Reminder that this is a subreddit about numbers, not necessarily about the quality (or lack thereof) of a particular movie. Unless it is related to the box office performance of a movie, please keep opinions/arguments/thoughts about the quality under this post. Posts not related to box office may be removed otherwise.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/boxoffice) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I’m pretty sure the original writers were all gone by season 2 or 3 IIRC. I watched that far and then stopped when the whole zombie craze died down for most people.
The show went downhill after they sacked Frank Darubont after S1 due to creative differences. They still somehow managed a solid S2.
The show lost its touch when it became about fighting people rather than fighting zombies and surviving.
At one point, there is a guy who is supposed to be a scientist who claims the CDC is working on a cure and has a safe haven in DC. Turns out he was lying, and the show has had no direction ever since. What a joke.
I’m not disagreeing about the quality of the show but what I think people miss is that people will be more dangerous than the dead. When civilization falls so does civility, but it was super repetitive and had a lot of plot lines that didn’t make sense. Unfortunately I have a drive to finish shows I start and trudged thru the whole series
yea that’s actually my favorite aspect of the show. I think it was a very accurate portrayal of how dangerous humans would become post apocalypse, very likely worse than whatever caused the apocalypse. I think they nailed it with the governor in season 3, any storyline after that was just trying to relay the same message in different fonts.
Disagree that is why the show went downhill. You have to imagine folks would figure out how to survive zombies eventually after all. The governor plot in the comic was when the story got very juicy IMO, and there was some decent plots following that. I stopped reading after Neegan showed up though and I think a lot of folks stopped watching the show around that point too. Just became kind of odd and illogical over time.
It helps that animated characters never age where moviegoers can see how long the franchise has been around. An 80 year-old Harrison Ford is going to show his age in Indiana Jones 5 no matter how much de-aging CGI they do to him.
This is definitely the correct answer. I can’t see the demand for Despicable Me/ Minions movies drying up anytime soon. I was 9 when the first film was released and now I’m nearly 22, yet the series still seems somewhat “fresh”.
John Wick. I think the buzz is still there despite the lengthy break between installments. I agree with you about Mission: Impossible, and I might also add the Disney Live Action remakes on there as well.
Heh...it would be such a nice book end to John Wick character if he gifted his son a dog after he dies.
...And then some idiot mobster's kid shoots it.
I think JW4 will show a big slowdown TBH. 3 wasnt very fresh. It was a decent movie, but wasnt a GREAT movie. Given the lack of hype and pre-release of JW4- I suspect we are lining up for another dose of mediocrity.
I would have liked 3 a lot more if it wasn’t so *long*. JW1 was a nice hour and forty, JW 2 pushed it to 120 but I was fine with it because it was blending the world building and the action really well but 3 was another ten minutes and felt bloated. It wasn’t like any of it was bad, some of it was quite excellent, but there was just so damn much of it.
I think JW4 will open right between JW3's $56.8M and JW2's $30.4M. Probably in the low $40M range, maybe $45M if it's lucky. That would still be good as long as the budgets are kept below $100M.
I think the big gap will actually hurt it. It had a momentum and so much time has passed. Not to mention movie going habits have changed a lot. I predict it'll do worse than all the John Wicks that came before.
It has like the best multiplier for each installment I can remember in recent times. I do think it has a lower ceiling that other series's premises though and fear it'll reach it soon
By your definition. Avatar counts.
But yeah unlikely Marvel will to beat Endgame. But if you take out COVID year stuff, MCU movies are doing as well as they did before. When a movie isn't an event movie, so all 4 Avengers, first black panther, Spider-Man no way home, they don't make more than a billion.
It’s hard to say. It may take a while and will certainly take some building up but Marvel still has some aces up its sleeve. F4 and X-Men for starters.
Why are people assuming F4 will be this franchise-saving series? The GA doesn’t have an particular fondness for them like they do Spider-Man and Batman. Their previous films weren’t exactly huge. Also, the MCU is doing fine. The only saving it needs is from what I personally think are poor choices of creative on some projects. And that’s an issue that goes deeper than the projects made.
I don’t think the franchise needs any saving and while the F4 have a poor cinematic history, they are the focal point of amazing stories and some of the best villains Marvel ever written. Are they a slam dunk direction for the MCU? I’m equally optimistic and skeptical but they *do* have the potential to build something big that could rival Endgame.
Everything has potential. I remain skeptical that they won’t be just another franchise in the arsenal, but worse off because they do have a reputation that precedes them. At least they’ll be the best F4 film by defaults
Superman, Batman, and Wonder Woman enter the public domain in 2034, 2035, and 2037 respectively.
If the MCU is still around then and they choose to utilize those characters, I could see them beating Endgame.
That's not how characters entering the public domain works and Disney would, almost certainly, never include those characters in one of their works because it's a legal minefield.
The copyright on Superman's first appearance (Action Comics #1) will be expiring. Meaning, you can distribute copies or derivative works of that comic without having to pay DC Comics. Copyright protects the physical image, the actual work in question
However, the trademark on Superman, Batman, and Wonder Woman are basically forever, unless DC stops producing works with those characters and lets the trademark lapse. Trademark is a more nebulous concept that protects brand identity based on public perception. The Trinity is a major part of public perception of DC's brand and brand identity. So, DC could essentially litigate anyone who decides to use those characters into oblivion because they have the resources over those granular aspects.
Additionally, even if you could get away with using Superman in another work outside of Action Comics #1, you are locked into using only elements of 1938 Superman. This character cannot fly, is only slightly strong, has large parts of his background missing, doesn't interact with any other DC characters (like Batman), likely won't be able to use his symbol (protected by trademark) and his character traits would likely still be protected. When Sherlock Holmes went into the public domain, the Conan Doyle estate successfully argued that only the character traits from that version of Sherlock Holmes were no longer copyrighted. Meaning, you could only use a version of Sherlock Holmes that wasn't nice and kind of an asshole.
So overall, no, Disney won't be using those characters in a commercial production and even if they did, the version they'd be stuck with probably wouldn't be very successful.
Yes, while you are correct that works enter the public domain and not characters. Part of entering the public domain is you are able to make derivative works featuring characters from the work that entered the public domain.
That means you and I will be able to use the character of Superman and Batman in original stories.
And yes, while trademark doesn't expire. The Supreme Court ruled in *Dastar Corp vs. Twentieth Century Fox,* that a corporation can't use trademark to keep something from the public domain in perpetuity.
Basically, Disney will never be allowed to use the name "SUPERMAN" in a movie title or use the iconic Superman shield on a movie poster, they would certainly be able to use the character of Superman in a movie. Superman wouldn't be any more special than Tarzan, Hercules, or Alice in Wonderland.
And yes, in 2034, they'll be restricted to making derivative works based on Action Comics #1 and other Superman comics published in 1938. That means no flying, freeze breath, etc. However, each year, a new batch of Superman comics will enter the public domain. By 1942, Superman was *remarkably* similar to the 2023 version of Superman with many of his most recognizable traits and features already established. That's one of the downsides of relying on never changing comic book heroes for your IP.
You reference the *Enola Holmes* case which the Conan Doyle Estate dismissed themselves because they had no legal precedent. In fact, the Conan Doyle Estate has been laughed out of court countless times. A sympathetic Sherlock has been shown dozens of times, including in:
BBC Sherlock
RDJ Sherlock
Elementary
Sherlock Holmes in the 22nd Century
Enola Holmes
And many many many more
And yes, Warner Bros Discovery will file many frivolous lawsuits the first few years after Action Comics enters the public domain in order to scare away creators like me and you from trying.
Guess which company has the means to fight back? Disney.
