2019 - a new low for Hollywood originality?

speedboatchase

This has definitely been the decade in which studios decided to only back 'proven IP' over stars/directors/original concepts. Sure there have been some great success stories in recent years from relatively low-budget films (Get Out, A Quiet Place) but in general, the likes of Disney aren't about to mess with their formula (Star Wars sequels/MCU sequels/live-action remakes of their animation classics) any time soon.

So here's a list of remakes and sequels for next year, in order of their release. Enjoy!

Reboots/Remakes/TV Adaptations:
The Upside (remake of The Intouchables)
Jacob's Ladder
What Men Want
Dumbo
Pet Sematary
Hellboy
Aladdin
MIB
Shaft
Grudge
Child's Play
The Lion King
Dora the Explorer
Downton Abbey
Joker
The Addams Family
Charlie's Angels
Cats


Sequels:
Glass (sequel to Unbreakable + Split)
The Lego Movie 2
Happy Death Day 2U
How to Train Your Dragon: The Hidden World
Farmageddon: A Shaun the Sheep Movie
Avengers 4
John Wick 3: Parabellum
Godzilla: King of the Monsters
Dark Phoenix
The Secret Life of Pets 2
Toy Story 4
47 Meters Down: The Next Chapter
Untitled Annabelle sequel
Spider-Man: Far From Home
The Angry Birds Movie 2
It: Chapter Two
Zombieland Too
Terminator 6
Kingsman 3
Frozen 2
Jumanji 3
Star Wars Episode IX


Of course, there are some big budget, original/new to cinemas IP next year (Shazam, Alita: Battle Angel, Captain Marvels, 17 Bridges, Detective Pikachu, Once Upon a Time in Hollywood, Artemis Fowl, The New Mutants, Gemini Man, Sonic the Hedgehog) but yikes, they are outnumbered!

Bacchus

Mixed feelings on the list. Sure, it's not great to see so much cashing in on popular properties but there's some movies in that list I'll be checking out, if not actively looking forward to...

- I loved the original Hellboy movies and am really looking forward to a reboot.
- Childs Play has me intrigued. It's one of those movies that freaked me out as a child but it's dated terribly.
- Joker could be brilliant or absolutely terrible.
- Glass... looks at least somewhat original and a nice mash of two previous movies.
- The MCU, X-Men, Star Wars stuff are juggernauts of their own and plenty of people enjoy them.
- John Wick. Loved the first 2, pretty sure I'm gonna love this one
- Toy Story. The one kiddie sequel I would have hope for.
- IT. The one horror movie on the list worth waiting for. I don't consider it a stereotypical Hollywood sequel though. It's "part 2" of King's novel.


On the other end of the spectrum...
- Godzilla. Feels like a last ditch attempt at that "Monsters" universe. First one was ok, Kong was ok... this will probably be... ok.
- Dumbo, Aladdin, Lion King, Addams Family, Dora, LEGO, Pets, Angry Birds, Train your Dragon, Farmageddon, Frozen, Jumanji are all gonna be by-the-numbers kiddie cash in fodder of varying levels of quality/entertainment.
- WTF is Grudge getting another reboot for.
- Ditto MIB... though that potentially could be fun.
- Shaft... why
- Downton Abbey... why
- Charlies Angels... why
- Cats... seriously? :pac:
- Terminator 6. Just kill that franchise already.
- I'm personally not a fan of horror but it's rarely been a genre filled with originality (from Hollywood at least). Even Zombieland ran out of steam on its premise about halfway through, so I'm not sure what a sequel will add.
- Never seen the Kingsman movies


Some of the movies you class as "original/new" don't inspire much either to be honest if debating the originality of Hollywood...

- Shazam, Captain Marvel, New Mutants... all comic book movies
- Detective Pikachu going back to the Pokemon well
- Sonic the Hedgehog. Bottom of the barrel game to movie cash in.

CastorTroy

Isn't there a new Fast & Furious due as well?

