Producing : Should or does this affect what genre of film you produce or write? by Kenneth George

Are these movies the best according to critics or according to audiences?

I probably should follow trends, but I’m a rebel who likes doing what I want lol so for the most part, my genres are more on the unpopular side (it’s also pretty hard for me to write things that AREN’T psychologically driven). I’m not entirely surprised that romance is so low since the latest romance movies I’ve watched are rather shallow compared to older ones.

Arthur Charpentier These would be top 25 films in 2024 by worldwide gross (receipts). The audience tend to speak with their wallet.

Banafsheh Esmailzadeh I see. Maybe you diversity some? Some passion driven, some market driven? Interesting take on romance. So they're not doing it right you think? Need some depth maybe? :)

Kenneth George Nope, you’ve got to write what you’ve got to write and that has nothing to do what is current in the market. If you work on that basis, by the time you’ve written your masterpiece and then it’s been produced, then the market moment will have passed.

Good writing always creates a market, no matter what market analysis says.

Hello, kenneth. thanks or this as some of those companies i have dealings with. They are very particular in terms of what they look for when development of projects comes into being. a uniqu selling point or partof the story Another part of the story is they have what is known as a reak even point and i the films sells profit margins come into play here.This is the one thing i have lernt whilst meeting executives their reps ans productions teams.

I'm surprised where my favorite genres (Horror and Action) landed, Kenneth George. I stick with my creative passion. I don't pay attention to the box office and trends.

Geoff Hall I’m not sure I subscribe fully to that ideology. Craft is important and ranks very high on my list, but intentionality is equally important. Looking at the last 5–10 years of box office data, the same genres consistently top the charts. That’s not coincidence—it’s a clear pattern and, frankly, pretty compelling evidence. Adventure, for instance, is reliably a strong box office performer.

TV series may follow different dynamics, but as someone from the business side of things, the numbers inevitably drive most business decisions. I also don’t quite agree with the statement: “by the time you’ve written your masterpiece and then it’s been produced, the market moment will have passed.” That may be true for a Holiday script or something that is highly seasonal but each year, around 200 films make it to the box office, and the data shows well-defined patterns with a high degree of statistical confidence.

Producers who are paying attention definitely study those numbers. That doesn’t mean dismissing passion—it means shaping it in a way that aligns with what the market is signaling. I’d really like to hear other perspectives on this. There’s obviously no one-size-fits-all approach, but the consistency in these trends is hard to ignore. And of course, the picture becomes clearer as you expand the dataset to include all 200 films.

Catherine Mercer Good points Catherine. Unique selling point matters in just about every area of business, including film. A USP in this context can come from many places—the quality of the writing, the story itself, the cast, the director, or even the producer. Certain names signal something to the market, and sometimes a strong script is simply hard to ignore.

That said, companies are still making a reasoned, calculated bet. If a film is tagged with 5–7 genres, each of those genres has a built-in following. It’s almost like selling the same film to multiple countries—the potential audience multiplies. Many of the top 10 films show this very pattern, blending across genres to maximize reach. But we don't know what the marketing budget is for each of these top performing films.

And when it comes to financial projections, unless you’re dealing with an established franchise with multiple installments, box office performance data inevitably plays into the equation—just as much as the track record of the cast, director, and producers, who might have a tendency to deliver within a certain range.

Maurice Vaughan I know some of the genre results were surprising, but I should add a caution—this data only reflects the top 25 films out of about 200. The titles with massive marketing budgets are often in the Adventure genre (with a few other usual suspects mixed in), so the picture naturally skews that way. Looking at the full 200 films might tell a different story, both in terms of genre distribution and revenue per genre.

That said, if your goal is to write something that breaks into the box office top 10, I wouldn’t recommend ignoring these trends.

Kenneth George ah, let me just say, it’s not an ideology. An ideology is a systemic way of socio-cultural formation.

The problem with data is that it is always outdated and focuses on the past, our job as writers is to create the next trend.

Kenneth George I agree with you that intentionality and data awareness matter, but I also think we have to be cautious about relying on numbers too much. So many factors can affect the data — release timing, marketing spend, cultural shifts, and even whether certain filmmakers are actively working in a genre. If the people driving a genre stop making films in it, the “trend” can vanish, but that doesn’t mean the audience appetite disappeared.

I work mainly in fantasy, and honestly, I was surprised to see where it landed in your breakdown. For me, that’s a reminder that while trends can be useful to watch, it’s usually best to keep building work without being bound to them. Strong stories often create their own momentum regardless of where the market data points at the moment.

Geoff Hall your previous statement reflects a systematic belief about how writing should work, which is, by definition, an implied ideology within the film industry—but I’m not sure this requires further explanation. Some in the industry subscribe to this approach, some do not, and many operate somewhere in between.

The implied ideology here is that artistic integrity and quality alone will eventually triumph over market considerations. We can point to numerous films where that simply hasn’t been the case. It’s a philosophy that elevates creative intention above business strategy—but have you ever had to spend $100 million of your own money to produce a project?

The tension is clear: in real-world film finance, investors and producers cannot ignore trends or data, because capital is at stake. This is a business full of risk, and ignoring data is not a strategy any executive would admit to using.

Your viewpoint assumes a world where good writing alone guarantees success. In reality, production decisions are made by weighing both creative and financial factors. Market patterns, genre appeal, box office history, and the track record of talent all play measurable roles in determining which projects get greenlit.

In short, while passion and quality are essential, ignoring the realities of the market is not a viable production or investment strategy. And regarding data being “outdated,” that is not entirely accurate. While subtle shifts in consumer behavior occur, some trends are observable historically over decades. The film industry invests heavily in market research to develop actionable intelligence that guides business decisions—not emotions, personal beliefs, or bias.

Dwayne Williams 2 lol… this is almost like a scene from a film I once saw where everyone kept telling some guy to relax and he stated he was more comfortable tense. Actually, the opposite might be true. In both TV series and film, one could argue it ultimately comes down to the numbers. If viewership dips on a series, no one keeps the show on air purely for the art—you get “nicked.” In film, you better hope your revenues exceed your budget. When people are spending billions of dollars each year, it’s usually with the expectation of getting every cent back.

I wouldn’t encourage anyone to lose sight of what this whole business is ultimately about. Data may be imperfect, and statistics can be skewed, but those are factors you can manage to some degree. The importance of data will only increase. I’m even seeing certain companies consistently associated with top-performing films—they clearly may be “in the know.” It’s not always about a hunch or coincidence.

Maybe it also depends on who is asking the question. The average movie fan or critic is obviously looking at different things, but executives and decision-makers trying to determine what to produce or greenlight are likely thinking very differently.

Kenneth George I come from a business intelligence background, so I completely agree with you that data is needed in every industry. It’s powerful and very useful—especially when billions of dollars are on the line.

That said, I don’t think creativity should be forced to follow a trend just to compete. When I transitioned from analyst to screenwriting, I initially thought my writing needed to be data-driven too. But what I found is that data works best as research to strengthen a story, rather than reshaping a project just to align with the top 25 box office trends.

Otherwise, it feels like you’re just chasing someone else’s formula. Data can guide and inform, but it shouldn’t replace the voice and originality that make a film worth making in the first place.

Dwayne Williams 2 It is an open discussion, and of course anyone is entitled to their opinion. The fan, critic, writer, producer and the executive may all see things differently.

But when media executives themselves explain what drives their decisions, their words consistently reveal that business considerations take precedence over purely artistic ones.

Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg offered the starkest view, saying, “You don’t need any creative … except to be able to read the results that we spit out,” reducing creativity to a negligible factor in the age of algorithmic advertising. Jonathan Miller, CEO of Integrated Media, echoed that sentiment more directly in the film and television context, remarking that “managing the money is now at least as important, if not more, than the creative side” (CNBC, 2025). Others acknowledge the same tension in softer terms: Brian Pettigrew of TVGla admitted that “everything’s driven by quarter-to-quarter numbers,” making it difficult to take creative risks, while FX’s John Landgraf conceded that “the economics of television are changing, and we have to adapt” (Vanity Fair). Even Disney’s Bob Iger, who positioned creativity as central to the company’s strategy, tempered it with fiscal responsibility, noting that “we have to continue to invest in creative content, but we also have to be accountable and responsible” (Time, 2023).

Taken together, these statements suggest that while executives may publicly champion art and creativity, it is the financial imperatives of the industry that ultimately set the boundaries within which creative work can exist. It’s easy to get caught between what we think should drive the industry and what actually does.

I am not discouraging creativity—I am a creative myself—but we can’t simply dismiss the market or the data. There really isn’t much debate about what drives the industry at large. My real question is what drives an individual producer or writer on the platform, because while the business side seems clear, the personal motivations of creatives can vary widely.

True, Kenneth George. I completely agree that the financial imperatives always set the boundaries, no matter how much we want the art to lead. That said, I personally feel I’d be more likely to study the top 25 of all time rather than just a single year’s list if I were trying to determine direction. Yearly lists feel too tied to marketing cycles and short-term shifts, while the historical set shows what really sustains across generations.

Which do you think is more useful for guiding what to write, focusing on the yearly top 25 as a barometer of the moment, or the all-time top 25 as a measure of lasting impact?

Kenneth George ah, Kenneth, that is so far from the truth. What I gave you was my opinion, not a systematic philosophy based on any ideology. What concerns me is your overuse of the term. It would appear that you think that everything is down to ideology.

My intention is to write intentionally and create stories which resonate with an audience. However, I never think, “what genre should I write next”. I merely wait for the inspiration to come.

Have I ever spent $100m of my own money on a film? I think that’s a specious argument, because I can only think of one person who has done that, Francis Ford Coppolla and look what happened to that passion project.

Comparables are what is important, not long-term statistics. When going before investors, that’s what they’ll be interested in, not what happened 20 years ago in the market.

Geoff Hall now we’re getting somewhere. Thanks for clarifying that it’s just your opinion. Creating stories that resonate with an audience is certainly not a goal to fault. How you go about it may differ, but ultimately, the market shows what actually resonates with audiences.

When you say you never think about what genre to write next, that’s of course your way of handling things. I’m sure there are others with that mindset. Waiting for inspiration, as you describe, might work well for a freelance project. That’s how I see it.

But if you were hired to write for an existing show outside your preferred genre — where you’re assigned material to produce — you’d have to find a way to align your passion or inspiration with the genre and tone of the project. Same thing in film: sometimes you have a product to deliver, in or outside your preferred genre, under time constraints. You have to find a way to make your inspiration or passion match the task at hand.

And when you say long-term statistics aren’t important… maybe I’m misunderstanding, but in my world, historical data — especially in this context — is as important as historical data is to the valuation of any stock you might invest in.

Dwayne Williams 2 it might be best to let you answer the question you just asked. Initially, I noted that some of the trends in the 2024 data are consistent across multiple periods. If you’d rather look at the all-time data, we have that as well. The top 10 domestic grossing films of all time are:

Star Wars: Episode VII – The Force Awakens – $936,662,225 (2015)

Avengers: Endgame – $858,373,000 (2019)

Spider-Man: No Way Home – $814,866,759 (2021)

Avatar – $785,221,649 (2009)

Top Gun: Maverick – $718,632,821 (2022)

Black Panther – $700,426,566 (2018)

Avatar: The Way of Water – $684,075,767 (2022)

Avengers: Infinity War – $678,815,482 (2018)

Titanic – $674,354,882 (1997)

Jurassic World – $653,406,625 (2015)

So I ask you: examining this all-time list, do you notice a pattern in terms of genre, or even combinations of genres? Titanic seems like the outlier; almost everything else crosses adventure, action, sci-fi, or at least fantasy in some way.

I think a screenwriter should write in a trend and in a format that is in demand in the film industry. A screenwriter's job is no different from a baker's. A baker bakes the kind of bread that customers like. So, yes, I choose relevant genres for my projects that have the potential to be successful. However, this is not always the case. For example, the cyberpunk genre can be challenging to make profitable in the film industry, but even a loss-making film can become a cult classic and bring immense fame to its creators. It is for this purpose that I am working on the Black Glowing Water project, in the hope of becoming the author of an iconic comic book starring Margot Robbie. On the contrary, the Death Goddess project contains elements and genres that could make it financially very successful.

