Death of the Modern Blockbuster
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 7 июн 2024
- If there's one lesson from the 2023 Box Office, it's that the 'Modern' Blockbuster formulas doesn't work. If the Old Kings are dead, that begs the question: Who's the new King? what is the new dominant trend taking over? And most importantly, what are the new Rules for our Billion Dollar Blockbusters?
Follow me on twitter: / jburd22
Music Provided by Epidemic Sound
0:00 The Old Rules For Blockbusters
3:03 Spider-Man No Way Home
5:04 Top Gun: Maverick
7:37 Avatar: The Way of Water
8:37 The Super Mario Bros Movie
9:35 Barbie
10:13 The New Rules For Blockbusters
15:29 Outro
Business Inquiries: jburdett360@gmail.com 
Кино
It would have been interesting to toss Oppenheimer in here too. It's done 950 million at the box office which is damn close to a billion and far closer than any 3 hour R-rated drama could probably ever hope for. It would be a bit of an outlier as there isn't really any nostalgia associated with it other than "real history", and the only brand being the director himself.
I thought about including it, but then I’d also have to include Multiverse of Madness, and this was more about Franchise films generally and I already excluded JW Dominion so yeah.
8:09 thank u for verbalising the disconnect of being online, hearing NOBODY talk about Avatar 2, but it still grosses almost $3 BILLION. I mean wtf!
Another key to Maverick's success is its standalone nature. I couldn't finish the original Top Gun because its characters grated on me so much, but I loved Maverick, as did my mom who hadn't seen any of the original, and that's because its story works whether or not you know its predecessor.
The Infinity Saga was iconic, Marvel can never get a period like that again.
Speaking facts
Quality > Quantity
Great video; awesome job!
One point I'd like to make about No Way Home: it's not really part of the MCU, only tangential to it. So Marvel didn't have say over it. Plus, the MCU had already decided to include the plot line of multiverses (needed for Kang Dynasty & Secret Wars). And all of those movies were planned before Avengers End Game came out & people were getting burned out, so I think it's less of a turn away from the past and more of a remnant of it. (I would also argue that if another Iron Man movie was made, assuming he wasn't killed off, that it may perform similarly).
I agree with your take (especially about the "with a twist" part), but the bigger issue for me is there are no more "original" movies. Not everything has to cost $200 million, I would much rather get 4 $50 million original scripts produced where one has a chance of breaking out to be a hit than a bloated CGI fest.
It’s not making a billion dollars, but I think Godzilla Minus One deserves to be in this conversation as well. The fact it was a reboot of the original after nearly 70 years and makes Godzilla the *villain* (and holy crap is he TERRIFYING)…that hits all three. The fact it’s subtitled has a lot of people not watching it, but given how big it hit even with that “problem”…
Hold on, we didn't officially name Scream 4 "Scruh-forum," did we? Because that's the worst thing I've ever heard, please don't say that ever again. 😂
I'm sorry to all of the haters out there, but Avatar is going to be the new king. Its James Cameron's turn to cash in on the big franchise trend
Too bad he takes forever to make each movie
@@axolotl1777hope he makes the alita sequal soon
If you like nostalgia, you're gonna love grief and stuff.
Excellent video, can't wait for more like these!!
8:39 that’s so funny I was in like 6th grade watching avatar in theaters with the 3d glasses 👓 felt like tripping balls
I feel like the new one is just the concept of intrigue in a novel premise. Godzilla Minus One is doing shockingly well because people are curious about it, knowing it's not a damn setup to a cinematic universe. Merging them all in No Way Home sounded interesting because we've never seen reboots merged like this. Barbie, no one knew what it was packing. We all assumed it would be a train wreck, then it WASN'T. The Way of Water was interesting because it was this movie series that had done well, then just VANISHED for a way too long. We know Cameron does insanely good visuals. It's not generic spectacle, you know it will genuinely look great. Let me tell you what an absolute failure like The Marvels it promised us in its trailer: A bunch of stuff we have seen to death. There was no mystery, no hook, just a promise of "You need to see this in order to keep up with the other Marvel movies." Even look at just how much more INTERESTING the hook on Captain Marvel's trailer looks? Marvel's lost sight of the hook, and just wants to tell us that it will be "like endgame." We don't want that. We want a bunch of interesting films. Seeing them band together is only payoff when you are invested in all the previous interesting films.
