Another Giant Blockbuster Crashes and Burns

[Jon O'Brien]

 

The studios are chasing the $1 billion hits and building franchises ...

 

If that business model starts to fail, the mega-CGI tent-poles, then they will have to come up with something else. Go back to what movies were like prior to such massive fx blockbusters? You know, the difference between Transformers and Spiderman, and Babette's Feast and Sunday Too Far Away?

[Dom Jaeger]

I'm a bit sad Mortal Engines flopped, to be honest. I quite enjoy big budget spectacles, but get a bit bored of the same franchises getting all the funding. It's refreshing to see new ideas given a go with enough budget to make it spectacular. Apparently the opening sequence of Mortal Engines is something to behold. Unfortunately this will just make studios even more determined to stick to known franchises and not risk something original.

 

Mega tent-poles aren't going away - the top 20 box office films last year, mostly big budget franchises, made over 40% of the total world box office take. That's why they keep getting green lit. A film like "It", with a relatively modest budget of $35M that rakes in $700M worlwide, is the rare exception, not the rule. Even a kids animation like Despicable Me 3, which grossed over a billion, had a production budget of $80M and was heavily promoted. Most of the other top 20 films are in the $180-200M budget range. Inevitably a few will flop, but the overall gamble seems to pay off.

[Guest]

The matrix looks a bit like this Dom.

 

10 100M+ blockbusters.

 

4 Flop

3 Break even

2 Make a bit of money

3 Hits.

 

It's those 3 hits you're counting on to offset the losses of the other 7.

 

It's a bit insane to think this is a "business" model whereby you invest 3-4 years of work and 100M+. Which then all comes down to a 48 hour period on the release.

 

R,

[Manu Delpech]

Mortal Engines looked like a bomb from the trailer alone. It seems the books have been mostly forgotten, there was zero buzz for it, the trailers failed to get people excited, add to that a novice director who seems more at ease (understandably so) with set pieces and action than characters and story, and boom.

[Jon O'Brien]

Well, the mega productions create jobs for hundreds of people, which is really great. For instance at Village Roadshow studios at Oxenford, Gold Coast, Australia. Not far from me.

[Guest]

Well, the mega productions create jobs for hundreds of people, which is really great. For instance at Village Roadshow studios at Oxenford, Gold Coast, Australia. Not far from me.

 

So is it a viable business or merely a make work scheme?

 

R,

[Gregory Irwin]

Well, the mega productions create jobs for hundreds of people, which is really great. For instance at Village Roadshow studios at Oxenford, Gold Coast, Australia. Not far from me.

 

I would like to echo Jon's statement here. The big pictures keep our industry employed which is good for everyone. The local economies where they are filmed benefit as well. But for me, the pictures that I make my living on are not the pictures I enjoy watching. The ones I enjoy are the ones I cannot afford to work on.

 

G

[Guest]

From an employee perspective Gregory I see where you're coming from.

 

However, how many mega flops happen before a studio goes belly up due to the losses. Several sub majors have been wiped out with one epic failure. I realize that of the big five it would take more than one mega flop to take them down, and Disney is able to withstand an unlimited number of mega flops. Not so sure I would say that for Paramount.

 

At the end of the day, if your business model is to spend hundreds of millions, you need to recover that money somehow, otherwise you won't be in business much longer.

 

Of course if I was in your position, I would take the money while the taking is good. So I don't fault you there. ;)

 

R,

[Tyler Purcell]

So right now, the only thing really holding the US film industry together is the Chinese market and their economy appears to be flatlining.

 

Remember, the Chinese are stakeholders in not only financing of US films, but also in a lot of cases, soul ownership of theater chains including AMC. Even the chains like Cinemark and Regal, if you dig deep enough you'll trace investment coming from China to keep them afloat.

 

People forget, it's not the writers, producers, directors or even the studios in many cases, which dictate what is being made. Nearly all of the tent pole blockbusters are green lit because the owners of these theater chains, think it's a good investment. The marketing research companies come up with the concepts. They'll pitch them to the studio's. The studio's will then pitch them to the theater chains and they will choose which one's are going to be greenlit based on the response. Studios have been known to buy properties that are pre-existing and present them to theater chains years ahead of time to make sure they feel it's a good match before investing. This is part of the reason why it's so difficult for smaller movies to get wide theatrical release, if the theaters don't think it will make money, they put up as many roadblocks as possible. The "art houses" love those mid-tier non-studio fodder because if it's marketed at all, there will be an audience to see it and it keeps them in business.

