Idk if economics was the right flair but I don’t know how it’s economically feasible for big studios to lose money on a lot of films with huge budgets and to make them so bad.
In: Economics
It’s not their intention to make bad movies. They just want a product that ticks the boxes that they think will amount to financial success. Unfortunately, that results in studios who hire creatives that they have more control over, that make movies they aren’t skilled enough to make because they believe the formula works, because it has worked in the past for themselves and other studios. Sony looks at the MCU and thinks, if we hire creatives we can control and have some overarching plan in place, we can maximise profits. This resulted in the Venom movies, both financial hits. This gives them the idea that they can keep doing this formula and then you have Morbius and Madam Web, both financial and critical blunders. They learned the wrong lessons from their success and made bad movies.
Movie studios aren’t like A24. They don’t care about subtext and themes, they care about money. Jurassic World movies are mostly awful but they all brought in big money for Universal. They didn’t bring money because of the creatives behind them, they brought in money because Universal made the creatives make a movie a certain way. Not defending bad directors and screen writers of course, but they were chosen for a reason. Loads of excellent movies don’t make money and many mediocre movies do make money. Also, movie studios have an awful approach of overspending which they believe will result in bigger gains when obviously, that is not the case. Hopefully studios understand that dropping $200+ million on one movie is not feasible in the long run.
Latest Answers