- cross-posted to:
- movies@lemm.ee
- cross-posted to:
- movies@lemm.ee
You must log in or register to comment.
Here’s my take. If a movie ticket is $5.00 I’ll try something new. Maybe I like it or I don’t, but hey, it’s $5.00 and I get to tell people how awful it was. If a movie ticket is $20.00 I am not going to play around. I want something I’m already sold on.
I’m gonna sound a little “old man yells at cloud” here, but the majority of original movies are trying to jam way too much into a 2-hour runtime. Characters are dropped into the plot out of nowhere, protagonists change their minds for no apparent reason, 30-second montages are substituted for meaningful emotional beats, the pacing feels rushed after the first half hour, it’s just a mess of stuff happening because the scriptwriter wanted it to. (Or maybe it’s the editor’s fault, idk, I don’t make movies.) A movie is the same length as a short story, not a novel, and trying to do a novel is going to make it feel like a super-long trailer instead of a movie 99% of the time. Critics are gonna pan it and no one is gonna watch it.
Sequels and franchise films can sometimes overcome this by benefit of familiar terrain. You already know the setting, you already know the characters, so we don’t need to spend time on that. It’s a definite advantage.
(The downside is that a lot of sequels forget to tell a story. I didn’t tune in to “hang out” with my favorite superheroes. I was expecting, y’know, an emotionally compelling plot.)
And almost none of the biggest flops of the year were original films either.
This data is kind of useless when the big production movies were all non originals and we wouldn’t expect indie movies to break box office records while people are still struggling financially.
There’s nothing wrong with sequels. There’s only so much worldbuilding and character development you can do in 2 hours. It’s a cool thing that a movie can start in an established world and not have to spend so much screen time building it from scratch.
Of course there are lazy and bad sequels, but there’s nothing inherently bad about them and it’s become too big of a meme to write them off reflexively.
I really prefer movies to television because they are conventionally self-contained stories without the baggage of lore or familiar characters.
Give me a Hitchcock movie any day over something with a 3 hour runtime and a “universe” it expects me to be familiar with.
I’d rather watch serial TV shows. Give me a 10 hour “movie” with obvious stopping points, and a plot that is better than solving some inane crime in two hours.
If they can guarantee that they’ll finish the story, I’m on board with the shows. But most of the time, the story is either cut short or it’s extended indefinitely. In film, you can usually bet that by the end, the major plot points will be resolved. You can’t say the same about television (at least when it comes to series that explore a single storyline throughout as opposed to sitcoms that have more self-contained episodes).
There are obviously exceptions in both cases, but I’ve been bit enough times by good shows that raised a bunch of questions right before being canceled.
Also, with everything being so expensive when you wanna see a movie, do you pick one where you have a pretty good idea what you’re getting into or do you risk it on new IP? I still love going to the cinema, but it’s so expensive that I am very picky and only go once or twice a year.
This is why I typically enjoy shows more than movies. It’s pretty hard to make me care about the characters in 90 min.
I love the juxtaposition of this with the comment saying they prefer movies over shows. I like that people enjoy stories differently.
I completely understand them liking self-contained, complete stories, but I’m definitely in your camp. I like shows that I can immerse myself in and really get to know how the characters and universe tick. That’s probably why I gravitate towards sci-fi and fantasy. To me, the worldbuilding and lore is the point.
It’s amazing when they do though. Fargo is 90 minutes, I love short movies that are just so good
I didn’t know they even make movies that short anymore.
i know the metaphor isnt 1:1 but i’m not upset when there’s a second season of a tv show I liked, and I don’t consider it lazy to use the same characters to tell a new story.
also it’s kind of a no-brainer for general audiences. why take a risk paying for a ticket to something I might not like, when I can see something I know I do like, only new?
these films have much bigger budget allocations than most (if not all) of a studio’s original slate, so a built-in audience ensures at least some ROI.
that doesn’t mean i’m happy about it, gambling on new stories should be more profitable than gambling with a $250m budget. but the latter has been a proven strategy, at least at the moment.
instead of a 4-decade-long dead-horse-beating the people complaining need to take a deep breath and go and support indie and original cinema themselves.
But the top grossing movie for 2023 is an original movie, and that’s pretty impressive.
Now, if I could only remember what it’s called…
Very memorable performance, lead deserved an Oscar nom at the very least.
Maybe next year.
I’m trying to remember a film I wish I would’ve seen last year, but can’t think of anything.
The Substance was so good seeing in a packed theater and feeling the energy of everyone having the same wtf reactions. I guess the moment is over but highly recommended.
Have you se en The Substance?
Ah, yes, that one seemed to have some potential. Good point, there’s at least one. In truth, there’s probably others.
The big studios are not promoting/making original films and the smaller studios don’t have enough money to market their films properly
They have the money, it’s just not worth dumping endless amounts into marketing if there aren’t enough people interested in watching the movie.
I think there are enough people interested, but those people probably have to make a choice. Cinema tickets arent cheap, and everything else is becoming more and more expensive. So you choose between taking a risk on something or seeing a sequel to something you already enjoyed.
I know what I would choose… and honestly it is neither these days, I will wait for another way to watch it.
Viewing habits have changed, that’s no secret. People go to the theatre more as a social event than just as an avenue to watch a movie. In most places there are ways to go to the theatre relatively cheaply if you make the effort. Don’t get drinks and food, go during the weekday instead of weekends, matinées, some theatres have loyalty programs, smaller movies are also typically cheaper, etc.
If you want the big blockbuster premium experience, then you’ll pay premium prices, but that’s not the only way to see movies in theatres.
People on the Internet often say that they want more original movies, but the box office proves that this isn’t always the case.
This is why Hollywood keeps making sequels, reboots, and adaptations, because they make more money than original movies.
And for that matter, original movies are still being made - they’ve just skipped theaters and moved to streaming (again, because they’re not as profitable as preexisting IP).
People have voted with their wallets. This is what the general public wants, whether we like it or not.
I’m gonna sound like a dick and expect downvotes for this but the average person is dumb and easy to entertain
The average person is tired from having to work themselves to exhaustion just to support themselves and their family. Often they just want something easy to watch, without the commitment of something with more depth.
I tried my best to not believe this but the moment I’m watching alien romulus and when the the get away from her you bitch line came up and everyone cheered in the theater. Is the day my hope for other humans died when it came to film.
And the people who complain about wanting original films on the Internet are also dumb and refuse to seek them out or go see them in the theater.
Nobody is saying original films don’t exist. People just want them to get the big budget treatment. We want Disney, Sony, and all the others to dump millions into high quality original content in addition to the plethora of smaller original films we currently consume.
With corporate bankrolling comes corporate meddling.
Lol, no they don’t. If they did they would support original films at the theater. The reason those films don’t get the treatment is because when they do, people don’t buy tickets.
This is so weirdly adversarial. It can be true that the people that express their desire for original movies online do in fact go and see them in theaters, but that number is simply dwarfed by the number of people that only see movies with massive marketing budgets that only exist for established franchises.
It’s not an issue of intelligence or what people are entertained by, it’s an issue of what attracts people to a theater and pay lots of money before the film comes to streaming. Not everyone cares for or can afford a regular theater experience anymore, particularly for lower key films.
I mean, we re-elected a lying narcissist who’s going to destroy the country and hasn’t demonstrated otherwise. We’re a pretty dumb people
Yay! *clap* *clap* They said “dick”! Teehee…
Because big budget films are not designed to be good, they’re designed to make money. And to do that that need to be inoffensive and easy to consume by the lowest common denominator. Which almost always makes then mediocre.
Unoriginal films have the benefit of having already paid a huge part of the marketing costs. When you hear “Super Mario Brothers: The Movie” or “Avengers: Some Multiverse” you already have an idea of what the movie is about.
Contrast this with the movie Megalopolis, where I had no idea what the movie was even about, and the trailer answered very few of my questions. It tried to sell the movie on the power/ego of the director and the cast. But that’s not gonna make people take a chance on it, especially when movie tickets are so expensive
But that’s not gonna make people take a chance on it, especially when movie tickets are so expensive
This is why original movies do better on streaming, where there is a low barrier for entry. Because if you don’t like it, at least it cost you nothing, and you can stop watching aat any time.
And you don’t have to put pants on
Is that why they kicked me out of the theater?
People on the Internet and people going to the box offices are very different demographics.
The Simpsons had this nailed down a long time ago with the Comic Book Guy. Chronically online grown-ass men disgusted that content not made for them had no appeal to them. And everyone must hear about the injustice.
How’s that?
What they meant is that people talking about movies online don’t represent the box office as a whole
Yes and we want more steak and fewer Big Macs. Yet people are out there still buying Big Macs. Is it because Big Macs are better than steak? Or is something else going on?
People had the chance to see Megalopolis and really, really, did not. ;)
#111 - $7,629,085
Well that movie was not very good and unnecessarily long so…
But… but… “Original!” :)
(I enjoyed it, and it didn’t feel THAT long. 2 hours, 18 minutes.)
i still want to see it, all the people hating on it make me think it might just be ok!
Because the culture is eating itself.
it’s the Dead Box-Office theory, in action
15 - “It Ends With Us” Worldwide gross: $350,986,018 Reported production budget: $25 million
14 -“Twisters” Worldwide gross: $370,962,265 Reported production budget: $155 million
13 - “Kingdom of the Planet of the Apes” Worldwide gross: $397,378,150 Reported production budget: $160 million
12 - “Bad Boys: Ride or Die” Worldwide gross: $404,544,199 Reported production budget: $100 million
11 - “Gladiator II” Worldwide gross: $406,644,901 Reported production budget: $250 million to $300+ million
10 - “Beetlejuice Beetlejuice” Worldwide gross: $451,100,435 Reported production budget: $100 million
9 - “Venom: The Last Dance” Worldwide gross: $476,368,152 Reported production budget: $120 million
8 - “Kung Fu Panda” Worldwide gross: $547,689,492 Reported production budget: $85 million
7 - “Godzilla x Kong: The New Empire” Godzilla in " Worldwide gross: $571,750,016 Reported production budget: $135 million
6 - “Wicked” Worldwide gross: $586,301,620 Reported production budget: $150 million
5 - “Dune: Part Two” Worldwide gross: $714,444,358 Reported production budget: $190 million
4 - “Moana 2” Worldwide gross: $820,990,553 Reported production budget: $150 million
3 - “Despicable Me 4” Worldwide gross: $969,126,452 Reported production budget: $100 million
2 - “Deadpool & Wolverine” Worldwide gross: $1,338,073,645 Reported production budget: $200 million
1 - “Inside Out 2” Worldwide gross: $1,698,765,616 Reported production budget: $200 million
It ends with us is the undercover GOAT of this list, making about 14 times its budget, and with a relatively low cost of $25M.
Everything else cost more than $100M except Kung fu Panda and didn’t return nearly as much proportionally.
So was “it ends with us” the only original movie on the list?
I’m not super familiar, but I believe it was based on a book?
People shit on the lack of original movies, then a studio like Disney releases a bunch of new original movies and nobody watches them. Just about every original film released by big studios bombs, then people wonder why they don’t do em.
They don’t do them because they do poorly, and they do poorly because they suck at doing original (the majority of all Disney films aren’t original all the way back to snow white)
Yes, if the movies suck then it’s still a problem. We want good original movies, not shitty ones.
Disney released a new and original movie?
When? Back in 2000?
Could’ve sworn “Inside Out” was original and a huge hit. But then Disney will beat that dead horse with multiple sequels and direct to video releases and spin offs like they do with anything that is successful.
Inside Out that was released in 2015? I guess the clock is right once a decade.
Encanto was like 2/3 years ago at best
And it still isn’t very good. Family is important yay here’s some music. All painted on a brilliant background tapestry of “it’s cool to not be special” and “Latinos are magical”.
If we are just cycling through cultures not represented in Disney yet and I ended up getting an encanto equivalent I’d be honestly pretty let down.
Isn’t Wicked about the Wicked Witch from Wizard of Oz? The story might be original, but the characters and setting aren’t.
That’s correct. Wicked is based on the Broadway musical of the same name.
Which is itself based on a book.
And Wicked the book is technically based on the Wonderful Wizard of Oz, another book.
Wicked is also godawful and not a wonder item didn’t break anything except it’s own legs
Genuine question: is it bad if movies don’t make a ton of money in theaters? Like, if it goes to streaming, is the assumption then that it won’t make near as much in profit syndicated on some
Streaming platform? There are some
Movies I definitely want to see, original films
Ideally, but I am not a movie theater goer generally, even in the best of scenarios. I’d rather watch at home.Matt Damon goes into this in an interview on Hot Ones, apparently in the past what you mention wasn’t as much of an issue due to the home market with DVD sales. But streaming doesn’t give that same return on investment, I think because the movie makers just get money from streaming services buying the rights and maybe some residuals, so theater profit is the main focus.
Ah, I see. Makes sense. Thanks!
Historically movies make most of their money at the box office. It’s rare for something to be profitable just from rentals/streaming, and even if it eventually is it will take a long time for the studio to recoup its costs.
I don’t think this is true anymore, because the studios now own the streaming channels. They make more money from subscribers and ad sales than they do theater releases. If they made their money from theater releases, the theaters wouldn’t be struggling and the movies wouldn’t be rushed off the big screen and onto the streaming channels.
I think that might have possibly changed since covid. I believe much less people are now going to cinemas.
