We all know what happened with SOLO (Star Wars)...

and how hotly debated the new Charmed reboot is...

And how many people think the new X-Men films with new mutants minus Hugh Jackman might miss the mark..

What do you think studios could or should do to try and properly revive franchises for new audiences?

Should some franchises be laid to rest or bled dry for every penny?

That is the question that no one knows the answer to. Studios return to successful franchises to make a lot of money to pay for other films that might be riskier. When a major franchise film flops that sends a ripple through the studio in which to pay for the smaller films they have committed to must now also have another blockbuster to cover the lose of the flop.

Solo is the 10th Star Wars film but the 3rd one in under 2 years. Maybe too much too fast.

Star Trek has had 13 films in 30+ years. It looks like the ship has sailed for this franchise.

Horror films (because they are usually cheap to make) has dozens of entries because they usually can turn a small and in some cases a huge profit based on cost but is anyone really excited to get Texas Chainsaw Massacre reboot 4 part 2?

Now that people can sit at home and wait 3 months for the film to stream why go to the movies? Right now if I were to take my family of 4 and get a large popcorn and 2 sodas to split it will cost me 60 bucks... for the privilege to sit near some jerk who is opening his phone ever three minutes, someone with a baby screaming and the person who can't shut their mouth?

SO, in the end the studios are going to do what they can with anything to get every dollar out of a property as long as they can get it by cancelling it or keeping it going.

There is much truth to what has been said above

Black Panther is still in theaters, but it has also been out on DVD and Blue Ray for a few weeks now. I have seen it at Target. Why go to the movies and spend $ 75 on a family of four, when you can watch it at home in a few months ? That seems to be the new norm. No doubt SOLO will be on DVD and Blue Ray by September.

Actually, we've had 4 Star Wars films in a row


FORCE AWAKENS 2015

ROGUE ONE 2016

LAST JEDI 2017

SOLO 2018

And now EPISODE IX coming in 2019

Too much !

One suggestion I would make is to do something different. Something that legitimately ties in with the title, but doesn't repeat or reboot or reexamine or reimagine it.

I'm talking about something like Jumangi, which used a similar idea and rules of the previous film, but still created whole new characters and a different story. Ocean's 8 might do that too. Jurassic World, yes.

You could say that's exactly what Star Wars is doing, but I kind of disagree. Star Wars is expanding by giving us useless prequels that no one needs to know about and by giving us sequels that are basically swapping out characters from the original trilogy. People are starting to notice.

The other current trick seems to be reimaging franchises, as though subsequent films never happened. Its like, let's restart Alien after Aliens, let's restart Halloween right before Halloween 2. I have a real problem with those notions. Why should I watch a movie if 5 years later someone says "just forget about that one, or those ones, here's where we pick it up". No, not for me.

Can you believe that there is yet ANOTHER Transformers film coming out ?

BUMBLEBEE, in theaters in December !

The main problem is that coming up with new IPs is very hit or miss. Catering to established franchises will always be easier. Sure, each Tranformers movie seems to make less and less money, but there is an established audience.

It really is no different than what has been done for over 100 years.

In the 1910s and 1920s, you had series of Charlie Chaplin and Keystone Cops films, and then afterwards, Laurel and Hardy and Our Gang films for 20 years, and then the Three Stooges, Andy Hardy, Abbott and Costello, etc. etc. In the 1950s and 1960s you had Jerry Lewis

Not to mention all of the series of Westerns that you had for 50 years, from Tom Mix to Hopalong Cassidy

There was "an established audience" for these types of films. They were safe bets, at least for a few years

quote:

Originally posted by Tommy C:
It really is no different than what has been done for over 100 years.

In the 1910s and 1920s, you had series of Charlie Chaplin and Keystone Cops films, and then afterwards, Laurel and Hardy and Our Gang films for 20 years, and then the Three Stooges, Andy Hardy, Abbott and Costello, etc. etc. In the 1950s and 1960s you had Jerry Lewis

Not to mention all of the series of Westerns that you had for 50 years, from Tom Mix to Hopalong Cassidy

There was "an established audience" for these types of films. They were safe bets, at least for a few years

True those films established what we recognise today as a franchise (though they were more serialised).

But people had far less choice in terms of films, shows and technology on which to view these releases.

The lack of choice meant people tended to simply enjoy whatever was aimed at their market and it was written accordingly. Example: All the housewives and traditional American household who tuned in every week to I Love Lucy and all the 3+ spin-offs it produced in the decades that followed.

