Is the Hollywood 'mega blockbuster' model in trouble?

speedboatchase

This is exactly the kind of year Hollywood needed as a wake-up call. In the words of this strong Irish Times piece (https://www.irishtimes.com/culture/film/2023/07/29/has-barbenheimer-saved-cinema/): 'Hollywood has for too long been nursing dependence on a smallish number of hugely expensive franchise releases. Put simply, too few films have been making too much of the money.'

The problem with relying on Fast and Furious, MCU, and Mission Impossible movies and assuming they will continue in perpetuity is that the key demographic for all TV and movie entertainment has been 18-34-year-olds, who have plenty of disposable income and usually no dependents. Millennials are almost aged out of that bracket now and Gen Z needs their own franchises. That's why this year alone, Super Mario, Barbie, Creed and John Wick have done so well. They're either dormant IP for movies or entirely new IP and they didn't begin in the 90s or early 2000s.

I think the next two trends this decade will be regular big-budget video game adaptations - now that Super Mario has shown they can become $1bn blockbusters - and as mentioned on the previous page, Western big-budget anime adaptations. The latter is a nut that hasn't been cracked but someone will do it and hopefully for better or worse, we'll have a steady diet of yes, IP, but at least new-to-cinema IP.

johnny_ultimate

Here’s one lesson, of quite a few, Hollywood could learn from Barbie and Oppenheimer: spend less on production. Both films aren’t exactly cheap, and Barbie had a pretty unprecedented marketing blitz, so I’m not going to paint them as underdogs or anything silly like that. But they were both in the $100 million dollar budget range, and don’t feel at all compromised or hamstrung by having a lower budget. Instead, it allowed for plenty creative freedom and more risk taking in the execution and that has paid off handsomely for everyone involved.

As I’ve said before, one caveat for this year’s more expensive disappointments is that COVID delays and logistics did increase their budgets beyond what they normally would be. But ‘normal’ is like $200m+, and the higher it gets, the more ‘safe’ they have to be with what’s put on screen. But decrease the budget and you decrease the risks of a film not making its money back. There’ll still be failures, but also the opportunity for massive successes.

Of course, there’ll always be expensive films, and ones that require vast SFX or stunt resources. But look at how much better and more ‘cinematic’ Barbie and Oppenheimer both look compared to the typical CG-heavy action blockbuster (the odd exception aside). There’s at least some lessons there for producers to take on board.

Also: make films for more than one demographic 😂

the.red.baron

Which big movies were flops? Indiana Jones?

breezy1985

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120928256#Comment_120928256

Isn't buying an NFT token to watch a movie with special features just a fancy way of saying you are buying a digital copy of the movie ?

johnny_ultimate

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120933936#Comment_120933936

Yes, but imagine your digital copy of the film was also part of a convoluted financial and technological Ponzi scheme.

speedboatchase

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120933935#Comment_120933935

Big flops this year: Black Adam, The Flash, Indiana Jones, The Haunted Mansion.

Underperformers: Mission Impossible, Fast X, the new Transformers, The Little Mermaid and Elemental.

Penn

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120933936#Comment_120933936

Yes, but a super special digital copy that only you own that has a unique number assigned to it and which you could sell to an idiot a super smart investor and make an absolute fortune on because let's face it; digital items that anyone can easily replicate and that there are pretty much infinity number copies of will only ever increase in value!

the.red.baron

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120934006#Comment_120934006

black adam was last year, DC is a disaster

Fast x is hardly an under performer, which is amazing

I mean they did remarkably well considering the rock was in them

The Haunted mansion is in no way a mega blockbuster

Mission impossible just eaten up by Barbie and Oppenheimer

Total numbers are probably the same as mentioned by another poster

I would say the blockbuster is fine, but 10th sequel is surely at the bottom of the barrel

indiana jones was an unwanted sequel to a hated sequel with an 84 year old star, WTF

pixelburp

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120933898#Comment_120933898

Joker made a billion dollars off of a 50 million budget; so it's not even like comic book movies can't themselves run on a smaller amount of shekels. time and again we see examples of modest budgets making huge money back - yet there's a weird obsession with cranking up the budgets rather than be economical. Warners cancelled the Batgirl movie, with what was (I think) a modest budget yet persisted with The Flash and its behemoth price tag.