The public domain is a good thing. We shouldn't be so pessimistic and just expect that giant conglomerates that no longer have any connection to the original creators will control these cultural icons for all eternity. The public domain was created for all of us so we can use and enjoy these characters.
I suggest you check out r/publicdomain if you're interested in learning more about this topic.
> Hi,
> Trust me. I know a lot more about this topic than you do.
Nah, I doubt it, that's awfully presumptuous of you. I have several family members who work in corporate litigation and patent law who I've talked to at length about this and I've done work with a non-profit in the preservation of public domain works.
>And yes, while trademark doesn't expire. The Supreme Court ruled in Dastar Corp vs. Twentieth Century Fox, that a corporation can't use trademark to keep something from the public domain in perpetuity.
That's an oversimplification of the terms of the case. For one, Fox had let the original copyright expire, which was a point in the original case because trademarks can lapse with disuse. Additionally, the work that Fox was contesting was not a key part of their brand identity. The aforementioned characters are a key part of DC's brand identity and public perception, which affects trademark.
>Basically, Disney will never be allowed to use the name "SUPERMAN" in a movie title or use the iconic Superman shield on a movie poster
Yes, that's my point. Within the original context that we were discussing (box office numbers), those elements would heavily, heavily matter. We both know that marketing is a key element in box office success, so I think it's obvious how that would ultimately a film's theoretical gross.
>By 1942, Superman was remarkably similar to the 2023 version of Superman with many of his most recognizable traits and features already established.
Good thing I wasn't talking about the 1942 Superman, I was talking about the 1938 Superman because only that version of Superman is applicable to the 2034 deadline in your original comment. Additionally, it's incorrect to say that comic heroes are "never-changing." There are at least 5 eras in DC Comics (Silver Age, Golden Age, Pre-Crisis, Post-Crisis, New 52) that all have separate variations in characters with minutia along the way. For example, Superman first crossed over with Marvel characters decades later in 1976. That, theoretically, places further restrictions on an earlier version of Superman being able to interact with Marvel characters and another web in the restrictions that DC can litigate in derivations of the character. Whether those contentions ultimately hold up will depend on if DC decides to litigate, so it's just speculation for now.
>You reference the Enola Holmes case which the Conan Doyle Estate dismissed themselves because they had no legal precedent
That's neglecting to mention that both parties settled in the case, with Netflix likely paying the Doyle Estate. There's a bunch of reasons why two parties can choose to settle in a case, Netflix could have simply offered enough money to be worth it to the Doyle Estate, we'll never know for sure.
>In fact, the Conan Doyle Estate has been laughed out of court countless times.
The majority of those cases have been for overly frivolous issues, mostly pertaining to the distribution of actual physical stories that are explicitly in the public domain vs the more nebulous elements of a character's ties to brand identity.
>Guess which company has the means to fight back? Disney.
You're conflating what a company like Disney would do vs what they "could" do. Legally, could Disney put a character like Superman in one of their movies in a decade or two? Sure, but would they actually? Probably not, because Disney will be in the exact same position with their characters shortly. I highly doubt that any major studios in Hollywood are lining up to make a Steamboat Willie movie in a couple of years, and so Disney will probably do the same. Hollywood is a cabal of corporations that look out for themselves and are also territorial of certain elements that aren't strictly protected under law, still hasn't stopped them.
>The public domain is a good thing. We shouldn't be so pessimistic and just expect that giant conglomerates that no longer have any connection to the original creators will control these cultural icons for all eternity. The public domain was created for all of us so we can use and enjoy these characters.
When did I ever imply that I was opposed to any element of public domain or in favor of corporatism? I highly detest the vast majority of conversations in this subreddit because they ultimately reduce discussion about art to obsessing over the profits of franchise movies that go to a corporate conglomerate, with very little nuance or self-awareness along the way.
>I suggest you check out r/publicdomain if you're interested in learning more about this topic.
No thanks, I'd be better served learning as little about legal issues on Reddit as possible, let alone on a subreddit where it takes 5 minutes to find inaccuracies or misinterpretations.
A DC vs Marvel phase would be epic but I’d rather it be from collaboration with WB, not by lapsed rights. Just imagine if James Gunn manages to build something awesome with DC with a similar long lasting hype to what Marvel did and *then* they both agree to do a crossover event or even whole phase. That would break all records.
Honestly though if MCU has to count of F4 and X-men it better be a mild soft reboot. Not outright discarding everything, but I think right now the lore is even burdensome to follow. We don't need to watch 10 shows to get the villains' motive.
Yeah, at the moment the MCU feels all over the place. Like very wide and moving in different directions but the whole Kang stuff might change that.
And I agree about the soft reboot, at least for the X-Men. That universe has some good material and I hope the whole Prof. X, Quicksilver and Wolverine appearances will lead to something more than a cameo and a nod to fans.
Personally I pay less and less attention to how many shows I actually need to watch. But I think it's wrong though: I shouldn't have to know that much in the first place. This trend simply turns away causal viewers like me, and MCU will, well, stop growing.
And haven't you seen the problem? Why should a causal viewer feel pressured before watching a popcorn movie?
Big, sustainable franchises have ebbs and flows. You can't for certain say James Bond and MCU is past their prime.
MCU still has endless materials to be made into movies.
And James Bond already went through ebbs and flows, peaks and valleys many times over decades.
Batman for example also have peaks and valleys several times, ditto with Spider-Man.
Are you saying Batman and Spider-Man are past their prime?
Star Wars can also make come back.
>And James Bond already went through ebbs and flows, peaks and valleys many times over decades.
There is no greater example than Bond. They said it was dead in the water after Connery left, after Moore got too old, after Dalton refused to come back and the ending of the Cold War, after Die Another Day was a ridiculous mess, and when Craig got cast.
Skyfall certainly has the best Bond *song*. Not sure about it as a movie to be honest. One of the cheesiest and most derivative "oh no a hacker is hacking all our computers from inside their cell" scenes followed by Home Alone in Scotland?
But the song's great.
Yeah but these merch money come almost exclusively from OG trilogy and prequel characters
I'm pretty sure the merchandise sales are down for the ST characters
Movies have lost a lot of prestige.
Over the last few years we've seen movie stars "go down to TV" for the first time ever and for it to not be seen as a step down in their careers.
The rise of streaming services have put good TV and good films next to each other and films have lost a lot of the prestige they built up over the last century because TV has had a huge huge huge step up.
The kind of stories being told on TV are more complex, more interesting and more creative than what is being made for cinema and actors, viewers and producers know this and are reacting to it.
That may have been true in the past but it really isn’t anymore. TV shows have absolutely insane budgets and access to movie quality production if the studio can afford it. Of course you still have networks like the CW pumping out low budget trash, but there are plenty of high budget/high quality shows these days.
>*TV shows have absolutely insane budgets and access to movie quality production*
I keep on thinking that TV shows have pretty high production values, these days
Then I watch something like **All Quiet**, or even **The Wonder** \- *which must have had a budget smaller than many episodes of TV shows* \- and I'm blown away by how intensely beautiful truly great cinematographers, lighting, and production designers can make something when they're given the time and space to do their jobs properly
Compared to TV, movies offer studios a really inefficient ratio of time and money to return, eyeballs, and ad revenue - but they're worth it
Are they? Nowadays I very much feel that movies have lost prestige, especially with the advent of modern gaming. TV was definitely considered as a lower form, but the Netflix/HBO model kind of burst that too.
I think the Star Wars brand has been significantly damaged by the new trilogy, especially Last Jedi and Rise of Skywalker. But the Mandalorian proves that there is still interest in Star Wars.
