Hollywood's 2016 Sequel Problem

[MadVillainy]

No one, not even Disney, saw Zootopia do the money it did. It was like Deadpool. People expected a modest profit to good numbers but not massive out of the park ones.

Yuuuup

 

[2kt09]

Zootopia was Disney's next big animated tentpole, in much the same way Inside Out was for Pixar.
The studio took a calculated maneuver in releasing it a month after Kung Fu Panda 3 (the only potential competition) and several weeks before BvS.

 

[Kyle]

Good to see Conjuring 2 bucking this trend. It goes to show, it's about a good movie.

Exactly. As said before, I doubt it's a "sequels are falling apart" thing rather just "bad or okay sequels aren't doing well - quality sequels do well" or "mediocre films perform average to badly, good films perform well most of the time" -- which is basically how it usually works.

 

[MOVIELORD101]

In the case of The Nice Guys, that's simple. Bad release date and Russell Crowe and Ryan Gosling don't open movies.

Crowe stopped being a movie-star a decade or so back. I can actually time it to Cinderella Man bombing and the infamous "flying telephone" incident the Sunday of its opening weekend and audiences frankly tired of his BS. And for all the press he gets, Gosling ain't a draw. When I keep hearing about his "female appeal," I always ask, "Where are they opening weekend?"

Speaking of which... we're getting so IP obsessed a Blade Runner sequel is happening, people. And you're going to get tons of "What happened?" articles/Monday-Morning Quarterbacking after it opens but the fact remains.

Who in the world wanted a sequel to a 30+ year old box-office bomb whose biggest influence is music videos and filmmakers who studied its visuals religiously in their adolescence? And what fools would spend a fortune to make it expecting a profit?

You say that, and yet we got Tron Legacy a few years back, which was not only a damn good movie but it gave use on of the best damn soundtracks in a long time courtesy of Daft Punk!

Speaking of which, both Oblivion (Joe Kosinski's follow-up to Tron Legacy) and Transcendence were GREAT little sci-fi films released in April that NO ONE went to see and critics trashed for ******** reasons (Though it could be argued with the latter film that people are just sick of seeing Johnny Depp in movies in general). That's MY problem: people complain about lack of original IPs in Hollywood or not getting re-boots THEY'd rather see and yet the stuff we DO get that ARE good the same people flat out IGNORE for no reason!

 

[jmc]

Then take YouTube to the big screen. How can you do it? Is it because the movies give you that family bonding time that online doesn't? It was always a parent, older brother, or family taking me when I was a kid until I was old enough to go with my friends. It was a sort of social experience.

I don't think YouTube can recreate that family experience that a movie used to be. I just guess the parents need to be more involved of the content their kids consume, and Hollywood needs to invest in big budget films there, instead of catering to the older crowd.

Youtube will obviously not replicate the same experience as going to the movies. That said, I do believe the opportunity exists for the major tech companies to get in on the Hollywood act.

If for instance Google was to get involved with original content for theatres then it would be an absolute game changer, because they wouldn't have to worry about the money invested. What's $100m for Google for an original film? Pocket change that's what, nothing they couldn't recoup within a few weeks. Imagine Google or Apple or Facebook or whoever getting behind feature films.

 

[MadVillainy]

Google (who owns YouTube) have been really missing out on a few things
1. They waited way to long to launch a music streaming service through YouTube, which is when you think about it the biggest music streaming site
2. Not producing more original conten through YouTube. THey did launch YouTube Red but they havent done anything of note. All the original programs look uninteresting. There are numerous well known filmmakers or even new filmmakers I'm sure are having problems making the films or TV shows they want. Get some quality talent and people will start flocking.

and JMC is right. They have enough revenue that they can probably shake off a few disappointments/bombs

 

[Doctor Jones]

edit.

 

[Doctor Jones]

If you get a great show on Google, then that **** will blow up beyond belief.

Exactly. As said before, I doubt it's a "sequels are falling apart" thing rather just "bad or okay sequels aren't doing well - quality sequels do well" or "mediocre films perform average to badly, good films perform well most of the time" -- which is basically how it usually works.

I'd say be worried about the state of things if after three years this keeps happening. Every year we go through the same worrying **** and then something successful comes along and everyone stops worrying. It looks bad this year because it just so happened a consecutive amount of bad sequels came out so close to each other.

 

[Whatupman]

You say that, and yet we got Tron Legacy a few years back, which was not only a damn good movie but it gave use on of the best damn soundtracks in a long time courtesy of Daft Punk!

Speaking of which, both Oblivion (Joe Kosinski's follow-up to Tron Legacy) and Transcendence were GREAT little sci-fi films released in April that NO ONE went to see and critics trashed for ******** reasons (Though it could be argued with the latter film that people are just sick of seeing Johnny Depp in movies in general). That's MY problem: people complain about lack of original IPs in Hollywood or not getting re-boots THEY'd rather see and yet the stuff we DO get that ARE good the same people flat out IGNORE for no reason!

Oblivion wasn't great though. It was an alright movie with some beautiful visuals. I didn't see Tron Legacy or Transcendence because I didn't think that I would enjoy them.

 

[Wildcard]

It's as it's always been: make good movies, people show up. Compile a piece of garbage, they avoid the funk.

 

[Supernova]

It's as it's always been: make good movies, people show up. Compile a piece of garbage, they avoid the funk.

Which is weird because we still see great films bomb ethier via poor marketing or etc and bad films blow up like transformers. I think it all comes down to timing. Jurassic world was a great example last summer. It wasnt a great or terrible movie maybe kind of in the middle but it Clicked with audiences at the right time. Deadpool hit at the right moment too this year.

 

[jmc]

Google (who owns YouTube) have been really missing out on a few things
1. They waited way to long to launch a music streaming service through YouTube, which is when you think about it the biggest music streaming site
2. Not producing more original conten through YouTube. THey did launch YouTube Red but they havent done anything of note. All the original programs look uninteresting. There are numerous well known filmmakers or even new filmmakers I'm sure are having problems making the films or TV shows they want. Get some quality talent and people will start flocking.

and JMC is right. They have enough revenue that they can probably shake off a few disappointments/bombs

They could easily shake it off, Google made over $60B last year. Apple has over $100B in cash reserves. One of these companies could literally buy every Hollywood studio and still have money to burn. It's really strange to me why none of these tech companies have tried to break into original films, they could change everything about the film industry with distribution and online promotion for original films.

 

[redhawk23]

They could easily shake it off, Google made over $60B last year. Apple has over $100B in cash reserves. One of these companies could literally buy every Hollywood studio and still have money to burn. It's really strange to me why none of these tech companies have tried to break into original films, they could change everything about the film industry with distribution and online promotion for original films.

Because it doesn't actually work out that well. There's only so far you can spread a brand around before it becomes meaningless. Sony for instance is in numerous different tech and content markets but rarely leads any of them. Its game consoles sell well, but many of their other product lines struggle.

 

[MadVillainy]

They could easily shake it off, Google made over $60B last year. Apple has over $100B in cash reserves. One of these companies could literally buy every Hollywood studio and still have money to burn. It's really strange to me why none of these tech companies have tried to break into original films, they could change everything about the film industry with distribution and online promotion for original films.

Very true.

I think Apple is developing a show, I don't know about what, with Dr. Dre having something to do behind the scenes. Sam Rockwell is in it too.

But yeah Google/YouTube is messing up. You know at least a sketch comedy show. I mean Im not a SNL,MAdTV, etc. fan but Im surprised that YouTube with their large about of sketch comedy performers havent created their own where they have a weekly rotating cast starring YouTube's biggest stars

But even original scripted content is ripe for Google or Apple

 

[metaphysician]

Actually, there's a fairly good reason neither Google nor Apple has really gotten into content creation hardcore: they are both businesses based primarily in content *distribution*. . . and reliant on other companies wanting to distribute their content through said services. Third parties would get *really* leery of selling their music through iTunes, for example, if they were competing against iSongs produced and recorded by iMusic. Apple would have a strong incentive to favor their own in-house products, and even if they didn't, nobody on the outside can tell for sure they *aren't*.

