2016 Global Box office Hits and Misses..

It's hard to be surprised that movies from Universal aren't' doing well considering it's owned by Comcast lol. My folks have been going to the movies more and half the time the theaters aren't nearly full even at a night show. I don't know how it is at the theater the teenagers hang out at as this one doesn't tolerate bad behavior like the cinema world. It's not just that the movies are bad it's the fact that nobody wants to pay 50.00 for a date night to the theater and risk it being a bad movie.
 
The one thing that almost all the articles like these don't mention is illegal downloads. I'm embarrassed to admit I have an ever growing number of friends, especially those with kids, that have been downloading every major movie that's come out, if for no other reason, the cost to take a family to the theater these days.

The last film I seem to remember downloads being mentioned about was Hateful 8. I don't know if maybe they're thinking it's not a factor anymore or not but I consider it to be.
 
The one thing that almost all the articles like these don't mention is illegal downloads. I'm embarrassed to admit I have an ever growing number of friends, especially those with kids, that have been downloading every major movie that's come out, if for no other reason, the cost to take a family to the theater these days.

The last film I seem to remember downloads being mentioned about was Hateful 8. I don't know if maybe they're thinking it's not a factor anymore or not but I consider it to be.

Although pirating is a major issue the financial cost is still somewhat negligable.
 
Seems to me, that, (borrowing a baseball phrase here), too many people are continually swinging for the fences as opposed to just getting a 'hit'.

I hate to dwell on Marvel/DC - but - Marvel went in with the intent of making a good Iron Man movie. They did outline plans for other characters and possibly an Avengers if everything went well. But, it hinged on the first one doing well. Their goal was not to go balls out, but to make the best iron man movie they could. It worked and they were able to go from there.

DC - Seems to have felt that if Marvel can have a whole cinematic universe, they could too, but they could just start the hole thing and not have to build it up. Seems rather symptomatic of the current age and how we think of the younger generation. They just want it for nothing. They don't want to earn it.

I think the article said they spent 200M on a sequel to snow white and the huntsman? People keep saying this is a business, etc, but the guys in charge seem relatively clueless in that aspect. To spend 200M on a flick, it's gotta bring in what? 500 to break even? That a hefty number even today. I'd have to dig into some numbers, but my guess is that way less than 1/2 of the movies released today cross 500M.

Seems to me that budgets have risen dramatically the last 10-15 years. Well, in order to raise the budget, you gotta bring in more money to make it worthwhile. Too many 100-200M flicks. Don't go complaining about piracy or streaming or the internet or whatever when you're 250 flick doesn't go over well. Giant budget != Good Movie.

I think if more execs focused more on making a good movie vs trying to force a 'universe' on everything and trying to make everything a freaking grand slam from the get go, things would be much better for them.
 
What I found interesting is that it's not too many comic book based films necisarrily but rather simply the best steals I much revenue from the weaker ones.
 
I mainly wish the summer schedule hadn't been so packed. There's so little of interest coming out the rest of the year. Dr. Strange, Fantastic Beasts, and Rogue One mainly. Then films like Assassin's Creed and Passengers are coming out together the week after Rogue One.
 
The WSJ article lays it out pretty clearly:

You have a relatively stagnant pool of dollars being spent domestically on film tickets, but a seriously increasing pool of films -- often at the $100-200M level -- competing for that finite amount of dollars. As a result, some are gonna get squeezed out.

That part, to me, isn't all that interesting.


What's interesting to me is the bit at the end where they note the apparent discrepancy between the notion that sequels/reboots/remakes are losing popularity, yet several of the most profitable movies this year have been...sequels/reboots/remakes. To me, what that suggests is that the issue isn't that people just want "branded" films, but rather that they have given their loyalty to certain specific brands. If you don't have those brands...maybe you're better off not trying to compete against them with your own "brand."

The key seems not to simply be original, either, since only apparently two original (i.e. "non-branded") films have grossed over $75M. So, it's not that audiences just want brands. And it's not that audiences just want original material.

It's that audiences want something that audiences think is good, and that's a lot harder to come up with than just regurgitating some film from the 80s or 90s with a modern veneer.
 
I mainly wish the summer schedule hadn't been so packed. There's so little of interest coming out the rest of the year. Dr. Strange, Fantastic Beasts, and Rogue One mainly. Then films like Assassin's Creed and Passengers are coming out together the week after Rogue One.

I mentioned this a little while ago in another thread. Part of the reason we get out of season blockbuster hits is because there has been nothing in the genre released for months. Its part of the reason why,despite the poor reviews, Suicide Squad has done quite well ( that and the fact its just not as bad a stinker as many make it out to be, though it is flawed). There simply has been nothing else worth watching and for me, there is a clear three month gap between its release and the next film I want to see mid November. Its also why the near genius marketing campaign that was "Deadpool" was such a mega hit so early on (that and the fact it was a bloody well written and lively new take on the comic book hero film).
 
DC - Seems to have felt that if Marvel can have a whole cinematic universe, they could too, but they could just start the hole thing and not have to build it up. Seems rather symptomatic of the current age and how we think of the younger generation. They just want it for nothing. They don't want to earn it.
.

That's an interesting way to describe it, if more younger people are getting more power in hollywood these days. or studios are trying to aim more for the younger audience.



what I found funny is, these movies are supposed to get that younger audience. but, there where more than a few white haired people sitting in our star trek beyond screening. probably not what current hollywood is going for.


The Problem with these new movies, or sequels, or reboots, is that most just come off as souless, by the number retreads. they rip off what's current. they rip off what the franchise has done in the past. they try too hard to be hip, or pander to people who otherwise wouldn't be interested in what the franchise was...and they don't have that extra special spark that makes you want to rewatch it.

The ONLY summer blockbusters I woudlnn't mind rewatching from the summer where the animated movies. Finding Dory and Ice Age 5. both super fun movies, with enough of a fun spark that made you think the film makers cared to expand the universe a little with something fun.

ID4? I didn't care about the new characters. I didn't care about the one old one they killed off. I didn't care about the old ones they let live. I didn't care about the alien threat. the only thing I found interesting was to see how humanity evolved in the last 20 years and recovered (Something we didn't see nearly enough of.).... the only lines that made me feel like someone got it where throw away lines 'I don't think the earth can withstand another attack'.... where was the russel case statue? where was the great interpersonal relationships between characters (only around when david and the former pres had their speech rehash moment)....it was paint by numbers.


Star Trek Beyond was a LITTLE better than the last two, but there where still so many goofy things thrown in to pander to the casual non star trek audience...that it wasn't worth revisiting more than once on home video.

Suicide squad looked like mess so I avoided it.

Batman versus superman was another slugfest shoot 'em up bore with badly written villains and plot, trying way to hard to be edgy and serious..

Ninja Turtles was a TAD better than the first one, but that wouldn't have taken much to do. you still had a souless bay movie with turtle toppings. and no ninja-ing to please it's chinese masters....

Star wars episode 7 had some new, but not enough on the level of phantom menace as to justify a second retelling of episode 4.


Right now, Hollywood is a mess of un creativity, it almost seems as if they are too afraid to try and expand things. Or they just don't have enough new Steven Speilburgs or Ron Howards, or Clint Eastwoods to take charge and have a clear enough vision on what is good for a property (probably not good examples, but I couldn't think of any big names left in hollywood these days that know how to do things properly)..


I can't help but wonder if this is the worst hollywood summer blockbuster season in a long while..
 
http://www.rogerebert.com/balder-and-dash/hollywood-gave-up-on-you-the-summer-movies-of-2016

HOLLYWOOD GAVE UP ON YOU: THE SUMMER MOVIES OF 2016
by Jessica Ritchey

Attempt, if you will, a thought experiment. Try to imagine the 25th anniversary think piece on “Independence Day: Resurgence.” Or if that doesn’t work, try to picture the 30th anniversary oral history of the making of “X-Men: Apocalypse.” If either of those suggestions made you burst out laughing, it’s only to be expected. In a multiple-year slump of diminishing returns, this summer’s crop of blockbusters included some of the most exhausted, sound-and-fury-signifying-nothing films yet.

You only have to look at other media that captured audiences’ imaginations to see how much Hollywood has abdicated its throne as the provider of collective dreams. Netflix’s “Stranger Things” is a love letter to genre movies of the ‘70s and ‘80s, the kind of blockbusters like “E.T.” that you saw and you left immediately wanting to make movies and act them out in your backyard. Or look at the biggest entertainment success story of the summer, the video game “Pokemon Go.” It’s easy to sneer at adults playing the game, but more interesting to understand why they do. “Pokemon Go” turns the real world into a scavenger hunt; the player is charged with finding fantastical creatures that might be hiding around the corner or underneath a tree in a park.

There were very few Hollywood movies this summer with this kind of imagination building and sense of play. Instead too many of them offered only howling towers of Armageddon, where humans could do little more than cower in front of them, numb with horror and helplessness. If they were lucky, the chosen few might swoop in to save them, but not before some chin stroking ruminations on why the whole thing was worth it in the first place. There is no place anymore for scenes like in Sam Raimi’s “Spider-Man 2,” where Peter Parker (Tobey Maguire), after saving a train car full of passengers, is in turn saved by them when the strain proves too much. It’s a kind, humane scene in a blockbuster that understands that warm colors and letting shots breath does not have to mean forgoing thrilling action or large-scale adventure. “Spider-Man 2” is only 12 years old, but at this point it feels more like 30.

