The Matrix Resurrections what a horrible movie...

[Bleib]

That’s what they do. All these crappy sequels and remakes never get the audience that originally attended. Many of these outright flop. So yes, I blame laziness and creative bankruptcy.

Still not true though.
The superhero genre at cinemas would have died ages ago if people didn't watch them.

And generally reboots, sequels etc are safer bets. Of course there are examples where it completely fails, but there's a reason Apple for instance suddenly will not change the name of the iPhone.

Want To Produce A Profitable Movie? Make A Sequel

Studios hate risk. That's why they love reboots.

www.forbes.com

Quite a lot of articles go into this. This is also why Disney bought Star Wars from Lucas, rather than creating an IP of its own.

 

[voodooless]

Still not true though.
The superhero genre at cinemas would have died ages ago if people didn't watch them.

And generally reboots, sequels etc are safer bets. Of course there are examples where it completely fails, but there's a reason Apple for instance suddenly will not change the name of the iPhone.

Want To Produce A Profitable Movie? Make A Sequel

Studios hate risk. That's why they love reboots.

www.forbes.com

Quite a lot of articles go into this. This is also why Disney bought Star Wars from Lucas, rather than creating an IP of its own.

Yeah, that's why Disney lost about 40% of their stock and had to bring back Bob Iger, who ironically was to blame for all the shit that happened the last few years to Disney because he started it all. Many Marvel movies are tracking behind expectations, 2021 was the worst year in Marvel history, and if not for the latest Spiderman, 2022 is not far behind. The new Star Wars movies made not nearly as much as they should have, and the Disney+ series aren't doing too well either (She Hulk anyone?).

I'm not saying making sequels is not profitable. Most of these movies are actually profitable, but also most of them also track well behind expectations.

The article says:

FORBES found that 15 of the top 20 most profitable movies were sequels; spin-offs, like Minions; or reboots, like Jurassic World. Of the five movies that weren't sequels, Avatar, Frozen, The Avengers, The Lion King and Transformers, two are based on materials with an existing fanbase, namely Marvel comics and Transformers toys.

If you make that many sequels, they are bound to populate a list.

 

[Blumlein 88]

I don't really have a general issue with super hero movies or sequels. What is wrong with in particular Marvel and Disney Star Wars in recent years is the movies they released to the public are bad movies. Good movies of any genre will do fine. I still cannot get out of my mind how incredible horrible Dr. Strange and the Multiverse were for example. I have to wonder about how bad the movie they didn't release after completing it must have been.

 

[Sal1950]

I don't really have a general issue with super hero movies or sequels. What is wrong with in particular Marvel and Disney Star Wars in recent years is the movies they released to the public are bad movies. Good movies of any genre will do fine. I still cannot get out of my mind how incredible horrible Dr. Strange and the Multiverse were for example. I have to wonder about how bad the movie they didn't release after completing it must have been.

AMEN

 

[JaccoW]

That’s what they do. All these crappy sequels and remakes never get the audience that originally attended. Many of these outright flop. So yes, I blame laziness and creative bankruptcy.

As long as they rake in more money than the original the studios won't care.

• Aladdin: 1992 ($504m) Vs. 2019 ($1,051b)
• Beauty and the Beast: 1991 ($440m) Vs. 2017 ($1,264b)
• The Matrix: 1999 ($467m) Vs. 2021 Resurections ($157m)
• Mad Max: 1979 ($100m) Vs. 2015 Fury Road ($375m)
• Pet Sematary: 1989 ($89m) Vs. 2019 ($113m)
• Dune: 1984 ($31m) Vs. 2021 ($402m)
• Batman: 1989 ($411m) Vs. 2005 Begins ($373m) Vs. 2022 ($770m)

There have been a alot of recent remakes that somehow performed much better than expected. Like they managed to crack open some new international markets that haven't seen the original yet.

 

[voodooless]

As long as they rake in more money than the original the studios won't care.

• Aladdin: 1992 ($504m) Vs. 2019 ($1,051b)
• Beauty and the Beast: 1991 ($440m) Vs. 2017 ($1,264b)
• The Matrix: 1999 ($467m) Vs. 2021 Resurections ($157m)
• Mad Max: 1979 ($100m) Vs. 2015 Fury Road ($375m)
• Pet Sematary: 1989 ($89m) Vs. 2019 ($113m)
• Dune: 1984 ($31m) Vs. 2021 ($402m)
• Batman: 1989 ($411m) Vs. 2005 Begins ($373m) Vs. 2022 ($770m)

Inflation is a thing. If you account for that, the differences aren't that big. Also account for the fact that the films are now massively more expensive to make: Aladin was almost four times as expensive as the 1992 version when corrected for inflation 51 vs 185 million $! Same goes for marketing budgets, which are usually about as high as the production cost.

