If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(USA Today)   Wonder why Hollywood keeps churning out more and more sequels and reboots every year? Here's a handy infographic explaining it all   (usatoday.com) divider line 54
    More: Obvious, Hollywood, box offices, sequels  
•       •       •

7169 clicks; posted to Entertainment » on 27 Jul 2013 at 9:13 AM (49 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



54 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-07-27 02:15:10 AM
No, I've never wondered this.
 
2013-07-27 02:34:38 AM
Huh, USA Today's infographic isn't loading. I bet it looks something like this, though.

fbcdn-sphotos-a-a.akamaihd.net
 
2013-07-27 08:34:04 AM
"Hollywood" is a business. They're in it to make money. Sometimes they lose $200 million, sometimes they make $400 million
 
2013-07-27 09:08:29 AM
Last week was a good example as to why.  As to who's to blame?  Look in a mirror.

/I'm just as much at fault
 
2013-07-27 09:16:43 AM

Bucky Katt: No, I've never wondered this.


Second.

And for the record, I don't care that Hollywood keeps working in the "franchise" paradigm; I just wish they'd pick some different material once in a while, and spent more than $250 for a script.
 
2013-07-27 09:39:46 AM
I don't think Hollywood wants to take risks anymore.  Hence the "safe" bet with remakes and sequels.   I think it's also why network TV is kicking the box office's butt.
 
2013-07-27 09:45:53 AM

Nefarious: As to who's to blame?  Look in a mirror.


Nope. I've basically stopped participating in popular culture. Sure, I don't turn out to support good, inventive movies. But I also don't turn out to support crap, either. I simply don't turn out. I am, in fact, the King of shiat Mountain.

raerae1980: I don't think Hollywood wants to take risks anymore.


Large businesses are institutionally incapable of taking serious risks. The bigger the business, the more risk-averse they become. When they start running into trouble, say, because changes in technology are killing the theater experience and their customers are interested in alternate distribution channels, their response is to become  even more risk-averse.
 
2013-07-27 09:49:15 AM
I don't mind sequels and spin offs when done right (Some examples: Avengers, Dark Knight Trilogy, Toy Story)

But, Jesus. Do we really need a Smurfs 2? Let alone a Smurfs movie period?
 
2013-07-27 09:49:55 AM
Shouldn't Phantom Menace be pink instead of purple? Isn't it more of a reboot than a sequel?
 
2013-07-27 09:52:00 AM

DontBeSoDigital: Let alone a Smurfs movie period?


I think they could make a brilliant Smurfs movie. However, it wouldn't take place in New York City and star Neil Patrick Harris.
 
2013-07-27 10:04:33 AM
An Infographic....in USA Today?!

Well, now I've seen everything.
 
2013-07-27 10:11:15 AM

raerae1980: I don't think Hollywood wants to take risks anymore.  Hence the "safe" bet with remakes and sequels.   I think it's also why network TV is kicking the box office's butt.


Who would want to take risks when movies cost hundreds of millions to make nowadays?
 
2013-07-27 10:11:17 AM
Because people biatch endlessly about wanting original movies but whenever an original movie comes out, they biatch about how trite and derivative it is.  See also every Fark movie thread ever.
 
2013-07-27 10:12:44 AM

Confabulat: DontBeSoDigital: Let alone a Smurfs movie period?

I think they could make a brilliant Smurfs movie. However, it wouldn't take place in New York City and star Neil Patrick Harris.


Make it a mock-horror-comedy and I'm in...
img.laughload.com
 
2013-07-27 10:14:06 AM
Looking through that I notice '96 only had three "pink" entries while all the rest were originals, so I looked to see what they were.

OMG Hollywood stick with the sequels. And thank you for never inflicting Twister 2 upon is.
 
2013-07-27 10:14:10 AM
Because retarded man-children can't stop themselves from seeing more comic book movies
 
2013-07-27 10:14:30 AM
This is why movies are dead and TV is in its golden age.
 
