Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE: Discussion about how the perceived risks of original content leads retreads

This is topic Discussion about how the perceived risks of original content leads retreads in forum Film-Yak at Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE.

To visit this topic, use this URL:
https://ft-forum.com/ft/cgi-bin/ubb/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=8;t=007714

Posted by Justin Hamaker (Member # 2165) on 12-23-2019, 02:26 PM:

On the review of Star Wars: The Rise of Skywalker, there has been discussion about how consumer choices impacts the demand for original content vs the endless stream of sequels, prequels, reboots, and spinoffs.

In response to Bobby:

quote:
I wonder if the very steep decline of movie advertising in newspapers has had an effect on booking trends in average multiplex theaters.

The problem with this idea is it suggest people are still reading newspapers to see the advertisements. We dropped our newspaper ad a number of years ago when we discovered less than 5% of our customers were getting show times from the newspaper. We actually extrapolated it out and found that our newspaper ad was costing about $1.25 per ticket sale it generated.

I know there was a time when movie showtimes were one of the things that actually drove newspaper sales. But this stopped being the case when the average person started having a computer in their pocket. There is a larger conversation to be had about supporting newspapers in general. However, for a business watching it's bottom line, it is difficult to justify the expense for a medium which doesn't yield results. The same thing applies to show times recordings. I just checked my machine and it's had 92 calls since Thursday night - over the opening weekend of Star Wars (Thursday night to Monday afternoon). With numbers like that, the long term viability of maintaining a show times recording is worth considering.

I think the biggest factor has been the narrowing of the theatrical release window. There is less incentive for people to go to a theatre to see a movie when they know they can watch it at home in just a few months.

I also think there is a comfort factor. Many people are more likely to put down their money for something they know they will like. Why spend $ on that potentially boring art film when they now they'll have a good time watching Avengers 134.

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 12-23-2019, 04:56 PM:

quote: Bobby Henderson
So much of what has followed has been re-treading over the same idea. There's far too little of anyone taking big chances on new ideas these days.

quote: Mike Blakesley
The thing they all fail to get is, there's no duplicating the thrill of experiencing something for the first time, especially if the thing was a major cultural phenomenon. It'd be the same if Universal bought Marvel from Disney and tried to make a new Iron Man movie. It could be the best movie ever made in the history of time, but fans of the original would say it sucked because it didn't feel the way the original did.

That's all the more reason to for "film-makers" and movie studios to put more effort in developing new ideas. Even if they're phoning-it-in with the Save the Cat! clip art template approach they're not going to invite nearly as much negative comparisons and fan reactions with something "new" as opposed to making something based on something else. The story and characters may only be new in name only, but the worst they can suffer is people just saying it wasn't a very good show. It's not like the bad movie is taking a giant piss on another beloved title.

When a studio chooses to re-make a movie whose original was a success or spawn sequels from a successful movie they're going to be stuck having to accept fan reaction, whether it's good or bad. Fans are going to feel how they are going to feel. Regarding George Lucas and Star Wars Episodes I-II-III, a good amount of the negative reaction from fans of the original trilogy were 100% justified. And this doesn't get into the whole digital projection controversy in 1999. There are parts of those prequels that are truly cringe-inducing. And the further alterations of the original 3 movies (like that Darth Vader "noooooo" bullshit in ROTJ) did more to further outrage fans. Those movies may have been owned by George Lucas, but it was something he was selling to us. If we're going to be asked to fork over our money and time to watch it we're going to be entitled to our own reactions and opinions afterward.

I don't want to sound like I'm singling out George Lucas. Others have thoroughly botched movie sagas with bad sequels. After Alien and Aliens the rest of the saga that followed was really shitty; the same goes for Predator as well. The two sequels for The Matrix had all kinds of problems (which doesn't make me feel good at all about this fourth movie coming in the next year or so).

quote: Justin Hamaker
The problem with this idea is it suggest people are still reading newspapers to see the advertisements. We dropped our newspaper ad a number of years ago when we discovered less than 5% of our customers were getting show times from the newspaper. We actually extrapolated it out and found that our newspaper ad was costing about $1.25 per ticket sale it generated.

The point of bringing up the decline of newspaper advertising was more to do about the overall way movies are marketed to the public. 30 years ago it was a pretty simple equation for movie studios: run commercials on national TV and publish ads in newspapers. That approach covered much of the nation. The only things special they did outside of that was place ads on billboards, bus benches and train platforms in big cities. It didn't take all that much effort to get a movie ad campaign a hell of a lot of exposure.

Today everything is fractured to hell. The four big OTA TV networks generate maybe half the ratings numbers they did in the early 1990's. The rising popularity of streaming services and cord-cutting is putting a serious dent in TV advertising sales. We all know what the Internet did to the daily newspaper. Everyone is on the Internet but no two people visit all the same sites. Overall it's now a lot harder to reach the same percentages of people with movie ads. Basically the ad buys have to be spread out in a much wider, more complicated fashion. The big studios might be able to deal with the burden better than the indie outfits. I still miss big newspaper ads for movies. There was something about them that seemed "bigger" and more legit than looking at a small electronic ad for a movie on a computer screen or mobile phone.

quote: Justin Hamaker
I think the biggest factor has been the narrowing of the theatrical release window. There is less incentive for people to go to a theatre to see a movie when they know they can watch it at home in just a few months.

I think the shrinking window has been particularly harmful to the movie business in general. I don't even understand why the studios continue to trim the length of that window. How well are digital-download versions of movies even selling? Physical media sales are in the toilet. Companies like Samsung are getting out of the movie disc player business. The studios are in such a rush to push movies from the theater into the home, but it seems like the home market is cannibalizing itself. Is there really that much money in merely having a movie play on Netflix for a couple or so months?

Another thing I think hurts the movie industry is the real estate market in big cities. Some high profile theaters in big cities have been closing to make way for other kinds of businesses or luxury condos. Some of these urban theaters were outlets for more artsy types of movies. The remaining balance of theater screens is getting to be more of the suburban McMovies multiplex variety.

quote: Justin Hamaker
I also think there is a comfort factor. Many people are more likely to put down their money for something they know they will like. Why spend $ on that potentially boring art film when they now they'll have a good time watching Avengers 134.

Well, the Marvel movies are kind of their own unique thing. The "MCU" has been a continuing story line of sorts for a decade. And Marvel has been for the most part pretty consistent at delivering the goods (and even winning critical praise). The success of Marvel's movies often don't translate over to all the other hero movies, sequels and re-makes the big Hollywood studios keep dishing out to the public. X-Men: Dark Phoenix and Hellboy were two serious bombs this year. That last X-Men movie might have been bad enough to kill that franchise. Not only did they make some of the same fan-outraging mistakes they did in The Last Stand they doubled down on the mistakes rather than correct any of them.

Anyway, the big studios and their media company parents believe they're playing a safe, dependable game by producing all this regurgitated content. But I think there is a growing risk to that strategy. The public isn't always just going to keep buying it just because it is there.

Posted by Harold Hallikainen (Member # 5405) on 12-23-2019, 04:58 PM:

Of course it works the other way too. I know I won't enjoy Avengers 134, but really did enjoy the French film One Magical Night last week.

Harold

Posted by Jack Ondracek (Member # 1466) on 12-23-2019, 07:04 PM:

Political correctness and corporate greed aside, I think a lot of it is that it takes more to impress us nowadays.

When Star Wars first hit the screen, spaceships looked more like toilet paper cores with sparklers attached. We didn't know a lot of aliens, and of the few we had seen, not many flew like Superman. Supergirl wasn't even a cinematic thing then, was she?

At least we had Batgirl... sometimes... and even then, compared to the dynamic duo, all she had was a cool, non-atomic-powered motorcycle.

Now, everything flies and shoots laser-like rays, and there's so much action to stuff into a 3-hour film, you can only devote 1/4 to 1/2 second to any particular action scene.

I get that Hollywood thinks they're making what the public wants to see, but Marvel sure has dominated the screen lately.

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 12-23-2019, 09:39 PM:

I agree it takes more to impress modern movie-going audiences from a perpsective on visual effects. Nevertheless, an awe-inspiring image is still going to be that -if it is designed well enough. One of the problems these days is the CGI work is getting to be a rush-job process for theatrical release movies. The CGI work wasn't even finished on Cats, but they pushed it out to theater screens anyway, followed with revised DCPs. Jeez, what is this? A 6 o'clock TV news graphics production?

Modern computer systems and software are powerful enough that productions with more meager budgets can still create very impressive looking digital-based visuals. A lot of TV shows have CGI effects that rival the visuals we see in movies.

And that moves to another big point: 2 hour theatrical movies have a big disadvantage to TV. Traditional feature movies don't have the level of freedom with story lines and character arcs that various types of shows on TV enjoy, be it a 2 hour made-for-TV movie, a limited mini-series or a series with multiple seasons. The TV shows can allow characters to do unpredictable or unflattering things and they can kill off virtually any character. Big budget movies often have to stick to more safe, "proven" character types and story arcs. They have to play it safe to make all those investors rest more easy. If a lead character in a big tent pole release such as Avengers: Endgame dies he can only pass away after the big win against evil has been secured.

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 12-23-2019, 10:00 PM:

Yeah but nobody ever has to stay dead anymore, either. They can be brought back by "flashbacks," memories, prequels, time travel, or (in the case of Star Wars movies) apparently magic.

Posted by Frank Cox (Member # 6258) on 12-23-2019, 10:26 PM:

You don't need CGI to have a fantastic image.

The most recent example I can think of is Joker and the scene where he's dancing on the stairs. Nothing needed for that other than the stairs and a suit and a bit of make-up. But what a fantastic image that really embodies the whole sentiment of the show.

Posted by Justin Hamaker (Member # 2165) on 12-24-2019, 12:36 AM:

quote: Bobby Henderson
And that moves to another big point: 2 hour theatrical movies have a big disadvantage to TV. Traditional feature movies don't have the level of freedom with story lines and character arcs that various types of shows on TV enjoy, be it a 2 hour made-for-TV movie, a limited mini-series or a series with multiple seasons.

This can be both a blessing and a curse. I have seen more than a few shows where the story was stretched to the breaking point in order to fill the season order. Or they put in pointless filler episodes to fill the quota. Typically the limited series do a better job because they make as many episodes as is necessary to tell the story.

On the flip side, the 2 hour limit on a motion picture forces a director to make choices, which can lead to much better pacing. With adapted material I know it can really piss people off when they don't include some of the minor characters, but the director has to make choices about what actually moves the story forward or provides meaningful context.

