Hey everyone - so as happens, I made an error in not listing Avatar as the highest grossing original film of 2009. No excuse other than trying to juggle too much information. So to correct a couple of things, it’s the only time since 1998 that an original film has been #1, and it moves the average position of the highest grossing original film in the 2000s from 4.7 to 4.3. I apologize for the error.
Those are more independent films, though. Unfortunately, the vast majority of original studio blockbuster films are not good. I struggle to think of a big budget studio film that was not bad (excluding Disney Animation and PIXAR, which is kind of its own brand). Interstellar comes to mind, but that was nearly a decade ago. Most original blockbusters that I can think of are something like Moonfall or Jupiter Ascending. If studios want original films to succeed, they need to be worth watching. Most original studio films are the mid tier budgeted film, which are unlikely to make more than 200 million dollars worldwide, and if they do flop, will likely make their money back on streaming.
The difference between original movie before vs today is before original movie is not boring. Exmple a24 movie most of there movies are boring and weird. If you look the movies before exmple independence day jurassic park there not boring compare to what a24 doing. That solution is if do a original movie try to copy what lords of the ring and batman trilogy of nolan style. Great story plus action packed. Thats the only solution.
@@carloconopio6513Independence Day and Jurassic Park are not really comparable to what A24 are doing. They were big budget blockbusters. A24 is more cult movies, normally with smaller budgets that utilise social media marketing. Very different target audience too.
One other factor I think is prestige TV. I think stuff like the bear or succession that are huge shows that are original dramas are where a lot of those great original ideas are going. Also, for some reason, there are people who would watch 40 hours of a show but never watch that same premise or story as a movie
I'm the complete opposite. Some of these show ideas I would watch if condensed into a movie form but since they are a show with hours and hours of content, I usually never even bother attempting to get into it. I don't want to waste my time with a bunch of useless filler and generic drama to needlessly extend the length. Don't feel like getting invested in something like the walking dead, which I watched up to 7 seasons and then completely lose interest in it and feels like a waste. Or have a show that is really interesting, all to be canceled after the first season. I will 100% watch a movie over a show. The only shows I would consistently watch are things like sitcoms which can be more casually viewed and often times the episodes don't even connect between one another
Well, prior to the streaming age, there also is significantly less investment as viewer. Prestige TV arguably peaked with cable TV. Instead of paying a significant chunk of change, say 20-30 dollars in say 2010 for a date night, you just turn on Breaking Bad and Mad Men where the cost was already included in something you already heavily used. And from the studio side, this lets you take more chances since even if a show flops (hello Rubicon from that same year, 2010) you’re still getting your cut of the cable subscription price.
I think the question is better framed as “what happened to BIG original movies?” I see lots of comments here already about a24 and others backing loads of original films. But the blockbuster original film is very much missing. It’s been a joy the past year to introduce my eldest daughter now to some of my favorite big films like Speed, Back To The Future, Inception, and many more. We were trying to catch her up in the MCU but, as much as I like many of those films, it got exhausting and haven’t been past Iron Man 3 for several years now
@@jesseowenvillamor6348 They did. You've seen one, you pretty much have seen them all. I don't want to hear they are all "different" either because they aren't. The all pretty much have the same tone, humour, and usually involve a save the world scenario from generic bad guy at the end with massive spectacle. Yawn. Name me one other "political thriller" that ends with a doomsday device, because that's what happened at the end of winter soldier.
What you haven't mentioned is the decline, or non existence of new movie stars. Most movies in the 80s and 90s were carried by the stars, people would turn up for the latest tom cruise, will Smith, stallone, Ford movie, their name would be in a bigger typeface than the actual movie on the poster. People would turn up regardless if the movie was original or not. Unfortunately today there are no other actors who can command such an audience.
@@halane4790 Not at all. They're fortunate enough to be part of IPs that sell themselves. Dune, Wonka, Greatest Showman, MCU Spiderman trilogy are huge stories that would have been seen if they weren't cast. When they're in smaller/indie fare sold primarily on their names? Flop. Chalamet in Bones and All: flop. Chalamet in The King: flop. Zendaya in Challengers: flop. Chalamet is smart-- he's gonna play Bob Dylan in his next movie, but Zendaya needs to find another big property before everyone else starts realizing it is _she_ that is not worth the money, not the property, or at least not _only_ the property.
Due to competitions from the internet and social media, most films have to be IP, remakes, adaptation or sequels to help grab the audience members attention. Most people unfortunately won’t take the risk with an original film. A lot of that is because of how expensive it is to go to the movies now. So Hollywood responds to the current market by making less original movies. But it’s great when we get a quality original movie out of nowhere once in a while.
I’m not sure most stuff is from old IP. Just that most stuff that makes money is from old IP. Netflix and all the other services make way too much content per year for it to be mostly remakes and sequels.
That's just companies not willing to take any risks. All original IPs have potential to succeed as much as pre-social media films with the right marketing. They can learn to adapt to new internet trends (making edits, creating trends, boosting memes, promoting soundtracks via social media etc.) Spiderman Across the Spidervierse and Barbie had great media campaigns and they both performed extremely well.
People did not stop watching original movies, contrary to popular opinion. Studios found out that sequels, remakes, and anything related to recognizable IP did better than original movies and discarded original movies mainly to streaming services. Studios continued to just pump out whatever they THOUGHT people would want, and in reaction, general audiences just became complacent.
@@miz4535 Those films flopped because the complacency that studios left audiences with in regards to digesting just sequels, reboots, etc, etc made people uncertain of how to take original films. So it is a loop, but mainly one that studios perpetuated because of their bottom line being more important than risky original films being made you know?
There's a bitter irony that all of the highest grossing original movies from post 2000 (except Frozen which was made by Disney proper) are from studios that were swallowed up by Disney and now all have at least one sequel and probably more on the way.
People keep saying this, but the moment a sequel or franchise movie gets released, they rush to watch them. I mean Inside Out 2 is a recent example, that movies grossed 1.2 billion dollars
While Elemental had to limp to profitability. Quality notwithstanding, I think in a different time, that one would have done just fine and not have to struggle to find its audience like it had to
I think another factor is budget. With movies needing to make 700, 800, or 900 million dollars because they have a 250+ million-dollar budget, the risk is too big for an original film. I think if Hollywood went back to making movies on a 10-to-90-million-dollar budget (more so than they do now), they probably wouldn't need to be as risk averse as they are.
Yep for sure - and a huge issue is the number of reshoots and edits in ‘too big to fail’ movies that balloon budgets. Can you imagine saying a 100M movie was not that expensive 10+ years ago lol
Honestly if they could get things to less than 100 mil that would be great! Also kinda off topic these big budget movies look like green screens even the Amazon roadhouse remake
The problem is movie tickets are too expensive these days for most people to spend money on something they’re not sure they’ll like. There’s no more “oh I’ll take a chance on this one.” You can’t afford to do that when you’re spending upwards of $30 per visit.
I agree with you both. They prefer to have empty spaces projecting a movie than lower ticket and candy prices. In each country is the same (I live in Spain)
I pay $25 a month for AMC A List & get 3 movies per week, in IMAX & Dolby formats also Regal offers many movies for $5 AMC discounts tickets everyday for showings before 4 pm I’m not saying it’s cheap, but people just aren’t doing enough research imo
@@uguess94 I have A list too and that’s how I’m able to see indie films in theaters. Most casual movie watchers don’t care enough to plan ahead to go on specific days though.
I pay 21$ per month and get unlimited movies. Upgrades to premium screens (which are nothing as good as Dolby or laser imax) still.. I get free popcorn here and there w promotions. I can’t really utilize it since I had back surgeries that have sucked. But….. Movies are SHITTTE. There are decent standouts here and there (top gun, 1917(?) The Green Knight, Jo Jo rabbit, etc ) But the standout big budget summer movies have been C&$@. Godzilla -one is so rare. There is too much of “THE MESSAGGEE”. It’s affecting things for sure. People don’t wanna take their kid to something they shouldn’t even be knowing about yet
I’ve been saying this for a while now too. The ones complaining about them not having any original movies somehow can’t grasp the fact that the ones that aren’t original movies are the ones making the most money it’s crazy
I think we need to distinguish original blockbuster-type films with original indie/niche films. Original blockbuster films can be made but you need the right ingredients - director, script, marketing team, acting, effects team, etc. In the 80’s and 90’s we had a high standard of these ingredients, but now we are sorely lacking and the studios know this. So it forces them to turn to sequels to make money.
Another problem, i find, is the fact that many of these original films only last a week in theaters when the opening weekend is lackluster. I managed to barely, just barely, go watch kinds of kindness and then once I recommended it to people, its showings vanished
Yeah I think it's a stated vs revealed preference. People say they want original movies but if you look at what's making money, it's IP based stuff, regardless of quality.
They used to cherish the magic and life of these films... Now, it's just a soulless husk with no real meaning or reason to be here other than profit. It's the sad reality that seems to get worse on not just Disney's end, but everyone is facing the same issues.
CGI becoming normalized has allowed for so many IP brands to become realized on screen that audiences are choosing mainly to go to those films. Original movies thrived in an era where CGI was still limited in some capacity. Now that it's easy to access, big studios see it as an easy way to print money. Audiences are to blame for this too. The death of physical media has also made it hard for studios to justify a mid-budget film, as they used to make their money through a bulk of DVD, video sales. Without physical media being a huge source of revenue anymore, you only have smaller films and gigantic budgeted films. Nothing in-between.
