148

So I thought The Creator was brilliant. I watched it in the cinema, thoroughly enjoyed it and was gobsmacked when I learned it's budget was only $79 million. It looks better than some films I've seen that cost three times that.

But apparently, while it may make that back, it's unlikely to even earn $100 million globally.

So the answer to the question of why Hollywood churns out the same shite over and over is that, currently, tragically, that is what the masses want to spend their money on.

And that makes me sad.

top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[-] Edgelord_Of_Tomorrow@lemmy.world 89 points 1 year ago

Shawshank Redemption was a book. The Godfather was a book. Lord of the Rings, Forrest Gump, Fight Club, Goodfellas, Silence of the Lambs... That's just from the first 25 of IMDB'S top 250.

The Thing is a remake. The Fly was a remake. Scarface, The Departed, The Mummy... all remakes.

The problem isn't remakes or adaptations, the problem is they're shit remakes and adaptations. Nobody cares that The Batman was the 75th adaptation of Batman, because it was good.

[-] Tar_alcaran@sh.itjust.works 24 points 1 year ago

Shawshank Redemption was a book. The Godfather was a book. Lord of the Rings, Forrest Gump, Fight Club, Goodfellas, Silence of the Lambs… That’s just from the first 25 of IMDB’S top 250.

From the top 10, only Pulp Fiction is original and not a sequel. If you go to the top 20, you can add Inception, The Matrix and Se7en. That's 4 out of 20 (or 1 out of 10). There's a lot more original material beyond the top 25 though, but your point that every great movie is a "ripoff" very much stands.

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] carl_dungeon@lemmy.world 11 points 1 year ago

You’re not wrong that many of our favs are remakes, but OP does have a point that disproportionately more big box office movies are reboots or sequels than 30 years ago.

[-] paultimate14@lemmy.world 9 points 1 year ago

Is that actually true or is everyone in this conversation just forgetting about the new IP's being released?

Perhaps it's a matter of where the marketing budgets are going rather than just what's been produced? Or how remakes and sequels tend to stay in memory longer than a flash-in-the-pan one-off IP? It allows the owners of that IP to invest in more than just movies: all sorts of media and merchandise that keeps the IP in the minds of consumers for longer.

Heck, the two big summer blockbusters this year were Barbie and Oppenheimer. Oppenheimer was definitely original. Does Barbie count? I actually haven't seen it and I'm not that interested, but i don't think it's the same cannon as the direct-to-vhs movies my sister had back in the 90's.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (3 replies)
[-] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 50 points 1 year ago

Cody Johnson put it very well when he talked about how movie executives saw that Barbie was a smart and funny movie with a good message and decided that meant they needed to make more movies about Mattel toys.

Executives don't even like movies very much. They just want to make money and they do whatever they think will make money, not make good movies.

[-] z3rOR0ne@lemmy.ml 3 points 1 year ago

Was gonna point to this exact video. Thanks!

[-] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 4 points 1 year ago

I always love Cody's Showdy.

[-] snekerpimp@lemmy.world 24 points 1 year ago

It’s easier to extract profit for the shareholders from an established IP, rather than trying to build value through building your own IP. Catching lightning in a bottle is difficult, so it’s easier to just sell replicas of the bottle.

[-] gusgalarnyk@lemmy.world 23 points 1 year ago

I swear the creator dialogue has got to have some amount of advertisment mixed in with real people because the biggest compliment I see everywhere is that the movie looks expensive but cost very little.

I saw it. It was gorgeous. The art direction was wonderful. But that was about everything positive I have to say about it.

The world building was atrocious, the plot was trope heavy, the sound design was serviceable but not many sounds stood out, I couldn't find an impactful or nuanced message, the pacing was a rubber band, and the individual challenges were boring.

I love original content, and quite frankly I feel like there's enough of them every year to not be heart broken everytime a bad original film doesn't make a stellar return. I'm kinda tired of the "where new IP" discussion though.

