• Welcome! The TrekBBS is the number one place to chat about Star Trek with like-minded fans.
    If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

2016 Has Been A Tough Year For Studio Movies

M.A.C.O.

M.A.C.O.

Commodore
Commodore
Have you noticed how many studio films have under performed at the box office and taking a lashing from critics?

Zoolander 2

Divergent: Allegiant

The Huntsman

My Big Fat Greek Wedding 2

The Boss

X-Men Apocalypse

Alice Through The Looking Glass

TMNT Out Of The Shadows
---------
Batman v Superman critically, but not financially so much.

Tough year indeed. What do you think the cause is for this kind of depression? Too many blockbusters, or has the audience wised up about what they will spend their money own.
 
I never had an intention of seeing any of those, except for X-Men, and I'm sure many people are in the same boat with a desire to only see 1 or 2 of those.

Greenlighting sequels to movies that weren't that good to begin with (Zoolander? Alice?) is the first thing they need to look at. Just because a movie "accidentally" (for lack of a better word, did anybody even like the first Alice movie even though it made tons of money?) makes money (because the biggest draw is curiosity more than quality) doesn't mean it's meant for a sequel. Once the curiosity factor has been eliminated, you don't have any draw anymore.
 
Last edited:
Only the two superhero movies there are of any interest to me, and I won't see Apocalypse in the theatre. I saw MBFGW2 because my wife wanted to see it and I thought it was awful.
 
Personally, I only go to see a movie on the big screen if it's going to have spectacular visuals or it's something I just can't wait to see. For everything else I have a nice setup at home so there's really no need for me to leave the comfort of my home to watch a movie.
 
Savage Dragon said:
Personally, I only go to see a movie on the big screen if it's going to have spectacular visuals or it's something I just can't wait to see. For everything else I have a nice setup at home so there's really no need for me to leave the comfort of my home to watch a movie.
Click to expand...
Same for me. I can't match the "big screen" at home (I have a 64" screen that's pretty big for the room it's in, but nothing like an IMAX experience), but, except for a few select cinemas around where I live (IMAX mostly), I have much better sound. And to me, sound is at least half the experience (I'd rather a 32" screen with excellent sound than an 80" screen with TV speaker sound).
 
Was there one specific year the movie industry switched from quality to quantity? Or was it a long process I didn't notice?
 
On the other hand, THE JUNGLE BOOK was a monster hit, seriously outperforming expectations. Ditto for DEADPOOL. And CIVIL WAR was every bit the hit that was anticipated.

There are always hits and flops in every year, some more surprising than others. And let's take a moment to note that "under-performed at the box office" and "took a lashing from critics" are not necessarily the same thing. Sometimes they go together, but always.

And, honestly, I'm not sure that we're really getting more "quantity" than "quality" these days. We remember the great films of past years fondly, but tend to forget all the less memorable ones that came out around the same time, aside from maybe a few famous bombs and disappointments like THE BLACK HOLE or DUNE or BATTLEFIELD EARTH. And disappointing sequels are nothing new as well. Remember SUPERMAN 3? THE EXORCIST 2? GREASE 2? JAWS 3-D?

I could go on and on . . .

When exactly was Hollywood putting out more quality than quantity? The 90s? The 80s? The 70s? Earlier?

EDIT: I see that Joe Zhang just made my same point--but much more efficiently. :)
 
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 . . . .
 
Last edited:
Any bets that Warcraft, Independence Day, Ghostbusters and Tarzan will be the next to give disappointing returns?
 
M.A.C.O. said:
Any bets that Warcraft, Independence Day, Ghostbusters and Tarzan will be the next to give disappointing returns?
Click to expand...

Can you call it disappointing if the movie has been thrashed by nerds as soon as it was announced?! Disappointment comes from expectation, doesn't it. So. expecting a disappointment is a bit of an oxymoron.

"Warcraft", by the way, has been released in several countries already, and has so far grossed $ 70 million already. Also, budget is a factor. Of the films you listed, only Independence Day cost $ 200 million, all the others cost less.
 
M.A.C.O. said:
Any bets that Warcraft
Click to expand...

I think Warcraft will do just fine....

In China (where it launches before US):

Opening estimates on Warcraft’s five-day launch range from $100 million on the conservative end to about $150M. In local currency, I’ve been hearing 800M rmb to a possible 1B rmb which would put the range at $122M-$152M.

The Duncan Jones-helmed fantasy actioner has logged 136 rmb ($20.7M) in advance ticket sales as of Monday evening locally and currently has the third-highest midnight pre-sales total of all time, behind Furious 7 and Avengers: Age Of Ultron; it will pass the latter today. All of the 285 midnight Imax screenings have been sold out at 5.5M rmb ($837K); that tops record holder Furious 7’s 5.4M rmb ($822K at today’s exchange rates). Midnights kick off Tuesday night.
Click to expand...

http://deadline.com/2016/06/warcraf...anda-furious-7-box-office-preview-1201767728/
 
Tarzan movies, other than perhaps Disney animated versions, have never seemed to do well in my lifetime.
I expect Ghostbusters to be the summer hit as long as its funny--it has the potential to be the date movie of the year as it reaches multiple demographics. All the women who made Bridesmaids such a hit will no longer have to convince their boyfriends to see the movie.
Independence Day is guaranteed a reasonable box office, but unless it is actually good it there any real nostalgia outside of us nerds waiting for a sequel. The first movie did well mainly because it looked and sounded great, but twenty years later we've seen those effects many times so it is going to have to offer something new.
Star Trek's box office will entirely depend on if the movie is actually good or not.

What's missing are good, original family films. There doesn't seem to be a whole lot. The last few years have demonstrated that being able to bring your kids to a movie that is also entertaining for adults is a huge draw. The whole point of taking kids to the theater is to get them out of the house (and in my case help nurture a love of cinema) so parents are more willing to do that with a movie that will later be watched repeatedly at home.
 
Savage Dragon said:
Personally, I only go to see a movie on the big screen if it's going to have spectacular visuals or it's something I just can't wait to see. For everything else I have a nice setup at home so there's really no need for me to leave the comfort of my home to watch a movie.
Click to expand...
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.
 
Kai "the spy" said:
Can you call it disappointing if the movie has been thrashed by nerds as soon as it was announced?! Disappointment comes from expectation, doesn't it. So. expecting a disappointment is a bit of an oxymoron.
Click to expand...
Disappointing returns. As in, the studio is disappointed in how much money the film makes. Despite the net-lashing Ghostbusters has gotten, yes it can still very much disappoint Sony in terms of money. Time will tell.
 
GHOSTBUSTERS is a Melissa McCarthy movie from the director of BRIDESMAIDS and SPY, both of which did great at the box office.

I suspect it will do quite well with modern audiences. Whether it wins over the skeptics and naysayers is another question--and probably doesn't really matter in terms of box office. As I've joked before, if you remember seeing the original movie back when it first opened, thirty years ago, you are not really the target demo anymore. :)

(Full disclosure: a friend of mine just wrote the novelization, so I am definitely rooting for the movie.)
 
I think Ghostbusters looks like it'll be a fun movie, but I won't be going to see it in the theatre. It's just not worth the high price of admission in my opinion.
 
Apocalypse has made $400m worldwide. I'd hardly call that disappointing. It's literally the 9th movie with X-Men characters in it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

Sign up / Register


Back
Top