Zardnaar's thread about movie stats

[Umbran]

I specifically said several posts ago I was referring to big budget stuff because that's where the money is, some genres you can't really do low budget at least very well, and it's also what the studios care about.

Really?

You know that Hollywood puts out something like 500 to 600 movies every year? (cite: statista.com) How are they creatively bankrupt when they are making hundreds of movies that aren't sequels and such?

If they don't care about anything but blockbusters... why make the other 500+ movies?

Did anyone actually bother with the links I provided earlier comparing 90s movies with the big hits mist of which are in the last 20 odd years. There's only a few original ones there.

Your original statement was, and I quote: "Hollywood doesn't really do new movies." This is demonstrably false.

The shift to "blockbusters" amounts to a moving of goalposts. I don't know that anyone's been really satisfied by the justification for that move.

I think there's also a bit of a misunderstanding about "blockbuster" - a blockbuster is a movie that is highly popular and financially successful. Hollywood can't reliably make a blockbuster. It makes movies that it *hopes* are blockbusters. And they often miss. It is the audience that makes it a blockbuster or not.

You then get to ask yourself - is it that Hollywood doesn't make blockbusters, or is it that when Hollywood makes a really new film, we don't go out to see it in droves so it isn't a blockbuster? You haven't identified the causal element here.

 

[Ryujin]

It's a good thing you said BILLION because "Us" $254 million worldwide against a budget of $20 million, Horror movies have always for the most done well with new IPs.

The Curse of La Llorona has grossed $54.7 million in the United States and Canada, and $67.3 million in other territories, for a worldwide total of $122 million, against a production budget of $9 million.

Pet Sematary has grossed $54.7 million in the United States and Canada, and $57.7 million in other territories, for a worldwide total of $112.4 million, against a production budget of $21 million

Escape Room has grossed $57 million in the United States and Canada, and $97.9 million in other territories, for a total worldwide gross of $154.9 million, against a production budget of $9 million

You have an excellent point there. A couple of my friends who are indie actors/filmmakers have a passion project they've been working on for some time now. At first they were going to fund it directly but then they hit on an idea for a horror film, that they could fund at a lower level, then possibly shop to streaming services. Their premise sounds good and they've got a good vision for it, so it's likely doable. Plus they've been in some that were... not good and knew why they were not good, going in. Hey, it's a paycheck

 

[Zardnaar]

Really?

You know that Hollywood puts out something like 500 to 600 movies every year? (cite: statista.com) How are they creatively bankrupt when they are making hundreds of movies that aren't sequels and such?

If they don't care about anything but blockbusters... why make the other 500+ movies?



Your original statement was, and I quote: "Hollywood doesn't really do new movies." This is demonstrably false.

The shift to "blockbusters" amounts to a moving of goalposts. I don't know that anyone's been really satisfied by the justification for that move.

I think there's also a bit of a misunderstanding about "blockbuster" - a blockbuster is a movie that is highly popular and financially successful. Hollywood can't reliably make a blockbuster. It makes movies that it *hopes* are blockbusters. And they often miss. It is the audience that makes it a blockbuster or not.

You then get to ask yourself - is it that Hollywood doesn't make blockbusters, or is it that when Hollywood makes a really new film, we don't go out to see it in droves so it isn't a blockbuster? You haven't identified the causal element here.

Blockbuster is just financially great popular movie, even if it was made for cheap.

If you're dropping $150 million+ and then marketing on top of that you're hoping for a blockbuster.

A lot of flops this year, Dumbo, Men In Black, Hellboy, Shaft.

Price doesn't mean quality but a budget helps for some genres.

In my OP I thought the context was clear, perhaps not. My main disagreement was the idea you can make more money with smaller movies. Ones break 100 million. Tend to be the exception. By that I mean as a % of the yearly box office not big flop 1 vs breakout Indy movie.

 

[Morrus]

Your original statement was, and I quote: "Hollywood doesn't really do new movies." This is demonstrably false.

