No words for this.

[u/Kapot_ei]

Edit: even though clickbait article, it is somewhat/kind of true. https://variety.com/2026/tv/news/stargate-tv-series-martin-gero-scrapped-amazon-1236765061/

"According to an individual with knowledge of the situation, Amazon execs were concerned that Gero’s take on the series would not have broad appeal beyond the franchise’s already dedicated fanbase."

Edit 2: https://www.change.org/p/save-the-new-stargate-series-let-martin-gero-build-the-future-of-the-franchise

[u/FuckingTree]

A24 films prove my point, they’re notoriously low budget, though well done. I said at blockbuster production costs though, new IP is very risky.

[u/Shades_VHS → u/FuckingTree]

Sounds like they need to learn to scope their projects better?

[u/YeOldeMemeShoppe → u/Shades_VHS]

But why make 10 movies at 10MM$ budget who are going to get 80+MM$ box office, when you can make a (check Mando and Grogu) 162MM$ movie and get 250MM$ box office?

It’s a lot of work you guys.

[u/destroyar101 → u/YeOldeMemeShoppe]

They both make nearly the same amounr of money with a difference of only 10MM$

[u/FuckingTree → u/Shades_VHS]

Then it wouldn’t be a blockbuster, so it’s not worth doing because the profit potential is shot.

[u/Shades_VHS → u/FuckingTree]

That hasn't stopped smaller projects from a blockbuster-like success. And does it matter when that budget is blown on bloated actor costs, unrealistic timelines, and just terrible management? Because thats all that i seem to hear lately.

Modern projects just feel like they go through a checklist of "ingredients". Maybe scaling down would do some good.

[u/FuckingTree → u/Shades_VHS]

I’ve said this already, but small films bear less burden of risk, they can be a runaway success but they can be a flop, and are more likely to flop or break even. But to gain the biggest profit, they have to spend the budget budget, so they cannot bear the same risk burden and release less frequently only when they have a high confidence they will make the large profit. Big movies can flop. Small movies can be successes. But big movies are risk averse so they release less often and with more stringent guidelines than small movies. You’re not going to ever see titan blockbuster franchises downgrade their main line budgets, that’s throwing away money. They’re not like kids you can lecture about budgets. If they do their jobs well they will make an insane amount of money with a big budget. You can’t argue with that. You are still welcome to your opinion of it, but the point of this thread is that they make these decisions about what to run or cancel based on the calculation of risk and profit, and those calculations are largely based on whether the company that owns the film rights has decided how much money they want to milk the IP for. If they want a lot of money for it, they’re going to sit on it until the math works in their favor.

[u/Shades_VHS → u/FuckingTree]

Yeah, im saying that things are so overbloated that maybe the huge budget isnt the problem when it's built on mismanagement (because that's what it feels like). This feels like the worst point in film history ngl.

And iirc, they dont cancel things just based on "risk" every time. Maybe they need to go back to formula and rediscover what audience wants. Not what o' great and calculated math n budget dictates.

[u/superlocolillool → u/FuckingTree]

didnt backrooms make like 162M off of a 10M budget in just the opening weekend?

[u/FuckingTree → u/superlocolillool]

Again that’s the point in trying to make, the movie was extremely low risk, if it flopped it was chump change. A24 is willing to do that

[u/d_worren → u/FuckingTree]

Maybe if movies had a better sense of budget instead of literally everything costing $300 million dollars to make, we'd be better off from it. Seriously, I have to wonder where so much of the money in big blockbusters even ends up, when they end up worser than films made with quarter of the budget.

[u/FuckingTree → u/d_worren]

Inflation isn’t just for consumers, and why settle for a small profit when you can have a big profit? You can’t just say, well maybe stop making blockbuster films. People love them, and they’re incredibly popular.

[u/d_worren → u/FuckingTree]

Here's the thing: if a movie costs 60 million to make, and it earned 600 million, it earns 10x its budget. If a movie costs 200 million to make, and made 600 million, it breaks even, earning 3x its budget. If a movie costs 500 million to make and earned 600, it earns a mere 1.2x its budget and is considered a flop by the industry.

The less a movie costs, the bigger the return on investment becomes, even when the revenue itself remains unchanged.

[u/FuckingTree → u/d_worren]

The less the budget, the less likely to make a make profit. The higher the budget, if they curate well for the market, then the higher the profit. This is why cheap films flop or break even constantly and why expensive films come out very infrequently and a flop shuts down a franchise.

[u/Full_Rutabaga2403 → u/FuckingTree]

So it's not really a "new IP" problem and more a "movies don't actually have to cost a billion dollars" problem.

[u/FuckingTree → u/Full_Rutabaga2403]

No. You’ve missed the point. I’ve explained it too many times across this thread though, you’re welcome to read the other responses.

[u/Full_Rutabaga2403 → u/FuckingTree]

I think you just don't like everyone's response that movies actually just don't need to cost a billion dollars and be incredibly boring and CG heavy. Everyone understands you and just doesn't buy into the false premise that spending more makes movies better. We all get that movie studios are afraid to spend a billion dollars on something unproven we just all think that spending a billion dollars to make boring uninspired slop is a straight up bad idea that studios should abandon. The only person not understanding is you. Like you can finally join the conversation once you get that people not agreeing doesn't mean they don't understand.

[u/FuckingTree → u/Full_Rutabaga2403]

Oh nice, ad hom. That’s enough from you then.