This is what the Box Office Chart looks like when you remove sequels and films based on pre-established characters. I only add that pre-established characters part because one of you autists will argue The Avengers isn't a sequel.
Why don't people see original films?
I'm not removing films that are similar to other films. Then there would be nothing left. I'm removing films based on preexisting franchises.
You'd probably have a better argument with Frozen, as one could probably argue Disney animation is a franchise in and of itself. But too bad, I'm not removing that anyway
>being an original IP matters more than quality
Frozen, Titanic and Avatar are some of the worst movies on that list.
If I might play devil's advocate for a moment, films based on established franchises are simply more likely to be good.
Sure, there are a lot of great indie masterpieces out there, but for every great indie movie there are hundreds upon hundreds of crappy indie garbage with bad actors and impossible to understand plot.
When you go to see a film from an established franchise, you know that they have enough budget and corporate oversight to assure that they have decent actors, a good director, enough budget for quality special effects, etc.
Furthermore, you will know ahead of time what the genre and setting are without having to read spoilers about the plot from reviews.
So, for almost all consumers, it is the correct choice to see a film based on an existing franchise rather than a new film.
There was a recent article in one of the big newspapers that mentioned that even though the overall box office is growing, it is increasingly being done by a smaller number of movies
this means the majority of the public are really only going out to see movies that are basically cultural event type movies (aka well established properties) and everything else is trending downward
combined with much smaller margins for DVDs and anything else beyond opening weekend, its obvious hollywood is going to continue to keep making movies based on established names so they can get that initial excitement
Cinema is experiencing late-capitalism. Essentially look at video games as guidance for how this will go, since the games industry has been an accelerated market of this concept.
Original ideas have too much risk. As long as consumers are happy to watch another iteration of the same schlock, that's what they'll get.
Similarly any venture that will exclude significant portions of the audience, such as an age rating >12A or complex content, will be avoided. These smaller areas will be markets in themselves of course, but the mainstay of big hollywood movies will be childrens films with a few adult jokes so that 24 year-olds can convince themselves it's different from watching powerpuff girls.
this desu desu senpai
Franchises are simply what's popular now and for the most part they are satisfying, some are even pretty great, whether you're a fan of the genre are not. Superhero's wont be what's popular forever. Something will change, and they'll be the blockbusters of their day. Fuck knows what they'll be though.
>they're preventing art house films from becoming billion dollar blockbusters
I am 31 years old. Star Wars set back cinema more than any other series in the history of the medium. Without Star Wars we wouldn't have adults queuing up to worship capeshit superheroes.
Have you ever considered that the reason people go out and watch capeshit is because
they want to not everyone wants to go out and have a good night watching shitty french black and white arthouse films you NEET film critic wannabe faggot.
>KILLING KIDS OFF SCREEN MAKES FOR A MATURE AND GRITTY MOVIE
Don't ever compare this bullshit maturity. This is cartoon animation compared to being beaten and buried alive like Casino.
Titanic's tone and narrative emphasis are nothing like A Night To Remember, and both are "borrowing" from events that actually happened, using the same accounts as source material.