Has Hollywood become too Dependent On Blockbuster films?

[Cli-Fi]

To say that Hollywood has become more cautious about originality (despite the hipsters and so-called open minded liberals that fill its coffers) is an understatement. While the internets ramble on about how there are no original movie ideas in Hollywood, but that there should be. The very few that do get out there, have not done well at all in the box office.

Take the recent example of Tomorrowland. It was a completely original idea, based off only a theme park ride, and cool scifi movie plot at that. On a $130 million budget. It only made $42 Million.

Ironically, the Hollywood budgets and marketing departments are becoming extremely defined and albeit conservative tentpoles for well known franchises and brands people know and love. Simply put, its too hard to sell an original movie idea (unless its under X brand name here). With Ant-man's ridiculous premise coming up next in the Marvel Universe it's still projected to make at least $800 Million. Thanks to the Marvel name. Try selling a movie with a man who can shrink himself that's not Marvel!

However, I am not so sure what the difference between Tomorrowland and say the Lego Movie is? Did Tomorrowland miscast Clooney? Was the Lego Movie marketed better to younger kids? Did people not understand the plot of Tomorrowland? Did the Lego Movie have just the right amount of humor? These are the types of questions that keep studio heads up at night.

On the flip side, there are plenty of indy movies that come out during film festival season which highlights all the glory of film-making without the blockbuster effects. I myself fall into the franchise category. I do not enjoy most indy films and I am not willing to waste $20 to see a movie that might not be good in the theaters. With Marvel, X-men, Transformers etc... I know what I am going to be getting. I know the style and am interested in the continuation of the storyline. Sometimes even reboots can be fun too.

Here is the story from screenrant: http://screenrant.com/tomorrowland-box-office-original-movies-sequels/

 

[Vince W]

The problem with Tomorrowland is marketing. Disney was being too clever for their own good. They were very secretive in the way they presented things, but they didn't give us enough to intrigue the average person. Sure nerds like me weren't going to miss it, but what about the casual viewer?

Was it a kid's film? An adult film? No one knew until it was released and then it was too late. They should have billed it as a return to old science fiction that would have appealed to adults. Sure the kids will love it (the kids in my cinema certainly did), but it's really a film for old duffs who remember the way we looked at science fiction and the future in general when we were young.

I thought Clooney did a very good job, but it was Raffey Cassidy that stole the film.

 

[Overread]

Marketing is a huge thing for the Box-office.
It's nearly make or break because that first few weeks of Box-office time is when they make their most income from the film as is - as such if you market really well you'll get bums on seats fast. Most won't wait for reviews; they'll get enticed off the trailers and marketing and hype.

I'd argue for many the script, visuals, acting, CGI is all incidental to the marketing (which also includes the actors - its why you sometimes get smaller films having big actors in support roles just so they can market the name)

 

[BAYLOR]

Why can't they find a way to make films cheaper then they do?

 

[Overread]

Well I recall Sigorny Weavers wages for the second Alien film were more than the whole budget for the first film.

It's a strange world, but seems that the problem is if you want the talent you've got to pay through the nose to get it. But with the wages so insanely high (and I'm sure its not limited just to actors) I suspect that its hard. Esp if you want to then make something fantasy or sci-fi where you have to also invest in either high end CGI or massive sets

 

[BAYLOR]

Well I recall Sigorny Weavers wages for the second Alien film were more than the whole budget for the first film.

It's a strange world, but seems that the problem is if you want the talent you've got to pay through the nose to get it. But with the wages so insanely high (and I'm sure its not limited just to actors) I suspect that its hard. Esp if you want to then make something fantasy or sci-fi where you have to also invest in either high end CGI or massive sets

Big name stars is part of the problem, two things they could do is offer the actor a lower salary and percentage of the Gross to compensate. I might be wrong here but didn't George Lucas do that with Sir Alec Guinness? Another thing they could do hire cheaper actors, that might have some Box office draw. As to special effects they cant a lot of them on television budget.

 

[Cli-Fi]

Why can't they find a way to make films cheaper then they do?

It's a lot more complicated than that. Not to mention that we are dealing with creative people who have the largest egos in the world. I would say that even us unknown creative people have egos, but that's nothing compared to Hollywood actors, writers, producers, and directors +more who are called talented their whole career. (regardless if they've done one great thing or hundreds of little things) The ego and the drama inside Hollywood is the very reason we have tabloid newspapers and reality TV shows. It's very easy to bruise egos in Hollywood. I know this from personal experience. One of my friends just came back from Cannes, he's nobody big, just a writer, but he's been called talented. Even though, I don't like any of his material. It's personally not my style. Hollywood is a lot like a big High School. And lots of deals get done or not just because people may or may not like working together.

 

[BAYLOR]

It's a lot more complicated than that. Not to mention that we are dealing with creative people who have the largest egos in the world. I would say that even us unknown creative people have egos, but that's nothing compared to Hollywood actors, writers, producers, and directors +more who are called talented their whole career. (regardless if they've done one great thing or hundreds of little things) The ego and the drama inside Hollywood is the very reason we have tabloid newspapers and reality TV shows. It's very easy to bruise egos in Hollywood. I know this from personal experience. One of my friends just came back from Cannes, he's nobody big, just a writer, but he's been called talented. Even though, I don't like any of his material. It's personally not my style. Hollywood is a lot like a big High School. And lots of deals get done or not just because people may or may not like working together.

