2016 Has Been A Tough Year For Studio Movies

[FPAlpha]

If a movie is crap then it is crap.. sometimes movie audiences do tend to display taste or their own will and won't follow the marketing models (case in point Zoolander.. i love the original movie in a sort of braindead way but Z2 was just an amped up rehash).

There are so many elements that make up a good movie.. a good idea/story, good actors, good direction but you can't expect to take a big name and string together a series of supposedly funny or dramatic scenes and think this is enough to be an entertaining story. Often enough studios go the wrong way and start with big star names and huge production values when it's often enough better to start with a great story and then go from there.

Best example is my Big Fat Greek Wedding (the original one).. a charming story with funny actors that deservedly became a sleeper hit. I haven't seen the sequel but i'm pretty sure they overemphasized the crazy greek antics and that just becomes tiresome quickly.

 

[Noname Given]

Any bets that Warcraft, Independence Day, Ghostbusters and Tarzan will be the next to give disappointing returns?

No need to bet - it's a pretty sure thing.

 

[Marsden]

2016 Has Been A Tough Year For Studio Movies

Unless your studio is Disney. I think they've made more than all of the others together so far.

 

[The Lensman]

1927.

Oh, long before that.

We tend to forget that this is how it's always been because all the extraneous crap has, for the most part, been forgotten while the classics stand the test of time.

One of my biggest loves is the Silent Era. Most people think Hollywood really began in the 30's with the exception of a few silent films here and there. The reality is that there was an entire Hollywood that's been, with the exception of a very few people, largely forgotten. The Silent Era had it's A, B, C, and D list actors just like today. A shit ton of films came out during the Silent Era, with something like, IIRC, 80% - 85% of them being lost.

Hey, don't let 1925 off the hook. I mean, seriously . . . DON Q, SON OF ZORRO? Did we really need a sequel about Zorro's son for Pete's sake? Talk about a shameless cash grab . . . .

While "Don Q" wasn't quite as good as "Zorro", it was still a better sequel than most sequels, imo. I'll also admit that I'm a fan of Fairbanks and own all his most classic films.

As far as "did we really need a sequel about Zorro's son?"....do we really need a sequel to any film? And aren't they all basically a cash grab in the wake of a popular movie?

 

[M.A.C.O.]

2016 Has Been A Tough Year For Studio Movies

Unless your studio is Disney. I think they've made more than all of the others together so far.

Yeah, Disney has stuck gold 3 time so far this year. Makes up for Alice, Lone Ranger and Tomorrowland.

 

[JoeZhang]

No need to bet - it's a pretty sure thing.

I'll take that bet on Warcraft:

According to Chinese box office analyst Jonathan Papist, a writer for China Film Insider, the new movie’s midnight opening earned 55.4 million Chinese yuan (or $8.4 million) in a single night. That surpasses the record previously set by last year’s Furious 7, which ultimately went on to bring in $390 million in the country over its entire run.

http://www.avclub.com/article/warcraft-already-breaking-chinese-box-office-recor-237882

 

[Relayer1]

This. The price of going to the movies has gotten so ridiculously high that I only go every once in awhile and its only in the summer or winter when the BIG stuff is being released.

How much ?

It normally costs me between £7 and £9, and the last time I bothered with IMAX (I don't really like it) £12.

 

[Greg Cox]

While "Don Q" wasn't quite as good as "Zorro", it was still a better sequel than most sequels, imo. I'll also admit that I'm a fan of Fairbanks and own all his most classic films.

As far as "did we really need a sequel about Zorro's son?"....do we really need a sequel to any film? And aren't they all basically a cash grab in the wake of a popular movie?

That was kind of my point. To be clear, I wasn't really bashing "Don Q," I was doing a parody of the kind of cliche complaints you routinely hear these days about sequels and remakes. "Hollywood has run out of ideas!"

I wasn't being serious. That was intended as a comedy routine, imagining the internet in 1925 . . .

 

[Noname Given]

I'll take that bet on Warcraft:





http://www.avclub.com/article/warcraft-already-breaking-chinese-box-office-recor-237882

Well, to be fair Goldfarming in WoW is a large industry in China employing a lot of people (and Chinese Convicts too) <--- No Lie.

 

[dahj]

Well, to be fair Goldfarming in WoW is a large industry in China employing a lot of people (and Chinese Convicts too) <--- No Lie.

I don't think that's true anymore.
WoW isn't nearly as big as it used to be, and Blizzard sells in-game gold legally now.

 

[John Clark]

How much ?

It normally costs me between £7 and £9, and the last time I bothered with IMAX (I don't really like it) £12.

I'm lucky with our local cinema (and it helps going to flicks that air before 12 noon) though the prices seem to have dropped again. For both 3d and 2d, it seems to be £4.50 at the moment.

 

[TheSeeker]

I've seen a few previews for WoW and it does not appeal to me in the slightest. The CGI does not look good at all either.

 

[Relayer1]

I'm lucky with our local cinema (and it helps going to flicks that air before 12 noon) though the prices seem to have dropped again. For both 3d and 2d, it seems to be £4.50 at the moment.

Saturday mornings in Birmingham used to start around a fiver, but they've crept up recently...

 

[John Clark]

Saturday mornings in Birmingham used to start around a fiver, but they've crept up recently...

Post noon, it does shoot up (£7.85 for 3d, £6.85 for 2d), but I like getting there early so it suits me. That's for the city cinema but there is another one slightly closer that I've not visited yet where it's £8 off peak and £9.20 peak - but with an additional go of £2.20 for 3d.

