# Zardnaar's thread about movie stats



## Zardnaar (Jul 19, 2019)

Hollywood doesn't really do new movies.


----------



## Morrus (Jul 19, 2019)

Zardnaar said:


> Hollywood doesn't really do new movies




It does tons of them every year. You just don't go to see them.


----------



## Zardnaar (Jul 19, 2019)

Morrus said:


> It does tons of them every year. You just don't go to see them.




I should have rephrased it to ones that make lots of money. That's what the Studios want is that next billion dollar franchise. 

 There's only a few like a handful that have been blockbusters (outside the MCU). 

 Breakeven point for big budget movies these days is around 500 million maybe 400.

 So are new movies being made. Yes. Are they big blockbusters no.  And that's what the studios want. 

 These 80s and 90s reboots are generally movies that adjusted for inflation got more than $500 million on their original run. 

 I'll see if I can find the article, but Inception I think was the biggest original movie in the last few years iirc.

It's not  the article I read but.
https://uproxx.com/movies/movie-theater-attendance-2017/2/


----------



## trappedslider (Jul 20, 2019)

Zardnaar said:


> I should have rephrased it to ones that make lots of money. That's what the Studios want is that next billion dollar franchise.




It's a good thing you said BILLION because "Us" $254 million worldwide against a budget of $20 million, Horror movies have always for the most done well with new IPs.

The Curse of La Llorona has grossed $54.7 million in the United States and Canada, and $67.3 million in other territories, for a worldwide total of $122 million, against a production budget of $9 million.

Pet Sematary has grossed $54.7 million in the United States and Canada, and $57.7 million in other territories, for a worldwide total of $112.4 million, against a production budget of $21 million

Escape Room has grossed $57 million in the United States and Canada, and $97.9 million in other territories, for a total worldwide gross of $154.9 million, against a production budget of $9 million


----------



## Zardnaar (Jul 20, 2019)

trappedslider said:


> It's a good thing you said BILLION because "Us" $254 million worldwide against a budget of $20 million, Horror movies have always for the most done well with new IPs.
> 
> The Curse of La Llorona has grossed $54.7 million in the United States and Canada, and $67.3 million in other territories, for a worldwide total of $122 million, against a production budget of $9 million.
> 
> ...




Those are all Indy type movies. There's not a lot being made between 50 to 100 million and the big movies production costs are exceeding the cost of making all those movies you listed. 

 There's only been a few big budget success movies in the last decade or so outside of the MCU/DC. Inception got 800 million and iirc that was the biggest one. In 2010. 

 Also remember the studios only get around half of the box office take. A 200 million dollar movie needs around 500 million to break even due to marketing costs as well. 

 100 to 300 million dollars box office doesn't really mean much now almost a rounding error. 

 Exclude Inception name an original non MCU/DC movie that broke 500 million. They exist but apparently it's only a few movies since 2010.


----------



## Zardnaar (Jul 20, 2019)

More info.
https://i.stuff.co.nz/entertainment...maverick-after-tom-cruise-drops-first-trailer
Practical effects, real planes, Jennifer Connolly.


----------



## trappedslider (Jul 20, 2019)

Zardnaar said:


> Those are all Indy type movies. There's not a lot being made between 50 to 100 million and the big movies production costs are exceeding the cost of making all those movies you listed.




first you state Hollywood doesn't really do new movies then you quantified: ones that make lots of money. Now you say name an original non MCU/DC movie that broke 500 million.

So, I'm starting to think you're moving the goal post.


----------



## Zardnaar (Jul 20, 2019)

trappedslider said:


> first you state Hollywood doesn't really do new movies then you quantified: ones that make lots of money. Now you say name an original non MCU/DC movie that broke 500 million.
> 
> So, I'm starting to think you're moving the goal post.




Not really the article was explaining why howwood doesn't do new blockbusters and there were only something like 6 or 8 new movies outside if superhero movies that did well. 

 Compare with the 90s where you had lots of movies that were blockbusters and originals. I wasn't really talking about Indy movies no one really cares about that win an award at Cannes or something and then make 100 million dollars or less at the office. 

 They'll get a participation trophy somewhere but the public at large won't care and it will have minimal cultural impact.


