this post was submitted on 13 Jul 2026
248 points (98.4% liked)
movies
3660 readers
539 users here now
A community about movies and cinema.
Related communities:
- !television@piefed.social
- !homevideo@feddit.uk
- !mediareviews@lemmy.world
- !casualconversation@piefed.social
Rules
- Be civil
- No discrimination or prejudice of any kind
- Do not spam
- Stay on topic
- These rules will evolve as this community grows
No posts or comments will be removed without an explanation from mods.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Studios don't like risks nowadays. So they'd rather remake successful past movies.
Apparently it's not as risk-free as they thought.
Against the billions they have made churning these out? Yeah, it is.
If they were looking at things collectively this way, they wouldn't be making so many remakes and would be making more original movies.
Ah yes, losing $100,000,000 seems very low-risk.
If they thought they had a good chance of losing that much money, they wouldn't have made the movie. The news here is more about how their risk calculations were off.
And now they realise it isn't risk free after all.
To them? Yes it is
No, no it's not.
They can absorb the loss, but it's by no means small
Low risk is still risk
The movie's made nearly 100 mill worldwide. With brand new IP there's no guarantee to even get that much. Plus you'd need more marketing, etc.
They lost, but the risk was smaller than it could've been.
Think about two different scenarios:
Brand new IP, movie costs 250 mill to make, it could be the next Avatar and make well over a billion, or it could make 10 mill because nobody cares
Existing IP, almost certainly going to make under a billion, but there's essentially no way it'll make significantly under 100 million against the same budget of 250 mill.
Which one is low risk and which one is high risk?