After SuperHeroes , What Do You Think Will be the Next Big Thing in The Movies?

[KGeo777]

That ain't the reason. It's because they can't refrain from pushing agendas in their writing.

Yeah but the switch to increasingly poor writers and dull actors didn't happen overnight.

It built up over time. Corporate mergers, a focus on the global audience, and prioritizing computer FX spectacle.
A good actor (if any still exist) will not be motivated by a bad script.
The switch to overt social preaching flies in the face of the claim--totally bogus--that Hollywood is motivated by making money from the lowest common denominator audience--which we know would reject the very same preaching they push--it makes no sense unless they are more interested in preaching than audience favor.



I was looking at this video 10 Movies That Are Already Doomed



It lists

Garfield
The Crow
Naked Gun remake
Fast and Furious whatever
Star Wars Rey whatever
Wicked the Musical
Joker 2
Venom 2
Beverly (over the) Hills Cop whatever

So what are the themes of these films?

You have a tired CGI brand cartoons--Garfield--if they used a real cat that might actually breath some life into it--I would include Star Wars and Fast and Furious as CGI cartoons also

The anti-hero---the Crow, Venom, Joker, and the Wicked Witch---making the villain into the protagonist

The elderly male comedian cop (Naked Gun, Beverly Hills Cop)

These are very narrow themes and not "tried and true."
They are deliberately avoiding themes and ideas that would be traditionally favorable to audiences.
Even if one says they are making these films to cater to Asia, that would not explain the focus on criminals or villains as the protagonists.

What's going on?
It's a disintegration of cultural stability and social norms.

sterile technology instead of the organic
depictions of criminality instead of nobility
mental and physical impairment instead of healthy ideals

There have always been subversive artistic streams but this is omnipresent.
Like a train with a suicidal engineer running off a cliff.

I am not sure how the course can reverse.
They just announced the new He-Man--he looks like Angelina Jolie.
I knew they would not seek to pick someone who was close to the traditional depiction because they can't reverse course.

 

[BAYLOR]

Yeah but the switch to increasingly poor writers and dull actors didn't happen overnight.

It built up over time. Corporate mergers, a focus on the global audience, and prioritizing computer FX spectacle.
A good actor (if any still exist) will not be motivated by a bad script.
The switch to overt social preaching flies in the face of the claim--totally bogus--that Hollywood is motivated by making money from the lowest common denominator audience--which we know would reject the very same preaching they push--it makes no sense unless they are more interested in preaching than audience favor.



I was looking at this video 10 Movies That Are Already Doomed



It lists

Garfield
The Crow
Naked Gun remake
Fast and Furious whatever
Star Wars Rey whatever
Wicked the Musical
Joker 2
Venom 2
Beverly (over the) Hills Cop whatever

So what are the themes of these films?

You have a tired CGI brand cartoons--Garfield--if they used a real cat that might actually breath some life into it--I would include Star Wars and Fast and Furious as CGI cartoons also

The anti-hero---the Crow, Venom, Joker, and the Wicked Witch---making the villain into the protagonist

The elderly male comedian cop (Naked Gun, Beverly Hills Cop)

These are very narrow themes and not "tried and true."
They are deliberately avoiding themes and ideas that would be traditionally favorable to audiences.
Even if one says they are making these films to cater to Asia, that would not explain the focus on criminals or villains as the protagonists.

What's going on?
It's a disintegration of cultural stability and social norms.

sterile technology instead of the organic
depictions of criminality instead of nobility
mental and physical impairment instead of healthy ideals

There have always been subversive artistic streams but this is omnipresent.
Like a train with a suicidal engineer running off a cliff.

I am not sure how the course can reverse.
They just announced the new He-Man--he looks like Angelina Jolie.
I knew they would not seek to pick someone who was close to the traditional depiction because they can't reverse course.

If your movie company and you have any business sense, rather then pay for new story martial which has high risk of failure , you stick with tried and true franchises( which you control and don't have pay for ) with a built in audiences and, milk them to death. However there is a vey obvious the downside to this approach name. what do you do when the audiences get sick of seeing the same old thing over and over and over again ?

 

[KGeo777]

If your movie company and you have any business sense, rather then pay for new story martial which has high risk of failure , you stick with tried and true franchises( which you control and don't have pay for ) with a built in audiences and, milk them to death. However there is a vey obvious the downside to this approach name. what do you do when the audiences get sick of seeing the same old thing over and over and over again ?

But would that explain why they promote villains?

The Wizard of Oz--why not do stories about the Scarecrow or Tin Man or Lion or Munchkins or the floor polisher of Oz?
Why do a story about the ONE character in the work who is disliked the most?
It is counter-intuitive.
If they did a survey of audiences--asking them if they think they would like a musical about a character in the Wizard of Oz--how many would pick the Wicked Witch of the West?

