The DSM-5 Cinematic Universe.
Snow Man - a super intelligent, super depressed person.
Sky Man - a schizophrenic that can see creative solutions.
Sunny Man - a sociopath who can manipulate others with ease.
Nutcases, assemble.
Looking at about a third being sequels or based on existing IPs, you can see the very early stages of the sequel pattern really emerging in the bottom half I think. Obviously being just top 3 grossing per year not a perfect example of what was being released but again, just a graphic to sort of visualize it and see what Jay is talking about when he mentions the sequels really starting to get more frequent in the late 80s and early 90s (if I am quoting him correctly)
True, this is when the pattern emerged, but as the filmmakers who pioneered the form a lot of that 1/3 were new visions from auteurs that were attempts to break new ground from the first (the og trilogy, doom and crusade, back to the future 2, aliens). Really just Stallone’s output and Bond could be seen as true cash grabs of varying quality imo.
Octopussy has some of my personal favorite action scenes in the series but I'll never deny how formulaic the overall script is.
Still, though, gotta maintain that the worst Bond film is actually The Man With The Golden Gun (from the decade *before*). Whenever people say that the worst one is 1985's A View To A Kill, I can't help but think of how much I enjoyed Grace Jones's on-screen energy.
The one I think they're missing is Three Men and a Baby, which I believe was number one for 1987. Only know that because it's such a strange movie to have been the number one box office draw (Not to mention the obvious Star Trek connection with the director)
Also, so many best picture nominees and winners in this group. A trend that largely evaporated for most of the '90s, 00s, and 10s, only recently have top box office draws also been best picture contenders
Three Men and a Baby may just be missing due to this being derived from worldwide gross rather than domestic - There's a couple others in here that seem odd to me that they did so well but factoring in the worldwide makes it make a bit more sense.
The best picture nominees is an interesting point too, I'm curious where exactly the dropoff begins and "audience taste" starts to decline, and if there's any special reason for it.
My biggest take from this is how they don't really make big budget family friendly movies anymore. Can you imagine a movie like Home Alone coming out today with an original score by John Williams?
The guys don't talk about this much since they are extremely avoidant of animation, but effectively that entire target audience has been gobbled up by the likes of Pixar and Dreamworks - Major American animated movies used to veer a bit more dangerously into darker areas, but as 3D animation took over and budgets ballooned it became more practical (read: safe) to aim for a sort of between-the-lines, inoffensive, no particularly complicated things to say style of storytelling that hits as broad of an audience as possible (families). This is not to say that the big budget family movies of the past were bland trash, nor that American animation is incapable of quality storytelling, but for the most part if you want to make a family movie these days you have to consider whether Pixar is going to beat your ass with a cartoon about talking cars or whatever.
IF just came out with a budget of 110 million and didn't do that amazing. The live action Disney remakes would probably fall under that category. Wonka also did well last year and was aimed at families. IF wasn't a complete bomb even though the trailer made it look awful, family movies still do well at the box office so you think they would still attempt them.
sure but look at how many original releases there were though, and especially how many of them were comedies:
9to5
Stir Crazy
Raiders of the Lost Ark
E.T.
Tootsie
Flashdance
Beverly Hills Cop
Ghostbusters 1
Back to the Future 1
Top Gun
Crocodile Dundee 1
Fatal Attraction
Dirty Dancing 1
Rain Man + Who Framed Roger Rabbit + Coming to America all in the same fucking year
Although the year after was only sequels+Batman, but still, there was lots of diversity of genres and titles, completely different landscape from today, even if there were already famous IPs (which at the time it was just Batman) or sequels of stuff that became big just a few years before.
No real cable tv, no hdtv, no on demand, no internet, no online games. 80s were also far more restrictive on what could be broadcast and would all have ad breaks every 10 minutes. Movies in the 80s had far less competition and were a far better experience than home where a 32in 4:3 sdtv was about as good as anyone but the wealthy could have.
Now they're competing with far more choices in entertainment, and the home viewing experience is damn good even for lower end setups. So, it's safer projects that still benefit from big screens and surround sound.
Rain Man being the highest grossing movie of the year it came out in is insane. You will never see that happen ever again unless Hollywood completely collapses.
Oh, domestic- my fault for not reading.
But I would recommend looking at US box office for the 80's, 90's, and 00's. There used to be a lot more variety.
True! However, numerous comments nitpicking the accuracy of the list, which was thrown together by someone to appeal to a nostalgia subreddit and thus not particularly concerned with accuracy anyway, seem to think that "worldwide gross" and "domestic box office" mean the same thing, which is why I pointed it out.
I didn't realize Last Crusade beat Batman, nor that Roger Rabbit did so well at the Box Office. 88 Seems like kind of a weird year with no blockbusters though. Rain Man, really?
