Within
the past two years, it seems as though the trend of films that have been
produced are sequels, remakes, or a book series. What is so interesting about
this is that these films that have come to dominate the box office. In 2011 the
Theatrical Market Stats released a list of the top 25 films by U.S./Canada Box
Office. Six out of the top 25 films were original; meaning they were not based
off of a book, a remake, or a sequel. In 2011, in the top box office films were
remakes, sequels, or movies adapted from books, 19 to be exact (“Industry Reports: Theatrical Market
Stats 2011."). Studios are releasing these films
solely based on the fact that they will make money and not necessarily on the quality of the film - has Hollywood become
accustomed to falling back onto books and sequels to help generate revenue?
In the
21st century, it appeared as if books, specifically the Harry Potter
and the Lord of the Rings series’, were beginning to catch the eye of studios
because they were so popular for audiences. Through this, they were able to
adapt and use these series’ as a foundation for their movies. In Advertising
Age’s article it states that, “Major studios have
relied on popular characters from books and comics to attract fans to films,
such as Disney's ‘Marvel's The Avengers,’ the year's top-selling movie
at more than $1.51 billion worldwide, according to Box Office Mojo” (Bloomberg
News). However, in today’s society there is
so much discussion regarding the death of books. Yet it is comics and books
that seem to be carrying the box office, “Movie heroes who
lifted ticket sales to a record in 2012, from Iron Man to Katniss Everdeen, are
set to carry Hollywood to another high next year” (Bloomberg News). Do you think that the film industry is helping the
revenue and continuation of books? Or are these series carrying Hollywood? When
discussing The Hunger Games, the Hollywood Reporter stated that, “Publisher Scholastic
announced today that there were 36.5 million copies of the bestselling trilogy
in print, a 55 percent jump from the 23.5 million copies in print at the start
of 2012…‘Suzanne Collins has created a vivid and compelling future world that
has captivated both teen and adult readers and is sure to become a classic,’
said Ellie Berger,
President, Scholastic Trade Publishing. ‘We are proud to be her publisher and
we join readers everywhere in celebrating her amazing talent’” (Lewis). While this is promising for The
Hunger Games, do you think that this book would be as popular today if the
film was never made?
Referring
to the trend of sequels, The Hangover
was a film that came out in 2009 and attracted audiences across the world. With
an original and provocative plot, this film was able to relate to the public,
all while generating a massive profit. Making $277.3 million dollars in the box
office ("The Hangover
(2009)."), it was a great summer hit. Two
years later Warner Brothers studios came out with The Hangover 2. It did not receive the rave reviews as the first
and made $254.5 million dollars (“Industry Reports: Theatrical Market Stats 2011."). While that is still a significant amount of
money, I cannot help but wonder was this film necessary? Or are studios relying
too heavy on making sequels as oppose to original films?
Another
factor that may come into play regarding the trend of sequels and books into
movies is social media. Social media has become a way in which the public can
connect with actors and actresses as well as big name studios through media
such as Twitter or Facebook. “The world is open for conversation. No matter where we’re
located, we have the opportunity to connect with others and share information
through social media. Trends in social media stretch from country to country
and region to region, connecting people, ideas, brands and messages. It’s the
communication medium that brings us all together, and it’s easily accessible.
Every day, communicators are reaching audiences through these new tools, which
are quickly becoming standard” (Swan). Do you
think that social media and fans’ suggestion plays a role in the making of
these sequels and adaptations?
It appears as
if this trend is here to stay, “While studios are
making fewer films, they are focused on characters with global appeal that
attract broad audiences. Action pictures, comedies and historical dramas all
broke $100 million in sales during the past year, and theater upgrades that
include 3-D, digital projection and more comfortable seats have lured guests
back, executives said” (Bloomberg
News). Do you think that this trend
will ever die out? Will the film industry begin to rely too heavily on making sequels and adaptations?
Work Cited
Bloomberg News.
"Hollywood Eyes Record 2013 With 'Star Trek,' 'Hobbit,' 'Hunger Games'
Sequels." Ad Age Media News. Ad Age Media News, 28 Dec. 2012.
Web. Mar. 2013.