 

Fortunately or unfortunately depending on what side your on, there is a paradigm shift coming. Smaller, more indy-like films making studio's/theaters money AND the flop ratio of the big movies increasing, is slowly waking up the industry. I really feel with the high quality web content these days, theaters are going to struggle with $15 - $20 ticket prices (which is the average in big cities around the country) with any movie, indy or blockbuster. Theatrical attendance is decreasing, but the studio's are making more money than ever in part thanks to the emerging markets like China and most importantly the higher ticket prices. Digital cinema is actually costing theaters more then film and making the studio more money as they don't have to pay for prints. So profits have skyrocketed, but quality content has been lackluster. I feel there is a tipping point where ticket prices vs consumers need to see first-run content will start to close some less profitable theaters and the cinema as a whole, will turn into a more premium experience.

 

So the question is, how will the Chinese/emerging market variations alter the studio's future investments. I personally want to see more tent pole failures. I want China to pull back investment. I want the studio's to create premium content that harkens back to the days of tv vs cinema wars of the 50's and 60's. There is nothing stopping it from happening, it's just going to take a few great filmmakers to make it so.

[Max Field]

There is nothing stopping it from happening, it's just going to take a few great filmmakers to make it so.

just going to take... I feel like the cultural gap between 16-25yos (biggest market, no?) and the age 50+ people greenlighting all the budget capital is too wide of margin to reach a solution quick enough before a crash. Young people still like movies but browsing the internet conquers everything that isn't immediately tailored to them.

[Tyler Purcell]

just going to take... I feel like the cultural gap between 16-25yos (biggest market, no?) and the age 50+ people greenlighting all the budget capital is too wide of margin to reach a solution quick enough before a crash. Young people still like movies but browsing the internet conquers everything that isn't immediately tailored to them.

Sadly, the best demographics we have are from 2016. As of then, the 18 - 25 group is still the largest group, but at the same time, the amount of people that age with positions of power in the film industry could be counted on one hand's fingers. None of them are decision makers and it's a huge problem.

 

On the flip side, Hulu, Youtube Red, Amazon and Netflix are creating series that target the 16 - 25 age bracket and for teens specifically, there are a few other free options that speak specifically to them. So the point of going to the cinema, heck the point of even watching TV, is becoming less valuable. The worst thing for the cinema is the quality of content available online, it's mostly outstanding. Many shows take the Cinemax/HBO quality and increase the spending. There is so much content to watch these days, it's difficult to even find time to visit the theaters. The only reason teens still go is because parents drop their kids off at the mall and they've got nothing to do. With that said, those days are limited. Standard every day retail is dying super fast and hang out places for teens, dying along with it.

 

So in the end, I do think the demographic is changing, but it's a slow process.

[Jon O'Brien]

What I've observed lately just around here is that there is an audience for quality, 'artistic' (for want of a better term), character-and-story driven 'small' shows for older audiences, definitely not in the 16-25 age bracket. I think people around middle-aged and older (I'm early 50s) are wanting to get out of the house and see a nice, good movie that is entertaining, informative and about people and about life (not about, let's face it, pretty crazy superhero types who almost verge into the narcissistic). These audiences want to get out and get a meal and/or a coffee, have some fun, and feel that they were entertained and saw something that was good quality (literally, the look of it too) as they walk back to the car. Beautiful photography is a part of this (I deliberately write photography to emphasize image look).

 

When I went to see 'Darkest Hour' not all that long ago the cinema was packed out like a sardine can. My friends and I arrived just before 'opening curtain' and I must have gotten pretty much the only seat left. So the tent poles are good for the industry/jobs but they also provide an industry infrastructure for the smaller more human-interest type shows as they train up crews and actors. I think there's a real market there for smaller pictures that are excellent quality all round. Films that would make good plays. Things like that.

[Jon O'Brien]

About the only superhero movies I enjoyed and still enjoy is Superman I (1978) and to some extent Superman II. That's because the character was really an archetype of someone who is truly good. That was in fact part of the joke of the movie(s). There's religious undertones, pretty obvious really, in Superman. He was a light-hearted allegory of God in human form come to save us from ourselves.