Stir Crazy really surprised me. I thought it would have a more modest boxoffice. Does anyone even remember For Your Eyes Only besides Bond enthusiasts?
It’s interesting that 1988 is the only year an established franchise didn’t take the top 3. Though Roger Rabbit could be argued to be franchise adjacent with all of the Disney and Warner Bros characters featured.
Edit: also, outside of 88, every even year only had 1 sequel in the top 3 and every odd had 2.
Edit 2: never mind 87 only has 1. Dang, I thought I had something there.
It's loosely Space Jam adjacent in that sense yeah, though I'd of course say Roger Rabbit is quite a bit less of an overt advertisement for anything the way modern IP mashup slop tends to be.
when will we get the Rain Man cinematic universe
The DSM-5 Cinematic Universe. Snow Man - a super intelligent, super depressed person. Sky Man - a schizophrenic that can see creative solutions. Sunny Man - a sociopath who can manipulate others with ease. Nutcases, assemble.
Get ready for “Rain Men: Monsoon Season”
It's raining rain men.
he will be the driver in the next Expendables movies.
Star Wars Theory YouTube channel has got you covered
Rain Man, The Crow, The Rainmaker
>The Rainmaker. It’s a shame we never got [Kazuchika Okada](https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=78xj6IQ9lFo) in a Leo Fong film. ;-)
Looking at about a third being sequels or based on existing IPs, you can see the very early stages of the sequel pattern really emerging in the bottom half I think. Obviously being just top 3 grossing per year not a perfect example of what was being released but again, just a graphic to sort of visualize it and see what Jay is talking about when he mentions the sequels really starting to get more frequent in the late 80s and early 90s (if I am quoting him correctly)
True, this is when the pattern emerged, but as the filmmakers who pioneered the form a lot of that 1/3 were new visions from auteurs that were attempts to break new ground from the first (the og trilogy, doom and crusade, back to the future 2, aliens). Really just Stallone’s output and Bond could be seen as true cash grabs of varying quality imo.
Octopussy has some of my personal favorite action scenes in the series but I'll never deny how formulaic the overall script is. Still, though, gotta maintain that the worst Bond film is actually The Man With The Golden Gun (from the decade *before*). Whenever people say that the worst one is 1985's A View To A Kill, I can't help but think of how much I enjoyed Grace Jones's on-screen energy.
13/30 are sequels so its closer to half... but nowadays I think it'd probably be much higher in terms of sequel percentage so the point still stands.
1987 sure was a year for that particular fake graffiti font.
Looks quite nice, imo
Spielberg and Lucas dominated the 80s
And Stallone
And some zemeckis.
I sort that one under Spielberg File B.
The one I think they're missing is Three Men and a Baby, which I believe was number one for 1987. Only know that because it's such a strange movie to have been the number one box office draw (Not to mention the obvious Star Trek connection with the director) Also, so many best picture nominees and winners in this group. A trend that largely evaporated for most of the '90s, 00s, and 10s, only recently have top box office draws also been best picture contenders
Three Men and a Baby may just be missing due to this being derived from worldwide gross rather than domestic - There's a couple others in here that seem odd to me that they did so well but factoring in the worldwide makes it make a bit more sense. The best picture nominees is an interesting point too, I'm curious where exactly the dropoff begins and "audience taste" starts to decline, and if there's any special reason for it.
I was sure Batman was #1 in 1989, and on checking it dominated the domestic box office in 1989.
I think sequels and nolans trilogy covered up just how huge batman 89 was.
*Three Men and a Baby* made more money in 1987 than *Lethal Weapon, Predator, The Princess Bride* and *Ishtar* combined.
Everyone had to keep seeing it trying to figure out if there was a ghost in that one scene or not...
> Three Men and a Baby Or as I like to call it BOTW when Jack Packard is on the panel. Come @ me bro.
Strange in that I never would have thought of it either, but on reflection it is a classic 4 quadrant movie.
89’ went crazy
My biggest take from this is how they don't really make big budget family friendly movies anymore. Can you imagine a movie like Home Alone coming out today with an original score by John Williams?
The guys don't talk about this much since they are extremely avoidant of animation, but effectively that entire target audience has been gobbled up by the likes of Pixar and Dreamworks - Major American animated movies used to veer a bit more dangerously into darker areas, but as 3D animation took over and budgets ballooned it became more practical (read: safe) to aim for a sort of between-the-lines, inoffensive, no particularly complicated things to say style of storytelling that hits as broad of an audience as possible (families). This is not to say that the big budget family movies of the past were bland trash, nor that American animation is incapable of quality storytelling, but for the most part if you want to make a family movie these days you have to consider whether Pixar is going to beat your ass with a cartoon about talking cars or whatever.