A rule of thumb in business: never compete against your own customers. It seldom ends well. The only exception I can think of is Steam, which avoids the problem largely by Valve having largely abandoned the video game publishing business.

 

[JtheDreamer]

It's as it's always been: make good movies, people show up. Compile a piece of garbage, they avoid the funk.

How do you explain the Transformer sequels then? LOL

 

[Tilapia]

I think the next step is to take virtual reality to home theater. Sony came out with a product that's due out in the fall:

http://www.bbc.com/news/technology-36524103 (Still looks like crap though).

For Apple and Google, unless they buy a major studio outright (and they have the cash to do so), I think those tech companies need to build VR theaters. Customers will go in, pay 100$, and get a two hour experience where they are a character in the movie. It should have a physical component; it's not going to be Total Recall with memory implants. You will get a control or sensor to do things, and make real time decisions in the context of the film. That would be more video game territory though, so for film, you could look at starring as an "extra" while a movie is playing before you.

Instead of producing traditional movies (let's be honest, Google and Apple don't have original content at this stage), or acquiring something, that would be the most innovative way to invest.

 

[MadVillainy]

How do you explain the Transformer sequels then? LOL

There are exceptions to the rule

 

[jmc]

Actually, there's a fairly good reason neither Google nor Apple has really gotten into content creation hardcore: they are both businesses based primarily in content *distribution*. . . and reliant on other companies wanting to distribute their content through said services. Third parties would get *really* leery of selling their music through iTunes, for example, if they were competing against iSongs produced and recorded by iMusic. Apple would have a strong incentive to favor their own in-house products, and even if they didn't, nobody on the outside can tell for sure they *aren't*.

A rule of thumb in business: never compete against your own customers. It seldom ends well. The only exception I can think of is Steam, which avoids the problem largely by Valve having largely abandoned the video game publishing business.

Amazon is already tossing their hat into the ring with their original shows, so I don't know how firm that rule is. If anyone is going to shake thing up it's probably going to be Netflix.

 

[StormC]

How do you explain the Transformer sequels then? LOL

Both Transformers and Pirates actually have had their domestic markets shrink while their international ones grow so we can blame non-Americans for those franchises continuing.

 

[Logan0327]

the problem is hollywood does sequels to films no one was asking for like the huntsman2,zoolander 2,hot tub time machine 2

but then sequels i want to see like district 9 dont happen lol

 

[dark_b]

off topic.

Zemeckis is IMO right.
Most sequels, you’re behind the eight-ball on them. When audiences clamor for a sequel, what they’re really doing is expressing their enthusiasm for the movie they just saw. And that means they’ll have a love-hate relationship with whatever comes next, because they want it to be the same movie, but different. If it’s too similar, they don’t like it. And if it’s too different, they really don’t like it. There’s nothing more difficult.
http://www.slashfilm.com/roger-rabbit-sequel/

 

[BoredGuy]

Thank god for Bob Zemeckis, saving us from needless Back to The Future and Roger Rabbit Sequels/reboots... good man right there

 

[Mace Dolex]

the problem is hollywood does sequels to films no one was asking for like the huntsman2,zoolander 2,hot tub time machine 2

but then sequels i want to see like district 9 dont happen lol

Different strokes for different folks I guess, The Huntsmen, Zoolander and Hot Tub Time Machine have probaly a more general audience appeal than something niche like District 9.

Now I'm not saying those first three movies are any better but after years or so of District 9's first release does anybody even remember anything from it?

 

[TheVileOne]

Different strokes for different folks I guess, The Huntsmen, Zoolander and Hot Tub Time Machine have probaly a more general audience appeal than something niche like District 9.

Now I'm not saying those first three movies are any better but after years or so of District 9's first release does anybody even remember anything from it?

District 9 made $115 million in the US compared to $155 million to Snow White and the Huntsman. So it wasn't by a huge margin it did better. Plus, Winter's War totally bombed with $48 million.

I think District 9 is still fairly well remembered and beloved.