2013-07-27 10:21:03 AM

raerae1980: I don't think Hollywood wants to take risks anymore.  Hence the "safe" bet with remakes and sequels.   I think it's also why network TV is kicking the box office's butt.


Hollywood has always played it safe.  Now, it's franchises and sequels.  Ten-Twenty years ago, it was sequels and movie stars.

Just look at the Top 10 movies from those times:

2011 -
Harry Potter 8
Transformers 3
Twilight 4
Hangover 2
Pirates of the Caribbean 4
Fast Five
Mission Impossible 4
Cars 2
Sherlock Holmes 2
Thor

All sequels or franchise pieces.  Now look at 2000

2000 -
How the Grinch Stole Christmas - Jim Carrey
Cast Away - Tom Hanks
M:I 2 - Sequel/Tom Cruise
Gladiator
What Women Want - Mel Gibson
The Perfect Storm - George Clooney
Meet the Parents - Robert DeNiro/Ben Stiller
X-Men - Franchise
Scary Movie
What Lies Beneath - Harrison Ford

With the exception of Gladiator and Scary Movie (the saw of its time), these are all franchise pieces or movie star vehicles.  Now look at 1991:

1991 -
Terminator 2 - Sequel
Robin Hood - Kevin Costner
Beauty and the Beast - Disney Animated (basically a franchise then)
Silence of the Lambs - Jodie Foster/Anthony Hopkins
City Slickers - Billy Crystal
Hook - Robin Williams/Dustin Hoffman
The Addams Family - Reboot
Sleeping with the Enemy - Julia Roberts
Father of the Bride - Steve Martin
Naked Gun 2 1/2 - Sequel

Again, all sequels, reboots, or star vehicles.

There's nothing really different between today and twenty years ago, except that star vehicles don't work anymore, which is why you movies like After Earth and Lone Ranger bomb.  People like familiar.  "Familiar" used to be movie stars.  Now, it's stories and characters.
 
2013-07-27 10:25:22 AM
That was actually an informative infographic from USA Today.
What I wonder is how the hell that happened.
 
2013-07-27 10:27:20 AM
I just say "The Wolverine" and I thought it's one of the better sequels. I like that most of it takes place in Japan and the story was well done.

On the other hand, "Pacific Rim" was a kickass movie. Sort of an original but what I like about it is that, unlike the Transformer movies, you can actually see the robots fighting and it isn't all a blur of metal with a scene cut every two seconds. Too bad there won't be a sequel for that one. There can't be, right?
 
2013-07-27 10:29:41 AM
"The Al ighty ollar?" Hahahahaha
 
2013-07-27 10:33:04 AM
Because people keep going to see sequels while they keep ratcheting up ticket prices.
 
2013-07-27 10:37:35 AM

skinink: I just say "The Wolverine" and I thought it's one of the better sequels. I like that most of it takes place in Japan and the story was well done.

On the other hand, "Pacific Rim" was a kickass movie. Sort of an original but what I like about it is that, unlike the Transformer movies, you can actually see the robots fighting and it isn't all a blur of metal with a scene cut every two seconds. Too bad there won't be a sequel for that one. There can't be, right?


Wolverine seemed  like a sequel no one really wanted. I'd rather an xmen movie based on just about any other character at this point. Still since it made 23 million on friday I guess people wanted to see it..

I agree Pacific Rim was awesome.
 
2013-07-27 10:41:16 AM
Because the cost/earnings ratio is larger for these movies than taking a chance and doing something new and interesting?  Why bother when people are willing to pay for crap?  If these made no money, they would try something new to make money.
 
2013-07-27 10:41:29 AM

Psychohazard: That was actually an informative infographic from USA Today.
What I wonder is how the hell that happened.


Not so fast.  Seems like a lot of movies are missing.  Avatar, Matrix, Lord of the Rings.  Could be a caffeine issue on my behalf.
 