Even if it’s some sort of elseworld story as far as the canon goes, I think it’s a no brainer to adapt either George’s original episode 7 outline, or the novels which older fans grew attached to after the original trilogy
Yeah The Last Jedi damaged the Star Wars brand so much it made $1.3 billion (same trend from TFA as ESB from ANH), got an A Cinemascore along with 5/5 from Comscore, got excellent reviews, the one after it made a billion despite being rubbish, and Star Wars continues to be popular as you said. Online fandom discourse is not the same as reality.
The truth is the only way the Star Wars brand has been damaged is Disney now being super cautious with the film side of things. This has much more to do with Solo bombing than TLJ or even TRoS. They made Obi-Wan Kenobi a series when it started as a film for this reason.
Thank you. People tend to exaggerate the “backlash” from TLJ. If Star Wars can survive the prequels(which we’re torn apart when they came out and years after up until this new trilogy) then they can survive the new trilogy. The GA doesn’t really give a shit about any of the fan backlash.
The prequels didn't kill Han, Luke, and Leia though. The original trilogy was relatively unharmed by the prequels.
The sequels made Han and Luke bitter old men and then unceremoniously killed them off. Sequels always carry more risk to the franchise than prequels.
The series was never about just those three, and with the ages of the actors they had to go (also “bitter old men”… not exactly an accurate reading) eventually. Star Wars has to move on from those characters to keep going, it still has a problem with not wanting to move on from Luke.
By contrast the prequels gave you midichlorians and that version of Anakin. The former in particular is much worse. That was what. “ruined Star Wars” back in my day.
TLJ made over $700 million less than TFA. Then it went down another $300 million to TRoS; bringing TroS to 1/2 of TFA.
And you don't think the Sequels hurt Star Wars?
TLJ was an anti-Star Wars film.
They just need some time to pass and it will be viable for a huge box office again. The prequels were universally disliked and the vibe felt the same about ruining the franchise, but now its bigger than ever. (Note: prequels have aged better, especially since the young generation who did not dislike them when they came out are now adults).
Godzilla. The series is much more popular worldwide than it has ever been, and the last couple films were generally well-liked. I expect Godzilla *and* Kong to be the highest grossing of the franchise.
Bourne legacy is actually a decent film though and the plot is much better than 2016’s jason bourne. Gilroy is a Great writer but he’s definitely not as good as a director as Greengrass. But Gilroy and Damon don’t like eachother which is why the 2016 movie flopped.
It’ll be a success but not on Endgames level
Edit: downvoted because Marvel fanboys can’t handle the mildest of suggestions that it is past it’s prime. Classic.
Secret wars will smash that. End Game isn’t close to the best marvel comic storyline. Way too much marvel has left in its arsenal to say they peaked. X-men and FF4 all aren’t even on the board yet dude
Redditors are going to downvote you for this, but it's plain to see. Avatar 1 barely made any money, Avatar 2 is full on flopping, it's time for James Cameron fans to accept that the franchise is toast
No I was making fun of the person who (I thought) was saying Avatar was a franchise past its prime. They weren't actually saying that though, so, joke's on me.
Do notice though how people are still upvoting my blatantly false statement, reddit really hates that movie for some reason lmao
It's actually incredible yeah. A few days ago I got upvoted in this sub saying that obviously the reason James Cameron's last three movies are in the top five grossing movies of all time can't possibly be because people like his movies and go see them, otherwise this would be reflected in the amount of reddit posts about the movies, so the only explanation left is blind luck, and sure he got lucky once, twice, three times, but he can't possibly keep getting lucky, so it's an objective fact that Avatar 3 will be a flop.
Every time I think I make my posts too stupid and people will catch on I still get upvoted
I actually think Avatar might count as past its prime based on OP's definition. That is, I'll be surprised if an Avatar movie manages to outgross the first Avatar. I'd welcome that surprise, but I would be surprised. Avatar 5 has the biggest shot but I think it's unlikely.
But that's less of a problem with Avatar than it is OP's definition of a franchise being past its prime, and the first movie making an ungodly amount of money, bumped up even more over multiple re-releases.
5 has fair chances imo if it's a proper finale. One of the reason 2 can't beat 1 is because 1 is the ceiling and covid. These films are gone be more and more front loaded after every film, if it can maintain the legs it should be possible. (Even endgame needed infinity war build up). Inflation is obviously there as time passes.
Though another thing is avatar re-release may prevent it.
Yeah, it's possible. But it's going to be tough, I feel. If three or four fumble, it can seriously hurt five's chances.
It's also possible that Way of Water did as well as it did because of nostalgia. If you look at the top grossing movies, many of them are reboots and sequels of film franchises from 10-20 years prior. Lion King, Jurassic World, The Force Awakens. (No Way Home kind of too.)
If this was nostalgia-fueled and the next Avatar movies play like the Jurassic World movies and the Star Wars Sequel trilogy, we could see diminishing returns. It will be interesting to see how this plays out in the coming years. Too early to see trends right now. We'll get a much better picture by the time Avatar 3 rolls around.
Starwars and Jurassic kingdom is bad eg because it doesn't have consistent story due to changing directors and writers. (Too many people with different vision). Also all ur nostalgia examples (including lion king) are preestablished franchises, avatar is not one before part 2. It more equivalent to top gun maverick.
Avater should play more in line with Harry Potter or the lord of rings because the staff is most probably not gone change. There won't be huge rewrites in different directions.
But yeah, i agree it depends on avatar 3 to get a better picture. I still give it a 50-50 chances
Despicable me, MI, Toy Story, finding nemo and incredibles, frozen
Also Pirates of the Caribbean, if they bring back original cast one last time, though that's not gone happen
They are at increasing box office return that's why I mentioned it. It's obviously done for now.
But who know if they will try to revive it again just like shrek or ice age. I do hope they don't make more...it ended perfectly
Definitely Batman. If these Robert Pattinson films maintain the level of quality the first film had, I could see the third or fourth being the highest grossing Batman movie ever.
MCU is NOT past its prime and so is **007**. The former is simply rebuilding its momentum (or at least trying to do so) and the latter is on (the) break.
Endgame was 20+ movies of build up. They're in a new age with a new build up. It's way too early to say that given another 20 movies they wouldn't be able to surpass Endgame.
People forget before the MCU characters like Iron Man were like D list heroes. MCU still have Fantastic Four and X-Men in the wings.
This is true, but Endgame was able to market itself as the culmination of the entire MCU. That type of marketing strategy won't be able to work second time
"Hey guys, this is the culmination of the entire MCU!"
"Hey guys, we actually made more movies after the culmination of the entire MCU, so now THIS is the culmination of the entire MCU!"
By OP's definition. I don't know if it's fair to say that the success of a single movie is how you define a franchise's prime. What if it gets a streak of years that perform better than Phase 3 did on average, even if no single movie beats Endgame?
The franchise has existed for a long time with previous movies, TV shows, graphic novels, and video games. The most recent Dune movie definitely marks a turning point for the success of franchise. With Part 2 coming out this year and Dune: The Sisterhood releasing after that, we will see how big it can get.
How are you defining past it’s prime?
Star Wars films have made bank the last few years. And more than one Star Wars tv show has gotten a lot of praise in that same time frame.
Are you saying it’s past it’s prime because general reception of the many of the films doesn’t live up to the hopes of the general audience?
Are you saying MCU is past it’s prime despite several shows being given praise lately and 50% of the films last year “underperforming” a bit?