Dan I’ve done lots of reading on this subject in the last few months and your analysis was excellent. I’ll only quibble with you on one point: It’s less straightforward in the cycle of ‘this is what audiences want, so this is what we’ll give them”, because after a certain point there’s a strong layer of “we will make what we want, and we will tell you that you like it”. And for a long clip in the 2010s until recently, I think it gradually settled into that sort of ‘brainwash’, BUT, I feel a renaissance in the air. I do think Hollywood is in the midst of developing the next generation of bankable movie stars, and, fingers crossed, their starpower will get a few more originals made each year
My team at work often discusses movies. I am the only one on the team that watches smaller films in theaters. The rest of them state they don't want to spend the money on something they don't know if they will like. Also, close to half of the team prefers movies they can just sit back and have it wash over them without thinking about it. They flat out state they don't care too much if the plot is predictable. They just want the spectacle. I started trying to get them to watch some other films after it his streaming, but now just realized that I am in the minority. They enjoy the Marvel, Sttar Wars, and huge blockbusters, and I enjoy the smaller original. Nothing wrong with their tastes - it just doesn't match mine. It does make me try seeing more of the movies I like in theaters to show support (and to make sure I don't miss them)
Agree. I tend to like both. I saw both Ghostlight and Touch (indie movies) but I'm also excited for Deadpool and Wolverine, so I like both. But it is tricky. also with independent movies it's hard to know when they'll end up on streaming so that also incentivizes me to see them.
21st century corporate culture... Art and creativity require risk and audacity, but bean counters and stock holders are extremely risk averse. So the studios they control put out what market research shows will statistically provided the highest financial yield.
Yeah, not to say they’re all bad, but studios want box office and recognizable titles. Low hanging fruit, but many execs only care about money not creativity.
@@Locusto199 I'd say the quality of a movie don't reflect much on open weekend but rather on the drop off. The open weekend is more impacted by interest and audience is not showing up.
No, I think original ideas can be made into creatively strong movies, and people DO go to see them...just not EVERYBODY goes to see them. IOW, the studios only want grand slam home runs and view everything else as failure. It's the old "There is no "second place", only 'first loser', hyuck hyuck" attitude. I think that's a poor attitude for competitive endeavors and total crap for creative ones, even when the "victory condition" can be measured in $$$.
@@LeonardoMenezes03 I loved the speech that the writer/director of American Fiction gave at the Oscar’s. I forgot exactly, but his point was instead of a 200 million dollar film, make ten 20 million budget films, ones that will make make a profit and put creative filmmakers on the map. Unfortunately, the studios want a billion dollar film most of the time, tho there’s obviously great exceptions like A24 or Blumhouse.
Great analysis Dan, I’d love to see you do a video where you showcase your favourite original films of the last 10-20 years. I’m guessing most of them would be smaller films that don’t get enough spotlight.
I think one of the reasons we rarely see great, mass-appeal original franchises anymore is simply that the culture has changed so much. (in particular, the American culture). Many of the character/story tropes that Hollywood traditionally relied upon (e.g. largely male cast, often mainly white, gender archetypes, heroic man rescues woman, two guys compete romantically for a woman) are now frowned upon as problematic or non-progressive. This includes the idea of showing the old days in nostalgic fashion ('Back to the Future') or having adventurers fighting off natives or going to foreign lands to procure archeological treasures (Indianna Jones) or explorers/soldiers fighting any group considered a minority (many westerns, 'Zulu' etc.). However, whether we liked them or not, those traditional tropes/archetypes were proven to resonate with audiences (which is why they often go back thousands of years in myths/legends etc.). It can be very difficult to tell compelling stories without those traditional character/story tropes. And attempts to replace them with new, more progressive character/story tropes simply haven't resonated as well with the masses. Marvel is a great example of this. They started off producing traditional super-hero material (based on very old characters) and drew a huge (largely male) audience. Then Kevin Fiege declared that the MCU would have focus on female heroines (specifically stating they would outnumber the males) because he presumably saw it as the 'correct' thing to do - even though female superheroes have generally never been as popular. At the same time, the MCU pivoted for a less sincere, post-modernist, subversive approach that undermined the heroic nature of many of their male heroes. It probably didn't help that they also went out of their way to hire creators who, while commendably from diverse backgrounds, appeared to have very little affinity for the source material. The result has been sadly predictable. Apart from simply trying to give audiences what they wanted to see, 'old Hollywood' also generally tried to avoid elements that alienated significant parts of the audience (at least for 'big' movies). This meant any controversial 'messages' (if indeed they were any) were often presented as more subtle allegories. But in today's culture, 'activism' (for want of a better word) is seen as a necessary virtue - so many film-makers don't want to disguise their ideological voice. This can, of course, still make for great movies...but it isn't a great approach for expensive films as it can also alienate much of the potential audience. With new attempts at franchises failing to resonate, studios naturally fall back so often on old, proven brands/properties with pre-existing audiences instead. But, of course, they often still do them in the new, post-modern way. Sadly, this often results in great division/bitterness amongst fanbases, as well as disappointing box office returns. But, that's just my thoughts.
Factually, there are more original/new IP movies today than there was in the 80's/90's. Just read an article on this. People forget the 80's/90's were the decades of sequels.
I know right. It's about word of mouth for what's a "must see" but those movies even with inflation had lower budgets and those movies with target audiences were enough to make those movies a hit (Horror, dramas, etc)
There are more movies of all kinds now than in the 80s and 90s. This video is about which films earned the most and why the studios are investing in those films.
One thing that changed in the mid 90s was the shortening of the release window between the US and the rest of the world, specifically the UK. Pirating was massive in the 80s/90s, driven a lot by the release delay and easy copying of VHS then DVD. By shortening the window, the rest of the world could get caught up in the initial hype from the US and get to watch movies on the big screen earlier instead of settling for dodgy copy.
2000-2002 changed everything. Huge years in cinema. Immediately after the turn of the millennium, we got X-Men, Harry Potter, Lord of the Rings, and Spider-Man. Built-in audiences were the big name in town ever since.
To even make people show up to a theater (with home theaters, surround sound, streaming, etc) it’s either got to be a family film bc you want to take them out of the house, or a massive blockbuster like Endgame or Top Gun Maverick or Dune 2. Back in the 90’s our home TVs sucked, you couldn’t watch movies on demand, and theaters were cheap. But even then society started shifting toward home rentals for a lot of these mid budget films. Tarantino, David Fincher, Guy Ritchie, and even Kevin Smith were becoming super popular from rentals among friends. They were not pulling in massive box office numbers. I would say that creative, independent effort flowed into prestige TV as blockbusters were becoming more corporate and franchise based. The 2000’s and 2010’s were where the Sopranos, Breaking Bad, Walking Dead, Mad Men, Mr Robot, Band of Brothers, etc. were showing that really high quality TV could be made with essentially film level production or budgets. Now if you were a creative with a strong idea you have a much better shot making the show on Netflix or Amazon instead of trying to convince a studio to give you hundreds of millions on a new idea.
Walt Disney said, "If you can dream it, you can do it, and don't let anybody say you can't." This is my biggest dream goal of bringing the 2-D animated style from Disney once again, and I'll save Hollywood for stopping all this ridiculous madness.
I’m 1000% on board for original films - wish even more of them focused on creating a satisfying singular experience rather than trying to set up a franchise
One major part you left out was that Hollywood use to justify the more risky prestige project (rocky, rainman etc) with the trusty tent polls (blockbusters) as well as recouping prestige cost in the long run thru home release. When the floor dropped out on home release in 2009 and theatrical release became more hit and miss for a number of reasons studios started playing it safe investing in known IP with established broad base.
the disappearance of the original movie and the mid-budget movie seems to be hand in hand in this. as films become more and more expensive, producers become more and more conservative. everything needs to have an already existing IP attached to it to "ensure" that investments will be returned and profits made. and because movies are more and more expensive to go out and see, people feel like they only get their "money's worth" if they go out to see a huge CGI blockbuster rather than a comedy or drama, and so those are the only ones that make money, and are the only ones picked up and screened by distributors. its a vicious cycle. coupled by the abundance of other media, or even just other platforms to watch movies in like streaming, or the rise of prestige television which is somehow seen as easier point of entry when they cumulatively take more time investment
One thing to stipulate about this comparison is sample size and metric. While it's evident that sequels and franchised are succeeding more, it has to be said there are also more sequels and franchises to succeed. Therefore, of course, there will be more. A followup chart may want to look at the success of the Top original movies in comparison to each other, instead of in comparison to the overall landscape. In 1998 Rush Hour made hundreds of millions. In 2016 The Nice Guys flop harder than wet toast. In the 80s, Rambo First Blood made 10x it's budget. In the 2010s, John Wick barely made its money back.
I figured that the increasing stakes in making global movies made studios risk-averse, therefore incentivizing sequels, but I wasn't aware that the average performance of original films were actually dropping
I think you proved why I enjoy 80's & 90's movies more than movies made today. Seems like the studios would try out some new ideas from visionary directors & we would get some crazy films. Sequel-city nowadays.
You can throw in Searchlight with those two. They keep churning out original stuff on a regular basis. Sure they’re owned by Disney, but they retained autonomy under Disney while 20th Century Studios did not.
A lot of people don't watch "regular" TV with commercials anymore. I know I don't, and we use ad blocker and I have UA-cam Premium. If I don't actively check my theater I won't hear of the smaller films. I don't see any movie from DCU, MCU, whatever. I've seen 2 movies in the theater this year and they were Alien anniversary re-release and Blair Witch Project re-release.
To be fair. Every subsequent year has more movies to base sequels and reboots on. Comparing the 80s to now is tough because we have so many more movies/IPs to use.
As a hardcore movie fan i certainly learnt some perspectices here i wasnt aware of. One thing you didnt touch on however is how the industry has focussed on specific genres of films over the decades, right now we are still in the 'SuperHero' era, but previous decades had: SciFi, Cop & BuddyCop, Westerns, War, Action movies as favorite genres for that period of time.