El Duda

The thing on that list that leaves me utterly bewildered is that 47 Metres down has got a sequel :eek:

Bacchus

El Duda wrote: »

The thing on that list that leaves me utterly bewildered is that 47 Metres down has got a sequel :eek:

.... and that they didn't call it 48 Meters Down.

pixelburp

Traditionally one waits until the cinematic year is over before the "OMG, worst ever" threads start

speedboatchase

CastorTroy wrote: »

Isn't there a new Fast & Furious due as well?

A spin-off, Hobbs and Shaw.

Harry Palmr

Why would anyone be against a sequel to Shawn the sheep?!

TerrorFirmer

I can understand people being jaded with remakes and reboots (even though there's a certain appetite there) but there is nothing whatsoever wrong with sequels, the most natural progression imaginable to a popular and successful film.

S.M.B.

There seems to be similar lists every year but I still believe there's enough original material to supplement the odd existing project that could be decent.

Original movies from Tarantino, Rodriguez, Scorcese, Korine, Cornish, Liman, Mangold, Merchant, Peele, Johnson, Lee, Branagh, Waititi, Norton and plenty more.

Add in the arrival of some new talent and it could be an excellent year.

Sad Professor

Does it matter? I mean, even back when there were less sequels and remakes, were the films actually more original? Lesser genre films in the 80s and 90s and earlier could be carbon copies of one another despite having different titles and being based on supposedly original screenplays. Maybe now they are just more honest?

TerrorFirmer

TerrorFirmer wrote: »

I can understand people being jaded with remakes and reboots (even though there's a certain appetite there) but there is nothing whatsoever wrong with sequels, the most natural progression imaginable to a popular and successful film.

Yeah I agree. Its the reboots thats the issue, and the 'rehash' of writing eg. bad guy loses to superhero thats the problem. Im all for sequels if the first is good enough. We would never have had hover boards otherwise!

Bacchus

TerrorFirmer wrote: »

I can understand people being jaded with remakes and reboots (even though there's a certain appetite there) but there is nothing whatsoever wrong with sequels, the most natural progression imaginable to a popular and successful film.

Counter point. Terminator 6.

El Duda

What annoys me is the recent trend of making sequels that ignore the rubbish ones.

I paid to see Halloween H20. If you're gonna write it out of existence, shouldn't I get my money back? It is basically hollywood execs admitting that they churn ****e out.

chalkitdown1

Bacchus wrote: »

Counter point. Terminator 6.

This one actually has a great director at the helm and they seem like they give a **** this time.

I'm hopeful.....:pac:

Bacchus

chalkitdown1 wrote: »

This one actually has a great director at the helm and they seem like they give a **** this time.

I'm hopeful.....:pac:

... but 5 will always suck so hard, and everything since T2 has been a shadow of it's former greatness.

Also, I had to google the director. He has one movie behind him and while that movie is great, it's mostly great because of Ryan Reynolds not some directorial flair. I also see Goyer is writing the screenplay which doesn't inspire hope for a return to the glory days of the franchise. Anyway, this is a chat for another thread

pixelburp

Some of the items on that list, like the "Happy Death Day" sequel, are hardly blockbuster behemoths; being as it is a Blumhouse production the bar for success there was always going to be a low one. While looking at the remake pile, the likes of the Joker or Hellboy films could be interesting simply by dint of them trying new avenues or approaches.

Equally: what about Amazon / Netflix? You can debate the merits and quality levels of their own productions, but both are producing plenty of their own productions; just this this month we have Outlaw King, and the latest Coen Brothers films on Netflix.

There are tonnes of films coming out on digital platforms, there never has been such choice for the audience, it just requires a little extra legwork to find the diamonds in the rough.

El Duda

The only good Terminator film they have made since Terminator 2 is The Guest.

Don't @ me

mikhail

El Duda wrote: »

The only good Terminator film they have made since Terminator 2 is The Guest.