Hollywood sounds like a truly depressing and despicable place. I think if I were a filmmaker, I would stay away from it and it's gaggle of spoiled Superegos.

 

[MWagner]

Why can't they find a way to make films cheaper then they do?

We need to distinguish between two kinds of movies here. The first kind are action or fantastic movies. The second is movies that just feature people in normal settings.

Audiences expect the first kind of movie to have cutting-edge technology and effects. The next time you watch a movie like Inception, the Avengers, or Guardians of the Galaxy, look at the list of credits. Thousands of people work on these films. Often, a half-dozen skilled professionals will work for 18 months to animate one character. Those are the kind of resources (money) it takes to create the magic on the screen that modern audiences expect.

If you try to cut costs on that stuff, the audience will almost certainly notice. Call is cheesy. Or cheap looking.

The other kind of movie just has people on screen. These tend to be comedies, romantic comedies, low-budget horror films, independent movies, and Oscar-worthy serious films. Comedies and romantic comedies rely on established stars to put bums in seats. Audiences will go to see a Will Ferrell comedy, or a Kate Hudson romantic comedy. They won't go to a Kevin McPherson comedy, or an Alice Jones romantic comedy. So those genres rely on star power, the stars know it, and can set their compensation accordingly. Indie movies and horror movies cost relatively little. Lots get made, and the vast majority fail to find wide distribution, or they open and the close quickly, unnoticed by the ticket-buying public.

And the problem with 'small' movies is fewer people are willing to pay the high ticket prices to watch them at theatres (which, remember, have been equipped to show sensory-gigantic tentpole movies at great cost). They'll wait until they come out on iTunes or Netflix, and save their money for the spectaculars where every penny of that $350 million is up there 20 ft high on the screen.

So the motto is go big or go small, but don't try to go in-between.

Anyone really curious about the role of money in film should play around on the Hollywood Stock Exchange. Real people invest fake money on film projects in development, and gain or lose depending on how those films perform at the box office. It's fascinating. Let's say a studio announces thatait's developing a script based on Redshirts by John Scalzi. It has a director attached (tentatively). That's it. So it might cost $8 a share when it's first offered. There it languishes for half a year. Then a hot young actor like Chris Hemsworth is attached. The stock soars to $22 a share. Still not greenlit. The original director backs out and someone with less of pedigree steps in. Stock back down to $17. This goes on until the most likely scenario - the development is dropped and it becomes a penny stock - or it beats the odds and goes into production. The stock climbs steadily. Anticipation builds. And on the second week after release, the stock pays out. You may win big. Or you may lose your shirt. That's the way capitalism works.

Do you want serious, intelligent movies made with love and attention to writing and character? Then those indie movies and Hollywood prestige films are what you're after. Want a spectacular action movie? Expect dumbed-down franchises aimed at 16-26 year old men.

 

[BAYLOR]

There are so many books that would make good films.

 

[BAYLOR]

I think the loss of the B movies was an unfortunate thing. B films even at their worst at least had entertainment value and on occasion they were as good if not better then A list films.

 

[Overread]

Tarantino can still turn out a good B-movie every so often

 

[BAYLOR]

Other then Mad Max, I've pretty much not bothered with going to the movies of late.

 

[Toby Frost]

I think it's too dependent not on blockbusters, but on the money of 15-year-old boys. If films like Aliens, Predator or Terminator were being made today, I'd be in the cinema every day. Mad Max made me realise how you can make a violent, fantastical, sometimes comical entertainment with a massive budget and not make it dumb.

 

[hardsciencefanagain]

Hollywood is getting caught up in the whole CGI thing.
Attention is drawn, and has moved to, the visual side of storytelling.
Believable characters,intelligent plotlines,an ending that no-one saw coming......it all goes out of the window
What i liked about IRON MAN wasn't the special effects,it was Downey's acting

 

[MWagner]

Attention is drawn, and has moved to, the visual side of storytelling.

One of the problems is that Hollywood relies on the overseas market (and foreign language) box office to turn a profit with these hugely expensive movies. So whatever story you're trying to tell has to not only appeal to 17 and 20 year old boys, it has to appeal to 17 and 20 year old boys who don't speak English and aren't overly fond of subtitles.

 

[hardsciencefanagain]

Very clever observation,MW.
you might have hit the nail on the head there
(Presses "like") button)
i like it better every time i read that

Hollywood speaks the international language of explosions,disaster.
Everybody understands that language

 

[willwallace]

The Grand Budapest Hotel budget around 27 million, made about 175 million.
Birdman, 17 million budget, made 103 million.
The Theory of Everything, 15 million budget, 121 million box office.
The Imitation Game, 14 million budget, 220 million box office.

It is possible to not spend a boatload of money and make films that are critically acclaimed, are actually worth watching, and make money. Mostly happens with films that aren't associated with major production companies, though.

 

[hardsciencefanagain]

Again,valid point.
Some directors can work "around" the problem of a lesser budget.
a good scenario is half the job done.
i googled IMITATION game.
I think the director is from Norway
that would explain a lot!!

anyone ever seen VARG VEUM???

GBH: direction AND scenario By Wes Anderson
Anderson is HUGELY talented

maybe Hollywodd has a shortage of really talented directors????

 

[willwallace]

Wow. Just surfing around I ran across the newest reboot of a franchise, Jurassic World. 150 million budget!!! That's more than double the budget of all four movies mentioned in my previous post combined.