Hollywood’s current state of failure and the reasons for it

[VonMagnum]

Remember when T2 was considered insanely expensive to make. Who knew? I thought CGI was supposed to make everything dirt cheap to do high quality effects, but somehow they did it better with models in the 70s (looked more real) on a fraction of the budget (even including inflation).

 

[batguy]

Not even close. It's closer to a billion because you have to include marketing. All costs associated with the project must be paid.

$381m was probably pretty close to the movie's (real) production cost alone.

 

[joberg]

round one....FIGHT!

Investors Sue Disney Over Alleged Chapek Era “Cost-Shifting Scheme” to Hide Streaming Losses

The suit takes aim at former CEO Bob Chapek's lofty subscriber growth and profitability targets for Disney+. The entertainment giant faces a host of litigation dealing with efforts to boost subscriptions for its streaming service.

www.hollywoodreporter.com

Well, it's the old game of the "Pea and the 3 cups" : it's magic!!

 

[Captain Dunsel]

FYI, Indiana Jones 5 / Dial of Destiny, with a reported budget of $350 million, not including marketing, is now available for $20 USD digital purchase. Box office numbers so far:

Grosses​

DOMESTIC (45.7%)
$174,146,711
INTERNATIONAL (54.3%)
$206,859,672
WORLDWIDE
$381,006,383


Remember when we said it had to make ~ $700 million to break even? Do you think digital download and DVD sales can make up the difference?

$174,146,711 domestic for an Indiana Jones film is just shockingly pathetic. What a horrible way to wrap-up the franchise.

In 1981 dollars, that is roughly $50 million. Compare that to the $212.2 million (again, in 1981 dollars) that Raiders of the Lost Ark earned in its initial release—in the US alone.

 

[blewis17]

Unlike The Brothers Gibb (die Brüder Gibb or die Gebrüder Gibb) that terrified everyone with disco music.....(1977)

View attachment 1732969

Except in the brothers Gibb fairytales, no one ever died. Everyone was always “stayin’ alive“

 

[Lightning]

$174,146,711 domestic for an Indiana Jones film is just shockingly pathetic. What a horrible way to wrap-up the franchise.

In 1981 dollars, that is roughly $50 million. Compare that to the $212.2 million (again, in 1981 dollars) that Raiders of the Lost Ark earned in its initial release in the US, alone.

Raiders made more, not adjusting for inflation, that's shocking.

 

[Cephus]

$381m was probably pretty close to the movie's (real) production cost alone.

Add in a likely $150 million marketing and they're at more than a half a billion they need to recoup. The studio gets about 60% of the domestic take and about 40% of the overseas take. It's pretty easy math.

 

[batguy]

Yeah, Disney's take for Indy#5 would be around $190m by that math. They probably had $500m invested.

That's a really crappy way for the franchise to go out. It calls into question (and rightly so) whether the franchise is even viable to recast/reboot.



The studios are very reliant on tentpoles in general. They routinely make 10 movies and hope the best 2-3 of them earn enough excess money to outweigh the losses on the other 7-8.

They REALLY cannot afford to get hosed on a big one like Indy. Or 'The Flash.' Or a 'Little Mermaid' remake. Or a 'Snow White' remake. Or 'Mission Impossible 7.' Or 'Fast & Furious X'. These are supposed to be the slam-dunk shows that keep the lights on.

Hits like 'Barbie' and 'Top Gun Maverick' . . . . these are anomalies in the midst of a broader business-model collapse going on right now.

 

[janglesworthy]

There has been a long list of flops since covid. Think of all the 2020 block busters that were total flops.

 

[Cephus]

There has been a long list of flops since covid. Think of all the 2020 block busters that were total flops.

That's only because people couldn't go to theaters. To be honest, everything in mid-to-late 2020 should have been delayed until at least summer 2021, if not later. Since only the box office take is counted and there weren't many theaters open, I think writing that entire year of movies off is fair. I don't blame things like WW84's failure on a legitimate box office, even though the movie was objectively terrible. It just came out at the wrong time for an honest assessment.

 

[scarf man]

 

[VonMagnum]

Except in the brothers Gibb fairytales, no one ever died. Everyone was always “stayin’ alive“

View attachment 1734791

Why do you think they had to try stay alive? Don't forget Night On Disco Mountain. Scary stuff....

 

[VonMagnum]

There has been a long list of flops since covid. Think of all the 2020 block busters that were total flops.

But why are they flops? It's almost like they've changed formulas or something....

Mostly old school Mission Impossible should have moved its release date, but instead it chose to go up against Barbenheimer and lost in a big way. Unfortunately, that sends a strong message to Hollywood.

There probably isn't a more man-hating movie out there than Barbie and it went #1 in a huge way while Oppenheimer blamed the threat of nuclear destruction on a straight white man and also did great while old-school Tom jumped into ice water and played shrinkie-dink.

Guess what message this sends Hollywood? They were doing it half-assed. People don't want a moderate woke agenda where you take an old school story (Snow White or The Little Mermaid) and make a woke mockery of it merely by diversifying well known characters. That offends both extremes because it still has the same basic old school story the woke hate and offends the old school by replacing characters they know and love with different ones just to please the woke that will still hate it anyway.

No, Barbie proved to them that they need to go full tilt with a fully woke plot and characters to match!

Expect movies to get worse...a lot worse.

 

[Birdie]

Oh gawd, here we go

 

[Moviefreak]

The best part of the last comment…. Those crying that Barbie had a “full tilt” woke plot, are the same ones saying “go woke, go broke”, and claiming Disney films are only failing because they chose to be woke.

Barbie just proved that you can “go woke, and break box office records”. This movie just debunked all of the rhetoric that has been thrown around this forum lately, saying people are revolting because they are sick of the woke agenda getting shoved down our throats. Classic!!!!!

 

[janglesworthy]

Is Barbie woke or is it making fun of both woke and non wokies?

 

[VonMagnum]

The best part of the last comment…. Those crying that Barbie had a “full tilt” woke plot, are the same ones saying “go woke, go broke”, and claiming Disney films are only failing because they chose to be woke.

Barbie just proved that you can “go woke, and break box office records”. This movie just debunked all of the rhetoric that has been thrown around this forum lately, saying people are revolting because they are sick of the woke agenda getting shoved down our throats. Classic!!!!!

It's amazing how you can't read what was actually said (i.e. Disney failing because they lack appeal to both extremes by trying to have it both ways and up appealing to neither), but when you have your own agenda, I guess you see what you want to see.

If Hollywood would make movies for all groups, few would complain. We'd all watch what appeals to us, but lately they seem to be trying to be all things to all people in the same movie and that doesn't work so well. You can't be extreme left and right at the same time, but Disney clearly thinks otherwise by trying to make a right foot shoe fit on the left foot (like with Snow White).

Barbie may have an agenda, but it still appeals to women and people wanting to be or relating to women. That's a large group.

Top Gun Maverick appealed to entire age groups (X to Boomers) plus action, military and old school movie fans (with very little CGI). That's a large group.

Who is Snow White attempting to appeal to? Traditionalists (Grimm or Disney animation?) No. Minorities by converting an already Disney-fied cartoon white character to be black just to be "diverse" rather than cresting a new culturally appropriate story for them instead (like Marvel did with Black Panther?) I doubt the appeal. Certainly not dwarfs as they apparently aren't good enough to play dwarves. I guess Willow's poor ratings had a dour effect on Disney execs....

I don't have to watch Barbie if it doesn't appeal to me, but when I read about how they want to make the next Bond a woman or non-binary purely for PC appeal, do they really care about the James Bond property or its audience and their expectations or are they just trying to use it as a weapon against "toxic masculinity?"