A big change has been the bankability of star power. It was a lot easier to sell an original movie when people would come out to see anything with Tom Cruise in it for example.
It's refreshing seeing someone acknowledge the Lion King as an original movie. I would argue it's actually Walt Disney Animation's first original movie, since everything before the Lion King was based on a book or fairy tail (if you don't count those war-time anthologies they made, but do those really count as feature-length movies?), but when I tell people that, their first question is usually "well isn't it based on Hamlet?" I've even heard people go as far as to say that it's an ADAPTATION of Hamlet, which I think is clearly only something someone would say if they hadn't actually seen or read the play, or don't remember it from school all that well. I haven't read it since school, but even I know it's a very different story. If you watch behind the scenes documentaries of the Lion King, the storywriters will usually tell a story about how they set out to write an original tale about lions being king in Africa, and realized only part of the way through how similar their ideas were to shakespeare, and decided to lean in on it a bit. (SPOILERS FOR LION KING) So yes, they're both stories where an apparition of the main character's father comes to tell him to seize the the throne from a usurper, but the similarities pretty much end there. This scene happens very near the beginning of Hamlet, and the whole first two acts of the Lion King where Simba is manipulated into blaming himself for his father's death and turns to a life of escapism is completely absent from Hamlet. When Hamlet's father asks him to take the throne, it's purely to get revenge for his murder, and Hamlet doesn't even want to do it and doesn't even believe his father is even telling the truth at first. Mufasa doesn't even tell Simba that he was murdered, and simply tells him to remember who he is and assume the throne purely out of a sense of responsibility and duty, and as a way to face his fears. The apparition scene in Hamlet sets the plot in motion, but in the Lion King, it's this pivotal turning point where the main character realizes what he's been doing wrong this whole time, and sets the stage for the final act. If you had watched the first hour of the Lion King and turned it off right before the mufasa cloud scene, you would have experienced so much development of the story, and the only similarity you would find between it and Hamlet is that there is a king. That's it. They're completely different stories, and only have that one (admittedly pretty specific) similarity.
To quote Guillermo del Toro. Definitely want to save Hollywood for getting my dream job and stop all this madness in today's world. "Animation is Cinema." "Animation is not just a genre for kids."
Before watching the video: I would argue very few movies were actually original concepts. The majority of studio films have always been either based on books/plays or based on true stories/events. Films that have dropped off are high concept films like Top Gun or Volcano. Obviously many more studios films are from a franchise now, and studios should start taking more risks on new adaptations (or readaptations), but I don’t know if I ever considered studios to be wholly original. After watching the video: Unfortunately, the vast majority of original studio blockbuster films are not good. I struggle to think of a big budget studio film that was not bad (excluding Disney Animation and PIXAR, which is kind of its own brand). Interstellar comes to mind, but that was nearly a decade ago. Most original blockbusters that I can think of are something like Moonfall or Jupiter Ascending. If studios want original films to succeed, they need to be worth watching. Most original studio films are the mid tier budgeted film, which are unlikely to make more than 200 million dollars worldwide, and if they do flop, will likely make their money back on streaming.
I think in the 2000's the studios made a deliberate choice to be in the IP business rather than the movie star business. In the back half of the 90's actors like Jim Carrey broke the $20 million mark. Time was you could launch an original story on the back of a successful movie star. But when movies like the Lord of the Rings and Harry Potter franchises took off (and I know they still had stars, but no one was charging tens of millions) the need for a movie star to be successful was gone.
They’re on streaming. The excuse “well, studios make them but nobody sees them!” is vacuous. Being original doesn’t equate being good or marketable. Studios need to make more original theatrical content that’s good and marketable
@@thedarkemissary Fall guy looked like the most reddit movie of all time. I saw the trailers and was like nope and most of the audience felt the same. Just because something isn’t based on something doesn’t make it good or interesting
Occasionally I see a trailer for an original film I might like, but not enough to bother with going to the theater. Much more comfortable in my own home.
2D animation will never die off. In fact, in recent years, it has only gotten more popular than CGI animation. There is a way to save Disney, but it requires patience and determination to take back the magic of the company. I hope I can succeed in the end.
There are still a lot of original movies being made. But they usually have a pretty low production budget compared to the sequels of the IP-focused movie business of today.
It's a self fulfilling prophecy. Big money & marketing goes towards franchise movies which then attracts audience which the industry assumes is what the audience wants and the cycle continues...
One thing I think has contributed to this trend is the association between movie theaters and spectacle. Most original movies tend to be lower budget character dramas and with theaters becoming larger with Atmos soundsystems, 3D etc, people are less interested to spend $20 a ticket to watch people talking for 2 hours. A lot of these movies have now moved to streaming. There are exceptions like The Creator, which I paid to watch, but then not enough people went to see that and it still got criticised for being derivative.
It might not be right that executives will make more original movies if audiences support the original movies that come out. I think they’ll just make sequels, prequels, and reboots from original movies. The only thing that came from Avatar is Avatar 2, 3, 4, etc.
Really well done! However, I found one that you mentioned that doesn’t fit the rest of your criteria: 1998’s “Saving Private Ryan”. This is based off of an historical event, namely World War II.
Great video, very interesting, I love hearing your thoughts and opinions on movies themselves and the industry. I’ve been a Dan Stan since season 1 of movie fights. Thanks for sharing your thoughts!
The issue definitely seems to be everyone is afraid to lose money and the safest bet had been IP and more of it for the last 15-20 years. It’s even more severe on Broadway where it feels like 90 percent of new musicals are based on (mostly non-musical) movies. And while there’s certainly been plenty of good ones based on existing IP (Producers, Legally Blonde to name some) it’s sad that original ideas are very hard to get the funding for at this point.
I think it's underrated that the pure passage of time has contributed greatly to what studios produce/distribute. As in, we have accumulated so many widely popular franchises (or originals waiting for a sequel) that a calendar can fill up really quickly. Not surprised at all when Beetlejuice 2 was finally being made. Competition from other studios is also a contributor, no studio wants to finance an unknown quantity and put it up against Thor 4 or something of the like. A third thing is that the comfort/affordability of home streaming has essentially replaced the theater experience - so there won't be a call anytime soon for good, original stories when they're really just needing butts in the seats. An original that well outperforms expectations is still falling short of the established returns of a known commodity.
I was thinking about this in Dan's charts at the start - he compares 70+ years of movies top 50 versus 24. Breaking them down into equal chunks might highlight that the trend was not as recent (and I realize this is part of the point of the decade by decade chart, but that only starts at 1980)
@@xger21 I trust Dan's research, but I see what you're saying for sure. Some data I would be interested in seeing is what the opening weekends for originals do as opposed to a sequel. I have a feeling that originals don't often have the same ticket sales arc that an anticipated sequel would have. Even if the original steadily grows over 2 or 3 months from reviews and word of mouth, missing that big chunky opening weekend gate probably puts them in a place where they are not likely to be the highest-grossing film of that year. Even comparing the release of Ghostbusters to Ghostbusters 2 or Back to the Future to any of its sequels.
Interesting to note what has been able to sell an original movie in the last 2 decades according to your chart. 1. It's a kids movie 2. It has a big name director (Nolan, Peele, Cameron) Notice the death of the movie star. Nolan or Peele can bring people to the theater to watch their original movie, but actors cannot. Sure big name stars help, but they are no guarantee anymore. You have to have something to sell your movie on. If you can't sell the movie to adults based on a known title or an elite director, then it's probably not going to perform. In order to bring back original movies, you're going to need real stars to be in those movies. Also, crazy to note that Lucas helped create 3 of the most popular originals in the 1900s.
great quality films and series on streaming have given people less of a reason to go to a theater. you have to make a film or event that is worth the price of admission, otherwise people would rather wait since its cheaper/
Where was Everything Everywhere All At Once? I think I disagree with what you call a “success”or that being a multiblock buster hit matters as much as being good. People will always be generalists and like whats easy “nostalgic”. Thats why Movie critics are important. We need more mid level fantastic films NOT more big budget highest grosing films
He's comparing the box office trends of pre-2000s Hollywood to the post-2000s. For example; during the year in which the likes of Back to the Future 3, Die Hard 2, RoboCop 2, & Predator 2 were released; the three highest domestic earners of 1990 were Ghost, Pretty Woman, & Home Alone.
I know this is a way more technical based analysis around a certain sector of films, but I do miss as a child seeing theaters drenched in kid movie advertisements. The gigantic banners hanging from the ceiling, the cardboard cutouts, the advertisements on fast food objects, hell it got to a point where you wondered what toys Burger King would drop from your favorite movie. It’s a dull time in comparison to all that, and frankly, I don’t think I’d care if it came back at this point.
Before I watch the video, I'll just say it. Origional movies will never be dead, but their is no mainstream for new ideas to take off, since movies even based on well known properties are bombing this year because people not only can't afford movie tickets, but to the non-film buff people I know a movie is just a movie to them. People want origional movies to succeed but without the mainstream of long ago, when something new and good comes out it's very rare if it becomes a hit because not everyone keeps up with movies the same way not everyone keeps up with sports or politics. It ashamed but that's how people are.
Netflix produces numerous original films, but many of them are of poor quality. Introducing an ad-supported tier might encourage them to create more appealing, clickbait-style content aimed at a broader audience, thereby increasing ad revenue.
Great job crunching the numbers Dan! A couple of thoughts: -Isn't it also normal that original ideas for movies are harder to come by as they've most likely already been made (successfully or not)? -Isn't there a correlation between the decrease in theater viewership and the increase of traffic on pirated movie sites? There's a parallel to music there as the audience has its share of responsibility. If you want things for free (or bottom dollar), you can't expect the business to survive, especially the quality original stuff.