Likewise with He-Man. Why pick someone who is the opposite of Dolph Lundgren? Why would they want to pick someone who resembles a woman?
It's deliberate obviously--I am just saying I don't think they fret about it because their parent corporation will not run out of money. They can play games as long as they want to since there is no media alternative.

 

[Parson]

I think you have to consider what's "fun" to write. I've had numerous writers tell me that it's far more interesting to write a villain than a hero. And that also explains a lot of what I would call the "anti-Superman" type characters.

Also look at what people are drawn to. There seems to be insatiable appetite to explore the dark side of life. Who was the most recognizable and biggest star character of "The New Hope" (better known as the original Star Wars movie)? It certainly wasn't Luke Skywalker, it was Darth Vader and next was likely Han Solo (who was at best a lovable rogue). I can almost always be sure that the characters that I am drawn to are not going to be the ones that the "masses" are drawn to.

 

[Robert Zwilling]

far more interesting to write a villain than a hero

Or write about those that are idolized.

 

[paeng]

Yeah but the switch to increasingly poor writers and dull actors didn't happen overnight.

It built up over time. Corporate mergers, a focus on the global audience, and prioritizing computer FX spectacle.
A good actor (if any still exist) will not be motivated by a bad script.
The switch to overt social preaching flies in the face of the claim--totally bogus--that Hollywood is motivated by making money from the lowest common denominator audience--which we know would reject the very same preaching they push--it makes no sense unless they are more interested in preaching than audience favor.



I was looking at this video 10 Movies That Are Already Doomed



It lists

Garfield
The Crow
Naked Gun remake
Fast and Furious whatever
Star Wars Rey whatever
Wicked the Musical
Joker 2
Venom 2
Beverly (over the) Hills Cop whatever

So what are the themes of these films?

You have a tired CGI brand cartoons--Garfield--if they used a real cat that might actually breath some life into it--I would include Star Wars and Fast and Furious as CGI cartoons also

The anti-hero---the Crow, Venom, Joker, and the Wicked Witch---making the villain into the protagonist

The elderly male comedian cop (Naked Gun, Beverly Hills Cop)

These are very narrow themes and not "tried and true."
They are deliberately avoiding themes and ideas that would be traditionally favorable to audiences.
Even if one says they are making these films to cater to Asia, that would not explain the focus on criminals or villains as the protagonists.

What's going on?
It's a disintegration of cultural stability and social norms.

sterile technology instead of the organic
depictions of criminality instead of nobility
mental and physical impairment instead of healthy ideals

There have always been subversive artistic streams but this is omnipresent.
Like a train with a suicidal engineer running off a cliff.

I am not sure how the course can reverse.
They just announced the new He-Man--he looks like Angelina Jolie.
I knew they would not seek to pick someone who was close to the traditional depiction because they can't reverse course.

There's lots of money at stake, and those with ideas need to attract investors, who in turn have lots of money and want maximization of profits. At the same time, studios want variety, some with ideas make what studios want but in return also want variety, e.g., their pet projects. And then there's prime time and dump months, considerations for streaming (which goes against the need to target only certain times of the year to show tent-poles), and the point that several of those foreigners are from other countries or regions, and with markets combined as big as or bigger than the domestic one. This is coupled with A-listers and even directors with all sorts of demands, writers who are pressured by the suits to make changes based on what marketing analysts say, studio heads demanding that projects be finished ASAP so that they can release more and increase profitability, merchandising and spinoffs, and the same investors grilling the studio CEO about losses, and questioning further investments in prequels, sequels, reimaginations, remakes, reboots, etc., for IPs that in several cases cost a lot to obtain, and following corporate by-laws favoring investors need to milked for all their worth.

Hence, a new He-Man, with a new Barbarella, and so on.

Steven Spielberg and George Lucas predict film industry 'implosion'

Veteran directors warned students in US about difficulty of getting projects into cinemas, and suggested studio cautiousness could lead to hiked ticket prices

www.theguardian.com

 

[Teresa Edgerton]

My guess—and it's only a guess, not a theory that I am much attached to—is that the next big thing will be pseudo-historical epics. Biographies of famous people that concentrate on their sex lives and have only the most minor resemblance to what is known about them historically.

 

[KGeo777]

There's lots of money at stake, and those with ideas need to attract investors, who in turn have lots of money and want maximization of profits.