Just look at Doctor Who to see how the audience shrinks when you ignore your core audience. Based on commentary, I have few doubts that the PC agenda crowd loves it, even if they don't watch it because it's one less series to appeal to the group they clearly despise the most on this planet. That didn't help its ratings, but when you're the BBC, ratings don't matter as UK taxes pay for all of it, regardless.

If you don't see the difference, then maybe it's time to install a new light bulb in the projector. I'm sure I can expect some more mockery instead. It's all I really see from you anymore.

 

[pengbuzz]

It's amazing how you can't read what was actually said (i.e. Disney failing because they lack appeal to both extremes by trying to have it both ways and up appealing to neither), but when you have your own agenda, I guess you see what you want to see.

If Hollywood would make movies for all groups, few would complain. We'd all watch what appeals to us, but lately they seem to be trying to be all things to all people in the same movie and that doesn't work so well. You can't be extreme left and right at the same time, but Disney clearly thinks otherwise by trying to make a right foot shoe fit on the left foot (like with Snow White).

Barbie may have an agenda, but it still appeals to women and people wanting to be or relating to women. That's a large group.

Top Gun Maverick appealed to entire age groups (X to Boomers) plus action, military and old school movie fans (with very little CGI). That's a large group.

Who is Snow White attempting to appeal to? Traditionalists (Grimm or Disney animation?) No. Minorities by converting an already Disney-fied cartoon white character to be black just to be "diverse" rather than cresting a new culturally appropriate story for them instead (like Marvel did with Black Panther?) I doubt the appeal. Certainly not dwarfs as they apparently aren't good enough to play dwarves. I guess Willow's poor ratings had a dour effect on Disney execs....

I don't have to watch Barbie if it doesn't appeal to me, but when I read about how they want to make the next Bond a woman or non-binary purely for PC appeal, do they really care about the James Bond property or its audience and their expectations or are they just trying to use it as a weapon against "toxic masculinity?"

Just look at Doctor Who to see how the audience shrinks when you ignore your core audience. Based on commentary, I have few doubts that the PC agenda crowd loves it, even if they don't watch it because it's one less series to appeal to the group they clearly despise the most on this planet. That didn't help its ratings, but when you're the BBC, ratings don't matter as UK taxes pay for all of it, regardless.

If you don't see the difference, then maybe it's time to install a new light bulb in the projector. I'm sure I can expect some more mockery instead. It's all I really see from you anymore.

Agreed: why is it that rather than creating their own properties for these woke characters and ideas, they instead hijack, distort and inevitably ruin existing franchises that aren't?

And even worse: what do they plan on doing when they've used up all the franchises to do this and have none left?

 

[The Terminator]

Remember when T2 was considered insanely expensive to make. Who knew? I thought CGI was supposed to make everything dirt cheap to do high quality effects, but somehow they did it better with models in the 70s (looked more real) on a fraction of the budget (even including inflation).

First ever film to cost more than $100 million. About 16 times the budget of the original film, The Terminator.

Roughly $224.5 million in today's money.



SOURCE WIKIPEDIA:

T2 had the highest-grossing Wednesday opening with $11.8 million (2023 $26.48 million).

Between Friday and Sunday, the film grossed $31.8 million (2023 $71.372 million) from 2,274 theaters, an average of $13,969 (2023 $31,352) per theater, making it the number-one film of the weekend ahead of
The Naked Gun 2½ ($11.6 million) (2023 $26 million) in its second weekend and
Robin Hood: Prince of Thieves ($10.3 million) (2023 $23.1 million) in its fourth.

Over the five-day holiday weekend (Wednesday to Sunday), Terminator 2 grossed $52.3 million (2023 $117.38 million), becoming the second-highest opening five-day total ever behind Batman's $57 million (2023 $140.5 million) in 1989.

