hollywood no longer original

[Xenocity]

Hollywood has been creatively bankrupt since the 80s (possibly earlier).
Though to be fair, the consumers mainly want stuff they are familiar with and skip new and original content because they don't want to try it.
Can't blame Hollywood for rebooting and creating installments of existing franchises and movies, when everything new and else bombs spectacularly (even globally).
Same goes for books, games, TV etc...

I mean Sony has lost over $70 Million American on the Ghostbusters Reboot... It's not done losing money!
WB has lost over $100 Million and counting on the new Peter Pan movie.
They lost even more on Superman VS Batman...
Suicide Squad is losing money by the buckets too, while giving them two lawsuits from angry consumers.
WB alone has lost ~$500 Million American this year and it's only August 12th.
This is why studios management plays it safe.


The question everyone should be asking, is Hollywood creatively bankrupt or is it the consumer's fault for refusing to view new and different content?

It's more of consumer issue than a Hollywood one.

 

[Mr Allen]

They do exactly the same in the video game industry, they release "new" annual versions of each of the top franchises such as FIFA, WWE, and even Pokemon, and they're all basically the exact same game as last year with maybe an increased roster of characters, the core gameplay is still pretty much unaltered.

 

[Xenocity]

They do exactly the same in the video game industry, they release "new" annual versions of each of the top franchises such as FIFA, WWE, and even Pokemon, and they're all basically the exact same game as last year with maybe an increased roster of characters, the core gameplay is still pretty much unaltered.

That's because nothing else sells well in the West outside of annualized sports and shooters.
Literally nothing else sells on PS4 and Xbox except for Sports, racers, AAA blockbusters and shooters.
Everything else literally does sub 100k in the West.

Pokemon is not annualized, it adheres closer to a biannual release schedule for each generation and even that's not always ture.
there was no mainline Pokemon title for 2015 and people were livid and sent Nintendo, Game Freak and TPCi lots of hate mail over it.

Sun & Moon (Gen VII) is November 2016
ORAS (Gen III remakes) were in Fall of 2014
X&Y (Gen VI) was in Fall 2013
B2&W2 released in Fall 2012 WW (all games released worldwide starting here)
B&W (Gen V) released in Fall 2010 in Japan, Fall 2011 in the West
HGSS (Gen II remakes) released in Sept 2009 Japan, March 2010 in the West
Platinum (3rd game) released in Sept 2008 in Japan, March 2009 in NA, May 2009 in EU
D&P (Gen IV) released in Sept 2006 in Japan, April 2007 in NA, July 2007 in the EU
Emerald (3rd game) released in Sept 2004 in Japan, May 2005 in NA, October 2005 in EU
FRLG released January 2004, Sept 2004 in NA, October 2004 in EU
R&S (Gen III) released in November 2002 in Japan , March 2003 in NA, July 2003 in EU
Crystal (3rd game) released in December 2000 in Japan, July 2001 in NA, November 2001 in EU
G&S (Gen II) released in November 1999 in Japan, October 2000 in NA, April 2001 in EU
Yellow released in September 1998 in Japan, October 1999 in NA, June 2000 in EU
R&B (Gen I) released in February 1996 in Japan, September 1998 in NA, October 199 in EU

If we take out remakes and 3rd games (which are not required to fully enjoy each gen).
Then:

1. Gen I lasted 2 years
2. Gen II lasted 3 years
3. Gen III lasted 4 years
4. Gen IV lasted 4 years
5. Gen V lasted 3 years
6. Gen VI will have lasted 2 years

No the gens are not the same at all, each gen changed and added stuff.

Gen I started it
Gen II added color, shinies, breeding, new movies, new evolutionary methods, IVs, berries, new items and new Pokemon types (including Steel and Dark)
Gen III added natures, abilities, new Pokemon evolutionary methods, new breeding mechanics, new Pokemon types, secret hideouts, new ways to obtain fossils, Pokerus, Battle Frontier and new battle/stat items

Gen IV split the special stat into special attack and special defense. Split moves into physical, special and others. They also added the underground to mine items and fossils. They also added double battles, wild double battles, swarms, online battle and trading, and online Global Trading System. They changed/added things to the breeding system and battle system on top of it. There is also Pokemon changing forms based on items. new abilities and natures. new Eeveelutions

Gen V added a new Pokemon types/mixes, new moves, new abilities, story driven game, Pokemon fusion (you can fuse two legendaries together to form a super mon), new stat items, new season cycle (Effects evolutions and moves), new breeding mechanics, Pokemon Dream world and a few other things.

Gen VI added fairy type (counterbalance to Dragon), Mega evolutions, new breeding mechanics, new evolutionary methods, customizable trainers, new battle mechanics, new eevolution, new stat items (they even let you change to a hidden ability if a Pokemon has one with an item)... there other things that were added.

Gen VII ads a type super attack (Z-move), changes the way badges are collected (no 8 gyms), Hyper Training for level 100 Pokemon, Battle Royal mode, Pokemon Riding, New Pokemon Forms, new types and evolutions for existing Pokemon exclusive to Alola region (these games). It will also have connectivity with Go. We will know more later as new information comes out.

That's on top of all the new moves, new stats, new Pokemon etc... each gen has.

It really irks me when people say all the mainline Pokemon games are the same.
I mean the spin offs such as Go are a different story

Last fall, there was a lot of complaints about Madden, FIFA and NBA2k series having too many changes and too many new features. Their sales all took a hit because people were too unhappy with the latest installments.
Maybe the new games in a few weeks will change that.

 

[Sylar]

The question everyone should be asking, is Hollywood creatively bankrupt or is it the consumer's fault for refusing to view new and different content?

It's more of consumer issue than a Hollywood one.

You were dead on with every point you made in your post. They're not going to take big risks when even projects that should have been hits can be a dud. Sure, sometimes they bring it on themselves: poor scripts, stupidly high budgets on films that don't need it and straight up stupid choices. Such as your examples. WB is failing with their DC movies because spending too much especially on marketing, put almost all control in the hands of a man who hasn't had a real hit himself AND have so little faith that they'll reshoot or re-edit large portions of their films and result in a mess of a final product. Sony can't seem to do anything right at the minute.

Hollywood isn't creatively bankrupt, or no more than it has been for a very long time. Look at how many classic movies were based on books or old fairytales for example. Remakes and adaptations are nothing new. Original films are out there regularly (and don't do well at the box office) so clearly the audience isn't interested in them. If Hollywood is in a poor state and the only way to fix it is to seek out the original films and support them. And cut back on paying for the same stuff over and over.

 

[Xenocity]

You were dead on with every point you made in your post. They're not going to take big risks when even projects that should have been hits can be a dud. Sure, sometimes they bring it on themselves: poor scripts, stupidly high budgets on films that don't need it and straight up stupid choices. Such as your examples. WB is failing with their DC movies because spending too much especially on marketing, put almost all control in the hands of a man who hasn't had a real hit himself AND have so little faith that they'll reshoot or re-edit large portions of their films and result in a mess of a final product. Sony can't seem to do anything right at the minute.

Hollywood isn't creatively bankrupt, or no more than it has been for a very long time. Look at how many classic movies were based on books or old fairytales for example. Remakes and adaptations are nothing new. Original films are out there regularly (and don't do well at the box office) so clearly the audience isn't interested in them. If Hollywood is in a poor state and the only way to fix it is to seek out the original films and support them. And cut back on paying for the same stuff over and over.

My point it is that consumers don't want original content as general rule, which in turn forces the change in outputs in markets.

U.S. movie ticket sales and DVD/Blu-ray sales are up over the past 3 years, due to Hollywood and others releasing installments and reboots of existing movie franchises.

The movie studios are also locked into an "arm" race resulting them in spending more and more money to one up each other.
This is in part the consumers see low and mid budget movies and bad/weak and big budget movies and better/good.

