356
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] mereo@piefed.ca 41 points 1 month ago

Studios don't like risks nowadays. So they'd rather remake successful past movies.

[-] samus12345@sh.itjust.works 74 points 1 month ago

Apparently it's not as risk-free as they thought.

[-] UnspecificGravity@piefed.social 3 points 1 month ago

Against the billions they have made churning these out? Yeah, it is.

[-] gusgalarnyk@lemmy.world 2 points 1 month ago

I mean yes on average but potentially no on the trend. The whole point is to de-risk their bullshit, if they view this as a trend instead of an isolated incident other projects might be more likely to get greenlit instead of recycled stories. Pretty much any soulless cash grab bombing incentivizes making actual art.

[-] blartcap_@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

If they were looking at things collectively this way, they wouldn't be making so many remakes and would be making more original movies.

This movie is the result of the risk analysis of each project, not the risk over a time period with multiple projects.

[-] Tiresia@slrpnk.net 34 points 1 month ago

Ah yes, losing $100,000,000 seems very low-risk.

[-] Frozengyro@lemmy.world 2 points 1 month ago
[-] mnemonicmonkeys@sh.itjust.works 4 points 1 month ago

No, no it's not.

They can absorb the loss, but it's by no means small

[-] boonhet@sopuli.xyz 2 points 1 month ago

Low risk is still risk

The movie's made nearly 100 mill worldwide. With brand new IP there's no guarantee to even get that much. Plus you'd need more marketing, etc.

They lost, but the risk was smaller than it could've been.

Think about two different scenarios:

  1. Brand new IP, movie costs 250 mill to make, it could be the next Avatar and make well over a billion, or it could make 10 mill because nobody cares

  2. Existing IP, almost certainly going to make under a billion, but there's essentially no way it'll make significantly under 100 million against the same budget of 250 mill.

Which one is low risk and which one is high risk?

[-] blartcap_@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 points 1 month ago

If they thought they had a good chance of losing that much money, they wouldn't have made the movie. The news here is more about how their risk calculations were off.

[-] AwesomeLowlander@sh.itjust.works 1 points 1 month ago

And now they realise it isn't risk free after all.

this post was submitted on 13 Jul 2026
356 points (100.0% liked)

movies

3824 readers
216 users here now

A community about movies and cinema.

Related communities:

Rules

  1. Be civil
  2. No discrimination or prejudice of any kind
  3. Do not spam
  4. Stay on topic
  5. These rules will evolve as this community grows

No posts or comments will be removed without an explanation from mods.

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS