Movie Economics: Why Hollywood Keeps Recycling

Sumber: dokpri

Movie Economics: Why Hollywood Keeps Recycling

Before streaming took over, there was a brief moment when entertainment felt balanced. Between the mid-2000s and early 2010s, platforms such as YouTube and other Social Media were emerging, and satellite TV was thriving. In Indonesia, there were numerous satellite TV providers, but the most notable was Indovision. I still remember the shows I watched on it: from Disney, Phineas and Ferb; from Cartoon Network, its flagship hits like Ben 10 or Adventure Time; from Nickelodeon, Spongebob.

The movies I watched were just as memorable—from Back to the Future to Big Hero 6. These shows and films shaped how I imagined what was ahead. Watching them made me feel optimistic about the future; Back to the Future, for instance, made me excited about the future. Phineas and Ferb became a wonder to me, a show that was both fun and somehow made me scientifically curious, and The Amazing World of Gumball? Pure chaos, yet somehow one of my all-time favorites. The creativity poured into these shows gave me the expectation that entertainment would only keep getting better.

Fast forward today, when I walk into my local cinema, most of the movies on display are ones that 10-year-old me would already recognize. How to Train Your Dragon Live Action, M3GAN 2.0, Lilo & Stitch Live Action, Mission: Impossible: The Final Reckoning. All are familiar titles, just repackaged. 

Seeing nothing interesting, I opened my Disney+, hoping the streaming app would offer something new. Intermezzo, if my 10-year-old self knew there was a platform to endlessly rewatch favorites and discover new Disney shows, he’d be ecstatic. But as I scrolled, the first recommendation was Snow White Live Action. Then Phineas and Ferb, Season 5 — didn’t that show end properly back in 2015? Then, Mufasa: The Lion King, a live-action prequel to a beloved cartoon.

I stopped scrolling after that. I tried to open another streaming app. It doesn't look any better. In HBO, they are reviving Gumball with another season. It seems that western media companies are reviving old shows with a sequel, prequel, or live-action.  One of the most glaring examples is Star Wars. What was once a six-film saga with two animated spin-offs has now expanded into nine films and eight animated series. What happened to originality? Has Hollywood just become greedy?

Optimism & Pessimism?

Hollywood’s obsession with reviving familiar IPs might not be driven by greed alone. As complex system theory suggests, movies emerge from interconnected creative, social, and economic dynamics (Vany, 2005). By that definition, we have to consider the historical context in which these iconic movies and shows first emerged. Back to the Future was released in 1985, Indiana Jones, and Jurassic Park were released during the 1990s. Animated shows like Phineas and Ferb, The Amazing World of Gumball, Ben 10, and others came out between the mid-2000s and early 2010s. The common thread between them? These shows and movies were released when confidence in the economy was high. 

Confidence in the economy, particularly in the US, could be seen with the Consumer Confidence Index or CCI. This index measures the confidence of the people regarding their sentiments on the general economic situation. The higher the CCI means the higher people's confidence in the economy. A few examples are when Back To The Future was released in 1985, then Jurassic Park in 1993, their CCIs respectively being 96.5 and 82.1  What about the movies being released today—like the ones mentioned earlier? In 2025, the CCI  at May sits at 56. 

Does this mean CCI has a causal effect on movie production? The higher the CCI means more original films and vice versa? Rather than a simple linear relationship, CCI should be viewed as one of several signals for producers. As Ludvigson (2004) found that CCI could have some predictive power on spending. Thus, CCI could be seen as a sign for producers on the people's willingness to spend.

