MovieChat Forums > General Discussion > Moviegoers: "People aren't going to the ...

Moviegoers: "People aren't going to the theatres anymore because there's no originality. We want originality!".


Also moviegoers:

2023 Worldwide Box Office:

1. Barbie
2. The Super Mario Bros. Movie
3. Oppenheimer
4. Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 3
5. Fast X
6. Spider-Man: Across the Spider-Verse
7. The Little Mermaid
8. Mission: Impossible - Dead Reckoning Part One
9. Elemental
10. Ant-Man and the Wasp: Quantumania
11. John Wick: Chapter 4
12. Transformers: Rise of the Beasts
13. Meg 2: The Trench
14. Indiana Jones and the Dial of Destiny
15. Five Nights at Freddy's
16. Creed III
17. The Flash
18. The Nun II
19. The Hunger Games: The Ballad of Songbirds & Snakes
20. Taylor Swift: The Eras Tour


*Bold indicates original film.

https://www.boxofficemojo.com/year/world/

reply

And everyone wonders why the slate looks like it does...

reply

I'm fine with watching a sequel, but I'd much prefer watching something original any day. My two favourite films this year are original and aren't anywhere near the top 20 highest grossing films of the year.

reply


Yup.

I know someone who frequently rails against the state of modern mainstream filmmaking. 'It's all prequels and sequels, reboots and franchises nowadays,' he says. He's planning to see Wonka this weekend.

reply

I WATCHED THE TRAILER...I DOUBT I EVER WATCH FANTASTIC SWEETS AND WHERE TO FIND THEM.

reply

How many Marvel movies do we need?

reply

LOTS...THEY'RE FUN...AND SOMETIMES THEY ARE AWESOME...THE NUMBER OF MARVEL FILMS DOESN'T CHANGE THE RELEASE OF ANYTHING ELSE...THEATERS ARE BECOMING A NICHE THING AND CONTENT IS CONSUMED ONLINE...WHICH IS WHERE ALL YOUR ORIGINALS CAN BE FOUND.

reply

It does change. Disney is huge and their movies take up most of the screens.

reply

DISNEY WAS ALWAYS HUGE AND THEIR MOVIES ONLY PLAY SO MANY SCREENS...WHEN OTHER STUFF PLAYS...NOBODY GOES TO SEE IT...ITS A DYING INDUSTRY....SOON TO BE A NICHE THING LIKE RECORD STORES OR PHYSICAL MEDIA.


I SPENT MY ENTIRE LIFE SEEING TWO FILMS A WEEK AT THE THEATER...FOUR TO FIVE VIDEOSTORE TRIPS A WEEK AS WELL...TIMES KEEP CHANGING...NOT ALWAYS FOR THE BEST IN MY STUCK IN THE PAST OPINION...BUT PROBABLY FOR THE BEST OF THE FUTURE...OR THE APOCALYPSE IF I WANT TO START BEING ONE OF THOSE NEGATIVE FACED ANTI-WOKE,ANTI-PROGRESS,ANTI-WHATEVER TROLLS.

reply


Dunno.

Personally, I need precisely none -- although I found the handful I've actually seen to be sufficiently entertaining for two hours or so. But they're not my thing. Very few of these big movies are 'my thing'.

But if folk enjoy them, where's the harm really?

It's silly to whinge about something over and over again while you continue to contribute to it though... if my about-to-see-Wonka-out-of-weird-obligation friend happens to be reading. (He isn't. He's a normal human being. He's not on MovieChat.)

reply

OF THE FEW YOU SAW...DID YOU CHECK OUT THE GUARDIANS OF THE GALAXY FLICKS?....THEY ARE MY FAVORITES...THEY ROCK.

reply

I saw the first Guardians of the Galaxy film. It was probably my favourite of the five(?) I've seen. (Iron Man, the first Avengers film, Iron Man 2, Spider-Man: Homecoming... I think that's all of them.) I couldn't now tell you anything that happened in it, but I remember finding it quite fun.

reply

COOL.🙂

reply

Well, nothing but I think the constant glut of franchise movies and the MCU is noticeably burning people out. There are many reasons why cinema has become so bogged down in this mire.

reply

Cinema beyond the Hollywood blockbuster is doing fine though. It's just mostly not being watched in cinemas any more.