Of course I wish there were more big budget independent films but right now the problem seems to be big budget films in general to me. More often than not they hit like duds, but they're built on good will and that's all it takes to get me to return to the first dud.

Idk, Creator sucked and it hurts to say because I want new, great, and scifi worlds coming to the theater every year but the Creator isn't good simply because it's new and that doesn't meant new IPs are "hard for the masses" to understand/appreciate/turn-out-for.

load more comments (5 replies)
[-] shakcked@lemm.ee 16 points 1 year ago

It's always been lowest common denominator content that's made the most money. I always ask people about movie preferences and an ever increasing common theme "Life is already tough, I don't want a serious movie, I just want mindless entertainment." Sequels provide that, you know the characters, you know the stakes, sprinkle in jokes and you have a mindless money maker.

[-] TheMongoose@kbin.social 3 points 1 year ago

And I say... is it too much to ask for both?

Look, I don't want to give the impression that I'm a film snob with my head up my ass or anything. I enjoy a good comic book movie, a mindless action film, all sorts of stuff. Hell, depending on what day you ask, I'd say Rogue One is the best Star Wars film (on the other days, it's Empire). Unpopular opinion - I think 2001 is overrated. It might be art, but I don't find it entertaining. And I agree with M500 - I loved San Andreas. It knew what it was, I could switch my brain off for a couple of hours and quietly snark at it with a friend. Good times.

I just don't want that to be all there is. And the more films like this fail to make hundreds of billions of dollars, the less the lawyers in charge of the studios are going to risk on them in the future. That's the tragedy for me.

[-] M500@lemmy.ml 2 points 1 year ago

Just the other night I watched San Andreas with my wife.

It’s a mindless action movie, but I loved that moment. It was great just watching some over the top movie and laugh about it/ comment on it.

Serious movies need attention and silence. There is time for that, but nothing is better than joking around with my wife about some movie.

[-] weew@lemmy.ca 15 points 1 year ago

movies, at the most fundamental level, are investments.

Before anything else can happen, somebody needs to put up the money, often hitting nine digit figures, to get it made.

They want to get their money back. They want sure bets.

If it isn't going to be a sequel, it had better carry some powerful names like Tom Cruise or Christopher Nolan or Margot Robbie + Ryan Gosling

[-] MargotRobbie@lemmy.world 6 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Yay for being a powerful name!

Also, too add to this, I don't think big names really have that much of an effect any more. Both "Amsterdam" and "Babylon" were filled with big names, yet neither of them did very well in theaters.

Maybe the "death of the movie star" is true after all, and I don't think Hollywood knows how to deal with it.

[-] _apokalipto_@lemmy.world 3 points 1 year ago

Amsterdam was brilliant, I really liked that film.

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] grayhaze@lemmy.world 14 points 1 year ago

Because people prefer familiarity over the unknown.

It's not a new phenomena, as there have been remakes and sequels for almost as long as there have been movies. It's also not unique to movies as far as sequels go. Readers begging for sequels to popular books are the bane of authors everywhere.

Just enjoy what you enjoy and ignore the things you don't. For every remake or sequel there's an original movie produced by a small independent studio somewhere that's desperate for viewers.

[-] koberulz@lemmy.ml 5 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

The Sprinkler Sprinkled (1896) is a remake of The Sprinkler Sprinkled (1895). It's not something that's been going on "almost as long as there have been movies", it's been going on exactly as long as there have been movies.

load more comments (5 replies)
[-] SuckMyWang@lemmy.world 8 points 1 year ago

I think it’s also similar to the reason all the bands from the 70’s and 80’s have taken up touring again. When these bands started their audience was in the prime of their youth so they were interested in new sounds and experiences. Now that they’re all old and comfortable they don’t want to venture too far from what they know. They also acquired the bulk of the wealth and power and this group of people is also the ones running these companies

[-] demesisx@infosec.pub 7 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

This is why: https://youtu.be/OZ28knLt5Rs?si=SddCmwZnETY3n_1R

Edit: I see I’m not the first person to post this video.

