Why Hollywood Is Failing

[Billy_Kinetta]

Yet another remake. The first was an unparalleled success. What's the point?

Resurrecting a Classic: The New 'Ben-Hur'

 

[turzovka]

Yet another remake. The first was an unparalleled success. What's the point?

Resurrecting a Classic: The New 'Ben-Hur'

It’s their way of resuming their attack on Christianity and besmirching a classic with a tawdry new rendition.

Plus, they hate Charlton Heston because he likes guns, so it’s a double slam / winner for them.

Plus it’s a low life way for them to make easy money, another repugnant remake. Hollywood doesn’t have a creative bone left in its body. It’s all about spectacle and splash. No one can write an original interesting script.

 

[IsaacNewton]

Yet another remake. The first was an unparalleled success. What's the point?

Resurrecting a Classic: The New 'Ben-Hur'

Yeah the problem is the average budget for a Hollywood movie is at 100 million dollars now. So pressure for movie execs is huge to have one movie make a ton of money. Studios have gotten into a mode where they count on a couple huge blockbusters to make up for the 5 bombs and the 10 break-even movies. Disney had a few huge bombs the last two years but they've also had Star Wars and Finding Dory. Even execs at these huge studios have to go to meetings after a movie opens and loses 50-100 million dollars and explain why. No matter what, no one wants to lose $100 million.

Even the Spielberg movie The BFG has lost about $50 million. What exec would look at a movie project with Spielberg in charge and not give the ok for a $140 million budget?

This is also the reason they are rehashing all these sequels. They think people, up front, are more likely to go see something they are familiar with than something brand new, thereby at least making back in the first week what they spend on the movie. It's quite the quandry that the industry has backed themselves into. Low budget movies still do well though. I think The Purge sequel if I remember correctly was done for 10 million dollars and has grossed 80+ million. 8:1 back on your investment is good in anyone's book. Another thing about movie revenue is it used to be the larger box office came from the US release, but not anymore. 60% of revenue comes from International release, 40% from domestic release.Alice Through The Looking Glass was a huge bomb in the US but it has earned a total $282 million worldwide on a $170 million dollar budget. They cleared $112 million dollars on a domestic bomb.

Odd though isn't it, how hard it is for them to figure out what will be a hit and what won't. Of the 20 largest money losers in movie history, 11 of them came out in the last 10 years. If you have a good story for a movie there IS an opportunity to have someone take it seriously and buy it. Get an agent.

 

[skye]

Hollywood died in the late 1950s.

There is no more real Hollywood anymore.

They are just regurgitating past winners.....past victories ....past scripts......

These "new" Hollywood is shit....with all respect.

All that these useless morons working there have left ,is to copy our beautiful past when Hollywood was the real thing.

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

Yet another remake. The first was an unparalleled success. What's the point?

Resurrecting a Classic: The New 'Ben-Hur'

Yeah the problem is the average budget for a Hollywood movie is at 100 million dollars now. So pressure for movie execs is huge to have one movie make a ton of money. Studios have gotten into a mode where they count on a couple huge blockbusters to make up for the 5 bombs and the 10 break-even movies. Disney had a few huge bombs the last two years but they've also had Star Wars and Finding Dory. Even execs at these huge studios have to go to meetings after a movie opens and loses 50-100 million dollars and explain why. No matter what, no one wants to lose $100 million.

Even the Spielberg movie The BFG has lost about $50 million. What exec would look at a movie project with Spielberg in charge and not give the ok for a $140 million budget?

This is also the reason they are rehashing all these sequels. They think people, up front, are more likely to go see something they are familiar with than something brand new, thereby at least making back in the first week what they spend on the movie. It's quite the quandry that the industry has backed themselves into. Low budget movies still do well though. I think The Purge sequel if I remember correctly was done for 10 million dollars and has grossed 80+ million. 8:1 back on your investment is good in anyone's book. Another thing about movie revenue is it used to be the larger box office came from the US release, but not anymore. 60% of revenue comes from International release, 40% from domestic release.Alice Through The Looking Glass was a huge bomb in the US but it has earned a total $282 million worldwide on a $170 million dollar budget. They cleared $112 million dollars on a domestic bomb.

Odd though isn't it, how hard it is for them to figure out what will be a hit and what won't. Of the 20 largest money losers in movie history, 11 of them came out in the last 10 years. If you have a good story for a movie there IS an opportunity to have someone take it seriously and buy it. Get an agent.

The studios are afraid to place their faith in anything other than proven properties.

I have not seen "The BFG" but I understand it got a huge reaction at Cannes. Perhaps audiences have changed, and desire, like toddlers, repetition.

 

[IsaacNewton]

Yet another remake. The first was an unparalleled success. What's the point?