I do think there are people who could gain from expanding their horizons a bit. 'It's all superheroes now.' No. It isn't. As I've seen you note yourself, there's loads of stuff out there. And people can't survive on a diet of constant marshmallows... although there's nothing wrong with a marshmallow-y treat every once in a while.

But if people are enjoying this stuff -- go for it. Have yourself a blast.

If they're not or they're burned out or whatever, stop hanging around and whingeing about it. They're like people crashing a party to tell the other folk that they're wrong, they're not actually having a good time.

I encounter so many people who seem to imagine being a film fan is sneering about stuff. We all like a good sneer, but these people could introduce some balance and tell us about the stuff they do like for a change.

reply

>Cinema beyond the Hollywood blockbuster is doing fine though. It's just mostly not being watched in cinemas any more.

Sure.

>I do think there are people who could gain from expanding their horizons a bit. 'It's all superheroes now.' No. It isn't. As I've seen you note yourself, there's loads of stuff out there. And people can't survive on a diet of constant marshmallows... although there's nothing wrong with a marshmallow-y treat every once in a while.

Oh absolutely, although I'd argue that the genre diversity of mainstream TV is more than the diversity of mainstream movie atm.

reply

That may well be true. I don't really watch a lot of TV -- I'm very much a films guy -- so I don't have much point of reference there.

But one final thought, I also think some mainstream viewers may have forgotten that taste isn't just something you have, it's something you can cultivate.

reply

Ah, I'm a TV guy much more personally.

>But one final thought, I also think some mainstream viewers may have forgotten that taste isn't just something you have, it's something you can cultivate.

Ye.

reply

My issue is that these rich companies allow their movies to take up more screens. There's a problem when you go to the theatre and these are your options: https://image.cnbcfm.com/api/v1/image/105798355-1552839220951gettyimages-1134140697.jpeg?v=1552839308&w=630&h=354&ffmt=webp&vtcrop=y

reply

I do understand that. I do think Disney in particular has been allowed to acquire far too much of the US entertainment industry and it has placed pressure on cinema chains. And they do squeeze out mid-budget and indie films. No denying it.

But the long and the short of it is that thanks to technological changes, and cinema admission prices there are only certain types of movies mainstream audiences will pay to see any more. (And 2023 has even cast those films in doubt.) They'll watch everything else at home. I don't think there's any way of putting that genie back in its bottle.

I don't believe that audiences would rush back to multiplexes if there was more diverse choices like there used to be. I think that ship has sailed.

reply

But the long and the short of it is that thanks to technological changes, and cinema admission prices there are only certain types of movies mainstream audiences will pay to see any more.

I agree, but I don't think people should complain about Hollywood's lack of originality if that's the case. Personally I'd like to see a lot less sequels and reboots.

reply

Oh, yes. Absolutely. We agree entirely on that point. Audiences did it to themselves, as the acquaintance I told you about may realise about midway through Wonka on Saturday when he screams 'WHY AM I WATCHING THIS SHIT?' at the screen.

reply

THAT LIST PERFECTLY SHOWS WHERE WE ARE AS FAR AS THEATERS....BIG NAME FRANCHISE FLICKS ONLY...AND DIMINISHING RETURNS ON THOSE AS WELL...SAVE FOR THOSE FEW NEXT LEVEL POP CULTURE COMETS...AS MUCH AS I LOVE THE MOVIE THEATER...IT IS A WITHERING INDUSTRY.

reply

If you build it, they will come.

reply

TELL THAT TO THE VIDEO STORES.