speedboatchase

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120934492#Comment_120934492

Good spot about Black Adam. My point was simply about box office grosses. Most of that list will lose money, considering they need roughly 2.5x their production budget to break even. The Haunted Mansion hasn't been marketed as a blockbuster but its budget is $150m (!) - more than Barbie.

eightieschewbaccy

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120935407#Comment_120935407

Even some stuff like Daredevil if done on screen in a similar way to the show would be reasonably cheap way. Not to say I solely want just comic book movies.(I think more creative approaches to that genre are needed) @johnny_ultimate is spot on, looking back historically, producers put limits on directors. It wasn't always good but it often assisted in delivering a good finished product. If we're to look at the franchise stuff, most of the plots are invariably a mess and I think unlimited budgets offer the possibility to show whatever they want and limiting that would really help with a final product.

BaywatchHQ

I don't watch modern films as they are a sea of degeneracy with unnecessary sex scenes and they promote their woke agenda.

BaywatchHQ

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120824065#Comment_120824065

Content that is geared towards Social Justice Warriors for example having a black actress play the little mermaid. There was no other reason for this than to appease the Social Justice Warrior's as the little mermaid was always known as a pale red head. I assume you are a social justice warrior too due to your Ukraine flag.

Sudden Valley

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120950489#Comment_120950489

I think even those you complain about Hollywood movies all being woke generally don't consider cinema outside America to be that way. maybe you could try foreign movies, or perhaps you would find that too challenging.

Agent Coulson

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120950510#Comment_120950510

Can someone explain to me what a "Social Justice Warrior" is?

~Rebel~

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120950510#Comment_120950510

And what negative impact did that casting choice of an excellent actor with a great voice have on the film exactly? Her performance was by a long way the best aspect of the film - and I’d say about the only thing that actually went some way towards justifying the existence of an otherwise unnecessary film.

(ideally answering without catchphrases and buzzwords)

Mr Crispy

And another racist **** makes the ignore list. Good system tbf.

johnny_ultimate

Mod note: Enough of the culture war nonsense. Not letting another thread be derailed by it.

Any further trolling or attacking other posters will be met with a swift thread ban.

EDIT: BruteStock is thread-banned for ignoring mod warning.

satguy

The Hollywood 'mega blockbuster' model is not in trouble, Good movies will still draw big crowds.

Top Gun Maverick, and now Oppenheimer are proof that we will still pay to see good movies.

Disney has taken another road, and that road has turned out to be a bumpy one. It's the same road the BBC have taken with their last batch of Dramas and even their last batch of Period Dramas. This leads to empty seats at the cinema and viewers switching off in the case of TV / Streaming.

I plan on going along to my local cinema to see Oppenheimer in the next couple of days, and am really looking forward to it.  

pixelburp

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120949856#Comment_120949856

But in the modern sense I'm not sure that complaint entirely tracks: the producers (or at least, the executive tier) are the ones running the show, cos directors have become downgraded to non-entities there to film shot-reverse-shot dialogue so the overworked FX houses can fill the gaps later. We've gone from Sam Raimi's Spider-Man to ... Jon Watts' Spider-Man. ooof. Whatever criticisms you might want to lay at the feet of the MCU, being somewhere where directorial egos have run amok is not one of them. Quite the opposite. Funnily enough Raimi himself returned to blockbuster directing with Dr. Strange 2 and while neutered, his flourish and energy was a great addition.

