6 ms·

>But Hollywood have always done this - recycling old ideas in new wrapping. Yes, but I think it's safe to say that there were a lot more original movies a few

by magduf 7y ago

>But Hollywood have always done this - recycling old ideas in new wrapping. Yes, but I think it's safe to say that there were a lot more original movies a few decades ago than there are now. Hollywood used to take more risks. >According to Wikipedia, Aladdin grossed "$923.7 million, against a production budget of $183 million". So despite you and your nephew, Disney seem to manage OK. Exactly. People are bemoaning the current state of Hollywood, but it's extremely profitable, and that's all that really matters to them. There's no shortage of paying customers willing to see the latest sequel/prequel/remake/reboot. Sure, they might lose a few ticket sales from people like me and this OP and his nephew, but it's more than made up for by countless others who just don't care and want entertainment. And yes, they might make more profit on a really great original movie (like the original Star Wars in 1977), but that's also a big risk and it might flop and be a giant loss, so they tend to shy away from such things now and make safer movies that have an almost guaranteed profit, even if it isn't as much.

BurningCycles 7y ago
Just to be clear, out of the gross $920 million, Disney get ~50%, and the production budget of $180 million does not include advertising/promotion which is reportedly in the range of $50-100 million for big releases such as this. That said it's still making good money and will make even more after the box office run.
liber8 7y ago
"Hollywood" has never, ever taken more risks than they are taking today. Netflix alone spent $12 billion on new content in 2018. They expect to spend $15 billion in 2019, and expect this to hit almost $18 billion in 2020.[1] There is more new, original content being produced than anyone could ever expect to watch in one lifetime. Compare this to a few decades ago when you had 3 or 4 networks on TV each making a dozen or so shows each year, and a handful of studios producing movies (many of them remakes from the 30s, 40s, and 50s). Everyone seems to view "Hollywood" with rose colored glasses. The medium through which people consume entertainment certainly seems like it is starting to change, but that doesn't mean "Hollywood" is dead or dying. The exact opposite is happening. [1] https://variety.com/2019/digital/news/netflix-content-spending-2019-15-billion-1203112090/ https://variety.com/2019/digital/news/netflix-content-spendi...
- ravenstine 7y ago
  What are we defining as "Hollywood" here? Is Netflix really considered the same thing as the studios that produce the blockbusters?
  - jedberg 7y ago
    They share the same offices and employees move back and forth between them, so yeah, I'd say they're the same.
  - liber8 7y ago
    Your statement begs the question. The OP said "Hollywood" doesn't produce as much original content as it did decades ago. When I point out that there is more original content being created today than ever (probably on the order of several magnitudes) simply because it's cheaper than ever to produce original content, the only thing you mention is "blockbusters". Clearly, the production of blockbusters has nothing to do with the amount of original content being created. Why differentiate Netflix from the rest of "Hollywood"? (Remember, Netflix won an Oscar last year.) For that matter, why overlook the dozens of smaller or independent shops that are producing original content in staggering amounts, regardless of how that content is being distributed? But, if you want to talk about more traditional blockbusters, Netflix makes plenty of those (arguably more than many traditional studios).
- SergeAx 7y ago