----------



## ccs (Jul 20, 2019)

Zardnaar said:


> There's only been a few big budget success movies in the last decade or so outside of the MCU/DC. Inception got 800 million and iirc that was the biggest one. In 2010.






Zardnaar said:


> Exclude Inception name an original non MCU/DC movie that broke 500 million.




Frozen.  
If that's not "original" enough (it is inspired by a HCA tale afterall) then  Zootopia.

BTW, a quick Wiki search also says that as of this July the $500M+ club only has 206 members.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fastest-grossing_films
(I couldn't find a concise list, but I also don't care enough to keep looking)


----------



## Zardnaar (Jul 20, 2019)

ccs said:


> Frozen.
> If that's not "original" enough (it is inspired by a HCA tale afterall) then  Zootopia.
> 
> BTW, a quick Wiki search also says that as of this July the $500M+ club only has 206 members.
> ...




As I said there's a few. Not many though. Birthday Turkish dinner+ few APAs and Efes so have a good night. Bellydancer weeee


----------



## Morrus (Jul 20, 2019)

Zardnaar said:


> Compare with the 90s where you had lots of movies that were blockbusters and originals. I wasn't really talking about Indy movies no one really cares about that win an award at Cannes or something and then make 100 million dollars or less at the office.
> .




Ok, name 10 90’s blockbusters which made a billion dollars.


----------



## Zardnaar (Jul 20, 2019)

Morrus said:


> Ok, name 10 90’s blockbusters which made a billion dollars.




Virtually none you would have to adjust for inflation. T2 comes close. 500 million bin 1991 is about 900 now. 

 I also gave the 500 million mark which is roughly the break even point on a modern blockbuster. Solo for example lost money on 400 million.

 Blockbusters being movies in the 150 to 200 million range plus marketing costs. 

 Movies cost more to make,  more to market and post inflation generally earn less than the 90s.

Alladin for example got 500 million costing 28 million.

 I can probably give you 20 or 30 90s movies breaking the equivalent of 500 million. Most of them will be original there's only a handful from the last 10 years that are not superhero movies/sequals/reboots.


----------



## Zardnaar (Jul 20, 2019)

No 40 is The Mummy, 400 million 20 years ago cost 80 million. 

https://www.imdb.com/search/title/?...tle_type=feature&sort=boxoffice_gross_us,desc

 8 were sequals. 400 million in 1999 is 600 now.

 So 32 movies original getting 600 million plus.

 Google Fu gave me this.
https://www.boxofficemojo.com/alltime/world/

 Almost all the modern movies are sequals, remakes, or established franchises such as MCU at least the top 40. There's frozen and Minions and some 90s movies for originals.

Not many are original in the last 10 years. Blame ourselves though Hollywood will make what makes money but it doesn't look good for originals which was my main point.

Missed Avatar but earlier I was using Inception (2010) as a cut off point. Overall trend is still the same a relative handful of original blockbuster movies. 

Top Gun trailer at least looks ok. Not that much of a Tom Cruise (praise be to Xenu) fan, prefer Jennifer Connelly being honest (Labyrinth,Rocketeer, Blood Diamond etc).


----------



## Umbran (Jul 20, 2019)

Zardnaar said:


> Those are all Indy type movies. There's not a lot being made between 50 to 100 million and the big movies production costs are exceeding the cost of making all those movies you listed.




Who cares about "big"?  What you want is a high gross-to-production ratio.  If I gross $122 million on an investment of $9 million, I've gotten a 13x return on my investment!

I could make 36 of these small movies for the cost of one Avengers: Endgame, and gross about _$4.4 Billion_ overall.  If my Endgame tanks, I lose it all.  If half my small budget movies tank, I still walk away with a couple billion dollars.

The difference is not in the gross ticket sales.  The difference is in *merchandising*.  Kids are getting videogames and toys for Endgame.  Nobody is buying La Llarona funko-pops and sheet sets.


----------



## Zardnaar (Jul 20, 2019)

Umbran said:


> Who cares about "big"?  What you want is a high gross-to-production ratio.  If I gross $122 million on an investment of $9 million, I've gotten a 13x return on my investment!
> 
> I could make 36 of these small movies for the cost of one Avengers: Endgame, and gross about _$4.4 Billion_ overall.  If my Endgame tanks, I lose it all.  If half my small budget movies tank, I still walk away with a couple billion dollars.
> 
> The difference is not in the gross ticket sales.  The difference is in *merchandising*.  Kids are getting videogames and toys for Endgame.  Nobody is buying La Llarona funko-pops and sheet sets.




Except a lot of small movies also fail to hit 100 million. Even fewer become blockbusters but every now and then you get a Blair Witch.

 It's also the way movies are funded. If you're an investor you probably want to go with an established franchises.

 The big box office hitsvalsi make up a stupidly high % of the yearly box office, not a lot of smaller movies. M CU alone is crazy let alone Disney overall.

The smaller movies aren't bad but their Bix office appeal is limited. Going by the amount if dyds this year the smaller movies quality wise are probably better.


----------



## Morrus (Jul 20, 2019)

Zardnaar said:


> Except a lot of small movies also fail to hit 100 million. Even fewer become blockbusters but every now and then you get a Blair Witch.




What's with your obsession with blockbusters? Does a film only count if it's a blockbuster?



> The smaller movies aren't bad but their Bix office appeal is limited.




So? 

Go see them if you think you'll like them. You're not an investor. 

If your requirement to see a film is (a) it be original, and (b) it must be a blockbuster then you're only hurting yourself. Otherwise -- go see the films. They're there.


----------



## Zardnaar (Jul 20, 2019)

Morrus said:


> What's with your obsession with blockbusters? Does a film only count if it's a blockbuster?
> 
> 
> 
> ...




I'll watch almost anything, it's not me though it's the Hollywood Studios that care about the blockbusters. It's why we don't get new blockbusters I posted the top 40 from the 90s and only 8 were sequels. 

 It's not entirely the studios fault they're there to make money, if the audiences aren't watching new IPs en masse.


----------



## Morrus (Jul 20, 2019)

Zardnaar said:


> It's why we don't get new blockbusters




Again, why does it matter to you that films be blockbusters?

There are _lots_ of non-blockbuster films every year. They are great. Go watch 'em. They're still making them, plenty.

There's no "fault" to assign. Nothing is wrong. Blockbusters are there, small films are there. Watch either, or both, or whatever.


----------



## Zardnaar (Jul 20, 2019)

Morrus said:


> Again, why does it matter to you that films be blockbusters?
> 
> There are _lots_ of non-blockbuster films every year. They are great. Go watch 'em. They're still making them, plenty.
> 
> There's no "fault" to assign. Nothing is wrong. Blockbusters are there, small films are there. Watch either, or both, or whatever.




Special effects don't make a movie but every now and then you get a movie like T2 with special effects plus storyline and a lot of movies like that are no longer made.


----------



## Morrus (Jul 21, 2019)

Zardnaar said:


> Special effects don't make a movie but every now and then you get a movie like T2 with special effects plus storyline and a lot of movies like that are no longer made.




I really don't understand what your point is, and it seems to change with each post. My interest in the conversation (such that it was) has expired as it's gong nowhere interesting, but I'll reiterate that if you want to see original movies, there are tons of them every year, and they're awesome and available to you. If your requirement for them is that they have to be blockbusters, then I guess you're missing out. Sucks to be you, I guess!


----------



## Zardnaar (Jul 21, 2019)

Variety is good and you don't really get that now.


----------



## Morrus (Jul 21, 2019)

Zardnaar said:


> Variety is good and you don't really get that now.




Except that you do.

Oh, god. I can’t say that yet again to another pithy non-sequitur. I really am out this time before my brain freezes.


----------



## Zardnaar (Jul 21, 2019)

Morrus said:


> Except that you do.
> 
> Oh, god. I can’t say that yet again to another pithy non-sequitur. I really am out this time before my brain freezes.




No you don't there's not much variety in blockbusters, I provided a link to the 90s and now. 

 Big budget movies are now mostly super hero/MCU/sequals. 

 Some movies are just going to cost more money to make and original movies like that are rare now.

 Consider action genre. Mad Max was good but wasn't original. 
A lot if small movies you don't even know they exist due to marketing.

