Hollywood’s still relying on sequels at the box office

Comments

• TheRaven@lemmy.ca ⁨2⁩ ⁨years⁩ ago

  This is a graph of how much people spend to watch each movie. If it was a graph of how Hollywood relies on sequels, it should show how much money they spent per movie.

  All this shows is that people are spending their money on sequels. If people want that to change, they should spend their money on originals.

  source
• ExhaleSmile@lemmy.world ⁨2⁩ ⁨years⁩ ago

  Wouldn’t Endgame be more of a Part 2 than a sequel?

  source

  • bionicjoey@lemmy.ca ⁨2⁩ ⁨years⁩ ago

    All of the MCU movies are sequels to the first Iron Man

    source

    • KevonLooney@lemm.ee ⁨2⁩ ⁨years⁩ ago

      Even the ones that don’t include Iron Man?

      These are loose definitions of “sequel”. This would mean that every story is a “sequel” to the Epic of Gilgamesh.

      source
    • Emperor@feddit.uk ⁨2⁩ ⁨years⁩ ago

      Not according to the criteria in that graph.

      It would be more damning if they said “part of a franchise”.

      source

      • -> View More Comments
    • ThePantser@lemmy.world ⁨2⁩ ⁨years⁩ ago

      That’s a lot of sequels.

      source
  • driving_crooner@lemmy.eco.br ⁨2⁩ ⁨years⁩ ago

    What’s the difference?

    source

    • tiramichu@lemm.ee ⁨2⁩ ⁨years⁩ ago

      The implication is whether it’s a standalone story or not.

      As example, Alien 3 is certainly a sequel to Aliens, because at the end of Aliens the story wraps up nicely and is “finished” - we don’t need more.

      Dune 2 is more of a continuation of Dune, however because it’s the next part of the same unfinished story.

      The important part from the planning and development perspectives is that Avengers, Dune, and Lord of the Rings etc were always written to be several parts from the beginning.

      Its the difference between “That movie made loads of money, let’s make another one” and “This story is really long, we need to do it in three parts”

      source

      • -> View More Comments
  • morphballganon@lemmynsfw.com ⁨2⁩ ⁨years⁩ ago

    Did you miss Marvel’s The Avengers and Avengers: Age of Ultron?

    source

    • ExhaleSmile@lemmy.world ⁨2⁩ ⁨years⁩ ago

      No, I enjoyed both of those. But since neither of those were actually labeled on the chart as a sequel, I brought up the one movie that was.

      source
• Reverendender@sh.itjust.works ⁨2⁩ ⁨years⁩ ago

  What does the vertical axis display?

  source

  • maegul@lemm.ee ⁨2⁩ ⁨years⁩ ago

    Each column is the top 10 films of a single year. They seem to increase in box office takings as you go up the column.

    entering data is beautiful mode …

    It’s not a basic 2D graph. And honestly it generally works, especially as the bubble size gives a clear enough sense of the actual box office takings.

    It could be 2D though, with the vertical axis representing box office, and that’d probably work too, but it wouldn’t be as aesthetically pleasing.

    source
• maegul@lemm.ee ⁨2⁩ ⁨years⁩ ago

  2013 and 2017 seemed particularly bad …

  From box office mojo, the listings were (www.boxofficemojo.com/year/2013/?grossesOption=ca…)

  2017

  1. Star Wars: Episode VIII - The Last Jedi
  2. Beauty and the Beast
  3. Wonder Woman
  4. Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 2
  5. Spider-Man: Homecoming
  6. It
  7. Thor: Ragnarok
  8. Despicable Me 3
  9. Logan
  10. The Fate of the Furious

  2013

  1. Iron Man 3
  2. The Hunger Games: Catching Fire
  3. Despicable Me 2
  4. Man of Steel
  5. Monsters University
  6. Frozen
  7. Gravity
  8. Fast & Furious 6
  9. Oz the Great and Powerful
  10. Star Trek Into Darkness

  source
• ramble81@lemm.ee ⁨2⁩ ⁨years⁩ ago

  Wait till they get to Isekai levels of naming…

  source