253
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[-] zoostation@lemmy.world 84 points 4 weeks ago* (last edited 4 weeks ago)

There's nothing wrong with sequels. There's only so much worldbuilding and character development you can do in 2 hours. It's a cool thing that a movie can start in an established world and not have to spend so much screen time building it from scratch.

Of course there are lazy and bad sequels, but there's nothing inherently bad about them and it's become too big of a meme to write them off reflexively.

[-] BedSharkPal@lemmy.ca 13 points 4 weeks ago

This is why I typically enjoy shows more than movies. It's pretty hard to make me care about the characters in 90 min.

[-] doctordevice@lemmy.ca 15 points 4 weeks ago

I love the juxtaposition of this with the comment saying they prefer movies over shows. I like that people enjoy stories differently.

I completely understand them liking self-contained, complete stories, but I'm definitely in your camp. I like shows that I can immerse myself in and really get to know how the characters and universe tick. That's probably why I gravitate towards sci-fi and fantasy. To me, the worldbuilding and lore is the point.

[-] Drusas@fedia.io 3 points 4 weeks ago

I didn't know they even make movies that short anymore.

[-] UntitledQuitting@reddthat.com 6 points 4 weeks ago

i know the metaphor isnt 1:1 but i'm not upset when there's a second season of a tv show I liked, and I don't consider it lazy to use the same characters to tell a new story.

also it's kind of a no-brainer for general audiences. why take a risk paying for a ticket to something I might not like, when I can see something I know I do like, only new?

these films have much bigger budget allocations than most (if not all) of a studio's original slate, so a built-in audience ensures at least some ROI.

that doesn't mean i'm happy about it, gambling on new stories should be more profitable than gambling with a $250m budget. but the latter has been a proven strategy, at least at the moment.

instead of a 4-decade-long dead-horse-beating the people complaining need to take a deep breath and go and support indie and original cinema themselves.

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] TheImpressiveX@lemm.ee 45 points 4 weeks ago

People on the Internet often say that they want more original movies, but the box office proves that this isn't always the case.

This is why Hollywood keeps making sequels, reboots, and adaptations, because they make more money than original movies.

And for that matter, original movies are still being made - they've just skipped theaters and moved to streaming (again, because they're not as profitable as preexisting IP).

People have voted with their wallets. This is what the general public wants, whether we like it or not.

[-] Dr_Box@lemmy.world 73 points 4 weeks ago

I'm gonna sound like a dick and expect downvotes for this but the average person is dumb and easy to entertain

[-] roofuskit@lemmy.world 29 points 4 weeks ago

And the people who complain about wanting original films on the Internet are also dumb and refuse to seek them out or go see them in the theater.

[-] Alk@sh.itjust.works 9 points 4 weeks ago

Nobody is saying original films don't exist. People just want them to get the big budget treatment. We want Disney, Sony, and all the others to dump millions into high quality original content in addition to the plethora of smaller original films we currently consume.

[-] roofuskit@lemmy.world 5 points 4 weeks ago

Lol, no they don't. If they did they would support original films at the theater. The reason those films don't get the treatment is because when they do, people don't buy tickets.

[-] bishbosh@lemm.ee 11 points 4 weeks ago

This is so weirdly adversarial. It can be true that the people that express their desire for original movies online do in fact go and see them in theaters, but that number is simply dwarfed by the number of people that only see movies with massive marketing budgets that only exist for established franchises.

[-] Zorque@lemmy.world 3 points 4 weeks ago

With corporate bankrolling comes corporate meddling.

[-] Zorque@lemmy.world 16 points 4 weeks ago

The average person is tired from having to work themselves to exhaustion just to support themselves and their family. Often they just want something easy to watch, without the commitment of something with more depth.

[-] acosmichippo@lemmy.world 12 points 4 weeks ago* (last edited 4 weeks ago)

It's not an issue of intelligence or what people are entertained by, it's an issue of what attracts people to a theater and pay lots of money before the film comes to streaming. Not everyone cares for or can afford a regular theater experience anymore, particularly for lower key films.