 See what I mean the variety isn't really there now. Some don't even make it to the theatre here. If you live in London/LA etc or USA/UK great but I don't. 

 That's why I was using blockbusters, it's where the money is and even ones that tank you at least have the option of seeing it.


----------



## trappedslider (Jul 21, 2019)

Zardnaar said:


> g.
> 
> See what I mean the variety isn't really there now. Some don't even make it to the theatre here. If you live in London/LA etc or USA/UK great but I don't.




If you had just said "I don't get anything other than blockbusters where I live" then that would have been the end of the discussion along with understanding of what you're saying instead of this round robin.


----------



## Zardnaar (Jul 21, 2019)

trappedslider said:


> If you had just said "I don't get anything other than blockbusters where I live" then that would have been the end of the discussion along with understanding of what you're saying instead of this round robin.




I specifically said several posts ago I was referring to big budget stuff because that's where the money is, some genres you can't really do low budget at least very well, and it's also what the studios care about.

  Everyone else made a big deal over it even when I specifically said u don't care about little indie films that win awards at Cannes and the public at large doesn't care about them and they are lucky to break 100 million. 

 You're always going to have your auteur lndie type films. They've always been there, probably always will. 

 IDK how much this new Top Gun will cost, the original was fairly cheap even adjusted for inflation.  But it's yet another remake/sequel/reboot and if it's not that it's probably a super hero movie.

 Did anyone actually bother with the links I provided earlier comparing 90s movies with the big hits mist of which are in the last 20 odd years. There's only a few original ones there.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Jul 21, 2019)

Well, what movies are block busters and what movies are not seems to say more about the audience for movies than about what Hollywood is doing, I think. Hollywood prefers to make movies that get audience. But not all movies have to be block buster to be successful.

It is kinda amazing that there is even a way to spend a hundred million dollar budget on a movie and be financially successful. Now, you could ask why such kind of movies are typically action and sci-fi movies, but is that _really _surprising? Do you need Dolby Surround Digital Super-Deluxe Elite Edition and more importantly a gigantic screen to enjoy a comedy with witty dialogues? The extra immersion that the cinema features brings you is something that not all movies really need. And that's why they don't get to become blockbusters so easily, because you don't really miss a huge part of the experience if you watch them at home.


----------



## Zardnaar (Jul 21, 2019)

I'll try and find some articles. Cheap movies still get made sub 30 million,  and you have big budget ones but there's not to many in the middle. 

 If you use special effects even practical ones it's gonna cost big money. 

 They don't generally spend big money promoting the cheaper ones except for potential Oscar bait.


----------



## Umbran (Jul 21, 2019)

Zardnaar said:


> Except a lot of small movies also fail to hit 100 million. Even fewer become blockbusters but every now and then you get a Blair Witch.




Yes.  But "blockbuster" isn't relevant.  You don't have to bust the block.  You just have to outperform your production costs. 

Which means, you need to make *gasp* a good movie!



> It's also the way movies are funded. If you're an investor you probably want to go with an established franchises.




This is an assertion without support.  Show the logic - what can you tell us about how movies are funded?  How does that lead to investors wanting to go with established franchises?  "The way movies are funded," is not a magical black box you can reach into and pull out investor desires.  



> The big box office hitsvalsi make up a stupidly high % of the yearly box office, not a lot of smaller movies. M CU alone is crazy let alone Disney overall.




As already seen in the math - if all you care about is getting box office return on your production cost, single large movies are huge risk.   You can get equivalent or better return from small movies with vastly reduced risk.  Thus, big box office, in and of itself, isn't the driving factor.


----------



## Zardnaar (Jul 21, 2019)

Except the example provided was a successful small movie most don't break 100 million. 

The studios would seem to want big franchises they can milk. Do you think Disney cares about 20 small movies or the latest Star Wars or MCU movie. I'll see if I can find the figures but iirc Disney alone is some stupidly high % of the box office last year

https://www.bizjournals.com/losange...ominated-record-2018-domestic-box-office.html

6 studios 86% of the box office. Don't think they got their with a heap of small movies.

 Box office is down this year that last Avengers movie alone will likely make close to 30% of the year.

