I knew this would be the stance that was taken, depressingly predictable even if there may be some truth to it. Let’s get this out of the way – piracy *may* have had some effect on the lacklustre box office performance. In fact, I’ll accept that it definitely did for the sake of argument. But, it’s far from the only factor, and probably not the biggest one.

First off, it’s not just the “it sucked” part of the article above, but the overall production of the thing. To begin with, it’s the third movie in a series. As soon as something becomes a trilogy, the third part usually falls off compared to the second. Even Pirates Of The Carribean took a significant dive with the 3rd part. The reason is that not every film needs a sequel. If the second part sucks, or just disappoints, then less people return for the third. Now, this certainly isn’t always guaranteed, but despite the Rotten Tomatoes ratings, I know a lot of people who really disliked the second film. If you thought the second film sucked, would you be sitting there for the third on opening weekend? Yes, I know this happens with the Transformers series somehow, but I can think of numerous franchises where even the better films in the series underperformed because the previous entry sucked.

On top of that, there was the decision to go PG-13. This indicates to fans of the series that the violence they want in the film will be missing. The biggest complaint I’ve heard is that the film’s been toned down. This can lead to bigger audiences sometimes, but if you’ve built a franchise on an R rating you might just alienate the audience you already had while not attracting a new one. Not a formula for success.

Then, there’s the performance of movies related to, but outside of, the Expendables franchise. It’s not pretty. Stallone’s last 3 movies have underperformed, with Bullet To The Head being a notable flop. Schwarzenegger’s last 3 movies all opened at under $10 million domestically, with Sabotage being a total flop. Statham’s movies have also been very variable in their performance, his saving grace appearing to be the sheer number he pumps out rather than their individual quality. If the main pull of The Expendables is that these people appear together, but their own movies never break $25 million, why should the series continue to be a success when that gimmick wears thin?

Also, there’s competition and marketing. I have at least one friend who opted to go and see Guardians Of The Galaxy instead of Expendables 3, despite having been at the last two on opening weekend. The guy I’m thinking of hasn’t seen a pirated copy. The marketing didn’t do much for the film, far too jokey with the “OMG look at the names we have!” gimmick wearing very thin. Especially since the main additions seem to have been Harrison Ford (sorry dude, most of your recent films were terrible), recent ex-convict Wesley Snipes, anti-semite Mel Gibson and Kelsey Grammar (in an action movie for some reason?). Each actor has their niche and appeal, but is it really enough to carry a tired formula?

Finally, there’s what might perhaps be a hard truth – for many people, this franchise is not a summer blockbuster, watch on the big screen kind of franchise. It’s a throw it on, late at night, catch it while on Netflix or with friends and a beer kind of franchise. If piracy has harmed the movie, it’s because the studio’s business model dictates that this kind of viewing experience can’t happen until after a predetermined theatrical run. Perhaps it’s finally time to seriously reconsider that model. I, for one, will definitely be catching it on Netflix, as I did with the first two. Should that option not be available, I won’t be suddenly going to the cinema to see it, but I also won’t be pirating.

Now, this argument can (and probably will continue), but there’s a lot more to it than “it was piracy”. What a shame there still can’t be a real discussion, because studio heads need piracy as the scapegoat when they make bad moves.