Where have the blockbusters gone?

[MajorRewrite]

It used to be that summer was a time to release blockbuster movies and books. They generated excitement and anticipation. The masses flocked to see/buy them.

Seems like those days are gone. The movies currently at the top of the box-office list and the books topping the bestseller list are decidedly meh (IMHO). I haven’t noticed excitement in the general public for any of this stuff.

Are there any movies or books coming out this summer that you’re eagerly anticipating? Give me something to look forward to.

 

[Euphony]

Movies are very much an investors game and these last few years haven't been kind to the economy on the whole.

Add in labor issues, rising costs, changing audience behavior (people getting very used to streaming during lockdowns,) sequel "culture," the list goes on and on.

The days of Jurassic Park style movie "events" are nearing extinction.

Are there any movies or books coming out this summer that you’re eagerly anticipating? Give me something to look forward to.

Help us with an area of interests at least. Unless you are just pining for a "movie event" experience which a upcoming movies map should suit.

 

[SimonDoom]

The movies are still there, but you may not like them. The Flash, Transformers, and Spider Man all qualify as summer "intended-to-be-blockbuster" movies. I haven't seen any of them, and I have no interest. The problem is money. Studios seem to want to stick to existing franchises and beat them into the ground. I can't imagine wanting to see another Transformer's movie and I'm bored to death of superhero movies and their formulas.

Top Gun:Maverick was last year's summer blockbuster, and I thought it was excellent. Perfect escapist/thriller entertainment, and actually an improvement upon the original Top Gun. So the type isn't quite dead, even if it may seem to be on life support.

There was a time when summer blockbusters were new and original: Jaws, Star Wars, ET, Raiders of the Lost Ark. Those days seem mostly gone, probably for financial reasons.

 

[TxRad]

Don't forget that the writers strike has shut down a lot of projects in the movie industry.

 

[Bramblethorn]

I haven't even started thinking about summer yet, that's still six months away.

 

[MajorRewrite]

The days of Jurassic Park style movie "events" are nearing extinction.

I‘m afraid so.

And I think the lack of blockbuster books is hurting the movie industry. Without the Harry Potter, Jurassic Park, It, or Da Vinci Code books … those movies don’t exist.

The publishing industry isn’t providing the fuel that Hollywood needs to achieve liftoff. The tepid romances filling today’s bestseller fiction list aren’t gonna get the job done.

 

[MajorRewrite]

I haven't even started thinking about summer yet, that's still six months away.

In the northern hemisphere the major releases are in summer and around Christmas. In the upside down part of the earth, is it all lumped into one season of peak movie and book releases in the summer?

 

[gunhilltrain]

I wrote about how Barbie and Oppenheimier are being released on the same day. The first one may be a metaphorical blockbuster, while the second is about a literal one. A very bad joke I know, but I used it in the essay anyway.

There is going to be another Indiana Jones movie, supposedly the last (how old is Harrison Ford anyway?), but the whole franchise has became a bit weary by now.

I can remember a time when there were no blockbusters or franchises yet (I know, useless nostalgia). I saw Jaws recently at a revival in a New Jersey theater, for the first time since 1975. Arguably, that was a turning-point movie. Yet it seemed much better than some of the more recent highly-touted movies.

 

[ElectricBlue]

In the northern hemisphere the major releases are in summer and around Christmas. In the upside down part of the earth, is it all lumped into one season of peak movie and book releases in the summer?

Movie releases follow the U.S. - block releases world wide within a week or so, to avoid piracy.

Book releases are more steady state with a surge for Christmas, from what I can see.

 

[ElectricBlue]

I wrote about how Barbie and Oppenheimier are being released on the same day. The first one may be a metaphorical blockbuster, while the second is about a literal one. A very bad joke I know, but I used it in the essay anyway.

Yeah, Oppenheimer is the only one of interest to me.

Barbie is such a stupid idea, I sort of hope it falls on its fake plastic ass, and maybe studios would wake up to themselves. But I doubt it.

 

[MajorRewrite]

I saw Jaws recently at a revival in a New Jersey theater, for the first time since 1975. Arguably, that was a turning-point movie.

Yes, I’ve heard that Jaws was the first big summer blockbuster movie. It was based on the bestselling book published a year earlier, so it supports my guess that the movie industry needs big books.

 

[SimonDoom]

Yes, I’ve heard that Jaws was the first big summer blockbuster movie. It was based on the bestselling book published a year earlier, so it supports my guess that the movie industry needs big books.

Not necessarily. Star Wars, ET, Raiders, and Back to the Future were not based on preexisting books. The problem, I think, is that studios are reluctant to invest $100-200 million in a complete original screenplay. It's too bad, because I think when moviemakers play it safe they fail to appreciate the tremendous hunger among moviegoers for original fun movies.