 All movies are high risk.  How they are funded varys but I'll see what I can find. If I was investing in movies though the only ones I would invest in is the MCU, everything else is a gamble including Star Wars now.


----------



## Sadras (Jul 22, 2019)

Rise of Netflix, Amazon Prime...etc
Current Living Costs as opposed to the 90's 
Ease of Piracy 
Crappy storytelling and unoriginal content
Higher production and marketing costs


----------



## Umbran (Jul 22, 2019)

Zardnaar said:


> I specifically said several posts ago I was referring to big budget stuff because that's where the money is, some genres you can't really do low budget at least very well, and it's also what the studios care about.




Really?

You know that Hollywood puts out something like 500 to 600 movies every year?  (cite: statista.com)  How are they creatively bankrupt when they are making hundreds of movies that aren't sequels and such?

If they don't care about anything but blockbusters... why make the other 500+ movies?



> Did anyone actually bother with the links I provided earlier comparing 90s movies with the big hits mist of which are in the last 20 odd years. There's only a few original ones there.




Your original statement was, and I quote: "Hollywood doesn't really do new movies." This is demonstrably false.

The shift to "blockbusters" amounts to a moving of goalposts.  I don't know that anyone's been really satisfied by the justification for that move.  

I think there's also a bit of a misunderstanding about "blockbuster" - a blockbuster is a movie that is highly popular and financially successful.  Hollywood can't reliably make a blockbuster.  It makes movies that it *hopes* are blockbusters.  And they often miss.  It is the audience that makes it a blockbuster or not.

You then get to ask yourself - is it that Hollywood doesn't make blockbusters, or is it that when Hollywood makes a really new film, we don't go out to see it in droves so it isn't a blockbuster?  You haven't identified the causal element here.


----------



## Ryujin (Jul 22, 2019)

trappedslider said:


> It's a good thing you said BILLION because "Us" $254 million worldwide against a budget of $20 million, Horror movies have always for the most done well with new IPs.
> 
> The Curse of La Llorona has grossed $54.7 million in the United States and Canada, and $67.3 million in other territories, for a worldwide total of $122 million, against a production budget of $9 million.
> 
> ...




You have an excellent point there. A couple of my friends who are indie actors/filmmakers have a passion project they've been working on for some time now. At first they were going to fund it directly but then they hit on an idea for a horror film, that they could fund at a lower level, then possibly shop to streaming services. Their premise sounds good and they've got a good vision for it, so it's likely doable. Plus they've been in some that were... not good and knew why they were not good, going in. Hey, it's a paycheck


----------



## Zardnaar (Jul 22, 2019)

Umbran said:


> Really?
> 
> You know that Hollywood puts out something like 500 to 600 movies every year?  (cite: statista.com)  How are they creatively bankrupt when they are making hundreds of movies that aren't sequels and such?
> 
> ...




Blockbuster is just financially great popular movie, even if it was made for cheap. 

 If you're dropping $150 million+ and then marketing on top of that you're hoping for a blockbuster. 

 A lot of flops this year, Dumbo, Men In Black, Hellboy, Shaft. 

 Price doesn't mean quality but a budget helps for some genres. 

In my OP I thought the context was clear,  perhaps not. My main disagreement was the idea you can make more money with smaller movies. Ones break 100 million. Tend to be the exception. By that I mean as a % of the yearly box office not big flop 1 vs breakout Indy movie.


----------



## Morrus (Jul 22, 2019)

Umbran said:


> Your original statement was, and I quote: "Hollywood doesn't really do new movies." This is demonstrably false.




+1. It makes for a very frustrating conversation when No True Scotsman is constantly invoked to move the goalposts every time someone points out a factual inaccuracy.


----------



## Umbran (Jul 22, 2019)

Zardnaar said:


> If you're dropping $150 million+ and then marketing on top of that you're hoping for a blockbuster.




As if anyone who ever made a movie wasn't hoping that it would be massively popular and financially successful?  




> My main disagreement was the idea you can make more money with smaller movies. Ones break 100 million.




Again - if you are trying to make money on the box office alone, "break $100 million" isn't actually the issue.  The ratio of return to investment is the issue.  

