Spiderman: Brand New Day - most successful movie ever?

[nmayhew]

adjust for inflation or the numbers are meaningless

 

or just give us the number of bums on seats

 

 

[thierry laurent]

8 hours ago, D.B. Andrus said:

 

One word - letters rearranged - kweo

Not so simple. To me this is not the main cause but just one consequence. The main word is RISK. Creating something fully original implies some profitability gambling whereas Holywood is now fully run by financials who hate taking any risk. Creators became just a very small wheel of the big machine. And in such a model producers still succeed in making films losing tons of money! Go figure...

[D.B. Andrus]

7 hours ago, thierry laurent said:

Not so simple. To me this is not the main cause but just one consequence. The main word is RISK. Creating something fully original implies some profitability gambling whereas Holywood is now fully run by financials who hate taking any risk. Creators became just a very small wheel of the big machine. And in such a model producers still succeed in making films losing tons of money! Go figure...

 Yes, however, when you have the majority of a workforce(actors) tied to one ideology creative pushback on the financiers is negligible. Therefore a feedback loop is created with little change possible for the immediate future. Of course, something may happen tomorrow to change that dynamic.....

[Confusionreigns178]

19 hours ago, KiwiZac said:

Given one of the trends of discussion in this thread (original ideas) it's interesting to note more than half of the listed films - all excellent examples (I only saw Network for the first time this year and, as a reformed journalist, was enthralled) - are adaptations or sequels.

It is possible for a sequel to have new ideas in it - the fact that it has a predecessor does not exclude this possibility. Having said that, the great majority of sequels are not as good as the first movie. A few examples of a better sequel? Terminator 2 (although I can argue this one either way), Mad Max 2, Empire Strikes Back, Toy Story 2, Star Trek: Wrath of Khan, etc. 

 

WAY too many sequels just go over the same tired, old territory and people still pay to see them. Some folks yearn for some originality and others are happy with more of the same.... I don't think that either side is "wrong", just different. 

 

Cheers.

 

Chris.   

Edited September 5 by Confusionreigns178
Adding some info.

[Mark_C]

On 9/5/2026 at 12:06 PM, D.B. Andrus said:

 Yes, however, when you have the majority of a workforce(actors) tied to one ideology creative pushback on the financiers is negligible. Therefore a feedback loop is created with little change possible for the immediate future. Of course, something may happen tomorrow to change that dynamic.....

[MikeC]

On 9/5/2026 at 6:39 PM, Confusionreigns178 said:

WAY too many sequels just go over the sa

It's not just sequels - some are good, others not so good, and some are even better than the original - but it's the complete remakes of the same film that sometimes really should not have got as far as the cinema. For not-so-good remakes imo The Italian Job and The Ladykillers  spring to mind. The jury is still out on Cape Fear,  but I thought it was a great idea for the remake (1991) to have some of the original (1962) cast in different roles. It added an interesting twist.

Edited September 8 by MikeC

[quang]

Talking of sequels which supersede the originals, how about Richard Lester’s The Three Musketeers (1973)?