There have been a alot of recent remakes that somehow performed much better than expected. Like they managed to crack open some new international markets that haven't seen the original yet.

Oh, there are always counter-examples: Top Gun Maverick for example. Good sequels are not uncommon. That still doesn't mean it's not easy and creatively bankrupt.

 

[JSmith]

• Aladdin: 1992 ($504m) Vs. 2019 ($1,051b)
• Beauty and the Beast: 1991 ($440m) Vs. 2017 ($1,264b)
• The Matrix: 1999 ($467m) Vs. 2021 Resurections ($157m)
• Mad Max: 1979 ($100m) Vs. 2015 Fury Road ($375m)
• Pet Sematary: 1989 ($89m) Vs. 2019 ($113m)
• Dune: 1984 ($31m) Vs. 2021 ($402m)
• Batman: 1989 ($411m) Vs. 2005 Begins ($373m) Vs. 2022 ($770m)

An interesting list, however where is it from? I can't help but wonder if there was any adjustment made for inflation.

I still cannot get out of my mind how incredible horrible Dr. Strange and the Multiverse were for example.

Yeah that was rather out of hand... I don't like reverse engineered plot devices for "the sake of it".


JSmith

 

[JaccoW]

An interesting list, however where is it from? I can't help but wonder if there was any adjustment made for inflation.

These are all box office numbers that have not been adjusted for inflation.

But from doing a lot of inflation calculations in the past when digging into equivalent pricing I know that anything early 90's is usually double that in today's money.

So from a studio's perspective it can be a surefire way to generate a guaranteed similar amount of money in profit.
I don't particularly enjoy remakes as a concept either but I certainly understand why they do it.

And as long as people it, why not? Most movies are fun entertainment at best anyway.

 

[JaccoW]

Inflation is a thing. If you account for that, the differences aren't that big

Depends a lot on the year. Even if they are similar when corrected for inflation that's still a lot of money the studios will gladly want. Especially since movies have gotten more expensive to make.

Oh, there are always counter-examples: Top Gun Maverick for example. Good sequels are not uncommon. That still doesn't mean it's not easy and creatively bankrupt.

The whole point of counter examples is to undermine the opposing argument. And since you said remakes and sequels never get the audiences the original did this should at the very least prove that assertion wrong. One counter example is enough to dispel an 'always' or 'never' argument.

You don't like remakes and sequels on principle? Fine.

But don't go complaining about them saying they cannot be as good or popular as the original. If only because the world population has nearly doubled since 1979.

There are bad remakes that completely missed the point. But there are also plenty of examples of sequels that lift up the original.

And if you want an absolutely rollercoaster of an example that does both don't look any further than the Terminator franchise.

 

[voodooless]

The whole point of counter examples is to undermine the opposing argument. And since you said remakes and sequels never get the audiences the original did this should at the very least prove that assertion wrong. One counter example is enough to dispel an 'always' or 'never' argument.

But I didn’t say all sequels, I said all the crappy ones But fair point, I shouldn’t generalize too much.

You don't like remakes and sequels on principle? Fine.

Not at all, I just like them to be good, refreshing and creative.

But don't go complaining about them saying they cannot be as good or popular as the original. If only because the world population has nearly doubled since 1979.

Doesn’t that undermine your argument? By that logic the percentage of people that watch these about halved. And yes, it’s bad logic

And if you want an absolutely rollercoaster of an example that does both don't look any further than the Terminator franchise.

Well, the trend is clearly downhill on that one.

 

[voodooless]

Even if they are similar when corrected for inflation that's still a lot of money the studios will gladly want.

Sure, it’s a relatively easy and safe bet. Your earning potential is not as high, but the chance of loosing is also lower. That is exactly my point.

 

[krabapple]

Yeah.

I finally caught it on a "free with a few ads" streamer.

The images were surreal, the soundtrack didn't do anything for me.

Recognized the few notes borrowed from Vangelis immediately, though.

Now to locate (whenever) the new (well, it was new) Matrix.