Let us look at the _most profitable movies_ of all time, shall we?

http://mentalfloss.com/article/68552/20-most-profitable-movies-all-time-based-return-investment

Paranormal Activity (2007)- 19,749 percent return on investment
The Devil Inside (2012)- 3632 percent ROI
Peter Pan (1953) - 3394% ROI
Grease (1978) - 2969% ROI
God's Not Dead (2014) - 2627% ROI
Paranormal Activity 2 (2010) - 2471% ROI
Insidious (2011) - 2139% ROI
Young Frankenstein (1974) - 1954% ROI
It's a Wonderful Life (1946) - 1804% ROI
Reservoir Dogs (1992) - 1771% ROI
Jaws (1975) 1755% ROI
Annabelle (2014) - 1408% ROI
Beauty and the Beast (1991) - 1340% ROI
The King's Speech (2010) - 1209% ROI
Magic Mike (2012) - 1181% ROI
The Fault in Our Stars (2014) - 1119% ROI
The Purge (2013) - 1097%
Slumdog Millionaire (2008) - 1067% ROI
Black Swan (2010) - 1039% ROI
Unfriended (2015) - 1011% ROI

13 out of 20 of these were in the last 20 years.  The majority of them are new properties.  So, yes, there are big vehicles that make tons of cash, but the big-budget films are not the ones that earn the most profit per investment dollar.


----------



## Zardnaar (Jul 22, 2019)

If you're talking about personal finances RoI is important. Hollywood cares about the big bucks and overall income. Do you think share prices are going to go up or down based on RoI or overall dollar amount?

 Never said you couldn't make money on smaller movies but things like Blair Witch Project are few and far between.
. It's also impossible to predict what smaller movies blow up with bigger ones it's a lot easier. MCU is guaranteed bank so far, Star Wars was but we'll see. 

 They made 2 billion on TFA, 700 million profit. Do you think they care about the ratio or the 700 million?

 This year Disney is doing Dumbo, Aladdin, Lion King, and Rise of Skywalker plus they had almost 3 billion from Avengers and another billion from Captain Marvel.  I don't think they care to much about smaller movies.


----------



## Morrus (Jul 22, 2019)

Zardnaar said:


> This year Disney is doing Dumbo, Aladdin, Lion King, and Rise of Skywalker plus they had almost 3 billion from Avengers and another billion from Captain Marvel. I don't think they care to much about smaller movies.




Ah, I've figured it out! The way your proclamation that "Hollywood doesn't really do new movies" works in your head is that Hollywood = Disney's 4-5 blockbusters each year, and all of the _other_ 500 movies each year are not by Disney and therefore aren't Hollywood. Ergo, Hollywood doesn't do new movies any more. 

The _No True Scotsman_ fallacy needs to be renamed, because, man, you not only exemplify it, you epitomize it! 

The conversation is basically thus:

Z: Hollywood doesn't really do new movies.

Everyone: Yes they do. Look, here's 500 new movies.

Z: Yeah but Hollywood doesn't do new movies which are blockbusters any more.

Everyone: Errr.... what?

Z: Look at these 5 blockbuster movies Disney did this year.

Everyone: Yes, but look at these other 500 new movies which came out this year.

Z: Yeah but Hollywood doesn't do new movies which are blockbusters any more.

.... and repeat.




I mean, c'mon. You have to own your original statement and stop moving the goalposts. You said "Hollywood doesn't really do new movies" [literally; exact words]. In 2016 Hollywood released over 700 movies. Your claim is demonstrably false. Instead of trying to cloud the issue by moving the goalposts, why not just admit you were wrong?


----------



## Zardnaar (Jul 23, 2019)

Morrus said:


> Ah, I've figured it out! The way your proclamation that "Hollywood doesn't really do new movies" works in your head is that Hollywood = Disney's 4-5 blockbusters each year, and all of the _other_ 500 movies each year are not by Disney and therefore aren't Hollywood. Ergo, Hollywood doesn't do new movies any more.
> 
> The _No True Scotsman_ fallacy needs to be renamed, because, man, you not only exemplify it, you epitomize it!
> 
> ...




Because people are just not picking after I gave said multiple times I wasn't referring to Indy type movies, provided links to 6 studios make up over 85% of last year's box office.