Mostly, what we don't see any more are blockbuster movies. I believe the last time we had one was when the Barbie movie was released last summer. Either that or movies that were once considered blockbusters (think Jurassic Park in the 90s) have been extended too far. The dinosaur craze already died out, so why bother continuing it? Otherwise, yes, I would agree. Hollywood is currently lacking in originality. This is what happens when the writers run out of ideas, and quantity is favored over quality.
As movies have gotten more expensive against already strained budgets, people go see fewer. So when they pick their few, they’re less likely to risk that choice on an unproven commodity. We used to get that feeling from the stars, but with the concept of movie stars fading away, what is the draw to an original concept other than it being original?
No wonder I find myself rewatching so many 90s movies..Fantastic analysis Dan! One quick thought though: Not every film needs to be a billion dollar hit. Maybe do this analysis against the most profitable films after 2000s - I believe more originals with trickle through (esp in Horror).
The lion king is based on the African story of a prince who was exiled and when he got older took the throne from his uncle...also see Kimba the white lion
It’s a simple question …but it is an amazing question. Thank you Dan. You have to make new stories, new icons, themes to explore and characters!!!! Not racial archetypes!!! Frailties, learning lessons, strife …you know the human journey?
THAT kind of story telling isn't welcome because it can truly speak to the things in life that make us all human. And frankly, there's an ugly force undergirding Hollywood that wants us separate and at each others' throats. Seems like, anyway,
Mystery thriller "Searching" is one of the GOAT original films in recent times, made with budget less than a million, it grossed more than 75 million. So there's a hope for good original films.
Last night I showed my boyfriend (Im 41, he’s 30) Single White Female and told him those movies were original, a great time at the movies and make tons of money! He did not know of Fatal Attraction, Basic Instinct, Ghost, Romancing the Stone, etc! I was flabbergasted
Single White Female isn't actually original (it's based on a book by John Lutz) I watched the film again recently and to me it's just a generic stalker film of the type popular around the time (influenced by the success of Fatal Attraction) maybe it holds a nostalgic value for you but I wouldn't say it's a good film. (I watched it again this year) I wouldn't be too flabbergasted someone isn't aware of films released before they were born; especially if they're just a casual viewer/not really interested in cinema or seeking out older films/music etc. A lot of young people haven't heard of ET let alone Romancing the Stone.
The Beekeeper was also a recently released original action film. And I recently saw an original scifi flick from 2021 that went largely under the radar called 57 minutes as others have said original movies are still being made but Hollyweird mostly promotes reboots, sequels, prequels and that sort of stuff
You have it backwards. The studio consolidation is what caused this. The studios started spending $300 million on movies, so they wanted to play it safe. They wanted movies with a built-in audience. People generally love movies, so they have continued to go to the theater. And when 90% of the major studio productions are derivative, of course, there will be more derivative successes than originals. And you also need to look at what original movies are being made. Are they low-budget art house films, or are they backed by a $300 million budget? That doesn't mean that budget always mirrors box office. But, high-budget blockbuster films will tend to be catered to a wider audience. The studios lost sight of the bigger picture. It's okay to primarily make derivative work, but you also need to invest a part of your efforts in building new franchises. It's myopic to believe that audiences would continue to show up for Toy Story 24 or Independence Day 17. The last few years have begun to show the strain unoriginality is having on audiences. This is one of the primary reasons for the decline in box office. The studios have also become extraordinarily lazy. The quality of production is lower than I think I've ever seen. Terrible writing, terrible CGI because the demand is outstretching capacity. They think the audiences will see a title they recognize and just show up, regardless of quality. If the quality of the sequels and remakes were amazing the decline would be slower. But a combination of derivative and low quality, is destroying movie going. I used to go to 50 movies a year. Now, if I go to 5, that's a big year. Every time I see that it's yet another sequel or remake, I roll my eyes. Many times my only thought is that they are going to sully yet another franchise. I love the Back to the Future Trilogy, but I don't want a 'part 4'. I don't want a remake. I don't need Titanic 2. And I don't need Citizen Kane Returns. Not every successful movie of the past needs a sequel. Or to be remade. I have no problem with adaptations of different mediums, such a books, or video games. But the studios need to get back to making original movies. Studios sacrificed the long-term success of the box office for the safe, short-term profits. Now their chickens are coming home to roost.
Honestly. I’m 3 minutes in and Dan cut out everything but 14/50 of ALL MOVIES before 2000. That just shows me it’s never been a medium that’s been in tune with crazy original ideas. Most of the biggest movies of all time unadjusted for inflation are at or near 50 years old because they had so little competition.
Originality is the key, and it can exist in the translation of IP to film or another medium. Adaptations of novels and graphic novels usually produce interesting results for this reason.
The fact that Pixar films end up being so high should be considered a technicality in its own right. The Pixar name, really, is the franchise people come to see
A small detail tht would help original movies like it did before. Apart of the marketing scheme for original movies was telling the audience the director directed a previous movie u love. “From the director of ____” letting the ppl know if you love that. You’ll love this. I know it isn’t major but tht small detail helps. Look at the avatar poster.
It's interesting that you bring up horror as a genre that's doing well in terms of producing a lot of successful original films. I feel like horror actually kinda led the industry in terms of heavily relying on sequels starting in the '80s, and then with endless remakes in the mid-to-late 2000s; it felt like few high-profile films came out in the U.S. that weren't sequels or especially remakes during that period. But while horror sequels and remakes certainly haven't gone away, the genre feels like it's in a much healthier place now, having reached a balance where while the biggest money-earners each year tend to come from well-established franchises (Saw, Conjuringverse, etc.), a handful of original films do find a broad audience as well. In some other genres (e.g. sci-fi), it seems like they're going to have nothing left to milk when people eventually get tired of the same decades-old franchises because nothing new is being produced that could eventually replace them.
As far as audience tastes go, I think that streaming may be shaping the way we experience movies. When sequels are immediately queued up after finishing a movie, it makes them feel like tv episodes with characters you’re invested in, rather than stand alone separate experiences. Television style storytelling and cinematic storytelling have blended in strange ways that have yielded mixed results in the past decade and a half. I do think it’s resulted broadly in an audience less willing to take risks and try something original.
I mostly support original movies or small IP in theatres these days, sure I'll watch Star Wars, M:I, Bond and the occasional Marvel, but when I think back on movies that made my top of all time list they are all smaller IP or completely original. Challengers this year, Top Gun 2 a couple years ago, Once Upon a Time in Hollywood, Interstellar, 1917. So, I feel it's important to pay money and pay attention to the smaller stuff in theatres because that's where you will be challenged, that's where you will be surprised and intruiged because there isn't a certain formula to the movie. It can be anything.
People complain about the state of everything. Prices, cars, movies, news, and politics. We only get what we ask for with our time and money. Pull up a mirror when something isn’t right.
Hey everyone - so as happens, I made an error in not listing Avatar as the highest grossing original film of 2009. No excuse other than trying to juggle too much information. So to correct a couple of things, it’s the only time since 1998 that an original film has been #1, and it moves the average position of the highest grossing original film in the 2000s from 4.7 to 4.3. I apologize for the error.
Yes they all made internationally where you can't make pantene shampoo movie and get away with.
You also missed Titanic
@@shamanthramachandra9610Titanic is based on real events.
Did you look at the calendar year 2009? According to Box Office Mojo, it is behind Up... Definitely a mistake anyone could make. No worries.
Does it count? It's another Cameron movie about Vietnam.
Smaller studios like A24 and Neon are putting out great original films that respect the viewer. Supporting them is one of the best things you can do.
Those are more independent films, though. Unfortunately, the vast majority of original studio blockbuster films are not good. I struggle to think of a big budget studio film that was not bad (excluding Disney Animation and PIXAR, which is kind of its own brand). Interstellar comes to mind, but that was nearly a decade ago. Most original blockbusters that I can think of are something like Moonfall or Jupiter Ascending. If studios want original films to succeed, they need to be worth watching. Most original studio films are the mid tier budgeted film, which are unlikely to make more than 200 million dollars worldwide, and if they do flop, will likely make their money back on streaming.
The difference between original movie before vs today is before original movie is not boring. Exmple a24 movie most of there movies are boring and weird. If you look the movies before exmple independence day jurassic park there not boring compare to what a24 doing. That solution is if do a original movie try to copy what lords of the ring and batman trilogy of nolan style. Great story plus action packed. Thats the only solution.
@@carloconopio6513Independence Day and Jurassic Park are not really comparable to what A24 are doing. They were big budget blockbusters. A24 is more cult movies, normally with smaller budgets that utilise social media marketing. Very different target audience too.
@@carloconopio6513 Boring because they aren't "nerd" films? The movies a24 make are no different than those made in the 60s
@K.C-2049those movies were filmed well in advance of that writers strike, no?
One other factor I think is prestige TV. I think stuff like the bear or succession that are huge shows that are original dramas are where a lot of those great original ideas are going. Also, for some reason, there are people who would watch 40 hours of a show but never watch that same premise or story as a movie
Good point about people preferring TV series over movies. Some say it's because of the breaks between episodes.
@@markanderson7236 And the lack of commitment. Dropping a series feels a lot less guilty or wastefull compared to a movie.
Perceptive.
I'm the complete opposite. Some of these show ideas I would watch if condensed into a movie form but since they are a show with hours and hours of content, I usually never even bother attempting to get into it. I don't want to waste my time with a bunch of useless filler and generic drama to needlessly extend the length. Don't feel like getting invested in something like the walking dead, which I watched up to 7 seasons and then completely lose interest in it and feels like a waste. Or have a show that is really interesting, all to be canceled after the first season.
