The James Bond franchise faced the problem of exaggerated stakes in the early 80's. They had two movies in a row, the Spy Who Loved Me and Moonraker, with madmen trying to destroy civilization so that they could rule the world. The producers countered by dropping the stakes dramatically in the next one, For Your Eyes Only. The plot for that one was much closer to a standard espionage plot. For Your Eyes Only wasn't as successful as the previous two, but it was profitable, and allowed the filmmakers to gradually ramp things up again. I'd say it worked in the long run, since the franchise is still around.

chatterton, good example. I am reminded of an anecdote about my son Luke. When he was 2 years old, he was already watching Lord of the Rings, swept up into it by his older brother. Luke had no problem watching orcs get beheaded, black blood spewing. But Gandalf entered Frodo's house and bumped his head, we had to fast forward through that because it upset him. There's a lesson there, I think: We have an emotional response to those things to which we can relate. Destruction of the world? Too generic. Death of this particular character with whom we've found a connection? That's personal. Of course, that's why these big blockbusters always have the Big Story and the Small / Personal Story, to give the moviegoer some characters to connect with. Still if those characters are caught up in yet ANOTHER the world is going to be destroyed plot, do we REALLY fear for their safety?