Absolutely incredible video. Should have millions of views not hundreds.
It feels more to me that Hollywood itself is practically dying. I don't think it actually will, because budgets and scope can always just shift. There's been a lot of talk, though, about the death of middle-budget films, and if blockbusters are feeling the heat as well, where does that leave the big studios?
Maverick was so good that i do not want a sequel. Because this was so great that I don't think they could top it. That is the feeling you want people to have when they leave your movie.
Matel could be the next king. Nintendo, depends on how often they make movies. I feel like were going to get a bunch of video game movies within the next 10 years (either franchises or themes like Ready Player One/Wreck It Wralph)
I don't disagree with this analysis, its good, but fear its too early to really know what's next. Especially, since studios have been 'playing it safe' by the old rules for so long, its hard to know what direction they'll take, as no one really knows what will work. The films highlighted here too... with the IPs, and amount studios have put into marketing, you'd hope they do well. But more interesting blockbusters, like Jordan Peele films, or Garland or Villeneuve films. These are interesting blockbuster makers, that I reckon with that level of marketing, or if the new auteurs get that Nolan/Cameron level brand recognition , I think that could drive a wave of new original hollywood. Essentially, Hollywood has to try something kinda new, since the old recipe fails (and should've much earlier).
A couple of trends I think could be interesting, is blockbusters have been built around fantasy, and escapism. Parasite really broke through though because it was a blockbuster grounded in a working class family, and more 'real life' epics might be a cheaper way for studios to get huge returns, if done well with the right filmmakers.
And cinema has become so much more global. Indian cinema is really interesting to me, because the blockbusters have the sincerity of older hollywood, not so much of that cynicism except in gangster flicks. As the world gets more globalised, so will blockbusters, and hopefully hollywood can look to what's working in other markets.
Masterpiece of a video. I could watch you talk all day.
great video! I wonder how movies will be in the future
I hope Tom Cruise spends the twilight of his career doing more dramas, or cameo comedies. Good video, but I couldn't help but hear you describing the 2010s movies like those were good things. I agree, you nailed it. But I just see those things as detrimental to the quality of movies from those years.
And I love your optimism on what the studios' takeaways from Barbie will be. I'm thinking more along the lines of b.r.a.t.z. or Rainbow High, but maybe that's too cynical.
“It fulfills the promises of the Spider-Man stories of old but then says goodbye to them for good.” Oh you are so naive…
When i was in film school (2017-2019) i was highly disenchanted with the whole franchise domain and mediocre screenplays. Me and a classmate were talking about this around those times and we were saying that is will end at some point, because the new generations of filmmakers that were feeling the same would try to do the opposite, and that there would be a counter-tendence eventually. Now, being 2023 (almost 2024) i don't think that this is necessarily a 'new generation' thing, but it seems that it finally started to cook.
Tarantino talked about this, and i was happy to confirm my thoughts on somebody as big as him.
Great video 👍. Just a wee correction, I’d say Top Gun:Maverick would be for Gen X not Boomers.
If anything it created the Rise of The "Event" Film imo.
The only thing I'll disagree on is that MI:DR:P1 was a dreadful slog, with well-shot action. Every single dialog scene was 100% exposition, explaining what has happened, what will happen, how it happened and how it will happen. Its 2:45 hour runtime felt exactly like 2:45.
Hahaha i suddenly remembered Matrix 4 even existed.
A friend to all is a friend to none
Really wonder if any blockbuster is gonna hit a billion next year. Maybe Dune 2 or Joker 2?
Dune 2…maybe, but only if all the people who may have caught it after it hit the theaters all go to the theater this time. It’s also essentially the end of a two part story.
I bet Joker 2 falls into the “we’ve already seen this” trap.
I said it once, I i said it a million times, next Hollywood trend better be fairies.
The MCU is in better shape than the DCEU.
DC has James Gunn and Matt Reeves. MCU has..... *checks notes* .....Matt Shakman and Shawn Levy 🫵🤣
@@SmashBrosInitiativeYeah…bring back the X-Men i think actually hits that “laid fallow” idea.