I remember when the city one first opened back in 2001, we used to go (even) more regularly and they were giving out buy one, get one free tickets every week. With four of us going, two would pay the first week (the others would pay the next week). Back then, it was about £2.50 - £3.00 and it soon killed off most of the opposition nearby. We had an old style Odeon cinema with the balconies that shut soon after

As for the last two films I've seen (both around 10ish on a Saturday morning), Warcraft had 5 people in (3 being my little group this time), X-Men was packed to the gills. Batman vs Superman was also packed.
(Those are the only films @M.A.C.O. mentions that I've seen.) As a rule though, for my showings it's usually fairly middling people-wise though there are always the ones you can guess are going to be packed and are. I'm pretty sure Independence Day is going to get crowded.

 

[Gaith]

As far as "did we really need a sequel about Zorro's son?"....do we really need a sequel to any film?

We always need more Zorro.

 

[The Lensman]

That was kind of my point. To be clear, I wasn't really bashing "Don Q," I was doing a parody of the kind of cliche complaints you routinely hear these days about sequels and remakes. "Hollywood has run out of ideas!"

I wasn't being serious. That was intended as a comedy routine, imagining the internet in 1925 . . .

Gotcha, though I didn't take it as "bashing" Greg, so no worries there.

Funny thing is, there were a lot of remakes done back in those days, but I never get the feeling that the general public complained about it like we do today. "The Maltese Falcon" was adapted three times in twelve years, with the third film being the classic. But I never seem to hear that the public was like ".....AGAIN?!"

We always need more Zorro.

Can't argue with that!

 

[Grendelsbayne]

Gotcha, though I didn't take it as "bashing" Greg, so no worries there.

Funny thing is, there were a lot of remakes done back in those days, but I never get the feeling that the general public complained about it like we do today. "The Maltese Falcon" was adapted three times in twelve years, with the third film being the classic. But I never seem to hear that the public was like ".....AGAIN?!"

It makes sense, though. Everything has a threshold. After all, who's going to complain about the subject of a movie when you still live in a time in which the entire idea of a moving picture is actually still something special? But that time only lasts for so long.

Although the threshold can be extended by the introduction of extreme advancements: the difference in quality of experience between a silent movie and a non-silent movie is more than enough to make up for the fact that you've seen the story before. Even today, people will give some remakes a break if they feel like advancements have put it into a position to really realize something different than the original. And, of course, in the world of video games, remaking the most popular titles with every single new software generation is not only the main business model, but completely expected and even (in some cases) demanded, because people know that the new one will have capabilities the old one just couldn't have.

(All of this does assume that remakes will be made capably, of course - a bad creative team or poor execution can ruin anything.)

 

[Bry_Sinclair]

From that list I've seen Apocalypse (which I didn't mind, by no means a terrible film) and BvS (which was pretty weak when compared to the MCU). When I went to see BvS there was a trailer for the Batman Lego Movie, and after the film I'd sat through finished all I could think was how much I couldn't wait for the Lego version--looks seriously awesome (now that song will be stuck in your head ).

 

[Greg Cox]

Gotcha, though I didn't take it as "bashing" Greg, so no worries there.

Funny thing is, there were a lot of remakes done back in those days, but I never get the feeling that the general public complained about it like we do today. "The Maltese Falcon" was adapted three times in twelve years, with the third film being the classic. But I never seem to hear that the public was like ".....AGAIN?!"!

Exactly. I can rant at length on the subject, but Hollywood has been in the remake business since the silent era. Many of the classic films from the Golden Age of Hollywood were remakes, or else the umpteenth adaptation of some old chestnut like The Three Musketeers or Dr. Jekyll & Mr. Hyde. (The line between "remake" and "new adaptation" can be a blurry one.)

Remakes and reboots are hardly some pernicious "new" trend. They've been standard operating procedure since the dawn of movies.

(I suspect, however, that some of the modern resistance to remakes comes from the dawn of home video. People see no need for a "new" version of some old favorite since the previous version is still sitting on a shelf and readily available, as opposed to the old days, when movies came and went before, perhaps, ending up on the Late Late Show once in awhile.)

Personally, I love remakes. It's fascinating to observe how different generations reinvent and reinterpret the same narratives, and you can have endless fun comparing and contrasting the different versions, analyzing the differences and similarities, and so on. In a way, it adds a whole extra level to the experience. You get to enjoy the individual movie on its own terms AND you get to take it apart, look under the hood, and compare it to the previous versions.

It's like going to see a new production of "A Midsummer Night's Dream" or "Macbeth." Half the fun is seeing how a new creative team can bring the same old material to life.

 

[Marsden]

That's interesting Greg, but I'm wondering if there shouldn't be at least two categories, one for when something is "remade" like a new Lone Ranger or Zorro in which that is supposed to be the individual and a reboot where they setting and types are there but it's not that character or characters but new ones.

For example, the Wizard of Oz that everyone thinks of when you say the name was made in 1938 and was the 3rd movie to make that same story with Dorothy. I'd consider that a remake. They were trying to do the same story over.

Then there's Ghostbusters, the reboot movie, is not Venkman, Stantz, and Spengler (sounds like a law firm) over again but it's taking a lot from that movie as far as settings and props.

I don't think those are quite the same, the old style remake vs. the modern reboot.

A remake could also be because the technology of the time was deemed insufficient to hold up, Technicolor and other advancements for example. And like Wizard of Oz, the remake is actually better.
I'd say The Fly starring Jeff Goldblum is a good remake, too. But I would not call that a reboot, maybe there's some overlap, but it just seems different somehow.

And I'm certain remakes would have been more welcome in a time when the only time you see a movie is when it's in a theater as opposed to now when they are in theaters, online, bluray, and cable/satellite/on demand. It's not really even too much of an event now, to go to the movies, unless you try to make it one, but back then it was certainly something of an event, so no movie meant nothing to see, a remake is better than a blank screen. And now, a crappy reboot just makes me feel like why did they bother.