  Oh, please. With all the questions for Hollywood, it's worst creations are still much better than any TV-serie ever made. When they produce a movie, they want to sell it to auditory, to lure us into theaters and make to pay for tickets. They are attaching stars and buying stories and making trailers and posters. The only purpose of TV-serie is to work out a Pavlov dog reflex: they want us to be before a TV every week at the same time. So they are making cliffhangers and misterious faces, and are filling all the emptyness with action scenes and dialogs. NB: I am aware that some of Netflix production are not series but feature movies.
  - icebraining 7y ago
majormajor 7y ago
> Yes, but I think it's safe to say that there were a lot more original movies a few decades ago than there are now. Hollywood used to take more risks. It's harder to get people to go to the theater due to a bunch of factors like improved TV tech and increased competition for time, but "hollywood" is also capitalizing on those things. Look at how many original series are on Amazon, Hulu, Netflix, etc, and compare that to what we had 30 years ago between theaters and TV.
- scarface74 7y ago
  Not according to the numbers. https://www.boxofficemojo.com/yearly/?view2=ytdcompare https://www.boxofficemojo.com/yearly/?view2=ytdcompare
  - TylerE 7y ago
    That doesn't take inflation into account though. You'd expect it to go up 3-4% in $ terms even if sales were the same. That the number is actually flat over the last 4 years does mean sales are down a bit. The $6.05B 2016 figure would be about $6.45B in 2019 dollars. Box office trends have been shifting over the last decade or so... the big blockbusters (superhero movies especially) are bigger and bigger, but the mid-budget stuff that was a mainstay of the 90s and early 2000s (think stuff like Will Ferrell and Adam Sandler movies) is getting squeezed pretty hard. To give one look at the distribution.... last year the 100th best performing movie did ($21.7M / $700M) = 3.1% of the #1 movie. In 2010, ($26.5M / $415M) = 6.38% In 2000, ($18.7M / 260M) = 7.19%
goto11 7y ago
> I think it's safe to say that there were a lot more original movies a few decades ago This probably depends on your definition of original. Franchises dominates today, but lots of older movies are based on books or plays or are remakes of even older movies.
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
TylerE 7y ago
> Yes, but I think it's safe to say that there were a lot more original movies a few decades ago than there are now. This is false. Sequels and book adaptions have dominated the top 10 every year for decades and decades.
- mc32 7y ago
  Right. Movies don’t come out of thin air. They all need inspiration whether a book, a story, news item, etc. Its not writers making movie scripts ala SNL sketches.
  - icebraining 7y ago
    I'd say all art needs inspiration, but there are certainly plenty of screenplays (just like theater plays) that don't come from a single item. As a random example, Woody Allen came up with the title "Midnight in Paris", then wrote the whole screenplay from the title.
WalterBright 7y ago
I complained to Trekkie friend that nothing since Star Trek TOS has Star Trek been any good. He asked what evidence I had. I said the lack of quotable lines. I know a long list of TOS quotable lines, and exactly one from after ("KKKAAAAAAHHHHHNNNNNN!"). No quotable lines means the writing is crummy and the shows are not memorable. The same for Star Wars. Who quotes any lines from other than the first one? I stopped watching the SW new movies, too. Zzzzzz....
JetSpiegel 7y ago
> Yes, but I think it's safe to say that there were a lot more original movies a few decades ago than there are now. Hollywood used to take more risks. Casablanca was a remake of another Casablanca 10 years before, but I believe this previous Casablanca is now lost.