But then blockbusters that let their directors and stars alone yield us the McQuarrie Mission Impossible movies, Top GUn: Maverick or Denis Villeneuve's Dune; but Netflix gave free reign to various auteurs and have yielded some of their weakest work (The Irishman; Mank; to name two). So there's something more complicated at play here - though a good starting point has to be keeping some budgets in check. It does seem like the era of the $250 million blockbuster might be about to collapse.

silverharp

I guess one problem for the likes of Marvel is that them being the studio, their only choice is which marvel film they are making next not whether the market actually wants new movies relative to other choices, similar problem to Lucas film , as Disney paid for it they have to sweat the assets. A better studio setup is them being able to invest in ideas as they come along and pick the best whether its make a thriller v a rom com v a horror film based on the sums

eightieschewbaccy

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120951367#Comment_120951367

I think the marvel films have the issue of protecting the IP and keeping it accessible for all age groups. Ironically enough I think DC accidentally solved this with their lower budget standalone movies cause there's less money to recoup and it's not get direct implications for the rest of the franchise.

As a minor follow on to this. It does remind me of that early 2000s trend where we had a huge output of horror movies designed for thirteen year olds. And in general everything tended to PG-13 cause that age group was where profits were. Blockbusters in general still operate like that with the exception of something like Oppenheimer or even Barbie. The latter was pg13 but more popular with older people. Imho, the lower budget thing gave them both a bit of leeway to be free on which audience to target.

Also yep you're right on the directors not having freedom. Same for the likes of Bond. Sorry thinking out loud a little. I think I'm still thinking of a smaller studio system which is very different.

Fysh

Marvel's issue is ironically the same as the comics - there's a combination of saturation of how many people want to watch every film and series in a shared universe, and the Reverse Rising Tide effect where a poorly-received film damages the rest of the series due to the interconnectedness.

I'm a bit surprised that they haven't seen the sense to do with the MCU what had previously happened with the Star Wars Extended Universe (which has of late kinda started happening in the Film & TV Star Wars worlds) - pick settings or small characters and do stuff with them that's different to the bigger releases but allows for more tonal and creative range. E.g. a Damage Control series could be an interesting way of providing a different type of show with a backdrop of what it's like working in a world with actual superhumans regularly causing havoc.

speedboatchase

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120951938#Comment_120951938

The problem imo is that they've conditioned fans to watch anything they output because it might lead to easter eggs/sneaky reveals. I've seen reviews on YouTube where a person slates an MCU movie but then says it's worth watching for the post-credits scene. The quality of the product is irrelevant - it's 'better' to have a mediocre product that inches the overall story forward than a standalone product that is better made.

When I see grown men watching Ms Marvel and getting excited about a single X-Men/mutant line, I'm baffled at how they spend their free time but in fairness to Marvel, the formula will always retain a certain percentage of fans and they will always watch and pay for the merch. The problem now is that those die-hards aren't enough to make $300m movies profitable. But Disney will pivot in some way - go lower-budget, expand more into TV - and I fully expect the MCU to still be around in 20 years.

silliussoddius

....

silliussoddius

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120951367#Comment_120951367

I wonder will the writers strike have an impact on budgets, despite their public pronouncements I can't see any big stars taking a pay cut.

Also regarding risk taking for studios, within the last year we had a couple indie-ish directors given freedom to do their own thing with a decent budget: The Northman and Beau is Afraid. These didn't exactly set the box office on fire.

McFly85

250 million has practically become film by algorithm. Having practically no risk tolerance means the film will be market tested to hell.

Generally what this means is that the films are incredibly bland. Things we’ve seen before, surface level action, massive set pieces etc.

In an age where a trip to the cinema is a considerable expense and many have a more than adequate setup at home for these films, it’s no surprise at all to see these films fall flat.

Films that don’t have to make a billion to be considered successful should be the norm. Reduce budgets and therefore success targets, and take the risk giving the audience a reason to see a film in the cinema.

Doesnt matter if it costs 20 or 200 million, the price of the ticket for the consumer is the same.

s8n

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120934492#Comment_120934492

Harrison Ford is 81

s8n

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120950510#Comment_120950510

you sounds like a lot of fun !!