All the 5 major movie studios are subsidiaries of bigger corporations or part of a bigger corporation:

1. WB merged with Time in 1980, creating Time Warner (a huge company)
   
2. NBCUniversal (GE and Vivendi merged the two before selling to Comcast) is owned by Comcast
   
3. MGM is part of MGM Holdings (owned by it's creditors), with Sony controlling 20% of MGM Holdings.
   
4. Paramount is part of Viacom
5. Columbia/Tristar are part of Sony pictures which is owned by Sony

Even Legendary Entertainment sold out to Wanda (Chinese company) earlier this year.

Most of this is consumer driven for bigger, better, more spectacular movies.
Consumers are brand loyal to a fault.

Video games are the same way, you have the big 8 3rd parties:

1. EA
2. Take Two
   
3. Activision-Blizzard
4. WBi
5. Ubisoft
6. Capcom
7. Konami
8. Square Enix (includes Eidos)

They control most of the software market.

Then you have Sony and Microsoft which are massive multi billion dollar MNCs which are in an arms race to provide the best graphics profitable. Oh did I mention that one of them is movie and music company too while the other controls the PC dominant OS?

The top 10 best selling games in the world each year since 2005 have been this with minor change (same goes for the U.S. list, UK list and EU list:

1. Call of Duty: [insert yearly title]
2. FIFA XXXX
3. Madden XX
4. NBA game
5. NCAA Basketball
6. NCAA Football (American)
7. Grand Theft Auto (III-SA-IV-V depending on the year)
8. Assassins Creed/Ubisoft tower climbing game
9. 2k Sports
10. [insert Nintendo, Sony or Microsoft first party game here]

5 of the best selling video games of all time are Call of Duty games, while the other 5 are Nintendo games.
The top 10 list has sold over 18 Million units.

Though at least in the terms of video games there has been an increase in diversity over the past few years, though you need to be a sports game, shooter, AAA blockbuster game, and/or realistic racer to do well on PS4 and Xbox One. Also being rated family friendly will kill your sales on PS4 and Xbox One

 

[Sylar]

My point it is that consumers don't want original content as general rule, which in turn forces the change in outputs in markets.

I know what your point was I was just adding my own to give other layers of context as to why. We already know Hollywood does reboots, sequels etc because it makes more money than trying original ideas. But even then a long string of movies that should be surefire hits underperform if not fail. If that's the case why would anyone expect them to take a risk again when they already know that doesn't make money and playing it safe isn't always safe either.

My only other point was that people who aren't happy with the endless franchises should stop complaining and support the original movies so that they make more money and might eventually make Hollywood start making more. Afterall it is a business and money is the only way to make a point. Support smaller films or stop seeing the things they hate, you can't complain about originality if you still pay to see every rehash they make.

With that said, I don't give videogames the same pass. There is no excuse for yearly sports games when everything the do can be done for free in an update. Unless there is a major change in engine or gameplay you shouldn't charge £40-£60 every year. The same goes for Call of Duty. I bought Star Wars Battlefront as well as the season pass, we only have half of the season pass content so far and already we know that there isn't a year after the final set is released before they come out with battlefront 2 and do the entire thing again. That's £80 minimum and you don't even get a full year to experience everything that the game has to offer.

 

[midlife aspie]

My problem with Hollywood is that the 'pretty people' are grossly overpaid and the films are VERY pricey. The gatherings those folks have every year to pat each other's backs are sickening to me. I guess if most people saw the film industry the way I do, 'those folks' would be more down to earth and there would be little or no paparazzi. I can't remember the last film I saw in a theater.

 

[Xenocity]

I know what your point was I was just adding my own to give other layers of context as to why. We already know Hollywood does reboots, sequels etc because it makes more money that trying original ideas. But even then a long string of movies that should be surefire hits underperform if not fail. If that's the case why would anyone expect them to take a risk again when they already know that doesn't make money and playing it safe isn't always safe either.

