Hollywood's 2016 Sequel Problem

[StormC]

What happens to Bourne when Matt Damon walks? It isn't like the character is a cultural icon that can be recast and still have people show up in droves.

 

[MadVillainy]

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.

No,I agree about Sept and Jan.
Sept, I dont think because of school. In fact i think having a cool movie to watch with friends when you get back to school would help things. I just think it comes after summer where people spend loads of money already on vacations, 4th of July, etc.
Jan it comes right after Christmas.
After people run through money that they I dont think they would go for movies as much as other months.

I agree that those will probably always be dumping ground, but pretty much every other month is fare game. The only month that hasn't really gotten into blockbusters is October and they were going to release Gambit then. Despite what i think of the project, that would be a big move for more blockbusters in October

EDIT: I just remembered that I had a discussion in the X-Men boards and someone was getting upset at the suggestion of moving the X-Men films to October and I remember I looked it up: both Gravity and The Martian did blockbuster numbers in October.

 

[chamber-music]

We getting lot of unnecessary sequels, cash-grabs made on first movies exceeding expectations on box-office. And studios green-lit those trying for same results, instead first making good movie in return. And those usually end up disasters giving there is no passion behind project, script is wrote just for sake of it, etc. And not mention not many people want to see sequel of something which doesnt need sequel in first place.

I guess few bombs on box-office should take message to studios.

I agree.

Because some movies were unexpected successes studios decided to make unnecessary sequels.

People were not demanding a prequel/sequel to Snow White and the Huntsman or Alice In Wonderland.

Could the blockbuster bubble finally burst, allowing more original autuer-driven films to find funding in the Hollywood system? Wishful thinking, but I can dream.

Studios still make the majority of their money through blockbuster movies and they still draw the biggest audiences.

If original autuer-driven films regularly made money and drew large audiences then studios would make more of those films. You can't really blame the studios for making what is most profitable to them.

 

[TheVileOne]

What happens to Bourne when Matt Damon walks? It isn't like the character is a cultural icon that can be recast and still have people show up in droves.

Aaron Cross gets pulled out of the mothballs from parts unknown?

 

[-JKR-]

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.

What about millions of novels? What about gazillions of obscure comic books and graphic novels.

What about original ideas screenwriters are trying to pitch to studios, but they won't invest in.

There's an infinite stream of possible films and IPs to adapt. Let's not kid ourselves.

 

[Logan0327]

i am kinda shocked TMNT 2 didn't do well i knew the film would get bad reviews but it looked a hell of alot better and more fun looking than the first one it seemed right up the demogrpahic of family/kids alley

 

[-JKR-]

i am kinda shocked TMNT 2 didn't do well i knew the film would get bad reviews but it looked a hell of alot better and more fun looking than the first one it seemed right up the demogrpahic of family/kids alley

Honestly, I don't think it looked much better from the trailers. In fact, it probably looked worse than the first one to me from the trailers.
I think people on-line fell in love with the idea of Bebop and Rocksteady being in it.

 

[FilmNerdJamie]

This is far from a "new" problem.

Can look back decades to when a film came out of nowhere to be a big hit. Cut to studios (out of greed) taking something that was clearly a one-and-done and deciding to make it an IP. Then the sequel comes out and audiences stayed away.

The real problem, and the imminent disaster that Spielberg and Lucas warned about... to deaf ears (Because why listen to the two guys responsible for defining the industry for the last 40 years?), is Hollywood's want of turning every weekend into summer.

 

[Greens]

I've seen some people in this thread say "vote with your wallet". Isn't that what people are already doing and have always done?

 

[-JKR-]

Exactly. If every film is an 'event,' none is. People are so used to grand spectacles right now, that they're not amazed (at all) every time such a film is released.

I've seen some people in this thread say "vote with your wallet". Isn't that what people are already doing and have always done?

With all the talk, though, it seems like they vote for the stuff they complain about.

 

[Greens]

With all the talk, though, it seems like they vote for the stuff they complain about.

The majority of film-goers don't hang around superhero forums. The call for more independent movies comes from a loud minority if you look at the movie-going audience as a whole.

 

[-JKR-]

The majority of film-goers don't hang around superhero forums. The call for more independent movies comes from a loud minority if you look at the movie-going audience as a whole.

I'm completely aware of that. It's just that, even with non-film buffs, a common topic which comes up when talking about films is that "there are too many sequels, too many reboots - nothing original," and then fail to show up whenever there is something original.

 

[TheComicbookKid]

What about millions of novels? What about gazillions of obscure comic books and graphic novels.

What about original ideas screenwriters are trying to pitch to studios, but they won't invest in.

