Kalo Posted July 3, 2015 Share Posted July 3, 2015 So I found this article titled "142 movie sequels in the works" hollywood is being overrun by remakes, reboots, sequels, and adaptations. it is an issue, they try and reboot and reboot a franchise that was popular in the 80s, sometimes it works, but they are stuck, they need to get their heads out of the 80s the 90s and so on, not completely of course there is some legitimately good material and franchise out there. but I was thinking, what if hollywood took one year off of any previously existing franchise fare and focused only on original films, they were forced to come up with original films maybe it would restore them to the glory days? I mean sure there have always been sequels, but not like it is today, imagine if there was room for a original film to succeed? and an original blockbuster? when was the time we had one of those? anyways just a thought. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Noctis Posted July 3, 2015 Share Posted July 3, 2015 I want whatever the fuck you're having. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Community Manager Water Bottle Posted July 3, 2015 Community Manager Share Posted July 3, 2015 So I found this article titled "142 movie sequels in the works" hollywood is being overrun by remakes, reboots, sequels, and adaptations. it is an issue, they try and reboot and reboot a franchise that was popular in the 80s, sometimes it works, but they are stuck, they need to get their heads out of the 80s the 90s and so on, not completely of course there is some legitimately good material and franchise out there. but I was thinking, what if hollywood took one year off of any previously existing franchise fare and focused only on original films, they were forced to come up with original films maybe it would restore them to the glory days? I mean sure there have always been sequels, but not like it is today, imagine if there was room for a original film to succeed? and an original blockbuster? when was the time we had one of those? anyways just a thought. Inside Out? San Andreas? Jupiter Ascending? Two original blockbusters (original in the sense that they don't belong in a franchise and as far as I can tell, they aren't adaptations not that the material is necessarily itself original) Spy is also an original film that has succeeded. In fact take a look at this list: http://www.boxofficemojo.com/yearly/chart/?yr=2015&p=.htm Many of those films are not franchises. They might be adaptations or based on true stories but they are stand-alone films. We just like to talk about franchises more because they tend to have the more covered box office runs and because it's easier to be excited for a sequel than for an original film. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kalo Posted July 3, 2015 Author Share Posted July 3, 2015 Inside Out? San Andreas? Jupiter Ascending? Two original blockbusters (original in the sense that they don't belong in a franchise and as far as I can tell, they aren't adaptations not that the material is necessarily itself original) Spy is also an original film that has succeeded. In fact take a look at this list: http://www.boxofficemojo.com/yearly/chart/?yr=2015&p=.htm Many of those films are not franchises. They might be adaptations or based on true stories but they are stand-alone films. We just like to talk about franchises more because they tend to have the more covered box office runs and because it's easier to be excited for a sequel than for an original film. But compared to the about of franchise fare it is miniscule. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Community Manager Water Bottle Posted July 3, 2015 Community Manager Share Posted July 3, 2015 But compared to the about of franchise fare it is miniscule. In how much they take in the box office? Sure but that's not Hollywood's fault. In the sheer volume of movies? There's actually more original films. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AniNate Posted July 3, 2015 Share Posted July 3, 2015 Inside Out? San Andreas? Jupiter Ascending? Two original blockbusters (original in the sense that they don't belong in a franchise and as far as I can tell, they aren't adaptations not that the material is necessarily itself original) Spy is also an original film that has succeeded. In fact take a look at this list: http://www.boxofficemojo.com/yearly/chart/?yr=2015&p=.htm Many of those films are not franchises. They might be adaptations or based on true stories but they are stand-alone films. We just like to talk about franchises more because they tend to have the more covered box office runs and because it's easier to be excited for a sequel than for an original film. But compared to the about of franchise fare it is miniscule. Yes, this. No one would be hyping up a Colin Trevorrow original drama 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kalo Posted July 3, 2015 Author Share Posted July 3, 2015 (edited) In how much they take in the box office? Sure but that's not Hollywood's fault. In the sheer volume of movies? There's actually more original films. Technically yes, but that's my point, the blockbuster has become something unoriginal. back in the 70s/80s the major films were jaws, Star Wars, E.T. Indiana Jones, Back to the future. all original films at the time with great concepts and the film industry is still trying to milk franchise that were created 30 years ago, when they really should try to come up with new ideas (expect Star Wars, they can make them as long as I live as long as they are good). I am referring more specifically to blockbusters, even inside out is a brand. I'm not against franchises, I just wish they would work harder to start some new ones.. and they have to do better than Tomorrowland. almost all ongoing franchises right now are 10+ years old. Edited July 3, 2015 by Kalo Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Community Manager Water Bottle Posted July 3, 2015 Community Manager Share Posted July 3, 2015 They do make original blockbusters all the time. I listed some of them but it feels like you want to follow the myth that originality is dead in Hollywood. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kalo Posted July 3, 2015 Author Share Posted July 3, 2015 (edited) They do make original blockbusters all the time. I listed some of them but it feels like you want to follow the myth that originality is dead in Hollywood. Not at all, there are original smaller films made all the time, and once in a blue moon even a blockbuster. all I'm saying is the market is oversaturated with franchises, some of which should not be here anymore. and that many attempts at original films have failed because they were simple not good or original. and to imagine if there was an entire year where all film studios could be released were original films, obviously that will never happen. Edited July 3, 2015 by Kalo Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TServo2049 Posted July 4, 2015 Share Posted July 4, 2015 (edited) He does have a point, the majority of the top 10 for each year has been franchises every year since 2001. It does seem like the franchises make the most money; not many originals these days cross $300 million, but if you adjust for inflation a lot of older ones do. But there were always book adaptations, and a lot of big stars were de facto "franchises" in and of themselves. We tend to think there was a period when all the big blockbusters were original sci-fantasy-adventure on the Lucas/Spielberg/etc. model, but there actually weren't as many megahits in that "genre" as we like to think, and they were only in a relatively short period of time. You were just likely to see big splashy star vehicles that were more down to earth (star power ain't what it used to be), or really successful dramas (this doesn't really happen anymore because the people going to see them were the baby boomers, who got old and started preferring to stay home rather than go out to the movies; in this regard, American Sniper is kind of a throwback to the era when dramas or more dramatic films could make serious bank, right down to the controversies and think-pieces that often accompanied them) It's more complex than we like to remember. A lot of the people lamenting the rise of franchises seem to be idealistic 80s/early 90s pop-cinephiles who want today's young audiences to grow up with the kind of original, exciting stuff they themselves grew up with. People who grew up in the 60s and pre-blockbuster 70s similarly lamented the proliferation of mass-appeal blockbusters (all the way back to Star Wars, even Jaws) believing they crowded out movies which "meant something" and "said something", as if the preceding era was all stuff like The Graduate and The Godfather and Taxi Driver, seeming to forget the mass-appeal pop fluff like Airport and Love Story and so on. I think we remember the era we grew up in as some sort of glory days where the movies we saw/loved are the ones that reigned supreme, or even believe that today's culture suffers for lack of them (or maybe if we grew up renting movies that were just before our time, we may pine for the era right before ours). I know we like to think people are never going to wax nostalgic for the way things were at any point after 2000, but I'm sure it's going to happen. Edited July 4, 2015 by TServo2049 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Asyulus Posted July 4, 2015 Share Posted July 4, 2015 The year will be a lot more boring without franchises/sequels. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ethan Hunt Posted July 5, 2015 Share Posted July 5, 2015 The year will be a lot more boring without franchises/sequels. Not necessarily 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AniNate Posted July 5, 2015 Share Posted July 5, 2015 I know we like to think people are never going to wax nostalgic for the way things were at any point after 2000, but I'm sure it's going to happen. They already are when it comes to Pixar films. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TServo2049 Posted July 5, 2015 Share Posted July 5, 2015 They already are when it comes to Pixar films. Point well taken. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SchumacherFTW Posted July 5, 2015 Share Posted July 5, 2015 It's probably the same thing as Japan, movies are pretty expensive these days, so people will go to see a movie that they're more confident they'll enjoy, and unless the WOM is stellar they'll be more confident with a franchise film. The exhibitors share as much of the blame for this trend as the producers do. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
grey ghost Posted July 8, 2015 Share Posted July 8, 2015 Here's how I ranked the last four movies I've seen. 1) Ted 2 2) Dope 3) Terminator Gensys 4) Jurassic World But I enjoyed them all for different reasons. I can't wait to see Ant-Man, Staw Wars 7, Deadpool, BvS, Civil War and Doctor Strange. What does it mean? People like me are in heaven. "Everything Is Awesome!" Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lordmandeep Posted July 8, 2015 Share Posted July 8, 2015 Its simple if Jurrasic World was generic summer film with dinosaurs, would it have done half as well ? no. There is nothing more powerful then Brand power. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