The issue today (thanks to the PC brigade) is that those markets would be considered too narrow a definition to suit EVERYONE and ALL demographics we recognise today.

That being said, that's part of the issue, the film companies are firing on all cylinders trying to hit as many target markets as they can and mostly misfiring or missing the targets all together.

The lack of choice and the lack of technology to view it on also played a part. For example cinema wasn't cheaper for most people and many people still didn't have a TV.

Of course this is from a perspective of British lives in 1950s, post war Britain. Whilst the Americans had TV sets in the 50s (and vacuums and probably microwaves?) Many Brits didn't have them until the 60s even 70s. So they watched whatever was on there for the novelty of it.

Today kids and adults have so much choice on what to watch and how to watch it (My grandma would of loved Netflix, my grandpa was suspicious of anything but radios), that the studios just don't really know how best to spend their money for a good return.

I think cheaper films with more original scripts is the way to go. But you'd either have to risk unknown actors or find bigger names willing to take a pay check cut. Movies, music and sports stars are WAY over paid compared to the legends of yesteryear.

Plus it was evident that the novelty of 3D films was short lived after they hiked the prices up & as many people above have said there's nothing 'good' about the cinematic experience anymore.

quote:

Originally posted by weasel-king:
The main problem is that coming up with new IPs is very hit or miss.

Good point I think that's at the heart of the issue.

What's IPs?

quote:

Originally posted by Tommy C:
Can you believe that there is yet ANOTHER Transformers film coming out ?

BUMBLEBEE, in theaters in December !

I heard about this today from a friend who's very excited as it's their favorite character.

But honestly I think the franchise should have ended with the 3rd film. I didn't dig the 4th film and honestly I don't think as many people care after Megan Fox left. And Shia LeBoeuf is off doing his own 'thing' now...I think it's time to call it a day and put the cars back in the garage.

quote:

Originally posted by Raven:
One suggestion I would make is to do something different. Something that legitimately ties in with the title, but doesn't repeat or reboot or reexamine or reimagine it.

Yes! Honestly trying to reboot things for a younger audience who missed out on the original franchise be it film or TV often flops.

Like cover songs of hit records rarely works. That's not because time have changed or original fanbases cause issues it's often because 'if it aint broke dont fix it' mentality. If it was good enough first time around to still be enjoyed today don't try to do better and ruin a good thing.

They all but killed Nightmare on Elm Street with that awful remake and similar horror franchises too (No pun on 'killed').

But then again studios trying to re-introduce novetly genres like horror to young audiences thinkin new = interesting is nto always the case. Kids see so much real life horror and gore on the internet that going to see a horror flick isn't really their thing.

Studios need to know when certain genres or franchise have had their day and leave them in the time and place they belong: in the past. Anyone whos interested will seek them out - but thats not a money spinner for the studios.

quote:

Originally posted by Tommy C:
Actually, we've had 4 Star Wars films in a row


FORCE AWAKENS 2015

ROGUE ONE 2016

LAST JEDI 2017

SOLO 2018

And now EPISODE IX coming in 2019

Too much !

Force Awakens lived up to the hype and honestly everything else for me is a blur. I just lost interest when you knew at least one cinema trailer (I'm an occasional movie goer) will guaranteed be another Star Wars film. Yawn.

I totally agree with your cinema post above. For many familys today a cinema trip is just not an option. When you can buy a DVD or legitimate download stream with all your family size snacks for the price of a 2 tickets why bother going the cinema?

Plus you need to factor in travel and even (depending) an actual meal or 'real' food (unless you want hyper kids). Just a much fun, more comfortable and fraction of the price.

In the case of "Star Trek" I liked the first "new cast/new look" movie. There was an uproar about the altered history but it was part of the story and the characters remained the same and the actors were well-cast, especially young McCoy. You can change the ship and the timeline as long as you don't change the characters. It was great to see Leonard Nimoy as Spock again too and that was part of the story too.

However, I didn't understand redoing "Wrath of Khan" for "Into Darkness." That whole idea should have been condensed into some clever one-scene joke within the second movie instead. They could have "reimagined" Star Trek 5 which had a germ of a good idea but fumbled the development of it.

Star Trek Beyond was a new story with a link to the Star Trek Enterprise TV show but it failed to me because it changed Kirk's character. The filmmakers had to do that thing a lot of recent movies have done: make the hero doubt himself - make the hero "darker." They did it with Spider-Man, Iron Man, and even Superman and Luke Skywalker. Nobody learned from "Smokey and the Bandit 2," in which the Bandit had become an unsympathetic character early in the movie and had to hit rock-bottom before redeeming himself. That movie started the decline of that franchise.

Suddenly, Captain Kirk wasn't sure he wanted to be Captain Kirk. The whole thing about Kirk was that he was sure of who he was. He was willing to sacrifice himself for his ship and crew (at least ST: into Darkness got that right). It's as if the current flock of filmmakers are saying there can be no heroes unless they have their extended moment of doubt first.

Jess

quote:

Originally posted by barobehere:

Star Trek has had 13 films in 30+ years. It looks like the ship has sailed for this franchise.

Horror films (because they are usually cheap to make) has dozens of entries because they usually can turn a small and in some cases a huge profit based on cost but is anyone really excited to get Texas Chainsaw Massacre reboot 4 part 2?

Now that people can sit at home and wait 3 months for the film to stream why go to the movies? Right now if I were to take my family of 4 and get a large popcorn and 2 sodas to split it will cost me 60 bucks... for the privilege to sit near some jerk who is opening his phone ever three minutes, someone with a baby screaming and the person who can't shut their mouth?

SO, in the end the studios are going to do what they can with anything to get every dollar out of a property as long as they can get it by cancelling it or keeping it going.

quote:

Originally posted by catskilleagle:
Star Trek Beyond was a new story with a link to the Star Trek Enterprise TV show but it failed to me because it changed Kirk's character. The filmmakers had to do that thing a lot of recent movies have done: make the hero doubt himself - make the hero "darker." They did it with Spider-Man, Iron Man, and even Superman and Luke Skywalker. Nobody learned from "Smokey and the Bandit 2," in which the Bandit had become an unsympathetic character early in the movie and had to hit rock-bottom before redeeming himself. That movie started the decline of that franchise.

Jess

[/QUOTE]

Yes, exactly right and I don't know if people realize how cynical its all gotten. There are no pure heroes anymore in movies or TV. That is considered unrealistic, nobody's perfect after all. So every character is a tortured soul. Everyone doubts themselves and has some kind of identity crisis. They are always fighting dark natures and these are the good guys.

There are some movies where there are no good guys, they are all bad guys and you should root for the least worst one. Meanwhile it keeps getting progressively harder to care about any of the characters. When Sons of Anarchy started, I watched and enjoyed the first season. By the end of the second season I stopped looking. Breaking Bad? Whoever felt sympathy for that character lost it fast.

Its not that stuff becomes too violent or too graphic as it goes along, which it does. But that doesn't bother me. Its that there is no moral compass remaining, if there ever was one. Its all fifty shades of gray and everyone is supposed to just accept that. There is no reason I should care about these characters because they all deserve what they get.

Two other things that bothers me, which sort of has something to do with franchises, is that a lot of characters die. By that I mean, I'm sick of watching something for 2 1/2 hours, only to find out that every character dies at the end. If it's a fictional story, someone has to live. If not, why was I watching it? There is a horror picture out now, supposed to be scary. I won't name it, but I was going to go see it. Everybody dies, I'm not going.

Second peeve, franchises that are killing off main characters as it goes along. One of the reasons why I suspect people did not run to see Solo is because, spoiler alert, they killed him in Force Awakes. You may say that's not it, but it certainly didn't help. Infinity War is knocking off half its characters already, with more to come. Great for the next movie maybe, but what will be left afterwards when so many favorites are dead? If you as a fan get invested in a character, and they are killed, do you want to continue watching the rest of the story? I usually don't!

I'm sure that I will get alot of heat for saying this, but I think much of this cynicism with the movies and comic books started in the 1980s with things like Batman: the Dark Knight Returns

Ever since then, every character must be "tortured" with dark secrets in his or her past. If the hero does not have this, then folks laugh at the character, referring to him as an "unrealistic" Boy Scout.

But perhaps the tide is turning a bit ? I read how many people were turned off by the last 2 Superman films with Henry Cavill, as well as Justice League, saying that it was all too dark. People were longing for the Christopher Reeve-Superman days of the 1970s and 80s.

I saw the report today about how suicides in America have increased by 25 % since 1999.

Perhaps everyone is so depressed by the movies and comic books being churned out for the last 20 years plus !

Actually, I think you're right. That was an influential comic book.

I think the success of "Batman Begins" and its sequels also encouraged writers to envision popular heroes like Superman, Captain Kirk, and Luke Skywalker as dark knights as well. The problem is then Superman isn't Superman anymore. Kirk isn't Kirk and you have Luke Skywalker wallowing in guilt and self-pity instead of foreseeing Han Solo's confrontation with Kylo Ren and rushing to save his friend and protect his sister. To me it's lazy rather than creative to change a character like that, "Oh, I'll make Luke darker like Batman." Luke is the old master now. He understands that Jedi have failed before. Even as a young man, he turned out to be wiser than Kenobi or Yoda. He was the only one who sensed that saving his father's soul was the key to destroying the Empire. He would have also accepted that some people cannot be saved.