2013-07-27 10:43:06 AM
Because just like they are risk-adverse,
people are too...going to and spending money on things they are more familiar and comfortable with.

Warm & fuzzies are not just for execs.
 
2013-07-27 10:44:23 AM

RaceBoatDriver: Avatar, Matrix, Lord of the Rings


It's only summer movies.
 
2013-07-27 10:46:06 AM
Hollywood makes sequels because THAT IS WHAT WE GO TO SEE.
 
2013-07-27 10:50:08 AM
The most striking thing is that the last original movie to top the summer box office was Finding Nemo in 2003, ten years ago. That wouldn't be so weird, except that original movies used to top the summer box office most years - in 2001, 1999, 1998, 1997, 1996, 1994 and 1993, going back to the beginning of the chart. Thus, from 1994 to 2003, original movies topped the box office 7 out of 10 years. From 2004 to 2013, 0 out of 10.

That's a major shift. I do agree that Hollywood has retreated to sequels because $$$. I'm not sure they're correct about that as a strategy, though; movies barely more money in total today than in the 1994-2003 period, and that's despite inflation (which is not taken into account on their chart). It is not at all clear that Hollywood would make less money if they poured as much money into original series as they do into sequels--provided those original movies aren't crocks of shiat thrown together as Will Smith vehicles (and similar).

Also, the top original movie in recent years is a Pixar movie, if they make one, except a narrow loss by Wall-E in 2009 to Hancock.
 
2013-07-27 10:54:28 AM

DontBeSoDigital: I don't mind sequels and spin offs when done right (Some examples: Avengers, Dark Knight Trilogy, Toy Story)

But, Jesus. Do we really need a Smurfs 2? Let alone a Smurfs movie period?


It's for kids and it will make money. Don't sweat the small stuff.
 
2013-07-27 10:56:27 AM

RaceBoatDriver: Psychohazard: That was actually an informative infographic from USA Today.
What I wonder is how the hell that happened.

Not so fast.  Seems like a lot of movies are missing.  Avatar, Matrix, Lord of the Rings.  Could be a caffeine issue on my behalf.


It's summer releases only. Avatar and LOTR were released in the winter. Don't remember for Matrix, but probably the same. Movies are pretty seasonal. Of course, only the first Matrix and first LOTR would be new-to-film movies, anyway, and they wouldn't change the top results except for Avatar topping in 2009. (Fellowship of the Ring actually lost to the first Harry Potter movie, but 2001 was already a year won by an original film, Shrek, on the chart, anyway, and the Matrix came in fourth in 1999.)

Titanic is the other huge film missing from the list. I don't there are any other big grossers that were released outside of the summer, but I might be wrong.
 
2013-07-27 10:56:55 AM

Verrai: The most striking thing is that the last original movie to top the summer box office was Finding Nemo in 2003, ten years ago. That wouldn't be so weird, except that original movies used to top the summer box office most years - in 2001, 1999, 1998, 1997, 1996, 1994 and 1993, going back to the beginning of the chart. Thus, from 1994 to 2003, original movies topped the box office 7 out of 10 years. From 2004 to 2013, 0 out of 10.

That's a major shift. I do agree that Hollywood has retreated to sequels because $$$. I'm not sure they're correct about that as a strategy, though; movies barely more money in total today than in the 1994-2003 period, and that's despite inflation (which is not taken into account on their chart). It is not at all clear that Hollywood would make less money if they poured as much money into original series as they do into sequels--provided those original movies aren't crocks of shiat thrown together as Will Smith vehicles (and similar).


The numbers on the infographic are adjusted for inflation. What they don't account for is the fact the biggest movie of the year doesn't always comes out in Summer now. Avatar, LOTR, Harry Potter (some of them). Even calling Avengers a summer movie (it cam out first week in May) is stretching it.
 
2013-07-27 10:57:23 AM

Phil Moskowitz: This is why movies are dead and TV is in its golden age.