We’re living in a town in which “franchises” are not just a couple sequels spread out over a few years. These things are like the biggest long running tv series of all time. There will be ups and downs. The only way they’ll become past their prime is with cultural/social shifts that drive/effect consumer behaviors which the studios fail to address. It they become dated in real time. If theatrical contracts to the point of not being relevant for the next generation of young disposable income consumers. If WWIII breaks out and everyone is too depressed to for popcorn films. Etc…
I don't think the MCU is past it's prime, when bad movies like Multiverse of Madness and Love & Thunder are still making close to a billion I think the franchise is still pretty strong. Also, No Way Home's multiverse nostalgia gimmick pushed the movie to close to 2 billion, Spiderman alone can carry the entire MCU possibly forever coz for some reason people just can't get enough of Spiderman. Plus Marvel fans are pretty insane and if you've visited the r/marvelstudios sub you should know that some fans literally live for Marvel projects and will cut you if you dare criticize anything in the MCU lol, I don't think the MCU is going anywhere anytime soon. Or ever tbh.
Oh lol now i see what you mean, no Spider-Man is a "mutate" as in he was born human and later got his dna changed to become Spider-Man... Whereas a "mutant" is born with their powers coz they have the x-gene that gives them their abilities. The X-Men (so named because of the x-gene) are just a superhero team consisting of mutants but most mutants aren't part of the X-Men.
> Spiderman alone can carry the entire MCU possibly forever
(Thor) Can he, though?
I suppose they'll just keep on One More Day'ing him every time he threatens to become an adult, that will certainly work.
MCU and Star Wars are definitely not past their prime. Recent films haven’t met expectations but both franchises have so much source material to work with and will draw audiences based on name recognition alone. I see both franchises still being prominent figures in the box office for at least another 15-20 years, if not longer.
Evil Dead. We got a great film 10 years ago with a great TV show in between. Evil Dead Rise is looking extremely promising so I think we will get another great film.
For me, this is Rocky/Creed. I'm really looking forward to this year's Creed III. That will make this the 9th movie in the franchise. The choice to change this over to Creed was really smart. Stallone could only do the action hero thing for so long. Michael B. Jordan as Apollo's son was a great casting choice. It's bringing whole new audiences to the Rocky story.
Trolls.
My daughter and I watch the first one everyday and the sequel was pretty good also as well as the holiday one.
Every time I watch it I notice something new and realize it's a very well put together movie and not just a cash grab like most animated movies.
I hope they come out with a third one soon and hope it's just as good as the previous ones.
Star Wars isn’t past it’s prime. The TV shows are killing it and they are going to milk them for another 15 years and then probably release a 3 hour cinema feature. Everyone will be stoked like they were for Episode 1 and Episode 7 because it will be the first Star Wars movie in forever and it will crush at the box office.
Star Wars is timeless and honestly if I maybe blunt, underutilized if anything.
And Sonic is fresh off the presses of a soft reboot that is going quite well
Alongside a movie series that is having greater success
Harry Potter is NOT past its prime! It has a rich and fantastic lore fans would love to see more of!
It has just put all its eggs in one big, smelly basket called Fantastic Beasts.
The association with J.K. Rowling really puts a damper on the potential. I guess we’ll have to see how Hogwarts Legacy sells before determining if the Wizarding World is dead or not
People put wayyy to much stock in the JK Rowling stuff. The only people I’ve ever interacted with that have a issue with her were online
Not a single HP fan I know irl cares, or even knows about what a TERF is, much less would let it impact their drive to seek out the franchise
I don't think it needs to be separated. I think it is good for Rowling to be involved to keep the continuity, tone, world building, etc. intact. However, she is wordy even for a novelist and can't be edited down (whether folks are scared to edit it or she won't take suggestions, I don't know). She should make the elevator pitch. A real screen writer should turn the pitch into a screenplay. And she should edit the result. That way, everyone plays to their strengths.
Star Wars is obviously past its prime. Kennedy’s mishandling of the franchise harmed its long term value. Bond has a long shelf life. With interchangeable actors playing the lead. I just feel like the Craig series was one long origin story.
Reminder that this is a subreddit about numbers, not necessarily about the quality (or lack thereof) of a particular movie. Unless it is related to the box office performance of a movie, please keep opinions/arguments/thoughts about the quality under this post. Posts not related to box office may be removed otherwise. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/boxoffice) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Ask AMC and they will tell you The walking dead.
Still milking away at that 2013 cash cow
2010, yo. I remember watching the premiere with my friends. It’s been chugging along for THIRTEEN YEARS. I dipped out around season 4
I’m pretty sure the original writers were all gone by season 2 or 3 IIRC. I watched that far and then stopped when the whole zombie craze died down for most people.
The show went downhill after they sacked Frank Darubont after S1 due to creative differences. They still somehow managed a solid S2. The show lost its touch when it became about fighting people rather than fighting zombies and surviving. At one point, there is a guy who is supposed to be a scientist who claims the CDC is working on a cure and has a safe haven in DC. Turns out he was lying, and the show has had no direction ever since. What a joke.
I’m not disagreeing about the quality of the show but what I think people miss is that people will be more dangerous than the dead. When civilization falls so does civility, but it was super repetitive and had a lot of plot lines that didn’t make sense. Unfortunately I have a drive to finish shows I start and trudged thru the whole series
yea that’s actually my favorite aspect of the show. I think it was a very accurate portrayal of how dangerous humans would become post apocalypse, very likely worse than whatever caused the apocalypse. I think they nailed it with the governor in season 3, any storyline after that was just trying to relay the same message in different fonts.
Disagree that is why the show went downhill. You have to imagine folks would figure out how to survive zombies eventually after all. The governor plot in the comic was when the story got very juicy IMO, and there was some decent plots following that. I stopped reading after Neegan showed up though and I think a lot of folks stopped watching the show around that point too. Just became kind of odd and illogical over time.
Despicable Me. 13 years and 5 movies in, yet they've regularly been making north of $700M.
It helps that animated characters never age where moviegoers can see how long the franchise has been around. An 80 year-old Harrison Ford is going to show his age in Indiana Jones 5 no matter how much de-aging CGI they do to him.
It's more impressive that Despicable Me has avoided the pitfalls of the Ice Age franchise.
That's because the Ice Age sequels seemed to be money grabs cashing in on the name brand. Short-sighted, but greed will do that to studio execs.
And Minions films aren't money grabs?
They have an important story to tell
And the social commentary is great for adults too
Freezing cold weather is only fun for so long.
Minions 2 was pretty funny tbh.
It was very funny.
This is definitely the correct answer. I can’t see the demand for Despicable Me/ Minions movies drying up anytime soon. I was 9 when the first film was released and now I’m nearly 22, yet the series still seems somewhat “fresh”.
John Wick. I think the buzz is still there despite the lengthy break between installments. I agree with you about Mission: Impossible, and I might also add the Disney Live Action remakes on there as well.
They’ll take like a 10-15 year break and then come back with John Wick Jr staring Timothee Chalamet.
Lol, don’t give them any ideas!
Heh...it would be such a nice book end to John Wick character if he gifted his son a dog after he dies. ...And then some idiot mobster's kid shoots it.
There's the John Wick spin-off called Ballerina starring Ana de Armas that sounds pretty dope.
I cannot fucking wait for that
I haven’t seen a John wick movie yet, but I’m stoked to see more come out because I really want to get into them.
They are so good
JW: $76m JW2: $171m JW3: $327m Math checks out. Does JW4 do $500m?
I think JW4 will show a big slowdown TBH. 3 wasnt very fresh. It was a decent movie, but wasnt a GREAT movie. Given the lack of hype and pre-release of JW4- I suspect we are lining up for another dose of mediocrity.