IF YOU PIPE IT INTO PEOPLE'S HOMES...THEY WILL STOP COMING FOR IT.

reply

Isn't Oppenheimer an original film?

reply

Adapted from a novel.

reply

it's based on a biography. the guy was real

reply

I know, but it's adapted from a novel too.

reply

No, it's based on a biography American Prometheus

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Prometheus

reply

Is a biography not a novel?

reply

biography is non fiction. a novel is fiction.

reply

A novel is a narrative work of prose fiction that tells a story about specific human experiences over a considerable length.

Prose style and length, as well as fictional or semi-fictional subject matter, are the most clearly defining characteristics of a novel. Unlike works of epic poetry, it tells its story using prose rather than verse; unlike short stories, it tells a lengthy narrative rather than a brief selection. There are, however, other characteristic elements that set the novel apart as a particular literary form.

https://www.thoughtco.com/what-is-a-novel-4685632#:~:text=Prose%20style%20and%20length%2C%20as,rather%20than%20a%20brief%20selection.

reply

novels are fiction.

reply

It can be semi-fictional.


Biographical works are usually non-fiction, but fiction can also be used to portray a person's life.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biography

reply

oppenheimer is not

reply

Either way, it's adapted.

reply

I’m with hownos on this one.

reply

I didn't write the definition.

reply

Are you sure sure you got the definition right for this whole thread ?

Theres the technical definition of "Original film" and theres the popular definition.

"Barbie" for instance didnt count as original in your list , but its kinda original .
its not a sequel , not based on a book , bio etc
sure its a well known toy , but so what ?
If it was a story about a fictional toy would that make the movie original ?

When people say they want original movies they mean they dont want another , by the numbers Fast X sequel , or yet another identikit zomibie movie .

They are not bothered if it was originally a book , or a toy .



reply

Not saying I disagree, but generally "original" is supposed to be an idea that is based entirely on a film. If Barbie gets nominated for its screenplay, it's probably going to count as an adapted one.

reply

First sentence:

"A novel is a narrative work of prose fiction"

reply

But it also says "semi-fictional" which is what some biographies are. For example: the novel that the lame Marilyn Monroe movie was adapted from last year.

reply

Blonde is not a biography, it's fiction that uses a real-life person for the main character.

reply

They took some elements from her life like her being raped. One of the controversies is that they changed the person who raped her.

reply

The book is called biographical fiction, though. Even the author admits it's fiction and not a biography. It's a novel, unlike the Oppenheimer book. I think Nolan mostly borrowed the idea of centering his story around the hearings. The book was not constructed like a thriller.

reply

Then how come when I wrote that I was the sexiest man alive in my autobiography, the book stores put it in the "fiction" section?

reply

That's because you're only the second sexiest man alive. The first is obviously Kim Jong-un.

reply

So I guess that makes me Kim Jong-deux.

reply

Only if you've got the same haircut.

reply

By that logic neither is the Taylor Swift movie since it is adapted from her albums.

reply

I kind of agree.

reply

Aside from Oppenheimer, I really don't have interest in any of these movies.

reply

I'm a sucker for the Mission: Impossible movies.

reply

I lost interest in those during the very first one when they made Mr. Phelps a traitor.

reply

People aren't going to the theaters because most movies released are woke garbage. Plus the cost of tickets and concession stand items are high.

reply

I expected a dad joke here.

I am disappointed.

reply

The joke's on you. My dad wrote this post.

reply

Bam! 4D Chess!

Or something.

reply

Man, why do they do so many remakes and sequels?

I was talking to someone about this the other day. It's not a lack of original scripts. You look at the numbers, and remakes/sequels seem like a good investment.

Oppenheimer and Barbie weren't really sequels or remakes though. I'd also highlight them. (I'll give Barbie credit for being new despite being based on a toy line. I'm generous)

4/20 still tells you something, though.

reply

I miss the 90s. There were 12 original films in the top 20 in 1999 alone.
https://www.boxofficemojo.com/year/world/1999/

reply