There's also that line from "Baa Baa Black Sheep," the pilot movie to the 70's TV series about Greg "Pappy" Boyington and the Marine fighter squadron he led in the Pacific during World War 2. He said, "Show me a hero, I'll prove he's a bum," meaning that all war heroes were flawed human beings but their real stories were cleaned up for the public because it made the story better. Yes, nobody is perfect but some people do jump in a river to save a kid they don't know. That's the Superman some wonder if they can be when the time comes.

Yeah, some people forget how great that 1978 Superman movie was. In the wake of political assassinations, Watergate, and the Vietnam War the mid-to-late 70's was probably an even more cynical time than today. Movies like Star Wars, Close Encounters of the Third Kind, and Superman were so hopeful. People flocked to them and felt optimistic about the future again.

Jess

quote:

Originally posted by Tommy C:
I'm sure that I will get alot of heat for saying this, but I think much of this cynicism with the movies and comic books started in the 1980s with things like Batman: the Dark Knight Returns

Ever since then, every character must be "tortured" with dark secrets in his or her past. If the hero does not have this, then folks laugh at the character, referring to him as an "unrealistic" Boy Scout.

But perhaps the tide is turning a bit ? I read how many people were turned off by the last 2 Superman films with Henry Cavill, as well as Justice League, saying that it was all too dark. People were longing for the Christopher Reeve-Superman days of the 1970s and 80s.

I saw the report today about how suicides in America have increased by 25 % since 1999.

Perhaps everyone is so depressed by the movies and comic books being churned out for the last 20 years plus !

It goes back even further than that if you think about it. Way back in the early 1960s, DC comics ruled the roost and all of their heroes were whiter than white with no hangups or serious difficulties to cope with. Superman's biggest problem was understanding why no-one recognised that he was Clark Kent

Then along came Marvel to change things. Their new crop of heroes had 'real' problems to deal with. Tony Stark had shrapnel constantly threatening to kill him if his Iron Man chestplate packed up, Thor's alter-ego Don Blake needed to get around with a walking stick as he was lame, Peter Parker had to become a freelance photographer selling action phots to the Daily Bugle to pay for the support his frail old Aunt May needed, Matt Murdock was blind, Doctor Strange couldn;t hold his hands steady...and so on. Some even had personality faults, though nothing quite as extreme as some of the modern bunch.

It's very much a case of: the more things change, the more things stay the same

I can only think of 2 movies that I have seen over the course of my life, which utterly repulsed me. Death Wish 2 with Charles Bronson and This Boy's Life with Robert DeNiro and Leonardo DiCaprio.

Both were tremendously depressing, and seemed to exist just to show endless violence, rape, and depravity. Why would a normal person want to view this ?

The same with modern comic books and comic related movies. Why spend the money to be depressed with brooding anti-heroes rather than be uplifted ?

Kevin mentioned how things changed in the 1960s. No wonder drug use became rampant then and kids became lost (not that they weren't lost to some degree before then) How can you blame them, when they are bombarded with images of "heroes" who themselves can't get their acts together ?

Kind of veered off topic, but that's OK. Speaking of utterly repulsive, the state of the modern horror film is awful and I hate to think how generational attitudes have changed over what used to be just "scary movies".

I guess we could go back to the likes of Night of the Living Dead and The Hills Have Eyes and Nightmare On Elm Street for the beginning of it. Yet I liked those types of movies at the time and still consider some of them original masterpieces. I was never adverse to gore or violence or inappropriate behavior in the horror genre. I don't think I've changed, but horror films sure have.

For one thing, as I was discussing before, there are very few heroes. They all have problems that make them almost as bad as whatever monster is running around. But now we have movies that don't so much want to scare us as they do punish us for watching them. We have really mean spirited themes and torture-porn incorporated in these stories. Every character seems to die a lot of the times and evil often triumphs. Even if it doesn't quite, there is always the last scene where a next return is hinted.

Scary movies used to be fun, but now they are made to be unpleasant experiences and the audience expects it. Each one pushes the envelope farther than the next and nobody walks out. Each one gets more realistic than the next and its taken for granted. Whatever the age, the entertainment has always reflected the society of the time. We have problems, just look at our horror films.