Mike's Musing: Another Comic Book Movie?
On principle, I don't mind superhero movies or sequels. In fact, some of them are quite enjoyable. "Green Lantern" made my Top 10 list last year and I love "The Dark Knight." We get a chance to vicariously kick ass and use superpowers that we wish we had, and we get to revisit characters that we know and love.
The problem, however, is that they're all we get. Can someone name a big budget action movie that hasn't had a superhero in it or been based on a comic book? Apart from the "Transformers" movies and "Battleship," which are based on toys, I can't.
It would be fine if they didn't come at the expense of other types of movies. In an effort to target foreign audiences, Hollywood does only one type of movie: the big budget comic book movies. From a financial standpoint, it makes sense. These movies rake in billions, and a studio head would have to be mental to turn that kind of money down. But they're also ignoring other potential markets, few of which demand huge budgets. Tearjerkers, romantic comedies, light dramas, slasher movies...all these types of movies and others came out with regular frequency up until Hollywood started going after foreign audiences primarily.
As I said, few of these genres demand large budgets. Not adjusted for inflation, "Scream" cost $15 million. The recent "Magic Mike" cost a shy less than half that. While that may seem like a lot of money to you and me, consider this: "The Avengers" cost $220 million, and the upcoming "The Dark Knight Rises" cost $250 million. Both are coming from Paramount Pictures. Both are going to bring in big bucks for the studio ("The Avengers" has already brought in over $600 million in the US alone). Studios are putting all their money in few pots to chase down the previously mythical "billion dollar" mark.
That's all fine and dandy. If I were them, I'd do the same thing. But consider this: "Magic Mike" has brought in nearly $40 million in its first week. "Scream" was a smash hit that brought in $173 million, and that's not adjusted for fifteen years of inflation. Compared to the billions that the superheros and toys are making, a $158 million profit doesn't seem like much. On the flip side, "John Carter" is one of the biggest box-office bombs in film history, costing Disney almost $250 million, marketing included. That's a huge difference than if a low-budget slasher movie or romance flops.
The point is that Hollywood's narrow-minded obsession with chasing the billion dollar mark has blinded them to other, more potentially lucrative markets. Look at the "Twilight" movies. Four movies cost $265 million. But the franchise has made over $2.5 billion, and there's still another movie to go. That's a lot of dough.
If Hollywood branched out into more genres like it used to, not every movie is going to be a huge blockbuster, but a hundred million is still a hundred million, and there's less of a financial risk if it bombs.
The problem, however, is that they're all we get. Can someone name a big budget action movie that hasn't had a superhero in it or been based on a comic book? Apart from the "Transformers" movies and "Battleship," which are based on toys, I can't.
It would be fine if they didn't come at the expense of other types of movies. In an effort to target foreign audiences, Hollywood does only one type of movie: the big budget comic book movies. From a financial standpoint, it makes sense. These movies rake in billions, and a studio head would have to be mental to turn that kind of money down. But they're also ignoring other potential markets, few of which demand huge budgets. Tearjerkers, romantic comedies, light dramas, slasher movies...all these types of movies and others came out with regular frequency up until Hollywood started going after foreign audiences primarily.
As I said, few of these genres demand large budgets. Not adjusted for inflation, "Scream" cost $15 million. The recent "Magic Mike" cost a shy less than half that. While that may seem like a lot of money to you and me, consider this: "The Avengers" cost $220 million, and the upcoming "The Dark Knight Rises" cost $250 million. Both are coming from Paramount Pictures. Both are going to bring in big bucks for the studio ("The Avengers" has already brought in over $600 million in the US alone). Studios are putting all their money in few pots to chase down the previously mythical "billion dollar" mark.
That's all fine and dandy. If I were them, I'd do the same thing. But consider this: "Magic Mike" has brought in nearly $40 million in its first week. "Scream" was a smash hit that brought in $173 million, and that's not adjusted for fifteen years of inflation. Compared to the billions that the superheros and toys are making, a $158 million profit doesn't seem like much. On the flip side, "John Carter" is one of the biggest box-office bombs in film history, costing Disney almost $250 million, marketing included. That's a huge difference than if a low-budget slasher movie or romance flops.
The point is that Hollywood's narrow-minded obsession with chasing the billion dollar mark has blinded them to other, more potentially lucrative markets. Look at the "Twilight" movies. Four movies cost $265 million. But the franchise has made over $2.5 billion, and there's still another movie to go. That's a lot of dough.
If Hollywood branched out into more genres like it used to, not every movie is going to be a huge blockbuster, but a hundred million is still a hundred million, and there's less of a financial risk if it bombs.
Comments
Post a Comment