“Industry Reports:
Theatrical Market Stats 2011." Motion Pictures Association of
America. Motion Pictures Association of America, 2011. Web. Mar. 2013. <http://www.mpaa.org/policy/industry>.
America. Motion Pictures Association of America, 2011. Web. Mar. 2013. <http://www.mpaa.org/policy/industry>.
Lewis, Andy. "'Hunger
Games' Movie Fuels Sharp Rise in Book Sales." The Hollywood
Reporter. The Hollywood Reporter, 28 Mar. 2012. Web. Mar. 2013.
Swan, Christopher.
"Connecting the World Through Social Media." IABC: CW
Bulletin Swan. International Association of Business Communicators, Web.
Mar. 2013.
"The Hangover
(2009)." The Hangover. Rotten Tomatoes, Web. Mar. 2013.
When looking at the film industry today, it is clear that there has been a sudden change from what we used to see and what we are seeing now. Years ago you were able to go to the movie theater and see a movie with a story line you had never heard about before. Now, many of the films being released have had prior audiences from different sources of entertainment, such as novels and comic books.
ReplyDeleteIt is clear that these films based off of books are catching an audience’s attention because of the high ratings that they are acquiring. As stated in Advertising Age, “major studios have relied on popular characters from books and comics to attract fans to films…” For example, “…“The Avengers,’ a mashup of Marvel comic super heroes released by Walt Disney Co, that pulled in $623 million in domestic sales and was one of the five 2012 movies with ticket sales of more than $300 million, an industry record…” (Grover). This goes to show that these comic books made into films are doing very well in the market. Not only are books and comic books creating a market for film, but it is also benefiting the books that were published years ago. People who had read the book previously go to see the film, especially if it was one of their favorite books. People who had never read the book but saw the movie have now started reading the books as well, bringing the publication back to life. For example, the book The Perks of Being a Wallflower was published in 1999. Many people of my generation have not read it since we were young at the time, but with the release of the movie more and more people my age have begun to read it because of the film release. This caused the book to sell more copies after the first publication. I can even say myself that before going to see a film based off a book I read I will re-read the book in order to refresh my memory.
According to Advertising Age, “Disney the world’s largest entertainment company, will put out 10 movies next year, including two Marvel sequels ‘Iron Man 3’ and ‘Thor: The Dark World;’ one Pixar sequel, ‘Monsters University’; as well as pictures based on ‘The Wizard of Oz’ and ‘The Lone Ranger’” (“Hollywood Eyes Record 2013”). The fact that all of these movies are sequels of some sort shows the tremendous change that has been occurring in the movie making industry. These producers know that the sequels will buy because the first films were such a big hit. Although this is true, the sequels often do not do as well as the first film in the series. Even so, there are still the fans that will buy into the sequels since they have been going to all of the films before it.
Although these books that are turned into films with sequels are making a huge hit in the market, not every film that has a sequel is benefiting. As Taylor stated in her blog, “The Hangover” was a great summer hit, but it did not seem necessary for them to make a Hangover 2, which did not make as much profit and was basically the same exact story line as the first film. I feel as though producers must think before making sequels such as the Hangover 2, especially since it did not have a cliffhanger at the end, which would have made a second film necessary. As the times go on, it will be interesting to see if producers will continue with the trend of remakes and sequels, or if originality will come back into play.
Works Cited
Grover, Ronald. "Who Needs an Oscar? Hollywood Basks in Industry's Comeback."Reuters. Thomson Reuters, 22 Feb. 2013. Web.
"Hollywood Eyes Record 2013 With 'Star Trek,' 'Hobbit,' 'Hunger Games' Sequels." Advertising Age. Crain Communications Inc., 28 Dec. 2012. Web. 17 Mar. 2013.
When I think of movies, the first thing that comes to my mind is creativity. I can never imagine what it’s like to envision scenes, costumes, set, characters etc. However, after reading Taylor’s blog, I never thought about how much of that really is creative thinking from movie producers and how much is really based on authors’ imagination. Thinking back on it, so many of my favorite films are based off of books and many of them are also remakes and sequels.
