What is wrong with movies today?

[CutThumb]

http://grantland.com/features/2014-hollywood-blockbusters-franchises-box-office/

Its an interesting article but it lacks honesty. Hollywood continually goes through phases of making and remaking films time and time again. They will only stop when the returns and public interest in them collapses.
Look at the franchises that have lived, died and returned again and again over the last thirty five odd years. Alien, Star Trek, Superman, Star Wars, Batman, X men, Terminator , Indiana Jones. Inevitably the box office crashes or its critically mauled and the series grinds to a halt until its eventually given a new lease of life because NOTHING else does as well.
There been many new sci fi and fantasy movies made at the same time as these series were. But the hard truth is they were just not good enough. People didn’t go to see them because they lacked the buzz, critics disliked them ,or they did okay but not really well enough and the truth is you’ve simply forgotten they were ever made until you spotted them on Netflix or Amazon years later.
I think " Jupiter Ascending" will be a perfect example of this. Its yet another space opera and visually it reminds very much of "John Carter" but its being critically savaged at the moment but until I see it I'm not going make any judgement. But Warner Bros have gambled $175 million on it. If you look back in that thread you'll see I said at the time I thought the delay for work on the special effects sounded odd . But thats because WB had already funded two bombs, "Transendance" deserved to be one and "Edge of Tomorrow" which most definitely didn't. If you total the cost ALONE of making those three original and new films, its close to a terrifying $500 million!!!!
I’ve heard this argument about reboots and remakes countless times before and it’s still a weak one. Hollywood isn’t the be all and end all of all film making but it’s one of the very few places in the world were the multi million dollar funding for making “mega” blockbusters could ever be put together. It’s a huge complicated business and a massive financial gamble for a product brand that is so often untested, which is why ,when a successful series comes along ,it makes sense to continue to making others like it. Finding the exact combination of things that work for the paying public to see and love a film is not an easy thing.
That’s why I don’t really worry about certain types of films doing brilliantly well even if I don’t like them. It all goes back into the pot which allows more funding for more films, and the chances are there will be one amongst those that I like, probably quite a bit.
Lets face it Marvels success didn’t happen overnight. If you look at their attempts pre Iron Man they weren’t exactly box office busters. How many attempts at the Hulk did we need until they got it right?
I do agree that the next few years do look over stuffed though and there are a couple of things that are worth noting that are now effecting cinema attendances particularly in the States and the UK.
Too many blockbusters crammed in a crowded schedule released within weeks of each other are reducing the overall box office, in some cases quite severely. Why?
Because now many more people can watch and stream films on line after a relatively short period of time after the cinema release dates quite easily. Most people I know have very decent “big” flat TV screens and unlimited broadband and are now therefore fairly reluctant to cough up a considerable amount of money for them all to go out as a family to see a film they don't know much about , when ,come the dark winter nights, they can watch it at home in comfort, for a fraction of the total cost, even of a DVD. That happened with "Edge of Tomorrow". No matter how hard I recommended it to people I could NOT get them to go. Its only months later when they've watched on line that they've said how much they enjoyed it . I really noticed this this summer when more and more people made the one or two choices to go see a film at the cinema and waited for the rest to come on line later . A few didn’t bother at all with any cinema releases, but have caught up with them now as they have been released these last few months.
Its like at Christmas there are just so many films on television you simply cannot be bothered to see them all, no matter how good they are. I’ve still some recorded that I haven’t watched and I’m an avid film fan. Which brings me to my second point.
There really is a huge amount of quality media entertainment everywhere these days. Winter time is the point at which I catch up my video gaming, my reading, my tv series and films (thank you Netflix!!) and even I struggle to do it all. So it would not be surprising that particularly with the sheer number of future films being released unless they pace it right there are going to be some really disappointing BO figures

 

[cboath]

Exactly! I think that people here are forgetting one thing, the studios aren't in the business of making movies, they're in the business of making and money and movies just happen to be the means of making that money. It's the same with pretty much every industry, they're in business to make money.

While true, when you get lazy and turn at remake after remake and flop after flop, you don't get to complain about movie-goers themselves, or the other things they have to spend their money on, current technology, piracy, etc.

