So I thought The Creator was brilliant. I watched it in the cinema, thoroughly enjoyed it and was gobsmacked when I learned it’s budget was only $79 million. It looks better than some films I’ve seen that cost three times that.

But apparently, while it may make that back, it’s unlikely to even earn $100 million globally.

So the answer to the question of why Hollywood churns out the same shite over and over is that, currently, tragically, that is what the masses want to spend their money on.

And that makes me sad.

  • carl_dungeon@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    13
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    1 year ago

    You’re not wrong that many of our favs are remakes, but OP does have a point that disproportionately more big box office movies are reboots or sequels than 30 years ago.

    • paultimate14@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      10
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      Is that actually true or is everyone in this conversation just forgetting about the new IP's being released?

      Perhaps it's a matter of where the marketing budgets are going rather than just what's been produced? Or how remakes and sequels tend to stay in memory longer than a flash-in-the-pan one-off IP? It allows the owners of that IP to invest in more than just movies: all sorts of media and merchandise that keeps the IP in the minds of consumers for longer.

      Heck, the two big summer blockbusters this year were Barbie and Oppenheimer. Oppenheimer was definitely original. Does Barbie count? I actually haven't seen it and I'm not that interested, but i don't think it's the same cannon as the direct-to-vhs movies my sister had back in the 90's.

      • WarmSoda@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        It's not true. The number of recent remakes has been lower than ever.