ReplyDeleteAfter reading, “Overseas slice of ‘Pi’ flips Hollywood formula”, it wasn’t until the sixth paragraph that the author mentions the film is based on a book. I’m reading through the article thinking about how long it will take until they mentioned it and I thought it would also be when they mention “The Hunger Games”. While “Life of Pi” may have the second most Academy Award nominations and be the top grossing film among the other nominees, I never heard of the book until the film came out and with such popularity (Germain 2013). According to the author, it is a best-selling novel, but I doubt it is nearly as popular as the movie. When Germain mentions “The Hunger Games”, nothing is said about that being based off a film. He claims that’s “The Hunger Games” is more traditional, which I beg to differ (Germain, 2013). What I think made these films so much more popular than their books is because they are actually far from traditional. I read “The Hunger Games” after watching the film and I will probably do the same with “Life of Pi”. What I think makes them so much more intriguing as films is because they are so extraordinary that the average imagination can’t expand that far. While yes many books are made into films, some go beyond what we can fathom. How many people can imagine what it’s like to travel the seas and befriend a tiger and have an experience a whale in the wild? How many people can imagine young adults and children fighting to the death for pure amusement? We can’t and that’s why these films blow us away instead of reading the books. Even Fox studio chairman Jim Gianopulos explains that “it’s a big, beautiful world out there and when you deliver a film that has the strength of story, the emotionality, the spirituality and the spectacle of a film like ‘Pi’, people show up” (Germain 2013).
Not only has “The Hunger Games” exploded onto the movie scene from the book, but also the sequel is expected “to carry Hollywood to another high next year” (Hollywood Eyes Record 2013 with Sequels, 2012). So many movies make sequels because fans have already fallen in love with the characters and the story line and they always wants more. Producers already know the basis of how well the first movie did and can only anticipate that that many people and hopefully more will want to see what happens next in the sequels. “The Hunger Games” and “The Twilight Saga: Breaking Dawn Part 2” were “the third and fifth top-grossing releases of the year” and they “had moviegoers who were re-energized” about the films (Hollywood Eyes Record 2013 with Sequels, 2012).
No matter what the reason is, it’s still amazing how movies can draw in such crowds. What used to be used as a news source is now full of entertainment and taking us to places we never imagined. Whether it be transforming books into films, continuing stories of characters we already know and love or modernizing classic plots, the movies will always be an important aspect of American culture and worldwide entertainment.
Work Cited
Bloomberg News. "Hollywood Eyes Record 2013 With 'Star Trek,' 'Hobbit,' 'Hunger Games' Sequels." Ad Age Media News. Ad Age Media News, 28 Dec. 2012. Web. Mar. 2013.
Germain, David. “Overseas slice of 'Pi' flips Hollywood formula.” Associated Press. 17 Feb 2013. Web.
The film industry has always been a form of entertainment that has really interested me my entire life. One of my favorite things to do is watch movies as well as read books so when I saw that Taylor decided to blog about books that have turned into movies I knew that I would not be disappointed. Now days, many major film studios are swatting original movie ideas for book plots or sequels. At first I wasn't sure if that was a good idea but then reading through Taylor’s blog, it made me realize why these major film industries do it. Harry Potter, the Lord of the Rings, Twilight, The Hunger Games, and Batman are just a few of the top grossing films over the past decade. As you can see, many if not all of these films have appeared as books before they became films. “While studios are making fewer films, they are focused on characters with global appeal that attract broad audiences,” (Bloomberg News), within this quote from Bloomberg News we can see why film studios might choose a popular book over an original idea to create a movie about. Since books generally have their fan base set before the movie comes out, there is an automatic audience already in store for the film.
ReplyDeleteWith regards to Taylor’s first question, I believe that these book series are actually carrying Hollywood. Without them, movie phenomena’s like The Hunger Games and Twilight would have never been done. Book series gross a lot of money for the film industry because so many of their followers are willing to go and watch their favorite novel character on the big screen or aka in “real life”. "The $152.5 million weekend debut for "The Hunger Games," with Jennifer Lawrence as the teen heroine Katniss Everdeen, marked an all-time high for March”(Bloomberg News). Not only does this show that these movies gross so much money in the box office but the second and third installments of the series usually do just as good if not better than the first ones. According to www.thenumbers.com Harry Potter and the Sorcerer’s Stone made $317,575,550 in the box office while the last installment of the series, Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows Part 2 made $381,011,219.