There's an infinite stream of possible films and IPs to adapt. Let's not kid ourselves.

You're crazy. TMNT is about as obscure a property as comics get and even that took 20 years to cultivate as a property. Hollywood isn't going to pump 100 million into another Hellboy or LOEXG just because comic fans consider them top shelf properties.

If Hollywood was into adapting whatever new Sci-fi comic/novel was exciting, we wouldn't have Marvel/DC running as hot as they are.

Novels with large fanbases that justify that large price tag like THE MARTIAN are what gets adapted.

We've had original sci-fi properties like District 9 clean up and it doesn't move the needle in getting more original products. They just take the director and put him onto one of their Marvel/DC/Aliens/Godzilla/Predator Ips.

 

[TheComicbookKid]

This is far from a "new" problem.

Can look back decades to when a film came out of nowhere to be a big hit. Cut to studios (out of greed) taking something that was clearly a one-and-done and deciding to make it an IP. Then the sequel comes out and audiences stayed away.

The real problem, and the imminent disaster that Spielberg and Lucas warned about... to deaf ears (Because why listen to the two guys responsible for defining the industry for the last 40 years?), is Hollywood's want of turning every weekend into summer.

It's another version of the Netflix/DVR mindset facing tv.

I don't think people have necessarily turned against sequels but they aren't going to be rushed into seeing something opening weekend every weekend just because.

 

[MadVillainy]

I've seen some people in this thread say "vote with your wallet". Isn't that what people are already doing and have always done?

Kinda.

I'm saying if all the people who complained about nothing "original" then maybe there would be change.

But if you clamor for original properties, but then don't go see the good ones when they come out.

I was talking with a family member and my cousin this past weekend and they basically were trashing every major blockbuster. The Marvel movies, Casino Royale, Skyfall, Fast and Furious movies, even "original" stuff like Gravity (but they liked BvS which is weird to me). They also were saying that there are too many superhero movies, not enough original properties
But when I asked them why don't they not see these movies or why don't they see the original movies that come out they just shrugged

And I feel like that's the same thing a lot of the people who complain about movies and unoriginality, sequels, etc do. They don't care enough to actually put their money where their mouth is.

So no I don't think people have been voting with their wallets in a lot of cases.

It's like...there are people who hate the Transformers movies, but still paying to see them and thereby supporting them. Why pay for something you don't support. You don't support reboots, sequels, etc? Then don't pay money to see them

On an unrelated note my one family member is the first guy in real life that i heard that thinks that the critics are in the pocket of Disney...which is still one of the stupidest things Ive heard.

 

[FilmNerdJamie]

I'm completely aware of that. It's just that, even with non-film buffs, a common topic which comes up when talking about films is that "there are too many sequels, too many reboots - nothing original," and then fail to show up whenever there is something original.

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?

 

[psylockolussus]

A lot of these sequels are movie #2 of their franchise and I'm just glad that Apocalypse is already the ninth movie in the series.

I hope Kingsman does well next year!

Now You see Me 2 and The Conjuring 2 are also coming out this weekend, I don't think both films will do as well as the first one.

 

[MadVillainy]

A lot of these sequels are movie #2 of their franchise and I'm just glad that Apocalypse is already the ninth movie in the series.

I hope Kingsman does well next year!

Im really curious about that. Not doubting the quality but I think releasing it in summer, especially June is a really bad move

 

[-JKR-]

You're crazy. TMNT is about as obscure a property as comics get and even that took 20 years to cultivate as a property. Hollywood isn't going to pump 100 million into another Hellboy or LOEXG just because comic fans consider them top shelf properties.

If Hollywood was into adapting whatever new Sci-fi comic/novel was exciting, we wouldn't have Marvel/DC running as hot as they are.

Novels with large fanbases that justify that large price tag like THE MARTIAN are what gets adapted.

We've had original sci-fi properties like District 9 clean up and it doesn't move the needle in getting more original products. They just take the director and put him onto one of their Marvel/DC/Aliens/Godzilla/Predator Ips.

What the hell are you talkin' 'bout, kid? Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles was the highest grossing independent film ever in 1990.

And to me you are backwards thinking. People didn't know who Deadpool was before the film grossed more than $770 million worldwide this year.

For God's sake, non-comic book readers didn't even have a clue about what Avengers was a decade ago. Let alone Thor, or Iron Man, Ant-Man, or the Guardians of the Galaxy. Let's not kid ourselves.

The reality of things is that now people know about these IPs. But before they barely knew Batman, Superman, Spider-Man and the Hulk, and that's mostly because of the TV and big screen adaptations. And a vast majority will still mix up DC and Marvel properties.