 

Of course good entertaining pictures don't have to be about 'nice' things though - I'm not saying that. Great small pictures can explore dark themes as that's part of our world. Personally I'd want to make pictures though that do offer hope at the end and some kind of uplifting conclusion. The original 'Alien' was a very creative picture that was very dark but did have a reassuring ending (forgetting about the films that followed).

Edited December 19, 2018 by Jon O'Brien

[Michael LaVoie]

When Peter Cuneo took over at Marvel they were refinancing hundreds of millions of debt. They went into making blockbuster movies but with a major change. No stars, no fat, no "Hollywood". Which was why you got Tobey McGuire as Spiderman and Hugh Jackman as Wolverine, RDJ as Iron Man, etc.

 

His motto was to hire great people and get out of their way. Let the artists work. Maybe their pay has increased substantially since then but the spirit seems to remain. They used to literally tear up the script on the Iron Man set and just riff the dialogue on the day. More studios need that kind of "indie" approach.

[Phil Rhodes]

Just saw Mortal Engines in a truly terrible screen which served to minimise the spectacle of it all.

 

Phil's quick review:

 

It's a fairly bad script. At a casual analysis, it passes most of the tests applied to commercial feature filmmaking: it has A, B and C plots, though their integration is weak and confused, and they aren't paced properly with respect to one another. It has clear leads with reasonably clear goals, although the resolution of one of the principal goals is muddied. The plot relies on at least two outrageous coincidences and, in the end, degenerates into a MacGuffin quest that's presented to us then thrown away in a matter of a few pages. A promisingly chilling bad guy is set up nicely then revealed far too quickly, dispelling any unease the audience might have about him.

 

This is an example of why those simple tests of commercial feature filmmaking may be a necessary condition for success, but they are not a sufficient condition for success.

 

This is, of course, a literary adaptation, and literary adaptations are hard. Some of the problems this creates are quite common and quite easy to identify, stemming mainly from the fact that it tries to do too much too fast. The dialogue is often so blatantly expository that even Hugo Weaving struggles to make it sound reasonable, and there are far too many characters which, as a result, are underdeveloped. These are often problems of excessively-literal conversions of books. The whole thing feels rushed; we don't care about the city which is threatened at the end, because we've only just met the people who live there, and we don't care about the characters who go out to defend it, because we've hardly seen anything of them.

 

Too many places, scenes, people and bits of extraneous action, and some of the compositing is horrific.

 

4/10 with an extra credit for Leila George's incongruous sequinned overcoat.

 

In short, I think it might have been quite obvious what the problems were with this from the script. What shocks me is that the people who signed for the nine figure budget on this thing presumably knew that as well as I do, and the amount of committee-based diffusion of responsibility that goes on in film companies must be absolutely enormous, or nobody would let it happen.

[Guest]

Phil, I fear my on-line thread motivated you to buy a ticket and see this! :D

 

R,

[Phil Rhodes]

It did.

[Jon O'Brien]

just going to take... I feel like the cultural gap between 16-25yos (biggest market, no?) and the age 50+ people greenlighting all the budget capital is too wide of margin to reach a solution quick enough before a crash. Young people still like movies but browsing the internet conquers everything that isn't immediately tailored to them.

 

This sort of thing has happened before. Films were getting a little bit tired at one point, you know (and I've mentioned this before) with films like 'The Computer Wore Tennis Shoes' which I went to see a re-run of as a kid, then along came the disaster movie blockbusters like Poseidon Adventure, Earthquake and Towering Inferno. And then that fashion started to totter briefly and the feature movie industry looked a little uncertain, then quickly along came things like King Kong and Logan's Run in 1976 and suddenly ... BOOM ...Star Wars in 1977. Followed rapidly by Spielberg's rise (I think I got that chronology right). That feature movie boom starting around 1977 arose from someone finally giving the bright new young kids the reins and the bucks to make some big pictures.

 

But the thing is that Lucas and Spielberg were truly dyed-in-the-wool real filmmakers. They actually strongly represented movie-making tradition. I suspect if studios handed older-teens to early twenty somethings the filmmaking reins today what we'd see would be some sort of internet/film/video game type amalgam. I'm not so sure it would be a leg-up for filmmaking, unless it fell into the hands of young people who were truly devoted to traditional filmmaking as we understand it. When I talk to younger people today at work etc they all seem to be games focused. I talk films but they talk games and internet.