Terminator 2 retained the number-one position in its second weekend, grossing $20.7 million (2023 $46.45 million), ahead of the debuts of:

One Hundred and One Dalmatians ($10.3 million) (2023 $23.1 million)
Boyz n the Hood ($10 million) (2023 $22.4 million)

and in its third weekend with $14.9 million (2023 $33.4 million)
ahead of
Bill & Ted's Bogus Journey ($10.2 million) (2023 $22.89 million)
One Hundred and One Dalmatians ($7.8 million). (2023 $17.5 million)

Terminator 2: Judgment Day fell to number two in its fifth weekend, grossing $8.6 million (2023 $19.3 million) against the debut of the comedy Hot Shots! ($10.8 million) (2023 $24.2 million).

It remained in the top-five highest-grossing films for twelve consecutive weeks and the top-ten highest-grossing films for fifteen weeks.

In total, Terminator 2: Judgment Day spent about 26 weeks in theaters in a total of 2,495 cinemas, and grossed $204.8 million (2023 $459.65 million), making it the highest-grossing film of the year,

Terminator 2: Judgment Day is estimated to have grossed a worldwide total of:

$519–$520.9 million(2023 $1 BILLION, 164.85 million / $1,164,857,775),
making it the year's highest-grossing film, and the third-highest-grossing film ever, behind:

1977's Star Wars ($530 million) (2023 $2,673,535,148) and
1982's E.T. the Extra-Terrestrial ($619 million) (2023 $1,960,857,295).

 

[VonMagnum]

Agreed: why is it that rather than creating their own properties for these woke characters and ideas, they instead hijack, distort and inevitably ruin existing franchises that aren't?

And even worse: what do they pan on doing when they've used up all the franchises to do this and have none left?

That's an excellent question, pengbuzz. I have no answer except to guess that either it makes someone's day to distort existing franchises (to ruin someone's favorite show or movie or whatever and stick it to them) or someone high up who is naive thinks that by 'diversifying' every single project, they can keep the mass media from attacking them and their products as dinosaurs (Here I thought everyone loved dinosaurs.... ) or whatever.

Many more recent Bond reviews tended to point this out as if it was their duty to explain Bond to younger generation who apparently never watched anything newer than Barney the dinosaur. Even the female "M" in Goldeneye gave a little misogynist dinosaur speech, but it was kind of funny then as even Judy Dench's M recognized Bond had his uses, however distasteful she might have found his womanizing on a personal level. The point is, even though there was a bit of social commentary in the '90s, they didn't change the fundamental character one bit from the 1980s Timothy Dalton version (my favorite Bond and my favorite Aston Martin, which wonderfully made a comeback in the final Daniel Craig movie! They never explained why it wasn't still blown up after The Living Daylights, however, but maybe there was more than one made?)

They did start changing the plots to be rather over-the-top (like Moore movies without the humor only Moore seemed to be able to fully pull off) with the next movie, which is why I probably really only liked Brosnan in Goldeneye, which yet oddly is my favorite Bond movie of them all (007 vs 006 played by the awesome actor Sean Bean) with the best video game adaption of all time as well. My only complaint about Craig's Bond is somehow he always reminded me more of a Russian bad guy than a British agent for some reason, just the opposite of Sean Bean who was the betrayer in Goldeneye of Russian Cossack descent, but felt totally British next to the Irish American Remington Steele Bond. Still, the movies were good, especially the last three. I only wish my dad had gotten to see the final Craig Daniels movie (they delayed it too long).

Of course, Connery was the quintessential Bond even if I liked Dalton a bit better and Moore was always the most entertaining with the best gadgets (The Spy Who Loved Me and Live and Let Die were fantastic Bond movies, however corny some of the lines were. Actually, I liked all the Moore movies, but A View To A Kill was probably the weakest, which I didn't expect since I usually love Christopher Walken in movies, but somehow his bad guy felt weak. Still, Grace Jones was a fun choice. I liked her in Conan The Destroyer as well.