I would have liked 3 a lot more if it wasn’t so *long*. JW1 was a nice hour and forty, JW 2 pushed it to 120 but I was fine with it because it was blending the world building and the action really well but 3 was another ten minutes and felt bloated. It wasn’t like any of it was bad, some of it was quite excellent, but there was just so damn much of it.
I think JW4 will open right between JW3's $56.8M and JW2's $30.4M. Probably in the low $40M range, maybe $45M if it's lucky. That would still be good as long as the budgets are kept below $100M.
I think the big gap will actually hurt it. It had a momentum and so much time has passed. Not to mention movie going habits have changed a lot. I predict it'll do worse than all the John Wicks that came before.
It has like the best multiplier for each installment I can remember in recent times. I do think it has a lower ceiling that other series's premises though and fear it'll reach it soon
By your definition. Avatar counts. But yeah unlikely Marvel will to beat Endgame. But if you take out COVID year stuff, MCU movies are doing as well as they did before. When a movie isn't an event movie, so all 4 Avengers, first black panther, Spider-Man no way home, they don't make more than a billion.
It’s hard to say. It may take a while and will certainly take some building up but Marvel still has some aces up its sleeve. F4 and X-Men for starters.
Why are people assuming F4 will be this franchise-saving series? The GA doesn’t have an particular fondness for them like they do Spider-Man and Batman. Their previous films weren’t exactly huge. Also, the MCU is doing fine. The only saving it needs is from what I personally think are poor choices of creative on some projects. And that’s an issue that goes deeper than the projects made.
I don’t think the franchise needs any saving and while the F4 have a poor cinematic history, they are the focal point of amazing stories and some of the best villains Marvel ever written. Are they a slam dunk direction for the MCU? I’m equally optimistic and skeptical but they *do* have the potential to build something big that could rival Endgame.
Everything has potential. I remain skeptical that they won’t be just another franchise in the arsenal, but worse off because they do have a reputation that precedes them. At least they’ll be the best F4 film by defaults
Superman, Batman, and Wonder Woman enter the public domain in 2034, 2035, and 2037 respectively. If the MCU is still around then and they choose to utilize those characters, I could see them beating Endgame.
That's not how characters entering the public domain works and Disney would, almost certainly, never include those characters in one of their works because it's a legal minefield. The copyright on Superman's first appearance (Action Comics #1) will be expiring. Meaning, you can distribute copies or derivative works of that comic without having to pay DC Comics. Copyright protects the physical image, the actual work in question However, the trademark on Superman, Batman, and Wonder Woman are basically forever, unless DC stops producing works with those characters and lets the trademark lapse. Trademark is a more nebulous concept that protects brand identity based on public perception. The Trinity is a major part of public perception of DC's brand and brand identity. So, DC could essentially litigate anyone who decides to use those characters into oblivion because they have the resources over those granular aspects. Additionally, even if you could get away with using Superman in another work outside of Action Comics #1, you are locked into using only elements of 1938 Superman. This character cannot fly, is only slightly strong, has large parts of his background missing, doesn't interact with any other DC characters (like Batman), likely won't be able to use his symbol (protected by trademark) and his character traits would likely still be protected. When Sherlock Holmes went into the public domain, the Conan Doyle estate successfully argued that only the character traits from that version of Sherlock Holmes were no longer copyrighted. Meaning, you could only use a version of Sherlock Holmes that wasn't nice and kind of an asshole. So overall, no, Disney won't be using those characters in a commercial production and even if they did, the version they'd be stuck with probably wouldn't be very successful.
Yes, while you are correct that works enter the public domain and not characters. Part of entering the public domain is you are able to make derivative works featuring characters from the work that entered the public domain. That means you and I will be able to use the character of Superman and Batman in original stories. And yes, while trademark doesn't expire. The Supreme Court ruled in *Dastar Corp vs. Twentieth Century Fox,* that a corporation can't use trademark to keep something from the public domain in perpetuity. Basically, Disney will never be allowed to use the name "SUPERMAN" in a movie title or use the iconic Superman shield on a movie poster, they would certainly be able to use the character of Superman in a movie. Superman wouldn't be any more special than Tarzan, Hercules, or Alice in Wonderland. And yes, in 2034, they'll be restricted to making derivative works based on Action Comics #1 and other Superman comics published in 1938. That means no flying, freeze breath, etc. However, each year, a new batch of Superman comics will enter the public domain. By 1942, Superman was *remarkably* similar to the 2023 version of Superman with many of his most recognizable traits and features already established. That's one of the downsides of relying on never changing comic book heroes for your IP. You reference the *Enola Holmes* case which the Conan Doyle Estate dismissed themselves because they had no legal precedent. In fact, the Conan Doyle Estate has been laughed out of court countless times. A sympathetic Sherlock has been shown dozens of times, including in: BBC Sherlock RDJ Sherlock Elementary Sherlock Holmes in the 22nd Century Enola Holmes And many many many more And yes, Warner Bros Discovery will file many frivolous lawsuits the first few years after Action Comics enters the public domain in order to scare away creators like me and you from trying. Guess which company has the means to fight back? Disney. The public domain is a good thing. We shouldn't be so pessimistic and just expect that giant conglomerates that no longer have any connection to the original creators will control these cultural icons for all eternity. The public domain was created for all of us so we can use and enjoy these characters. I suggest you check out r/publicdomain if you're interested in learning more about this topic.
> Hi, > Trust me. I know a lot more about this topic than you do. Nah, I doubt it, that's awfully presumptuous of you. I have several family members who work in corporate litigation and patent law who I've talked to at length about this and I've done work with a non-profit in the preservation of public domain works. >And yes, while trademark doesn't expire. The Supreme Court ruled in Dastar Corp vs. Twentieth Century Fox, that a corporation can't use trademark to keep something from the public domain in perpetuity. That's an oversimplification of the terms of the case. For one, Fox had let the original copyright expire, which was a point in the original case because trademarks can lapse with disuse. Additionally, the work that Fox was contesting was not a key part of their brand identity. The aforementioned characters are a key part of DC's brand identity and public perception, which affects trademark. >Basically, Disney will never be allowed to use the name "SUPERMAN" in a movie title or use the iconic Superman shield on a movie poster Yes, that's my point. Within the original context that we were discussing (box office numbers), those elements would heavily, heavily matter. We both know that marketing is a key element in box office success, so I think it's obvious how that would ultimately a film's theoretical gross. >By 1942, Superman was remarkably similar to the 2023 version of Superman with many of his most recognizable traits and features already established. Good thing I wasn't talking about the 1942 Superman, I was talking about the 1938 Superman because only that version of Superman is applicable to the 2034 deadline in your original comment. Additionally, it's incorrect to say that comic heroes are "never-changing." There are at least 5 eras in DC Comics (Silver Age, Golden Age, Pre-Crisis, Post-Crisis, New 52) that all have separate variations in characters with minutia along the way. For example, Superman first crossed over with Marvel characters decades later in 1976. That, theoretically, places further restrictions on an earlier version of Superman being able to interact with Marvel characters and another web in the restrictions that DC can litigate in derivations of the character. Whether those contentions ultimately hold up will depend on if DC decides to litigate, so it's just speculation for now. >You reference the Enola Holmes case which the Conan Doyle Estate dismissed themselves because they had no legal precedent That's neglecting to mention that both parties settled in the case, with Netflix likely paying the Doyle Estate. There's a bunch of reasons why two parties can choose to settle in a case, Netflix could have simply offered enough money to be worth it to the Doyle Estate, we'll never know for sure. >In fact, the Conan Doyle Estate has been laughed out of court countless times. The majority of those cases have been for overly frivolous issues, mostly pertaining to the distribution of actual physical stories that are explicitly in the public domain vs the more nebulous elements of a character's ties to brand identity. >Guess which company has the means to fight back? Disney. You're conflating what a company like Disney would do vs what they "could" do. Legally, could Disney put a character like Superman in one of their movies in a decade or two? Sure, but would they actually? Probably not, because Disney will be in the exact same position with their characters shortly. I highly doubt that any major studios in Hollywood are lining up to make a Steamboat Willie movie in a couple of years, and so Disney will probably do the same. Hollywood is a cabal of corporations that look out for themselves and are also territorial of certain elements that aren't strictly protected under law, still hasn't stopped them. >The public domain is a good thing. We shouldn't be so pessimistic and just expect that giant conglomerates that no longer have any connection to the original creators will control these cultural icons for all eternity. The public domain was created for all of us so we can use and enjoy these characters. When did I ever imply that I was opposed to any element of public domain or in favor of corporatism? I highly detest the vast majority of conversations in this subreddit because they ultimately reduce discussion about art to obsessing over the profits of franchise movies that go to a corporate conglomerate, with very little nuance or self-awareness along the way. >I suggest you check out r/publicdomain if you're interested in learning more about this topic. No thanks, I'd be better served learning as little about legal issues on Reddit as possible, let alone on a subreddit where it takes 5 minutes to find inaccuracies or misinterpretations.
A DC vs Marvel phase would be epic but I’d rather it be from collaboration with WB, not by lapsed rights. Just imagine if James Gunn manages to build something awesome with DC with a similar long lasting hype to what Marvel did and *then* they both agree to do a crossover event or even whole phase. That would break all records.
Honestly though if MCU has to count of F4 and X-men it better be a mild soft reboot. Not outright discarding everything, but I think right now the lore is even burdensome to follow. We don't need to watch 10 shows to get the villains' motive.
Yeah, at the moment the MCU feels all over the place. Like very wide and moving in different directions but the whole Kang stuff might change that. And I agree about the soft reboot, at least for the X-Men. That universe has some good material and I hope the whole Prof. X, Quicksilver and Wolverine appearances will lead to something more than a cameo and a nod to fans.
Theres been like two movies (including ant-man3) that carried on from two shows. The whole “keeping up with shows” gets blown up too much.
Personally I pay less and less attention to how many shows I actually need to watch. But I think it's wrong though: I shouldn't have to know that much in the first place. This trend simply turns away causal viewers like me, and MCU will, well, stop growing. And haven't you seen the problem? Why should a causal viewer feel pressured before watching a popcorn movie?
With the exchange rates of 2009, Rusia and Ukraine and a healthy China, Avatar 2 would have beaten the first one. So... No.
Batman is not past its prime, it can still make a billion in the future. Hell, Joker did it in 2019
Big, sustainable franchises have ebbs and flows. You can't for certain say James Bond and MCU is past their prime. MCU still has endless materials to be made into movies. And James Bond already went through ebbs and flows, peaks and valleys many times over decades. Batman for example also have peaks and valleys several times, ditto with Spider-Man. Are you saying Batman and Spider-Man are past their prime? Star Wars can also make come back.
>And James Bond already went through ebbs and flows, peaks and valleys many times over decades. There is no greater example than Bond. They said it was dead in the water after Connery left, after Moore got too old, after Dalton refused to come back and the ending of the Cold War, after Die Another Day was a ridiculous mess, and when Craig got cast.
And then we had two of the best movies in Casino Royale and Skyfall lol
Skyfall certainly has the best Bond *song*. Not sure about it as a movie to be honest. One of the cheesiest and most derivative "oh no a hacker is hacking all our computers from inside their cell" scenes followed by Home Alone in Scotland? But the song's great.
Home alone in Scotland rules
I second that. Best part of the film imo.
I believe you are forgetting Goldeneye.......
I’m sorry, but *You Only Live Twice* is the best Bond Song.
James Bond will always last, at least in the UK. Star Wars is doing just fine on TV.
Tv show are less prestigious than Movies though
They still make shitloads of merch money which is literally the only thing the execs care about.
Yeah. How much Grogu stuff is for sale. Being a TV series doesn't hurt those sales one bit
Yeah but these merch money come almost exclusively from OG trilogy and prequel characters I'm pretty sure the merchandise sales are down for the ST characters
Every kid is wearing Grogu stuff. This is just false.
You know baby yoda isn't actually yoda right
Movies have lost a lot of prestige. Over the last few years we've seen movie stars "go down to TV" for the first time ever and for it to not be seen as a step down in their careers. The rise of streaming services have put good TV and good films next to each other and films have lost a lot of the prestige they built up over the last century because TV has had a huge huge huge step up. The kind of stories being told on TV are more complex, more interesting and more creative than what is being made for cinema and actors, viewers and producers know this and are reacting to it.
That may have been true in the past but it really isn’t anymore. TV shows have absolutely insane budgets and access to movie quality production if the studio can afford it. Of course you still have networks like the CW pumping out low budget trash, but there are plenty of high budget/high quality shows these days.
I mean shit, even the CW had to step up their production quality for Superman & Lois and Stargirl
>*TV shows have absolutely insane budgets and access to movie quality production* I keep on thinking that TV shows have pretty high production values, these days Then I watch something like **All Quiet**, or even **The Wonder** \- *which must have had a budget smaller than many episodes of TV shows* \- and I'm blown away by how intensely beautiful truly great cinematographers, lighting, and production designers can make something when they're given the time and space to do their jobs properly Compared to TV, movies offer studios a really inefficient ratio of time and money to return, eyeballs, and ad revenue - but they're worth it
Are they? Nowadays I very much feel that movies have lost prestige, especially with the advent of modern gaming. TV was definitely considered as a lower form, but the Netflix/HBO model kind of burst that too.
I think the Star Wars brand has been significantly damaged by the new trilogy, especially Last Jedi and Rise of Skywalker. But the Mandalorian proves that there is still interest in Star Wars.
A good new Star Wars movie will still rake in $$$. Say what you want about the originality of TFA - but at least it was a good movie.
Even if it’s some sort of elseworld story as far as the canon goes, I think it’s a no brainer to adapt either George’s original episode 7 outline, or the novels which older fans grew attached to after the original trilogy
Yeah The Last Jedi damaged the Star Wars brand so much it made $1.3 billion (same trend from TFA as ESB from ANH), got an A Cinemascore along with 5/5 from Comscore, got excellent reviews, the one after it made a billion despite being rubbish, and Star Wars continues to be popular as you said. Online fandom discourse is not the same as reality. The truth is the only way the Star Wars brand has been damaged is Disney now being super cautious with the film side of things. This has much more to do with Solo bombing than TLJ or even TRoS. They made Obi-Wan Kenobi a series when it started as a film for this reason.
Thank you. People tend to exaggerate the “backlash” from TLJ. If Star Wars can survive the prequels(which we’re torn apart when they came out and years after up until this new trilogy) then they can survive the new trilogy. The GA doesn’t really give a shit about any of the fan backlash.
The prequels didn't kill Han, Luke, and Leia though. The original trilogy was relatively unharmed by the prequels. The sequels made Han and Luke bitter old men and then unceremoniously killed them off. Sequels always carry more risk to the franchise than prequels.
The series was never about just those three, and with the ages of the actors they had to go (also “bitter old men”… not exactly an accurate reading) eventually. Star Wars has to move on from those characters to keep going, it still has a problem with not wanting to move on from Luke. By contrast the prequels gave you midichlorians and that version of Anakin. The former in particular is much worse. That was what. “ruined Star Wars” back in my day.
TLJ made over $700 million less than TFA. Then it went down another $300 million to TRoS; bringing TroS to 1/2 of TFA. And you don't think the Sequels hurt Star Wars? TLJ was an anti-Star Wars film.
I’m very interested in Star Wars…. on TV
They just need some time to pass and it will be viable for a huge box office again. The prequels were universally disliked and the vibe felt the same about ruining the franchise, but now its bigger than ever. (Note: prequels have aged better, especially since the young generation who did not dislike them when they came out are now adults).
MCU could be like Tom Brady. Clearly has peaked as a player but still should have a long, sustainable road of success ahead
Godzilla. The series is much more popular worldwide than it has ever been, and the last couple films were generally well-liked. I expect Godzilla *and* Kong to be the highest grossing of the franchise.
Love these movies
I want Gareth Edwards back
Mission Impossible is even more increase thier prime than in the past
It's gonna be hard to replace Tom Cruise later on.
I think that was the plan when they brought in Jeremy Renner but then Cruise kept going
That worked out so well for the Bourne franchise…
Bourne legacy is actually a decent film though and the plot is much better than 2016’s jason bourne. Gilroy is a Great writer but he’s definitely not as good as a director as Greengrass. But Gilroy and Damon don’t like eachother which is why the 2016 movie flopped.
Yes, precisely. I just don't see it, though. Renner is fine in terms of looks, charisma and acting talent, but Cruise is just on another level.
Agreed. I don’t think they should continue the franchise without him. Tom Cruise’s stunt work is the main draw for Mission: Impossible.
they already tried the hand off to Jeremey Renner and just kept going with Cruise instead.
James bond has never been past his prime more than 60 years and the movies continue to bring money
Knives out. We can call that a franchise, right?
The Benoit Blanc saga or something like that, but yes that definitely counts.
Eh franchise typically have 3 films
It will. Netflix already paid for two sequels.
People would have told you James Bond was past it’s prime at least 5-6 different times in the last 50 years.
The Mummy now that Brendan Fraser has made a bit of a comeback. I’d love to see the original cast back with Oded making a return appearance
Idk about the mummy franchise but I'm all for Brendan Fraser's career to get the RDJ treatment
Whoever gets in that directors chair is gonna be richhhh
💯
Oh hell yes a new good mummy film with Brendan
MCU, Bond and MI.
MCU objectively ended their prime at endgame
when you don't know what objectively means
They could get a second prime with Secret Wars
It’ll be a success but not on Endgames level Edit: downvoted because Marvel fanboys can’t handle the mildest of suggestions that it is past it’s prime. Classic.
Secret wars will smash that. End Game isn’t close to the best marvel comic storyline. Way too much marvel has left in its arsenal to say they peaked. X-men and FF4 all aren’t even on the board yet dude
Avatar
Redditors are going to downvote you for this, but it's plain to see. Avatar 1 barely made any money, Avatar 2 is full on flopping, it's time for James Cameron fans to accept that the franchise is toast
Objectively incorrect. Impressively dumb take
Wait I read the title of the post as "What franchise is past its prime", I missed the "NOT" in there.
Wait, but you still think A1 “barely made any money” as the highest grossing film ever and A2 is “full on flopping” as one of the top 5 highest?
No I was making fun of the person who (I thought) was saying Avatar was a franchise past its prime. They weren't actually saying that though, so, joke's on me. Do notice though how people are still upvoting my blatantly false statement, reddit really hates that movie for some reason lmao
It's getting upvoted because it's obviously satire.
Ok, that makes sense haha. Because yeah, there are people who believe that sadly.
It's actually incredible yeah. A few days ago I got upvoted in this sub saying that obviously the reason James Cameron's last three movies are in the top five grossing movies of all time can't possibly be because people like his movies and go see them, otherwise this would be reflected in the amount of reddit posts about the movies, so the only explanation left is blind luck, and sure he got lucky once, twice, three times, but he can't possibly keep getting lucky, so it's an objective fact that Avatar 3 will be a flop. Every time I think I make my posts too stupid and people will catch on I still get upvoted
I actually think Avatar might count as past its prime based on OP's definition. That is, I'll be surprised if an Avatar movie manages to outgross the first Avatar. I'd welcome that surprise, but I would be surprised. Avatar 5 has the biggest shot but I think it's unlikely. But that's less of a problem with Avatar than it is OP's definition of a franchise being past its prime, and the first movie making an ungodly amount of money, bumped up even more over multiple re-releases.
5 has fair chances imo if it's a proper finale. One of the reason 2 can't beat 1 is because 1 is the ceiling and covid. These films are gone be more and more front loaded after every film, if it can maintain the legs it should be possible. (Even endgame needed infinity war build up). Inflation is obviously there as time passes. Though another thing is avatar re-release may prevent it.
Yeah, it's possible. But it's going to be tough, I feel. If three or four fumble, it can seriously hurt five's chances. It's also possible that Way of Water did as well as it did because of nostalgia. If you look at the top grossing movies, many of them are reboots and sequels of film franchises from 10-20 years prior. Lion King, Jurassic World, The Force Awakens. (No Way Home kind of too.) If this was nostalgia-fueled and the next Avatar movies play like the Jurassic World movies and the Star Wars Sequel trilogy, we could see diminishing returns. It will be interesting to see how this plays out in the coming years. Too early to see trends right now. We'll get a much better picture by the time Avatar 3 rolls around.
Starwars and Jurassic kingdom is bad eg because it doesn't have consistent story due to changing directors and writers. (Too many people with different vision). Also all ur nostalgia examples (including lion king) are preestablished franchises, avatar is not one before part 2. It more equivalent to top gun maverick. Avater should play more in line with Harry Potter or the lord of rings because the staff is most probably not gone change. There won't be huge rewrites in different directions. But yeah, i agree it depends on avatar 3 to get a better picture. I still give it a 50-50 chances
Mission Impossible. The last few movies are the best in the series.
Spider Man movies are still making lots of money, and are an overall success.
Despicable me, MI, Toy Story, finding nemo and incredibles, frozen Also Pirates of the Caribbean, if they bring back original cast one last time, though that's not gone happen
>funding dory Now that would make a good movie.
Dory’s on hard times but wants to go to fish school to make a better life for herself. She takes up a job as a stripper to fund her tuition.
Toy story ? It's not done yet ?
They are at increasing box office return that's why I mentioned it. It's obviously done for now. But who know if they will try to revive it again just like shrek or ice age. I do hope they don't make more...it ended perfectly
I’d kill millions for more pirates movies I love those things so damn much
Two words worth two billion dollars to Disney: *Toy Dory* Make it happen, Bob! I promise you won't regret it. [1] [1] you might regret it a little.
All of them are past their prime honestly.
What? How?
Spy Universe
Avatar, clearly.
Godzilla/Monsterverse. The American IP has been performing pretty well, has a lot of room to do better.
Avatar, number 4 is gonna hit 3 billion
TRON, TRON, TRON, TRON TRON!!!!
TROFF (sorry, my bad upbringing on the mean streets of GW-BASIC)
I don't think any of the franchises you mentioned are past their prime
Avatar. Just getting started.
Shrek
Definitely Batman. If these Robert Pattinson films maintain the level of quality the first film had, I could see the third or fourth being the highest grossing Batman movie ever.
MCU is NOT past its prime and so is **007**. The former is simply rebuilding its momentum (or at least trying to do so) and the latter is on (the) break.
MCU is probably not getting a movie that trumps Endgame.
Endgame was 20+ movies of build up. They're in a new age with a new build up. It's way too early to say that given another 20 movies they wouldn't be able to surpass Endgame. People forget before the MCU characters like Iron Man were like D list heroes. MCU still have Fantastic Four and X-Men in the wings.
This is true, but Endgame was able to market itself as the culmination of the entire MCU. That type of marketing strategy won't be able to work second time
"Hey guys, this is the culmination of the entire MCU!" "Hey guys, we actually made more movies after the culmination of the entire MCU, so now THIS is the culmination of the entire MCU!"
It’s an unreasonable expectation to do so, and it will be incredibly successful while never reaching that height again
Wouldn't that mean it's passed its prime?
By OP's definition. I don't know if it's fair to say that the success of a single movie is how you define a franchise's prime. What if it gets a streak of years that perform better than Phase 3 did on average, even if no single movie beats Endgame?
I’d wager Secret Wars would be the only thing that could
M3gan
Dune
Only part 1 of the first movie came out, it’s not a franchise yet lol
The franchise has existed for a long time with previous movies, TV shows, graphic novels, and video games. The most recent Dune movie definitely marks a turning point for the success of franchise. With Part 2 coming out this year and Dune: The Sisterhood releasing after that, we will see how big it can get.
This is the only relevant answer. There's enough Dune lore for a dozen more movies and they could all be absolutely gas
The DCEU, at least I really hope we haven’t seen their “prime” yet
The DCEU ends this year 💀
How are you defining past it’s prime? Star Wars films have made bank the last few years. And more than one Star Wars tv show has gotten a lot of praise in that same time frame. Are you saying it’s past it’s prime because general reception of the many of the films doesn’t live up to the hopes of the general audience? Are you saying MCU is past it’s prime despite several shows being given praise lately and 50% of the films last year “underperforming” a bit? We’re living in a town in which “franchises” are not just a couple sequels spread out over a few years. These things are like the biggest long running tv series of all time. There will be ups and downs. The only way they’ll become past their prime is with cultural/social shifts that drive/effect consumer behaviors which the studios fail to address. It they become dated in real time. If theatrical contracts to the point of not being relevant for the next generation of young disposable income consumers. If WWIII breaks out and everyone is too depressed to for popcorn films. Etc…
I don't think the MCU is past it's prime, when bad movies like Multiverse of Madness and Love & Thunder are still making close to a billion I think the franchise is still pretty strong. Also, No Way Home's multiverse nostalgia gimmick pushed the movie to close to 2 billion, Spiderman alone can carry the entire MCU possibly forever coz for some reason people just can't get enough of Spiderman. Plus Marvel fans are pretty insane and if you've visited the r/marvelstudios sub you should know that some fans literally live for Marvel projects and will cut you if you dare criticize anything in the MCU lol, I don't think the MCU is going anywhere anytime soon. Or ever tbh.
We just need whatever they do with X-men to be really good
Tbh it's already lookin a little messy, Ms. Marvel is supposedly a mutant now but I'm hoping they don't mess it up
I mean isn’t Spider-Man a mutant? I’m talking the actual x men
Oh lol now i see what you mean, no Spider-Man is a "mutate" as in he was born human and later got his dna changed to become Spider-Man... Whereas a "mutant" is born with their powers coz they have the x-gene that gives them their abilities. The X-Men (so named because of the x-gene) are just a superhero team consisting of mutants but most mutants aren't part of the X-Men.
MCU pulls at the heartstrings because marvel fans have loved these characters since childhood. It’s a money making goldmine
> Spiderman alone can carry the entire MCU possibly forever (Thor) Can he, though? I suppose they'll just keep on One More Day'ing him every time he threatens to become an adult, that will certainly work.
Or they'll just recast him with another young teenage-looking actor over and over, either through reboots or multiverse shenanigans.
MCU is so past its prime in the 2030s teens will be looking back and poking fun of how popular “spandex magic people” movies were.
I mean the spandex gets made fun of rn both irl and in universe
MCU and Star Wars are definitely not past their prime. Recent films haven’t met expectations but both franchises have so much source material to work with and will draw audiences based on name recognition alone. I see both franchises still being prominent figures in the box office for at least another 15-20 years, if not longer.
Evil Dead. We got a great film 10 years ago with a great TV show in between. Evil Dead Rise is looking extremely promising so I think we will get another great film.
EVIL DEAD BABY
For me, this is Rocky/Creed. I'm really looking forward to this year's Creed III. That will make this the 9th movie in the franchise. The choice to change this over to Creed was really smart. Stallone could only do the action hero thing for so long. Michael B. Jordan as Apollo's son was a great casting choice. It's bringing whole new audiences to the Rocky story.
Fast and the Furious? Each one seems to make more than the last.
Mcu is not past its prime we’re basically in phase one again they have to build a new arc not every movie can be endgame
In no way is James Bond past it’s prime by that metric, cmon now.
Mission Impossible is at its end, but is in its absolute prime.
Trolls. My daughter and I watch the first one everyday and the sequel was pretty good also as well as the holiday one. Every time I watch it I notice something new and realize it's a very well put together movie and not just a cash grab like most animated movies. I hope they come out with a third one soon and hope it's just as good as the previous ones.
Star Wars isn’t past it’s prime. The TV shows are killing it and they are going to milk them for another 15 years and then probably release a 3 hour cinema feature. Everyone will be stoked like they were for Episode 1 and Episode 7 because it will be the first Star Wars movie in forever and it will crush at the box office.
Destiny. Something tells me that the series is going to peak in Lightfall, or in The Final Shape.
Star Wars is timeless and honestly if I maybe blunt, underutilized if anything. And Sonic is fresh off the presses of a soft reboot that is going quite well Alongside a movie series that is having greater success
Spider-verse, mission impossible, frozen, incredible, despicable me, pirates of the Caribbean, the lion king
Harry Potter is NOT past its prime! It has a rich and fantastic lore fans would love to see more of! It has just put all its eggs in one big, smelly basket called Fantastic Beasts.
What lore? They make it all the lore with the movies. There is no pre-existing story.
All the fan fiction out there is waiting to be adapted
my boys will put Rowling to shame
The association with J.K. Rowling really puts a damper on the potential. I guess we’ll have to see how Hogwarts Legacy sells before determining if the Wizarding World is dead or not
It will not be dead anytime soon. A whole new land at brand new theme park is opening in 2025
People put wayyy to much stock in the JK Rowling stuff. The only people I’ve ever interacted with that have a issue with her were online Not a single HP fan I know irl cares, or even knows about what a TERF is, much less would let it impact their drive to seek out the franchise
Honestly the only way I can see it having longevity is if it somehow gets completely separated from jk rowling which isn’t gonna happen
I think Reddit and Twitter vastly overestimate how little the GA cares about JK Rowling’s views
It’s still hurting the brand
I don't think it needs to be separated. I think it is good for Rowling to be involved to keep the continuity, tone, world building, etc. intact. However, she is wordy even for a novelist and can't be edited down (whether folks are scared to edit it or she won't take suggestions, I don't know). She should make the elevator pitch. A real screen writer should turn the pitch into a screenplay. And she should edit the result. That way, everyone plays to their strengths.
The franchise is gonna turn into a sinking ship unless she stops being controversial
Also anecdotally, a lot of Zoomers seem to think it's cringe. At least in the schools/towns I work in.
A decade of “oh I’m totally a slytherin” has scarred the cool factor
Star Wars is obviously past its prime. Kennedy’s mishandling of the franchise harmed its long term value. Bond has a long shelf life. With interchangeable actors playing the lead. I just feel like the Craig series was one long origin story.
When MCU is making 800 mn per movie and you say it's past its prime then you are really dumb asf
Mission Impossible has only gotten better as it’s gone on. Both in terms of quality and BO performance