My only other point was that people who aren't happy with the endless franchises should stop complaining and support the original movies so that they make more money and might eventually make Hollywood start making more. Afterall it is a business and money is the only way to make a point. Support smaller films or stop seeing the things they hate, you can't complain about originality if you still pay to see every rehash they make.

With that said, I don't give videogames the same pass. There is no excuse for yearly sports games when everything the do can be done for free in an update. Unless there is a major change in engine or gameplay you shouldn't charge £40-£60 every year. The same goes for Call of Duty. I bought Star Wars Battlefront as well as the season pass, we only have half of the season pass content so far and already we know that there isn't a year after the final set is released before they come out with battlefront 2 and do the entire thing again. That's £80 minimum and you don't even get a full year to experience everything that the game has to offer.

Alright...
Though this year's Sports games are getting mixed reviews over the "changes".

Consumers need to remember that companies follow the money...

 

[Sylar]

My problem with Hollywood is that the 'pretty people' are grossly overpaid and the films are VERY pricey.

You can say that again, my brothers went to see Suicide Squad and for the movie and a popcorn and drink each it cost them £33 for 2 people. It was a daytime showing too so tickets are a little cheaper than they are in the evening.

And the pay the stars get is ridiculous. Robert Downey Jr. got over $50million on the first Avengers movie alone. Then you have Jennifer Lawrence complaining about a Hollywood gender pay gap going to demand more money from now on, in the same year that she was Hollywood's second highest earning actor only behind RDJ. As much as he got paid at least he was a huge factor in the success of a $12billion movie franchise, so I guess he deserves some of that money.

 

[Xenocity]

You can say that again, my brothers went to see Suicide Squad and for the movie and a popcorn and drink each it cost them £33 for 2 people. It was a daytime showing too so tickets are a little cheaper than they are in the evening.

And the pay the stars get is ridiculous. Robert Downey Jr. got over $50million on the first Avengers movie alone. Then you have Jennifer Lawrence complaining about a Hollywood gender pay gap going to demand more money from now on, in the same year that she was Hollywood's second highest earning actor only behind RDJ. As much as he got paid at least he was a huge factor in the success of a $12billion movie franchise, so I guess he deserves some of that money.

Though to be fair studios are the ones at fault for the bidding war driving up actors pay.

As for looks, market research has shown us this....

Hotter the cast of your movie and/or TV show, the more people who will watch it, regardless of acting ability and plot.
The more average and uglier the cast, the worse your movie and TV show performs.

Looks are a key driver in movie and TV industry.

It's not the studios fault that the consumers actively choose to see movies and TV shows based on how hot the cast is...

Or I'll put this way.

If you pick two women (or men) to star in two movies it will go like this:
Movie one has the person with the better looks and worse acting ability
Movie two has the person with average looks and better acting ability

All other things being equal, Movie one will out sell Movie two exponentially because it has the better looking cast! Nothing else matters.

It's not the studios fault that the consumers prefer looks in a visual medium.

Also theaters only get a small cut of the ticket price and full profits on everything else they sell.

 

[Butterfly88]

I agree but I think it's been that way for a while. There's only so many topics to have a tv show/movie on. But the total remakes is just Hollywood being lazy and looking for money.

 

[Xenocity]

I agree but I think it's been that way for a while. There's only so many topics to have a tv show/movie on. But the total remakes is just Hollywood being lazy and looking for money.

Is Hollywood being lazy or is it the consumer demanding it?

The original or partially original movies we had this year bombed horribly despite decent to great reviews.
The remakes/reboots regardless of reviews had mixed results.
Sequels for the most part out performed them.

People clamor for original/semi original content and don't bother to see it when it releases because they are unsure if they will like it because they are unfamiliar with the content.

People end up skipping it to see something they know and love, such as a sequel, reboot or remake.

If the people put their money where their mouths are, we'd see reverse happening.