There's the corporate side of it, which other comments have covered, but consumer mentality is a big piece, too. Seems like we're so awash in content there's a widespread jaded expert mentality that's taken hold. A lack of naive willingness to try new things, possibly paired with or caused by a feeling of being overtaxed financially from all sides and having too many things demanding our time.
A lack of willingness to spend time or money on something we don't already identify with as being good, on both the sides of consumers and producers.
Late stage capitalism has changed us all. Feels like there's a lot less room for experimentality in this huge carefully curated experience. We've all seen too much.
edit to add: Maybe the popularity of reboots are us yearning for simpler times. We can't reboot society so we reboot our movies, music, shows, etc. Meanwhile, constantly rehashing old plots prevents the renewal we really want.
I think it’s also similar to the reason all the bands from the 70’s and 80’s have taken up touring again. When these bands started their audience was in the prime of their youth so they were interested in new sounds and experiences. Now that they’re all old and comfortable they don’t want to venture too far from what they know. They also acquired the bulk of the wealth and power and this group of people is also the ones running these companies
Because people prefer familiarity over the unknown.
It’s not a new phenomena, as there have been remakes and sequels for almost as long as there have been movies. It’s also not unique to movies as far as sequels go. Readers begging for sequels to popular books are the bane of authors everywhere.
Just enjoy what you enjoy and ignore the things you don’t. For every remake or sequel there’s an original movie produced by a small independent studio somewhere that’s desperate for viewers.
The Sprinkler Sprinkled (1896) is a remake of The Sprinkler Sprinkled (1895). It’s not something that’s been going on “almost as long as there have been movies”, it’s been going on exactly as long as there have been movies.
Okay, you win the smartest person award. Is it everything you’d hoped for?
Edit: Okay, I may have been a little harsh here, but correcting what was a very minor part of my comment which was intentionally generalised was both unnecessary and rude.
Your reply added nothing to the discussion, other than pointing out that you’re the smartest person in the room. You’re the person who waits for someone to say something, then pushes your glasses up your nose and says “Actually…”
It’s easier to extract profit for the shareholders from an established IP, rather than trying to build value through building your own IP. Catching lightning in a bottle is difficult, so it’s easier to just sell replicas of the bottle.
As much as I was fed up with “Batman: Hulks Revenge - Infinity Multiverse Edition, a Groot and Thanos Love Story” ten years ago, I can’t deny that they’re popular titles. I just hope that movie makers will shift back to originality at some point.
But for now, due to the shift in how media is consumed, they’re unlikely to go for anything that is not a safe choice, which sadly means that they’ll stick to sequels or renoots of established brands.
I don't think they ran out of ideas. The thing that i hate about modern movies or the industry behind it is that they make a movie, let's take op's movie for example, which cost 80million to make, everything included. It made 100million dollars and is considered a failure. Any normal ass company is glad to pay their workers and make some money. Just imagine joe's plumber shop working for 9 month on a project that cost him 80k in labour and materials and he makes 100k, which means 20 k profits and he's like: oh no, what a shitshow, i didn't even make half a million.
I get your point, but 20k USD profit for a 9 month project could be an absolute shit show. Businesses need enough to cover costs during the bad times as well as the good, so 20% profit wouldn't cover for very long if projects dried up the next year.
Nah it's not that they ran out of ideas. It's that the market has changed and there's no room for risky mid-budget or high budget movies. Back in the day they could make a substantial chunk off of home video sales rather than just the theatrical release. Now streaming is not nearly as lucrative and they have to compete with a ton more forms of media. So when you're dropping hundreds of millions to make a movie you have to be damn sure it's gonna draw people to the theaters. So you take fewer risks and make things as wide as possible to appeal to everyone worldwide.
There was a really good 1 hour long YouTube video posted recently that broke it down
Cody Johnson put it very well when he talked about how movie executives saw that Barbie was a smart and funny movie with a good message and decided that meant they needed to make more movies about Mattel toys.
Executives don’t even like movies very much. They just want to make money and they do whatever they think will make money, not make good movies.
Shawshank Redemption was a book. The Godfather was a book. Lord of the Rings, Forrest Gump, Fight Club, Goodfellas, Silence of the Lambs… That’s just from the first 25 of IMDB’S top 250.
The Thing is a remake. The Fly was a remake. Scarface, The Departed, The Mummy… all remakes.
The problem isn’t remakes or adaptations, the problem is they’re shit remakes and adaptations. Nobody cares that The Batman was the 75th adaptation of Batman, because it was good.
It’s a different medium entirely. Not to mention the book version is normally quite different.
Plus I never said my opinion or presented anything as fact. Just said I’ve never heard this idea. It probably strikes me as odd because perhaps the majority of movies ever made are based on books.
You’re not wrong that many of our favs are remakes, but OP does have a point that disproportionately more big box office movies are reboots or sequels than 30 years ago.
Is that actually true or is everyone in this conversation just forgetting about the new IP’s being released?
Perhaps it’s a matter of where the marketing budgets are going rather than just what’s been produced? Or how remakes and sequels tend to stay in memory longer than a flash-in-the-pan one-off IP? It allows the owners of that IP to invest in more than just movies: all sorts of media and merchandise that keeps the IP in the minds of consumers for longer.
Heck, the two big summer blockbusters this year were Barbie and Oppenheimer. Oppenheimer was definitely original. Does Barbie count? I actually haven’t seen it and I’m not that interested, but i don’t think it’s the same cannon as the direct-to-vhs movies my sister had back in the 90’s.
Shawshank Redemption was a book. The Godfather was a book. Lord of the Rings, Forrest Gump, Fight Club, Goodfellas, Silence of the Lambs… That’s just from the first 25 of IMDB’S top 250.
From the top 10, only Pulp Fiction is original and not a sequel. If you go to the top 20, you can add Inception, The Matrix and Se7en. That’s 4 out of 20 (or 1 out of 10). There’s a lot more original material beyond the top 25 though, but your point that every great movie is a “ripoff” very much stands.
It’s always been lowest common denominator content that’s made the most money. I always ask people about movie preferences and an ever increasing common theme “Life is already tough, I don’t want a serious movie, I just want mindless entertainment.” Sequels provide that, you know the characters, you know the stakes, sprinkle in jokes and you have a mindless money maker.
Look, I don't want to give the impression that I'm a film snob with my head up my ass or anything. I enjoy a good comic book movie, a mindless action film, all sorts of stuff. Hell, depending on what day you ask, I'd say Rogue One is the best Star Wars film (on the other days, it's Empire). Unpopular opinion - I think 2001 is overrated. It might be art, but I don't find it entertaining. And I agree with M500 - I loved San Andreas. It knew what it was, I could switch my brain off for a couple of hours and quietly snark at it with a friend. Good times.
I just don't want that to be all there is. And the more films like this fail to make hundreds of billions of dollars, the less the lawyers in charge of the studios are going to risk on them in the future. That's the tragedy for me.
Because the human being is habitual and prefers something that is always familiar to him. So the same things will be produced with the same actors, Tom Hanks will be forced to make films up to 90 years and if he dies he will be simulated by the IA until the end of time.
movies
Hot
This magazine is from a federated server and may be incomplete. Browse more on the original instance.