I will 100% watch a movie over a show. The only shows I would consistently watch are things like sitcoms which can be more casually viewed and often times the episodes don't even connect between one another
Well, prior to the streaming age, there also is significantly less investment as viewer. Prestige TV arguably peaked with cable TV. Instead of paying a significant chunk of change, say 20-30 dollars in say 2010 for a date night, you just turn on Breaking Bad and Mad Men where the cost was already included in something you already heavily used.
And from the studio side, this lets you take more chances since even if a show flops (hello Rubicon from that same year, 2010) you’re still getting your cut of the cable subscription price.
Whenever a great original movie _is_ made, audiences immediately beg for and line up for a sequel. And the cycle starts all over again.
Came here to say the same thing!
Joker movie comes to mind
Joker is based on a comic book, though, and therefore not an original film, but I understand your point.
Smile 2
Studios would be wise to recognize this and invest in new franchises. John Wick is probably the best example of this in the past ten years.
I think the question is better framed as “what happened to BIG original movies?” I see lots of comments here already about a24 and others backing loads of original films. But the blockbuster original film is very much missing.
It’s been a joy the past year to introduce my eldest daughter now to some of my favorite big films like Speed, Back To The Future, Inception, and many more. We were trying to catch her up in the MCU but, as much as I like many of those films, it got exhausting and haven’t been past Iron Man 3 for several years now
Continue watching MCU movies. It's not exhausting.
@@jesseowenvillamor6348 They did. You've seen one, you pretty much have seen them all. I don't want to hear they are all "different" either because they aren't. The all pretty much have the same tone, humour, and usually involve a save the world scenario from generic bad guy at the end with massive spectacle. Yawn. Name me one other "political thriller" that ends with a doomsday device, because that's what happened at the end of winter soldier.
@@miz4535 Shut up. Watch all MCU movies.
@@jesseowenvillamor6348 No, I don't think I will
@@miz4535 No, no, no. Don't remain ignorant.
What you haven't mentioned is the decline, or non existence of new movie stars.
Most movies in the 80s and 90s were carried by the stars, people would turn up for the latest tom cruise, will Smith, stallone, Ford movie, their name would be in a bigger typeface than the actual movie on the poster. People would turn up regardless if the movie was original or not.
Unfortunately today there are no other actors who can command such an audience.
I would say Chalamet and Zendaya are at least on their way tbh
@halane4790 not even close. I like Chalamet, but he's not like the Stars back then.
@@adamsultana8380 nothing is like before, but he and Zendaya are the closest we have atm imo
@@halane4790 Not at all. They're fortunate enough to be part of IPs that sell themselves. Dune, Wonka, Greatest Showman, MCU Spiderman trilogy are huge stories that would have been seen if they weren't cast. When they're in smaller/indie fare sold primarily on their names? Flop.
Chalamet in Bones and All: flop.
Chalamet in The King: flop.
Zendaya in Challengers: flop.
Chalamet is smart-- he's gonna play Bob Dylan in his next movie, but Zendaya needs to find another big property before everyone else starts realizing it is _she_ that is not worth the money, not the property, or at least not _only_ the property.
In India people watch movies for superstars they have better stardom compare to tom aur will smith
Due to competitions from the internet and social media, most films have to be IP, remakes, adaptation or sequels to help grab the audience members attention. Most people unfortunately won’t take the risk with an original film. A lot of that is because of how expensive it is to go to the movies now. So Hollywood responds to the current market by making less original movies. But it’s great when we get a quality original movie out of nowhere once in a while.
I’m not sure most stuff is from old IP. Just that most stuff that makes money is from old IP. Netflix and all the other services make way too much content per year for it to be mostly remakes and sequels.
Isn’t that all the more reason to make something new and interesting?
That's just companies not willing to take any risks. All original IPs have potential to succeed as much as pre-social media films with the right marketing. They can learn to adapt to new internet trends (making edits, creating trends, boosting memes, promoting soundtracks via social media etc.) Spiderman Across the Spidervierse and Barbie had great media campaigns and they both performed extremely well.
People did not stop watching original movies, contrary to popular opinion. Studios found out that sequels, remakes, and anything related to recognizable IP did better than original movies and discarded original movies mainly to streaming services. Studios continued to just pump out whatever they THOUGHT people would want, and in reaction, general audiences just became complacent.
That’s pretty much what the video says.
For sure! I just saw a lot of people posting the popular opinion of "people don't watch those anymore" and figured I'd add in a rebuttal. Great video!
Ok, but when they did try to make original films, those flopped. It's not all on the studios at all. I think it's a feedback loop.
@@miz4535 Those films flopped because the complacency that studios left audiences with in regards to digesting just sequels, reboots, etc, etc made people uncertain of how to take original films. So it is a loop, but mainly one that studios perpetuated because of their bottom line being more important than risky original films being made you know?
There's a bitter irony that all of the highest grossing original movies from post 2000 (except Frozen which was made by Disney proper) are from studios that were swallowed up by Disney and now all have at least one sequel and probably more on the way.
People keep saying this, but the moment a sequel or franchise movie gets released, they rush to watch them.
I mean Inside Out 2 is a recent example, that movies grossed 1.2 billion dollars
While Elemental had to limp to profitability. Quality notwithstanding, I think in a different time, that one would have done just fine and not have to struggle to find its audience like it had to
I think another factor is budget. With movies needing to make 700, 800, or 900 million dollars because they have a 250+ million-dollar budget, the risk is too big for an original film. I think if Hollywood went back to making movies on a 10-to-90-million-dollar budget (more so than they do now), they probably wouldn't need to be as risk averse as they are.
Yep for sure - and a huge issue is the number of reshoots and edits in ‘too big to fail’ movies that balloon budgets.
Can you imagine saying a 100M movie was not that expensive 10+ years ago lol
Honestly if they could get things to less than 100 mil that would be great! Also kinda off topic these big budget movies look like green screens even the Amazon roadhouse remake
The problem is movie tickets are too expensive these days for most people to spend money on something they’re not sure they’ll like. There’s no more “oh I’ll take a chance on this one.” You can’t afford to do that when you’re spending upwards of $30 per visit.
👍, especially that most movies are plagued by "The Message"
I agree with you both. They prefer to have empty spaces projecting a movie than lower ticket and candy prices. In each country is the same (I live in Spain)
I pay $25 a month for AMC A List & get 3 movies per week, in IMAX & Dolby formats also
Regal offers many movies for $5
AMC discounts tickets everyday for showings before 4 pm
I’m not saying it’s cheap, but people just aren’t doing enough research imo
@@uguess94 I have A list too and that’s how I’m able to see indie films in theaters. Most casual movie watchers don’t care enough to plan ahead to go on specific days though.
I pay 21$ per month and get unlimited movies. Upgrades to premium screens (which are nothing as good as Dolby or laser imax) still..
I get free popcorn here and there w promotions.
I can’t really utilize it since I had back surgeries that have sucked.
But….. Movies are SHITTTE.
There are decent standouts here and there (top gun, 1917(?) The Green Knight, Jo Jo rabbit, etc ) But the standout big budget summer movies have been C&$@. Godzilla -one is so rare.
There is too much of “THE MESSAGGEE”. It’s affecting things for sure. People don’t wanna take their kid to something they shouldn’t even be knowing about yet
I’ve been saying this for a while now too. The ones complaining about them not having any original movies somehow can’t grasp the fact that the ones that aren’t original movies are the ones making the most money it’s crazy
I think we need to distinguish original blockbuster-type films with original indie/niche films. Original blockbuster films can be made but you need the right ingredients - director, script, marketing team, acting, effects team, etc. In the 80’s and 90’s we had a high standard of these ingredients, but now we are sorely lacking and the studios know this.
So it forces them to turn to sequels to make money.
Another problem, i find, is the fact that many of these original films only last a week in theaters when the opening weekend is lackluster. I managed to barely, just barely, go watch kinds of kindness and then once I recommended it to people, its showings vanished
Same! I was lucky to catch ODDITY in the theater before it vanished.
There’s plenty of original movies. People just don’t show up for them as much
Some cinemas don't show them. Issue when theres only one cinema for miles around.
Yeah I think it's a stated vs revealed preference. People say they want original movies but if you look at what's making money, it's IP based stuff, regardless of quality.
@@robertJ14 You know why theaters don't show them? Because people don't go see them.
Chicken and egg. Don't get it twisted.
Originality is at an time low
... or they're on streaming!
They used to cherish the magic and life of these films... Now, it's just a soulless husk with no real meaning or reason to be here other than profit. It's the sad reality that seems to get worse on not just Disney's end, but everyone is facing the same issues.
CGI becoming normalized has allowed for so many IP brands to become realized on screen that audiences are choosing mainly to go to those films.
Original movies thrived in an era where CGI was still limited in some capacity. Now that it's easy to access, big studios see it as an easy way to print money.
Audiences are to blame for this too. The death of physical media has also made it hard for studios to justify a mid-budget film, as they used to make their money through a bulk of DVD, video sales.
Without physical media being a huge source of revenue anymore, you only have smaller films and gigantic budgeted films.
Nothing in-between.
Dan I’ve done lots of reading on this subject in the last few months and your analysis was excellent. I’ll only quibble with you on one point:
It’s less straightforward in the cycle of ‘this is what audiences want, so this is what we’ll give them”, because after a certain point there’s a strong layer of “we will make what we want, and we will tell you that you like it”.
