After 2020, Franchise Films Make a Comeback

[John Dule]

This is a project I started in 2016. After recently clearing out some files on my laptop, I recovered my original data and decided to enter data for the past four years.



This graph illustrates the results. Using Box Office Mojo's weekly listings, I assembled lists of the highest-grossing movies in America for each week out of the year, and for each year since 2000. I then categorized each highest-grossing film as either an "original" film or "not original." Some classifications may be debatable, but this was my methodology:

1) If a movie uses a preestablished consumer property to propel its success, then it is considered "not original" even if the script is entirely new (e.g. The Lego Movie).

2) If a movie is based on a novel, even loosely, it is considered "not original" (e.g. Gone Girl).

3) If a movie is a prequel, sequel, remake, reboot, or spin-off of another existing property, it is clearly "not original" (e.g. Batman v. Superman).

4) If a movie is based on a piece of folklore, or assembled from folklore from other cultures that has never before been made into a movie, then it may be considered "original." Movies like these typically do not use the preexisting story to propel their success, and the original story provides only a general blueprint for the screenwriters (e.g. Frozen).

5) Finally, if a movie is based on historical events, but is not based on any particular authoritative historical text, then it may be considered "original." These movies often create new characters and take a degree of creative license in their storytelling, rendering them more "original" than a movie that adapts a particular novel or factual book about a historical event (e.g. Dunkirk).

In any event, point #4 typically only applies to Disney movies, while #5 is extremely rare. Altering these classifications would not significantly change the data here.

-------------------------

Now, on to analysis. Here are a few things that stand out:

1) Since 2000, the number of high-grossing original films in the US has dropped precipitously. They have been replaced mostly by Marvel movies and remakes/reboots of older films (e.g. Jumanji).

2) Through a twist of fate, 2020 became the "best" year for original films this century-- though obviously that is not exactly a blessing. Many big-budget franchise films were delayed and pushed back from 2020, which may explain why they recovered so quickly in 2021.

3) 2018 is the worst year on record for original films. Out of 52 weeks in the year, only four weeks (~8%) were not dominated by franchise films. Feel free to examine the data for yourself; it's quite depressing. The only original films to reach the coveted spot of "Number One Movie in America" that year were A Quiet Place, a critically panned Kevin Hart comedy called Night School, and The Meg-- which I'm now realizing was loosely based on a book, which makes its inclusion in this list highly debatable.

[John Dule]

Yeah I've complained about this for awhile. Although I'm surprised they had the majority even in 07-08 which was a great time for independent and original films.

To be fair, this doesn't imply that good original films aren't being made. 2014 was my favorite year for movies this century; it had several awesome original films, but it also happened to be the worst year for original movies at the box office ever up until that point. All this shows is that franchise films have won over the general public, meaning films that aren't based on preexisting properties increasingly look like more of a gamble for studios, whereas films based on preexisting properties seem like a sure thing.

[John Dule]

I’m surprised by how 2020 had so many original movies which was the exception the norm. Also a lot of big franchise movies held off their release to 2021 or 2022 because of Covid closing down theatres etc

To put it in perspective, for many of those weeks in 2020 the "highest-grossing movie" made only about $5,000.

[John Dule]

It is almost April, and an original film has not yet placed at the top of the weekly box office this year. The early months are typically when original films have the best shot at topping the charts, because major studios typically don't release big blockbusters at this time of year. Could 2022 be the first year in history where no original film ever becomes the #1 movie of the week?

[John Dule]

The data is in for 2023, and hoo boy. It was the worst year ever for original films. Out of the 52 weeks this year, only two had an original movie as the highest-grossing film of that week (Migration and The Boy and the Heron). Every other chart-topping movie this year was either a sequel, remake, or adaptation.



I think we've officially hit rock-bottom. Now that superhero fatigue is setting in, I am hopeful for better numbers in 2024.

[John Dule]

This would be a lot harder to graph, but I think films that are sequels to films that themselves were original works should be included in the "original films" list.

Would Star Wars IX be counted as "original" in that case? If so, that kind of defeats the purpose of what I'm trying to measure.

[John Dule]

This would be a lot harder to graph, but I think films that are sequels to films that themselves were original works should be included in the "original films" list.

Would Star Wars IX be counted as "original" in that case? If so, that kind of defeats the purpose of what I'm trying to measure.

It'd be interesting to break it down into more categories. Something like:
- Original: For films that are entirely new and not based on any other work.
- Adaptation: For films that adapt a non-film work (for a really fine-grained approach you can split it between first adaptations and adaptations of works that were already adapted before)
- Series: For films that continue or expand on a story begun in a previous film that was itself original (maybe further split between those that are still helmed by the same creative team that made the original, and those that are basically just corporate-sanctioned fanfiction like the Disney Star Wars ones)
- Franchise: For films that rely on an existing prior work without being a meaningful sequel, prequel or adaptation. Stuff like reboots and "in name only" adaptations.

Of course I realize that would be a ton of work.

There's always going to be a lot of grey area between these categories, but my goal here was to make the classifications as objective as possible. I'll admit it's frustrating to me that a movie like Rebel Moon (which is a complete rip-off of existing sci-fi and fantasy properties) would be considered an "original" movie under this analysis, whereas a blockbuster with serious artistic merit like Dune would be considered "non-original." (Fortunately, being a Netflix movie, Rebel Moon didn't top any charts.)

However, it also depends on what you're trying to measure. This graph doesn't empirically prove that movies have gotten worse-- there are plenty of good adaptations and also plenty of truly awful original films. However, I think it does prove something about the willingness of both studios and audiences to take risks with new properties they're unfamiliar with. Studios are terrified of investing nine-figure budgets into movies that flop, and so the lion's share of their resources are directed towards projects that come with built-in fanbases. At the same time, the average theatergoer goes to two or three movies per year, and they typically save their theater experiences for "event" movies like Aquaman or Barbie. Again, some of these movies are good and some are bad. But objectively, both audiences and studios are less adventurous when it comes to original films.

On the subject of your categories, I definitely think there's a distinction between something like the Star Wars sequels and an adaptation like Gone Girl-- one is clearly more reliant upon that preexisting fanbase than the other. Still, the studio's decision to greenlight both of these films demonstrates on some level that they're not taking risks on a property that doesn't have some kind of proven track record. But I agree that if this were about artistic merit, there'd be a lot more ways to divide it up.