In reference to Taylor’s question, I think that the book series, take The Hunger Games for example, would not be so popular today if the film was never made. Due to the success of the first book, I feel that the film studios decide if it would be a great hit in the movie theaters. However, once the audience, including myself, found out that the Hunger Games was going to be a movie I automatically wanted to read the book first to see if I was going to like it. The book sales sky rocketed right after the release of the first movie, “By early November, after a heavy online marketing push, 16 million books from the trilogy were in print in the United States. The first full-length trailer made its debut on Nov. 18 igniting Facebook and the blogosphere. There are now 23.5 million books in print in the domestic market.” (Barnes). This quote shows how due to the attention of the movie, the book sales for The Hunger Games by Suzanna Collins increased drastically.
When referring to sequels, I feel that they generally have a tougher time doing well in the box office because they never are as good as the first. When dealing with book series, the audience generally has a feeling of what is going to happen and they are excited to see how they are going to portray it on the big screen. I was the studio I would stop after the first one and keep its hype alive.
Work Citied
Bloomberg News. "Hollywood Eyes Record 2013 With 'Star Trek,' 'Hobbit,' 'Hunger Games' Sequels." Ad Age Media News. Ad Age Media News, 28 Dec. 2012. Web. Mar. 2013.
Barnes, Brooks, and Julie Bosman. "'Hunger Games' Book Sales Bode Well for the Film."The New York Times. N.p., 22 Jan. 2012. Web. 18 Mar. 2013.
ReplyDeleteWhen looking at the top 25 films by U.S./Canada Box Office, I was surprised because many of the movies I did not see. I must admit I am one to wait until the movie comes out on DVD, but I still have not seen those movies from 2011. It kind of makes me wonder what am I missing out on? It is crazy that the cost of an adult movie ticket is $14. Tuesday night $5 movies have become so popular, but I know they do not do this at home in New York so I am trying to take advantage of this offer before graduation. I understand that it is very expensive to make a movie and edit it, but maybe if the price of a movie ticket were cheaper then it would also increase the demand of people going to the movies.
To answer Taylor’s question, yes Hollywood does fall back onto making movies out of books and sequels to generate revenue. I personally think that Hollywood is making a smart decision by doing this. Why not give the audience what they want? If a book is a best seller, it would probably also be a movie that would dominate the box office. I always like to read the book before seeing the movie, but the movie is never as good as the book. For some strange reason, a book just allows your imagination to run free. When seeing the movie after reading the book, you can sometimes be disappointed for the movie is not what your imagination pictured it would look like.
What makes a good movie? It is so fascinating to me to see that the James Bond films are still doing so well. “James Bond also returned from a four-year absence with a vengeance and snagged five Oscar nods. ‘Skyfall,’ made jointly by MGM and Sony Pictures, grossed $304 million in domestic ticket sales and $1.1 billion internationally - the most of any of the 24 Bond films tracked by Box Office Mojo, and nearly twice as much as the second-ranked film, "Quantum of Solace," in 2008” (Grover). James Bond has been around for years and continues to top the box office. I think this is the perfect example to prove that sequels will not go out of style. I do not think this trend will ever die out, but the industry does rely too heavily on making sequels. Taylor brings up a great point demonstrating how big of a role social media does play in the industry. Social media allows for people to communication worldwide and interact about the same movie.
One of the movies that I cannot wait to hit theaters is Fifty Shades of Grey. The trilogy of books was amazing and my expectations for the film are set even higher. I know that it will be very hard to act out the book, but I am somewhat curious to see how they will relay the same message on a big screen. If the movie industry is profiting off of books, isn’t it fair for authors to profit off of the movies? It is kind of a double standard due to copyrighting. Both of the industries should be able to work together to further each other’s success.
Works Cited
Grover, Ronald. "Who Needs an Oscar? Hollywood Basks in Industry's Comeback."Reuters. Thomson Reuters, 22 Feb. 2013. Web.
“Industry Reports: Theatrical Market Stats 2011." Motion Pictures Association of
America. Motion Pictures Association of America, 2011. Web. Mar. 2013.
It seems that most of us are more familiar with many of the movies that have been coming to theaters recently. If it is not a movie about a popular book then it seems to be a movie that continues the storyline of an older successful movie. This is no coincidence as the film industry has found that the formula of creating movies based on books, sequels, and remakes.
