming entered the picture, critics had raised concerns about the blockbuster's cultural costs. Film journalist Peter Biskind wrote that after Jaws, all studios wanted was another version of that success. As production costs climbed, they became less willing to take risks and increasingly reliant on what Biskind called the "lowest common denominators" of the mass market.

  Biskind's book Easy Riders, Raging Bulls argued that the New Hollywood movement of the 1970s had briefly produced a wave of independently minded, author-driven films, but that the commercial triumphs of Jaws and Star Wars led studios to prioritize advertising and production control over creative risk. He noted that the success of The Godfather was said to be the precursor to the blockbuster phenomenon.

  In his 2006 book The Long Tail, Chris Anderson wrote that a society organized entirely around expected hits is a limited one. In 1998, writer David Foster Wallace offered a sharper formulation, positing that films are subject to an inverse cost and quality law. Whether that law holds as an absolute claim is debatable, but it captured a suspicion that money and artistry do not always travel in the same direction, a tension that has never been resolved and shows no sign of being resolved as studios continue scheduling the next round of franchise entries.