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.
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
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.
Amsterdam was brilliant, I really liked that film.
It’s important to note that the same is essentially true for theater goers. As a viewer, I am investing my time and money in a movie experience. With tickets being $15+, a theater date can easily cost $50. When a trip to the theater costs that much, I sure as hell don’t go every other weekend, and I definitely don’t want to see something batting 57% on Rotten Tomatoes.
So it ends up being a vicious cycle where studios only greenlight established IP or “surefire” bets and viewers only see the big hits. I don’t know anyone anymore who just casually goes to the theater because it’s so expensive, so in turn, casual movies have died. The only thing I can think of that’s weathered this are genres with dedicated fan bases, like horror.
Walking out of an unsatisfying, crap movie after dropping $50 hurts, and staying at home is the easiest way to avoid it.
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.
A movie about Risk, the tabletop game, you say?
I still have yet to figure out why nobody does remakes like HeartGold and SoulSilver anymore.
Can you elaborate for me.
These are considered to be the best Pokémon remakes of all time, which were released in 2009 (approximately 10 years after the original Gold and Silver releases for the Game Boy)
When I look at modern remakes of films, video games, sometimes even TV shows, it just seems that all the magic is somehow sucked out of it. I never understood why.
Cos Nintendo really cares about its IPs. It probably thinks ahead. Modern executives don’t. It’s all about the now. That’s why we have broken big budget games that make a lot of money with preorders and underdeliver.
I’ve seen people talk shit about modern Nintendo games as well. Some people even referred to Scarlet and Violet as a “buggy mess”. I’m probably guessing they’re playing Red and Green (the first Japanese release of the series) instead.
Well, you can’t appeal to everybody but recent Nintendo games are great according to the average opinion. Mine included :)
Good for you
I never played them so I can’t have an opinion on them
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.
None of this is new. Remakes have been a thing for at least a hundred years.
Every few years someone reaches an age where they notice it and we get another OP asking the same question that’s been asked countless times.
we get another OP asking the same question that’s been asked countless times.
I mean, I did answer the question in the post. I’m just sad because people complain that we don’t get enough new stuff, but when that new stuff comes out, they don’t go and see it. I can’t blame Hollywood for playing it safe, when it doesn’t pay off when they don’t.
Oh definitely. I agree with you.
It’s like complaining about the weather though.
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.
Most lack money for advertising and are commercial failures
A24’s strategy in a nutshell.
This is why: https://youtu.be/OZ28knLt5Rs?si=SddCmwZnETY3n_1R
Edit: I see I’m not the first person to post this video.
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.
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.
The Creator was fucking horrible
It’s a movie about racism. The so called “AI” are literally Humans with holes in their neck. The whole AI thingy is just clickbait, because AI is THE bait topic nowadays. The is no moral dilemma in racism. Furthermore, literally everything in the movie was made too look or sound cool without giving any second thought to it.
SPOILERS AHEAD
Nothing about the “AI” made in any way sense: >!If they are persecuted by the Americans, why don’t they add synthetic skin on their neck? Who would create synthetic humans without changing anything except a hole in the neck? Better eyes so they are not blinded by smoke bombs? Efficient communication and data transfer? Stronger limbs? Why should they continue human religious tradition? Why should they sleep? How does this child “AI” grow? How does this child control any machine? What is even considered a machine? Has it just telekinesis?!<
Nothing about the big fucking floating ship made any sense: >!Why are they above every place in new asia at the same time? Why do they need to, if they can just fire their rockets from anywhere anyway (proof: end of the movie)? Why do they use BLUE LIGHT to warn their targets before shooting (same with the tanks)? Why can’t the rockets fly autonomously? Why are the “AIs” running towards a huge falling metal ship meteor at the end? Why doesn’t the landing produce a shockwave?!<
Other stuff didn’t make any sense either: >!If can they revive humans in synthetic human bodies, why does being dead for longer limit this to a few seconds with full capabilities, instead of resulting in a half brain-dead human? Why do they produce bombs that warn the victims by beeping before exploding? Why don’t the AIs that capture the MC just take away the MCs prosthesis so he can’t do shit?!<
2/10, because the animals were cute and funny.
deleted by creator
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.
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.
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.
The top 2 movies this year were not sequels, reboots, or remakes:
https://www.boxofficemojo.com/year/2023/?ref_=bo_yl_table_1
1 Barbie $635,171,975
2 The Super Mario Bros. Movie $574,934,330
2 more in the top 10:
5 Oppenheimer $323,715,325
10 Sound of Freedom $184,038,874
So 4 out of the top 10, including the top 2 are new to film.
Not bad… The reason the Creator didn’t do well is that it’s apparently not very good:
While Barbie and Mario aren’t sequels, they are very much banking on the fact that they are extremely well established brands worldwide.
Oppenheimer has Christopher Nolan’s name.
In the end it’s all about branding and marketing. Sequel are easy to market, as well as other well known brands, and superstar directors or actors.
The Sound of Freedom is genuinely a rare surprise.
Super Mario Bros (1993) https://imdb.com/title/tt0108255/
Super Mario Bros (2023) https://imdb.com/title/tt6718170/
Of course, there is an inevitable sequel coming to one of these movies…
Bad
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.
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.
Who has suggested that being based on a book makes it unoriginal? Never heard that expressed and definitely not by op.
I’m failing to see how it could be original. You’re taking someone else’s idea and adapting it.
It’s a different medium entirely. Not to mention the book version is normally quite different.
Plus I never said my opinion or presented anything as fact. Just said I’ve never heard this idea. It probably strikes me as odd because perhaps the majority of movies ever made are based on books.