[-] FenrirIII@lemmy.world 5 points 4 weeks ago

I mean, we re-elected a lying narcissist who's going to destroy the country and hasn't demonstrated otherwise. We're a pretty dumb people

[-] Empricorn@feddit.nl 4 points 4 weeks ago

Yay! *clap* *clap* They said "dick"! Teehee...

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] Semi_Hemi_Demigod@lemmy.world 23 points 4 weeks ago

Unoriginal films have the benefit of having already paid a huge part of the marketing costs. When you hear "Super Mario Brothers: The Movie" or "Avengers: Some Multiverse" you already have an idea of what the movie is about.

Contrast this with the movie Megalopolis, where I had no idea what the movie was even about, and the trailer answered very few of my questions. It tried to sell the movie on the power/ego of the director and the cast. But that's not gonna make people take a chance on it, especially when movie tickets are so expensive

[-] TheImpressiveX@lemm.ee 10 points 4 weeks ago

But that's not gonna make people take a chance on it, especially when movie tickets are so expensive

This is why original movies do better on streaming, where there is a low barrier for entry. Because if you don't like it, at least it cost you nothing, and you can stop watching aat any time.

[-] Semi_Hemi_Demigod@lemmy.world 9 points 4 weeks ago

And you don't have to put pants on

[-] Zorque@lemmy.world 8 points 4 weeks ago

Is that why they kicked me out of the theater?

[-] Phoonzang@lemmy.world 13 points 4 weeks ago

People on the Internet and people going to the box offices are very different demographics.

[-] conicalscientist@lemmy.world 5 points 4 weeks ago* (last edited 4 weeks ago)

The Simpsons had this nailed down a long time ago with the Comic Book Guy. Chronically online grown-ass men disgusted that content not made for them had no appeal to them. And everyone must hear about the injustice.

[-] chonglibloodsport@lemmy.world 12 points 4 weeks ago

Yes and we want more steak and fewer Big Macs. Yet people are out there still buying Big Macs. Is it because Big Macs are better than steak? Or is something else going on?

[-] gmtom@lemmy.world 7 points 4 weeks ago

Because big budget films are not designed to be good, they're designed to make money. And to do that that need to be inoffensive and easy to consume by the lowest common denominator. Which almost always makes then mediocre.

[-] jordanlund@lemmy.world 7 points 4 weeks ago

People had the chance to see Megalopolis and really, really, did not. ;)

#111 - $7,629,085

[-] turkalino@lemmy.yachts 9 points 4 weeks ago

Well that movie was not very good and unnecessarily long so…

[-] jordanlund@lemmy.world 3 points 4 weeks ago

But... but... "Original!" :)

(I enjoyed it, and it didn't feel THAT long. 2 hours, 18 minutes.)

[-] jdeath@lemm.ee 3 points 4 weeks ago

i still want to see it, all the people hating on it make me think it might just be ok!

[-] Krauerking@lemy.lol 33 points 4 weeks ago

And almost none of the biggest flops of the year were original films either.

This data is kind of useless when the big production movies were all non originals and we wouldn't expect indie movies to break box office records while people are still struggling financially.

[-] Hylactor@sopuli.xyz 24 points 4 weeks ago* (last edited 4 weeks ago)

15 - "It Ends With Us" Worldwide gross: $350,986,018 Reported production budget: $25 million

14 -"Twisters" Worldwide gross: $370,962,265 Reported production budget: $155 million

13 - "Kingdom of the Planet of the Apes" Worldwide gross: $397,378,150 Reported production budget: $160 million

12 - "Bad Boys: Ride or Die" Worldwide gross: $404,544,199 Reported production budget: $100 million

11 - "Gladiator II" Worldwide gross: $406,644,901 Reported production budget: $250 million to $300+ million