There are plenty of examples cited here that show, if you put out a GOOD product, people will pay for it, repeatedly.

They wanna stick to the business schtick, fine, go right ahead, just be prepared to take full blame yourself when you put out a steaming pile. That's something you rarely see.

 

[mistymills]

People who always complain about lack of good movies these days need to actually start watching more new movies. Perhaps beyond franchises and big movies.

Or make them. Or even write one.

 

[Riceball]

While true, when you get lazy and turn at remake after remake and flop after flop, you don't get to complain about movie-goers themselves, or the other things they have to spend their money on, current technology, piracy, etc.

There are plenty of examples cited here that show, if you put out a GOOD product, people will pay for it, repeatedly.

They wanna stick to the business schtick, fine, go right ahead, just be prepared to take full blame yourself when you put out a steaming pile. That's something you rarely see.

That's true and which is why Hollywood endlessly puts out remakes and sequels of hit movies, it's because when they get a hit they try to get another one by adopting the same formula used for that hit. Of course that doesn't alway work but then again, if they knew exactly what combination of elements will draw in movie goers they wouldn't have all that many flops then wouldn't they? Besides, as I said before this has been going for a long time and is hardly anything new. For a while the big thing was musicals, then those went away because nobody wanted to see musicals anymore, then after and during WW II it was war movies but those eventually lost their luster, then for a good long while westerns were the big thing but now they're few and far between. Fads come and go but I think that Hollywood is going to continue to conduct business as usual because it's the safest way to for them to business until they come up with a crystal ball that will them which movie to greenlight that's 100% guaranteed to be a huge box-office hit.

 

[cboath]

Again, that's all well and good, but they have to take ownership of their failures and not pawn it off on everything they can think of except themselves.

Seems like the slate the last few years has been, for the most part, remakes, reboots, and sequels. Just because you hit it big in the 80's doesn't mean it'll hit big 30 years later. I'd venture the percentage of remakes/reboots/sequels is substantially higher now than it was in the 80's.

Frankly, I think Indy is a good example. George looked at what was good in the 20's-30's or so and what he liked as a kid, took elements of those and created something brand new out of it, that was a collassal hit. Seems like no one bothers to do that anymore.

The question always seems to be 'how can i make a buck?', not 'how can i make a good movie'. The two go hand in hand, but it's as if execs only live by the first half of it.

 

[Cephus]

Complaining that Hollywood is too focused on cash-grabs is like complaining that lawyers are too focused on winning their cases.

There are plenty of lawyers who only take on cases from clients they think are actually innocent of the crime. Then there are those who will defend anyone because it isn't about getting justice, it's about getting a paycheck. The first group are worthwhile individuals, the second are scum. Guess which came is most like modern Hollywood?

- - - Updated - - -

Or make them. Or even write one.

Which is really silly because making a movie is a very costly venture, beyond virtually all directors. When budgets are in the millions and millions of dollars, suggesting that some schmoe off of the street go do it is a bit absurd.

 

[batguy]

Remakes:

I think Indiana Jones and Star Wars are great examples of the problem with today.

If current system had been operating in the 1970s/80s then neither of these franchises would have existed. Star Wars would have been a remake of Flash Gordon and Indy a remake of an old Republic serial. But now instead of "inspired by" we get literally the same thing repeated.

And not only is it a repeat, it's usually about half wrecked. That's because the filmmaker didn't really want to be making Flash again, he wanted to be doing his own thing like Star Wars. So he made something dressed as Flash to appease the studio but he crudely wedged the Force & Darth Vader into it. So the original Flash fans go see it and hate it. The younger viewers say "meh" because it's just weak all around. It's neither a good Flash remake nor a good new Star Wars. And they were so busy setting up #2-3 that they didn't even bother to make #1 feel like a whole intact movie.

Then the studios look at the mediocre BO and say, "Well, I guess Flash & the space fantasy genre just don't sell tickets like they used to."

 

[ConvergencePro]

The studios are too hungup on their sucesses fron the 70's, 80's and early 90's to give any half decent writers or new directors a chance to shine on their own.
That and movies these days are targeted to the "Dumb Masses" that thrive on shows like Pawn Stars, Moonshiners, and (insert logging show here)

 

[mistymills]

Which is really silly because making a movie is a very costly venture, beyond virtually all directors. When budgets are in the millions and millions of dollars, suggesting that some schmoe off of the street go do it is a bit absurd.

