• Resources are back! Use the menu in the main navbar. If you own a resource, please check it for formatting, icons, etc.

Zardnaar's thread about movie stats

Zardnaar

Adventurer
Except that you do.

Oh, god. I can’t say that yet again to another pithy non-sequitur. I really am out this time before my brain freezes.
No you don't there's not much variety in blockbusters, I provided a link to the 90s and now.

Big budget movies are now mostly super hero/MCU/sequals.

Some movies are just going to cost more money to make and original movies like that are rare now.

Consider action genre. Mad Max was good but wasn't original.
A lot if small movies you don't even know they exist due to marketing.

See what I mean the variety isn't really there now. Some don't even make it to the theatre here. If you live in London/LA etc or USA/UK great but I don't.

That's why I was using blockbusters, it's where the money is and even ones that tank you at least have the option of seeing it.
 

trappedslider

Explorer
g.

See what I mean the variety isn't really there now. Some don't even make it to the theatre here. If you live in London/LA etc or USA/UK great but I don't.
If you had just said "I don't get anything other than blockbusters where I live" then that would have been the end of the discussion along with understanding of what you're saying instead of this round robin.
 

Zardnaar

Adventurer
If you had just said "I don't get anything other than blockbusters where I live" then that would have been the end of the discussion along with understanding of what you're saying instead of this round robin.
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.

Everyone else made a big deal over it even when I specifically said u don't care about little indie films that win awards at Cannes and the public at large doesn't care about them and they are lucky to break 100 million.

You're always going to have your auteur lndie type films. They've always been there, probably always will.

IDK how much this new Top Gun will cost, the original was fairly cheap even adjusted for inflation. But it's yet another remake/sequel/reboot and if it's not that it's probably a super hero movie.

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.
 

Mustrum_Ridcully

Adventurer
Well, what movies are block busters and what movies are not seems to say more about the audience for movies than about what Hollywood is doing, I think. Hollywood prefers to make movies that get audience. But not all movies have to be block buster to be successful.

It is kinda amazing that there is even a way to spend a hundred million dollar budget on a movie and be financially successful. Now, you could ask why such kind of movies are typically action and sci-fi movies, but is that really surprising? Do you need Dolby Surround Digital Super-Deluxe Elite Edition and more importantly a gigantic screen to enjoy a comedy with witty dialogues? The extra immersion that the cinema features brings you is something that not all movies really need. And that's why they don't get to become blockbusters so easily, because you don't really miss a huge part of the experience if you watch them at home.
 
Last edited:

Zardnaar

Adventurer
I'll try and find some articles. Cheap movies still get made sub 30 million, and you have big budget ones but there's not to many in the middle.

If you use special effects even practical ones it's gonna cost big money.

They don't generally spend big money promoting the cheaper ones except for potential Oscar bait.
 

Umbran

Mod Squad
Staff member
Except a lot of small movies also fail to hit 100 million. Even fewer become blockbusters but every now and then you get a Blair Witch.
Yes. But "blockbuster" isn't relevant. You don't have to bust the block. You just have to outperform your production costs.

Which means, you need to make *gasp* a good movie!

It's also the way movies are funded. If you're an investor you probably want to go with an established franchises.
This is an assertion without support. Show the logic - what can you tell us about how movies are funded? How does that lead to investors wanting to go with established franchises? "The way movies are funded," is not a magical black box you can reach into and pull out investor desires.

The big box office hitsvalsi make up a stupidly high % of the yearly box office, not a lot of smaller movies. M CU alone is crazy let alone Disney overall.
As already seen in the math - if all you care about is getting box office return on your production cost, single large movies are huge risk. You can get equivalent or better return from small movies with vastly reduced risk. Thus, big box office, in and of itself, isn't the driving factor.
 
Last edited:

Zardnaar

Adventurer
Except the example provided was a successful small movie most don't break 100 million.

The studios would seem to want big franchises they can milk. Do you think Disney cares about 20 small movies or the latest Star Wars or MCU movie. I'll see if I can find the figures but iirc Disney alone is some stupidly high % of the box office last year

https://www.bizjournals.com/losangeles/news/2019/01/03/disney-dominated-record-2018-domestic-box-office.html

6 studios 86% of the box office. Don't think they got their with a heap of small movies.

Box office is down this year that last Avengers movie alone will likely make close to 30% of the year.

All movies are high risk. How they are funded varys but I'll see what I can find. If I was investing in movies though the only ones I would invest in is the MCU, everything else is a gamble including Star Wars now.
 
Last edited:

Sadras

Explorer
Rise of Netflix, Amazon Prime...etc
Current Living Costs as opposed to the 90's
Ease of Piracy
Crappy storytelling and unoriginal content
Higher production and marketing costs
 

Umbran

Mod Squad
Staff member
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

Adventurer
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

Adventurer
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

Well, that was fun
Staff member
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

Mod Squad
Staff member
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

Adventurer
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.
 
Last edited:

Morrus

Well, that was fun
Staff member
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.

Screenshot 2019-07-22 at 22.35.06.png

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

Adventurer
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.
 
Last edited:

trappedslider

Explorer
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

Adventurer
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/2476886/the-lion-king-box-office-holy-crap-these-numbers-are-ridiculous

$531 million worldwide in a few days.
 
Last edited:

Advertisement

Top