The studio system lives...

[Cyrusbales]

Everyone is familiar with the classic Hollywood peroid of practice, known as the studio system.

This was where they would own actors/directors etc for an amount of time, and produce as many films as possible. Once finding a film that was successful, they would write similar films to relive that success.



People considered that process dead, however it has become different, yet is very much the same.


SEQUELS! These are the new studio system, the studio's don't want a one off film anymore, they want a successful franchise whereby they can stream of many films which can deteriorate in quality, but still brin gin money. Two good/ok films gives them the oppurtunity to make one bad one without penalisation of profits.

This limitation of new material shows the spineless backbone of the studio's and perpetuates the amount of sub-standard cinema out there. People are always demanding sequels, and this is their new market, instead of new material, just rehashing the old, there are countless examples in just the last few years.

Sorry, needed to get that out of my system, but seriously, don't you as a movie going audience want to see new and creative material rather than sequels?

 

[Tempest19]

Some franchises don't need them, while others do. Those that do I'm referring to superhero films and other (Transformers) as well as franchised books (HP, LOTR, Narnia, etc.)

So I'd say on part you are right while also being completely wrong.

Some sequels are called for- others are not.

WB, I believe, still works off of that system. Nolan is the finest example of this- Insomnia, Batman Begins, The Prestige, The Dark Knight. All WB. And Singer looks to have been brought in under the WB as well.

 

[Cyrusbales]

The studio's will push for more and more though. Once directors sign contracts, they're tied and are squeezed.

They design films around making more, rather than making the best out of a singular film.

 

[Tempest19]

Are you saying "do away with franchises" or "make each film in a franchise as best as possible"? Because there obviously SHOULD be franchises. Making each film the best it could be, though, makes sense. No Franchises and getting rid of sequels doesn't- especially for films that call for them, need/ deserve them.

Some films are meant to be franchises, whereas others are not.

For example, a sequel to Transformers makes sense. A sequel to any comic book film makes sense. A sequel to a sequel in a book franchise makes sense.

A sequel to Night at the Museum, however, does not. And other sequels along those lines.

 

[Cyrusbales]

Make each film as a single, stand alone film, do not set out to forge a franchise.

For example, In The Mood For love and 2046.

Although to be honest, when people make films solely for money as is the case with studio's, we get a 99% craptastic output.

 

[turtlefocker]

Everyone is familiar with the classic Hollywood peroid of practice, known as the studio system.

This was where they would own actors/directors etc for an amount of time, and produce as many films as possible. Once finding a film that was successful, they would write similar films to relive that success.



People considered that process dead, however it has become different, yet is very much the same.


SEQUELS! These are the new studio system, the studio's don't want a one off film anymore, they want a successful franchise whereby they can stream of many films which can deteriorate in quality, but still brin gin money. Two good/ok films gives them the oppurtunity to make one bad one without penalisation of profits.

This limitation of new material shows the spineless backbone of the studio's and perpetuates the amount of sub-standard cinema out there. People are always demanding sequels, and this is their new market, instead of new material, just rehashing the old, there are countless examples in just the last few years.

Sorry, needed to get that out of my system, but seriously, don't you as a movie going audience want to see new and creative material rather than sequels?

Kind of off topic but I have noticed that your posts are always very well written so

 

[Gilpesh]

Rushing in sequels need to stop.

 

[SoulManX]

Everyone is familiar with the classic Hollywood peroid of practice, known as the studio system.

This was where they would own actors/directors etc for an amount of time, and produce as many films as possible. Once finding a film that was successful, they would write similar films to relive that success.



People considered that process dead, however it has become different, yet is very much the same.


SEQUELS! These are the new studio system, the studio's don't want a one off film anymore, they want a successful franchise whereby they can stream of many films which can deteriorate in quality, but still brin gin money. Two good/ok films gives them the oppurtunity to make one bad one without penalisation of profits.

This limitation of new material shows the spineless backbone of the studio's and perpetuates the amount of sub-standard cinema out there. People are always demanding sequels, and this is their new market, instead of new material, just rehashing the old, there are countless examples in just the last few years.

Sorry, needed to get that out of my system, but seriously, don't you as a movie going audience want to see new and creative material rather than sequels?

Well put ol chap...

 

[Sam Fisher]

A sequel to Alone In The Dark is not needed.

 

[Dr. Fate]

An Indiana Jones 4 is not needed either.

 

[Addendum]

Depends on the film, and whether the box office returns and general reception for the previous film merits one.

But Hollywood will continue to churn out a majority of pointless sequels no matter what

 

[Sam Fisher]

An Indiana Jones 4 is not needed either.

You mean An Indiana Jones 4, 5, 6, and 7.

 

[Cinemaman]

^^^

Wasn't it confirmed as just another rumour?

P.S. what I know is Hollwyood system in picking directors is true (Nolan - WB, Spielberg - Universal, Raimi - Sony and etc) and this isn't so good, cause cinema needs new generation of filmmakers (like what happened in 70s, when the worled met Scorsese, DePalma, Lucas, Spielberg and many others)