Resurrecting a Classic: The New 'Ben-Hur'

Yeah the problem is the average budget for a Hollywood movie is at 100 million dollars now. So pressure for movie execs is huge to have one movie make a ton of money. Studios have gotten into a mode where they count on a couple huge blockbusters to make up for the 5 bombs and the 10 break-even movies. Disney had a few huge bombs the last two years but they've also had Star Wars and Finding Dory. Even execs at these huge studios have to go to meetings after a movie opens and loses 50-100 million dollars and explain why. No matter what, no one wants to lose $100 million.

Even the Spielberg movie The BFG has lost about $50 million. What exec would look at a movie project with Spielberg in charge and not give the ok for a $140 million budget?

This is also the reason they are rehashing all these sequels. They think people, up front, are more likely to go see something they are familiar with than something brand new, thereby at least making back in the first week what they spend on the movie. It's quite the quandry that the industry has backed themselves into. Low budget movies still do well though. I think The Purge sequel if I remember correctly was done for 10 million dollars and has grossed 80+ million. 8:1 back on your investment is good in anyone's book. Another thing about movie revenue is it used to be the larger box office came from the US release, but not anymore. 60% of revenue comes from International release, 40% from domestic release.Alice Through The Looking Glass was a huge bomb in the US but it has earned a total $282 million worldwide on a $170 million dollar budget. They cleared $112 million dollars on a domestic bomb.

Odd though isn't it, how hard it is for them to figure out what will be a hit and what won't. Of the 20 largest money losers in movie history, 11 of them came out in the last 10 years. If you have a good story for a movie there IS an opportunity to have someone take it seriously and buy it. Get an agent.

The studios are afraid to place their faith in anything other than proven properties.

I have not seen "The BFG" but I understand it got a huge reaction at Cannes. Perhaps audiences have changed, and desire, like toddlers, repetition.

"The studios are afraid to place their faith in anything other than proven properties."

Yeah that's it in a nutshell. Because of the gigantic budgeted Superhero movies that cost $150-200 million + to make the entire industry is top heavy money-wise now. Star Wars was made for $11 million and grossed $460 million. Seven was made for $33 million and grossed $330 million. Star Wars The Force Awakens was made for $200 million, return so far maybe $2 billion.

But the problem is what happens when you spend $200 million and no one goes to see it. Those are some pretty big dice to roll for film makers these days so they do in fact gravitate towards what 'they believe' are known money maker ideas.

 

[BlueGin]

Yet another remake. The first was an unparalleled success. What's the point?

Resurrecting a Classic: The New 'Ben-Hur'

Yep. That and the majority of their leading ladies and men are unlikeable, elitist assholes.

Who wants to pay to support that?

 

[Montrovant]

Yet another remake. The first was an unparalleled success. What's the point?

Resurrecting a Classic: The New 'Ben-Hur'

Yeah the problem is the average budget for a Hollywood movie is at 100 million dollars now. So pressure for movie execs is huge to have one movie make a ton of money. Studios have gotten into a mode where they count on a couple huge blockbusters to make up for the 5 bombs and the 10 break-even movies. Disney had a few huge bombs the last two years but they've also had Star Wars and Finding Dory. Even execs at these huge studios have to go to meetings after a movie opens and loses 50-100 million dollars and explain why. No matter what, no one wants to lose $100 million.

Even the Spielberg movie The BFG has lost about $50 million. What exec would look at a movie project with Spielberg in charge and not give the ok for a $140 million budget?

This is also the reason they are rehashing all these sequels. They think people, up front, are more likely to go see something they are familiar with than something brand new, thereby at least making back in the first week what they spend on the movie. It's quite the quandry that the industry has backed themselves into. Low budget movies still do well though. I think The Purge sequel if I remember correctly was done for 10 million dollars and has grossed 80+ million. 8:1 back on your investment is good in anyone's book. Another thing about movie revenue is it used to be the larger box office came from the US release, but not anymore. 60% of revenue comes from International release, 40% from domestic release.Alice Through The Looking Glass was a huge bomb in the US but it has earned a total $282 million worldwide on a $170 million dollar budget. They cleared $112 million dollars on a domestic bomb.

Odd though isn't it, how hard it is for them to figure out what will be a hit and what won't. Of the 20 largest money losers in movie history, 11 of them came out in the last 10 years. If you have a good story for a movie there IS an opportunity to have someone take it seriously and buy it. Get an agent.

Are you talking about total gross or actual studio money? You can't forget that studios supposedly only get about 50% of the gross, so if a movie costs $170 million to make and it grosses $282 million, it has lost the studio money.

 

[IsaacNewton]

And don't get comfortable, here's list for the ages. WTF

164 movie sequels currently in the works

 

[theDoctorisIn]

Hollywood isn't "failing".

 

[skye]

Hollywood isn't "failing".

In my humble opinion, Hollywood is a shadow of what it used to be.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

Hollywood isn't "failing".

In my humble opinion, Hollywood is a shadow of what it used to be.

Hollywood has always made mostly shit movies.

But it's not "failing", studios are making more money than ever.

 

[skye]

Hollywood isn't "failing".

In my humble opinion, Hollywood is a shadow of what it used to be.