[-] Resol@lemmy.world 6 points 1 year ago

I still have yet to figure out why nobody does remakes like HeartGold and SoulSilver anymore.

load more comments (6 replies)
[-] A_Random_Idiot@lemmy.world 6 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Big reason is because people keep buying it.

Lesser reason is that these companies are risk averse, and would rather spend 500 million risking a flop on a remake of somethign that has an existing base, than spend 10million to support something new, unique and creative.

load more comments (3 replies)
[-] uphillbothways@kbin.social 6 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

There's the corporate side of it, which other comments have covered, but consumer mentality is a big piece, too. Seems like we're so awash in content there's a widespread jaded expert mentality that's taken hold. A lack of naive willingness to try new things, possibly paired with or caused by a feeling of being overtaxed financially from all sides and having too many things demanding our time.
A lack of willingness to spend time or money on something we don't already identify with as being good, on both the sides of consumers and producers.

Late stage capitalism has changed us all. Feels like there's a lot less room for experimentality in this huge carefully curated experience. We've all seen too much.

edit to add: Maybe the popularity of reboots are us yearning for simpler times. We can't reboot society so we reboot our movies, music, shows, etc. Meanwhile, constantly rehashing old plots prevents the renewal we really want.

[-] demesisx@infosec.pub 5 points 1 year ago

What are these new things you write about? The studios haven’t greenlighted a “new thing” in 20 years.

[-] MargotRobbie@lemmy.world 6 points 1 year ago

Risk.

The thinking is if an idea worked the first time, people will want more of it, so it's going to work the second time too.

Plus, it's way easier to get people working together on a project when everybody had already worked together before.

[-] SharkAttak@kbin.social 5 points 1 year ago

A movie about Risk, the tabletop game, you say?

[-] TokyoCalling@lemmy.world 5 points 1 year ago

Not everything is a sequel, reboot or remake.

Every week, original films are released. Most lack money for advertising and are commercial failures. If we wish to see more films like them made, we need to see them - preferably with people who wouldn't otherwise have, and spread the news about them in person or Lemmy or whatever you wish.

Or you could just wait. The movie industry has gone through this many times.

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] HubertManne@kbin.social 4 points 1 year ago

Part of it for me is im not paying for anything anymore. Avengers endgame was like the last thing I bought and that was mostly just wanting to finish off the story. To much rehashing and to much individual little streaming fifedoms and such.

[-] Number1SummerJam@lemmy.world 4 points 1 year ago
[-] Finkler@lemmy.world 3 points 1 year ago

Hollywood ran out unique ideas years ago for the most part. Reboots etc just easier .

[-] smallaubergine@kbin.social 6 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Nah it's not that they ran out of ideas. It's that the market has changed and there's no room for risky mid-budget or high budget movies. Back in the day they could make a substantial chunk off of home video sales rather than just the theatrical release. Now streaming is not nearly as lucrative and they have to compete with a ton more forms of media. So when you're dropping hundreds of millions to make a movie you have to be damn sure it's gonna draw people to the theaters. So you take fewer risks and make things as wide as possible to appeal to everyone worldwide.

There was a really good 1 hour long YouTube video posted recently that broke it down

[-] BruceTwarzen@kbin.social 3 points 1 year ago

I don't think they ran out of ideas. The thing that i hate about modern movies or the industry behind it is that they make a movie, let's take op's movie for example, which cost 80million to make, everything included. It made 100million dollars and is considered a failure. Any normal ass company is glad to pay their workers and make some money. Just imagine joe's plumber shop working for 9 month on a project that cost him 80k in labour and materials and he makes 100k, which means 20 k profits and he's like: oh no, what a shitshow, i didn't even make half a million.

[-] mrbubblesort@kbin.social 2 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

I get your point, but 20k USD profit for a 9 month project could be an absolute shit show. Businesses need enough to cover costs during the bad times as well as the good, so 20% profit wouldn't cover for very long if projects dried up the next year.

[-] the_q@lemmy.world 3 points 1 year ago

Because it's cheap and people keep buying.