Ah, so RDJ is a blockbuster. Got it.
I hate hyperbolic video titles. The modern blockbuster isn't dead,. they still overall make huge amounts of money.
They are still profitable overall and so they are not going anywhere. It took years and years for the Western Genre to die out as a dominant force in film same with the old musicals. But the moment movies have a bad year everyone claims the sky is falling.
Modern Blockbusters AREN"T dead. People are just poor and cannot afford to go to the movies anywhere near as much as they used to be able to. Add to that streaming and you get our current box office situation.
What is the point of this video?
Views, likes and subscribes.
Simon Pegg ruins the mission impossible films for me
You used the Star Wars sequel trilogy as an illustration of how nostalgia has a short shelf life - that's not the real reason there were diminishing returns in the sequel trilogy. They didn't have a plan then tossed each film out to writer/directors who couldn't give a flying f*** about what the fans wanted. TLJ f***ed TFA and TROS f***ed TLJ - that's the long and short of it.
Exactly!! A franchise needs an overall plot / one writer. It suffered because not just the directors changed film to film but the writers as well and nothing was plotted ahead of time so each film retcons the others (with TRoS being the worst).
@@lutilda Good points. Everyone says TROS is the worst. I will say I had a worse reaction to TLJ than TROS, but then I went into TROS numb, expecting nothing - which is what I pretty much got.
FK EndGame🗑
Infinity War was better.
Both are dogshit
Agreed.
garbage take. Both are great
FK your opinion.
They’re both great.
To each their own 🥜
Both are still indoctrinated enslavement to the occult.
Great video... BUT... you completely missed one of the biggest factors in why it will be difficult to have more billion dollar movies. People don't like talking about it because it's become so co-opted by incels and anti-woke crusaders, but if you want to make a billion dollars, you HAVE to account for CONSERVATIVES (the life choices, not the political ideology). Conservative audiences make up roughly half of the potential market. That's $500 million. You alienate conservatives, you doom your movie to failure. It's an entirely other debate on if people SHOULD be conservative or liberal in their cultural views, and if some segments of the audience should be forced to abide by the cultural views of the other side.
But the reality is that as of 2023, audiences are very savvy about what a movie is going to have in it, ideologically. Oftentimes it's overblown, but generally, audiences are given ample warning that an upcoming film is going to have content in it that conflicts with their personal ideological beliefs. With one sort-of exception, I'll prove why this is the case.
Here's my premise: Conservatives stay away from movies that even HINT that they might be injecting overly-liberal views or elements. They don't want to have to explain to their children about the 'unusual' thing they might see on the screen. They show up for films that are reliably TRADITIONAL.
1. Super Mario Bros. -- The early word was that this film had NO wokeness in it, and that it was reliably just Mario Bros as you knew it. Audiences came out in droves.
2. Avatar 2 --- James Cameron films are reliably traditional. Dudes being tough (even if they are often the bad guys). Women being female (even if they are often the toughest character in the film). Families being families. Action being action. And NO unnecessary diversity, even though the entire race of Na'vi and Pandora's message of environment being important can easily be seen as 'woke' if one wanted. But at the end of the day, everything in the Avatar films is incredibly conservative.
3. Top Gun Maverick --- The biggest proof is this film, especially in comparison to MI Dead Reckoning. Conventional wisdom was that audiences were coming out for Tom Cruise and Real Action© But the reality is that Dead Reckoning didn't move the needle. Why? One, because MI:DR was the bajillionth top level spy film we've seen in the last twenty years. Spy films have shown they have a definite box office ceiling, and MI:DR hit it. But more importantly, there was SO much chatter ahead of time that MI was going to have a lot of woke elements in it. That Tom Cruise would be minimized or give way to one of the many female characters. But moreso, I think it's the Spy ceiling. Top Gun Maverick soared because it was 1000% fully old school traditional filmmaking. AND it didn't do anything to subvert the main character. It didn't make him the tired old man that needed to be replaced by the younger (usually female, usually non-white) hot-shot. It didn't make him a sad, miserable shell of his original self that audiences love. And the buzz among conservatives was that there was NO wokeness in it.