I saw 2049 in an IMAX theater. The sound design of that movie awe-inspiring in that setting. At home I'd make sure there was a healthy surround system engaged.

As for the Matrix part IV....also seen in an actual cinema...the first half hour or so ,where it was all meta, was fun. The rest was a slog through endless fan service.

 

[Roland68]

I spent 2 hours wondering when the movie actually starts with the new Matrix Resurrections and 20 minutes later it was over

 

[RayDunzl]

The sound design of that movie awe-inspiring in that setting.

2049 soundtrack - Google Search

www.google.com

I skipped through the soundtrack just now, to be sure.

It didn't change my mind.

 

[krabapple]

I wrote 'sound design'. Which I'd wager includes stuff not in the soundtrack.

Sorry your youtube skipping excursion didn't match an IMAX experience.

 

[Sal1950]

Sure, it’s a relatively easy and safe bet. Your earning potential is not as high, but the chance of loosing is also lower. That is exactly my point.

I don't see the re-boot situation much different than origianls. Just a few are really great, the vast majority suck.
Nothing new to learn here.

I saw 2049 in an IMAX theater. The sound design of that movie awe-inspiring in that setting. At home I'd make sure there was a healthy surround system engaged.

I saw it here at home on my 5.2.4 rig and a 4K BD.
Video and Atmos Audio quality were both 5 stars, a reference quality UHD BluRay.
I agreed completely with Blu-Ray.com's review.

Blade Runner 4K Blu-ray (The Final Cut)

Blade Runner 4K Blu-ray Release Date September 5, 2017 (The Final Cut). Blu-ray reviews, news, specs, ratings, screenshots. Cheap Blu-ray movies and deals.

www.blu-ray.com

One could continue noting examples for pages, but the point is that the Final Cut's UHD doesn't just feature a superior picture; it also offers a quantum leap in audio quality, drawing the viewer further into Rick Deckard's darkly mysterious world and making Blade Runner live and breathe even more vibrantly on the screen. For those with the equipment to decode it, the Atmos track alone would justify an upgrade (which makes it doubly unfortunate that Warner has chosen not to provide a remastered standard Blu-ray).

 

[krabapple]

I saw it here at home on my 5.2.4 rig and a 4K BD.

Hmm, no, that's review of a UHD rerelease of the original Blade Runner. I was talking about the sequel, 2049.

 

[Sal1950]

Hmm, no, that's review of a UHD rerelease of the original Blade Runner. I was talking about the sequel, 2049.

Ah yes, your right Sorry, I posted the wrong link, I don't even own the 1982 movie.
I was thinking about the 2049 UHD-BD, It had gotten that same 5 star rating for both video and Atmos audio.
An unusually high rating for BD.com, as I said a reference quality BD.
Seems Warner Bros has an unusually high respect for the Blade Runner franchise.

Blade Runner 2049 4K Blu-ray (4K Ultra HD + Blu-ray)

Blade Runner 2049 4K Blu-ray Release Date January 16, 2018. Blu-ray reviews, news, specs, ratings, screenshots. Cheap Blu-ray movies and deals.

www.blu-ray.com

 

[voodooless]

I don't see the re-boot situation much different than origianls. Just a few are really great, the vast majority suck.

Well, in the sense that vast majority of sequels are not as good as the original. So on average, you are right, an original is no warranty for a good movie, but if it is, it’s bound to be better than the next years sequel

 

[voodooless]

As long as they rake in more money than the original the studios won't care.

• Aladdin: 1992 ($504m) Vs. 2019 ($1,051b)
• Beauty and the Beast: 1991 ($440m) Vs. 2017 ($1,264b)
• The Matrix: 1999 ($467m) Vs. 2021 Resurections ($157m)
• Mad Max: 1979 ($100m) Vs. 2015 Fury Road ($375m)
• Pet Sematary: 1989 ($89m) Vs. 2019 ($113m)
• Dune: 1984 ($31m) Vs. 2021 ($402m)
• Batman: 1989 ($411m) Vs. 2005 Begins ($373m) Vs. 2022 ($770m)

So I did the math here and calculated the profits in 2022 money of all of these. For that, I included the budget and used the budget for marketing costs as well (as is quite usual). Doing that will bring your small collection of sequels to about 2 billion dollars of 2022 Profit. The originals however are 1.4 billion dollars ahead. That is roughly a 40% loss of profit for the sequels/remakes.