Copyright


I'm just annoyed that the movies promoted in trailers at the theater are all remakes, sequels, prequels, etc...

It would seem that the quality of these flicks isn't as important as getting them out so the studios can retain the copyright for trade on streaming services. Its not that they have the 4th film in the series, it's that they have copyright ownership of all 4 movies to trade to prime, Amazon, Hulu, Disney Plus etc...

Universal horror did this type of filmmaking in the 50's and the quality was really bad.

Any thoughts on this?

reply

I agree. I would like to see more originality and creativity in films. How many Superman or Spiderman or Planet of the Apes or whatever movies do we need?

reply

Studio answer : "How many? All of them!"

reply

YOU KNOW I LIKE A LOT OF THE FRANCHISES...BUT I AGREE THAT IT IS EXCESSIVE AT TIMES...I WOULD BE HAPPY WITH MORE ORIGINAL PROJECTS....I DON'T THINK THEY EVER WORK THEIR WAY BACK TO THEATERS THOUGH...AT THIS POINT I THINK THEATERS ARE FRANCHISE EXHIBITION HOUSES...THAT SAID...


DEADPOOL & WOLVERINE IS GONNA BE SO FUCKING AWESOME AND I AM FULLY ERECT AWAITING IT'S RELEASE!

reply

https://youtu.be/VF39vQFoR14?si=Zsu1ER-ZXiyWRSkr

reply

YES...THAT IS HOW I AM LIVING MY LIFE UNTIL WOLVERINE & DEADPOOL HITS...I THINK MY CATS ARE SCARED OF IT.

reply

As long as it isn't the new scratch post, you will be fine.

reply

My thought on this is that it's largely the fault of audiences. Big Hollywood studios are in the business of making money through providing entertainment that consumers will pay for. Ultimately, they don't care about art or originality or even quality. They care about their bottom lines.

It's simple supply and demand economics. If the general audience suddenly turned their backs on remakes, sequels, prequels, etc, in favour of original films (although they'd probably have to watch most of those original films outside of cinemas nowadays) that's where the investment would be made.

But mainstream audiences have made it shockingly easy for studios to make money from old rope. 'Well, I don't really want this belated sequel to that movie I liked from the 1980s. But I suppose I'll have to see it.' 'Well, the last three movies in this franchise weren't any good -- but this new one might be better.' 'Oh, well, this is a different Spider-Man.'

There is no solution to this that doesn't involve a significant drop in demand for these products. (And I use the word 'products' advisedly.)

reply

But mainstream audiences have made it shockingly easy for studios to make money from old rope. 'Well, I don't really want this belated sequel to that movie I liked from the 1980s. But I suppose I'll have to see it.' 'Well, the last three movies in this franchise weren't any good -- but this new one might be better.' 'Oh, well, this is a different Spider-Man.'



This is very reasonable. I wonder if it falls into the chicken or the egg scenario. Did audiencesjust go for bad sequels which gives studios reason to release these movies or do studios put out bad movies so often audiences don't have much choice?

reply


Certainly, in multiplex cinemas, audiences no longer have much choice. As Kowalski says above, they're basically franchise exhibition houses now. So -- in that sense -- there's a chicken and egg thing or at least a vicious circle.

Thing is, Kowalski's also right that the other stuff isn't going back to cinemas -- because audience habits have changed. They pick an Event Movie to watch on a big screen every once in a while and watch everything else in the comfort of their own home.

So if you destroy the blockbuster, you also destroy mainstream theatrical distribution now.

reply

Excellent points.

reply

I wonder if the execs at these studios think that modern filmmaking is so expensive that they get a sense of security in just rehashing something that was a proven story in the past.

reply

Yes. That's exactly it. It's risk-aversion.

This is a phenomenon that is happening at the very highest budgets -- and it is squeezing mid-budget films and lower out of cinemas. But the rest of the industry ticks along pretty much the same as it always has (except it's on streaming services now.)

You may still be able to take a few risks at $30m. You cannot take any at $100m+.

reply

I agree completely. In the lower budget movie arena, I’ve seen some very creative and interesting stories recently.

reply

Someone with a better memory and some time can maybe check if there ever a year in movies where a sequel to something else was not on offer.

reply