 

[SexyVita]

It might have been a bit early to be considered a summer blockbuster, though maybe not if you count Star Wars as a summer blockbuster, the first 3 all released in May, but Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 3 possibily qualifies. I too am getting tired of endless sequels, reboots, and microwave leftovers of IPs, but GotGV3 was definately better than it's predecessor, if not maybe quiet as good as the first one.

Also I believe modern audiences are way more jaded. We've been there, done that, and bought the t-shirt, literally dozens of times. It's much harder to impress audiences at this point, especially on the rehashed shit they keep serving us. How many Spiderman reboots have there been? or Batman?

 

[Seadog777]

If I start talking about fucking "Hollywood" and all the that it is and involves, I'll go on forever.

I dated an actress in my past(no not telling), so I saw firsthand what it truly is.

 

[SexyVita]

Not necessarily. Star Wars, ET, Raiders, and Back to the Future were not based on preexisting books. The problem, I think, is that studios are reluctant to invest $100-200 million in a complete original screenplay. It's too bad, because I think when moviemakers play it safe they fail to appreciate the tremendous hunger among moviegoers for original fun movies.

I agree about studios playing it safe. But even then, there are tons of book series out there that would be awesome to see on the big screen. How about a series of Honorverse movies? I'd go to see them twice if they were even half as good as the books!

 

[alohadave]

Movie releases follow the U.S. - block releases world wide within a week or so, to avoid piracy.

A fair number of them have been opening in Europe before the US. It's something that they've been experimenting with the last few years.

And piracy is unavoidable. As soon as is on streaming, it's on the high seas.

 

[MajorRewrite]

It might have been a bit early to be considered a summer blockbuster, though maybe not if you count Star Wars as a summer blockbuster, the first 3 all release in May, but Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 3 possibily qualifies.

Guardians 3 is a good example of the weakness of this year’s movie crop. It didn’t exactly stir up a storm of interest.

 

[SexyVita]

Guardians 3 is a good example of the weakness of this year’s movie crop. It didn’t exactly stir up a storm of interest.

I agree that it didn't stir up as much interest, but I still think it was a good flick, action, humor, emotion. I think it's us that changed as much as the movies though.

 

[Seadog777]

Barbie is such a stupid idea, I sort of hope it falls on its fake plastic ass, and maybe studios would wake up to themselves. But I doubt it.

We agree on something.

They made a bunch of 22 minute shows, that my daughters used to watch on VHS when they were kids. Those sucked too.

 

[NightPorter]

The problem, I think, is that studios are reluctant to invest $100-200 million in a complete original screenplay. It's too bad, because I think when moviemakers play it safe they fail to appreciate the tremendous hunger among moviegoers for original fun movies.

That's part of it. It's safer from an investment perspective to tap into existing franchises and fandoms that are (or were) guaranteed to make a profit. That’s why you’ve seen 50 million sequels over the last decade. I think we're going to start seeing a lot more mid-level budget movies after all of the high-profile movie failures recently. The super hero craze is finally dying down (thank fucking god.) With luck, the expectation that every movie needs to make a billion dollars might finally die down. So there will be room for medium budget, medium profit movies to shine again.

A related problem is simple bad writing and direction. Because movies are so expensive to make, studios are extremely hesitant to give money to a single vision of a director or a screen writer. Instead, you have extreme studio interference with directing and writing rooms filled with writers. Movies become a made by committee mess that are safe and boring.

 

[ronde]

The movies are still there, but you may not like them. The Flash, Transformers, and Spider Man all qualify as summer "intended-to-be-blockbuster" movies. I haven't seen any of them, and I have no interest. The problem is money. Studios seem to want to stick to existing franchises and beat them into the ground. I can't imagine wanting to see another Transformer's movie and I'm bored to death of superhero movies and their formulas.

Top Gun:Maverick was last year's summer blockbuster, and I thought it was excellent. Perfect escapist/thriller entertainment, and actually an improvement upon the original Top Gun. So the type isn't quite dead, even if it may seem to be on life support.

There was a time when summer blockbusters were new and original: Jaws, Star Wars, ET, Raiders of the Lost Ark. Those days seem mostly gone, probably for financial reasons.

The reason studios keep using existing franchises is because they usually make money. People know what to expect from a franchise movie and will pay money to see it. Otherwise, they'll just wait the year or so until it comes out on a streaming service.

I think there are a couple more issues here too.

The stars of those "blockbuster" movies are aging out of the business, or at least are aging enough they're not all that appealing to the people who typically spend a lot in movie theaters, that being the younger population. The studios are attempting to introduce new actors and actresses into those roles, but it isn't easy finding a substitute for Dustin Hoffman, Harrison Ford, or Carey Fisher.

The second issue is that the book publishers aren't beating the bushes for new talent for the same reason. Known authors make the publisher money. New authors are a crapshoot. Hence, a new author who's novel might spawn the next "blockbuster" movie is having a difficult time getting published.