+1. It makes for a very frustrating conversation when No True Scotsman is constantly invoked to move the goalposts every time someone points out a factual inaccuracy.

 

[Umbran]

If you're dropping $150 million+ and then marketing on top of that you're hoping for a blockbuster.

As if anyone who ever made a movie wasn't hoping that it would be massively popular and financially successful?

My main disagreement was the idea you can make more money with smaller movies. Ones break 100 million.

Again - if you are trying to make money on the box office alone, "break $100 million" isn't actually the issue. The ratio of return to investment is the issue.

Let us look at the most profitable movies of all time, shall we?

http://mentalfloss.com/article/68552/20-most-profitable-movies-all-time-based-return-investment

Paranormal Activity (2007)- 19,749 percent return on investment
The Devil Inside (2012)- 3632 percent ROI
Peter Pan (1953) - 3394% ROI
Grease (1978) - 2969% ROI
God's Not Dead (2014) - 2627% ROI
Paranormal Activity 2 (2010) - 2471% ROI
Insidious (2011) - 2139% ROI
Young Frankenstein (1974) - 1954% ROI
It's a Wonderful Life (1946) - 1804% ROI
Reservoir Dogs (1992) - 1771% ROI
Jaws (1975) 1755% ROI
Annabelle (2014) - 1408% ROI
Beauty and the Beast (1991) - 1340% ROI
The King's Speech (2010) - 1209% ROI
Magic Mike (2012) - 1181% ROI
The Fault in Our Stars (2014) - 1119% ROI
The Purge (2013) - 1097%
Slumdog Millionaire (2008) - 1067% ROI
Black Swan (2010) - 1039% ROI
Unfriended (2015) - 1011% ROI

13 out of 20 of these were in the last 20 years. The majority of them are new properties. So, yes, there are big vehicles that make tons of cash, but the big-budget films are not the ones that earn the most profit per investment dollar.

 

[Zardnaar]

If you're talking about personal finances RoI is important. Hollywood cares about the big bucks and overall income. Do you think share prices are going to go up or down based on RoI or overall dollar amount?

Never said you couldn't make money on smaller movies but things like Blair Witch Project are few and far between.
. It's also impossible to predict what smaller movies blow up with bigger ones it's a lot easier. MCU is guaranteed bank so far, Star Wars was but we'll see.

They made 2 billion on TFA, 700 million profit. Do you think they care about the ratio or the 700 million?

This year Disney is doing Dumbo, Aladdin, Lion King, and Rise of Skywalker plus they had almost 3 billion from Avengers and another billion from Captain Marvel. I don't think they care to much about smaller movies.

 

[Morrus]

This year Disney is doing Dumbo, Aladdin, Lion King, and Rise of Skywalker plus they had almost 3 billion from Avengers and another billion from Captain Marvel. I don't think they care to much about smaller movies.

Ah, I've figured it out! The way your proclamation that "Hollywood doesn't really do new movies" works in your head is that Hollywood = Disney's 4-5 blockbusters each year, and all of the other 500 movies each year are not by Disney and therefore aren't Hollywood. Ergo, Hollywood doesn't do new movies any more.

The No True Scotsman fallacy needs to be renamed, because, man, you not only exemplify it, you epitomize it!

The conversation is basically thus:

Z: Hollywood doesn't really do new movies.

Everyone: Yes they do. Look, here's 500 new movies.

Z: Yeah but Hollywood doesn't do new movies which are blockbusters any more.

Everyone: Errr.... what?

Z: Look at these 5 blockbuster movies Disney did this year.

Everyone: Yes, but look at these other 500 new movies which came out this year.

Z: Yeah but Hollywood doesn't do new movies which are blockbusters any more.

.... and repeat.



I mean, c'mon. You have to own your original statement and stop moving the goalposts. You said "Hollywood doesn't really do new movies" [literally; exact words]. In 2016 Hollywood released over 700 movies. Your claim is demonstrably false. Instead of trying to cloud the issue by moving the goalposts, why not just admit you were wrong?

