>Almost every movie released now is either a sequel, prequel or remake of an older movie.
Can someone enlighten me as to why this is happening? Have directors run out of ideas?
Hollywood don't want to take risks. It's ludicrously expensive to produce a modern blockbuster, so they want the bet to be as safe as possible. Basing the movie on an existing popular IP is safer than something completely new and unique.
That's it basically.
easy money
Because of the consumers
TFA proved to them that remaking trash is fine as long as you have a heavy marketing campaign. You should expect the same thing with the new Ghostbusters movie, but don't expect the plebs here to praise it like they have with TFA
>>63834277
It's not the directors, it's the studios that are at fault. But I can't explain the economic and social factors that have led them to be so risk-averse. Big studios used to make brave, big-budget, original movies that were daring, offensive, innovative and thought provoking (esp. Warner Bros).
"We used to make shit in this country, build shit. Now all it seems we do is put our hand in the other guy's pocket."
- frank sobotka, the wire
Hollywood is out of ideas, but what really enables it is the nostalgia people feel for old movies so they go see all the sequels, remakes, and reboots.
directors arent usually responsible for ideas, thats the writers job
>>63834444
>Hollywood is out of ideas
No they aren't
Because Baby Boomers and Chinese are fucking stupid.
>even The Mummy is being rebooted
>>63834277
It's because mainstream audiences have become EXTREMELY fickle and unpredictable.
They don't give a shit if there's a big movie star in your film, they don't give a shit if it's done by a famous director, or if it has hot girls in it, or if it's fun, or scary, or interesting, or new, or spectacular, or well-made, or fun, or engaging or weird or anything. None of that shit really matters anymore. None of it can guarantee that a movie is gonna pull its weight in terms of investment.
So now, the only way to make sure that your big budget movie isn't gonna flop, is to directly tie it to a well-known franchise; it's the only thing people still seem to care for.
And even that isn't guaranteed to work.
Because plebs gonna pleb
>>63834277
>Almost every movie released now is either a sequel, prequel or remake of an older movie.
hollywood is not the only movie market you know? there are tons of quality films released this year that have nothing to do with remakes, prequels, sequels, etc. you fucking retard
>>63834519
Yes, they are.
>Hey guys, let's make a sequel to Star Wars
>no one has any ideas, so they just gender bender A New Hope
>>63834609
His first Mummy was already a reboot twice over or something
The blade leg chick from Kingsman might play the mummy which is good since she's hot
How about a parody reboot riding the coattails of not only nostalgia, but huge box office numbers of the series they're parodying?
http://www.inquisitr.com/2643750/mel-brooks-spaceballs-sequel-star-wars-the-force-awakens-the-schwartz-awakens-movie-posters/
>>63834724
It isn't their fault the cancerous fanbase wants to see the same movie again.
>>63834277
>>63834614
The only thing that really works is lots and lots of advertisement. That's it. Everything else used is just different techniques of propaganda in order to make the advertisement effective.
>>63834724
Wow, you have literally no idea how Hollywood works. They probably had hundreds of different scripts to choose from, but went with A New Hope: Reloaded because that's what the average consumer wants, the same shit, but this time more "cool" and action filled.