Edited December 19, 2018 by Jon O'Brien

[Max Field]

But the thing is that Lucas and Spielberg were truly dyed-in-the-wool real filmmakers. They actually strongly represented movie-making tradition. I suspect if studios handed older-teens to early twenty somethings the filmmaking reins today what we'd see would be some sort of internet/film/video game type amalgam. I'm not so sure it would be a leg-up for filmmaking, unless it fell into the hands of young people who were truly devoted to traditional filmmaking as we understand it. When I talk to younger people today at work etc they all seem to be games focused. I talk films but they talk games and internet.

Well 2 things.

 

Yeah film had competition with TV in the 60's but the internet is TV on steroids. If Lucas and Spielberg came back today they wouldn't be able to save anything. Tom Green or Kevin Smith would have a much better chance of reaching the audiences of today.

 

Also your experience with younger people being gamers is significant, but not the entire crop. I've yet to meet an avid gamer who would take on the creative challenge of directing a feature film on any budget.

[Tyler Purcell]

But the thing is that Lucas and Spielberg were truly dyed-in-the-wool real filmmakers. They actually strongly represented movie-making tradition. I suspect if studios handed older-teens to early twenty somethings the filmmaking reins today what we'd see would be some sort of internet/film/video game type amalgam. I'm not so sure it would be a leg-up for filmmaking, unless it fell into the hands of young people who were truly devoted to traditional filmmaking as we understand it. When I talk to younger people today at work etc they all seem to be games focused. I talk films but they talk games and internet.

Spielberg just wanted to make silly popcorn adventure movies and was quite successful at doing so. The problem is the "serious" popcorn film genre doesn't exist anymore. It's either befuddled by complete lightweight stupid crap that you watch and forget, or it's some one off indy film that nobody got to see in the theaters. Like where is the Lethal Weapon and Indiana Jones series today?

[Jon O'Brien]

Spielberg just wanted to make silly popcorn adventure movies and was quite successful at doing so.

 

True, but (I'm sure you agree) 'Raiders of the Lost Ark' was actually an immensely well-made, rich and quality 'small' movie with real charm in its characters and story. We don't see much of that earthy, practical-and-optical fx type adventure film today with wit and humour both in the lines and the 'in-camera' gags. I remember the trailer for Raiders in the cinema. It looked like garbage but turned out to be a classic. Okay so it wasn't truly a small movie but it wasn't a mega blockbuster.

Edited December 19, 2018 by Jon O'Brien

[Guest]

It did.

 

Geez, I'm better at marketing this movie than the studio was. :blink:

 

R,

[Tyler Purcell]

True, but (I'm sure you agree) 'Raiders of the Lost Ark' was actually an immensely well-made, rich and quality 'small' movie with real charm in its characters and story. We don't see much of that earthy, practical-and-optical fx type adventure film today with wit and humour both in the lines and the 'in-camera' gags. I remember the trailer for Raiders in the cinema. It looked like garbage but turned out to be a classic. Okay so it wasn't truly a small movie but it wasn't a mega blockbuster.

Exactly! I mean it was a huge production, but that was made with some of the top talent in the industry at the time. One could argue Temple of Doom and Last Crusade were sub-par compared to the first one, but even they held up.

 

Honestly, there are so few "re-watchable" movies that come out these days. Most of them are either so artistic, you consume them once and that's it, or they're just green screen popcorn poop and it makes my brain oooze out of my ear. We need more in-between movies... "Shape of Water" for instance. Popcorn fodder, simple story, well made and very re-watchable. If Guillermo del Toro keeps this up, he maybe come the next Spielberg but he's gotta keep churning out quality content like that. It's been years since I actually liked the Academy's choice for best picture and I was shocked they won.

[Max Field]

Honestly, there are so few "re-watchable" movies that come out these days.

Said another guy in 1985. Said another guy in 1955. And so on.

 

I don't like the movies coming out right now either but we might have to come to grips with our tastes having fallen out of the target market. Millions of people are still going out to these films and loving them.

[Guest]

Millions of people are still going out to these films and loving them.

 

Evidently not enough millions for Mortal Engines.

 

R,