And for a long clip in the 2010s until recently, I think it gradually settled into that sort of ‘brainwash’, BUT, I feel a renaissance in the air. I do think Hollywood is in the midst of developing the next generation of bankable movie stars, and, fingers crossed, their starpower will get a few more originals made each year
My team at work often discusses movies. I am the only one on the team that watches smaller films in theaters. The rest of them state they don't want to spend the money on something they don't know if they will like. Also, close to half of the team prefers movies they can just sit back and have it wash over them without thinking about it. They flat out state they don't care too much if the plot is predictable. They just want the spectacle. I started trying to get them to watch some other films after it his streaming, but now just realized that I am in the minority. They enjoy the Marvel, Sttar Wars, and huge blockbusters, and I enjoy the smaller original. Nothing wrong with their tastes - it just doesn't match mine. It does make me try seeing more of the movies I like in theaters to show support (and to make sure I don't miss them)
Agree. I tend to like both. I saw both Ghostlight and Touch (indie movies) but I'm also excited for Deadpool and Wolverine, so I like both. But it is tricky. also with independent movies it's hard to know when they'll end up on streaming so that also incentivizes me to see them.
There definitely is something wrong with their taste. Plots matter. Spectacle should be the bare minimum. We aren’t cats, but thinking beings.
@@CountJeffula Yay, gatekeeping movies, what fun!
@@xger21 Some people are stupider than others. Deal with it.
Really appreciate the timing of this video… needed something light and nerdy after last night
21st century corporate culture... Art and creativity require risk and audacity, but bean counters and stock holders are extremely risk averse. So the studios they control put out what market research shows will statistically provided the highest financial yield.
They exist, but when they get made no one goes to see them, so studios are cautious 🤔
Yeah, not to say they’re all bad, but studios want box office and recognizable titles. Low hanging fruit, but many execs only care about money not creativity.
@@Locusto199 I'd say the quality of a movie don't reflect much on open weekend but rather on the drop off. The open weekend is more impacted by interest and audience is not showing up.
Because studios miseducated people's movie taste
No, I think original ideas can be made into creatively strong movies, and people DO go to see them...just not EVERYBODY goes to see them. IOW, the studios only want grand slam home runs and view everything else as failure. It's the old "There is no "second place", only 'first loser', hyuck hyuck" attitude.
I think that's a poor attitude for competitive endeavors and total crap for creative ones, even when the "victory condition" can be measured in $$$.
@@LeonardoMenezes03 I loved the speech that the writer/director of American Fiction gave at the Oscar’s.
I forgot exactly, but his point was instead of a 200 million dollar film, make ten 20 million budget films, ones that will make make a profit and put creative filmmakers on the map. Unfortunately, the studios want a billion dollar film most of the time, tho there’s obviously great exceptions like A24 or Blumhouse.
Great analysis Dan, I’d love to see you do a video where you showcase your favourite original films of the last 10-20 years. I’m guessing most of them would be smaller films that don’t get enough spotlight.
I think one of the reasons we rarely see great, mass-appeal original franchises anymore is simply that the culture has changed so much. (in particular, the American culture). Many of the character/story tropes that Hollywood traditionally relied upon (e.g. largely male cast, often mainly white, gender archetypes, heroic man rescues woman, two guys compete romantically for a woman) are now frowned upon as problematic or non-progressive. This includes the idea of showing the old days in nostalgic fashion ('Back to the Future') or having adventurers fighting off natives or going to foreign lands to procure archeological treasures (Indianna Jones) or explorers/soldiers fighting any group considered a minority (many westerns, 'Zulu' etc.).
However, whether we liked them or not, those traditional tropes/archetypes were proven to resonate with audiences (which is why they often go back thousands of years in myths/legends etc.).
It can be very difficult to tell compelling stories without those traditional character/story tropes. And attempts to replace them with new, more progressive character/story tropes simply haven't resonated as well with the masses. Marvel is a great example of this. They started off producing traditional super-hero material (based on very old characters) and drew a huge (largely male) audience. Then Kevin Fiege declared that the MCU would have focus on female heroines (specifically stating they would outnumber the males) because he presumably saw it as the 'correct' thing to do - even though female superheroes have generally never been as popular. At the same time, the MCU pivoted for a less sincere, post-modernist, subversive approach that undermined the heroic nature of many of their male heroes. It probably didn't help that they also went out of their way to hire creators who, while commendably from diverse backgrounds, appeared to have very little affinity for the source material. The result has been sadly predictable.
Apart from simply trying to give audiences what they wanted to see, 'old Hollywood' also generally tried to avoid elements that alienated significant parts of the audience (at least for 'big' movies). This meant any controversial 'messages' (if indeed they were any) were often presented as more subtle allegories. But in today's culture, 'activism' (for want of a better word) is seen as a necessary virtue - so many film-makers don't want to disguise their ideological voice. This can, of course, still make for great movies...but it isn't a great approach for expensive films as it can also alienate much of the potential audience.
With new attempts at franchises failing to resonate, studios naturally fall back so often on old, proven brands/properties with pre-existing audiences instead. But, of course, they often still do them in the new, post-modern way. Sadly, this often results in great division/bitterness amongst fanbases, as well as disappointing box office returns.
But, that's just my thoughts.
I was so hyped for Lisa Frankenstein, but NOBODY SHOWED UP! Then they wonder why Hollywood is more comfortable with reboots and sequels…
And even then Lisa Frankenstein was marketed on being similar to things you liked from the past with a heavy focus on 80s iconography and sound.
That isn't a mainstream film and even if it was, the reviews weren't great so it was never going to be huge
@@curtisbme that’s exactly my point. Why aren’t original films mainstream anymore?
That movie sucked 😂
Terrible example
X Frankenstein is not an 'original' film (no adaptation or sequel)
Factually, there are more original/new IP movies today than there was in the 80's/90's. Just read an article on this.
People forget the 80's/90's were the decades of sequels.
I know right. It's about word of mouth for what's a "must see" but those movies even with inflation had lower budgets and those movies with target audiences were enough to make those movies a hit (Horror, dramas, etc)
There are more movies of all kinds now than in the 80s and 90s. This video is about which films earned the most and why the studios are investing in those films.
One thing that changed in the mid 90s was the shortening of the release window between the US and the rest of the world, specifically the UK. Pirating was massive in the 80s/90s, driven a lot by the release delay and easy copying of VHS then DVD. By shortening the window, the rest of the world could get caught up in the initial hype from the US and get to watch movies on the big screen earlier instead of settling for dodgy copy.
2000-2002 changed everything. Huge years in cinema. Immediately after the turn of the millennium, we got X-Men, Harry Potter, Lord of the Rings, and Spider-Man. Built-in audiences were the big name in town ever since.
To even make people show up to a theater (with home theaters, surround sound, streaming, etc) it’s either got to be a family film bc you want to take them out of the house, or a massive blockbuster like Endgame or Top Gun Maverick or Dune 2.
Back in the 90’s our home TVs sucked, you couldn’t watch movies on demand, and theaters were cheap. But even then society started shifting toward home rentals for a lot of these mid budget films. Tarantino, David Fincher, Guy Ritchie, and even Kevin Smith were becoming super popular from rentals among friends. They were not pulling in massive box office numbers.
I would say that creative, independent effort flowed into prestige TV as blockbusters were becoming more corporate and franchise based. The 2000’s and 2010’s were where the Sopranos, Breaking Bad, Walking Dead, Mad Men, Mr Robot, Band of Brothers, etc. were showing that really high quality TV could be made with essentially film level production or budgets.
Now if you were a creative with a strong idea you have a much better shot making the show on Netflix or Amazon instead of trying to convince a studio to give you hundreds of millions on a new idea.
Walt Disney said, "If you can dream it, you can do it, and don't let anybody say you can't." This is my biggest dream goal of bringing the 2-D animated style from Disney once again, and I'll save Hollywood for stopping all this ridiculous madness.
Its a good day whenever Dan Murrell does a movie industry analysis video 😊
I’m 1000% on board for original films - wish even more of them focused on creating a satisfying singular experience rather than trying to set up a franchise
One major part you left out was that Hollywood use to justify the more risky prestige project (rocky, rainman etc) with the trusty tent polls (blockbusters) as well as recouping prestige cost in the long run thru home release. When the floor dropped out on home release in 2009 and theatrical release became more hit and miss for a number of reasons studios started playing it safe investing in known IP with established broad base.
the disappearance of the original movie and the mid-budget movie seems to be hand in hand in this. as films become more and more expensive, producers become more and more conservative. everything needs to have an already existing IP attached to it to "ensure" that investments will be returned and profits made. and because movies are more and more expensive to go out and see, people feel like they only get their "money's worth" if they go out to see a huge CGI blockbuster rather than a comedy or drama, and so those are the only ones that make money, and are the only ones picked up and screened by distributors. its a vicious cycle. coupled by the abundance of other media, or even just other platforms to watch movies in like streaming, or the rise of prestige television which is somehow seen as easier point of entry when they cumulatively take more time investment
One thing to stipulate about this comparison is sample size and metric. While it's evident that sequels and franchised are succeeding more, it has to be said there are also more sequels and franchises to succeed. Therefore, of course, there will be more.
A followup chart may want to look at the success of the Top original movies in comparison to each other, instead of in comparison to the overall landscape.
In 1998 Rush Hour made hundreds of millions.
In 2016 The Nice Guys flop harder than wet toast.
In the 80s, Rambo First Blood made 10x it's budget.
In the 2010s, John Wick barely made its money back.
I figured that the increasing stakes in making global movies made studios risk-averse, therefore incentivizing sequels, but I wasn't aware that the average performance of original films were actually dropping
I think you proved why I enjoy 80's & 90's movies more than movies made today. Seems like the studios would try out some new ideas from visionary directors & we would get some crazy films. Sequel-city nowadays.
A24 and Neon are doing most of the heavy lifting with original movies. Not ideal but at least they are still alive.