Don't @ me

A friend recommended that movie to me. Some time around the bar fight scene, I texted him to suggest that Dan Stephens's character was living tissue over a metal endoskeleton. I think it's the synth-heavy score as much as the deliberately non-human vibe he's giving off, but you're not alone in making that connection.

brianregan09

And the best thing about it all ??? No is one holding any one to ransom to watch them , bring them on , I'm looking forward to loads of them

mikhail

brianregan09 wrote: »

And the best thing about it all ??? No is one holding any one to ransom to watch them , bring them on , I'm looking forward to loads of them

While I agree with you more than not, there is an opportunity cost associated with them. If you aren't enamoured with those movies, the fact that they are bing made means other kinds of stories are not being funded.

TheIrishGrover

There are certain genres that are always going to have a lot of sequels and remakes: Sci-fi/fantasy, action and horror movies in particular. If one only limits oneself to these genres then this is the norm. this is the reason these are all defines as "Franchises"

However, generally, outside of these genres, there is the usual variation. However there will always be new standout thrillers and dramas and comedies, new little startup franchises.

You are correct in that there is always some prevailing trend. Currently it is Sci-Fi/Superhero movies. As someone said before, in the 80s it was generic cop action movies. For every "Die-Hard" movie or "Lethal weapon" there was Samurai Cop etc. It wasn't all the golden age.

If there is one emerging trend that is concerning it's Disney remaking their animated back catalogue live action. Some are a good idea: They are stories that are not necessarily animation specific: Beauty and The Beast, Cinderella, The Jungle Book etc. But The Lion King? Really?

brianregan09

mikhail wrote: »

While I agree with you more than not, there is an opportunity cost associated with them. If you aren't enamoured with those movies, the fact that they are bing made means other kinds of stories are not being funded.

I don't think your right there now more than ever there is multitude of platforms for new content coming out consistenly , Maybe you are right if your just talking about the cinema etc. but with multiple VOD platforms available , amazon ,netflix to name a few there is so much indie stuff out there , you just have to look for it and I love a wide range of stuff not just the ones been talked about here so there is stuff out there outside of the box office stuff well worth finding

mikhail

brianregan09 wrote: »

I don't think your right there now more than ever there is multitude of platforms for new content coming out consistenly , Maybe you are right if your just talking about the cinema etc. but with multiple VOD platforms available , amazon ,netflix to name a few there is so much indie stuff out there , you just have to look for it and I love a wide range of stuff not just the ones been talked about here so there is stuff out there outside of the box office stuff well worth finding

It's definitely a great time to distribute a small film. I'm definitely talking about films that require a 8-9 digit budget.

brianregan09

Even in the cinema this week

Bohemien Rhapsody (a biopic)

A Star is Born ( i wrote this one and i didn't even know it was a remake)

Overlord and Widows

the rest are cartoons

but thats 3 original films in just one week

batgoat

I sort of think that looks like a standard year tbh. Fair few of those are inevitable sequels to rather good films. Majority of the ones on the list are unlikely to to make it onto the list for any movie awards etc. So the actually of note Hollywood films simply aren't listed more than anything.

RobbingBandit

Next up on the ohhhhhh lets desecrate something else list

The Never Ending Story

HANDS OFF MY CHILDHOOD HOLLYWOOD

SEPT 23 1989

All this garbage when there are 19 more Aubrey–Maturin books

Make more films

mikhail

SEPT 23 1989 wrote: »

All this garbage when there are 19 more Aubrey–Maturin books

19 and a half.

silverharp

not 2019 but kite flying rumours about a female led Pirates of the Caribbean reboot, have money to burn , cant be arsed buying a shredding machine?

Stone Deaf 4evr

Harry Palmr wrote: »

Why would anyone be against a sequel to Shawn the sheep?!

I now want a fast and furious crossover with Aardman studios.

Hobbs and Shaun.

Wedwood

There's a good article on the history of movie sequels on Den of Geek.

In short, there's been sequels since movies came out. Up to the late 1960's these movies would usually have different names (e.g. the James Bond series). From the 1970's onwards, we got the numbered sequels (Godfather 2, Jaws 2 etc).

