Here's the accompanying article. Although I don't have the data to compare previous years, the idea is that we're in an economic slump and people want to laugh, which is why they're buying up so many comedies.
The impression I get is that the only big budget sci-fi/fantasy movies that get made are based on comic book adaptations or franchises with built in fan bases.
That SUCKS. Do the studio's think trekkies only like their sci-fi in trekkie packages?
I think it's that the studios don't understand fantasy. It's foreign territory to them. So the only time they're willing to take a chance on it is if it's already been established in some other medium.
I think it's that the studios don't understand fantasy. It's foreign territory to them. So the only time they're willing to take a chance on it is if it's already been established in some other medium.
I think that's very true...SF isn't just Star Trek, fantasy isn't just Harry Potter and horror isn't just slasher sh-t. The last decent horror movie (and it was more of a thriller) was when I saw "Psycho" on TV when I was 9. Horror is about dread, darkness, fear...not how brutal and graphic you can get. Which is partly why splatterpunk in fiction had such a short life, though I did love the newness Clive Barker or Kathe Koja had brought to the medium back then...
"Berne is the capital of Switzerland. It has seven times the size of the graveyard of Naples, but it's only half as funny."
Luciano di Crescenco
The impression I get is that the only big budget sci-fi/fantasy movies that get made are based on comic book adaptations or franchises with built in fan bases.
What do you guys think?
I think it's a matter of budget. Fantasy and sci-fi movies typically cost more money to make than movies set in the real world. So if you're going to make that kind of movie, you want to hedge your bets and ensure that you have an audience.
Put yourself in the studio executive's chair. Would you rather take a $100 million risk on an unknown property or spend that same amount on a comic book or video game adaptation with built-in interest?
It's an easy decision. I would much rather develop THE LEGEND OF ZELDA than buy a sword-and-sorcery spec about characters no one has ever heard of.
Put yourself in the studio executive's chair. Would you rather take a $100 million risk on an unknown property or spend that same amount on a comic book or video game adaptation with built-in interest?
What you're saying makes sense.
But I just wonder if a fantasy spec really is any more of a risk than a 100 million dollar action flick.
I mean, the audience for scifi/fantasy definitely exists (look at star wars/trek/lord of the rings/harry potter).
But I just wonder if a fantasy spec really is any more of a risk than a 100 million dollar action flick.
I mean, the audience for scifi/fantasy definitely exists (look at star wars/trek/lord of the rings/harry potter).
So why do studio's treat them differently?
Who says Hollywood makes $100M action movies based on original ideas? For the most part, they don't. Per IMDb, there were 22 releases last year with a budget of $100+ million. Here they are in descending order:
Quantum of Solace (Sequel)
The Chronicles of Narnia: Prince Caspian (Book, Sequel)
Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull (Sequel)
The Dark Knight (Comic Book, Sequel)
The Golden Compass (Book)
Wall-E
Bee Movie
Beowulf (Book/Myth)
Bolt
Hancock
I Am Legend (Book)
Madagascar: Escape 2 Africa
The Curious Case of Benjamin Button (Book)
The Incredible Hulk (Comic Book)
The Mummy: Tomb of the Dragon Emperor (Sequel)
Iron Man (Comic Book)
Australia
Kung Fu Panda
National Treasure: Book of Secrets (Sequel)
Speed Racer (TV Show)
10000 BC
American Gangster
How many of these are based on an original idea? By my count, only 8.
Wall-E
Bee Movie
Bolt
Hancock
Australia
Kung Fu Panda
1000 BC
American Gangster
4 of these 8 were cranked out by animation powerhouses (Bee Movie also had the direct involvement of Jerry Seinfeld, possibly the biggest star in the history of television comedy). American Gangster was based on a true story and was barely over the $100M budget threshold. It also had the benefit of an A-list producer with major clout. Australia and 1000 BC were passion projects originated by directors with a track record of hits.
Out of the 22 $100M+ movies released in 2008, Hancock was the only live action feature that started as a spec. Had it not attracted the biggest star in the world (Will Smith), it probably wouldn't have been made.
Most big budget Hollywood productions originate from an established property with a built-in fan base. Those that don't generally only get made because they have one or more of the following A-list elements: producer, star, or director.
Comment