Can you imagine giving Michael Bay a 13 episode season to do one of the Transformers movies?

Whichever medium you choose, there is content that is well done and content which is not. Bottom line, I would prefer to see more original content from Hollywood. But I recognize the fact that moviegoers have to accept some of the blame when they fail to turn up for the original movies.

Posted by Marcel Birgelen (Member # 6801) on 12-24-2019, 12:52 AM:

quote: Jack Ondracek
Political correctness and corporate greed aside, I think a lot of it is that it takes more to impress us nowadays.

To be honest, I'm almost thinking we're heading the other way those days. For me, there is definitely something like a Special Effects fatigue. I take those things for granted nowadays. In many cases you don't even know what's a special effect and what's not. While it's still impressive on a technical level and I have the highest regards for the people that do make those special effects, today we're at a point in history where the imagination of the storyteller and/or director is almost no limitation anymore to what we can make happen, given sufficient budget.

But like Frank indicated, often you don't even need a single drop of CGI. A good, memorable image is often achieved by reducing stuff by the core, not by over-stuffing the image with explosions and lasers blasting in all directions, with the camera rotating right through in all kinds of impossible directions.

quote: Mike Blakesley
Yeah but nobody ever has to stay dead anymore, either. They can be brought back by "flashbacks," memories, prequels, time travel, or (in the case of Star Wars movies) apparently magic.

I totally agree. Death, in a movie (or series), used to mean something, something definitive, just like in real life. With characters respawning like some cheap videogame at the whim of the story writer, you're killing (pun somewhat intended) one of the most powerful story writing tools.

quote: Bobby Henderson
And that moves to another big point: 2 hour theatrical movies have a big disadvantage to TV. Traditional feature movies don't have the level of freedom with story lines and character arcs that various types of shows on TV enjoy, be it a 2 hour made-for-TV movie, a limited mini-series or a series with multiple seasons.

I do think that the 45-minutes TV-series format has a pretty big flaw though and that's why I still prefer feature movies above this delivery format.

The 45 minute to an hour timespan simply isn't sufficient to deliver most elaborate self-containing stories. A 2 hour or even 2 hour+ movie usually has sufficient time to both introduce the characters, the story's premise and do something interesting with the plot. Many series nowadays therefore choose an over-arching story plot, that spans multiple episodes, often even seasons or the entire run.

The problem though is that every episode in itself is a run from cliffhanger to cliffhanger, because people need to be enticed to view the next episode.

That's why I still like the traditional "feature format" the most. Also, a proper "feature format" release still has the allure of greatness coupled to it. A movie is something big, something you've often been waiting for for weeks, months, maybe even years. I know that many people now anticipate a new season for their favorite show for months on end, but a show still doesn't feel like a movie to me. There is NO "red carpet feeling" anywhere, nowadays it's often just a "season dump" on a streaming platform...

quote: Justin Hamaker
I also think there is a comfort factor. Many people are more likely to put down their money for something they know they will like. Why spend $ on that potentially boring art film when they now they'll have a good time watching Avengers 134.

While this works to some pretty great extend, I see this effect wearing off now all around me. Yes, I might not be the perfect reference when it comes to those things, but I'm pretty sure you only need to put your nose and ears into your crowds to spot some major fatigue growing among them regarding this whole barrage of sequels, prequels and other templated franchise releases. Sequelitis is a highly contagious kind of virus, but it takes some time to activate, but when it hits, it hits hard...

Like Mike aptly put it, there is simply nothing that compares to the experience of "experiencing something for the first time". It can certainly be fun, watching that good-old movie again, but watching something new AND good for the first time, is truly a unique experience you tend to remember forever.

And we have so few of them those days... Many movies feel like I've seen them a thousand times before. It's almost like everything big that's produced right now, has to fit into the complete package... the ticking boxes again:

[x] Compatible with multiple sequels, prequels and side stories
[x] Can sell sufficient toys
[x] Can be made into a video game
[x] Fits within an overarching theme in it's own themed land in at least one major theme park.
[x] ...

Even when someone comes up with something "new and original", you clearly see they at least try to tick multiple of those boxes. This limits the amount of creativity, the width of the canvas on which the movie can be "painted". If it doesn't fit in the box, it will not be funded.

Heck, even Scorsese had to go to Netflix to get his movie about "painting houses" made, because no regular studio wanted to foot the bill.

There is something rotting in Hollywood and if they don't get the exterminator in soon, the only thing left is to let it crash and burn. Maybe some like to watch this happening with certain levels of "schadenfreude", but this will have serious consequences for the exhibition industry, which still is almost entirely dependent on Hollywood's output, at least in the western world.

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 12-24-2019, 10:34 AM:

quote: Marcel Birgelen
The 45 minute to an hour timespan simply isn't sufficient to deliver most elaborate self-containing stories. A 2 hour or even 2 hour+ movie usually has sufficient time to both introduce the characters, the story's premise and do something interesting with the plot. Many series nowadays therefore choose an over-arching story plot, that spans multiple episodes, often even seasons or the entire run.

Very few TV series feature story lines that are completely contained within single episodes anymore. Most feature larger, continuing stories that span an entire season or span multiple seasons across the entire series run. I think book adaptations tend to work much better in these environments because there is more room for the story's details. The traditional 2 hour movie format often reduces a novel down to a cliff notes version, or even goofs things up with asinine alterations (story changes, different endings, etc).