It doesn't matter if a property is well known, or not. Everything can be turned into a blockbuster.

In the end what matters is the film itself and its marketing campaign. The "he's not a well known argument" simply doesn't hold up, because otherwise we'd only have Batman, Superman, Spider-Man and Hulk films now.

 

[TheComicbookKid]

What the hell are you talkin' 'bout, kid? Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles was the highest grossing independent film ever in 1990.

And to me you are backwards thinking. People didn't know who Deadpool was before the film grossed more than $770 million worldwide this year.

I'm I the only person who remembers a certain cartoon preceding that movie? It didn't just come out of no where like a Cloverfield and knock out the box office did it?

And Deadpool is still a Marvel/Fox/Xmen property. It had several successful brand movies to work from. Not trying to downplay the success cause it was. He has more going for him than say a Hellboy, The Tick, or Mandrake the Magician.

There are a lot of better written characters than Deadpool that will never see the big screen simply because they don't have mutant ties or Marvel company logos.

For God's sake, non-comic book readers didn't even have a clue about what Avengers was a decade ago. Let alone Thor, or Iron Man, Ant-Man, or the Guardians of the Galaxy. Let's not kid ourselves.

Again, how are you refuting my point and not making it?

Marvel and DC have a lock on comic adaptations that Dark Horse, Image, and etc don't. Hollywood should give them a chance before adapting GHOST IN THE SHELL or DEATH NOTE but they aren't.

It doesn't matter if a property is well known, or not. Everything can be turned into a blockbuster.

In the end what matters is the film itself and its marketing campaign. The "he's not a well known argument" simply doesn't hold up, because otherwise we'd only have Batman, Superman, Spider-Man and Hulk films now.

That is the crux of Hollywood's problem. Not everything is supposed to be a blockbuster. Just because Iron Man made this doesn't mean Flash will make that amount automatically just because he has name recognition.

 

[-JKR-]

Yeah, there was a cartoon. And a couple of years later came the big screen adaptation. So what?

Most people don't even know the difference between DC and Marvel. There are still people who think Batman and Superman are Marvel characters. They mix 'em up. That's how much they care in the end of the day.

If a Dark Horse comic is turned into a film, and people like the look of it from the trailers, they will flock into theaters no matter what. Most without even knowing it's based on a comic book.

They. Don't. Care.

What matters is raising audience awereness during the marketing campaign. People showed up for the first Iron Man because it looked like a fun ride from the trailers, with cool action and visuals and a quick & witty protagonist.

NOW Marvel has become a well-known brand.

But that doesn't mean that an unknown, third-tier character by whatever editor can't make huge bank at the box office. Otherwise original films would be screwed forever. If you can turn a novel like The Martian into an international blockbuster, you can turn anything into it. And there's nothing wrong with that. What matters is that the studios put the right people behind the project, and chances are that it'll work like magic and stun and surprise audiences worldwide.

Problems arise when properties are being adapted into films in a half-assed way, and it looks like just another rehash of what has come before!

Studios are driven by fear. Let's not be as close minded and driven by fear like them, guys. We - the audience - should be more open minded than a group of suits! Instead I see regular people whining about Gambit not being a big enough property for them to Fox to adapt.

P.S.: There's still time for Dark Horse and Image comics to be milked for the big screen. Who says that they gotta rush all at once into production. If I were the head of Warner Bros, I would've taken my time with the DC properties, and developed them in a very different way than Marvel. As stand-alone franchises, by really delving into what makes each character so unique, instead of having to find common ground for every player to seamlessly interact. Why? Because there already IS a Marvel way. And it's Marvel's. Think different. And put the best and most fitting people behind each project.

But online fans, sometimes, demand carbon copy of other properties. [whine]"I want my DC adaptations just like the Marvel fans have got theirs. But with DC characters." [/whine] - As bad as the least creative and most close-minded studio exec, who just looks at last weekend's big hit and tries to emulate that.

 

[weezerspider]

If original autuer-driven films regularly made money and drew large audiences then studios would make more of those films. You can't really blame the studios for making what is most profitable to them.

I understand all that. Of course the studios are going to make good business decisions and PTA films are never going to make 200 million dollars. That's not what I'm talking about. There is a a real problem in the industry when STEVEN SPIELBERG and DANIEL DAY LEWIS can't get funding from a film about ABRAHAM LINCOLN. Spielberg wasn't exaggerating when he said LINCOLN was almost an HBO film because no studio was interested in it. You have the world's biggest director and the world's biggest actor telling a story about one of the biggest figures in history and the studios are scared stiff of it? That's not a healthy culture in the industry. They are THAT afraid of non-blockbuster films.