ReplyDeleteWith the slow economy film studios have been affected. Studios have found a way to greatly profit by sticking with what works. It was evident through the Harry Potter series that a book could attract a huge following as well as a lot of money. All eight Harry Potter movies combined to gross $7,709,205,984 billion dollars at box-office worldwide (The Numbers). These numbers don't lie as they helped pave the way for other popular novels such as, Lord of the Rings, and The Hunger Games to become safe box office bets. The reason these books are safe box office hits are because they all sold well when they were released as books. In these trying economic times it makes sense why Hollywood would create movies that they know people will watch rather than taking a gamble on something that might be a dud.
When it comes to sequels it is usually a safe bet that it would gross good numbers due to the buzz that surrounded the original movie. Taylor makes a great point when she writes that, The Hangover 2 made $ 254.5 million dollars, which was only $22.8 million dollars, less than the original (“Industry Reports: Theatrical Market Stats 2011."). One reason sequels are made could be to try and replicate the same big audience as the movie prior to it. According to, "Hollywood Eyes Record 2013 With 'Star Trek,' 'Hobbit,' 'Hunger Games' Sequels Record 2012 Comes Despite Continued Improvements in Home Viewing", it is predicted that "$11 billion in sales next year hinges on the success of comic book characters and sequels..." (Bloomberg News). Again, in these economic times it makes more sense to do something that you know. Sequels are also good because the audience is familiar with the story and do not go into the movie blind.
Anther trend that we have been seeing in films is remakes of older films. An example of a film that was remade recently is Charlie and the Chocolate Factory, 2005. Despite mixed reviews this movie totaled $ 474,968,763 million dollars worldwide. This is probably due to the nostalgic feeling that many parents felt when they heard that there was going to be a updated remake of this film. Remakes of films are always profitable even though some people do not like the newness of the films.
It is clear that the film industry is a business just like any other business and the primary goal is to create revenue. In current times it has been a better business move to go with what has the highest probability to sell, which in the film industries case are books, sequels, and remakes.
Works Cited
Bloomberg News. "Hollywood Eyes Record 2013 With 'Star Trek,' 'Hobbit,' 'Hunger Games' Sequels." Ad Age Media News. Ad Age Media News, 28 Dec. 2012. Web. Mar. 2013.
"Box Office History for Harry Potter Movies." Harry Potter Franchise Box Office History. N.p., n.d. Web. 18 Mar. 2013.
"Charlie and the Chocolate Factory (2005) - Box Office Mojo." Charlie and the Chocolate Factory (2005) - Box Office Mojo. N.p., n.d. Web. 18 Mar. 2013.
“Industry Reports: Theatrical Market Stats 2011." Motion Pictures Association of
America. Motion Pictures Association of America, 2011. Web. Mar. 2013. .
It seems like films have been taking over people’s lives since the past few years. Books have become movies and these movies have been acting as an addiction for some. Taylor has addressed a topic that we sometimes oversea because we are not the ones who are putting the work into the project. Directors spend a great amount of time deciding how to go about their next piece of work and so many have done an incredible job at re-making films and directing stable films that have potential to grow into something so much like an epidemic.
ReplyDeleteAlthough we as viewers like to see something fresh and new on the big screen, we seem to feel comfortable with spending money on something we know we already enjoy watching. Why not base a film off of a book, or create a spin-off to something so crazy like The Hangover, or even re-make an old movie like we have recently seen with Les Miserables.
“While studios are making fewer films, they are focused on characters with global appeal that attract broad audiences.” (Advertising Age) This is a great point in that we are interested in these strong, but very different characters that we see in movies such as Twilight and Hunger Games which are mentioned throughout this article.
I find it rather interesting when Taylor proposes the questions of, “Do you think that the film industry is helping the revenue and continuation of books? Or are these series carrying Hollywood?” (LePino) I feel that the film industry is definitely moving in a positive matter by incorporating these pieces that have so much potential in selling. The series films that are linked or based on books can only help the revenue go sky-rocketing. If you notice, these books do not just become a film but they become a way of life for some people. They walk around in t-shirts with their favorite character on the front or sometimes you see people dressing up as characters like Harry Potter.