10 - "Beetlejuice Beetlejuice" Worldwide gross: $451,100,435 Reported production budget: $100 million

9 - "Venom: The Last Dance" Worldwide gross: $476,368,152 Reported production budget: $120 million

8 - "Kung Fu Panda" Worldwide gross: $547,689,492 Reported production budget: $85 million

7 - "Godzilla x Kong: The New Empire" Godzilla in " Worldwide gross: $571,750,016 Reported production budget: $135 million

6 - "Wicked" Worldwide gross: $586,301,620 Reported production budget: $150 million

5 - "Dune: Part Two" Worldwide gross: $714,444,358 Reported production budget: $190 million

4 - "Moana 2" Worldwide gross: $820,990,553 Reported production budget: $150 million

3 - "Despicable Me 4" Worldwide gross: $969,126,452 Reported production budget: $100 million

2 - "Deadpool & Wolverine" Worldwide gross: $1,338,073,645 Reported production budget: $200 million

1 - "Inside Out 2" Worldwide gross: $1,698,765,616 Reported production budget: $200 million

[-] ScoopMcPoops@lemmy.world 6 points 4 weeks ago

So was "it ends with us" the only original movie on the list?

[-] Hylactor@sopuli.xyz 5 points 4 weeks ago

I'm not super familiar, but I believe it was based on a book?

[-] restingboredface@sh.itjust.works 4 points 4 weeks ago

It ends with us is the undercover GOAT of this list, making about 14 times its budget, and with a relatively low cost of $25M.

Everything else cost more than $100M except Kung fu Panda and didn't return nearly as much proportionally.

[-] 5in1k@lemm.ee 18 points 4 weeks ago

Because the culture is eating itself.

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] yessikg 18 points 4 weeks ago

The big studios are not promoting/making original films and the smaller studios don't have enough money to market their films properly

[-] Syntha@sh.itjust.works 3 points 4 weeks ago

They have the money, it's just not worth dumping endless amounts into marketing if there aren't enough people interested in watching the movie.

[-] OrgunDonor@lemmy.world 4 points 3 weeks ago

I think there are enough people interested, but those people probably have to make a choice. Cinema tickets arent cheap, and everything else is becoming more and more expensive. So you choose between taking a risk on something or seeing a sequel to something you already enjoyed.

I know what I would choose... and honestly it is neither these days, I will wait for another way to watch it.

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] Dagwood222@lemm.ee 15 points 3 weeks ago

Here's my take. If a movie ticket is $5.00 I'll try something new. Maybe I like it or I don't, but hey, it's $5.00 and I get to tell people how awful it was. If a movie ticket is $20.00 I am not going to play around. I want something I'm already sold on.

[-] MargotRobbie@lemmy.world 10 points 3 weeks ago

But the top grossing movie for 2023 is an original movie, and that's pretty impressive.

Now, if I could only remember what it's called...

[-] BeardedGingerWonder@feddit.uk 5 points 3 weeks ago

Very memorable performance, lead deserved an Oscar nom at the very least.

[-] MargotRobbie@lemmy.world 4 points 3 weeks ago

Maybe next year.

[-] isaaclyman@lemmy.world 9 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago)

I’m gonna sound a little “old man yells at cloud” here, but the majority of original movies are trying to jam way too much into a 2-hour runtime. Characters are dropped into the plot out of nowhere, protagonists change their minds for no apparent reason, 30-second montages are substituted for meaningful emotional beats, the pacing feels rushed after the first half hour, it’s just a mess of stuff happening because the scriptwriter wanted it to. (Or maybe it’s the editor’s fault, idk, I don’t make movies.) A movie is the same length as a short story, not a novel, and trying to do a novel is going to make it feel like a super-long trailer instead of a movie 99% of the time. Critics are gonna pan it and no one is gonna watch it.