15 years ago when people began to notice serious narrative issues with Hollywood, the usual answer given was a)China is the audience b) young males are the audience
Ignoring the fact that the two answers contradict each other--neither explains the "bud light" attitude where they throw away lowest common denominator thinking for extremely niche market taste.
Logically, rationally, Mattel would want someone who reminds the consumer of He-Man, not Angelina Jolie.
The owners of Budweiser had a lot of money invested too and they threw it all away for 1% outreach. No one was around apparently to advice them of the risks. Or they didn't care. Money didn't seem to matter.
And movies don't have to cost $300 million. They farm out half of it to India and yet costs keep going up. Corrupt business model.

 

[BAYLOR]

More Jurassic Park films?

 

[Harpo]

More Jurassic Park films?

Next year

Jurassic World Rebirth - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

 

[BAYLOR]

Next year

Jurassic World Rebirth - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

Soon to be a rebooted re-imagined classic.

 

[paeng]

15 years ago when people began to notice serious narrative issues with Hollywood, the usual answer given was a)China is the audience b) young males are the audience
Ignoring the fact that the two answers contradict each other--neither explains the "bud light" attitude where they throw away lowest common denominator thinking for extremely niche market taste.
Logically, rationally, Mattel would want someone who reminds the consumer of He-Man, not Angelina Jolie.
The owners of Budweiser had a lot of money invested too and they threw it all away for 1% outreach. No one was around apparently to advice them of the risks. Or they didn't care. Money didn't seem to matter.
And movies don't have to cost $300 million. They farm out half of it to India and yet costs keep going up. Corrupt business model.

Thanks for mentioning the Bud Light issue; I didn't want to refer to ESG scoring, etc., as it might be seen as a political issue.

What's weird, though, is that the effects of such have been mixed: failures for Disney but no problems for the NFL.

I'll see if I can get more details on things like overpricing and reasons why movies still cost a lot even with more reliance on CGI. For now, the best I found involved labor costs for those in industrialized economies which negates any savings from low labor costs involving animators in poorer countries.

Finally, I noticed some more issues, but from the demand side:

- Considering movies that look expensive because one has to pay $20 to watch them, and not including expensive parking, meals, and overpriced snacks;

- Several theater owners saying that they can no longer make enough from their cut from ticket sales, and earn more from concessionaries selling snacks and drinks; meanwhile, more theater chains are closing while others have to make them part of malls, and hoping that shopping revenues can subsidize theater costs somehow;

- Given high food and fuel prices and too many movies to watch, more viewers deciding to just wait for cheaper showings, rent the movie, or watch it as part of subscription to a streaming platform later; on top of that, they also want to avoid subscribing because of high costs for other things, like broadband services, and with lots of work needed to make ends meet, decide to just wait for a day off or leave from work, then subscribe, binge-watch, and then unsubscribe; the same applies to TV shows.

In response to that, I read somewhere that companies like Disney have decided to make features that are standalone, i.e., not connected to or dependent on what happened in another feature or TV show, as viewers might not have seen them. That reminds me of the time I became utterly confused while watching some Marvel superhero movie (I think it involved that Ultron character and a large space ship, or something like that) and only because I forgot what happened in the earlier feature released years before.

Meanwhile, I imagine that they will become more dependent on using digital assets to make movies and TV shows, from green-screen (as seen in TV shows from 2009 or so and onward) to virtual sets (as seen in Mandalorian) to deepfake/AI/etc. (as seen in Irishman), and then be able to license from a digital library of video, audio, and pictures, with actors or their estates earning from that, too. That means a proliferation of cheaper, digital-drenched features, probably even released straight to streaming.

And with little time and money, viewers will choose what to watch and won't view most of them, except when they have free time and it's part of their subscription library or thrown in for free with other videos, etc. But that also means lower revenues on average for each film or show.

 

[KGeo777]

The disdain for the traditionally organic, especially the traditionally talented performer, it's becoming parody. The idea of them wanting to use dead performers resurrected by computers that are being manipulated by indifferent secluded people in the shadows, it is practically operatic in the irony.
I felt for some time that commercial film was moving into the realm of Abstract Expressionism (as in the alienation of the public for visual art and hostility towards them for not appreciating the messages). Even the claims of production costs are being doubted--the money is getting channeled somewhere or it is all a complete lie.

The "absence of something," as Lovecraft would call it. I think commercial art is moving towards a kind of "In the Black Square" by Kandinsky realm.
He did a painting of a black square to suggest that every painting that was ever painted or could be painted was inside this black square.
So very very clever. That's the way film is going. Literature too maybe.
Eventually they will have 3 hours of a black screen and say it is the ultimate inclusive film experience.
That is where it seems to be heading.