This is illustrated by the case of 2017, when the CCI stood at a strong 96.3—yet Disney still released sequels like Beauty and the Beast Live Action, Cars 3, and Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Men Tell No Tales. Despite high consumer confidence, Disney still leaned on familiar intellectual properties. But here's where it gets interesting: in 2017, major studios produced 12 original films compared to 24 recycled (including prequels, sequels, remake, live-action version) ones—a 1:2 ratio. In 2024, original films dropped to 4, while recycled ones rose to 27, almost a 1:7 ratio. And in 2025 (as of mid-year), the ratio is 4 original films versus 15 recycled. With CCI scores for 2024 and 2025 significantly lower than in 2017. As the data shows, periods of higher consumer confidence tend to coincide with a more balanced output between original and recycled films. In contrast, lower CCI levels are often accompanied by a heavier reliance on recycled content. While this doesn’t confirm a direct causal link, it indicates that studios may factor in economic sentiment when deciding how much creative risk to take. Keep in note, all films that are mentioned are films that went into the theater.  

For major companies, it's a win-win. In a high-confidence economy, they could flesh out old favorites and people will still buy them. But it raises a question: why, in a more pessimistic economy, do companies increasingly produce recycled media? According to Ipsos Research, when people are cautious of the future, they will delay, curb, and reprioritize their spending. To lessen their fear of the future, the research found that nostalgia has become one of consumer’s preferences (Mittal & Gwiasda, 2022). In the movie industry, when the economy became uncertain, they could play the nostalgia card.

Figure 1. Generational Share of The Labor Force, Source: U.S. Department of Labor

Figure 1 shows the generational share of the U.S. labor force, with Millennials and Gen X comprising 36% and 31%, respectively. Notably, Gen Z now makes up 18% and is rapidly growing as new income earners. This matters because Gen Z, born between 1997 and 2012, represents a rising consumer base with distinct media nostalgia, having grown up with titles like How to Train Your Dragon, Lilo & Stitch, and The Amazing World of Gumball. With the 2025 Consumer Confidence Index hovering between 52 and 64, signaling cautious spending, major companies may find it safer to revive familiar IPs than risk investing in new content.

How The Market Plays

The decision to play it safe by the companies is understandable. In a time where people are not encouraged to consume tertiary goods, companies have to make a safe product in order to get their investment back. This is called risk-aversion. 

Risk-aversion means an investor, in this case major companies, choose to produce something that is less likely to lose money. Hence, making recycled content. As Mckenzie (2023) notes, sequels reduce uncertainty for producers when the original film is successful. Throughout the 2020s, major companies such as Disney or Warner Bros are getting more risk-averse. In Disney’s case, it is evident that Disney spends a lot of budget to produce Star Wars-related content or make live-action of its famous intellectual property (IP). In Warner Bros, they are playing safe by renewing Amazing World of Gumball, making a remake of Harry Potter, and releasing the third reboot of the Superman film franchise.

Does this mean major companies are always risk-averse during periods of economic pessimism? Not necessarily. Disney, for instance, wasn’t fully cautious during the height of the pandemic. In 2021, they released Jungle Cruise, a film about a researcher searching for a mystical tree while being pursued by supernatural enemies. Sounds familiar? The film clearly echoes the adventurous spirit of Indiana Jones. One might assume that, like Indy, Jungle Cruise could evolve into a franchise. But with a reported budget of $200 million dollars and global box office earnings of only $221 million dollars, it fell short of expectations—a financial disappointment for a company of Disney’s scale. After this underperformance, Disney shifted its focus more heavily towards producing contents related to well-established intellectual properties such as The Lion King, The Little Mermaid, Lilo & Stitch, and others. The first three live-action movies managed to give Disney a hefty revenue of $2.241 billion dollars. 

Risk aversion becomes increasingly important because this playing field is only played by a few companies. In other words, the movie business is an oligopoly market. Excluding major OTTs such as Netflix, Prime, and Apple+, the major content that we get from Hollywood is only produced by five companies: Disney, Warner Bros, Universal, Paramount, and Sony Pictures. 

Think of all the shows that you liked or watched. Spongebob? It's from Nickelodeon, but that company is owned by Paramount. Despicable Me? Universal owns it. How To Train Your Dragon? Universal owns it. Mission Impossible? Paramount owns it,  Karate Kid? Sony owns it. Practically, these five companies dominate the market. 