Birdman doesn't need a $100 million dollar budget, nor should it get one. However, auteurs should be able to approach studios for reasonable budgets for their films more often than they can right now in the current culture of Hollywood, especially when they have an overall good track record of staying under budget and performing well enough. That's not happening. And it should. That's all I'm saying.

Kinda.

I'm saying if all the people who complained about nothing "original" then maybe there would be change.

But if you clamor for original properties, but then don't go see the good ones when they come out.

I was talking with a family member and my cousin this past weekend and they basically were trashing every major blockbuster. The Marvel movies, Casino Royale, Skyfall, Fast and Furious movies, even "original" stuff like Gravity (but they liked BvS which is weird to me). They also were saying that there are too many superhero movies, not enough original properties
But when I asked them why don't they not see these movies or why don't they see the original movies that come out they just shrugged

And I feel like that's the same thing a lot of the people who complain about movies and unoriginality, sequels, etc do. They don't care enough to actually put their money where their mouth is.

So no I don't think people have been voting with their wallets in a lot of cases.

It's like...there are people who hate the Transformers movies, but still paying to see them and thereby supporting them. Why pay for something you don't support. You don't support reboots, sequels, etc? Then don't pay money to see them

On an unrelated note my one family member is the first guy in real life that i heard that thinks that the critics are in the pocket of Disney...which is still one of the stupidest things Ive heard.

So much this! I hear the "Hollywood is out of creative ideas" ALL THE TIME by people who watch nothing, but Tentpole films. They are part of the problem.

 

[-JKR-]

I agree 100%!

 

[Doctor Jones]

The real problem, and the imminent disaster that Spielberg and Lucas warned about... to deaf ears (Because why listen to the two guys responsible for defining the industry for the last 40 years?), is Hollywood's want of turning every weekend into summer.

Yeah, I remember when they said this a few years back. At first I didn't really believe them, because I always thought, if the movies are getting better, which they are, then why worry? I just didn't think they would be the only movies being made by the studios and it becoming what it is now.

We all asked for better and more comic book films. Great, I love that. But we never asked for them to be nearly the only type of movies that are made and absorb the chances of other original movies being made.

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?

Yeah, Blade Runner is still a cult film. Yeah nostalgia is in right now, but it means on a mainstream level. It's the difference between Transformers and Blade Runner. Blade Runner is renowned by film and sci fi fans but it's never reached the mainstream to this day despite it being better recognized. I love Villeneuve, but I'm thinking this could be a misstep. Even if the movie is great, which it could be, but nobody ever asked for a second Blade Runner in the first place.

 

[chamber-music]

I understand all that. Of course the studios are going to make good business decisions and PTA films are never going to make 200 million dollars. That's not what I'm talking about. There is a a real problem in the industry when STEVEN SPIELBERG and DANIEL DAY LEWIS can't get funding from a film about ABRAHAM LINCOLN. Spielberg wasn't exaggerating when he said LINCOLN was almost an HBO film because no studio was interested in it. You have the world's biggest director and the world's biggest actor telling a story about one of the biggest figures in history and the studios are scared stiff of it? That's not a healthy culture in the industry. They are THAT afraid of non-blockbuster films.

I agree. Even Scorsese said he struggled to get funding for his movies these days.

Hollywood is making less movies these days. Mid-budget movies in particular have been almost wiped out. Most films are either cheap indies or blockbusters.

Producer Jason Blum of Blumhouse Productions is the most consistently successful low budget producer in Hollywood today. There was a really interesting article and interview with him in the trades about his business model.

Blum's business model relies on low-budget films ($3-5 million) using experienced directors looking for creative control. There is a lot that people can learn from his business model.

Here are some of his model points

1. Everybody above the line works either free or for scale. If an actor asks for a trailer or other frills, he’ll tell them, "You can have all those things, but you have to pay for it yourself. But more often than not, those things go away."

2. Never work with first time directors. "We work with experienced directors. We make a deal — we’re not going to pay you a lot, but you get to do what you want to do. Most directors get final cut. It’s ‘auteur’ filmmaking, but for commercial movies… I tell directors: ‘I can’t promise you a hit, but I can promise you the movies is going to be yours.’ When you work for a studio, they pay you a lot of money, but in exchange for that, they tell you what to do.

3. Cut down on time spent negotiating. The way we structure our backend, we key the payments to the box office — so that cuts the negotiating way down and it’s very transparent. One of the things I’m most proud of is that we’re really transparent with our process."

4. Don’t release every movie wide. "One of the benefits of doing low-budget movies is you don’t have to release them wide to recoup. You can release it in a smaller way, make your money back and keep going."