what happened to this years blockbuster movies .....

[inisideguy]

Might be a bad year for other movies but its probably the best year ever for cbms. In reality movies like trek and bourne have just gone back to their normal office. The only surprise flops for me might be independance day and ghostbusters. But not really even sure these are surprises

[Doctor Know]

That seems weird, but I guess that kind of news could easily be lost in the multiple threads on the box office of the same few movies that came out this summer.

I know what FX is. FX shows don't get bigger budgets. FX is just basic cable, and a little seen basic cable station at that, they aren't like HBO. They aren't like HBO in how they make money, they aren't like them when it comes to budgeting shows, and they aren't like them when it comes to what they can get away with. Until Fargo I'd actually say most everything FX has done looks pretty cheap.

How cheap are we talking? Supergirl cheap, Killjoys cheap, Legends of Tomorrow cheap?

[regnak]

Too many blockbusters. Take Star Trek Beyond, a great movie but Jason Bourne came out the next week and cut off its legs. In a normal year it would have had another week before another blockbuster came out.

[BeastieRunner]

Too many blockbusters. Take Star Trek Beyond, a great movie but Jason Bourne came out the next week and cut off its legs. In a normal year it would have had another week before another blockbuster came out.

That happened to pretty much all movies this summer, too.

The bottom is going to drop, especially CBM, and it's going to really hurt the studios.

[Beorg]

Too many movies coming out.
Their budget is overblown hence the fail to break even.
Most are mediocre to bad.
Too many sequels, reboots, and remakes.
Tickets and food are expensive and not worth wasting money over average movies.
Trailers show you everything in 2 minutes.

And let's be honest, who the **** asked for a Ben Hur remake?

[simbob4000]

How cheap are we talking? Supergirl cheap, Killjoys cheap, Legends of Tomorrow cheap?

You asking how cheap they looked? Well, the little I've seen of Sons of Anarchy looked so cheap I was kind of surprised it was a thing on tv; even more surprised it was a thing some people were raving about. It looked like some video thing, and it looked like nobody knew how to light for whatever digital camera they were using.

If a quick Google search is true, the pilot for Supergirl was $17 million, and each episode after that was $3 million. I doubt there's anything on FX having that kind of money put into it per season. Finding the budgets for anything on FX seems to be a bitch. After looking a bit the only budgets I know of are the ones I already knew of beforehand for Louie and It's Always Sunny in Philadelphia.

[Deadxman]

Budgets are out of control with little to show for it.

[Hypestyle]

some films had the right creative parties involved, some didn't. Some had the right actors, some didn't. Some hit the zeitgeist of what people are interested in right now, some didn't. It happens every year.

[ChrisIII]

Star Trek films have always had a bit of a problem breaking through to the mainstream audience-even the highest-grossing films before Abrams largely made a profit because they were fairly low-budget to begin with-around $10-30 million give or take (and hence why the first motion picture wasn't really considered profitable-it was one of the more expensive Trek films-$40 million especially in 1979, plus some additional costs from a decade of abandoned revivals). They largely cut corners on sets (Pretty much every TWOK set is recycled from TMP), and ocassionally on special effects as well (As good as "Wrath of Khan" is, and featuring neat new FX for the time such as the Genesis planet simulation, a good chunk of it's space footage for the first hour is largely recycled in various ways from "The Motion Picture".)
Even the Abramsverse has kind of struggled a bit here and there. "Beyond" actually sort of told a somewhat more traditional "Trek" story (although not one overly referential like "Into Darkness"), and that might have turned some people off.

Maybe fall/winter's sort of becoming the new Summer. The Bond films have done pretty well in that spot since "Goldeneye" for instance. (After "License to Kill" suffered in the busy 1989 summer), and it seems like that's where Star Wars is sticking as well.

[2britishnerdz]

this movie has got me interested ! i will be checking this out !

[2britishnerdz]

i agree the creative team is really important within the movies ! the right creative team is what the dc movies need to have ... i feel that Warner Brothers don't give the creative team in forms of self expression within the movies . it seems the only thing Warner Brothers are thinking about is making money .

[Enterprise E]

I also think the issue was too many movies being released in the summer. Many of the movies that underperformed did so because, while they were not awful, they just weren't as great as either their predecessors, or were as great as some of the true box office greats of this year. A lot of people saw Civil War more than once. Families also went to see Zootopia and Finding Dory. With the price of tickets and concessions, as well as the economy not being as great as the politicians would have us believe, people had to make sacrifices as to which movies they would watch, since movies are still entertainment and not absolute essentials. Many of the underperforming movies (save for the really controversial ones), if they had been released further apart, would likely have attracted the same viewers. As it was, though, the viewers, due to budget concerns, had to make a choice, and some saw one movie, others saw a different one.

[Holt]

As someone else said, there's just way too many blockbusters released per year. I saw this video a few months ago and it made some good points.



2018 is gonna be even worse.
http://www.cracked.com/blog/why-bloc...burst-in-2018/

[MindofShadow]

When there are simply too many "must see" movies, people aren't going to settle for "eh, it was ok" nearly as often.

I can even see that in myself. I love going to blockbuster movies... and i skipped WAY more this year than ever before. I saw stuff later than before. I've relied on reviews more than ever before (not vague RT reviews but reviews from Youtubers who have similar tastes) because there was simply too much out to waste 12 bucks on ****.

Hollywood needs to keep spreading out their movies all year instead of smashing everything into May-August.

[Cel]

Growing up in the blockbuster era of the mid '70s, I remember that actual blockbusters were more of a rare thing. You maybe had just one or two per year period, and they were definitely spaced apart. They ran in the theatres for the better part of a year in the pre-home video (now pre-download) era, and people kept going back and back to them because that was the only place you were going to see them until they eventually made their way to broadcast TV a few years later.

Today, you've got all these 150+ million-dollar movies crammed within weeks of one another, and unless they make almost that much in their first week then they're in trouble. Just speaking with friends and co-workers I know, I've discovered that more and more people just aren't rushing out to the theatres unless it's for something truly spectacular or an absolute must see. But increasingly, I keep hearing "I'll just wait until it comes out on DVD/blu-ray" or "I'll download it later"--which they'll also do in their own sweet time, not necessarily when it immediately becomes available.