In the Reuters article it states that, “Hollywood is a famously cyclical business that can hit a slump even in the best of economic times. But the recent spate of hit-making has put the industry on a high.” (Grover) Box office numbers are always jumping up and down but recent films have put that to rest with selling millions and even billions in revenue. “…whose studio made ‘Ted’ and ‘Dr.Seuss’ ‘The Lorax," both with box office sales over $200 million. "Give consumers something that's interesting and you can still get them to come out of their house." (Grover) Although we seem to be comfortable in seeing our favorite movie in 3D or just a sequel to a film we enjoyed, we do want to see something totally brand new as well.
But, we cannot forget when our childhood came back on the big screens. Although most were not considered ‘re-makes’ they were most definitely linked with showing something brand new and that happened to be 3-D. In 2012, Beauty and the Beast came out in theaters in 3D which could have introduced the younger generations to this classic film that our ‘Generation-Y’ has grown up with. Re-releasing this movie along with others such as The Lion King, could definitely help with income for these Disney movie products; such as kids wanting to buy products with the logo or characters or simply wanting to go to Disney World. Movies will never stop being made and the ideas of bringing the past into the present is nothing short of a genius idea.
Grover, Ronald. "Who Needs an Oscar? Hollywood Basks in Industry's Comeback."Reuters. Thomson Reuters, 22 Feb. 2013. Web. 18 Mar. 2013.
"Hollywood Eyes Record 2013 With 'Star Trek,' 'Hobbit,' 'Hunger Games' Sequels." Advertising Age. Crain Communications Inc., 28 Dec. 2012. Web. 18 Mar. 2013.
I’m extremely shocked that I haven’t seen most of the top 25 films by U.S/Canada Box office because I consider myself sort of a movie buff among my family and friends. This list completely took that away from me because apparently I’m not if these movies were in the top 25 and I didn’t see most of them. I typically go to the movies twice a month, and rent out the rest from Red Box about 3-4 times a month to watch with my friends. I would love to physically go to the theatres much more because I truly enjoy that experience, but the increasing prices to go now is really getting ridiculous. Today, a date at the movies can cost almost $50 (2 tickets at $12 each, 2 medium sodas at $4.50 each, and a medium popcorn at $9). A family trip to the movies isn’t worth it anymore because you’re talking close to, if not over $100 for the group.
ReplyDeleteTo answer Taylor’s question, no I don’t believe that this trend of making sequels and adaptations will die out especially not anytime soon because it is all about profitability at the end of the day. It all goes back to the basic rule that people use in business. When you have a product that consumers love and are willing to pay for, keep giving it to them until they get tired of it. The good thing about movies, however, is the fact that studios can add certain big stars to the franchises that can make it more fascinating and attractive to a completely different audience as we have seen with the Fast & Furious franchise due to the addition of Dwayne “The Rock” Johnson. It’s also about giving the audience what they want as well. The Rock has a huge fan base from his other action roles, but his biggest fan base is wrestling fans and studios know that. I heard the rumors of The Rock possibly being added to the cast a long time ago and it created a huge buzz across the movie industry and wrestling world. I’m pretty sure that the producers, and studios paid attention to all of that and it helped them finalize the decision to choose him for his role in the movie.
It states in the Reuters article “Despite all of the advances of recent years, it is hardly certain that Hollywood can keep its winning streak going.” (Grover) The bottom line is that there will always be hits and misses for box office numbers even if it has the best and most famous actors staring in it. This is why I agree with Taylor’s question as far as the film industry relying heavily on making sequels and adaptations. Studios are trying to re-releasing movies from years ago in 3D to try to make money by capturing a new audience who are into 3D movies now. I just think that it’s all about making great business decisions. Like my mother always say, if you want to get a real taste of orange juice, you first must squeeze everything you can out of it before you move on to the next one. These executives in film studios use the same logic, in my opinion, to make their decision.
Works Cited
Grover, Ronald. "Who Needs an Oscar? Hollywood Basks in Industry's Comeback."Reuters. Thomson Reuters, 22 Feb. 2013. Web.
“Industry Reports: Theatrical Market Stats 2011." Motion Pictures Association of America. Motion Pictures Association of America, 2011. Web. Mar. 2013.