Part of Hollywood’s current decay was unavoidable. As a monoculture splintered permanently into niche groups, the idea of a film everybody sees and everybody can’t stop talking about fades further into the cultural past. The rise of cable networks willing to spend serious money on shows like “Game of Thrones” further dents Hollywood's ability to be the main supplier of big stories. But changing trends only excuse so far. Hollywood did itself no favors by making the mid-budget film virtually extinct, requiring themselves to lean on a business model where a single film must hit a billion dollars to be considered a success. If audiences can’t get enough of shows like “Stranger Things” or “Outlander” you are not going to win them back with offerings like “The Legend of Tarzan” or “Ghostbusters."

And when an old master of blockbusters like Steven Spielberg makes a magical, heartfelt film like “The BFG” that’s greeted with an indifferent shrug it creates even less incentive to try. The lack of a new Spielberg or John Carpenter is sorely felt this summer too. Paul Feig seems to be a nice person who admirably defended his cast from vile sexist pushback, but he cannot direct an action scene to save his life, as seen in the third act of “Ghostbusters.” But really, blockbusters aren’t directed so much as they are stage-managed now. The continued shut-out of women and POC directors almost becomes understandable when you see that studios are not looking for directors, they’re looking for someone who will meet a release date that’s been picked out months or years in advance. It does not matter what they deliver on the deadline, they’ll dump it in the editing room and sort it out into something almost watchable. The idea that scripts need multiple drafts or that projects might need to germinate for a year or two is as foreign now as silent movies.

And it matters more than it might seem that Hollywood has lost its nerve and touch in making blockbusters. Pop culture is how a society of diverse people talk to each to other—finding common idioms no matter the person’s background or community to connect. And it matters that the stories Hollywood seems most interested in are stories of apocalypse, of heroes who are tired of the weak mortals who constantly need saving, with an interest in women only so far as they can prop up lucrative intellectual property. We are facing an election cycle where one of the loudest voices is encouraging us to give in to our worst instincts, to be as greedy and selfish and unkind as we can. We need a Superman who smiles and talks suicidal jumpers off the ledge. We need stories about women and POC who are more than prizes, victims and sidekicks. We need to be reminded of the acts of heroism of which we’re capable.

The best thing you can say about this summer’s roster of blockbusters is how forgettable they are. At the very least, their ugliness—in both their aesthetics and storytelling—can’t do that much damage. Once the credits start rolling, most of these films dissolve from the mind like cotton candy in water. Which brings us back to “Stranger Things.” The show trades on those moments you never forgot; the frisson that makes you exclaim, “Hey, I remember that shot from 'The Thing!'” But what makes “Stranger Things” more than pastiche is that it has remembered what made those moments click. That they were part of a well-told story, with fleshed out characters. That even if the movie was a sequel it was concerned not with brand extension but taking characters you cared about on a new adventure. And like “Close Encounters of the Third Kind” and “Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan,” “Stranger Things” remembers to be in love with its actors’ faces; to step back and observe the rhythms of blue collar life in the small town where it’s set; to have the moment when a grieving mother and her older son look through his photos for one of her missing sons. She smiles and compliments her oldest son's photography skills and he blushes and then crumples into sorrow over his brother. These kinds of moments are vanishing from blockbusters, and for no good reason. If nothing else, “Stranger Things” reveals the harsh truth that Hollywood gave up on audiences long before they decided to return the favor.
 
Although pirating is a major issue the financial cost is still somewhat negligable.

I've been saying for years now I would gladly pay full theater price for an option to watch a movie on release day at home via some sort of service. I just don't enjoy being in theaters anymore. The last movies I even remember watching in the theater were The Mist and Sin City and that was midnight staff showings when my brother worked at a theater and there would only be three or four people there. I'm tempted to go see Blade Runner 2 in theaters but I suspect I'll end up waiting for the blu ray since it will likely have all the uncut material as well. That's another big reason why I prefer to wait. Can't stand theater cuts of films.
 
I've been saying for years now I would gladly pay full theater price for an option to watch a movie on release day at home via some sort of service. I just don't enjoy being in theaters anymore.

same here...

i've been more of a shut in than ever recently, and it's just nicer to stay lazily at home. you can even get sound that matches the theater experience easily. only difference is screen size.

I'd even pay a tad over theater price for some movies just for the convenience.
 
Movie series budgets, inflation adjusted to 2016 dollars:


Star Wars OT - $173

Indiana Jones trilogy - $229


first three Twilight movies - $172

The Hangover trilogy - $230



Any questions?

Production budgets are out of control. Most of the creative troubles are rooted in this core driving factor. The more they spend, the more risk-averse they get . . . the more they dump into marketing to secure the payoff . . . the MORE risk-averse they get because the total is even HIGHER . . . and the more we get commercial products instead of films.
 
Last edited:
The importance - and apparent decline - of mystery in movies

http://www.denofgeek.com/node/43398

o8gfab.jpg
 
This thread is more than 7 years old.

Your message may be considered spam for the following reasons:

  1. This thread hasn't been active in some time. A new post in this thread might not contribute constructively to this discussion after so long.
If you wish to reply despite these issues, check the box below before replying.
Be aware that malicious compliance may result in more severe penalties.
Back
Top