4. Indiana Jones, Flash, Little Mermaid, and many others all had the whiff of enforced diversity, everything from race-bending traditional characters to beloved heroes being old and sad and incompetent compared to the young female lead, or the behind-the-scenes narrative was that the star of the film was very publicly non-binary and involved in the sorts of sordid stories extreme conservatives believe is true of EVERY Hollywood celebrity. Audiences stayed away from these movies, even though they were perfectly fine movies in a vacuum.
5. Sound of Freedom --- A film that no one saw coming ended up beating most of the surefire franchise movies. That's a film that was almost entirely championed by conservatives.
6. Barbie --- This is the main outlier. But I really don't think it's an outlier based on my rationale. It's just a pure outlier from any and all conventional wisdom, and isn't something that can be repeated. This movie benefitted from Barbenheimer being an inexplicable moment in cultural history. Both films achieved an infinite amount of publicity beyond what either would have without this phenomenon. A Barbie movie on its own is a $400 million movie, while Oppenheimer is a $300 million movie. A Barbie sequel will result in the box office expected, and the narrative will be that the sequel is a 'failure' when it only does $600 million. Barbie made as much money as it did because Barbie herself doesn't have a fixed demographic. You'd THINK it would be conservative white moms, but I think Barbie's base is broader than that, plus the fact that the narrative surrounding it was that it was going to be poking massive fun at Barbie made it non-threatening to male and conservative audiences. And even though it's message was decidedly feminist, it was done in a way that didn't feel like men were being attacked. It allowed audiences of all stripes to evaluate the message of the film and debate it.
So contrary to your New Rules, I don't think that twisting or turning a story on its head is the way to go. You HAVE to deliver the character or the world that audiences EXPECT and have grown up loving. You can't subvert things any longer if you want to make a billion dollars. The upcoming Snow White is going to be the ultimate example. You can make any Snow White story you want, because it's based on a public domain fairy tale. Anyone can make a subversive version of this story. But DISNEY can't switch up what audiences already love about the characters. They love white Snow White. They love white Prince Charming, and they love seven dumpy weird white Dwarves. ALL the buzz about this film (accurate or not) is that it's the worst examples of Disney shoving unwanted diversity into their films. This will be their Waterloo.
The big rule is that You Must Account For Conservatives.
Anti Woke is The New Punk Rock
What... a... crock... of shit.
1. Mario movie HAD woke chatters by the anti-wokers early on. They just switch narrative quickly when it became apparent that the movie was gonna be a success regardless.
2. The fact that you acknowledge Avatar's treehugger message as "woke" but decided to brush it off simply because the movie's a success says it. You'll just apply "woke" to whatever's NOT a success.
3. Your 1st point on Dead Reckoning has validity. Your 2nd? It's a Tom Cruise movie. He's not gonna make way for female OR even MALE supporting characters to take over. Movie failed because Barbenheimer is a far more intriguing movie event.
4. You mention Flash, Indy 5 and Little Mermaid sucking like it's cause of their politics and diversity, and because, well they simply just suck.
And they suck precisely because of the studio's perceived expectation of the audiences. They think nostalgia is simply gonna have the audience shower them with money. In reality, these movies brought nothing new. That diversity you mentioned are just gimmicks. It's not politics, just Cousin Oliver.
5. Spiderverse. Wait a minute, I thought you said traditionalism is key? Well, this one's pretty liberal in politics. It stars the Afro-Puerto Rican Spiderman instead of the white Peter Parker. It flipped some tropes on their heads and an animation so innovative, it changed the game for western animation. So what's up, boomer?
Cinema NEEDS to be inventive. They NEED to take risk.
1. Mario movie HAD woke chatters by the anti-wokers early on. They just switch narrative quickly when it became apparent that the movie was gonna be a success regardless.
2. The fact that you acknowledge Avatar's treehugger message as "woke" but decided to brush it off simply because the movie's a success says it. You'll just apply "woke" to whatever's NOT a success.
3. Your 1st point on Dead Reckoning has validity. Your 2nd? It's a Tom Cruise movie. He's not gonna make way for female OR even MALE supporting characters to take over. Movie failed because Barbenheimer is a far more intriguing movie event.
this dude looks like Jay from the Inbetweeners - "Bus Wanker"