Franchises and sequels dominated the 2024 box office. The only movie in the top 15 not based on an existing film was "Wicked," which was based on a Broadway musical.
There’s nothing wrong with sequels. There’s only so much worldbuilding and character development you can do in 2 hours. It’s a cool thing that a movie can start in an established world and not have to spend so much screen time building it from scratch.
Of course there are lazy and bad sequels, but there’s nothing inherently bad about them and it’s become too big of a meme to write them off reflexively.
I’d rather watch serial TV shows. Give me a 10 hour “movie” with obvious stopping points, and a plot that is better than solving some inane crime in two hours.
If they can guarantee that they’ll finish the story, I’m on board with the shows. But most of the time, the story is either cut short or it’s extended indefinitely. In film, you can usually bet that by the end, the major plot points will be resolved. You can’t say the same about television (at least when it comes to series that explore a single storyline throughout as opposed to sitcoms that have more self-contained episodes).
There are obviously exceptions in both cases, but I’ve been bit enough times by good shows that raised a bunch of questions right before being canceled.
I love the juxtaposition of this with the comment saying they prefer movies over shows. I like that people enjoy stories differently.
I completely understand them liking self-contained, complete stories, but I’m definitely in your camp. I like shows that I can immerse myself in and really get to know how the characters and universe tick. That’s probably why I gravitate towards sci-fi and fantasy. To me, the worldbuilding and lore is the point.
Also, with everything being so expensive when you wanna see a movie, do you pick one where you have a pretty good idea what you’re getting into or do you risk it on new IP? I still love going to the cinema, but it’s so expensive that I am very picky and only go once or twice a year.
i know the metaphor isnt 1:1 but i’m not upset when there’s a second season of a tv show I liked, and I don’t consider it lazy to use the same characters to tell a new story.
also it’s kind of a no-brainer for general audiences. why take a risk paying for a ticket to something I might not like, when I can see something I know I do like, only new?
these films have much bigger budget allocations than most (if not all) of a studio’s original slate, so a built-in audience ensures at least some ROI.
that doesn’t mean i’m happy about it, gambling on new stories should be more profitable than gambling with a $250m budget. but the latter has been a proven strategy, at least at the moment.
instead of a 4-decade-long dead-horse-beating the people complaining need to take a deep breath and go and support indie and original cinema themselves.
There’s nothing wrong with sequels. There’s only so much worldbuilding and character development you can do in 2 hours. It’s a cool thing that a movie can start in an established world and not have to spend so much screen time building it from scratch.
Of course there are lazy and bad sequels, but there’s nothing inherently bad about them and it’s become too big of a meme to write them off reflexively.
I really prefer movies to television because they are conventionally self-contained stories without the baggage of lore or familiar characters.
Give me a Hitchcock movie any day over something with a 3 hour runtime and a “universe” it expects me to be familiar with.
I’d rather watch serial TV shows. Give me a 10 hour “movie” with obvious stopping points, and a plot that is better than solving some inane crime in two hours.
If they can guarantee that they’ll finish the story, I’m on board with the shows. But most of the time, the story is either cut short or it’s extended indefinitely. In film, you can usually bet that by the end, the major plot points will be resolved. You can’t say the same about television (at least when it comes to series that explore a single storyline throughout as opposed to sitcoms that have more self-contained episodes).
There are obviously exceptions in both cases, but I’ve been bit enough times by good shows that raised a bunch of questions right before being canceled.
This is why I typically enjoy shows more than movies. It’s pretty hard to make me care about the characters in 90 min.
I love the juxtaposition of this with the comment saying they prefer movies over shows. I like that people enjoy stories differently.
I completely understand them liking self-contained, complete stories, but I’m definitely in your camp. I like shows that I can immerse myself in and really get to know how the characters and universe tick. That’s probably why I gravitate towards sci-fi and fantasy. To me, the worldbuilding and lore is the point.
It’s amazing when they do though. Fargo is 90 minutes, I love short movies that are just so good
I didn’t know they even make movies that short anymore.
Also, with everything being so expensive when you wanna see a movie, do you pick one where you have a pretty good idea what you’re getting into or do you risk it on new IP? I still love going to the cinema, but it’s so expensive that I am very picky and only go once or twice a year.
i know the metaphor isnt 1:1 but i’m not upset when there’s a second season of a tv show I liked, and I don’t consider it lazy to use the same characters to tell a new story.
also it’s kind of a no-brainer for general audiences. why take a risk paying for a ticket to something I might not like, when I can see something I know I do like, only new?
these films have much bigger budget allocations than most (if not all) of a studio’s original slate, so a built-in audience ensures at least some ROI.
that doesn’t mean i’m happy about it, gambling on new stories should be more profitable than gambling with a $250m budget. but the latter has been a proven strategy, at least at the moment.
instead of a 4-decade-long dead-horse-beating the people complaining need to take a deep breath and go and support indie and original cinema themselves.