Nobody said it has to be a million dollar budget. We made and sold a feature film that is available on several streaming sites as well as hard copy media and the budget was less than $2000. We do a webseries where each episode runs us around $300. Know what you have available and work around that.

You may have heard of a movie called Paranormal Activity that was made for $15,000 that had just two actors and no script that went on to gross something like $200 MILLION and sequels.

Eraserhead had no budget but became a huge classic and launched David Lynch's career.

Blair Witch Project had a small budget, I've heard ranges between $20,000-$25,000, and made $250 million.

And don't forget Clerks which launched many careers and was done for less than $30,000.

So saying it can't be done, let alone done successfully, just means you need to learn to think outside the box.

 

[third3ye]

I feel like this thread started out as a rant against today's blockbusters. It's pretty well documented how tentpole budgets (particularly when including marketing) have spiraled out of control over the last couple decades. Because of this, studios play it safe and generally take on projects with as much mass appeal as possible. Each year the majors round out and diversify their film slate, so it's not like every film a major distributes is going to be the same formulaic blockbuster, but generally speaking the more expensive budgets have made studios a lot more risk averse than in the past.

However I also think that there's a TON more content out there - indie, short form, etc. - that we wouldn't have had a few decades ago. The internet has made short form content distribution accessible to any Joe or Jane with a camera and some production skills, and SVOD has provided a much broader audience for indies than ever before. Distributors also shop for indies at film festivals and the winners sometimes do get a fairly wide release (though rare). All I'm saying is, there's a lot of content out there that doesn't fit into the box that the OP is complaining about, they're just generally not wide theatrical releases.

 

[CB2001]

Here's three reasons why there's a problem with movies these days. These are from what I've observed:
1. Not enough original content - there's more franchise/adaptation stuff to the point where there's barely any original content.
2. Most movies are treated like Big Macs - Basically, there are more movies being mass produced to be quickly consumed and then forgotten about, instead of quality products being made that continues bringing in revenue, because Hollywood wants the money, and is basically treating films like living paycheck to paycheck instead of being concerned with making something that continues to have a steady quality to it.
3. No risks - When it came to the Counter-Culture Movement of the 1970s, the studios were willing to take risks. As a result, we got many iconic titles, such as Jaws, Star Wars, The Godfather and many others. And the reason why is because the studios were desperate because they were losing people in the theaters after trying to make substandard films, mostly genre films and sequels (sound familiar?). After the breakout hits of The Graduate and Easy Rider, both made by directors who hadn't had any prior films or at least one prior film, the studios started to take notice. After that, the studios started to pay attention to new filmmakers, giving them chances where they previously wouldn't have. The fact is, these days, if Spielberg and Lucas were starting off with how Hollywood is now, they wouldn't even be given a chance (in fact, Fox would laugh Lucas out of the studio if he were pitching Star Wars now). The studios don't do risks these days on original content and new filmmakers. That's why there's too many franchise/remakes/adaptations out now, because they know they'll get at least some money back. And the suits don't trust the filmmakers to make the movies they want to make, forcing them to often drastically change and dumb down a project that could have been a better quality.

 

[Riceball]

Here's three reasons why there's a problem with movies these days. These are from what I've observed:
1. Not enough original content - there's more franchise/adaptation stuff to the point where there's barely any original content.
2. Most movies are treated like Big Macs - Basically, there are more movies being mass produced to be quickly consumed and then forgotten about, instead of quality products being made that continues bringing in revenue, because Hollywood wants the money, and is basically treating films like living paycheck to paycheck instead of being concerned with making something that continues to have a steady quality to it.
3. No risks - When it came to the Counter-Culture Movement of the 1970s, the studios were willing to take risks. As a result, we got many iconic titles, such as Jaws, Star Wars, The Godfather and many others. And the reason why is because the studios were desperate because they were losing people in the theaters after trying to make substandard films, mostly genre films and sequels (sound familiar?). After the breakout hits of The Graduate and Easy Rider, both made by directors who hadn't had any prior films or at least one prior film, the studios started to take notice. After that, the studios started to pay attention to new filmmakers, giving them chances where they previously wouldn't have. The fact is, these days, if Spielberg and Lucas were starting off with how Hollywood is now, they wouldn't even be given a chance (in fact, Fox would laugh Lucas out of the studio if he were pitching Star Wars now). The studios don't do risks these days on original content and new filmmakers. That's why there's too many franchise/remakes/adaptations out now, because they know they'll get at least some money back. And the suits don't trust the filmmakers to make the movies they want to make, forcing them to often drastically change and dumb down a project that could have been a better quality.

Likewise, in the modern era we have our fair share of iconic titles like Edge of Tomorrow, Big Hero 6, Frozen, Oblivion, The Grand Budapest Hotel, Bird Man, Gravity, 12 Years a Slave, and many more. On the other hand, for all of you Star Wars, Jaws, and other hit movies of the '70s there were plenty of junk movies like Howard the Duck, Superman IV, Airport 1975, Airport '77, The Concorde Airport '79, & Orca to name just a few. The reason why we think that the '70s & '80s were some kind of golden age for Hollywood and original movies is because we're looking back and only remembering the good movies that have survived the test of time. In another 30 - 40 years when people look back at this decade they'll think the same thing probably because all of the crappy remakes and sequels will have been forgotten and the only movies that people will remember will be the good ones.

 

[mattycsi]

junk movies like Howard the Duck

 

[CB2001]

Likewise, in the modern era we have our fair share of iconic titles like Edge of Tomorrow, Big Hero 6, Frozen, Oblivion, The Grand Budapest Hotel, Bird Man, Gravity, 12 Years a Slave, and many more. On the other hand, for all of you Star Wars, Jaws, and other hit movies of the '70s there were plenty of junk movies like Howard the Duck, Superman IV, Airport 1975, Airport '77, The Concorde Airport '79, & Orca to name just a few. The reason why we think that the '70s & '80s were some kind of golden age for Hollywood and original movies is because we're looking back and only remembering the good movies that have survived the test of time. In another 30 - 40 years when people look back at this decade they'll think the same thing probably because all of the crappy remakes and sequels will have been forgotten and the only movies that people will remember will be the good ones.

I would agree, except you use sequels (most being successful and in the disaster film genre, which was a successful genre at that time, thanks to The Poseidon Adventure), a Jaws ripoff (which was common after a successful feature like Jaws, much like the big boom in Star Wars rip offs that also were attempted, which is still true nowadays, with all the work The Asylum film production company has done) and one 1986 film from George Lucas (also, the first Marvel film, ever) for your examples. If you had mention the stuff from Roger Corman, I would have agreed, and then I would have pointed out that he at least gave people a chance at making movies (which includes James Cameron and Gale Ann Herd, who gave us The Terminator). You could have pointed out any Grindhouse or exploitation/sexplotation/blaxploitation film that came out, which I definitely would have agreed on, but then pointed out that they were made outside of the studios, unlike some of the films I pointed out.

And, in response to your belief that people are seeing the 1970s/1980s as the "Golden Age of Hollywood", which is actually not the correct term (it's called "The New Hollywood Age"), all I can do is quote someone who best put it: "Everyone loves the seventies because that's when movies were character-based, and you saw great characters and you saw very interesting filmmaking. There are interesting movies being made now, but its harder and harder to make them." - Justin Bartha

 

[CutThumb]

I think some people need to look at actual informtion : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_science_fiction_films


This lists film releases by decade. I hope it will refresh some memories. Reboots and franchsies are nothing new. And there are a few of cult classics, as well as dozens of abject failures and plenty of just the fair to middling and unmemorable amoungst them. What is most interesting is how many more there are each decade and the overall improvement in the quality of the releases ,particularly as the visual effects make a leap.

The Fantasy genre particularly shows the "effects" leap with the success of the Harry Potter and LOTR trilogy

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fantasy_films

 

[CutThumb]

This one with the list of Super Hero films illustrates the point perfectly;
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_American_superhero_films

 

[cunningham]

Movie trailers that give away the entire plot of the story, rendering actually watching the movie pointless.