Which is pretty much the point again for us doddering old off-my-lawners.  Hollywood puts out roughly 3 movies a year now that I would pay big bucks to go see, rather than wait for the release to cable pay-per-view providers.

/had a car stolen once from the Multi-Plex parking lot.

//that sucked even more than the movie
 
2013-07-27 11:02:43 AM
Bucky Katt: No, I've never wondered this.
 
2013-07-27 11:03:11 AM

SoupJohnB: had a car stolen once from the Multi-Plex parking lot.


I had my bike stolen from The Hobbit. So I sighed and started walking.
 
2013-07-27 11:08:44 AM
I was told that infographic would explain why, when it clearly shows that. Now I'm left having to infer......shiat there goes my Saturday.
 
2013-07-27 11:29:14 AM

Confabulat: SoupJohnB: had a car stolen once from the Multi-Plex parking lot.

I had my bike stolen from The Hobbit. So I sighed and started walking.


I sighed and call the cops, to make a report.  They gave me a ride home.

/Too far and too late to walk home
 
2013-07-27 11:39:40 AM

skinink: I just say "The Wolverine" and I thought it's one of the better sequels. I like that most of it takes place in Japan and the story was well done.

On the other hand, "Pacific Rim" was a kickass movie. Sort of an original but what I like about it is that, unlike the Transformer movies, you can actually see the robots fighting and it isn't all a blur of metal with a scene cut every two seconds. Too bad there won't be a sequel for that one. There can't be, right?


They're already talking about one, though I'm also curious as to how they'd do it. I think prequels would be a better idea -fleshing out the history of the Kaiju War and what not- but from what they've been saying, I'm thinking it might be more like someone growing Kaiju on Earth.
 
2013-07-27 11:41:24 AM

rugman11: There's nothing really different between today and twenty years ago, except that star vehicles don't work anymore, which is why you movies like After Earth and Lone Ranger bomb.  People like familiar.  "Familiar" used to be movie stars.  Now, it's stories and characters.


That is quite interesting.

Movies definitely used to be star vehicles.  Look at all the action movies of the early 80s and 90s, they were sold on their star, not the plot or heaven forbid character.  Arnold just played the same bad ass over and over.

Do we have mega-action stars like that anymore?  Are our movie stars less a draw now then they were then?  Or are there just more of them, diluting the pool?
 
2013-07-27 11:56:58 AM

Confabulat: DontBeSoDigital: Let alone a Smurfs movie period?

I think they could make a brilliant Smurfs movie. However, it wouldn't take place in New York City and star Neil Patrick Harris.


It could star NPH, but it wouldn't have Smurfs rapping to AC/DC.
 
2013-07-27 12:17:07 PM

taxandspend: Heron: skinink: I just say "The Wolverine" and I thought it's one of the better sequels. I like that most of it takes place in Japan and the story was well done.

On the other hand, "Pacific Rim" was a kickass movie. Sort of an original but what I like about it is that, unlike the Transformer movies, you can actually see the robots fighting and it isn't all a blur of metal with a scene cut every two seconds. Too bad there won't be a sequel for that one. There can't be, right?

They're already talking about one, though I'm also curious as to how they'd do it. I think prequels would be a better idea -fleshing out the history of the Kaiju War and what not- but from what they've been saying, I'm thinking it might be more like someone growing Kaiju on Earth.

I read an interview (I can't remember where) that said the sequel, if it gets made, will have to do with the two scientists who mind melded with the Kaiju.


Possibly - Guillermo Del Toro has also said something about Kaiju/Jaeger hybrids...

http://www.slashfilm.com/guillermo-del-toro-says-pacific-rim-sequel- wo uld-feature-jaegerkaiju-hybrid/
 
2013-07-27 12:25:41 PM
it takes an infograph to say they have no original ideas anymore
 
2013-07-27 12:26:54 PM
It's because dumbasses keep giving them their money.