This condition then makes these companies interdependent on each other. Due to that environment, the decisions of one company affect the way other companies do. One example is that major companies have to be strategic when releasing a film because if the movie is released at the same time, it will create a zero-sum situation. Take an example from these two movies, How To Train Your Dragon Live Action and Lilo & Stitch Live Action. The Warner Bros movie was released on June 13, 2025, and the Disney one was released on 23 May, 2025. This example shows how studios are not willing to pit their movies on the same day because the risk is too strong. 

The other important thing to see is that because of their interdependence, there is a First Mover-Follower Strategy. In this market, Disney is the first mover because the company holds the majority of the box office market share at 17%. Followed by Warner Bros with 15%. This strategy is best exemplified when Warner Bros produces HTTYD Live Action. This action could be seen as Warner Bros trying to imitate the success of Disney's Live Action such as The Lion King, Cinderella, Beauty and The Beast. Those Disney films manage to give revenue of $3.46 billion. 

Another Side of The Coin!

It seems that throughout the example, playing with nostalgia could be lucrative. However, keep in mind that if people are pessimistic on the economy, they will have a more cautious spending behavior. If the studios only rely on nostalgia and do not bring any value, the result will just be losses. One clear example of this is how Warner Bros produces the DC Cinematic Universe. According to Perrino (2024), among the ten biggest box office flops of the 2020s, four were produced by Warner Bros. We’re talking about big names like Joker, The Matrix, Wonder Woman, and The Flash. Just seeing the title, at least people have heard it. So it should make sense that the movie did well, right? The problem is, Warner Bros thinks that the IP is already enough, and the quality becomes secondary, thus the outcome.

Another thing, the decision to recycle movies or shows could be seen as a way to reintroduce their IP to the newer generation. This is important because acquiring an IP is very expensive. The cost of Disney to buy Star Wars rights was $ 4 billion. To get their investment back, Disney could not rely on selling old films. Hence, why Disney produced more Star Wars-related content to make a return investment. 

In the end, as I scroll with frustrated thoughts on how there is a lack of original content of movies. I started to open my Disney+, and I picked Mufasa: The Lion King. Surely, it is not that bad, right? Right?

REFERENCES 

DeMaria, K. (Ed.), Page, I., Reuss, K., & Zemper, Z. (2024, August). Changes in the U.S. labor supply. Trendlines. U.S. Department of Labor, Employment and Training Administration. https://www.dol.gov/sites/dolgov/files/ETA/opder/DASP/Trendlines/posts/2024_08/Trendlines_August_2024.html

Ludvigson, S. C. (2004). Consumer confidence and consumer spending. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 18(2), 29–50. https://doi.org/10.1257/0895330041371222

McKenzie, J. (2023). The economics of movies (revisited): A survey of recent literature. Journal of Economic Surveys, 37(2), 480–525. https://doi.org/10.1111/joes.12498

Mittal, S., & Gwiasda, G. (2022). Navigating consumer uncertainty in turbulent financial times: A behavioral science perspective. Ipsos. https://www.ipsos.com/en-us/navigating-consumer-uncertainty-turbulent-financial-times

The Numbers. (2025). All‑time worldwide box office for Walt Disney theatrical distributors. Nash Information Services, LLC. https://www.the-numbers.com/box-office-records/worldwide/all-movies/theatrical-distributors/walt-disney

The Numbers. (2025.). Market Share for Each Distributor 1995-2025. Nash Information Services, LLC. https://www.the-numbers.com/market/distributors

Perrino, M. (2024). 10 biggest box office flops of the 2020s so far. MovieWeb. https://movieweb.com/biggest-box-office-flops-2020s-so-far/

University of Michigan. (2025). Consumer sentiment index data. University of Michigan Surveys of Consumers. https://data.sca.isr.umich.edu/

Vany, A. D. (2005). Hollywood economics: How extreme uncertainty shapes the film industry. Routledge.