 I used Disney as an example because they make up around 25% of the market by themselves. 

 Look at top ten lists they are heavily dominated by sequels/IP. 9/10 or 10/10 last year. 

 A lot if the smaller movies also do not see wide scale release and only play in select theatres. Maybe 30 or 40 of them matter. Good chunk of them are sequels as well.

 The fact I have since clarified what I was referring to multiple times isn't goalpost moving hence why I haven't edited my OP. By Hollywood I meant the big corporate side of things,not literally everyone wine who lives there or every autuer with a camera that makes something in their back yard.

 My OP is on me if you want to be pedantic and nitpicking about it that's on you. My main point I was trying to get across is that on the top of the heap there's not much variety.


----------



## trappedslider (Jul 23, 2019)

I didn't realize that  ‎New Line Cinema was indy (Curse of La Llorona) or Paramount Pictures and Di Bonaventura Pictures (also known as dB Pictures they did the Transformers movies) (Pet Cemetery) or Columbia Pictures/Original Film are indy (they did Escape room) and Us was done by Perfect World Pictures/Universal Pictures.

so exactly what do you mean by indy type? Because wiki says "An independent film, independent movie, indie film or indie movie, is a feature film or short film that is produced outside the major film studio system, in addition to being produced and distributed by independent entertainment companies "


----------



## Zardnaar (Jul 23, 2019)

trappedslider said:


> I didn't realize that  ‎New Line Cinema was indy (Curse of La Llorona) or Paramount Pictures and Di Bonaventura Pictures (also known as dB Pictures they did the Transformers movies) (Pet Cemetery) or Columbia Pictures/Original Film are indy (they did Escape room) and Us was done by Perfect World Pictures/Universal Pictures.
> 
> so exactly what do you mean by indy type? Because wiki says "An independent film, independent movie, indie film or indie movie, is a feature film or short film that is produced outside the major film studio system, in addition to being produced and distributed by independent entertainment companies "




Generally the smaller independent studios.

 Also never claimed the larger studios don't make smaller movies. What part of lack of variety at the top of the heap is so hard to understand?

 It's the blockbusters that the majority of the box office comes from. Blockbusters being any movie that brings in hundreds of millions of dollars (and makes bank). 

 Wannabe blockbusters have a large budget but underperforn or flop.

 Do you believe that there is a decent amount of variety in the big movies that are not sequals, reboots or established IP. Big being any movie over 400 million as that's the low figure a high budget movie needs to break even in.

Thought it would be big but damn.

Had planned on seeing this Saturday but my date fell through.

https://www.cinemablend.com/news/24...office-holy-crap-these-numbers-are-ridiculous

$531 million worldwide in a few days.


----------



## trappedslider (Jul 23, 2019)

Zardnaar said:


> Generally the smaller independent studios.
> 
> Also never claimed the larger studios don't make smaller movies. What part of lack of variety at the top of the heap is so hard to understand?.




Step 1: 







Zardnaar said:


> I should have rephrased it to ones that make lots of money.




Step 2 was me posting the fact that all three of those new IPs all made money.

Step 3: 







Zardnaar said:


> Those are all Indy type movies.




When they are not indy type movies.

EDIT:And it's a fact that historically, Horror has always preformed well with New IPs (more or less),maybe not billion dollars like you want,but clearly enough for the studios to keep paying for them to be made. And let's be honest straight up horror movies will never hit the billion dollar spot right out of the gate if ever. But to dismiss a whole selection of films as not money makers because they don't hit the "B" is well just arrogant and makes me think you agree with the following statement with "a society that is hit-driven, and makes way and room for only those films that are expected to be a hit, is in fact a limited society" -_The Long Tail_, Chris Anderson


----------



## Zardnaar (Jul 23, 2019)

Horror doesn't need a massive budget but it's never gonna be massive as by default you're excluding kids. 
 Personally I find horror hard as I don't find them scary which kind if defeats the purpose of the genre. I plan on watching IT soon, looks good though.

 Scariest movie I ever saw was Aliens but I was very young 8 or 9.

 I don't actually care if a movie makes money or not, the studios do though. They'll spam out whatever they think people will pay for.