You can throw in Searchlight with those two. They keep churning out original stuff on a regular basis. Sure they’re owned by Disney, but they retained autonomy under Disney while 20th Century Studios did not.
@@extofer20th Century Studios is also kind of independent. At least, it is affected less by Disney than Pixar, Lucasfilm and Marvel
A24, Neon, IFC/Shudder, and Searchlight consistently release interesting, original movies.
A lot of people don't watch "regular" TV with commercials anymore. I know I don't, and we use ad blocker and I have UA-cam Premium. If I don't actively check my theater I won't hear of the smaller films. I don't see any movie from DCU, MCU, whatever. I've seen 2 movies in the theater this year and they were Alien anniversary re-release and Blair Witch Project re-release.
To be fair. Every subsequent year has more movies to base sequels and reboots on. Comparing the 80s to now is tough because we have so many more movies/IPs to use.
Love when you make videos like this. I know they are a lot of work. Keep it up!
As a hardcore movie fan i certainly learnt some perspectices here i wasnt aware of. One thing you didnt touch on however is how the industry has focussed on specific genres of films over the decades, right now we are still in the 'SuperHero' era, but previous decades had: SciFi, Cop & BuddyCop, Westerns, War, Action movies as favorite genres for that period of time.
A big change has been the bankability of star power. It was a lot easier to sell an original movie when people would come out to see anything with Tom Cruise in it for example.
It's refreshing seeing someone acknowledge the Lion King as an original movie. I would argue it's actually Walt Disney Animation's first original movie, since everything before the Lion King was based on a book or fairy tail (if you don't count those war-time anthologies they made, but do those really count as feature-length movies?), but when I tell people that, their first question is usually "well isn't it based on Hamlet?" I've even heard people go as far as to say that it's an ADAPTATION of Hamlet, which I think is clearly only something someone would say if they hadn't actually seen or read the play, or don't remember it from school all that well. I haven't read it since school, but even I know it's a very different story. If you watch behind the scenes documentaries of the Lion King, the storywriters will usually tell a story about how they set out to write an original tale about lions being king in Africa, and realized only part of the way through how similar their ideas were to shakespeare, and decided to lean in on it a bit.
(SPOILERS FOR LION KING)
So yes, they're both stories where an apparition of the main character's father comes to tell him to seize the the throne from a usurper, but the similarities pretty much end there. This scene happens very near the beginning of Hamlet, and the whole first two acts of the Lion King where Simba is manipulated into blaming himself for his father's death and turns to a life of escapism is completely absent from Hamlet. When Hamlet's father asks him to take the throne, it's purely to get revenge for his murder, and Hamlet doesn't even want to do it and doesn't even believe his father is even telling the truth at first. Mufasa doesn't even tell Simba that he was murdered, and simply tells him to remember who he is and assume the throne purely out of a sense of responsibility and duty, and as a way to face his fears. The apparition scene in Hamlet sets the plot in motion, but in the Lion King, it's this pivotal turning point where the main character realizes what he's been doing wrong this whole time, and sets the stage for the final act. If you had watched the first hour of the Lion King and turned it off right before the mufasa cloud scene, you would have experienced so much development of the story, and the only similarity you would find between it and Hamlet is that there is a king. That's it. They're completely different stories, and only have that one (admittedly pretty specific) similarity.
while Twisters is technically in the same universe as Twister, it is a totally new amazing story.
To quote Guillermo del Toro. Definitely want to save Hollywood for getting my dream job and stop all this madness in today's world. "Animation is Cinema." "Animation is not just a genre for kids."
Before watching the video:
I would argue very few movies were actually original concepts. The majority of studio films have always been either based on books/plays or based on true stories/events. Films that have dropped off are high concept films like Top Gun or Volcano. Obviously many more studios films are from a franchise now, and studios should start taking more risks on new adaptations (or readaptations), but I don’t know if I ever considered studios to be wholly original.
After watching the video:
Unfortunately, the vast majority of original studio blockbuster films are not good. I struggle to think of a big budget studio film that was not bad (excluding Disney Animation and PIXAR, which is kind of its own brand). Interstellar comes to mind, but that was nearly a decade ago. Most original blockbusters that I can think of are something like Moonfall or Jupiter Ascending. If studios want original films to succeed, they need to be worth watching. Most original studio films are the mid tier budgeted film, which are unlikely to make more than 200 million dollars worldwide, and if they do flop, will likely make their money back on streaming.
I think in the 2000's the studios made a deliberate choice to be in the IP business rather than the movie star business. In the back half of the 90's actors like Jim Carrey broke the $20 million mark. Time was you could launch an original story on the back of a successful movie star. But when movies like the Lord of the Rings and Harry Potter franchises took off (and I know they still had stars, but no one was charging tens of millions) the need for a movie star to be successful was gone.
They’re on streaming. The excuse “well, studios make them but nobody sees them!” is vacuous. Being original doesn’t equate being good or marketable. Studios need to make more original theatrical content that’s good and marketable
Fall Guy. Big action comedy. Big Stars. Big budget. Absolutely noone showed up.
Ain't no more Rush Hour happening.
@@thedarkemissary Fall guy looked like the most reddit movie of all time. I saw the trailers and was like nope and most of the audience felt the same.
Just because something isn’t based on something doesn’t make it good or interesting
Fall Guy had some of the weirdest marketing for a summer tentpole I’ve seen. Movies about making movies, based on 35 y/o IP, ain’t it.
@thedarkemissary The fall guy is based of an 80s TV show.
@@lacolem199% of the audience isn’t aware it was based on a tv show. For all intents and purposes it is new IP
Occasionally I see a trailer for an original film I might like, but not enough to bother with going to the theater. Much more comfortable in my own home.
2D animation will never die off. In fact, in recent years, it has only gotten more popular than CGI animation. There is a way to save Disney, but it requires patience and determination to take back the magic of the company. I hope I can succeed in the end.
There are still a lot of original movies being made. But they usually have a pretty low production budget compared to the sequels of the IP-focused movie business of today.
Videos like this are what sets Dan apart. What a great concept for a video and well executed!
What I find fascinating is Pixar Cars was not a immediate success but the toy and merchandise line was and I believe still is a phenomenon
It's a self fulfilling prophecy. Big money & marketing goes towards franchise movies which then attracts audience which the industry assumes is what the audience wants and the cycle continues...
One thing I think has contributed to this trend is the association between movie theaters and spectacle. Most original movies tend to be lower budget character dramas and with theaters becoming larger with Atmos soundsystems, 3D etc, people are less interested to spend $20 a ticket to watch people talking for 2 hours. A lot of these movies have now moved to streaming. There are exceptions like The Creator, which I paid to watch, but then not enough people went to see that and it still got criticised for being derivative.
I just want more balance between original works and adaptations/franchises.
It might not be right that executives will make more original movies if audiences support the original movies that come out. I think they’ll just make sequels, prequels, and reboots from original movies. The only thing that came from Avatar is Avatar 2, 3, 4, etc.
fun fact: the German title of Frozen is indeed "Die Eiskönigin" aka the ice queen.
Matt Damon explained this on Hot Ones.
Really well done! However, I found one that you mentioned that doesn’t fit the rest of your criteria: 1998’s “Saving Private Ryan”. This is based off of an historical event, namely World War II.
Great video, very interesting, I love hearing your thoughts and opinions on movies themselves and the industry. I’ve been a Dan Stan since season 1 of movie fights. Thanks for sharing your thoughts!
The issue definitely seems to be everyone is afraid to lose money and the safest bet had been IP and more of it for the last 15-20 years. It’s even more severe on Broadway where it feels like 90 percent of new musicals are based on (mostly non-musical) movies. And while there’s certainly been plenty of good ones based on existing IP (Producers, Legally Blonde to name some) it’s sad that original ideas are very hard to get the funding for at this point.
I think it's underrated that the pure passage of time has contributed greatly to what studios produce/distribute. As in, we have accumulated so many widely popular franchises (or originals waiting for a sequel) that a calendar can fill up really quickly. Not surprised at all when Beetlejuice 2 was finally being made.
Competition from other studios is also a contributor, no studio wants to finance an unknown quantity and put it up against Thor 4 or something of the like.
A third thing is that the comfort/affordability of home streaming has essentially replaced the theater experience - so there won't be a call anytime soon for good, original stories when they're really just needing butts in the seats. An original that well outperforms expectations is still falling short of the established returns of a known commodity.
I was thinking about this in Dan's charts at the start - he compares 70+ years of movies top 50 versus 24. Breaking them down into equal chunks might highlight that the trend was not as recent (and I realize this is part of the point of the decade by decade chart, but that only starts at 1980)
@@xger21 I trust Dan's research, but I see what you're saying for sure. Some data I would be interested in seeing is what the opening weekends for originals do as opposed to a sequel. I have a feeling that originals don't often have the same ticket sales arc that an anticipated sequel would have. Even if the original steadily grows over 2 or 3 months from reviews and word of mouth, missing that big chunky opening weekend gate probably puts them in a place where they are not likely to be the highest-grossing film of that year. Even comparing the release of Ghostbusters to Ghostbusters 2 or Back to the Future to any of its sequels.
Interesting to note what has been able to sell an original movie in the last 2 decades according to your chart.
1. It's a kids movie
2. It has a big name director (Nolan, Peele, Cameron)
Notice the death of the movie star. Nolan or Peele can bring people to the theater to watch their original movie, but actors cannot. Sure big name stars help, but they are no guarantee anymore. You have to have something to sell your movie on. If you can't sell the movie to adults based on a known title or an elite director, then it's probably not going to perform. In order to bring back original movies, you're going to need real stars to be in those movies.
Also, crazy to note that Lucas helped create 3 of the most popular originals in the 1900s.
Hey, good points.