/burn Hollywood down and make them start from scratch
 
2013-07-27 12:47:17 PM
Wonder why USA Today keeps churning out more and more tired infographics? Here's a movie explaining it.
 
2013-07-27 12:53:41 PM
It doesn't matter to me if the movies are original or sequels, but for fsm's sake, get some better writers.  Why these movies have to be poorly written is beyond me.  I genuinely like a lot of the sequels in general, but some of them like Transformers are completely retarded.
 
2013-07-27 01:03:36 PM
Because movies, especially of the CGI and action varieties, have such massive upfront costs.  It's much less risky to try new ideas in a small upfront cost medium like books and then adapt it.
 
2013-07-27 01:55:57 PM

vernonFL: "Hollywood" is a business. They're in it to make money. Sometimes they lose $200 million, sometimes they make $400 million


I can't be the only one that has completely disengaged from movies after this barrage of reboots and sequels. At some point this will cost them.


/fingers crossed!
 
2013-07-27 02:41:12 PM

DontBeSoDigital: I don't mind sequels and spin offs when done right (Some examples: Avengers, Dark Knight Trilogy, Toy Story)

But, Jesus. Do we really need a Smurfs 2? Let alone a Smurfs movie period?


Or Grownups 3 that there will no doubt be. >.>
 
2013-07-27 03:24:28 PM

skinink: I just say "The Wolverine" and I thought it's one of the better sequels. I like that most of it takes place in Japan and the story was well done.

On the other hand, "Pacific Rim" was a kickass movie. Sort of an original but what I like about it is that, unlike the Transformer movies, you can actually see the robots fighting and it isn't all a blur of metal with a scene cut every two seconds. Too bad there won't be a sequel for that one. There can't be, right?


Are you kidding? Of course Pacific Rim can have a sequel. There will always be more monsters to fight, and this time they might not pop up in the Pacific.

I loved Pacific Rim and just got back from a second showing this morning, in IMAX 3D. It was well worth it and really well done 3D. There weren't a lot of people in the theater, which meant I got to sit in the exact right spot for the best 3D. Still, the lackluster box-office performance just goes to show that we'd rather have familiar over new. It's not just Hollywood's fault, it's the movie going public as well.

Also agree with you about The Wolverine. It was a great movie that was smaller in scale than any of the other Xmen movies, and focused on character rather than spectacle. Plus, the post-credits scene was pure awesomeness. (Won't spoil it if you haven't seen it.)
 
2013-07-27 03:49:24 PM

soporific: skinink: I just say "The Wolverine" and I thought it's one of the better sequels. I like that most of it takes place in Japan and the story was well done.

On the other hand, "Pacific Rim" was a kickass movie. Sort of an original but what I like about it is that, unlike the Transformer movies, you can actually see the robots fighting and it isn't all a blur of metal with a scene cut every two seconds. Too bad there won't be a sequel for that one. There can't be, right?

Are you kidding? Of course Pacific Rim can have a sequel. There will always be more monsters to fight, and this time they might not pop up in the Pacific.

I loved Pacific Rim and just got back from a second showing this morning, in IMAX 3D. It was well worth it and really well done 3D. There weren't a lot of people in the theater, which meant I got to sit in the exact right spot for the best 3D. Still, the lackluster box-office performance just goes to show that we'd rather have familiar over new. It's not just Hollywood's fault, it's the movie going public as well.

Also agree with you about The Wolverine. It was a great movie that was smaller in scale than any of the other Xmen movies, and focused on character rather than spectacle. Plus, the post-credits scene was pure awesomeness. (Won't spoil it if you haven't seen it.)


Thirded on The Wolverine. Really surprised me that is was actually really good. Maybe that's just cause Origins set the bar so low, but still. If you're a Wolverine fan, you'll definitely enjoy it.

/And yep, mid-credits/post-credits scene was all kinds of awesome.
 
Displayed 50 of 54 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report