SimonTemplar

Wedwood wrote: »

There's a good article on the history of movie sequels on Den of Geek.

In short, there's been sequels since movies came out. Up to the late 1960's these movies would usually have different names (e.g. the James Bond series). From the 1970's onwards, we got the numbered sequels (Godfather 2, Jaws 2 etc).

Good point. There were 14 Basil Rathbone Sherlock Holmes movies between 1939 and 1946.

ebbsy

Why do a remake of Jacobs Ladder.

A great film the first time around. Leave it alone.

silverharp

SimonTemplar wrote: »

Good point. There were 14 Basil Rathbone Sherlock Holmes movies between 1939 and 1946.

they are more like episodes of inspector morse and most of the movies are about 70 minutes so i assume they were shown along with something else., not really comparable to today

silverharp

Charlie's Angels appears to be a flop, the original movie took in $40m on its first weekend

https://www.boxofficemojo.com/article/ed3765437444/

Sony's Charlie's Angels, however, isn't living up even to the most modest of pre-weekend expectations, bringing in just $3.15 million on Friday, looking at a three-day weekend around $8 million. The film received a "B+" CinemaScore from opening day audiences.

loyatemu

silverharp wrote: »

Charlie's Angels appears to be a flop, the original movie took in $40m on its first weekend

https://www.boxofficemojo.com/article/ed3765437444/

Terminator: Dark Fate looks to be underperforming as well.

Harry Palmr

Good news for everyone in the end. Recycling brand names every 15-20 years is not sustainable.

S.M.B.

Unless you're Disney...

pixelburp

Was about to make the same snark; let's not pretend that remaking franchises & IPs isn't some viable avenue. Disney are banking on our goodwill and patience for the same stuff, repackaged. Episode VII was almost laughably transparent in that respect.

Lest we forget: Disney released FOUR live-action renames in a 12 month period recently. FOUR. I don't blame the Sonys of this world for trying to chase that cheddar, even if they overestimate the value of properties like Men in Black or Charlie's Angels.

Agent Coulson

Charlie's Angels had a $50m budget I think so I would expect it to make a decent profit with worldwide takings.


I think a lot of studios will look at Joker and before that Deadpool both coming form huge franchises and made on small budgets yet raked in the money.

Solo was a box office bomb yet made probably made a $100m profit.


We won't see the end of remakes, reboots etc when they make money no matter how little.

Unearthly

If anything new films not linked to any franchises or sequels are struggling box office wise.

Tenet is an interesting one next year. Huge 225 million budget with no stand out A list actor. Goes to show the draw Christopher Nolan has

silverharp

Agent Coulson wrote: »

Charlie's Angels had a $50m budget I think so I would expect it to make a decent profit with worldwide takings.


I think a lot of studios will look at Joker and before that Deadpool both coming form huge franchises and made on small budgets yet raked in the money.

Solo was a box office bomb yet made probably made a $100m profit.


We won't see the end of remakes, reboots etc when they make money no matter how little.

Solo was a financial bomb too, it took just under $400m gross but it cost $275m , Disney lost at least $100m on this if not much more.
A 50m movie has a better chance to break even at least but looks like Banks is already bitching at men for not seeing her movie even though was telegraphed that it want made for men , seems like women didnt want to see it either :pac:

https://www.boxofficemojo.com/title/tt3778644/?ref_=bo_cso_table_186

Tony EH

Solo's real budget was probably closer to over 300 million with everything factored in. That meant it would have had to have made over 600 million to be considered having made the studio's money back, and upwards of a billion for Disney to have considered it a hit.

A lot of people on here know my opinion of that film, so I'll not rehash it here. But, yeah, 'Solo' flopped and it flopped really hard.

The most astonishing thing about the whole affair is how nobody at Disney could see that the whole thing was simply a bad idea from the beginning.

Sad Professor

Streaming rights, merchandising, home video... Even Solo will make a profit eventually. That's the magic of modern blockbusters with popular brand names: they can't fail.