It is as if it were a curse. Currently, it seems as if the cinema is in a deep crisis. In the last few weeks and months, several flops have been lined up in a worrying manner, all of which have resulted in millions in losses for the major film studios such as Warner, Sony, Universal or Disney But why is that?
Planet of the Apes, the remake of The Fall Guy with this Barbie star and the new flop of “Deadpool” Ryan Reynolds made it to the top of the box office charts, but failed to recoup the production and marketing costs. What is striking, however, is that among all these number 1 “hits” there is not a single real film dud.
Advertisement
The failed frontrunners received some excellent reviews, are thrillingly staged and tailored to the big screen. And yet people are reluctant to go to the cinema in sufficient numbers. This is also the case with the current number 1, which was Critics partly consider it the best action film of the year is ennobled.
This action film flops despite Marvel star
Furiosa: A Mad Max Saga actually has all the ingredients that a brilliant blockbuster needs. An outstanding leading actress, unique images, a gripping plot that is “shallow” enough for the broad mass of the mainstream and one of Marvel's biggest stars as the villain (with a new nose). Furiosa is also a prequel to a legendary film series.
In 1980, Mel Gibson with the first part a sensational surprise success. 35 years later, filmmaker George Miller managed to revive the series by simply making another sequel with Tom Hardy (Marvel’s Venom) and the audience accepted the new lead actor without complaint. Superman and The Witcher can tell you that this is not a given. But why did Furiosa flop, despite its potential and promising ingredients?
Advertisement
Home cinema: Highlights in June 2024 – The reboots on Blu-ray and DVD
In retrospect, George Miller, the creator of the series, will have to ask himself whether a classic sequel with Tom Hardy might not have attracted more film fans to the cinema. But in my opinion the proverbial problem and the reason for the failure of Furiosa lies somewhere else entirely.
Is streaming damaging cinema?
A few years ago, it seemed that people who subscribed to Netflix, Amazon Prime and Disney Plus were such enthusiastic film fans that they still go to the cinema often It now almost seems as if Disney, Warner and Co. are doing everything they can to “discourage” audiences from watching blockbuster productions on the big screen. While the films are currently running in cinemas, they are being released for streaming as “Premium Video on Demand”.
Read also
Despite Mega flop: If the greatest Avenger of all time a new chance?
Apparently, contrary to all speculation, there will be a reunion with this original Avenger.
Movie Cucumber of the year stream “free” – Mega flop with Jennifer Lopez goes swimming on Netflix
Oh dear, mega-star Jennifer Lopez obviously didn't do herself any favors with this film.
Stream “Free”: Forget John Wick-Jessica Alba celebrates a spectacular comeback
The star of the cult series Dark Angel is sent on an action-packed adventure by the maker of the John Wick films.
Digital lending is often significantly more expensive than a cinema ticketbut the film distributor does not have to give half of the revenue to the cinema. And if you as a fan stream the film with at least two people, you have already saved money. No matter how huge the flat screen TV at home may be. There is one thing you have to admit as a film fan.
Streaming at home will never replace the cinema experienceBut if the big film studios seem to be working so hard to change the consumer behaviour of film fans away from cinema tickets towards streaming to push, it is no wonder that grandiose Hollywood productions are flopping at the box office.