 

[Harpo]

The disdain for the traditionally organic, especially the traditionally talented performer, it's becoming parody. The idea of them wanting to use dead performers resurrected by computers that are being manipulated by indifferent secluded people in the shadows, it is practically operatic in the irony.
I felt for some time that commercial film was moving into the realm of Abstract Expressionism (as in the alienation of the public for visual art and hostility towards them for not appreciating the messages). Even the claims of production costs are being doubted--the money is getting channeled somewhere or it is all a complete lie.

The "absence of something," as Lovecraft would call it. I think commercial art is moving towards a kind of "In the Black Square" by Kandinsky realm.
He did a painting of a black square to suggest that every painting that was ever painted or could be painted was inside this black square.
So very very clever. That's the way film is going. Literature too maybe.
Eventually they will have 3 hours of a black screen and say it is the ultimate inclusive film experience.
That is where it seems to be heading.

Derek Jarman’s film Blue is similar

 

[AllanR]

Eventually they will have 3 hours of a black screen

well, there is Paint Drying -- Paint Drying - Wikipedia

 

[BAYLOR]

well, there is Paint Drying -- Paint Drying - Wikipedia

A film with more thrills , spills, chills and excitement then Mission Impossible Dead Reckoning.

 

[KGeo777]

well, there is Paint Drying -- Paint Drying - Wikipedia

Why not release it in IMAX?
This has big hit written all over it.

 

[paeng]

That reminds me of Cage's "4'33"" and the lawsuit from the John Cage trust:

Musician Settles Suit On Silent Piece

U.K. musician Mike Batt agreed yesterday (Sept. 23) to pay an undisclosed six-figure sum to the John Cage Trust, after publishers of the late American composer sued him for compensation, claiming he had plagiarized Cage's 1952 composition, "4'33," which was totally silent.

www.billboard.com

What price silence? Six figures, as U.K. musician Mike Batt found out when he included a one-minute silence on the latest album by his rock group, the Planets. Batt agreed yesterday (Sept. 23) to pay an undisclosed six-figure sum to the John Cage Trust, after publishers of the late American composer sued him for compensation, claiming he had plagiarized Cage’s 1952 composition, “4’33,” which was totally silent.

 

[paeng]

Why does CGI cost so much?

Your favourite animated films frequently use CGI effects. However, the majority of creative companies would charge by the second if you…

medium.com

It takes a team of highly skilled artists and technicians many months to create just a few minutes of high-quality CGI footage. And, of course, all that time and expertise comes at a cost. Additionally, other factors can drive up the price of CGI, such as the complexity of the project and the level of detail required. Ultimately, it’s a highly specialized field that requires a lot of resources, and those resources come with a price tag.

...

However, CGI can go for a couple of hundred $ a second or several thousand. Talent, experience and reliability are what affect the price.

According to the article, Disney superhero TV shows may cost up to $25 million per episode, and due to use of CGI. The Pacific mini-series cost $200 million to make, similar to a Hollywood tent-pole. For Game of Thrones, one season cost $120 million to make, similar to Mandalorian.

Why Movies Cost So Much To Make

Why does it cost so much to make a movie? And is it worth it?

www.investopedia.com

It's possible that around 5 pct of costs go to licensing and salaries of A-list actors, 25 pct to production cost, and 70 pct to labor costs, production design, and CGI.

Why Do Blockbuster Movies Cost So Much To Make?

www.greenbergglusker.com

Around 20 pct of the costs are spent even before they start producing the movie. Studios or streaming companies take those risks.

6 Reasons Movies Are So Expensive

This February’s movie sales were dismal. Box Office Mojo has more: In February, movie theaters racked up nearly $660 million in sales, dipping close to 13 percent from February 2010’s $755 million haul. It was the lowest-grossing February since 2007, and it was the largest February-to-February...

www.businesspundit.com

Marketing is separate from these, and can add an additional $100-200 million to the costs. (Tent-poles need to be sold worldwide because more earnings come from the international market.)

Finally, there are lots of articles to consider here:

Stephen Follows - Film industry data and education

Homepage

stephenfollows.com

including distribution of income:

How is a cinema's box office income distributed?

Today, I’m going to tackle a couple of related topics which seem to come up frequently in reader questions and comments – how is a cinema’s box office income distributed, and how much of it ends up with the filmmakers? On the face of it, the first question seems simple: how is box office ticket...

stephenfollows.com

and number of workers per film:

Which are the largest departments on a movie set?

Yesterday a strike among crew members of US TV and film productions was called off, barely a day before it was meant to start. IATSE (or to give it its full name The International Alliance of Theatrical Stage Employees, Moving Picture Technicians, Artists and Allied Crafts of the United States...

stephenfollows.com

It looks like a combination of increasing costs due to labor on CGI plus labor on more special effects, with additional costs due to A-listers, pre-production, and marketing.

 

[BAYLOR]

Avengers 5 is still happening but without the Russo brothers in charge.