Hollywood's 2016 Sequel Problem

[Octoberist]

I guess when something like the first Huntsman came out, the studio just looked at the wrong data, and they weren't look at the long run. Believe or not, the appeal of the first movie was Kristen Stewart herself.

 

[dude stannis]

Then The Nice Guys comes out and no one goes to watch it. Blame yourselves.

 

[MadVillainy]

Then The Nice Guys comes out and no one goes to watch it. Blame yourselves.

Exactly. Everyone likes to b**** "Wah there are no more original properties. But then one is released and no one goes to see it.
Same thing with Popstar...although I'll admit that i didn't see that

Personally I dont care about what a film is. Reboot, sequel, whatever just give me an enjoyable movie.

And to people who don't like the number of blockbusters, there are plenty indies and small dramas released a year.

 

[Teelie]

Don't we hear this every year? Sequels are hurting Hollywood has been blared yearly since there was a sequel to complain about.

 

[metaphysician]

And people have been hoping for blockbusters to die so that art film can once again take their "rightful" place at the center of Hollywood since the first blockbuster made megabucks.

 

[Neno_Kos]

And people have been hoping for blockbusters to die so that art film can once again take their "rightful" place at the center of Hollywood since the first blockbuster made megabucks.

That's why indie films exist. I personally enjoyed many indie films over last few years. From the Way Way Back and Her to Dope and Birdman and The Grand Budapest Hotel. I forgot mention dozens of others. Everyone has a place under the sun. People still go watch and they still recognize quality movies. People just dont love easy cash grabs movies made directly to make profit instead making good movie first. They recognize that from mile away, unnecessary sequels and that's why they flop. Also with those movies I listed, you dont see anyone claiming for sequel or "expanding universe".

 

[Octoberist]

It's not so much the end of blockbusters but having more original tentpoles like 'Raiders of the Lost Ark'. We're never gonna get those. Those days are almost done.

Once in a while you'll get an Inception though.

 

[StormC]

I wouldn't say never. There's so many things that could change the movie industry in the future. The big reason the last decade or so has been primarily franchise-based tentpoles is because of the economic recession makes big budget movies a risk. So something else might change inside or outside the industry that would cause original properties to become lucrative again.

 

[-JKR-]

It's not so much the end of blockbusters but having more original tentpoles like 'Raiders of the Lost Ark'. We're never gonna get those. Those days are almost done.

Once in a while you'll get an Inception though.

Like others have said, it's mostly the audience's fault. Edge of Tomorrow? Pacific Rim? Now The Nice Guys?

People complain and keep complaining about sequels and reboots and requels and whatever, but that's what they mostly flock to theaters for. Oh, look, a new Star Wars film. Oh, gee, another three Star Wars spin-offs coming out before the sequel. And I've got nothing against Star Wars, and really liked J.J. Abrams' sequel, BUT...

People need to send the right message to Hollywood, and that comes across only through cash.

It's positive that people didn't eat up every sequel this year. But what I fear that Hollywood will take from all this, is to only focus on creating 'cinematic universes.'

P.S.: Regarding sequels - I'm not against them. I don't love the recent tendency to churn 'em out like TV episodes, but sequels can be great when they're done well: Aliens, The Godfather: Part II, The Empire Strikes Back, The Dark Knight, Gremlins 2, Terminator 2: Judgment Day, Toy Story 2, and many more...

 

[MadVillainy]

Like others have said, it's mostly the audience's fault. Edge of Tomorrow? Pacific Rim? Now The Nice Guys?

People complain and keep complaining about sequels and reboots and requels and whatever, but that's what they mostly flock to theaters for. Oh, look, a new Star Wars film. Oh, gee, another three Star Wars spin-offs coming out before the sequel. And I've got nothing against Star Wars, and really liked J.J. Abrams' sequel, BUT...

People need to send the right message to Hollywood, and that comes across only through cash.