 

[Zardnaar]

Ah, I've figured it out! The way your proclamation that "Hollywood doesn't really do new movies" works in your head is that Hollywood = Disney's 4-5 blockbusters each year, and all of the other 500 movies each year are not by Disney and therefore aren't Hollywood. Ergo, Hollywood doesn't do new movies any more.

The No True Scotsman fallacy needs to be renamed, because, man, you not only exemplify it, you epitomize it!

The conversation is basically thus:

Z: Hollywood doesn't really do new movies.

Everyone: Yes they do. Look, here's 500 new movies.

Z: Yeah but Hollywood doesn't do new movies which are blockbusters any more.

Everyone: Errr.... what?

Z: Look at these 5 blockbuster movies Disney did this year.

Everyone: Yes, but look at these other 500 new movies which came out this year.

Z: Yeah but Hollywood doesn't do new movies which are blockbusters any more.

.... and repeat.

View attachment 107662

I mean, c'mon. You have to own your original statement and stop moving the goalposts. You said "Hollywood doesn't really do new movies" [literally; exact words]. In 2016 Hollywood released over 700 movies. Your claim is demonstrably false. Instead of trying to cloud the issue by moving the goalposts, why not just admit you were wrong?

Because people are just not picking after I gave said multiple times I wasn't referring to Indy type movies, provided links to 6 studios make up over 85% of last year's box office.

I used Disney as an example because they make up around 25% of the market by themselves.

Look at top ten lists they are heavily dominated by sequels/IP. 9/10 or 10/10 last year.

A lot if the smaller movies also do not see wide scale release and only play in select theatres. Maybe 30 or 40 of them matter. Good chunk of them are sequels as well.

The fact I have since clarified what I was referring to multiple times isn't goalpost moving hence why I haven't edited my OP. By Hollywood I meant the big corporate side of things,not literally everyone wine who lives there or every autuer with a camera that makes something in their back yard.

My OP is on me if you want to be pedantic and nitpicking about it that's on you. My main point I was trying to get across is that on the top of the heap there's not much variety.

 

[trappedslider]

I didn't realize that ‎New Line Cinema was indy (Curse of La Llorona) or Paramount Pictures and Di Bonaventura Pictures (also known as dB Pictures they did the Transformers movies) (Pet Cemetery) or Columbia Pictures/Original Film are indy (they did Escape room) and Us was done by Perfect World Pictures/Universal Pictures.

so exactly what do you mean by indy type? Because wiki says "An independent film, independent movie, indie film or indie movie, is a feature film or short film that is produced outside the major film studio system, in addition to being produced and distributed by independent entertainment companies "

 

[Zardnaar]

I didn't realize that ‎New Line Cinema was indy (Curse of La Llorona) or Paramount Pictures and Di Bonaventura Pictures (also known as dB Pictures they did the Transformers movies) (Pet Cemetery) or Columbia Pictures/Original Film are indy (they did Escape room) and Us was done by Perfect World Pictures/Universal Pictures.

so exactly what do you mean by indy type? Because wiki says "An independent film, independent movie, indie film or indie movie, is a feature film or short film that is produced outside the major film studio system, in addition to being produced and distributed by independent entertainment companies "

Generally the smaller independent studios.

Also never claimed the larger studios don't make smaller movies. What part of lack of variety at the top of the heap is so hard to understand?

It's the blockbusters that the majority of the box office comes from. Blockbusters being any movie that brings in hundreds of millions of dollars (and makes bank).

Wannabe blockbusters have a large budget but underperforn or flop.

Do you believe that there is a decent amount of variety in the big movies that are not sequals, reboots or established IP. Big being any movie over 400 million as that's the low figure a high budget movie needs to break even in.

Thought it would be big but damn.

Had planned on seeing this Saturday but my date fell through.

https://www.cinemablend.com/news/24...office-holy-crap-these-numbers-are-ridiculous

$531 million worldwide in a few days.