3 ms·

Okay, excluding superhero movies and franchises You've cherry picked huge hits across decades... I'm saying generally if the budget is >$100million and it's a

• slg 5y ago
  And you cherry-picked movies that disappointed. Of course it is harder to find successful movies once you make the condition of ignoring franchises. Franchises come from successful movies. Valerian's lack of success wasn't caused by it not being a franchise movie. It wasn't a franchise because it wasn't successful enough. There would have been a sequel if it made $500m.
  • firasd 5y ago
    Right, so the consistent thing to measure is if the first movie was a hit. So yes, Jurassic Park (1993) is a counter-example to my point. But the sequels are not covered by the rule of thumb I could be wrong (and potentially this 'big budgets are risky' is the case with big movies movies in general, not only big sci-fi movies.) Just an impression I've been developing
    • slg 5y ago
      Very few original movies will end up being major successes. You look at the top grossing movies of every year and they are mostly franchises, adaptations, and remakes. This has been true for decades and applies to all genres. Yes, big movies are in general a risk. Sci-fi movies often have high budgets due to nature of the genre so they come with risk, but I don't think the genre fails at an abnormally large rate compared to other genres.