It's positive that people didn't eat up every sequel this year. But what I fear that Hollywood will take from all this, is to only focus on creating 'cinematic universes.'

I was saying the same thing in another thread.
Vote with your wallets.

Stop posting online how you don't like reboots, sequels, etc. and then when there are "original" properties, you don't go see them.

Just give me good movies I dont care if theyre reboots, sequels or whatever

 

[-JKR-]

r

I was saying the same thing in another thread.
Vote with your wallets.

Stop posting online how you don't like reboots, sequels, etc. and then when there are "original" properties, you don't go see them.

Just give me good movies I dont care if theyre reboots, sequels or whatever

Yep, exactly.

And I agree on what you've said. Batman Begins was a reboot. Now complain about that one. And it was great because there was a creative spark there. An idea and vision from a talented filmmaker.

And this is where studios need to improve once again. Especially on these huge money-making machines, they need to make more accurate decisions when putting together a script and the creative team.

Sometimes I feel as if script drafts and talent get randomly thrown together in order to reach the deadline, and that's when the outcome is completely forgettable. Get a great script first, and then find the right talent for that material. Someone who has a good feeling for the script, and who can bring something to the material.

 

[Octoberist]

It seems like some people are with Ninja Turtles and Alice..

I think the environment is all about universes, but we have to make it clear that we want something of quality. That's why Transformers 5 is a big question mark for me. It'll make money, but I'm thinking it'll make less here (and again, more overseas).

 

[-JKR-]

It seems like some people are with Ninja Turtles and Alice..

I think the environment is all about universes, but we have to make it clear that we want something of quality. That's why Transformers 5 is a big question mark for me. It'll make money, but I'm thinking it'll make less here (and again, more overseas).

Which is another big no-no. It worked fine for Marvel Studios, and I'm curious about Warner Bros.' next DC adaptations, but not everything needs to be a universe, and I don't need thousands of spin-offs or whatever of the same universe. It's becoming a end now, and as always that often doesn't lead to something satisfying.

Remember when every studio was crazy abuot The Matrix and for the next couple of years every damn action movie featured something which was (partly) inspired by that movie. What a s***y time.

Execs need to learn that looking at last weekend's success isn't the right way to make decisions. It may pay off once, but in the long run...

My favorite studio this year must be 20th Century Fox. Look at how different and interesting their releases are. They started the year with projects such as Joy, The Revenant and Deadpool. Not really your usual major studio release, and they all did great. Coming up are two sequels which I didn't need in my life, such as Independence Day: Resurgence and another Ice Age flick, but they've also got Warren Beatty's comeback, a new Tim Burton film based on a property which hasn't hit the big screen yet, a couple of comedies, and Assassin's Creed, which is a huge gamble, but has a very promising creative team on board.

It's a great line-up, made up of films of different sizes, ratings, genres - and in most cases, with very good filmmakers on board.

 

[MadVillainy]

Not everything needs to be a universe but I do think there is some potential for some outside of comic books.

But yeah I feel like every 3 weeks I hear theyre making a new universe and it's not necessarily needed. But if it yields good films i don't care

 

[-JKR-]

Not everything needs to be a universe but I do think there is some potential for some outside of comic books.

But yeah I feel like every 3 weeks I hear theyre making a new universe and it's not necessarily needed. But if it yields good films i don't care

The only problem I've got with studios intending to solely focus on universes is that it leads to more of the same.

If, for example, a studio such as Warner Bros. intends to focus on DC, Harry Potter and King Arthur or Robin Hood or - whatever - spin-offs and sequels, and manage to put up a full yearly line-up based on them, they will put out less and less other films.

And that I don't like. I'm all for sequels if they work, but not in place of variety.

 

[MadVillainy]

The only problem I've got with studios intending to solely focus on universes is that it leads to more of the same.

If, for example, a studio such as Warner Bros. intends to focus on DC, Harry Potter and King Arthur or Robin Hood or - whatever - spin-offs and sequels, and manage to put up a full yearly line-up based on them, they will put out less and less other films.