 

[SimonDoom]

The reason studios keep using existing franchises is because they usually make money. People know what to expect from a franchise movie and will pay money to see it. Otherwise, they'll just wait the year or so until it comes out on a streaming service.

I think there are a couple more issues here too.

The stars of those "blockbuster" movies are aging out of the business, or at least are aging enough they're not all that appealing to the people who typically spend a lot in movie theaters, that being the younger population. The studios are attempting to introduce new actors and actresses into those roles, but it isn't easy finding a substitute for Dustin Hoffman, Harrison Ford, or Carey Fisher.

The second issue is that the book publishers aren't beating the bushes for new talent for the same reason. Known authors make the publisher money. New authors are a crapshoot. Hence, a new author who's novel might spawn the next "blockbuster" movie is having a difficult time getting published.

But the reality is that the thinking is flawed. Playing it safe is not playing it real. Star Wars was the all time grossing movie up to its time, and it featured a relatively inexperienced director and a bunch of no-name actors other than Alec Guinness. Audiences DO crave quality, but studios are unsure how to provide it.

The problem has become an extreme caricature of itself. I don't understand how people have an appetite for more spiderman or avenger movies. So boring. It's all the same thing, over and over again.

 

[Bramblethorn]

Not necessarily. Star Wars, ET, Raiders, and Back to the Future were not based on preexisting books. The problem, I think, is that studios are reluctant to invest $100-200 million in a complete original screenplay. It's too bad, because I think when moviemakers play it safe they fail to appreciate the tremendous hunger among moviegoers for original fun movies.

Yup, and I'd point to Everything Everywhere All At Once as a recent example of how successful an original film can be when it does take chances and remembers to be fun.

I'm no Hollywood insider, I could be completely off the mark here, but I suspect part of the issue here is a question of "safe for whom"?

Let's suppose you're a studio exec and you get to choose one movie to greenlight. You've narrowed the options down to Marvel Cinematic Universe #48: Whichever Character We Haven't Exhausted Yet*, or a ground-breaking new thing from an unknown writer. As best you can judge, the MCU film is pretty much guaranteed to make $100m profit (real money, not the version they give the IRS). The other one is a gamble: if the public loves it as much as you do, it might become the new big thing and make a $300m profit, if it flops the studio might lose $50m, and you reckon it's a coin-toss between the two.

As a shareholder, I'd want you to roll the dice. On average, that coin toss makes more money (expected profit $125m) and the studio is making enough films in any one year that this kind of thing averages out before the consequences reach my bank account. But as a guy on salary who wants to keep his job? The decision for you personally isn't "expected $100m" vs. "expected $125m", it's "keep my job" vs. "50% chance of keeping my job and maybe getting a nice bonus, 50% of getting fired for being the schmuck who threw away $50m on something nobody's ever heard of".

Probably also an issue of short-term thinking. Fox signed George Lucas to make Star Wars in 1973; they didn't find out until 1977 whether they were going to make their money back. Even if you had your finger on the pulse and knew for sure that it was going to be a huge hit as soon as you saw the treatment, four years might be a long time to wait for a payoff; you might not even be with Fox to say "I told you so" by then.

Trivia I discovered while checking dates: Lucas didn't actually want to make an original story. He wanted to do a Flash Gordon adaptation, and only ended up making Star Wars instead because he couldn't get the rights.

*I had originally written "#37", but then I had a suspicion and went and checked, and looks like #37's already in production.

But the reality is that the thinking is flawed. Playing it safe is not playing it real. Star Wars was the all time grossing movie up to its time, and it featured a relatively inexperienced director and a bunch of no-name actors other than Alec Guinness.

*coughs politely*

*glances in the direction of Peter Cushing*

*stares meaningfully*

 

[HordHolm]

We're in a lull. As with many cultural things, Hollywood moves in cycles, and at present we're reaching the end of a superhero-powered one. That doesn't mean that the comic-book-to-cinema pipeline is dead, but it does need to gather its collective breath before starting again. We can see this from the number of reboots of reboots currently floating around.

But Hollywood does this all the time - there were musicals, there were cowboy movies, then they went through the biblical/historical epics, then there were mafia and gangster movies, then there were the 80s teen movies, then there was some sci-fi... it goes on. And just when you think that they've really hit the creative buffers something appears from somewhere and they dive on to it with a new burst of gusto.

 

[AwkwardlySet]

There isn't a single tv-show, movie - blockbuster or not, that I am hoping to see this summer or any other summer. The reason is simple - The times of good movies are gone. Now, all we get to see from Hollywood are brainless flicks with plenty of CGI and cheap humor, all meant to cater to minor audiences. There is still some small hope from European film productions, but those can hardly be called blockbusters.
When it comes to books, yeah there are a couple I am waiting for, but they aren't coming out this summer.