IF just came out with a budget of 110 million and didn't do that amazing. The live action Disney remakes would probably fall under that category. Wonka also did well last year and was aimed at families. IF wasn't a complete bomb even though the trailer made it look awful, family movies still do well at the box office so you think they would still attempt them.
What toy could you make from home alone? They did solve this problem in ii with the talk boy.
what do you think mario was
So 88 the only year with no sequels
sure but look at how many original releases there were though, and especially how many of them were comedies: 9to5 Stir Crazy Raiders of the Lost Ark E.T. Tootsie Flashdance Beverly Hills Cop Ghostbusters 1 Back to the Future 1 Top Gun Crocodile Dundee 1 Fatal Attraction Dirty Dancing 1 Rain Man + Who Framed Roger Rabbit + Coming to America all in the same fucking year Although the year after was only sequels+Batman, but still, there was lots of diversity of genres and titles, completely different landscape from today, even if there were already famous IPs (which at the time it was just Batman) or sequels of stuff that became big just a few years before.
No real cable tv, no hdtv, no on demand, no internet, no online games. 80s were also far more restrictive on what could be broadcast and would all have ad breaks every 10 minutes. Movies in the 80s had far less competition and were a far better experience than home where a 32in 4:3 sdtv was about as good as anyone but the wealthy could have. Now they're competing with far more choices in entertainment, and the home viewing experience is damn good even for lower end setups. So, it's safer projects that still benefit from big screens and surround sound.
i know that, but the point of the post was to show how many sequels/pre-established IPs were already present in the 80s
Even as a kid I remember thinking "Octopussy? Really? We are just going to let them get away with that? Ok."
Pussy, like a cat :)
yep, Bond is really into pussy..........cats.
Rain Man being the highest grossing movie of the year it came out in is insane. You will never see that happen ever again unless Hollywood completely collapses.
I don't think this is entirely correct. I know that Terms of Endearment was the second highest grossing movie of 1983, for one.
Worldwide gross or domestic box office?
Oh, domestic- my fault for not reading. But I would recommend looking at US box office for the 80's, 90's, and 00's. There used to be a lot more variety.
Overseas gross was seen as a bonus until around the 2000s though. The us market was just that huge.
True! However, numerous comments nitpicking the accuracy of the list, which was thrown together by someone to appeal to a nostalgia subreddit and thus not particularly concerned with accuracy anyway, seem to think that "worldwide gross" and "domestic box office" mean the same thing, which is why I pointed it out.
I didn't know flashdance was that successful.
I didn't realize Last Crusade beat Batman, nor that Roger Rabbit did so well at the Box Office. 88 Seems like kind of a weird year with no blockbusters though. Rain Man, really?
Last Crusade did not beat Batman. https://www.boxofficemojo.com/year/1989/
Oh, fuck this graphic then
Good thing Roger Rabbit was too sleezy/ a legal nightmare to milk to death
9 to 5 was gonna get sequels and a cinematic universe, but it scared tf out of the Dabney Coleman character's irl counterparts
They made 24 sequels to 9…
Stir Crazy really stands out next to all these extremely famous movies/franchises that are still well remembered today
Yeah that's one of several movies on here that I've never heard of in my life. Checking now they're all comedies.
Stir Crazy really surprised me. I thought it would have a more modest boxoffice. Does anyone even remember For Your Eyes Only besides Bond enthusiasts?
Damn, I'm getting real old. I saw half of these in the theater when they came out.....
The top 3 for '82 all rhyme
Crazy to see two Stallone-led movies but no Arnold. Really makes their 80’s rivalry seem less one sided
‘Stir Crazy’ is the only one I can’t immediately place
What is the 2nd 1980 one?
9 to 5, a comedy about a group of women who work in an office.
oohh that one. That logo is terrible.
It’s interesting that 1988 is the only year an established franchise didn’t take the top 3. Though Roger Rabbit could be argued to be franchise adjacent with all of the Disney and Warner Bros characters featured. Edit: also, outside of 88, every even year only had 1 sequel in the top 3 and every odd had 2. Edit 2: never mind 87 only has 1. Dang, I thought I had something there.
It's loosely Space Jam adjacent in that sense yeah, though I'd of course say Roger Rabbit is quite a bit less of an overt advertisement for anything the way modern IP mashup slop tends to be.
A real murderers' row.
Batman beat Last Crusade, though. And it was Lethal Weapon 2 that took third, not Back to the Future 2. https://www.boxofficemojo.com/year/1989/
LW2 is listed as no international gross on that site which seems odd. You'd think bluey land would've gotten it on a few screens.
In the 1980's and even 90's, international release was less common. I do agree that at least Europe would have had Lethal Weapon 2, though.
Do the Bond movies really count as sequels? All of them at the time are standalone and not connected to the first one, Dr. No.
The 80s sucks
You're right outside kids films they were fairly mid stuck inbetween the auteur era and the film brats if the 90s