Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×
Movies Businesses The Almighty Buck Entertainment

2017: The Year That Horror Saved Hollywood (qz.com) 156

A reader shares a report: If there's a silver lining in any of that for America's film industry, it's that the horror genre is still plugging merrily along, seemingly immune to the financial troubles that have befallen most studios. As the rest of Hollywood flounders in 2017, horror is in the midst of its highest-grossing year ever. On the backs of huge hits like It and Get Out, the horror genre has combined for a record $733.5 million in the US this year, according to box office data compiled by the New York Times (paywall). The year has proven that horror films are more than just cheaply made movies for niche audiences and can still cross into the mainstream to become bona fide successes. Ticket sales during the 2017 summer movie season, billed by Variety as "The Summer of Hell," were down nearly 11% from last year due to a series of epic flops, namely King Arthur: Legend of the Sword and The Dark Tower. Arguably the only saving grace was It, the adaptation of the novel of the same name by Stephen King that became the highest-grossing horror film of all time in September (not adjusted for inflation). Today, it has made a very fitting $666.6 million (seriously) worldwide, according to Box Office Mojo. Following a solid first half of 2017 with Dunkirk and Wonder Woman, It helped Warner Bros. rebound from the disastrous King Arthur and the disappointing Blade Runner 2049 -- to say nothing of this month's box office catastrophe, Geostorm.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

2017: The Year That Horror Saved Hollywood

Comments Filter:
  • by ranton ( 36917 ) on Monday October 30, 2017 @02:19PM (#55458543)

    for America's film industry, it's that the horror genre is still plugging merrily along, seemingly immune to the financial troubles that have befallen most studios

    The horror genre is not immune to the studios' problems, there just happen to be some very good horror genre movies this year. The studios should be ignoring any trends like these and simply make good movies. Entertaining movies nearly always do well at the box office. If Get Out or It were bad movies, they would have done bad at the box office regardless of being horror movies.

    • by Anonymous Coward

      Agreed.

      Hollywood has a horrible habit of traveling down the well-trodden path when there's a minor success to be seen in the wake of other failures. See how kids movies all traveled the path of 3D animation after Toy Story. Or how the comic book movie genre has suddenly turned into a "almost every other movie coming out" phenom. Or eighties cartoon properties getting huge budget fail-fests that somehow still rake in money.

      I honestly can't believe Geostorm was made as a large-budget production. Even the

      • by Rakarra ( 112805 )

        Geostorm is really just another in a long line of action movies, the fourth that this particular director has been involved in. He was Roland Emmerich's partner for a long time, and that guy made tons of disaster movies. Geostorm looks like your typical "let's destroy some landmarks" movie.

    • But telling if a movie is good is hard. Telling if a movie follows the current trends is easy!

    • by tomhath ( 637240 )

      there just happen to be some very good horror genre movies this year

      More like one big and one okay hit. Take away "It" and the numbers are mediocre.

      • You're underestimating "Get Out". "It" made 18 times its budget - which is fantastic. "Get Out" made 55 times its budget - that's phenomenal. For comparison: Beauty and the Beast returned a bit less than 7 times its budget, Logan returned 5.4x, Wonder Woman returned 4.5x, and Guardians of the Galaxy 2 returned 3.3x. Yeah, "It" grossed more than "Get Out" (though Get Out's gross of 253M is hardly something to sneeze at), but executives look at return on investment at least as much as gross when making de
        • by gmack ( 197796 )

          Your logic makes my brain hurt.

          Return on investment is not number of times the investment, it's another word for profits. So Beauty and the best cost $300 million to make but pulled in $1.263 billion. That's $963 million and minus whatever expenses are involved in that (royalties etc) it's still a much larger return on investment than $253 million.

          • " To calculate ROI [investopedia.com], the benefit (or return) of an investment is divided by the cost of the investment, and the result is expressed as a percentage or a ratio."