Write what people will be watching in 1-2 years.

Kenneth George, The list you've provided includes movies with impressive and expensive special effects. Therefore, I believe that their success depends not on the genre but on the funding. Producers invest a significant amount of money in these movies. In the past, producers invested in Westerns, which were popular.

Of course, we shouldn't underestimate the talent of the filmmakers who created these movies. However, it is challenging to create mass-appealing films with a limited budget.

Arthur Charpentier you might be onto something.

This is why I can’t help but laugh when I hear people go on and on about "the art" of it all. Honestly, my dog could probably write a script — but if you have top-tier talent attached to the project and an insane budget for production and marketing, you’ll probably outperform most films out there.

Marketing matters. If ads for a film are running 8–10 times a day for two to three months before release, you’re going to generate more than average demand, regardless of the script quality.

Walk into any network or pitch meeting and say Margot Robbie or Will Smith is attached — chances are, no one’s asking about the script. They know they can sell the film on the star power alone.

So yeah, when I hear people obsess over the script like it’s the be-all and end-all, I just giggle.

David Taylor That's an interesting theory. Care to elaborate?

Arthur Charpentier "I think a screenwriter should write in a trend and in a format that is in demand in the film industry."

In response to your statement, I wouldn't necessarily disagree. My perspective is that screenwriters should bring a level of awareness and intentionality to their writing, especially in terms of what the market is signaling. Understanding industry trends and demands is important, even if you choose to deviate from them.

As for loss-making films—truth is, many major studios that release a portfolio of projects each year sometimes greenlight films not for profit, but to enter the Oscars conversation. In those cases, it's less about immediate returns and more about prestige or long-term brand value.

Some films are made because there's a story that needs to be told—whether for social awareness, justice, or cultural relevance. Others are simply part of a studio's strategy to diversify its slate and play the odds, hoping that at least one unexpected project will break out.

Kenneth George thank you for your response, Kenneth, and sharing your opinion.

“But if you were hired to write for an existing show outside your preferred genre — where you’re assigned material to produce — you’d have to find a way to align your passion or inspiration with the genre and tone of the project.”

Back to my understanding of me. I’m not a freelance writer. I write my own scripts, that I will be producing. If however, I was asked to write a script for a TV series or film, then I’d have to ask myself if I was the best person to do so. Certainly, if It was a rom-com, it would be a definite NO! But horror, sci-fi, action or conspiracy thriller would definitely get my attention.

I wish you success with your projects.

Nope.

Geoff Hall Some focus on writing or producing projects in genres they’re most comfortable with, but for us at Intense, it comes down to demand and supply. While thrillers are our primary genre, we recognize the strong demand across multiple genres and markets. The key question is whether we intend to meet that demand outside our core proficiency—and the answer is a resounding yes. We are already taking action to ensure we can deliver projects in just about every major genre and market, so our approach is not to focus on what we want or like, but on what the market demands.

Kenneth George I look at that model the other way, Kenneth, as one of supply and demand…

Geoff Hall Various sources estimate Amazon processes around 12.8 million product orders per day — about 536,000 per hour, or nearly 9,000 per minute. Ever wonder why Amazon often chooses not only to sell other companies’ products but also to launch its own competing versions?

Because Amazon has access to massive transaction-level data, it can detect emerging demand patterns in real time. When a product category shows consistent traction, Amazon makes a calculated decision to supply its own version. In this model, demand directly shapes supply.

Film development is often the reverse. Many scripts are passion projects, written without upfront consideration of demand signals like audience appetite, genre cycles, or budget realities. Producers and networks are left sifting through material that may not align with market demand — or that requires reshaping to fit. That’s supply struggling to find demand.

Our approach flips that dynamic. We begin with rigorous research — analyzing audience trends, budget ranges, and regional preferences before we even start writing. Demand guides supply, much like Amazon’s model. While some projects thrive on being disruptive or unconventional, the broader film market — like any consumer market — is shaped by clear demand signals. Treating those signals as the starting point makes development less speculative and more strategic. It is certainly the case when you start writing for international markets where there are just too may variables in play.