Does Hollywood lost some of it’s imagination?
In the last years, the studios gave movie fans great movies but also a lot of sequels and remakes. Don't get me wrong, those, from time to time, are fun to watch but it's the dangerous growing trend that don't like. Are movie goers responsible? Are studios playing safe? Are actors paid to much? Let's take look at the 2003 to 2006 top 10 grossing movies and try to answer those questions.
S = Sequel
R = Remake
Source: Lee's Movie Info
2006
- Pirates of Caribbean 2 (S)
- Night at the Museum
- Cars
- X3 (S)
- The Da Vinci Code
- Superman Returns (S)
- Happy Feet
- Ice Age 2 (S)
- Casino Royale (R)
- Pursuit of Happyness
2005
- Revenge of the Sith (S)
- Chronicles of Narnia
- Goblet of Fire (S)
- War of the Worlds (R)
- King Kong (R)
- Wedding Crashers
- Chocolate Factory (R)
- Batman Begins (S)
- Madagascar
- Mr. and Mrs. Smith
2004
- Shrek 2 (S)
- Spider-Man 2 (S)
- The Passion
- Meet the Fockers (S)
- The Incredibles
- Prisoner of Azkaban (S)
- Day After Tomorrow
- Polar Express
- Bourne Supremacy (S)
- National Treasure
2003
- Pirates of Caribbean
- Return of the King (S)
- Finding Nemo
- Matrix Reloaded (S)
- Bruce Almighty
- X2 (S)
- Elf
- Terminator 3 (S)
- Matrix Revolutions (S)
- Cheaper by...Dozen
In 2003, we see the start of this trend when 5-6 top movies/year are sequels or remakes. In the previous year, it was 2-3 movies.
Are movie goers at fault?
Yes but I think part of it is the price of tickets. Why pay $12 and take a risk on a movie? But when you know the characters and like the premise in advance, it's a safe way to get entertained with your hard earned cash. If the price would be cut by half, I'm sure that most people would see more movies and take the risk. I know because I go when prices are lower(not half yet) and I see a lot more movies than in previous years. And yes, I'm guilty, I also go see the sequels or remakes.
Are studios playing safe?
Yes and we can blame the higher cost of big budget movies. I can understand them for playing safe because they loose more often than they gain. It's a business after all. But if a sequel can bring box office numbers while recycling stuff from the previous movie, why not? It let them pay for the other movies.
I don't mind a remake like War of the World(2005) because the original was made in 1953. I don't like those made in the 70'. It is a trend seen in horror movies lately like Black Christmas(1974, 2006), The Hills Have Eyes(1974, 2006), Texas chainsaw Massacre(1974, 2006)... Instead, they could make a prequel or sequel if none was created before. A Colossus: The Forbin Project (1970) sequel is something I would look forward.
It will also mean that the 80' will be next soon and we could get remakes of Ghost Buster(1984), E.T.(1982) or even Scanners(1981). Incidentally, a remake of Scanners is scheduled for 2008.
Apart of remakes, they could look into books. Harry Potter and The Lord of the Rings are 2 good examples. I'm sure they are other books that can be adapted. I don't read books and I always say: "If a book is good then I will wait for the movie".
Last week 300, based on a graphic novel by Frank Miller, is good example of an adaptation. It made 70 Millions the first weekend on a 60 Millions budget.
One other source for Hollywood could be foreign movies. The best example is this year Oscar winner The Departed. This movie was based on Infernal Affairs(Hong Kong).
Are actors paid to much?
Yes but who can blame them for taking the offer. One way for studios to lower the cost is more profit sharing with actors. Instead of a 10-20 Millions payday, they could get just 1 or 2 Millions and have an higher percentage. If the movie bomb at the box offices both parties looses but it's mostly the studios. But if it's a major blockbuster, then everybody wins.
Upcoming sequels/remake for 2007
Are We Done Yet?, The Hills Have Eyes II, Shrek 3, Spider-Man 3, Pirates of Caribbean 3, 28 Weeks Later, Hostel: Part II, Ocean's 13, Fantastic Four II, Die Hard 4, Nancy Drew, Rush Hour 3, The Bourne Ultimatum, Halloween,The Heartbreak Kid, Resident Evil 3, Saw IV, AVP 2, National Treasure 2
Who will be in the top 10 this year? Time will tell.
Find 2012 related movie news and more. 2012 is not the only thing you can read about here.
June 20th, 2007 at 2:56 pm
I think Hollywood started losing it’s imagination a while ago! But I do think that the actors salaries are fair at least for those who are paid a flat wage upfront, whether that be $2,OOO,OOO OR $20,000,000. They earn that because the studio is able to sell international distribution rights to a film easier if a big name star is attached. It stands to reason a film starring Angelina Jolie is probably going to be bought by more theatres, than a movie with Mandy Moore.
I do think that Hollywood could afford better movies with more all star casts if they granted more back end deals to actors, star directors and star producers.
Now I don’t think it is fair when the big name actors get greedy and demand the $10-$20million salary plus back end points for themselves and their production company. War of the Worlds budget was astronomical because the studio gave full upfront asking price for Tom Cruise and Steven Speilberg and back end points for both men and their respective productions companies. I say shame on the studios for giving such outrageous deals. I think things went a little nutty back in the 1990’s when after the success of Ace Ventura Pet Detective and The Mask, Jim Carrey was given $20,000,0000 for Cable Guy. $20 million for his third lead in a feature film??? Louis B. Mayer would rollover in his grave.
This is just my humble opinion! Loved the article…obviously! Have a great day!
June 20th, 2007 at 3:32 pm
Sure, if it’s big name, i will take a second look but I was often burned by that too. Now, I will look at the ensemble/story/genre before I see a movie.
ID4, one of my favorite movies, had many good trailers/teasers, budget of 75Millions vs 100Millions for big movies of that time and a cast of B+ actors. Many were known for TV roles or minor/passed movies. They made a lot of movie and will make more when it’s in Blu-Ray. The same goes for Starship Troopers.
When you see that Superman cost 200+Millions for a ok movie, you wonder where the money went. I’m sure they did not pay 20M for one actor.
War of the world was ok but should had been a “wow” movie considering the names involved.
Maybe I’m getting old or I’m comparing what was done with ID4. Computers cost less and are much faster to render special effects. The guy that paints or do sets certainly don’t earn double what they made 10 years ago.
Should they get a salary cap like professional teams and get a piece of the pie if it makes money?
P.S.
Since that post, we can see a new major movie for $4.95CAN on Tuesdays across most of Canada. The risk is less vs $12 but movies in English are shown less in Quebec City.I still go on Friday to make reviews for the blog.
July 23rd, 2007 at 8:38 am
[...] another easy sequel for [...]
August 15th, 2007 at 9:20 pm
[...] a freighting number of remakes started to be talked about. I wrote that the 80’s were next in Does Hollywood lost some of it’s imagination?. It seems I was sadly [...]
September 23rd, 2007 at 10:15 am
[...] should had been launched sooner. I know it’s another sequel and may contradict myself being a lack of imagination in hollywood but did liked the first 2 movies. They added a little more to the whole story [...]
February 17th, 2008 at 8:45 pm
[...] Could they start a new TV movie trend by showing updated version of TV shows? That I don’t mind much if it’s from time to time. Of course, they are making them now for the theater(X-Files, Simpson…) but with a much bigger budget. That, I do mind because it show a lack of imagination. [...]