[-] HeartyBeast@kbin.social 3 points 1 year ago

It’s low risk - or, it’s at least a more quantifiable risk. It’s easier for studios to be able to estimate the returns on investment

[-] dustyData@lemmy.world 3 points 1 year ago

Here's another essay about this by Patrick (H) Willems. It touches on other factors as the risk adverseness of theaters and producers. The death of the movie star, the high costs of CGI, the devalue of the cinema experience by way of Netflix straight to stream content, the rise of streaming in general, profiteering by executives, the raise in TV series budget, etc.

But quite pointedly, it touches on the fact that audiences have been trained for decades now to stay at home and not to request higher quality media. The emotional experience of “going out” to the movie theater, spending the evening engaging with an unknown novel narrative, trusting the director and the publisher to keep you entertained for a couple of hours is all gone. Mass marketing media has made it so that this experience is not possible anymore, so people have stopped requesting it. People only invest on blockbuster, $200MM+ mega productions. So they go to the theaters once or twice every year for those mega events. But people no longer go any random weekend to a theater just to see something that's being played there regardless of mass marketing. It would take years to retrain audiences that such an offering exists and that they don't have to hunt on streaming services or pirate movies just to emulate that random Saturday evening experience at home.

[-] vettnerk@lemmy.ml 2 points 1 year ago

As much as I was fed up with "Batman: Hulks Revenge - Infinity Multiverse Edition, a Groot and Thanos Love Story" ten years ago, I can't deny that they're popular titles. I just hope that movie makers will shift back to originality at some point.

But for now, due to the shift in how media is consumed, they're unlikely to go for anything that is not a safe choice, which sadly means that they'll stick to sequels or renoots of established brands.

[-] anonionfinelyminced@kbin.social 2 points 1 year ago

Simpsons/Star Wars crossover-plus-reboot when?

[-] banana_meccanica@feddit.it 2 points 1 year ago

Because the human being is habitual and prefers something that is always familiar to him. So the same things will be produced with the same actors, Tom Hanks will be forced to make films up to 90 years and if he dies he will be simulated by the IA until the end of time.

[-] breadsmasher@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago
[-] kandoh@reddthat.com 2 points 1 year ago

People want the familiar. That's why mom & pop stores lost out to chain retailers, why your dad just wants to go to chilies again instead of trying out that new place that just opened.

load more comments
view more: next ›
this post was submitted on 16 Oct 2023
148 points (88.5% liked)

Movies

7439 readers
274 users here now

Lemmy

Welcome to Movies, a community for discussing movies, film news, box office, and more! We want this to be a place for members to feel safe to discuss and share everything they love about movies and movie related things. Please feel free to take part and help our community grow!


Related Communities:

!books@lemmy.world - Discussing books and book-related things.

!comicbooks@lemmy.world - A place to discuss comic books of all types.

!marvelstudios@lemmy.world - LW's home for all things MCU.


While posting and commenting in this community, you must abide by the Lemmy.World Terms of Service: https://legal.lemmy.world/tos/

  1. Posts or comments that are homophobic, transphobic, racist, sexist, ableist, or advocating violence will be removed.

  2. Be civil: disagreements happen, but that doesn’t provide the right to personally insult others.

  3. Spam, self promotion, trolling, and bots are not allowed

  4. Shitposts and memes are allowed until they prove to be a problem.

    Regarding spoilers; Please put "(Spoilers)" in the title of your post if you anticipate spoilers, as we do not currently have a spoiler tag available. If your post contains an image that could be considered a spoiler, please mark the thread as NSFW so the image gets blurred. As far as how long to wait until the post is no longer a spoiler, please just use your best judgement. Everyone has a different idea on this, so we don't want to make any hard limits.

    Please use spoiler tags whenever commenting a spoiler in a non-spoiler thread. Most of the Lemmy clients don't support this but we want to get into the habit as clients will be supporting in the future.

Failure to follow these guidelines will result in your post/comment being removed and/or more severe actions. All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users. We ask that the users report any comment or post that violates the rules, and to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting.

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS