Franchise Fatigue...Is It Real?

[kguillou]

I think you guys are seriously on to something about TV usurping films. I can quite honestly say the best thing I've watched this year was Stranger Things on Netflix. This is followed closely by Daredevil season two.Television really is upping the ante and becoming the premier format for storytelling. Even though I don't watch it, Walking Dead is lighting social media on FIRE because of its premiere last night. You just don't see that kind of buzz for any movie really these days. Granted, TV has the luxury or being a long form episodic format where you grow attached to characters and watch stories gradually develop. Movies need to say what they gotta say in 2-2 and 1/2 hours and leave an impression.

 

[Octoberist]

I don't think it was apparent to me till this year. Especially how Stranger Things gone viral with fan art, TV shirts, parodies, etc. Then I look at film, and we barely get that sort of love anymore (besides Marvel, Star Wars, etc)

I don't see any Now You See Me cosplayers or slash fics.

 

[NotSoLongAgo]

Yeah stranger things has been a phenomenon this year. That last episode was disappointment though. Tv is taking over for sure

 

[dude stannis]

Only problem is the death of the mid budget film is forcing a lot of stuff to go on TV that should've been a movie franchise. The Strain would've been better served as a movie trilogy. Quarry's whole season could've been told in 2 hours.

 

[Octoberist]

I agree that the Strain should've been either a movie series, or a miniseries. Right now, it's just stretching things out, and it's losing its viewers. And I'll be honest, there's better shows to watch right now, at least for me. I feel almost overwhelmed.

 

[samsnee]

I don't think it's just franchise fatigue. It's hype fatigue. We're all guilty of wanting every possible spoiler, but when you get breaking news to see a blurry picture of a costume that hasn't been edited in post-production on the first day of shooting, it's too much.

Stranger Things was great not only because it was a good show, but there was no real hype to it. No expectation of what it should or could be. Season 2 will have tougher expectations because people will overly dissect every episode title, casting, etc.

 

[Greens]

Nope, just bad movie fatigue. No one would have cared if more of these sequels had been good.

Look, we can talk about this because the year hasn't ended yet. Every single year has had movies that were "supposed" to be big but have been forgotten now. Movies have been getting ****** sequels for ages. The Crow got THREE sequels. THREE, and who talks about them now? Then again, who talks about the the Crow at all...

Is TV attracting more attention these days? Absolutely. No doubt about that.

 

[Black Narcissus]

I still consider films to be superior.

 

[Octoberist]

Nope, just bad movie fatigue. No one would have cared if more of these sequels had been good.

Look, we can talk about this because the year hasn't ended yet. Every single year has had movies that were "supposed" to be big but have been forgotten now. Movies have been getting ****** sequels for ages. The Crow got THREE sequels. THREE, and who talks about them now? Then again, who talks about the the Crow at all...

Is TV attracting more attention these days? Absolutely. No doubt about that.

I think you're ignoring the frequency of the amount of sequels and remakes we're getting. You can bring up 'The Wolfman vs whatever' but the was the 40's, and when we had less than 40 American movies a year.

But in the end, yes, you're also right about the quality. And like what someone said, hype fatigue.

 

[Kyle]

It ALL comes down to quality.

Sequels aren't solid earners - well, sequels are more and more just tossed out without a thought and in a rough economy people are becoming smarter with their money. IPs sell, but you also have to be smart about it and deliver it RIGHT.

There isn't enough hype - well, go out of the box and give people something they can truly be excited about. Hype still exists. Word of mouth still exists. Television proves that. DELIVER. Mad Max. Guardians of the Galaxy. Deadpool. Strikingly original films that built hype not because of the IP but because they felt original. If you deliver quality, you get quality results. Give the people something to talk about. Don't complain and blame IPs when you do it wrong, others are doing the same and because they're focused on quality soaring because of it.

TV is over shadowing film because TV is better - that all comes down to quality, TV is only better because film quality is lower. If the quality of films were higher, that would not be the case. TV by the way is more FRANCHISE built than film is by it's very nature, if it's successful there's more of it - if the franchise doesn't work then it gets cancelled. It lives and breathes based off of franchise thinking.

It's not that it's sequels. It's not that hype no longer exists. It's not that film can't match and rival TV. If it was things being franchises - Walking Dead, Game of Thrones, American Horror Story, hell going newer Mr. ROBOT would all be sinking as well since they're ran off of a very similar way of thinking. Franchise thinking is just giving you more of what you've shown you already like, season 2 has the same thought processes as sequel 2 (or rather sequel 9 due to expanded time TV has vs film). Those are all, every single one of those points, SYMPTOMS of a decline in quality.

In short, all of these come down to QUALITY. The only outlier that is also doing it in is backwards thinking with release dates - cramming rather than letting them have breathing room.

 

[dark_b]

its impossible to have every year 50 good movies. some of them will be bad. or lets say 5 very good blockbuster movies.

i think they need to make less movies. i think it will increase the chance that those movies make a bigger profit.

 

[Octoberist]

I think, in the case of MGM, they used remakes and whatever as a crutch: Ben-Hur, Poltergeist, Robocop, and Carrie have all bombed. They all were a mixed bag. The only success they had was Creed (thank God), and you're right, it's because it's damn good.

 

[Black Narcissus]

Eh, no tv series has touched FR, Birdman, Revenant, LA LA LAND or The Handmaiden for me.

I think folks really enjoy long format storytelling a lot more now tho.

 

[Octoberist]

With TV, you're dealing with less money and less blowback, so you're able to take more risks. So I understand why the studios are playing it safe with their movies. But man, sometimes the studio system is so out of touch. Again, why a Ben-Hur movie, and why in August?

 

[Octoberist]

Eh, no tv series has touched FR, Birdman, Revenant, LA LA LAND or The Handmaiden for me.

I think folks really enjoy long format storytelling a lot more now tho.

You get to know the characters a bit more. Also, in horror, there's been a lot of great original movies coming out of that genre, from Don't Breathe to Green Room, to It Follows, Babadook and Hush.

 

[Kyle]

Less isn't needed necessarily. The first thing to do there is just realize you get better results by stretching films out. Stop restraining it to christmas and summer. Some of the films undoubtedly could have done better if they were released in September or October when there's less competiton. No other product has to make up most of it's budget in two days. It may have made sense back in the day, but now it's just cannibalizing. As a filmmaker, I'd dread having a summer release and try to put it into my contract to have it released in the fall. Some recent film did that actually, forgot which one, but I found it remarkably smart - summer is cannibalizing, fall gives the audience time to grow for success.

 

[Octoberist]

Yeah, it gets stressful during the Summer now. The political landscape doesn't help it, so it's you get away from all the noise.

The problem with September (and Jan) is school. And I'm not saying that just to say that, because it's a legit argument - Kids are gong back to school during those months, so the BO is gonna stay in the 10-15 million dollar range. Usually by October, the BO rises again, and will continue to do so till the end of the year. SO you can't have big budgeted stuff during those months.

 

[Kyle]

Tarzan. For example. I see that doing better in the fall. Yeah, there's school but I find that being more the issue with younger rather than middle or older. That film, for example, while it will see a decrease in opening weekend sees a guaranteed increase based on the amount of time it has after to itself without being taken off the map one week later.

All of these would see a decrease in opening weekend. However, spaced out you're given more time to accumulate earnings. Titanic didn't become the highest grossing movie in two days. It got that way from staying in theaters for months.

 

[Octoberist]

Well I mean, it's true that stats are saying that most movie goers now are in their late 20's to 40's, and with this newer generation, kids and teens aren't going as much. But you still have college, and I think people are subconsciously adjusting to the Fall, so they'll slow their role a bit. I don't know.

 

[Kyle]

Well I mean, it's true that stats are saying that most movie goers now are in their late 20's to 40's, and with this newer generation, kids and teens aren't going as much. But you still have college, and I think people are subconsciously adjusting to the Fall, so they'll slow their role a bit. I don't know.

Less competiton = more room in theaters = longer staying power.

As said, smaller opening weekends but a heck of a lot more powerful legs. You're saying adjusting. To me that's narrowing it down. I'm looking at the big picture. I'm looking at legs. Getting more over time rather than less while opening with a bang.

As stated, Titanic. If that film was put out summer or winter 2016 it would have sunk. It would have great earnings. But no way in hell would it have gone on to make what it did. It had a good opening weekend but became a behemoth because it was given the time to have legs.

This day and age, most legs are cut right off two weeks in during the busy months that nothing is given the time to rise or fall on it's own. That's a large reason why these movies now rely on IP. Movies are more succeeding or failing depending upon it's marketing rather than the film itself. Yes, there's some examples outside of that but it's more a marketing game than anything when you're mostly only given your first four days if that after going public.

Being in the system I can tell you guys executives are trailer based. They've went in and muddled with films to force trailer moments into them and when looking at a script being considered they try to ensure there are trailer moments in it. It's become less of a film game and sadly more of a marketing and trailer game. The saddest thing I've heard recently by either the writer or producer of it - 'A Beautiful Mind' isn't a film that would get made today because it doesn't easily lend itself to that way of thinking. As said, it's why everything seems to be IP these days - the model basically ensures it has to be.

 

[smallville fan]

The main problem with the underperformers this year is that most of them sucked, and there was no real point to them existing, other than the studio trying to make cash.

This so much. If these films, especially the DC films hadn't sucked we would've called this year a win.

 

[Octoberist]

Let's create another month then!

I feel like we're going through a weird transition right now, and we'll see things settle down a bit by the next decade.

 

[kguillou]

I also think Hollywood needs to stop bringing old franchises to the screen that no one asked for, too. These people need to gauge the appetite for the audience. What idiot ACTUALLY thought a Max Steel movie was going to be a success? I get it that sometimes the audience doesn't know what they want until they are given it (case in point Suicide Squad) but some ideas are just like seriously? You REALLY thought there was an appetite for a Ben hur movie? Battleship? Lone Ranger?

 

[Kyle]

Well not creating another month and it's an addendum, having more time (strategically spreading films out throughout the year), rather than the sole cause behind it being as said quality. More time would significantly help to alter how Hollywood thinks about movies and give others a higher chance of earning more money. But the most change will come from increased quality. Both of those two fold and you're looking at a much better box office.

For example, I know I keep going back to it but Titanic. Quality soared and it was given timw to have legs. Having both made that film a slam dunk.

 

[Ujio]

I'm fatigued of crappy movies. We had a lot of crappy blockbusters this year.