I kind of wish at least some TV series would make every episode a stand-alone self-contained story. Now if I want to watch a certain TV series I basically have to watch the whole damned thing rather than a few episodes here or there. That's a big time commitment.

quote: Marcel Birgelen
The problem though is that every episode in itself is a run from cliffhanger to cliffhanger, because people need to be enticed to view the next episode.

Some series do that while others don't. Streaming has dramatically changed the approach to series TV. Entire seasons can be binge-watched all at once or however many episodes the viewer wants to take in at once. I don't mind episodes having a logical break to them. It's a little like a writer breaking up a book into chapters or long passages of text in paragraphs.

Besides, feature length movies often have plenty of their own "cliffhanger" style moments to move from one big fade to black story beat to the next "chapter" of the story. These movies play in theaters for only a very short percentage of their useful life. At the end of the run they're playing on basic cable, punctuated with commercial breaks. Even big studio movies put some thought into how the show will play on other platforms like commercial TV.

quote: Marcel Birgelen
That's why I still like the traditional "feature format" the most. Also, a proper "feature format" release still has the allure of greatness coupled to it. A movie is something big, something you've often been waiting for for weeks, months, maybe even years. I know that many people now anticipate a new season for their favorite show for months on end, but a show still doesn't feel like a movie to me. There is NO "red carpet feeling" anywhere, nowadays it's often just a "season dump" on a streaming platform...

Not many first run theaters deliver the "red carpet feeling" anymore. How many 1000+ seat theater auditoriums still exist? These days if I'm not spending a $3 or more surcharge on top of the normal ticket price I'll get to watch the movie in an auditorium with a modest sized screen, maybe 100-150 seats, low volume audio and a letter-boxed picture that looks like the TV screen at home, but not as focused. What's so great about that?

In the past movie theaters had two big advantages over TV. They could show certain things that could not be aired on TV and those shows would play on the big screen first. Back when I was a kid and the home video revolution was just beginning the window between theatrical release and home video was often a year or more. Today the window is maybe 8 weeks before the digital-download is available to buy. 30 years ago premium cable could show R-rated Hollywood movies and some other R-rated level adult content. Today the cable and streaming services can show NC-17/unrated content that would rarely ever make it into a Hollywood theatrical release. Some chains still refuse to book NC-17/unrated movies. These differences are allowing content on premium cable and streaming services to be more edgy and less predictable. Big Hollywood studio movies already too often suffer from the vibe of making viewers feel like they've seen the same movie 1000 times before. Add a good dose of bland to that vibe. Most R-rated Hollywood movies are only R-rated for the profanity and some violence. You'll see a lot more than that on TV.

quote: Marcel Birgelen
Yes, I might not be the perfect reference when it comes to those things, but I'm pretty sure you only need to put your nose and ears into your crowds to spot some major fatigue growing among them regarding this whole barrage of sequels, prequels and other templated franchise releases.

Any movie studio executive could get a loud hint just by listening to the reactions of audiences when a trailer plays for the latest remake, spin-off, reboot, etc. It's often a mix of groans and laughter, peppered with comments like what the fuck and why do they keep doing this?. Audiences are sick of the shit. But the movie industry operates as an oligopoly and deliberately provides as little change and innovation as possible. The business model is to sell the public the same shit over and over again while charging ever more money for it. The customers have no other choice than to find some other source of entertainment. At some point the customers will end up doing that.

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 12-24-2019, 11:43 AM:

quote: Bobby Henderson
Any movie studio executive could get a loud hint just by listening to the reactions of audiences when a trailer plays for the latest remake, spin-off, reboot, etc. It's often a mix of groans and laughter, peppered with comments like what the fuck and why do they keep doing this?. Audiences are sick of the shit.

I feel like it's more of a reaction to the last one. If everyone really liked the last one, they'll be excited over the new one. The groans happen when the previous one sucked.

That theory doesn't always work though. People seem really excited about the upcoming Ghostbusters movie, thanks to the trailer... it looks really good compared to the steaming pile that was the previous installment.

Posted by Kenneth Wuepper (Member # 1174) on 12-25-2019, 09:31 PM:

When making large financial decisions about what to do or not, some old advice comes to mind.

"If it ain't broke, don't fix it"
and
"A bird in the hand is worth 10 in the bush"

Both of these seem to be influencing the production of recycled over new movie content. The idea is to minimize the possible loss by not gambling on untried cinema.

Eventually the audience will get bored and move on to either new or other forms of entertainment like "Virtual Reality".

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 12-25-2019, 10:29 PM:

quote: Bobby Henderson
Any movie studio executive could get a loud hint just by listening to the reactions of audiences when a trailer plays for the latest remake, spin-off, reboot, etc. It's often a mix of groans and laughter, peppered with comments like what the fuck and why do they keep doing this?. Audiences are sick of the shit.

quote: Mike Blakesley
That theory doesn't always work though. People seem really excited about the upcoming Ghostbusters movie, thanks to the trailer... it looks really good compared to the steaming pile that was the previous installment.

Well, I don't know for sure about that. Let's say for instance Disney wanted to totally re-boot the Indiana Jones saga and re-make Raiders of the Lost Ark with an entirely new cast. Now that they own Lucasfilm they can do it. Just in time for the movie's 40th Anniversary! But I can certainly guarantee there would be a great deal of WTF! outrage permiating from the audience in reaction to a teaser trailer of such a thing. I don't put it past Disney to do a re-make of the 1977 installment of Star Wars. They're not above doing that at all. Not even in the slightest. Maybe they'll work in an extra dance number with the latest pop star during the Cantina Band sequence.

One thing they can't seem to do enough of is come up with some new story ideas. All the studios have to keep aping on the past. The re-hashed bullshit reminds me how my movie buying habits have dropped to basically ZERO. I haven't bought a movie on Blu-ray disc since our Hastings store had a fire sale and closed a couple years ago. And even then my movie disc buying habits were minimal at best. Movies today are a one-and-done thing. Watch it just one time and forget about it. The only answer Hollywood has for that is "let's speed up the cycle!!!" Get the movies off theater screens and onto TV screens even faster, as if that's going to help at all.

I'm kind of surprised that the European and Far Eastern movie making industries haven't pulled a "British Invasion" style takeover of the market. But then I have to remember that the movie theater industry is very tightly controlled by the big American studios. Only a minimum of foreign originated content is allowed.

Posted by Justin Hamaker (Member # 2165) on 12-25-2019, 11:50 PM:

My basic rule of thumb when it comes to sequels/prequels/reboots/spinoffs is it's a good idea if there is a natural story evolution. For example, mMaking Star Wars movies about Yoda and Obi Wan would seem to be a decent idea because it is already established that there are stories associated with the early lives of these characters. But trying to make a new Star Wars movie in the "Skywalker saga" would not go over as well because the story was seemingly brought to a conclusion.

Another rule of thumb I think the studios should go by is whether the most recent movie in the franchise was well received both in terms of quality and box office returns. Don't make another sequel if the last movie flopped or had very bad reviews.

When it comes to reboots, I think they need to have a completely new creative vision to justify a reboot. Into the Spider-verse was a good reason to make a new Spider-Man movie. And I can see tying Spider-Man into the Avengers at least opened new story lines. However, switching from Tobey McGuire to Andrew Garfield and having a new Green Goblin probably wasn't a great idea.

Posted by Allan Young (Member # 6332) on 12-26-2019, 06:18 AM:

quote: Bobby Henderson
I don't put it past Disney to do a re-make of the 1977 installment of Star Wars.

They already did. It was called The Force Awakens.

Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 12-26-2019, 08:44 AM:

After the YUGE failure of the current one I am looking for Disney to relegate the whole affair to a new Tee Vee show they stream on the Disney Channel.

Mark

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 12-26-2019, 12:16 PM:

I don't know why you keep saying it's a failure. Currently they're projecting a final domestic total of $551 million. No matter where it falls in the top-11 list of all Star Wars movies, that's hardly a failure.

Consider the facts that the last movie had negative fan reaction; there is currently a horde of internet trolls who haven't even seen the movie trashing it; and it's got a lot of competition in the marketplace.... I would take a $551 million gross in that environment any day. And around here, word of mouth has been really positive, at least what I'm hearing.

Also they're already running a new tee vee show ("The Mandalorian") which they're talking about making movies from.

quote:
Let's say for instance Disney wanted to totally re-boot the Indiana Jones saga and re-make Raiders of the Lost Ark with an entirely new cast. Now that they own Lucasfilm they can do it. Just in time for the movie's 40th Anniversary!

Mark my words, the following will happen in the new movie coming out next summer:

Harrison Ford's "Indiana Jones" will be killed off and there will be a new young guy who will take over the series. He might not be Indy Jr. but he'll be something. Dakota Jones or Nevada Jones, maybe.

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 12-26-2019, 01:15 PM:

I think they were already trying to do that Shia LeBeouf in the last Indy sequel. Sure, they'll probably try again with some new younger (and less weird) guy. Still, I halfway expect Disney to eventually re-make the existing series with a new generation of actors. Odds might be 50/50 they'll start doing it within the next 10 years, in time for the saga's 50th anniversary.

Posted by Martin Brooks (Member # 1269) on 12-26-2019, 11:26 PM:

quote: Bobby Henderson
Any movie studio executive could get a loud hint just by listening to the reactions of audiences when a trailer plays for the latest remake, spin-off, reboot, etc. It's often a mix of groans and laughter, peppered with comments like what the fuck and why do they keep doing this?. Audiences are sick of the shit.

What audiences say and what they do are two different things. Studios will stop making those remakes, spinoffs and reboots when people stop seeing them.

The top 10 domestically grossing films are all non-original. Out of the top 20, there's only five that are sort of original: Us, Pokémon Detective Pikachu, Once Upon a Time.in Hollywood, Shazam! and Aquaman. Not exactly Lawrence of Arabia or The Conformist.

Top 10 Domestic Films Year-to-date:
Avengers: Endgame: $858 million.
The Lion King: $544 million
Toy Story 4: $434 million
Captain Marvel: $427 million
Frozen II: $399 million
Spider-Man: Far From Home: $391 million
Aladdin: $356 million
Joker: $333 million
Star Wars: Rise of Skywalker: $259 million
It: Chapter Two: $212 million

So you're a studio executive. Do you give up those grosses and take a risk on something original? Unfortunately not. The business has become too big and budgets have become so big that no one wants to take a risk. Look at the opening credits of most films: it's like a logo sampler from all the companies providing financing. Originality is left up to the boutique divisions.

Right now, a few of the cable channels and many of the streaming services are putting a ton of money into some interesting and risky ventures. But I predict that within a few years, when they decide they have to start making some really money to satisfy shareholders, they'll become far more risk averse and they'll start making shows from less risky known properties. Now that AT&T owns HBO, it will be interesting to see if they still let HBO spend big budgets on series like "Game of Thrones" and "Westworld" past 2021 or 2022.

When new channels emerged on cable TV, many were originally quite esoteric. A&E truly was an arts channel. Ovation played operas. Discovery played science programs. Now they all play junk.

It will change when theatrical audiences stop attending. In the late 1960's and 70's, audiences got tired of the big Hollywood musicals and other junk it was making and independent filmmakers emerged who did something different: Coppola, Scorsese, Bogdanovich, Woody Allen, Lucas, Spielberg and others. And foreign films started to have a bigger impact: Chabrol, Truffaut, Goddard, Malle, Costa-Gavras, Bertolucci, etc. There's less interest in that today because college students are watching the same junk the masses are and the audience to who used to go the art houses in Manhattan and places like it have disappeared.

And as I've probably posted before, there were always series, sequels, prequels and reboots: Hopalong Cassidy, Lassie, Godzilla, James Bond, the Marx Brothers, the Thin Man, Topper, Blondie, Andy Hardy, Dr. Kildare, Abbott & Costello, Sherlock Holmes, Tarzan, Ma and Pa Kettle, Nero Wolfe, Shirley Temple, Bulldog Drummond, The Big Broadcast, Hope-Crosby, Henry Aldrich, the Universal Horror films, the Hammer Studios horror films, etc. There's nothing new about this concept. A studio finds a successful formula and they'll repeat it.

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 12-27-2019, 12:55 PM:

quote: Martin Brooks
What audiences say and what they do are two different things. Studios will stop making those remakes, spinoffs and reboots when people stop seeing them.

Movie goers have no choice anymore. They are facing a monopoly style market. If they want to watch a movie outside of the home at a commercial movie theater they are stuck with a very limited number of choices provided by the big studios. The customer's only recourse now is to just not visit the theater.

Most people go to commercial theaters to see "BIG" movies. The HDTV at home is considered good enough for the ordinary comedy and drama stuff. That's one aspect how the customers are screwing themselves and enabling so much of this bullshit. If theater customers want to see a "BIG" event movie it's bound to be some kind of sequel, re-make or reboot. The studios aren't taking high dollar risks to make something new. That's why that list of this year's top 10 highest grossing movies are all sequels and re-makes.

Out of the top 50 highest grossing movies worldwide in the 2010's Zootopia (#37), Bohemian Rhapsody (#45) and The Secret Life of Pets (#49) are the only 3 movies in that top 50 list that aren't sequels of some sort or re-makes. All ten of the yearly box office champs this decade (starting with Toy Story 3 and 2010 and Avengers: Endgame this year) were sequels, with one exception, Beauty and the Beast in 2017, which was a re-make. In the 2000's three movies were yearly champs that weren't sequels or re-makes (the first Harry Potter movie, Spiderman and Avatar). The 1990's had seven yearly box office champs that weren't sequels or re-makes (Ghost, Aladdin, Jurassic Park, The Lion King, Independence Day, Titanic and Armageddon). In the 1980's only two yearly box office champs were sequels, The Empire Strikes Back in 1980 and Return of the Jedi in 1983. All ten yearly box office champs in the 1970's were original non-sequel movies. Of course the 1970's was a period when the movie industry hit hard times and was forced to take big chances on new ideas.

Another area where movie-going customers screw themselves is they don't shop around. They want to go to the theater, but don't go any farther than the limited number of choices playing at the nearest McMultiplex. Too few of them read any reviews, read up on movies currently in release or know of other theaters within a reasonable driving distance.

For those of us who are more discriminating we're starting to see our choices decline. Theaters in big city centers are more likely to play a wider variety of movies, even independent fare. But those theaters are facing a situation where leases are not renewed or the building is sold out from under them to make way for more profitable properties. Both of these situations are an advantage to the major studios since it confines more knowledgeable movie goers to mainstream multiplex theaters, which typically only play major studio titles. Although if enough city center theaters are closed where will they hold premieres in the future? Can't exactly get a "red carpet feeling" from a McMultiplex with 200 seat auditoriums built next door to Home Depot!

quote: Martin Brooks
So you're a studio executive. Do you give up those grosses and take a risk on something original? Unfortunately not. The business has become too big and budgets have become so big that no one wants to take a risk. Look at the opening credits of most films: it's like a logo sampler from all the companies providing financing. Originality is left up to the boutique divisions.

The studio executives would have to be blind and stone deaf to have not heard the news that overall attendance is down this year. That's despite the record haul of Avengers: Endgame and a Star Wars movie ending the year.

If they don't already know this studio executives should realize there is a large and growing percentage of Americans who no longer visit movie theaters. A lot of older Americans, particularly in my "red state" region have a variety of reasons to never visit theaters (it costs too much, movies are commie-liberal-immoral garbage). A bunch of younger adults and teens are very ambivalent about the movie going experience. The point is the movie studios and their global media company parents are completely taking for granted the segment of the population that still visits theaters on any regular basis. Those executives appear to believe those customers will always be there, despite an ever-shrinking theatrical release window and constant stream of regurgitated content.

quote: Martin Brooks
Right now, a few of the cable channels and many of the streaming services are putting a ton of money into some interesting and risky ventures. But I predict that within a few years, when they decide they have to start making some really money to satisfy shareholders, they'll become far more risk averse and they'll start making shows from less risky known properties. Now that AT&T owns HBO, it will be interesting to see if they still let HBO spend big budgets on series like "Game of Thrones" and "Westworld" past 2021 or 2022.

These big companies are going into uncharted territory. We could see a great deal of upheaval in the entertainment industry over this next decade. Commercial movie theaters could be out of business in a few years with this shrinking window crap. Without theaters traditional movie studios would have a tough time justifying a $200 million production budget on just one 2 hour movie. Physical media sales are way down, which could lead to more OEMs getting out of the optical movie disc player market. This shift to making everything about streaming doesn't make too much sense.

Netflix is one company I think could end up being a big loser in all this. They have no parent company with deep pockets. Amazon and Apple can literally use their streaming businesses as a loss leader for selling other products worth a lot more than movies. AT&T, Sony, Comcast, CBS/Viacom and Disney don't have as much financial flexibility. One thing I find interesting is Netflix, Amazon Prime Video and even Apple are putting a much greater emphasis on series TV than 2 hour movies.

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 12-27-2019, 02:53 PM:

quote: Bobby Henderson
The studio executives would have to be blind and stone deaf to have not heard the news that overall attendance is down this year. That's despite the record haul of Avengers: Endgame and a Star Wars movie ending the year.

If they don't already know this studio executives should realize there is a large and growing percentage of Americans who no longer visit movie theaters.

Of course the biggest problem is the video window, combined with stuff like the "hacked" Amazon Fire Stick and whatever other illegal-but-doesn't-seem-illegal ways people can use these days to steal movies (but they don't think they're stealing because I BOUGHT THE DEVICE ON AMAZON SO IT MUST BE LEGIT AND I DON'T CARE ENOUGH TO FIND OUT IF IT IS OR NOT ANYWAY! I JUST WANT TO SEE MOVIES!)

Yeah, we're probably screwed. It's going to happen slowly.

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 12-27-2019, 08:02 PM:

I'm a bit afraid of a possible sudden downfall. The business formula works until it all of a sudden doesn't. Kind of like how Disco was cool in 1978 and then suddenly wasn't anymore.

Obviously the movie business isn't the same as pop music, but public tastes in popular culture and entertainment can change swiftly. The music industry no longer has giant style changes like it did decades ago. But that's thanks to the industry being very consolidated and tightly controlled by just a few companies. Unfortunately for them the price of constraining and preventing change is selling a lot less product. Adele is the only performer during the 2010's to release any albums to break into the top 50 list of biggest selling albums of all time. The top 10 list is all much older albums, Shania Twain has the most recent entry in that list with Come On Over in 1997. The sales model on music is shrinking. Not only do very few people (like me) still buy CDs, they've given up on buying singles at iTunes and just moved to listening to streams that are fundamentally no different than listening to a radio station.

Anyway the suits in Hollywood are calling the shots as if nothing bad can happen. The commercial movie theaters stand to suffer for it first. But without theaters the major movie studios will just be TV networks without a channel. They won't have squat for retail disc sales; it'll all be content sold to streaming services and cable TV networks.

The freaking jail-breaked Amazon Fire Sticks, Kodi boxes and other piracy outlets are an epidemic-level scourge. The devices are very popular with Millennials and Gen-Z kids. And there are plenty of Gen-X people my age using them. Those gadgets are only popular due to the availability of pre-release screeners for critics and various "VIPs". The screeners always find their way into the wild. I think the users of those gadgets have to be pretty naive or thick to not realize they're illegal. When one of the things stops working they just go out and get a different one.

Posted by Justin Hamaker (Member # 2165) on 12-27-2019, 11:01 PM:

quote: Martin Brooks
The top 10 domestically grossing films are all non-original. Out of the top 20, there's only five that are sort of original: Us, Pokémon Detective Pikachu, Once Upon a Time.in Hollywood, Shazam! and Aquaman. Not exactly Lawrence of Arabia or The Conformist.

Once you get below the top 30 there is a larger percentage of original content - although some of it is still derivative. At that point the grosses are below $100 million - which isn't nearly the same benchmark it was 20 years ago.

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 12-28-2019, 12:04 AM:

When you get below the Top 30 you find things like all those attempts at re-launching horror movie franchises, like Child's Play earlier this year. The studios are so obsessed with re-launching "known properties" they'll re-make big budget bad movies. So maybe that means we can look forward to re-makes of Ishtar or Hudson Hawk.

Posted by Marcel Birgelen (Member # 6801) on 12-29-2019, 01:55 AM:

One of the problems those days is that almost any big budget movie simply can't be just a movie. It has to be part of some kind of franchise or it at least has to show the promise to become part of one. This is especially true for anything that Disney produces. The movie itself isn't good enough, it needs to sell toys, t-shirts, theme park tickets and licensing fees to McDonald's and Pizza Hut. And it's not like this is really a new trend, Disney has been doing this for years on end.

