Support NeoGAF

[Bobby Roberts]

, but studios are so scared out of their minds to give money on any completely original concept, especially the grand speculative fiction the genre is most well known for and the movie industry suffers for it.

This is bullshit though

I mean, the numbers don't lie.

Between 1985-1989, there were 18 total sequels/reboots/remakes that reached the top 20 in the US box office each year. So an average of 3 or 4 a year.

Between 2011-2015, 54 sequels/reboots/remakes.

There's still plenty of great original content, but you're blind if you can't see the major shift that's happened in the last decade.

And even accounting for that shift, the concept of Hollywood being creatively bankrupt is still bullshit.

And that shift isn't Hollywood's fault. It's a response to how you reward them.

 

[legend166]

This is bullshit though



And even accounting for that shift, the concept of Hollywood being creatively bankrupt is still bullshit.

And that shift isn't Hollywood's fault. It's a response to how you reward them.

So what's the point here, we blame the consumer for having bad taste? Hollywood is just putting out schlock because that's what the audience demands (talking again here about the highest grossing films)?

Like I don't get your point. Of course there's great original content outside the top 20 films. That was true in the 80s as well. But there's been a dramatic shift away from original content toping the box office to remakes, reboots and sequels. Does that make them creatively bankrupt? Or just pandering to the market? Is one actually better than the other?

 

[MHWilliams]

I mean, the numbers don't lie.

Between 1985-1989, there were 18 total sequels/reboots/remakes that reached the top 20 in the US box office each year. So an average of 3 or 4 a year.

Between 2011-2015, 54 sequels/reboots/remakes.

There's still plenty of great original content, but you're blind if you can't see the major shift that's happened in the last decade.

Only takes in account what viewers watch, not what's produced and marketed.

So what's the point here, we blame the consumer for having bad taste? Hollywood is just putting out schlock because that's what the audience demands (talking again here about the highest grossing films)?

Like I don't get your point. Of course there's great original content outside the top 20 films. That was true in the 80s as well. But there's been a dramatic shift away from original content toping the box office to remakes, reboots and sequels. Does that make them creatively bankrupt? Or just pandering to the market? Is one actually better than the other?

As I said earlier in the thread.

Given Life, an original scifi horror project, or Alien: Covenant, which treads the same ground, what do you think people are going to watch? With that potential answer, is that a problem that the audience gravitates to the latter?

 

[Bobby Roberts]

So what's the point here

The point is that people like to lean on the notion that the film industry is "creatively bankrupt" when that's very obviously not the case.

Are you arguing otherwise?

 

[kswiston]

The top 20 films generally make quite a bit more now than they did in the 80s. Even adjusting for ticket prices.

The top 20 films released in 2016 have grossed $5.586B combined.

The top 20 films released in 1986 grossed $3.677B combined using 2016 ticket prices.

Even if we went with 1989 (which was probably the biggest year of the 80s), the difference is still about $1B in favor of 2016 after ticket inflation. The differences would be even more pronounced if you are looking at worldwide box office.

So we are seeing more successfully targeted blockbusters now than we did years ago. This is in part due to budget inflation leading to levels of spectacle in the top films that are hard to match in small-mid budget films (and therefore non-Hollywood films for the most part). In 1980, the difference between a $15M film and a $30M film were often the cost of the talent on board. Now it's all about the number of shooting locations, and the special/practical effects.

To ensure success, most of the biggest budgets are going to sequels and franchise films.


As I said yesterday, a lot of the big 80s films that people are pointing out basically had Deadpool budgets. There are plenty of interesting films being made with $20-70M budgets. They don't crack to the annual top 20 all that often, but they don't really need to. Last year's worldwide top 20 cut-off was $400M.

 

[Monocle]

Fantastic OP, thanks. We have never been at a loss for quality films, not in any year of the 21st century to date.

 

[Mutant]

lol this is GAF in a nutshell

Can you show me a poster who has said this, or are you taking things various people have said and then picture them coming out of some single person?

 

[Lothar]

When someone tries to say that Hollywood was original in the 80s and 90s and brings up Jurassic Park, there is a problem. A problem beyond the fact that that person is looking through the rosiest of rose tinted glasses because every decade the film industry is no more original or lacking in creativity than the previous decade.

If you think a film adaptation of a book and a rehashed film that does the exact same thing the original did is of the same worth, you're right we have a problem. This might explain why you don't understand why people are complaining about hollywood. Very few people would think like that.

 

[MHWilliams]

If you think a film adaptation of a book and a rehashed film that does the exact same thing the original did is of the same worth, you're right we have a problem. This might explain why you don't understand why people are complaining about hollywood. Very few people would think like that.

The genesis of both is not in an original product.

You argue execution, an argument no one is having.

You want to say Jurassic Park is better than World, go right ahead. If you want to somehow argue that Jurassic Park, the film based on a best-selling novel produced by mega-director Steven Spielberg for a $63 million budget with a $65 million marketing campaign and countless licenses is somehow less of a product of the blockbuster system, then no, we're going to disagree.

Do you feel the Da Vinci Code and Angels & Demons is somehow exempt too? What the litmus test? Based of a comic is bad, but a novel is fine?

 

[Brinbe]

That's a damn good post, OP. Totally agreed 100%. There's some fucking good-ass movies out there. But people are checking for that shit. They rather watch another Transformers or some other popcorn flick.

That being said, it's damn near inspiring that films like Get Out/Hidden Figures that aren't these high budget giants are still making tons of bank.