----------



## CapnZapp (Jul 23, 2019)

"It’s a familiar refrain, but today, the box office is dominated by Marvel superhero movies, Disney remakes, and animated sequels, a trend that doesn’t seem to be losing steam anytime soon."

Quote from

The Client at 25: The Death of the Middlebrow Legal Thriller - https://www.vulture.com/2019/07/the-client-at-25-the-death-of-the-middlebrow-legal-thriller.html


----------



## Morrus (Jul 23, 2019)

Zardnaar said:


> Because people are just not picking after I gave said multiple times I wasn't referring to Indy type movies, provided links to 6 studios make up over 85% of last year's box office.




Read up on the No True Scotsman fallacy; that will explain why you're having such a hard time in this conversation, and why people are finding it a frustrating experience trying to talk with you.


----------



## Zardnaar (Jul 23, 2019)

Morrus said:


> Read up on the No True Scotsman fallacy; that will explain why you're having such a hard time in this conversation, and why people are finding it a frustrating experience trying to talk with you.




 I thought the context of my first post was fine at least as I understood it. 

 Is there anything misleading or wrong with the following
" There is a lack of variety and originality in big Hollywood productions". 

 That's basically what I meant/was aiming at. Do I really need to put IMHO on everything you post on a forum unless you're quoting someone? 

 I provided links to what I was talking about, you're the one who says reference things more. Main reason I don't usually bother is because people 
A. Don't read them.
B. Fake news it
C. Ignore it's contents. 

 I even provided a link to what's available locally.  If people like find from Cannes to go with their organic soy lattes and kale salad that's great, not much of an option here even if you wanted to. 

 Any looks like I'm being dragged off to the Lion King and Secret Life of Pets. Combined with the classic Detective Pikachu that's almost 3 movies in a month.  I got outvoted my vote and her vote. On a draw I lose.


----------



## Hussar (Jul 23, 2019)

Sadras said:


> Rise of Netflix, Amazon Prime...etc
> Current Living Costs as opposed to the 90's
> Ease of Piracy
> Crappy storytelling and unoriginal content
> Higher production and marketing costs




Trying to compare the 1990's to now is pretty difficult.  It's such a different market that there really isn't any comparison.  I mean, good grief, we're to the point now where TV shows have budgets that put 1990's big tent pole movies to shame.  Something like Star Trek Discovery, or Game of Thrones has a budget that dwarfs most big screen offerings.  

I remember a time when it was always a mark of an actor "making it" when they moved from small to big screen.  Now, we're seeing big name actors working on the small screen and it's seen as a step up for their careers.

The whole industry is so different now.

Oh, and let's not forget that we live in a time when the video game market dwarfs Hollywood.  The competition for the entertainment dollar is much greater than it was.  And, let's not forget, you have the emerging Chinese market - the second largest movie market outside of the States, where lots of properties work and others completely don't.  The Fast and Furious franchise absolutely rakes it in in China, while, Star Wars, for example, tanks.  

It's a radically different market than 30 years ago.


----------



## Umbran (Jul 23, 2019)

Zardnaar said:


> I provided links to what I was talking about, you're the one who says reference things more. Main reason I don't usually bother is because people
> A. Don't read them.
> B. Fake news it
> C. Ignore it's contents.




You know, casting aspersions on folks because they see different things as important is... not really a great way to have a conversation.


----------



## trappedslider (Jul 23, 2019)

Zardnaar said:


> I thought the context of my first post was fine at least as I understood it.
> 
> Is there anything misleading or wrong with the following
> " There is a lack of variety and originality in big Hollywood productions".




and if you're going to quote yourself do it correctly because you said 



Zardnaar said:


> Hollywood doesn't really do new movies.




I named three movies that were original and you dismissed them despite them fitting the criteria that you originally posted. It wasn't till later that you started adding words like "blockbuster" etc


----------



## trappedslider (Aug 17, 2019)

Hey look another original movie is making money Box Office: ‘Good Boys’ Eyes Best Original Comedy Opening of 2019


----------



## Morrus (Aug 17, 2019)

trappedslider said:


> Hey look another original movie is making money Box Office: ‘Good Boys’ Eyes Best Original Comedy Opening of 2019




There will be some reason it doesn’t count.


----------