And with Disney now owning roughly 60% of all Hollywood output, this trend will be getting worse.

Is it surprising that the top 10 list of best grossing movies of this year is composed of non-original productions? It certainly isn't...

It's those movies that get all the attention and all the marketing budget.

Plus... Original content usually tends to be much more of a slow starter than some kind of over-hyped new franchise release. Nowadays, the success of a movie is almost solely measured during the opening weekend. When was the last time a movie was allowed to build an audience? With those razor-thin release cycles, the original content releases are doomed to be the underdog, because they simply can't build a theatrical audience.

What we see now is just the standard operating mode of boring, bug businesses: Maximizing share holders value by milking existing products and product lines, being risk-averse towards new ideas to such extent that it's often better to kill them outright (imagine someone else walking away with that idea and making a killing with it). It's all fine and well, until it isn't. And like Bobby pointed out with Disco, it can go fast.

I was dragged into every Marvel movie by my wife, up until the last Avengers movie. I haven't seen any Marvel movie since. I was fed up with them already quite a while ago, but I went with her, to do her a favor. Now, that's finally settled. The Marvel Disco has done its magic, at least for her.

Posted by Carl Martin (Member # 1146) on 12-29-2019, 04:19 AM:

quote: Bobby Henderson
they'll re-make big budget bad movies. So maybe that means we can look forward to re-makes of Ishtar

digression: have you actually seen ishtar? did you really think it was bad? granted, there is baggage associated with the movie, just like with heaven's gate. but can you actually, honestly, say that either movie is bad, fairly judged?

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 12-29-2019, 02:10 PM:

Ishtar was a bad movie. It was a failed attempt at spoofing old road movies with stars like Dean Martin and Jerry Lewis. With better writing, better principal cast members and better directing the movie might have been funny. In the end it was pretty lame. Worst of all it felt very much like a vanity project for Elaine May, Warren Beatty and Dustin Hoffman.

quote: Marcel Birgelen
One of the problems those days is that almost any big budget movie simply can't be just a movie. It has to be part of some kind of franchise or it at least has to show the promise to become part of one. This is especially true for anything that Disney produces. The movie itself isn't good enough, it needs to sell toys, t-shirts, theme park tickets and licensing fees to McDonald's and Pizza Hut. And it's not like this is really a new trend, Disney has been doing this for years on end.

The problem is even worse than that. The big studios want any of their movie projects to perform well on an international level. And they'll tailor the product to do that, like working in positive portrayals of the Chinese government in some movies. Aside from politics, the bigger penalty in trying to make a movie play well everywhere is things like comedy don't translate well. Just add more explosions, spectacle and dumb down the story line. And do happy endings 99.9% of the time.

The big American studios are now making more money overseas than they're making in the US. A bad sequel can fail at the box office in the US, but end up still making money in China and elsewhere. That's leaving American movie-goers stuck with ever more bland content to watch at the McMultiplex. There's more interesting stuff to watch on TV, even if it is produced with much smaller budgets.

Many of the smaller budget, more independent movies aren't even making it to theaters in modest sized markets like mine. They'll play on a modest number of screens in major cities. Most Americans will only have a chance to see those movies when they arrive on Netflix, Amazon Prime, etc.

quote: Marcel Birgelen
What we see now is just the standard operating mode of boring, bug businesses: Maximizing share holders value by milking existing products and product lines, being risk-averse towards new ideas to such extent that it's often better to kill them outright (imagine someone else walking away with that idea and making a killing with it). It's all fine and well, until it isn't. And like Bobby pointed out with Disco, it can go fast.

Here's one trend I find interesting or troubling. Back in the late 1990's when the whole DVD-fueled home theater boom happened the massive sales were driven by a lot of original movies. The movie studios put a LOT of effort into many of those early era DVD releases. The original DVD release of Fight Club packed in a lot more goodies and elaborate packaging than any of the Blu-ray releases that followed it. Today when someone buys a movie on Blu-ray they'll open a standard plastic case and often find nothing more than a disc inside. No printed booklets about the movie and very few extras on the disc. Boutique labels like Shout Factory are the only ones putting in any credible effort with their discs. The major studios just don't care about that anymore. Yet, for some reason, they still want that theatrical release over and done ASAP.

Newer movies are so disposable that I personally rarely ever buy movies anymore. Over the past decade I've seen a lot more movies at the theater than I've bought or rented on disc. If the major studios shorten the release window enough to kill theater attendance then Hollywood movies anymore to me will be made for TV movies. The lack of a theatrical release window is NOT going to entice me to suddenly start buying movies on disc again. The studios have to start making movies I can watch multiple times and still find entertaining.

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 12-29-2019, 05:14 PM:

quote: Marcel Birgelen
I was dragged into every Marvel movie by my wife, up until the last Avengers movie.

I have a friend who sometimes sits with me to pre-screen some of the big movies. He's a huge Avengers fan. After the second-to-last Avengers film (Infinity War) I was done with the whole series. I got tired of the incomprehensible storylines... I don't want to have to keep track of 15 previous movies (plus a bunch of TV shows and comic books) to get the full enjoyment out of a movie. I like a movie to be self-contained... you should be able to enjoy a sequel not having seen the opening chapter.

If they would put some kind of a "summary" leading up to what's going to happen, it'd be easier for the casual viewer to catch on... but, they made a gazillion dollars, so what do I know?