Hollywood has always made mostly shit movies.

But it's not "failing", studios are making more money than ever.

But the quality.....again...in my opinion is not the same.

 

[IsaacNewton]

Hollywood isn't "failing".

A $10 billion dollar a year industry is not 'failing' you are right. It is far riskier to produce a movie now because of the budgets these days and there are an inordinate amount of box office flops that lost a ton of money as a result in the last 10 years. Quality is quality and something done well with a good story will always be successful, but I still don't understand how they can get it wrong so often.

John Carter? Cowboys and Aliens? Somebody had to pitch the idea for Cowboys and Aliens and then someone had to say "yeah, what a great idea let's give it a $120 million budget (or whatever it was)! How does that happen?

 

[theDoctorisIn]

Hollywood isn't "failing".

A $10 billion dollar a year industry is not 'failing' you are right. It is far riskier to produce a movie now because of the budgets these days and there are an inordinate amount of box office flops that lost a ton of money as a result in the last 10 years. Quality is quality and something done well with a good story will always be successful, but I still don't understand how they can get it wrong so often.

John Carter? Cowboys and Aliens? Somebody had to pitch the idea for Cowboys and Aliens and then someone had to say "yeah, what a great idea let's give it a $120 million budget (or whatever it was)! How does that happen?

Giant blockbusters are making more money now than they really ever have before. Studios are more willing to risk those huge budgets, because some of those big movies end up making a billion dollars.

 

[IsaacNewton]

Hollywood isn't "failing".

A $10 billion dollar a year industry is not 'failing' you are right. It is far riskier to produce a movie now because of the budgets these days and there are an inordinate amount of box office flops that lost a ton of money as a result in the last 10 years. Quality is quality and something done well with a good story will always be successful, but I still don't understand how they can get it wrong so often.

John Carter? Cowboys and Aliens? Somebody had to pitch the idea for Cowboys and Aliens and then someone had to say "yeah, what a great idea let's give it a $120 million budget (or whatever it was)! How does that happen?

Giant blockbusters are making more money now than they really ever have before. Studios are more willing to risk those huge budgets, because some of those big movies end up making a billion dollars.

I think they are called 'fence post' movies nowadays. Studios rely on two or three huge hits to cover their budgets for everything else including their inevitable large budget flops.

Spielberg and Lucas both came out a few years ago and said the industry cannot sustain itself with this formula. Sooner or later there will be a string of flops and catastrophe. Again though I think a good idea will always be successful. The original Paranormal Activity had a production budget of $15,000 and grossed nearly $200 million worldwide. 6 of those films have been released with a combined budget of $28 million and combined worldwide revenue of $890 million. A 30:1 return on investment. I think they will continue making those until the sun burns out.

This is why I posted earlier that if anyone has a good story idea get an agent and see if anyone is interested. What have you got to lose. Also with digital cameras now pretty cheap that produce high def film almost anyone with some talent can make a film. And many are.

 

[candycorn]

Hollywood isn't "failing".

A $10 billion dollar a year industry is not 'failing' you are right. It is far riskier to produce a movie now because of the budgets these days and there are an inordinate amount of box office flops that lost a ton of money as a result in the last 10 years. Quality is quality and something done well with a good story will always be successful, but I still don't understand how they can get it wrong so often.

John Carter? Cowboys and Aliens? Somebody had to pitch the idea for Cowboys and Aliens and then someone had to say "yeah, what a great idea let's give it a $120 million budget (or whatever it was)! How does that happen?

Giant blockbusters are making more money now than they really ever have before. Studios are more willing to risk those huge budgets, because some of those big movies end up making a billion dollars.

I think they are called 'fence post' movies nowadays. Studios rely on two or three huge hits to cover their budgets for everything else including their inevitable large budget flops.

Spielberg and Lucas both came out a few years ago and said the industry cannot sustain itself with this formula. Sooner or later there will be a string of flops and catastrophe. Again though I think a good idea will always be successful. The original Paranormal Activity had a production budget of $15,000 and grossed nearly $200 million worldwide. 6 of those films have been released with a combined budget of $28 million and combined worldwide revenue of $890 million. A 30:1 return on investment. I think they will continue making those until the sun burns out.

This is why I posted earlier that if anyone has a good story idea get an agent and see if anyone is interested. What have you got to lose. Also with digital cameras now pretty cheap that produce high def film almost anyone with some talent can make a film. And many are.

Tent pole is the phrase you’re looking for.

To mitigate risks, you see multiple production companies making the films and spreading the risks across several bottom lines. The Spielberg/Lucas truth comes when bet big without a bankable star and come up empty. Clooney and Hanks will always be able to get a project made in the current atmosphere. If you’re shooting Juno…you’d better keep an eye on the craft budget; it could make or break you. LOL

I find the real joy on Netflix and Hulu to uncover gems that either got past me or I didn’t even hear about. I rec “The Way”, “Wild” and “Up in the Air”