            You are are incorrect. Return on investment is intended to differentiate the quality of an investment, not a total number. Someone who invested 1,000,000 in "Beauty and the Beast" would have earned back 7,000,000. Someone who invested 1,000,000 in "Get Out" would have earned back 55,000,000. "Get Out" was a far greater return on investment, even
    • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward

      The studios should be ignoring any trends like these and simply make good movies. Entertaining movies nearly always do well at the box office.

      The problem is Hollywood has no idea what's a good movie.

      There have been good movies, and usually they try to just copy those and expect them to work. Or they use a committee to tell you what a movie looks like. They probably have computer algorithms to tell you what's a good movie, which gives you a formula for how exactly that movie should go.

      And then they'll make

      • by xevioso ( 598654 )

        Most of the Marvel movies follow a specific formula. And it turns out that their movies get consistently high aggregate reviews on RT. And they also consistently do well at the box office. What their movies have in common is complexity. Almost all of them have a pretty complex plot with a fair amount of twist and turns that require you to pay attention if you want to get anything more out of the movie than explosions and super hero fighting.

  • I mean yes obviously, those reduced millions are still coming in from somewhere.

    But I haven't heard anyone I know - in years - saying they were going to go to a theater and watch a movie. I think the last thing I personally saw in a theater was the first half of Kill Bill. None of my friends have said anything about going to a movie since I can't remember when.

    I've considered that maybe I'm just getting old and I don't go out as much, and that's skewing my perception of things. But I have nephews and

    • by grub ( 11606 ) <slashdot@grub.net> on Monday October 30, 2017 @02:26PM (#55458599) Homepage Journal
      Some movies just have to be seen on the big screen. I saw Blade Runner 2049 twice on IMAX and was blown away (granted I'm a huge BR fan and oozing with bias). Our home theatre setup is no slouch, but even when I get BR2049 in 4K, it won't be the same experience.
      • Agreed, I could tell BR2049 was going to be worth the big screen given my personal tastes. Something like Geostorm cited in the summary? I doubt I'll even watch that in 3 years when it is on Netflix.
    • by Rakarra ( 112805 )

      But I haven't heard anyone I know - in years - saying they were going to go to a theater and watch a movie.

      And I have quite a few friends who have gone to the theater a few times this year to see something, including myself. Your circle of friends might not be representative of society in general, and instead be a group of people of similar interests, possibly mainstream, possibly not. Box office receipts aren't exactly jumping, but it's not like the number of tickets sold has completely nosedived.

    • I go to the movies now more than ever. Alamo Drafthouse-style theaters have been a game changer. Even if the movie itself is mediocre, its still more fun than the usual bar night with friends.
    • I take my kids to the real IMAX in NYC a few times a year. Worth it for the $22 average ticket price if you reserve good seats. Rarely just go to a regular theater

      • I take my kids to the real IMAX in NYC a few times a year. Worth it for the $22 average ticket price if you reserve good seats. Rarely just go to a regular theater

        I have a Showcase Cinema Deluxe near me and in a lot of ways it's better than the local IMAX. The only thing the IMAX has over is the larger screen and the rumble seats. With 4K digital projectors and Dolby Atmos in upgraded theaters, IMAX has lost much of it's edge.

    • by Quirkz ( 1206400 )

      I go less since we had the kids, but I'll make an exception if it's something I really want to see. There just hasn't been as much I really wanted to see, and most of the 4-6 maybes came in with really bad ratings this year. I still *like* the theater, but I've got to be more tempted than before--used to be, I'd just go out to a megaplex on a whim, not even knowing what was playing, and just assume something good would be available.

      As you say it does help that the home theater is well supported these days.

    • Yes - but I do understand why so many people have stopped. I am now retired, so I can catch shows in a matinee - and...treading lightly here.... I have a nicer theater nearby that attracts a better demographic. I don't have to deal with a messy venue, people talking, people texting, knife fights in the parking lot, ect. My only complaint with the experience is the 20 minutes of commercials before the movie starts. Not a whole lot that interests me, but when something does, I am there. BR2049, It, America
      • by PCM2 ( 4486 )

        I don't have to deal with a messy venue, people talking, people texting, knife fights in the parking lot, ect.

        You might try an experiment. I have experienced that, but it hasn't been the trend doomsayers said it would be, IMO.

      • knife fights in the parking lot

        In which forsaken third-world hell of a country do you live in?!

        • North Charleston, SC - the Detroit of the South.
        • knife fights in the parking lot

          In which forsaken third-world hell of a country do you live in?!

          Clearly not the US or it would be gun fights in the parking lot.

          *runs for cover*

    • I live in a small mid-western town, every Friday and Saturday the theater is packed with high school students. It also make seeing a movie suck if you really want to watch it because a lot of them hang out and socialize as apposed to actually watching the movies. It's not surprising it's one of the few places they can hang out and socialize.

    • by antdude ( 79039 )

      I know a lot of people who still go to theatres, but a lot less though. Even my people and I go out way less than we used to do. This year, I only saw Dunkirk and Rogue One. Last year was Finding Dory. So, basically one or two per year. It's hard to watch in theatres for me because of my health issues because I have to take time outs to pee (my bladder sucks now). :(

    • It was released on Google Play for free and opened in 10 theaters for one day. I've never even heard of it, and most limited 1 day releases do terribly.
  • Lots of Hollywood horror stories about sex predators masking as producer and directors.

    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by Kohath ( 38547 )

      Yeah, sexual harassment and rape are big news topics now that the Clintons’ political viability no longer needs to be protected.

  • by damn_registrars ( 1103043 ) <damn.registrars@gmail.com> on Monday October 30, 2017 @02:29PM (#55458615) Homepage Journal
    I was considering going to Blade Runner with my wife. However it had been so long since I had last seen the first one I thought it would be nice to see it again before seeing the new one. So I checked the usual retailers - in my case Best Buy, Target, WalMart - and couldn't get it there as it was not available. I can't stream it on NetFlix either. I checked Barnes and Noble as well, no dice. I checked Amazon; they couldn't guarantee it either (only available through third parties).

    Disney did the same thing with Tron when they released the new one a few years ago. If you shut out the fans who want to see it, you'll end up getting less money for the new product. In my case I just simply gave up and figured it's not that important. I can go spend my money on something else.
  • by A5un ( 586681 ) on Monday October 30, 2017 @02:29PM (#55458617)
    Are we going to talk about the abomination called Mother! ? Is that horror too?
    • Oh she's always been. Fortunately she just went overseas and can't figure out how to work Skype on her laptop so I'm free of that horror show for a while.

      Oh ... Just noticed the exclamation mark. ... A movie called Mother!... okay carry on.

  • by Khopesh ( 112447 ) on Monday October 30, 2017 @02:41PM (#55458683) Homepage Journal

    Modern movies all fit a very tight formula, which is admittedly very powerful and compelling, but it prevents certain types of creativity from shining. Atop that, movie studios refuse to take risks on new material, instead making adaptations, reboots, remakes, and encores. This further limits what a movie can do.

    This is an arena that televisions series have stolen from movies; most episodes are designed to fit that tight formula while advancing a larger arc (better yet, multiple larger arcs!) while a few can break the mold with minimal risk to audience retention (for example, instead of the plot twist being half to three-quarters through, it can be elsewhere, or even a build-up for a larger surprise in the next episode).

    Horror movies are rarely heavy in sophistication. They just go in for emotional investment so they can lead you to a series of surprises, some of which will startle you and others that might haunt you. This adapts to that oversimplified formula very very well. Additionally, horror has its own tight formulae, so audiences get what they expect and are only disappointed when there wasn't the anticipated level of startles, eeriness, or innuendo. There's no risk to the hook being problematic since it's pretty much always shown in full force in the movie's trailer.

    (Also note that It is a remake (and an adaptation), though Get Out is not.)

    • Modern movies all fit a very tight formula, which is admittedly very powerful and compelling, but it prevents certain types of creativity from shining. Atop that, movie studios refuse to take risks on new material,

      Have you seen Victoria and Abdul [youtube.com]?

      • by Khopesh ( 112447 )

        No, and I therefore cannot comment on how soundly it may or may not break "the formula" but there are exceptions to every rule. This does not appear to be one, however, since it is not a Hollywood film (sorry, I failed to quantify my remark by that characteristic). It's also an adaptation.

  • ... like every year.

    Flops don't kill Hollywood. It's not hooked up that way.

  • by LeftCoastThinker ( 4697521 ) on Monday October 30, 2017 @03:11PM (#55458839)

    Honestly, until Hollywood stops trying to shove their alt left agenda down our throat, they will continue to do poorly. The fact about the left is that their ideology is just theoretical, and when they try to apply it in the real world, it is jarring, as in ruin the entire movie jarring (the hero, after killing mountains of henchmen, spares the evil mastermind because he is "better than that" even though the dude murdered the hero's children and made his wife a zombie plaything. Everyone knows that in reality that the villain would be red paste on the wall, or at the very least, beaten within an inch of his life. (This is why The Walking Dead did so well and Fear the Walking Dead spin-off is total garbage, one is a realistic drama about how normal people would act, the other is a liberal jerk off session about how they think they would act in the same situation). That is why the superhero movies did so well, at least at first. They were based on what is by today's standards, a conservative narrative, with a struggle between good and evil. But now even those stories are being polluted by the liberal agenda (Iron Man sequels anyone?) instead of staying true to the original material.

    We need to get back to the classical theorem for our action/epic movies, where there are good guys (albeit still flawed humans) and some evil to overcome (not corporate suits, not CEOs, or other stupid Hollywood retardedness) who do evil things because evil is in their hearts and they want more power to spread their evil. Pick a genre (fantasy, scifi, horror, post apocalypse, apocalyptic, etc.) and away you go.

    I predict that Hollywood knows this, and they will make a few "pandering" movies next year to refill the coffers, then go back to putting out their dog shit laced libtard brownies...

    • Honestly, until Hollywood stops trying to shove their alt left agenda down our throat, they will continue to do poorly.

      I've been hearing this complaint from the right for a long time. The right has very good access to deep pockets such that they can form their own studios and make their own damned movies. You are not held hostage.

      a conservative narrative, with a struggle between good and evil... [hero should have] evil to overcome [besides] corporate suits

      So you define progressive values as "evil"? I don'

      • by Anonymous Coward

        So you define progressive values as "evil"?

        Progressive, verily. Hollywood has progressed from molesting adults to molesting kids. Such goodness!

      • 1. Hollywood has a strangle hold on movie and TV media in the US, and for the most part, conservatives are not interested in playing dress up in front of a camera. This doesn't preclude us from pointing out shitty, trivial garbage that comes out of Hollywood. If you want to see what a good story looks like, there is plenty of content from the 1950s and 1960s, as well as some from the 1980s.

        2a. Unions are not evil, but public employee unions in a democracy are a bad thing (they have cross interest with t

        • by Tablizer ( 95088 )

          Hollywood has a strangle hold on movie and TV media

          So you seem bothered by oligopolies who use their size to limit outside firms. Hmmm.

          conservatives are not interested in playing dress up in front of a camera.

          I doubt that's statistically true, but assuming it is, I'm not sure what your bigger point is. It's hard to find conservative actors?

          public employee unions in a democracy are a bad thing...can sway elections to hire their own boss

          So can biz. I'd be willing to cut their influence if we ALSO cut biz bu

          • "Sure, movies are often based on exaggeration. That's not news. Think of it as Wells Fargo's billing scam on steroids: low-level employees pressured to rip off customers to keep their jobs. Concepts and patterns from real life are exaggerated to create drama. Dinosaurs probably didn't roar and bellow very often before eating/chasing their prey, but most people love that movie meme: it's drama."

            There is an un-bridgeable gap between being pressured to create extra banking accounts (that cost the customer no

            • by Tablizer ( 95088 )

              The plot is no more silly than men in tights with superpowers from a spider bite or meteorite. And biz violence did happen in the mob heyday: it was REAL.

              As for businesses buying elections, last time I checked, businesses can't vote, and buying elections traditionally means bribery of election officials to help your candidate to win. That doesn't happen and is a felony.

              Campaign donations and pro-candidate ads are legal. It's pretty damned close to direct bribery. He with the most money can hire the most sho

              • You give the electorate way too much credit. The situations are often nuanced and most won't investigate the nuances such that over-simplified sound-bites "work".

                I agree that the current electorate is like this, by liberal progressive design. 150 years ago, people were focused like a laser on politics and far better informed and educated than today. As a result, today the idiots votes can be persuaded with enough air time, and that is the only way the liberal progressives who want to abridge half the bill of rights ever get elected. My point was, eliminate the state run public schools, teach students how to think, and they will no longer be easily manipulated by

                • by Tablizer ( 95088 )

                  I agree that the current electorate is like this, by liberal progressive design.

                  Suuure it is.

                  As far as news controversies, there's also: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]

                  and http://www.politifact.com/trut... [politifact.com]

                  And National Review and Breitbart are known to be biased. They have no cred with me. The GOP can go ahead and put Hillary on trial if they really think there are laws broken.

                  • Virtually every incident on the Wikipedia link involves either a personal issue for some person not affecting broadcast content, or something that offends liberal sensibilities instead of a factual error on the words reported or spoken, unlike with CNN, or errors by guests and interviewees (who are not affiliated with Fox news) or racking errors (wrong tape with similar content that materially changes nothing in the story gets loaded by some intern and the host doesn't realize it until later). A fair chunk

                    • by Tablizer ( 95088 )

                      Only fools go to Politifact as what was once a semi-neutral entity has been completely consumed by the liberal progressives and is now just shilling for the DNC.

                      List 3 bad ones from that list of 50.

                    • It is simple. As I said, Politifact is a shill for the alt left progressives, and they rely on your weak logic skills, and lack of both knowledge and curiosity. Take a look at the FIRST "LIE"...

                      1. "In July 2010 the government said small businesses -- 60 percent -- will lose their health care, 45 percent of big business and a large percentage of individual health."

                      Sean Hannity, Nov. 11, 2013

                      Yet if you read the actual article here: http://www.politifact.com/pund... [politifact.com]

                      You will find that:

                      By the end of 2013, government analysts said half of all group or employer-based plans would change to the point that they would need to meet the new standards -- which is about what Hannity said.

                      Essentially every "lie" is along these same lines, twisting the truth and trying to weasel around.

                      Furthermore, virtually every news agency was reporting the same thing, further highlighting the bias of Politifact and John S

                    • If you had actually been paying attention:

                      Barak Hussein Obama and the Dims: "If you like your plan you can keep your plan."

                      Sean Hannity and the conservatives: "In July 2010 the government said small businesses -- 60 percent -- will lose their health care, 45 percent of big business and a large percentage of individual health."

                      Reality: A huge majority of small business and individual plans were discontinued and those on it LOST THEIR PLANS (mitigated only by Obama's unlawful waivers and failure to enforce th

                    • by Tablizer ( 95088 )

                      Lose existing plan and lose HC are very DIFFERENT things. Sorry, but my interpretation is what a jury of normal English speakers would agree with. I'm confident in that and would even bet money on it. Your bias appears to make you read it to fit your preconceptions. Good Day, Sir.

            • by Rakarra ( 112805 )

              Show me one instance in the US or any other civilized first world country in the last 60 years where a corporation collaborated internally (more than 2 people working together at the direction of the CEO or board of directors) to kill people.

              How about the entire tobacco industry? They knew for sure that their product was deadly and killed people, they suppressed any and all research and news that spread that information so people would make their own choices.
              That's as close to murder as it gets without actually dropping a bomb on someone's house.

              • I have known a number of people in my on life who smoked their entire life and died in their 80s, so while I agree that smoking is bad for you, it is hardly the death sentence that the alt left makes it out to be. It largely depends on how much you smoke and your genetics. OTOH, virtually the entire left wing in the US is pro pot and see nothing wrong with smoking pot, which is arguably just as bad for you as cigarettes, if not worse and far more addictive and destructive to your life.

                Lung cancer, the num

    • Hollywood is doomed and they know it. Computer graphics and AI is going to replace most acting, animation, and sets. It's probably going to replace a lot of screenwriting too. What does that leave? You might say that viewers might not want to identify with virtual characters, but why not? What does Hollywood have to offer in terms of real humans? A bunch of sex-obsessed, vain, self-absorbed jerks with eating disorders and skeletons in the closet. Do you want to identify with any of the actors you see on scr

    • by reanjr ( 588767 )

      You think the hero winning and displaying a good heart are part of the alt-left agenda?

      You're a fucking moron.

      • The hero winning is not the issue, but the alt left agenda version of a "good heart" is twisted and unrealistic, mostly because to be liberal you must live a life sheltered from reality. Most liberals are created in high school and college, when they are young, inexperienced and stupid. Those that go on to start, own or run a business are quickly cured. Similarly, those that must exhibit significant self reliance are also cured. Those that have everything handed to them by others and do very little for

    • I assume you're still upset that nobody watched "Atlas Shrugged."

      • by Tablizer ( 95088 )

        Atlas Shrugged, and so did the critics.

      • I have never watched it, nor read the book. I don't worship at the altar of Ayn Rand. She was as much an idiot as the alt left is today. Selfishness is not a virtue, but it is a fact of human nature, and any worldview that ignores that fact (socialism, communism) is doomed to fail spectacularly (i.e. murdering over 100M dissidents in the last century) before collapsing or converting to fascist, authoritarian capitalism.

    • Honestly, until Hollywood stops trying to shove their alt left agenda down our throat, they will continue to do poorly.

      Oh would just shut up already.

    • fuck off nazi
      • Penetrating logic from a proud product of our public schools no doubt...

        The only brown shirts in 2017 are Antifa, and they are on your side of the aisle.

  • I talked to a number of cinephile friends who, along with myself, saw Get Out as genuinely abysmal. It pandered, it was predictable, and most importantly it merely kept up stereotypes and fears that are genuinely abhorrent and useless in this day and age.
    It was poorly-directed, but did have a good lead. Everyone else was wooden, beige, and the even the humor wasn't really any good. The only reason it got eyeballs was because it was a social justice issue; what it tried to do has been done elsewhere and bett

  • Yesterday they told you you would not go far, that night you open and there you are
    Next day on your dressing room they've hung a star, let's go on with the show!!

    You might have to suck a dick or two. That's show business! Woka Woka!
  • Honestly, who wants to see a movie with the prefix 'Geo'?
  • horror movies are trash, for people with fucked up minds.
  • Headline!

    Bad movies do poorly at the theater... ORLY? Shocking I tell you, shocking.

    Anyone who's seen the trailer for King Arthur or Geostorm could have told you that they were going to be terrible. I mean really. While I had high hopes for the Dark Tower, the bottom line is they are fitting like 5000 pages of book in one movie, yeah a little might get lost in translation. As for Blade Runner, who knows, I know I wanted to go see it, but just didn't get a chance.

    As for IT, well it did very well because by a

  • Horror flicks generally don't have fakey car chases with impossible automotive gymnastics done on streets that are always, always, always wet, including inside parking garages, no matter what the weather was 30 seconds before the cut to the car chase. They also usually don't feel the need to introduce seriously fakey CGI that doesn't work, isn't believable, and just destroys my ability to get "into" the movie.

    For me, movies have to make sense. Dark Tower made little sense to me, King Athur made absolute

Get hold of portable property. -- Charles Dickens, "Great Expectations"

Working...