by magduf 7y ago

BurningCycles 7y ago

Just to be clear, out of the gross $920 million, Disney get ~50%, and the production budget of $180 million does not include advertising/promotion which is reportedly in the range of $50-100 million for big releases such as this. That said it's still making good money and will make even more after the box office run.

liber8 7y ago

"Hollywood" has never, ever taken more risks than they are taking today. Netflix alone spent $12 billion on new content in 2018. They expect to spend $15 billion in 2019, and expect this to hit almost $18 billion in 2020.[1] There is more new, original content being produced than anyone could ever expect to watch in one lifetime. Compare this to a few decades ago when you had 3 or 4 networks on TV each making a dozen or so shows each year, and a handful of studios producing movies (many of them remakes from the 30s, 40s, and 50s). Everyone seems to view "Hollywood" with rose colored glasses. The medium through which people consume entertainment certainly seems like it is starting to change, but that doesn't mean "Hollywood" is dead or dying. The exact opposite is happening. [1] https://variety.com/2019/digital/news/netflix-content-spending-2019-15-billion-1203112090/ https://variety.com/2019/digital/news/netflix-content-spendi...

ravenstine 7y ago
What are we defining as "Hollywood" here? Is Netflix really considered the same thing as the studios that produce the blockbusters?
- jedberg 7y ago
  They share the same offices and employees move back and forth between them, so yeah, I'd say they're the same.
- liber8 7y ago
  Your statement begs the question. The OP said "Hollywood" doesn't produce as much original content as it did decades ago. When I point out that there is more original content being created today than ever (probably on the order of several magnitudes) simply because it's cheaper than ever to produce original content, the only thing you mention is "blockbusters". Clearly, the production of blockbusters has nothing to do with the amount of original content being created. Why differentiate Netflix from the rest of "Hollywood"? (Remember, Netflix won an Oscar last year.) For that matter, why overlook the dozens of smaller or independent shops that are producing original content in staggering amounts, regardless of how that content is being distributed? But, if you want to talk about more traditional blockbusters, Netflix makes plenty of those (arguably more than many traditional studios).
SergeAx 7y ago
Oh, please. With all the questions for Hollywood, it's worst creations are still much better than any TV-serie ever made. When they produce a movie, they want to sell it to auditory, to lure us into theaters and make to pay for tickets. They are attaching stars and buying stories and making trailers and posters. The only purpose of TV-serie is to work out a Pavlov dog reflex: they want us to be before a TV every week at the same time. So they are making cliffhangers and misterious faces, and are filling all the emptyness with action scenes and dialogs. NB: I am aware that some of Netflix production are not series but feature movies.
- icebraining 7y ago

majormajor 7y ago

> Yes, but I think it's safe to say that there were a lot more original movies a few decades ago than there are now. Hollywood used to take more risks. It's harder to get people to go to the theater due to a bunch of factors like improved TV tech and increased competition for time, but "hollywood" is also capitalizing on those things. Look at how many original series are on Amazon, Hulu, Netflix, etc, and compare that to what we had 30 years ago between theaters and TV.

scarface74 7y ago
Not according to the numbers. https://www.boxofficemojo.com/yearly/?view2=ytdcompare https://www.boxofficemojo.com/yearly/?view2=ytdcompare
- TylerE 7y ago
  That doesn't take inflation into account though. You'd expect it to go up 3-4% in $ terms even if sales were the same. That the number is actually flat over the last 4 years does mean sales are down a bit. The $6.05B 2016 figure would be about $6.45B in 2019 dollars. Box office trends have been shifting over the last decade or so... the big blockbusters (superhero movies especially) are bigger and bigger, but the mid-budget stuff that was a mainstay of the 90s and early 2000s (think stuff like Will Ferrell and Adam Sandler movies) is getting squeezed pretty hard. To give one look at the distribution.... last year the 100th best performing movie did ($21.7M / $700M) = 3.1% of the #1 movie. In 2010, ($26.5M / $415M) = 6.38% In 2000, ($18.7M / 260M) = 7.19%

goto11 7y ago

> I think it's safe to say that there were a lot more original movies a few decades ago This probably depends on your definition of original. Franchises dominates today, but lots of older movies are based on books or plays or are remakes of even older movies.

deleted 7y ago
[deleted]

TylerE 7y ago

> Yes, but I think it's safe to say that there were a lot more original movies a few decades ago than there are now. This is false. Sequels and book adaptions have dominated the top 10 every year for decades and decades.

mc32 7y ago
Right. Movies don’t come out of thin air. They all need inspiration whether a book, a story, news item, etc. Its not writers making movie scripts ala SNL sketches.
- icebraining 7y ago
  I'd say all art needs inspiration, but there are certainly plenty of screenplays (just like theater plays) that don't come from a single item. As a random example, Woody Allen came up with the title "Midnight in Paris", then wrote the whole screenplay from the title.

WalterBright 7y ago

I complained to Trekkie friend that nothing since Star Trek TOS has Star Trek been any good. He asked what evidence I had. I said the lack of quotable lines. I know a long list of TOS quotable lines, and exactly one from after ("KKKAAAAAAHHHHHNNNNNN!"). No quotable lines means the writing is crummy and the shows are not memorable. The same for Star Wars. Who quotes any lines from other than the first one? I stopped watching the SW new movies, too. Zzzzzz....

JetSpiegel 7y ago

> Yes, but I think it's safe to say that there were a lot more original movies a few decades ago than there are now. Hollywood used to take more risks. Casablanca was a remake of another Casablanca 10 years before, but I believe this previous Casablanca is now lost.