The Dolphins Make Me Cry.com - Forums

I've been reading a lot of speculation lately that movies, as we know them, are going to change.  Films are just getting more and more and more expensive that in order to break even, they have to be blockbusters.  It is so much risk for the studios, which is part of the reason why we see very few new or original ideas.  You have to make something that already has a built-in fanbase to have any chance of making your money back.

Of the 10 biggest busts of all time, 2 are from this year.  4 of the top 50 are in theaters as we speak: The Lone Ranger, RIPD, White House Down, and Turbo.  Jack the Giant Slayer was also a huge turd.

Several filmmakers have seen this coming.  It's also affecting the consumer, because they're inflating prices and trying things like 3D or IMAX to get more money.  Eventually, at this rate, there will only be sure-fire sequels, remakes, and popular book adaptations and they'll all be really safe bets.

Thoughts?

I don't think it'll be much different.  Everything will either be:

1) established property with big budget SFX
2) low-budget indie film
3) chick flick/comedy
4) completely animated (traditional or CGI)

But honestly, is this much of a change from yesteryear?  The only real loss is high-budget comedies with SFX (e.g. Dr. Doolittle) or high-budget non-established properties (e.g. The Day After Tomorrow).

It will probably require more creativity from sci-fi movie makers and less reliance on shiny SFX, but I'm confident that a movie like The Matrix could have been made on a reasonable budget.  Wire work is not that expensive; even Bollywood uses it regularly now.

The movies are struggling because actors demand so much.  Perhaps the day of the movie star needs to change, and bringing in lesser-known and lower-priced actors to play a role might benefit the industry.  It cripples a movie when a guy like Al Pacino demands 100 million to do a film.

But at the same time, people like Will Smith and Ryan Reynolds attract movie-goers as well.

I think we'll see more animation, and more new faces.  But there's also a cap.  I think there's an upper limit to what theatres can charge for tickets to see a movie, and its getting close to there now.

It's the other way around.  The studios feel that you pretty much have to cast a recognizable star to have a chance at success.  That's the whole point.


This is a whole different conversation, but it's not really all that true, either.  Reynolds is box office poison for some reason.  Hollywood keeps trying to make him a leading man and it fails over and over and over.  I like the guy, but he has so many huge budget busts under his belt that it's getting comical. 

Since those two are still in theaters, they may not stay in the top 10.

Sorry I have a fucked up take on this...It's just the way I see it...I'm a very casual movie fan,that feels there hasn't been a movie come out the past 20 years,that I thought was worth running to the theaters to see..(the few I did go to,I didn't feel like it was worth my money)..Sorry this is less about "the summer block busters" problem but more my take on the shitty movie industry itself.

I agree they are going to change,times change,what people like change...Hollywood can't quite figure that out yet.

Instead of making better movies,they made IMAX,and brought back 3d movies again,rather than focusing on better movies...

Then they continue to pander to a shrinking audience pandering to the 13 to 25 year olds.They write some horrid piece of shit,that they need to overpay name stars to be in it,so it can get green lit to be made.Then load it with special effects,explosions,for the attentions span of a nat. Then make sure it's nuetered enough to get a PG,or PG -13 rating.

OR

Take some older movie,TV show,book to remake so people over 25 recognize it,then cast it with SNL,disney channel,some hot show that's big in the 18-30 demographic,that no one over 40 knows or gives a shit about.

I call Bullshit on the movie industry,they'll keep making this shit,even "Flops" in the US (so I've read,I'm not sure if this is myth or reality) make their money back,because the foreign markets eat this shit up. Most of these big block buster movies open outside of America,and make their money,before they flop in America...

I also feel like part of the problem is Studio "A" puts their mega crap fest out,then a week later Studio "B" puts out their super mega crap fest,followed by two weeks after that Studio "C" puts their mega crap fest....We're broke already for crap fest,after crap fest.

Personally,Enough with the stupid Superhero movies,25+ years of batman shit, the superman remakes,Iron man,Harry Potter,and hobbit movies.No more Indiana Jones movies,Star wars movies,quit trying remake my childhood and selling it to 13 yr olds that can't or wont appreciate it anyway.

White House Down was a bust?  I beg to differ.

I agree with Lil B for the most part, although I really am a casual theater goer.

I think you will see many theaters close up, and go the way of drive in theaters.  The reason is the high quality of TV's and audio systems on the market today.  Most movies are quickly available on pay per view, so why go to the theater?

I used Ryan Reynolds as a random name of a big star. It was just the second name that came to my head.  Not to be specific.

man crush ?

^^ No thanks.  Probably because of Dave's mention of RIPD.  You can substitute Bruce Willis, Ben Affleck, Jennifer Aniston, Johnny Depp, Robert DeNiro, Angelina Jolie, or any other superstar actor/actress and make the same point.

Its irrelevant, though, because apparently I have no idea what I'm talking about.

I'm saying "bust" in terms of box office success; not quality of movie.  I haven't seen it, so I can't comment.

The production budget (not counting marketing) was $150 million.  It made about half of that, domestically.  Also, that movie is pretty much done making money.

I understand that you're going by.   I suggest you go see it though.  You won't be disappointed

I don't mean to poo-poo your ideas.  But I'm just trying to give an honest back and forth.

I'd like to see the breakdown of any movie, and what goes into the cost.  What percentage is talent payroll, and what percentage is production?

^ Hard to say.  I bet it differs a lot from big budget to small budget. 

I know that, generally speaking, marketing is usually somewhere around what the movie costs as well.  So, in very general terms, you can look at production budget x 2 to figure out total cost.  But also, international markets and DVD sales can basically match the domestic budget.  In a case like White House Down, above, even if that movie makes another 5 million domestically (which is extremely generous), that means a loss of about $55 million dollars.  With so many of these happening in a short span -- this is why those directors are suggesting a shift is coming.

You mean like the video game industry? (just replace book with movie).

Don't you just think it will slow them down?  I mean ... we could use less movies and better quality. For that matter we could use less Hollywood stars. Surely people can get over seeing a new Batman with Ben Affleck and then whomever they bring in next?

Of course it could just possibly end up increasing the Jackass type movies where they do anything to keep your attention on a shoestring budget.

A lot of new movies I have seen come out say number one at box office broke this or that record. Followed by big numbers. I think its hype for tax purposes plus they have been remaking movies now for twenty years because I guess there's no talented writers out there. The new movies they do make are so ridiculous, landing motorcycles on moving trains etc I wouldn't give them a dime or watch it on cable. They need to come back to reality somewhat special effects have really runaway. Then they wonder why kids think they can kill rob and do what they want. Now I don't mean space movies or things like that.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-23941923