And that I don't like. I'm all for sequels if they work, but not in place of variety.

That's true.

 

[Octoberist]

I still remember when Sony wanted to build a universe around Robin Hood, make several movies for each member of his party (Will Scarlett, Little John) then all of that leads into The Merry Men.

That's absurd and it's going to bomb. I'm glad that there's no movement on that.

People care about Marvel and DC because they're Marvel and DC. No one cares about Krull (though I like the movie) at the box office, because why watch that if you got Star Wars back in the day.

 

[MadVillainy]

I still remember when Sony wanted to build a universe around Robin Hood, make several movies for each member of his party (Will Scarlett, Little John) then all of that leads into The Merry Men.

That's absurd and it's going to bomb. I'm glad that there's no movement on that.

People care about Marvel and DC because they're Marvel and DC. No one cares about Krull (though I like the movie) at the box office, because why watch that if you got Star Wars back in the day.

I recall that.

Unbelievably stupid idea. Speaking of Robin Hood that RH: Origins film is stupid as hell too. Why make another dark reboot to Robin Hood? Make a Guy Ritchie Sherlock Holmes type romp and it'll make bank

 

[Octoberist]

Yeah we already had the 2010 Ridley Scott film and that movie didn't do well. It's such a bizarre move.

It's like the talk of another Peter Pan movie but from Disney, but I'm thinking 'The WB version totally bombed, along with the one that came out in 2003.'

 

[MadVillainy]

Don't understand it at all

 

[TheComicbookKid]

i think audiences have become desensitized to the summer programming blitz.

People flocked to see the Fast 5 in Apr. cause audiences weren't used to getting a blockbuster before summer. Same with Deadpool in February.

I think Hollywood needs to get out of the Summer is for 200 million plus action movies and just spread out the movies. Stop rushing to beat other studios to July 4 weekend and get the script in order.

 

[TheComicbookKid]

And that I don't like. I'm all for sequels if they work, but not in place of variety.

Hollywood is running out of IP's to adapt. The YA novel boom is gone with Potter/Twilight and comic books that aren't Marvel/DC haven't proven themselves.

If they can't figure out video games and anime adaptations, Hollywood will have to adapt more original blockbusters or re-reboot failures.

 

[MadVillainy]

i think audiences have become desensitized to the summer programming blitz.

People flocked to see the Fast 5 in Apr. cause audiences weren't used to getting a blockbuster before summer. Same with Deadpool in February.

I think Hollywood needs to get out of the Summer is for 200 million plus action movies and just spread out the movies. Stop rushing to beat other studios to July 4 weekend and get the script in order.

I would like that

 

[Octoberist]

Hollywood is running out of IP's to adapt. The YA novel boom is gone with Potter/Twilight and comic books that aren't Marvel/DC haven't proven themselves.

If they can't figure out video games and anime adaptations, Hollywood will have to adapt more original blockbusters or re-reboot failures.

That becomes a problem for studios like Lionsgate, Paramount, and I guess to a lesser extent Sony (They have Spidey still but that's now a splint venture).

Universal is lucky to have Bourne, Jurasic Park, and the Fast/Furious movies.

Even though people give Fox a hard time with some of their X-Men/FF movies (at least they're giving the filmmakers freedom to a degree), they're often pretty smart with their other films.

Now with Lionsgate/Summit, they're so lucky to develop something like John Wick. They need to focus on that, instead of Gods of Egypt. Heck, I remembered when they wanted to do a new Odyssey a year ago. Awful. They should stick to mid-budget movies with big appeal that can make them bank.

 

[Octoberist]

I would like that

I think that's actually happening with Feb.

The one month where it's tough to overcome will always be Sept due to school. Nothing can really change that. In fact, I think that's the one month where the movies make less money than the movies in Jan. But I'm pulling that data out of my butt.