Very well done Dan! I was just talking with my buddies about this, very sad really…Go Noles!
great quality films and series on streaming have given people less of a reason to go to a theater. you have to make a film or event that is worth the price of admission, otherwise people would rather wait since its cheaper/
Where was Everything Everywhere All At Once? I think I disagree with what you call a “success”or that being a multiblock buster hit matters as much as being good.
People will always be generalists and like whats easy “nostalgic”. Thats why Movie critics are important.
We need more mid level fantastic films NOT more big budget highest grosing films
He's comparing the box office trends of pre-2000s Hollywood to the post-2000s. For example; during the year in which the likes of Back to the Future 3, Die Hard 2, RoboCop 2, & Predator 2 were released; the three highest domestic earners of 1990 were Ghost, Pretty Woman, & Home Alone.
The last two original movies I saw in theaters sucked. And took 3 hours a piece. So I'm rethinking of going to something original anytime soon.
I know this is a way more technical based analysis around a certain sector of films, but I do miss as a child seeing theaters drenched in kid movie advertisements. The gigantic banners hanging from the ceiling, the cardboard cutouts, the advertisements on fast food objects, hell it got to a point where you wondered what toys Burger King would drop from your favorite movie. It’s a dull time in comparison to all that, and frankly, I don’t think I’d care if it came back at this point.
Before I watch the video, I'll just say it. Origional movies will never be dead, but their is no mainstream for new ideas to take off, since movies even based on well known properties are bombing this year because people not only can't afford movie tickets, but to the non-film buff people I know a movie is just a movie to them. People want origional movies to succeed but without the mainstream of long ago, when something new and good comes out it's very rare if it becomes a hit because not everyone keeps up with movies the same way not everyone keeps up with sports or politics. It ashamed but that's how people are.
Netflix produces numerous original films, but many of them are of poor quality. Introducing an ad-supported tier might encourage them to create more appealing, clickbait-style content aimed at a broader audience, thereby increasing ad revenue.
Great job crunching the numbers Dan!
A couple of thoughts:
-Isn't it also normal that original ideas for movies are harder to come by as they've most likely already been made (successfully or not)?
-Isn't there a correlation between the decrease in theater viewership and the increase of traffic on pirated movie sites? There's a parallel to music there as the audience has its share of responsibility. If you want things for free (or bottom dollar), you can't expect the business to survive, especially the quality original stuff.
Mostly, what we don't see any more are blockbuster movies. I believe the last time we had one was when the Barbie movie was released last summer. Either that or movies that were once considered blockbusters (think Jurassic Park in the 90s) have been extended too far. The dinosaur craze already died out, so why bother continuing it? Otherwise, yes, I would agree. Hollywood is currently lacking in originality. This is what happens when the writers run out of ideas, and quantity is favored over quality.
They don’t get the promotion and word of mouth and publicity they deserve💯
As movies have gotten more expensive against already strained budgets, people go see fewer. So when they pick their few, they’re less likely to risk that choice on an unproven commodity. We used to get that feeling from the stars, but with the concept of movie stars fading away, what is the draw to an original concept other than it being original?
8:07 and if “IF” is 10 right now - it’s about to be 11th.
No wonder I find myself rewatching so many 90s movies..Fantastic analysis Dan!
One quick thought though: Not every film needs to be a billion dollar hit.
Maybe do this analysis against the most profitable films after 2000s - I believe more originals with trickle through (esp in Horror).
The lion king is based on the African story of a prince who was exiled and when he got older took the throne from his uncle...also see Kimba the white lion
Hamlet
The irony of the thumbnail. I wonder if Satyajit Ray would've called E.T an original film.
The highest grossing original movie of the 2020s is Elemental
Excellent, Excellent video Dan 👏
It’s a simple question …but it is an amazing question. Thank you Dan. You have to make new stories, new icons, themes to explore and characters!!!! Not racial archetypes!!! Frailties, learning lessons, strife …you know the human journey?
THAT kind of story telling isn't welcome because it can truly speak to the things in life that make us all human. And frankly, there's an ugly force undergirding Hollywood that wants us separate and at each others' throats. Seems like, anyway,
Mystery thriller "Searching" is one of the GOAT original films in recent times, made with budget less than a million, it grossed more than 75 million. So there's a hope for good original films.
Yes! Watch more horror and animated films. Not just cuz they're usually original but cause they're also awesome!
Last night I showed my boyfriend (Im 41, he’s 30) Single White Female and told him those movies were original, a great time at the movies and make tons of money! He did not know of Fatal Attraction, Basic Instinct, Ghost, Romancing the Stone, etc! I was flabbergasted
Single White Female isn't actually original (it's based on a book by John Lutz) I watched the film again recently and to me it's just a generic stalker film of the type popular around the time (influenced by the success of Fatal Attraction) maybe it holds a nostalgic value for you but I wouldn't say it's a good film. (I watched it again this year)
I wouldn't be too flabbergasted someone isn't aware of films released before they were born; especially if they're just a casual viewer/not really interested in cinema or seeking out older films/music etc. A lot of young people haven't heard of ET let alone Romancing the Stone.
The Beekeeper was also a recently released original action film. And I recently saw an original scifi flick from 2021 that went largely under the radar called 57 minutes as others have said original movies are still being made but Hollyweird mostly promotes reboots, sequels, prequels and that sort of stuff
You have it backwards. The studio consolidation is what caused this. The studios started spending $300 million on movies, so they wanted to play it safe. They wanted movies with a built-in audience.
People generally love movies, so they have continued to go to the theater. And when 90% of the major studio productions are derivative, of course, there will be more derivative successes than originals. And you also need to look at what original movies are being made.
Are they low-budget art house films, or are they backed by a $300 million budget? That doesn't mean that budget always mirrors box office. But, high-budget blockbuster films will tend to be catered to a wider audience.
The studios lost sight of the bigger picture. It's okay to primarily make derivative work, but you also need to invest a part of your efforts in building new franchises. It's myopic to believe that audiences would continue to show up for Toy Story 24 or Independence Day 17.
The last few years have begun to show the strain unoriginality is having on audiences. This is one of the primary reasons for the decline in box office.
The studios have also become extraordinarily lazy. The quality of production is lower than I think I've ever seen. Terrible writing, terrible CGI because the demand is outstretching capacity. They think the audiences will see a title they recognize and just show up, regardless of quality.
If the quality of the sequels and remakes were amazing the decline would be slower. But a combination of derivative and low quality, is destroying movie going.
I used to go to 50 movies a year. Now, if I go to 5, that's a big year. Every time I see that it's yet another sequel or remake, I roll my eyes. Many times my only thought is that they are going to sully yet another franchise.
I love the Back to the Future Trilogy, but I don't want a 'part 4'. I don't want a remake. I don't need Titanic 2. And I don't need Citizen Kane Returns.
Not every successful movie of the past needs a sequel. Or to be remade. I have no problem with adaptations of different mediums, such a books, or video games. But the studios need to get back to making original movies.
Studios sacrificed the long-term success of the box office for the safe, short-term profits. Now their chickens are coming home to roost.
Honestly. I’m 3 minutes in and Dan cut out everything but 14/50 of ALL MOVIES before 2000. That just shows me it’s never been a medium that’s been in tune with crazy original ideas. Most of the biggest movies of all time unadjusted for inflation are at or near 50 years old because they had so little competition.
Originality is the key, and it can exist in the translation of IP to film or another medium. Adaptations of novels and graphic novels usually produce interesting results for this reason.
The fact that Pixar films end up being so high should be considered a technicality in its own right. The Pixar name, really, is the franchise people come to see
A small detail tht would help original movies like it did before. Apart of the marketing scheme for original movies was telling the audience the director directed a previous movie u love. “From the director of ____” letting the ppl know if you love that. You’ll love this. I know it isn’t major but tht small detail helps. Look at the avatar poster.
It's interesting that you bring up horror as a genre that's doing well in terms of producing a lot of successful original films. I feel like horror actually kinda led the industry in terms of heavily relying on sequels starting in the '80s, and then with endless remakes in the mid-to-late 2000s; it felt like few high-profile films came out in the U.S. that weren't sequels or especially remakes during that period. But while horror sequels and remakes certainly haven't gone away, the genre feels like it's in a much healthier place now, having reached a balance where while the biggest money-earners each year tend to come from well-established franchises (Saw, Conjuringverse, etc.), a handful of original films do find a broad audience as well. In some other genres (e.g. sci-fi), it seems like they're going to have nothing left to milk when people eventually get tired of the same decades-old franchises because nothing new is being produced that could eventually replace them.
As far as audience tastes go, I think that streaming may be shaping the way we experience movies. When sequels are immediately queued up after finishing a movie, it makes them feel like tv episodes with characters you’re invested in, rather than stand alone separate experiences. Television style storytelling and cinematic storytelling have blended in strange ways that have yielded mixed results in the past decade and a half. I do think it’s resulted broadly in an audience less willing to take risks and try something original.
Great video Dan, so much research!
Great and thoughtful reporting as always! 🙌🏽
I mostly support original movies or small IP in theatres these days, sure I'll watch Star Wars, M:I, Bond and the occasional Marvel, but when I think back on movies that made my top of all time list they are all smaller IP or completely original. Challengers this year, Top Gun 2 a couple years ago, Once Upon a Time in Hollywood, Interstellar, 1917. So, I feel it's important to pay money and pay attention to the smaller stuff in theatres because that's where you will be challenged, that's where you will be surprised and intruiged because there isn't a certain formula to the movie. It can be anything.
I really appreciate your use of the word "fewer".
People complain about the state of everything. Prices, cars, movies, news, and politics. We only get what we ask for with our time and money. Pull up a mirror when something isn’t right.