Sequels and franchise films can sometimes overcome this by benefit of familiar terrain. You already know the setting, you already know the characters, so we don’t need to spend time on that. It’s a definite advantage.

(The downside is that a lot of sequels forget to tell a story. I didn’t tune in to “hang out” with my favorite superheroes. I was expecting, y’know, an emotionally compelling plot.)

[-] putitoutwithyourbootsted@piefed.social 5 points 4 weeks ago* (last edited 4 weeks ago)

Genuine question: is it bad if movies don’t make a ton of money in theaters? Like, if it goes to streaming, is the assumption then that it won’t make near as much in profit syndicated on some
Streaming platform? There are some
Movies I definitely want to see, original films
Ideally, but I am not a movie theater goer generally, even in the best of scenarios. I’d rather watch at home.

[-] GuerillaGorillas@lemmy.world 10 points 4 weeks ago

Matt Damon goes into this in an interview on Hot Ones, apparently in the past what you mention wasn’t as much of an issue due to the home market with DVD sales. But streaming doesn’t give that same return on investment, I think because the movie makers just get money from streaming services buying the rights and maybe some residuals, so theater profit is the main focus.

https://youtu.be/Jx8F5Imd8A8

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] macarthur_park@lemmy.world 5 points 4 weeks ago

Historically movies make most of their money at the box office. It’s rare for something to be profitable just from rentals/streaming, and even if it eventually is it will take a long time for the studio to recoup its costs.

[-] takeda@lemm.ee 3 points 4 weeks ago

I think that might have possibly changed since covid. I believe much less people are now going to cinemas.

[-] reddig33@lemmy.world 3 points 4 weeks ago

I don’t think this is true anymore, because the studios now own the streaming channels. They make more money from subscribers and ad sales than they do theater releases. If they made their money from theater releases, the theaters wouldn’t be struggling and the movies wouldn’t be rushed off the big screen and onto the streaming channels.

[-] AnUnusualRelic@lemmy.world 5 points 3 weeks ago

I'm trying to remember a film I wish I would've seen last year, but can't think of anything.

[-] bamboo 4 points 3 weeks ago

The Substance was so good seeing in a packed theater and feeling the energy of everyone having the same wtf reactions. I guess the moment is over but highly recommended.

load more comments
view more: next ›
this post was submitted on 03 Jan 2025
253 points (100.0% liked)

Movies

7817 readers
32 users here now

Lemmy

Welcome to Movies, a community for discussing movies, film news, box office, and more! We want this to be a place for members to feel safe to discuss and share everything they love about movies and movie related things. Please feel free to take part and help our community grow!


Related Communities:

!books@lemmy.world - Discussing books and book-related things.

!comicbooks@lemmy.world - A place to discuss comic books of all types.

!marvelstudios@lemmy.world - LW's home for all things MCU.


While posting and commenting in this community, you must abide by the Lemmy.World Terms of Service: https://legal.lemmy.world/tos/

  1. Posts or comments that are homophobic, transphobic, racist, sexist, ableist, or advocating violence will be removed.

  2. Be civil: disagreements happen, but that doesn’t provide the right to personally insult others.

  3. Spam, self promotion, trolling, and bots are not allowed

  4. Shitposts and memes are allowed until they prove to be a problem.

    Regarding spoilers; Please put "(Spoilers)" in the title of your post if you anticipate spoilers, as we do not currently have a spoiler tag available. If your post contains an image that could be considered a spoiler, please mark the thread as NSFW so the image gets blurred. As far as how long to wait until the post is no longer a spoiler, please just use your best judgement. Everyone has a different idea on this, so we don't want to make any hard limits.

    Please use spoiler tags whenever commenting a spoiler in a non-spoiler thread. Most of the Lemmy clients don't support this but we want to get into the habit as clients will be supporting in the future.

Failure to follow these guidelines will result in your post/comment being removed and/or more severe actions. All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users. We ask that the users report any comment or post that violates the rules, and to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting.

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS