My understanding is that musicals have the exact problem of being way too commerical and basically adaptations of already, mediocre, work. The difference is that the indie scene is even smaller due to the relative costs of creating musicals.
There's certainly a fairly steady diet of musicals/plays on Broadway/West End that are adapted from popular films. And, while many are well done, they also just feel utterly unnecessary in most cases. (There are exceptions--Network for example.)
The "movie business" is far from dead, there's an insane amount of production now and the breadth of those productions is far wider. The only death is the exclusivity of the industry, stories like the movie Tangerine (shot on iphones) or the recent release Zola (based on a twitter feed) are reaching audiences along with a ton of others that never would have seen them. Contrary to that, the highest grossing films of all time are mostly within this century and past decade now. There is more representation and choice in video content now than ever before, even if the movie theater industry might not ever go back to it's heyday. I personally am fine with more tailored content, tv or film, beamed into my home on demand over going to a theater
Also, the Indian movie scene appears to be exploding. Prime knows I’m into Indian movies, and so I’ve noticed a huge uptick in year 2021 Indian movies in my Prime feed. Must be like 5 or 10 new ones added per week. And they look like good quality movies. Indian cinema has really come a long way, and Netflix and Prime are really the catalysts for that and are spurring that industry along.
I've moved from watching movies and TV shows without end to watching limited series/anthology shows. The format hits the sweet spot between watching a self contained story and the anticipation of a TV show. I don't think the format gets the love it deserves, but networks like Disney+ (most of Marvel's recent outings), Netflix (Godless, Russian Doll, Alias Grace, The Queen's Gambit, The Haunting of Hill House), and HBO (The Night Of, Watchmen, The Outsider) certainly understand the benefits and have been amassing a quiet army of content.
Incidentally I went look for the best limited series shows, but aggregators like Rotten Tomatoes do a poor job separating them from other TV shows. Right now I see "Watchmen: Season 1" and "Unbelievable: Season 1" which as far as I know were only meant to be one season. Yet Chernobyl and Mare of Easttown are labeled as Miniseries and Limited Series, respectively. What's the difference between the two labels? Why hasn't someone went back and updated the database? Why can't I filter by ongoing versus limited?
And because Mare was so well received and loved by audiences, there is now a ton of pressure on the producers/creator for a S2. So I guess if that happens it would get relabeled?
>or the recent release Zola (based on a twitter feed) are reaching audiences along with a ton of others that never would have seen them.
This is just an anecdote but my local AMC theater in upper NJ is playing Zola and on Saturday night the theater was empty. I was the only one in the room. Are these movies actually making money? It seems like the demand is not really there for anything other than Superhero movies.
”I used to be in the movie business where you made something really because you cared about it," he said, noting that popular reception mattered more than anything else.
I think the OP means that this is a person-- late in a storied career-- saying in effect: "We used to care about art, now they only care about money."
Memory is kind. Barry Diller's Paramount made Orca, Bad News Bears Go to Japan, etc. Art and commerce were always mixed. The arrogance is in being able to convince yourself it was different in the old days without risk of being contradicted.
At no time in history has there been so much "art" as a result of about measuring the audience and seeking please it, or at least extract money from it. We're now already at the point where fans think in term of "franchises" and applaud "smart moves" made by "brands", i.e. even large swaths of consumers are now marketing drones, too.
Of course that doesn't mean it was ever "pure" at any point in time, just that it got worse. I've seen so much regression and dumbing down in just the last 20 years, that I don't care if that guy is a hypocrite, I think he happens to be correct anyway. I see what I see, and I can only imagine how it would seem if I had overview of 50 years of that shit.
> When books or pictures in reproduction are thrown on the market cheaply and attain huge sales, this does not affect the nature of the objects in question. But their nature is affected when these objects themselves are changed rewritten, condensed, digested, reduced to kitsch in reproduction, or in preparation for the movies. This does not mean that culture spreads to the masses, but that culture is being destroyed in order to yield entertainment.
> The result of this is not disintegration but decay, and those who actively promote it are not the Tin Pan Alley composers but a special kind of intellectuals, often well read and well informed, whose sole function is to organize, disseminate, and change cultural objects in order to persuade the masses that Hamlet can be as entertaining as My Fair Lady, and perhaps educational as well. There are many great authors of the past who have survived centuries of oblivion and neglect, but it is still an open question whether they will be able to survive an entertaining version of what they have to say.
-- Hannah Arendt
^ Good luck making movies (with a budget, and an audience) that are not entertaining, because they have something serious to say that doesn't happen to be funny. They do exist, and in absolute numbers I bet there's more of them made each year than ever before, just because of accessibility of the technology. But it would be dishonest to focus on those and ignore the fact that, say, three The Hobbit movies exist, or how people break out in tears over Star Wars movies -- and all that insane, infantile, extremely commercialized utter crap.
Again, Barry Diller may have been just as guilty of that stuff. I don't know and I don't care, because he doesn't matter. The world matters, the human species matters. How cool a specific individual is or isn't doesn't matter, they and anyone who remembered anyone who remembered them will be gone in a few centuries.
> The arrogance is in being able to convince yourself it was different in the old days without risk of being contradicted.
That would be nostalgia. And I'm not even convinced the assessment is wrong. And calling someone "arrogant" isn't contradicting them anyway, it's avoiding the argument if anything.
I think you missed the point. He's saying that now things are made with other purposes in mind (like Amazon Prime). Obviously the people on the ground creating the thing care about it, but at the top things probably look different than they used to.
> "The system is not necessarily to please anybody," Diller said, suggesting Prime Video's primary purpose is to get more customers to sign up for Amazon Prime.
Also its such horse shit. Surprised someone like him said something like that. Nothing much has come from this "l'art pour l'art" approach, because as it turns out you need to make money from films to keep the industry running, first and foremost. When you have a large industry, ideally locally concentrated, you also have a large talent pool of the best of the best actors, directors, writers etc. Sometimes this then results in art, but usually not.
If you don't have a large talent pool fuelled by financial prosperity, you lack the prerequisites to create works of the highest quality.
The business of running movie theatres is what he is talking about and it's certainly changing.
In Denmark the movies Godzilla vs. Kong, Nomadland and Black Widow will not be shown in major cinemas.
The reason is that Warner Bros. and Disney (Marvel) have either shortened the exclusivity period (Warner Bros) or set the streaming premiere at the same day the movie airs in cinemas (Disney).
The core of the issue is that the cinemas have to pay the same amount although the terms are clearly worse.
I can't help but think that the loss in sales of merchandise will take a hit, but i could be wrong and things will continue as they are now.
The last King Kong (vs Godzilla) was at least silly amusing to watch (once). F9 is just bad across the board, there was nothing enjoyable about it, the formula has now jumped the shark twice (the last Fast movie was the first jumping of the shark). The Fast franchise is in the guard rail, the race is over.
Maybe we can rename the trope to some sort of car-based hijinxs? I want to say "launched a car into space", but that's probably going to annoy Tesla fans.
If you think Godzilla vs Kong was one of the worst movies ever, I don't think you've watched very many movies.
I'd put The Wickerman (either version), The Fountain, and The Final Countdown (1980, nothing to do with the song, sadly) as easily worse than Godzilla vs Kong, and that's just off the top of my head.
It's certainly not a great movie, but it's well in-line with what you would expect from the title; slightly plausible plot, big monsters fighting in cities, trademark roar. Nowhere near the best movies, but strongly in the middle.
Funny. I've watched quite a few movies, indy and studio, foreign and domestic, and The Fountain is the only movie I ever immediately re-watched the second it ended. I thought it was absolutely a masterpiece.
But that's art for you; affects people differently.
> "The movie business *as before* is finished and will never come back."
And I think that's correct. Superhero blockbusters taking over all box office receipts was one thing, but now those blockbusters are becoming deeply tied to streaming services like Disney+ that's bringing content into people's homes and away from movie theatres.
I won't mourn movie theatres (though I hope places emulate the likes of Alamo Drafthouse and do dinner, drinks and let us make an evening out of watching a movie), but I do worry about things like movie financing. It feels the industry has split in two, either making super-expensive superhero blockbusters or super cheap indie films.
It makes me feel like a grouch to complain about the uber-popular, widely loved thing but this intertwined superhero universe exhausts me. I don't want to have to watch three previous movies and two TV shows to fully enjoy the movie that's in front of me. So I watch a lot more limited series TV instead... and maybe that's just fine?
TV shows have also gotten more prestigious, and so the people who would have been telling their stories as movies may be making TV shows instead. The article compares traditional movies to movies from streaming services, and I just think that’s avoiding the elephant in the room.
The change started happening slowly in the late 1990s, but at this point I’d say that the change has happened and we’re in a golden age of television. In the 1990s, TV was seen as a step down from movies in terms of cultural prestige, but nowadays we have A-list actors starring in TV shows with budgets over $10M per episode. The formats for TV shows have changed, too, and you’re much more likely to see TV shows written as six-episode or eight-episode seasons. They can be much more like a big, long movie, rather than a short TV show.
(Of course, the UK has produced six-episode TV series since forever.)
Still, I recently rewatched a few episodes of Siskel and Ebert, and it made me a bit sad to think about just how many movies were coming out every year during the 1990s, and remember being excited to go to the theater. Rewatching some 1990s movies, there are shots that just don’t have the right impact in typical home theaters.
Roots in the 1970s (and The Thorn Birds afterwards) was notable for being a widely-viewed blockbuster miniseries, so the concept was there; without streaming, it was just hard to get an audience to watch every episode at the right time.
Also Winds of War and others. Yeah, the miniseries had its day but, especially pre-widespread VCR, depending on an audience to watch every episode at a scheduled time was a high bar. It obviously could work but it depended on having a sufficiently big "event" for people to schedule a week or nights on successive weeks around it--in a way few would do today.
I think Breaking Bad really set the stage for TV shows being good film. Whether you like the show or not it had a clear and defined story and ended after 5 seasons where most shows before would just run until their ratings dropped.
HBO had been doing it for a few years, with shows like The Wire and Deadwood. But Breaking Bad helped bring it to a wider audience, since AMC is basic cable rather than premium. (AMC had launched into that a year before with Mad Men, which was similarly TV as good film.)
WW was still quite formulaic. ER, NYPD Blue, etc were all shows that maybe pushed for more consistent storylines but they were still boxed in by old school network expectations, and they got their starts in the mid-90s.
Sopranos was a very clear break in writing style. People like to slot in The Wire next to it, but The Wire was more episodic/restricted and honestly felt like an R-rated network tv show to me.
I'd add Rome as perhaps a closer model to the sort of high budget, prestige television we're afforded now. First season had a budget in excess of $100 million dollars, a major increase over anything comparable (compare this to The Wire that was filming contemporaneously).
I do think Sopranos was one of the first but specifically left it off due to it having lots of filler compared to breaking bad. It's a weird middle point where it did tell a movie like story but still lots of the unneeded drama of syndicated shows that came before it.
I agree I think it's actually a much better show. It does take a couple seasons to really kick into high gear so I've had trouble turning other people onto it who were BB fans.
There are more amazing high budget TV series out now than I have time to keep up with. Many of them are foreign also. It went into overdrive after The Sopranos, so has been going steady for 20+ years.
Anyone complaining "nothing good" anymore just either have terrible taste, or don't know how to do simple searching for new content. Same for movies IMO. There are good films everywhere on almost all the streaming platforms too if you just look for them.
> It makes me feel like a grouch to complain about the uber-popular, widely loved thing but this intertwined superhero universe exhausts me. I don't want to have to watch three previous movies and two TV shows to fully enjoy the movie that's in front of me.
They’ve also just become quite formulaic and as a result, boring.
Reputedly at least in part because of the increased importance of non-English speaking markets, even the better action movies are so dominated by long action sequences that they really detract for me.
And to the parent point, on top of that, I'm now expected to understand at least some of the intricacies of a complex movie/TV universe that I don't really care that deeply about.
> I won't mourn movie theatres (though I hope places emulate the likes of Alamo Drafthouse and do dinner, drinks and let us make an evening out of watching a movie), but I do worry about things like movie financing. It feels the industry has split in two, either making super-expensive superhero blockbusters or super cheap indie films.
I'm informed by my cinemaphile friend that exactly this phenomenon has been much remarked upon in the last 15-20 years. Mid-budget films, which used to be very common, are mostly dead, leaving a couple kinds of low-budget film (the startup-model where you put out a ton of cheap movies and hope one is the next Blair Witch—and yes, most of this is horror—and the "indie" film kind) and the mega-budget ones that are basically investment vehicles. So, two kinds of films that exist because those models are the best ROI, and then indie films, and that's about it.
Meanwhile, there are still tons of good films coming out, but most are (broadly) in the "indie" bucket. People who complain that nothing good is made anymore[0] must just be looking at what's advertised heavily, is all I can figure. Dozens of good-to-great movies come out every year, including a whole bunch from the US.
[0] Then there's "it's all remakes now"—but 1) it's not, and 2) Hollywood started churning out tons of remakes about as early in their history as they possibly could, and never stopped.
Can you recommend some good movies from last/this year? Have been digging into old movies to get my fix recently thinking there wasn't anything good out.
I highly recommend the In/Frame/Out YouTube channel for dissections of good indie and older classic movies. His year-end lists are always satisfying. The Scottish accent is the cherry on top.
If you watched the film "Happy Death Day" (if not the lesser sequel) and enjoyed its exploration of a kind-of goofy mashup (Ground Hog Day x Teen Slasher), the same director made a film built on, roughly, a similar concept, just called "Freaky". If you already suspect you might like it, don't read anything and just watch, though you may be able to guess the mash-up from the one-word title. It's fun, and well-made.
I'm struggling to think of much else that I've personally seen, from last year, that wasn't a little too indie or "genre" for me to recommend it to someone whose tastes I don't know—I didn't get much new watched, and mostly caught up on some reputedly-great stuff I'd missed from the prior five years or so (I keep up with a mix of pop junk food films, which I do like, and the "good" stuff, but usually don't have time to watch anywhere near all of either) aside from some fairly taste-specific newer material I watched.
Some other titles I'm seeing, from people I know and trust, for 2020, include: First Cow; The Old Guard; Portrait of a Lady on Fire (technically a 2019 film, but widely available in 2020); Wolfwalkers (animated); Spontaneous; Bacurau; Blow the Man Down. There are lots more, that's just a varied sampling.
Happy Death Day was a great, and unique, idea I loved it. I even thought the second was not bad even if I don’t think they needed to try and explain what was happening scientifically. I forgot about Freaky and will have to watch that.
I actually think TV shows are where good film comes from these days, especially with them not being made for syndication so we now can get 6 episode seasons. Mare of East Town was a great mystery that just came out. It is true that the superhero genre has hijacked a lot of talent.
> People who complain that nothing good is made anymore must just be looking at what's advertised heavily
I can't speak for everyone but I think it's hard to find anything 'fun'. The indie films inevitably seem to be deadly serious, whether it's terrible crimes or failing relationships or the inevitably of death. If a viewer wants 'fun' then they're stuck with formulaic superhero blockbusters.
It feels different. Spielberg was fun, Lucas was fun, Hitchcock was fun. Perhaps they were the outliers even during their times, but it seems like all that sense of adventure has been sucked into the big franchises and mangled into these lowest-common-dementor films. The international market wants big explosions and 'clever' comebacks.
> I can't speak for everyone but I think it's hard to find anything 'fun'. The indie films inevitably seem to be deadly serious, whether it's terrible crimes or failing relationships or the inevitably of death. If a viewer wants 'fun' then they're stuck with formulaic superhero blockbusters.
Yeah, good point. Fun films from the more indie side exist, but they aren't the norm, that's true.
Psycho Goreman is a great example of a mid-budget movie that’s 100% about the fun. The issue really appears to be about movie investors being unwilling to take risks like they used to, which makes sense given investor sentiments as a whole across the past several decades leaning more and more conservative as wealth loss protection is a requirement, which removes a lot of creative room for new IPs.
That's a broader cultural issue for all sorts of art today, not a movie specific thing.
The depressed/angry mood has been building for a couple decades or more, and getting more widespread. Even something intentionally over the top like Fast and Furious or Marvel has more "serious issue" stuff in many of the installments from the last 5 years than previously.
It's easier in the news to see all the bad stuff that used to get hidden behind the scenes, so until something happens about that or people just tired of seeing it both in the news and in art, I imagine it'll be here for a little longer.
That's an interesting point. Certainly the zeitgeist among the millennials seems to be that things are bad and they are only going to get worse. Maybe Star Wars seems hopelessly optimistic since civilizations will implode well before they invent hyperdrives.
It’s really difficult to make a successful movie nowadays when you need to appeal to multiple different cultures at the same time. The depressed/angry mood is simply easier on the artist because it’s universal by default.
It sticks around until people get bored of it and studios move on for a while. Only to circle back in a few year and try again.
The depressed/angry mood has been building for a couple decades or more, and getting more widespread.
You can see this a lot in comedy. Comedy used to be mostly about humor, with occasional social commentary. Now it's largely about anger and shock value. "Comedians" are targeting the same brain patterns as social media.
I think that's a reason that people like Jim Gaffigan find such a strong following. There's a good number of people who are just burned out on the outrage industry treadmill.
It's a slowly escalating 45-minute rant, but I think that this quote from toward the end summarizes it fairly well: "I'm admittedly a little tired of seeing heroes always surrounded by worlds of gray, because, if they're there long enough, they start to feel kind of gray, too."
I haven't ever seen the Errol Flynn version of Robin Hood, but I suppose my equivalent is that, as far as I'm concerned, Batman peaked with the TV show in the 1960s. It wasn't just colorful, it was legitimately fun. To the point where even the bad episodes were good. The Tim Burton movies were also a bit like that. They were visually dark, sure, but that was Tim Burton's aesthetics, and it was a package deal that came together with at least a few glimmerings of that same twisted sense of humor that got him fired from Disney for making Frankenweenie.
Since then, though? It's a bunch of increasingly sad movies by apparently sad people whose creative drive seems to primarily come from the desire to demonstrate to themselves and everyone else that they are Grown Ups, and who are too busy Taking Their Jobs Seriously to have any fun at work. And so they're working so hard that, even though what they're producing is technically classified as entertainment, the end result is so joyless that watching it ends up feeling, at least to me, like work.
I think the simple answer is that movies tend to reflect the world around them. Not to get too political on HN but I think no matter your political stripes we can agree that the general mood of the country has been not great since at least 2015 or so. You could argue that means we need more escapism, not less, but somehow that doesn't happen.
I think it goes both ways. The stories we tell reflect our thinking, and our thinking is shaped by the stories we tell.
The cynic in me thinks that another problem is that fun is bad for business. Fun makes people feel good, and people who feel good aren't as likely to engage in retail therapy, and modern movies make a whole lot of money off of merchandising.
I think there is something to what you are saying, and Americans are not feeling as well as the (average) GDP data should indicate compared to the Nordics, but in general data shows we feel fine.
I’ve felt tremendously better since Biden was elected and, as an introvert, the lockdown for the past year and a half has done wonders for my mental health. I’m happy now than I’ve ever been (at least for the past four decades).
> The mass of men lead lives of quiet desperation. What is called resignation is confirmed desperation. From the desperate city you go into the desperate country, and have to console yourself with the bravery of minks and muskrats. A stereotyped but unconscious despair is concealed even under what are called the games and amusements of mankind. There is no play in them, for this comes after work. But it is a characteristic of wisdom not to do desperate things.
It was one of the few Marvel movies that seemed to remember its comic book origins. Quick pace--individual comic issues are short, snappy (not necessarily quippy) dialog--because there isn't space on a comic panel for walls of text, colorful and interesting character designs, and a good dose of humor sprinkled in.
It would probably get old if every Marvel movie were like that, but all in all I think the formula works. Guardians of the Galaxy also did pretty well in this regard, but making most of the characters assholes in one way or another undercut the theme somewhat.
>> They were visually dark, sure, but that was Tim Burton's aesthetics, and it was a package deal that came together with at least a few glimmerings of that same twisted sense of humor that got him fired from Disney for making Frankenweenie.
Heh. Like in Batman Returns were the Penguin yells at Batman: "You're jealous, because I'm a genuine freak and you have to wear a mask!". I loved that bit :)
Danny DeVito, man. A comedian playing a deformed super-villain. That was cinema, once. That was even superhero movies, once.
I remember seeing indie comedies and horrors. I dont think indy implies serious, altrough there are also sad indie movies.
> . If a viewer wants 'fun' then they're stuck with formulaic superhero blockbusters.
I dont think this is true either. The industry producing formulaic is not because it is only way to have fun. If you look at series that came out lately (Money Heist, Westworld ... ) they are not formulaic and are fun.
Westworld tied itself in knots trying to "gotcha" the audience. At the end of the day I think a more straightforward storytelling method probably would have worked better.
Westworld was also more or less my serie fatigue point. I was not a big consumer of TV shows and certainly didn't ever binge but nonetheless it was a tipping point.
Seems inevitable that streaming services would cannibalize some of that low-invest fun media. The format is just more relaxed and if I want to see something kinda silly and fun, I'd rather just pop on my TV.
Take this with a grain of salt and bias on my part. But indie movies from my perspective seem to be stuck on the "weird". They have to be "weird" (or "different") otherwise they're not "indie" but rather low-budget "b-movies" that I think everyone despises to some degree. Unless of course they end up being a hit in which case they're cult-classics.
Interesting observation! I think it's the same with music. I love all kinds of music, from the very weird/experimental to big budget larger than life sounding mainstream productions. Being also a bedroom music producer with limited time, I would love to match these big budget productions, but I don't have the ability to get to that level. So instead of trying to make a weak imitation, it's more fun and rewarding to create something different or weird.
Agreed. 'Indie' = low budget and weird/niche/slightly pretentious/not for me but grudging respect for it; 'B' = low budget and I think it's bad; 'cult' = low budget and I think it's good.
It's not obvious that one would rather apply 'cult' than 'independent' to something one likes, but there we go, language!
For anyone looking for a fun and surprisingly heartwarming indie gem, I can highly recommend 2017's One Cut of the Dead [1]. Budget: $25,000. Worldwide box office: $31,200,000.
Harry Potter is my favorite book series in terms of personal enjoyment and memories, and one I re read every so often still. Is the author really cancelled if I’ve never heard about it?
I’m going to assume Rowling isn’t “cancelled”, but has a strong tiny population very upset at her. That’s usually how it goes for most “cancelled” people who aren’t already pretty old and retired instead of trying to continue in any limelight.
That's probably the prime demonstration of the sillinr
ess of cancel culture complaints; yes, people have criticized Rowling's gender essentialist views, but she clearly has not been, in any meaningful sense, “cancelled”.
There was a thread[1] earlier in the week lamenting how tough it is to make modern comedies. Between the Twitter mobs scrutinizing anything for insensitivity and the need to appeal to international markets, it's really hard to come up with a universally funny and PC-acceptable comedy anymore. You can't do slapstick or silliness. You can't (even gently) poke fun at "groups" anymore. Best you can do is a cynical "dark comedy" that provides awkward discomfort and doesn't actually make you laugh.
If you cater to the international market (“make everyone happy”). The you’ll inevitably end up with cookie cutter inoffensive garbage like we’re spewing out now. Get a few reliable IPs and milk them for all they’re worth.
If I think about some indie blockbuster comedies none of them really did anything that would get the Twitter crowd going crazy. Napoleon Dynamite and Super Troopers for example I could see being hits today
Comedies are supposed to be mid-low budget affairs. They are supposed to be able to ignore the international market because they can make a profit on just the domestic audience.
This sort of ties in with what a previous poster was saying about the mid-budget movies disappearing because the money flows to the top and the bottom end is full of recently graduated art students trying to out-serious one another.
And if you are familiar with the show, they are not prejudiced at all. But whoever chose to remove them is doing the "cover your ass" move, so I can certainly see some merit in what ryandrake is saying.
Thanks for that, I've been watching through the whole lot while indoor cycling (I started to see what the fuss was about, so I have to finish now, but it's not really my sort of thing so I watch it when I can't pay full attention to whatever I watch) on Netflix and noticed some gaps compared to my tracker app. One of them was that 'takes out the trash' episode, so must be the same (link is about Hulu).
I really don't like this trend. Honestly, satire or not. Rate it appropriately, and let me decide what I'm comfortable viewing? It just seems petty and mollycoddling to prevent me watching something because at some point within it something that may or may not be offensive to me or others happens.
I actually don't even understand the reasoning? Do the producers request it to protect the reputation of the programme, perceiving it as a risk?
Like the other said, Sunny is long running. Curb, South Park are around too. I’m sure there’s more. This is off top of my head fav shows that aren’t abiding by what you’re saying are the rules now.
Community, IASIP, and 30 rock had shows that were removed by their rights holders from streaming or digital purchasing options last year, and still remain unavailable.
The fact that almost every IASIP is up is much more of an indicator than a few eps not being up. Same with South Park. Community snd 30 Rock aren’t controversial shows so they shouldn’t be grouped with the first two.
Men In Black, Shazam, Charlie's Angels, Jumanji, Murder Mystery, Big Time Adolescence, Scary Stories To Tell In The Dark, Good Boys, Weathering With You, Doom Annihilation...
The last good American indie film I've watched was Hereditary (2018) [1] and before that 'Blue Ruin' (2013) [2].
They weren't exceptional but when you're awash in 'swords & sandals', 'comic book' crap and Adam Sandler formula-thons, even middling fare seem great.
On the TV front, True Detective Season 2 [3] is sorely underrated. Though fictional, it gives you a glimpse into the many possible dimensions of California graft and corruption that are all too close to real life developments surrounding the recent California High-Speed Rail mismanagement junket [4].
I agree with the sentiment expressed in this thread that well-financed, movies for adults with good casting and talented filmmakers have become very scarce.
Go back and watch films from the early 70s - the comedies are farcically stupid and the serious films are violent and paranoid, because between Vietnam, Watergate, and other political issues, its was a tough time and people were angry, disillusioned, and pessimistic. Spielberg's first commercial film Duel is a very fine piece of cinema but it's far from being 'fun.' Likewise Lucas' early work like THX1138 or American Graffiti is shot through with anxiety about the future and lost innocence. Hitchcock could do great screwball comedies but he alternated them with nightmarish vortexes on taboo subjects.
What you want are optimistic films where people get into trouble but keep their sense of humor and eventually bounce back. That requires a social and cultural environment, and a showbusiness industry, in which people can do the same. Have you heard many stories lately where a talented director goes way over budget or even bombs but makes a great comeback because people are forgiving and want to support a real artist? You have not, because the arts are heavily professionalized these days and computers have made accountants very powerful.
It quotes a (clearly a bit exaggerated for effect, at the low end) range of $500,000-$80,000,000 as "mid budget", and gives examples of the category including Blue Velvet, The Godfather, and Hairspray.
It's not that no films are made in that range anymore, just that it's much harder to find financing for a project in that range for a film intended for wide release and any amount of promotion. The money guys want a nothing-budget movie that might become a hit (the startup model), or huge can't-lose projects with likely outcomes that don't include a loss, or not much of one (the formulaic international-friendly [by which I mean China-friendly] action blockbuster that everyone seems to hate, but that nonetheless consistently make piles of money)
It quotes a bunch of mid-budget directors complaining about this, some leaving filmmaking entirely because their options seem to be to go back to making shoestring-budget movies like they did when they were starting out, or start working on projects they don't like (huge-budget films), aside from self-financing. They seem to be concerned about how the next generations of directors will develop their careers, without stable financing for directors who've "made it" but don't want to make Marvel movies and such—IMO we're probably heading back to something resembling the studio system, largely, so the era of lots of Important Directors who Really Matter may be on its way out, anyway, at least for a while.
[EDIT] Also, searching things like "the death of the mid-budget film" turns up tons of material like this.
Moreso than it's production cost (though that's a big part of it) a mid-budget is a hollywood-level (full production and cast) movie that does not attempt to be all things to all people. This could be something like a romantic comedy, a medium-scale character study or a high-concept scifi - something that costs say 40 million to make, returns 80 million and is never intended to be a blockbuster.
Lots of reasons why they are less common. One is absolutely that more and more, TV is able to serve as well or better in the mid-budget role, the quality of TV has vastly improved in the last 20 years. Studios are less interested in investing 40 million to double their money and would rather risk hundreds of millions on the chance to make billions.
The good news is that an indie film on zero budget from the 90s was much more technologically limited than it is today, so access to fancy cameras matters less than it did then, and it lets talent shine more.
How do I find these movies? Amazon has some old, mostly low quality movies, but nothing good or recent. They got rid of the criterion collection years ago. Sincere question: How does one even find or acquire films today? I’d love to watch a movie, but literally don’t know how to go about it anymore. Netflix is not an answer as most of their content are not movies and basically spam to me.
Amazon has tons of movies but many of them you have to buy/rent a la carte. At least in the US, there's Red Box for mostly recent films. You can also subscribe to Netflix' DVD service--although their back catalog isn't as good as it used to be.
The TCM channel does a good job of organizing films into categories. I've been watching their Film Noir picks every Saturday night. Lots of fun movies I never knew existed.
justwatch.com lets you search and discover what services have what movies.
Alternatively, DIY. As streaming became more popular, optical media and hard drives became far more cheap. Over the last 10-15 years I've ended up with more than 500 movies, all of which I own legally and most of which cost me $5 or less. They get to all of my devices through Plex (I used to use Kodi, which is fine over a LAN if that's all you care about).
A significant number of them aren't available for streaming anywhere at the moment, and plenty more would require obscure services I don't feel a need to pay for. It was a gradual upfront cost, but not that extravagent compared to the cost of paying for a couple of streaming services over that time - to say nothing of the 6-10 I'd have to subscribe to to actually have access to all of it.
In addition to the criterion channel, already mentioned, try MUBI [1]. It’s a cinephile’s dream: a film discovery nearly everyday while also curating the great directors.
One can also find very interesting stuff on YouTube, depending on how good your search skills are, I know that at the start of the pandemic I had discovered a user who was uploading Italian western spaghetti movies in HD format. I think I might also have found something similar for Hong Kong wuxia movies from the 1960s and 1970s but I'm not sure.
Your local library probably has tons of DVD and Blu-Ray discs (and librarians who can provide recommendations), and maybe free access to an app like Hoopla with classic/highbrow movies.
My wife and I used to buy a DVD in the second-hand books/new dvd's shop round the corner every Friday for a Friday-night movie viewing. He knew our tastes -- it must be sweet, funny with a happy ending and no adultery or rape -- but the shop closed.
We regularly ask each other "Where's Roman Holiday but with a cute girl instead of Gregory Peck. Audrey Hepburn can stay."? Why all the drama in movies these days? We just wanna see two girls kiss and walk away in the twilight, hand-in-hand. But all we get is drama like Ammonite.
Why isn't there yet a Poser or Daz3D/Blender/MakeHuman/$GAME_ENGINE that combined makes it easy for people to tell tales as movies yet? It should be possible to put everything together in an interface that even a movie producer could understand, which would make it a doddle for ordinary people.
> Why isn't there yet a Poser or Daz3D/Blender/MakeHuman/$GAME_ENGINE that combined makes it easy for people to tell tales as movies yet? It should be possible to put everything together in an interface that even a movie producer could understand, which would make it a doddle for ordinary people.
Okay, seriously? That's a really good idea right there. I personally would lean towards Blender + Godot game engine for such a project, but I'm just hugely in favor of open source in general, so… The thing to make such a tool useful though would be an easily accessible library of actors (character models), animation/movement presets/prefab library, scenery and set dressing, and an interface to tie it all together in a way "which would make it a doddle for ordinary people" as you say. I could see something like that bein' a huge boon for "storyteller" types to get a good start in the media creation arena though.
Yes, right? We've got pretty much all the tech for that, it only needs to be joined up and made accessible. Of course, it would be simple at first, but improveed on later.
And of course, that library... That would be a source of _real_ money.
Friendly plug for kanopy.com. Amazing, changing collection and likely free signup and streaming (monthly-refreshing limit) with your local library card (:
Also/or, your library may give you access to a similar service called Hoopla. I have access to both via my local library, and I find Kanopy’s selection (and picture quality) somewhat better, especially for foreign (non—USA) content.
I never understood this complaint. There are dozens and dozens of recent, popular (good is subjective) movies on the front page of Amazon, Netflix and HBO Max right now.
> Then there's "it's all remakes now"—but 1) it's not,
It really is, if by "remake" you mean all ways of leveraging existing IP. Here are the top ten box office films of 2020:
* Bad Boys for Life (sequel)
* Sonic the Hedgehog (videogame)
* Birds of Prey (comic book)
* Dolittle (book)
* The Invisible Man (book)
* The Call of the Wild (book)
* Onward (original)
* The Croods: A New Age (sequel)
* Tenet (original)
* Wonder Woman 1984 (sequal, comic book)
Two originals. Now go back 20 years:
* Mission: Impossible 2 (sequel)
* Gladiator (book)
* Cast Away (original)
* What Women Want (original)
* Dinosaur (original)
* How the Grinch Stole Christmas (book)
* Meet the Parents (remake)
* The Perfect Storm (book)
* X-Men (comic book)
* What Lies Beneath (original)
Four originals. Go back another 10 years:
* Ghost (original)
* Home Alone (original)
* Pretty Woman (original)
* Dances with Wolves (book)
* Total Recall (short story)
* Back to the Future Part III (sequel)
* Die Hard 2 (sequel)
* Presumed Innocent (book)
* Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles (comic book)
* Kindergarten Cop (original)
Five originals. Another ten years to 1980:
* The Empire Strikes Back (sequel)
* 9 to 5 (original)
* Stir Crazy (original)
* Airplane! (original)
* Any Which Way You Can (sequel)
* Private Benjamin (original)
* Coal Miner's Daughter (original)
* Smokey and the Bandit II (sequel)
* The Blue Lagoon (book)
* The Blues Brothers (SNL sketch)
Five originals again. I'm going by top box-office gross here because I think that's a good proxy for what is successful. You can look at other years, but there is a very clear (but not overwhelming) trend towards movies based on familiar content. It's not clear whether studios are leading audiences or vice versa. Probably some iterative process of both.
There's also a clear trend away from dramas. I think that's because drama (and non-slapstick comedies) tend to rely heavily on specific cultural norms for their effect which makes them translate poorly. There is a very clear trend especially in the last decade or so of Hollywood focusing on movies that will also do well in China in particular.
There are a significant number of scenes in Airplane that are directly lifted from Zero Hour. I haven't checked recently, but I think it's almost a scene-for-scene remake in many respects.
On the other hand, would you want to watch another big-budget Harry Potter side story spin-off (Fantastic Beasts), an adaptation of bad or forgettable YA novel franchises (Twilight, Divergent, Percy Jackson), Fifty Shades of Grey, or the umpteenth adaptation of some Jane Austen novel?
Book adaptations themselves are a spectrum of originality and quality.
Let's stop there, but don't assume for a second that all the remakes and sequels are top-loaded - they may dominate the top of the chart but they go pretty far down it too.
Maybe you should go back a few decades until you can find a time when the top 20 were mostly originals. Would have to be before the Star Wars/Jaws blockbuster era, probably.
> People who complain that nothing good is made anymore[0] must just be looking at what's advertised heavily, is all I can figure.
That would be me. I am utterly uninterested in superheroes and found movies I seen last years somewhere between boring repetitive and annoying. Tho I liked parazite and some of other international splash making movies. At minimum they used different tropes.
I have no idea where those fun indie movies are nor how to find them. Like, where should I go to be able to find some I might like?
1) Try film festival schedules or lists-of-what-showed from previous years. Not just Sundance and Cannes and such (though lots of the films shown at those are, in fact, good, so don't not look at those)—if you have any special genre or topic interests, there may be some festivals for them, so look up a few big ones and start browsing. Why previous years? Because those films usually aren't widely available the same year they're in festivals, and you'll get the benefit of reviews, if you don't want to just start blindly watching anything that looks interesting.
2) There are niche streaming services that specialize in genres, or in indie + international, films, which are great for finding all kinds of wonderful things you'd never have known about otherwise. mubi.com, for instance, features those sorts of films from all years, including recent ones. Shudder is a streaming service for horror films (horror is downright rich these days—I can provide lots of strong, varied recommendations from the last few years, if you're into that kind of thing). Stuff like that. Really, just look up lists of video streaming services and take a glance at the catalogues of any you've not heard of.
Oh no, I was afraid someone would take me up on that! Hahaha.
No particular order. Since 2010ish. Not an exhaustive list of all good horror in that time frame.
- You're Next. It's a trad home-invasion/slasher kinda thing but... then changes genre. I'll leave it at that.
- Cabin in the Woods. Needs no introduction? Solid humor-horror.
- Evil Dead. The soft reboot. Pretty good for the kind of thing it is, which is an Evil Dead-type movie, of course.
- The Babadook. Great horror for people who like to be scared but don't want gore. Extremely efficient use of a tiny cast and very few locations.
- It Follows. A core concept that's creepy as hell, and some damn fine imagery that will stick with you. Lots of moody, slow-paced (but good!) scenes but... it does follow. Unsubtly very much about the harmful aspects of sex and sexual behavior.
- The Witch (or, The VVitch, as it's styled). If you like frontier-type stuff, with period-accurate dialog, plus horror, this will very likely be up your alley. Nb that here "frontier" means "New England, probably just a few miles in from the coast", not, like, the "Old West".
- Bone Tomahawk. Action-horror that is set in the Old West. Not exactly a piece of fine film-making but it pretty much does exactly what it sets out to do, and does it well, which makes it a success in my book.
- The Void. Carpenteresque creature work and Lovecraftian baddies. Excellent example of a throwback horror movie that aims to feel like it was made in another decade.
- The Girl with all the Gifts. Some people liked this a lot more than I did, so I'm including it. I thought it was just OK. Basically a zombie movie, kinda.
- Krampus. I'm not usually into Christmas-horror, which tends to be sub-b-grade garbage and otherwise just isn't to my taste, but watched this because I kept seeing it recommended, and... wow, it's actually good. Careful that you get the right film, there are a bunch with similar titles and I'd guess most of them are terrible. This is the 2015 one directed by Dougherty.
- Get Out. I'd call it just OK (I don't... think I was supposed to find as much if it laugh-out-loud funny in the final act, as I did?) but accept that I'm probably wrong about that, given the overwhelmingly-positive reaction.
- Train to Busan. Maybe my favorite zombie-hoards type of movie I've seen.
- Sorry to Bother You. If you like genre-bending and lots of absurdism in your horror, this one's for you.
- Happy Death Day. Slasher x Ground Hog Day, with that concept explored for just about all it's worth. Relatively light-hearted (it'd almost have to be) but not without tension. Sequel's less good—not awful, but a big step down. Same director made a similar film, "Freaky", that's another mash-up concept, and is quite good.
- It Comes at Night. Uh... if you really like movies that make you kinda wish you'd never watched them, not because of, say, realistic gore, but because they sorta make your soul hurt, this is a very good movie of that kind. But maybe don't, though?
- One Cut of the Dead. Brilliant concept, fun throughout. Not in any sense a traditional zombie movie, and I would 100% recommend it to people who usually don't like zombie movies. Don't spoil it, go in as cold as possible. It's one that is much better if you know almost nothing about it before you start.
- Game Night. Horror-adjacent, at least. Not amazing but another one that I watched after being repeatedly assured by many people that it was much better than it looked like it would be (it looked pretty bad), and it was.
- Hereditary. I hated this one but it's another where my opinion is way, way in the minority. Lots of people love it.
- Colour out of Space. If you can tolerate, or actually enjoy, Nic Cage, and like Lovecraftian horror, this is worth a watch. Good FX work.
Find someone who is more into movies than you are and talk to them regularly. :)
I got introduced to a bunch last year by making the acquaintance of a film grad student who ran a movie club that met via Discord every Saturday night to discuss a film of the week.
I think this could also probably be approximated by finding someone into film on social media, or watching entries accepted into well-regarded film festivals, or if you happen to have an active mom & pop video store in your area, talking with the clerks.
I use Letterboxd. Its pretty easy to get started, look up a bunch of movies you know you like, read some of the reviews, follow some people who seem like they know movies and would be into interesting stuff, and then see what comes your way.
Hollywood started churning out tons of remakes about as early in their history as they possibly could, and never stopped.
Very true. From the 1930's until now, the percentage of Hollywood films that aren't recreations of an earlier film, a book, or a play is vanishingly small.
To be sure, there is still a good number of original films, even big-name ones, but those are very few and far between.
Broadway celebrates revivals, but Hollywood is almost ashamed of remakes. There's a Tony award for best revival, but only a Raspberry for worst remake.
Both are a form of unoriginal profiteering, on at least a business level. Maybe it's the permanence of a film compared to the ephemerality of a live performance, but the vast difference in how they're received has always bugged me.
I won't. I am from Czechia and maybe the culture here was different, but it used to be that movie theaters were somewhat like a normal theater, where you are supposed to be mostly quiet, behave, and not eat and litter during the show.
But modern multiplexes have changed that etiquette, and it's hard for me to stand it. And the advertisements...
Historically in US movie theaters, there's so much popcorn grease and spilled soda on the floor that your shoes actually get stuck to it while you're watching the movie.
EDIT: Wow downvotes? It's true! Maybe they mop them now but back when Diller was in the movie business, your shoes actually did get stuck to the floor because of all the spilled snacks. I haven't been to a movie theater in many years, but the grime was an essential part of the experience. Someone should open a throwback 80s theater.
Indeed, I'd argue a good chunk of the experience came from the respect and reverence the audience had to the occasion. Not unlike in a church, or kind of like a primal gathering around the fire, except this time around the projections of the "magic lantern".
But the god of consumption got jealous and demanded we got things (snacks and movies alike) through our system as fast as possible while making him the maximum dime.
There’s a cinema in Malmö, Sweden called “Spegeln” (meaning: Mirror in Swedish) which exemplifies the cinema experience for me. I would hate to lose it.
> It makes me feel like a grouch to complain about the uber-popular, widely loved thing but this intertwined superhero universe exhausts me. I don't want to have to watch three previous movies and two TV shows to fully enjoy the movie that's in front of me. So I watch a lot more limited series TV instead... and maybe that's just fine?
To me, this is like complaining that you don't want to have to read the Fellowship of the Ring to fully enjoy the Return of the King.
Almost nobody expects their "cotton candy" entertainment to require that level of effort regularly. It's fine if a small handful of things based on prior art ("Return of the King") are around; healthy even. When that's all there is, though, that seems like a problem.
> Almost nobody expects their "cotton candy" entertainment to require that level of effort regularly.
Most people love continuations of prior art. The vast majority of people have no problem watching a few films per year, and consider it a luxury, not an effort. People love seeing their favorite characters reappear and have done so long before film.
> When that's all there is, though, that seems like a problem.
> "These streaming services have been making something that they call 'movies,' " he said. "They ain't movies. They are some weird algorithmic process that has created things that last 100 minutes or so."
Funny. That would be my description of the block buster action films since "Raiders of the Lost Ark".
I soured on the superhero franchise business due to a combination of factors (the out of character Man of Steel, that first boilerplate Thor film, the ghastly Green Lantern, and finally reading Worm made everything else seem shallow by comparison) and have stepped back to look at it as an industry in a kind of spiral of intolerance to risk.
They want product, they want it on a pipeline, they want guaranteed returns and they do not want to gamble about it. This has been true for a long time but we're seeing a difference of degree here. Movie production is not merely evolving but speciating -- and I think the new species is going to look like a subscription streaming service (with tie-in product) that releases dopamine-tweaking algorithmic product on the kind of tick-tock schedule for which Intel longs.
> they want guaranteed returns and they do not want to gamble about it
This is how Hollywood is. It's the same as Silicon Valley. They don't want to gamble if they don't have to, they both just want as much money as possible.
> And I think that's correct. Superhero blockbusters taking over all box office receipts was one thing, but now those blockbusters are becoming deeply tied to streaming services like Disney+ that's bringing content into people's homes and away from movie theatres.
What's interesting is that the industry has repeatedly been broken up due to antitrust & anti-competition issues. It will be interesting to see how things stand in 10-15 years; will consolidation eventually bring government action or do we now accept 3-4 major players as being sufficient competition.
> I don't want to have to watch three previous movies and two TV shows to fully enjoy the movie that's in front of me.
I feel like I “missed” the beginning of all the super hero franchises and, even though I’m sure I’d enjoy them, I’m just not interested because getting caught up enough to understand what’s going on in the newer films feels like such a daunting undertaking.
At the start of the pandemic I thought maybe I’d finally watch them all only to find out there isn’t even really an agreed upon order they should be watched!
It’s an odd and (I think) new phenomenon: that someone can lack the prerequisites to watch a movie. Even worse: no one can quite agree on what exactly those prerequisites are.
> It’s an odd and (I think) new phenomenon: that someone can lack the prerequisites to watch a movie.
There’s nothing new about sequels and movie series. The only difference with Marvel movies might be that they are a lot of films and they tend to be some of the most popular films.
> Even worse: no one can quite agree on what exactly those prerequisites are.
Fans might enjoy discussing nuances of different viewing orders, but I think it’s pretty undeniable that you can’t go too wrong watching them in the order they were released.
> I don't want to have to watch three previous movies and two TV shows to fully enjoy the movie that's in front of me.
I recently started watched Loki on Disney+, 3 episodes in, I still have no idea who Loki is, where he comes from, what his intentions are and what he is capable of...
Same problem with WandaVision. I agree, it's exhausting.
Those shows most definitely assume prior knowledge of the universe. That said, having avoided "superhero movies" for years (due to not being impressed with random one-offs that I watched), I finally bit the bullet and watched the whole set in order with my kids and it made a huge difference, with enormous payoff in Infinity War and Endgame. FWIW, I think both WandaVision and Loki are fantastic.
When was the last great comedy movie you've seen in the movie theatres? I posed this question to my buddies and we were genuinely stumped. For me it was probably early 2000s, but nothing in the last 15 years that's for sure.
When’s the last time your “list of great comedy movies” got a new entry, regardless of whether you saw the new entry in the cinema or even if it was a new film at the time you saw it?
Every couple of years? But I do think the frequency of straight up comedies being produced is dwindling, and aren't popular enough to go to a movie theatre for.
For me, comedies are so much a matter of personal taste that I’m generally not interested in seeing them in the theater unless it’s with a group of friends or I feel like I have reasonable expectations that I will like the movie a lot. They’re not really like superhero or action movies where I can be pretty good at guessing whether I’ll like the film.
Hollywood's biggest film have always been adaptations of existing material. Some of the most regarded films of all time, like the Wizard of Oz, Gone with the Wind, the Godfather, Lawrence of Arabia, and Chinatown, are themselves merely adaptations of books.
> ...though I hope places emulate the likes of Alamo Drafthouse and do dinner, drinks and let us make an evening out of watching a movie...
I have a suspicion that this is the direction surviving movie theatre chains will move toward.
Something that hasn't been remarked on too much but that I think might be significant is that a long-standing antitrust regulation that prevented movie studios (the "Paramount Decree") from owning their own theatre chains was sunsetted in August 2020, which means that starting in August 2022 studios can start running their own theatres again -- and I think that's very likely to happen. Disney won't just tie their blockbusters to Disney+, they'll tie them Disney-owned theatres that provide theme park like experiences. Other studios will join in on this.
> It makes me feel like a grouch to complain about the uber-popular, widely loved thing but this intertwined superhero universe exhausts me. I don't want to have to watch three previous movies and two TV shows to fully enjoy the movie that's in front of me.
Despite mostly really enjoying said superhero universe, I've been feeling that recently, too. I can't help but suspect this has a point of diminishing returns; next year we're going to be entering a "phase" of the MCU that's going to build not only on the past twenty-odd movies but now the past Disney+ streaming shows.
Sure, the _amount_ of content has grown given the lowered technological barrier for entry and the ease of distribution but content quality isn't some finite resource that is spread out within some limit. If anything, more content means more opportunities for truly great stories to come from corners of the world that might not have previously had that opportunity due to any number of reasons.
Plus, these channels have opened up more categories of film to wider audiences. Big budget, full length films and multi-season tv series aren't the only viable options anymore—some of the most talked about media in my circles over the last couple of years have been limited series. Try dragging a brilliant 8 hour limited series across an entire 23 episode season or trimmed down to a two hour film and it's a completely different story.
Brilliant film makers are still brilliant film makers and the number of studios willing to take a chance and fund them has never been greater. The traditional movie-watching experience is still here, it's just no longer the only option. I don't think declaring the movie business as dead is accurate, it has simply evolved and adapted. But from where I sit, this evolution has just given us more stories and more ways to hear them.
Just because you can distribute a story without a year-long PR blitz doesn't mean you can't tell a good story.
It's unfortunate, but I think he's probably right. Some movies are just better in theater. The experience of watching Mad Max: Fury Road in theater vs at home is a night and day difference.
I agree. No sticky floor, no person behind me that decided to take off their giant winter coat when the movie started (instead of previews), no people ruining my immersion because they have to pull out their pocket PC to address their attention deficit, no large groups of people clapping at every character reveal during a film or audibly cheering on the protagonists, no untrusted heavily farted-in seating, no reduced premium of the experience because big corp decided to save a few bucks by cleaning less, no overpriced concessions, no lines.
What I do miss is "going out" to see a movie. Alamo Drafthouse has a good model that entices "going out" but most chains couldn't shift to adapt to a similar model. Auto-managed streaming quality is something I don't really like either, let me buffer my own selection.
Not having to listen to people eat like pigs during the movie while I'm trying to enjoy being immersed in the audio of the movie (while some guy nearby very loudly assaults a giant bucket of popcorn over the next two hours). Because if they didn't consume two thousand calories during the movie, they might starve, seeing as the US has no other available food options.
The only way a movie theater experience can be consistently great is if you banish all food. Too many people lack even basic manners & consideration for others, they can't be trusted to not be inconsiderate idiots.
I feel like the easier solution is to contain the seating so the noise doesn’t leave the viewers booth. Instead of just a bunch of empty chairs in an auditorium. Then people can be inconsiderate all they want.
I have somewhat mixed feelings about the Alamo Drafthouse type of experience. On the rare occasions I go to a movie theater it's because I want the big immersive experience. If I want food and beer while I watch a film I can do that at home.
Living in an expensive area like Vancouver, a home theater might not be an option. Most of my friends rent a room in a sharehouse where they're not allowed to have guests, or where the TV is a communal area. Others live in basement suites with noise rules and can watch TV by themselves but not with friends. The theatre is much better for watching a movie with a group, unless you're very wealthy.
What I find exhausting is having any systemic criticism of the movie/music industry met with arguments along the lines of: "It was just different, you're merely nostalgic/you have golden age syndrome", and have a hard time answering back with anything except: "It really was better, sometime things do get substantially worse".
While technologically everything has improved, creativity feel like going from the golden age of the greco-roman world to 8th century Europe, where indie bands/movies are like the churches that preserved some measure of past glories. What argument can one make when the burden of proof is to show cultural regression?
I find the cure to this frustration is to accept that everything I love is obsolete and that it's OK. As you say there are historical periods we now look back upon and say objectively they took a step backwards in terms of skill and artistry in many areas. But we don't know if this is that period, because maybe the creativity is shifting into something we can't yet observe clearly.
It's more like, the spotlight has shifted away from the medium and creative people have left. Old movies, like old books, are by definition more important. Looking at the highest grossing movies of the past 2 decades almost all are based on older stories/franchises, from star wars to marvel , to LOTR, to harry potter (newest one).
They're wrong, and the reason they believe it is because they're stuck on older mediums. In music, the radio and the record store defined the market. You had a small window so you invested big and mainstream stuff tended to be pretty good. Now music access is decentralized and you can chase a long tail of niche personal tastes. Music is incredibly healthy right now. There's so much great content going in myriad different directions, but you'd think otherwise if you're only listening to the radio which has tripled down on non-differentiating hyper mainstream blandness.
Movies are largely the same with streaming. The movie theater model is rough. Even before streaming the vast majority of movie tickets go unsold, and to many people there's a sort of social group requirement to justify going there. So you get mass appeal as a requirement. But the actual space of film has more richness than ever before. People who say the only films are marvel films just don't know about the other films being released.
I think both you and the GP are conflating the movie and music industries a little too much, but I agree with your points more. Music is indeed going through a renaissance, and tech has very much helped with discoverability of indie artists. Movies I feel are a different medium as they are more capital and resource-constrained. It's more difficult to cultivate a long tail of indie films that can match those of the blockbusters (whereas music quality between major label and indie is far more fungible).
On the other hand, if one was to lower the definition of "movie" to moving pictures entertainment, there is a bonanza of content on YouTube and other video streaming services. But they are not in the same format of traditional movies.
I'm with you on music, but movies? These streaming services are all making the same type of content, and browsing any streaming service for content just feels like looking at a wall of direct to video films at your local video store from 20 years ago + cable TV shows.
Maybe it's because trying new music is so costless compared to new movies/tv shows and I'm ignorant? Maybe it's because good music can be made for a lot less money? IDK but this hardly feels like the beginning of a golden age of long tail movies.
> What argument can one make when the burden of proof is to show cultural regression?
Maturing industries lose diversity as they trend towards optimization. This is something that is bound to happen regardless of industry. America has far fewer automotive manufactures than it 100 years ago and diversity has suffered; same goes for soda manufactures, etc.
With about any industry, you can gauge how mature it is by the diversity it has achieved. It starts with one or two who demonstrate the viability of the market, then there is an explosion of interest as many people break in, trying different strategies to gain market share, then the few winners consolidate the industry. Sometimes, the big players rest on their laurels and an upstart takes hold, but they are usually acquired by the establishment or their strategy is emulated then they are crushed by the inherent resource imbalance.
The big movie studios know what works and they are going to stick to that. Occasionally a Pixar will come along and disrupt the market, but when that happens, a Disney is going to step in and acquire them and change or adapt their formula to prevent another upstart.
It's hard to refute, cause it really is true that everyone's most instrumental pop culture experiences happened when they were 10-25 years old. I think one thing that is fascinating is how popular iconography and music/films from 20+ years ago still is. Like I see teenagers wearing t-shirts with NOFX or Van Halen on them, instead of Billie Eilish.
Ultimately the post WW2 period was the birth of mass media youth culture, this was a truly revolutionary thing culturally speaking, and everything else has been a series of progressively less meaningful waves as we have 75 years of music/films artfully expressing what it means to be young.
> A few days after the Orange Bowl, I saw the video for Simpson's "La La." In one segment, she wears a vintage Adam and the Ants T-shirt; later, she wears a Motley Crue shirt. I suppose it's theoretically possible that Ashlee Simpson honestly likes those bands. But within the context of this video, her identification with them does not feel remotely organic; it feels like somebody put a lot of thought into whom Ashlee should align herself with. All young artists do this, but some are less subtle than others. I once saw singer/songwriter Leona Naess perform in Cleveland wearing a ZZ Top T-shirt. "I don't even know who this band is," she said between songs. "I just like this shirt." Naess played Minneapolis on the same tour, but this time she wore an Aerosmith T-shirt. "I don't even know who this band is," she said between songs. "I just like this shirt." Obviously, this was an attempt at cultural positioning: Leona Naess wanted to appear like the kind of girl who (somehow) had never heard of ZZ Top and Aerosmith, just as Ashlee Simpson wants to appear like the kind of girl who's intimately aware of Motley Crue and Adam Ant. Yet both artists failed in their attempts, and that's because even a child could tell they were trying way too hard. And people hate that.
Throughout the COVID-19 restrictions, I've been writing little games that run on the Nintendo 64. I was born in the early 1990s and liked to play video games as a child, so the platform has some nostalgia now that I'm older.
What's surprised me though is the amount of times I've received questions from teenagers about how to make Nintendo 64 games. Given their ages, I would have thought something like the Nintendo DS might have been more interesting to them.
It reminded me of when Nintendo was marketing repackaged 1980s NES games to me as a child. [1] I remember being interested in them partially because of being exposed to nostalgia from others online. Part of me wonders if a bit of institutional momentum can help give a brand more of an edge for some audiences.
> What argument can one make when the burden of proof is to show cultural regression?
First, you will need to give examples of what kind of movies you find "creative" that were done in the past and there is no current equivalent for that level of creativity.
"Jojo Rabbit", "Parasite", "Blade Runner 2049", "Coco", "Lady Bird", "Arrival", "The Nice Guys", ... that is the past 5 years with one almost missing because the pandemic. Is any of that any good for you?
What do you think that it was so creative in the past and has no comparation today?
It is a sequel, but it's really good, with the caveat that it could have stood to have a ruthless studio executive insist the director cut at least thirty minutes. :)
We’ve got a family love of the Fast and Furious movies - we got a big group to go see it yesterday. The movie is awful, it could be my last experience ever in a theatre.
We're arguably repeating history, where 100 years ago film was the upstart (but rapidly growing) business and vaudeville was the established incumbent. Film offered far more creative possibilities and were dramatically more immersive than the entertainment it replaced.
Today the film industry is the incumbent - profits have peaked, and the upstart video game business has already eclipsed it. Once again, video games have far more creative possibilities and are dramatically more immersive than the films they're replacing.
It's true, and yet even with a lot of people not being gamers[1]:
> Global videogame revenue is expected to surge 20% to $179.7 billion in 2020, according to IDC data, making the videogame industry a bigger moneymaker than the global movie and North American sports industries combined.
So the fact that there are still lots of people who aren't gamers just means that the video game industry has plenty of room for growth.
I'm an avid gamer, but video games are in no position to replace films. The mediums are fundamentally different. A film is a story being told. A videogame is a template to explore your own story, some more filled out than others.
If you want to merely argue that video games will win the battle for people's time I could see that. My guess is movies will be like books; maybe not the biggest kid on the block, but eternally popular. You can't say that for vaudeville.
a gaming system is much more expensive than a dvd player so i can't ever see it becoming the norm. there's also the problem of having to upgrade your system every 10 or so years and your old games possibly not working on the new system
I think "Movies", as we remember them from the decades of yore, will have a resurgence in the near future due to 2 things:
1) The demand for movies outside of what the streaming services are making.
2) Most aspects of movie production go completely digital to bring costs down astronomically.
The easiest way to embrace digital is to just make an animated movie that looks animated with some interesting cool art style / rendering techniques. Maybe the boomer generation doesn't respond well to animation, but Gen X and Millennials are fine with it.
Otherwise, just look at The Mandalorian for an example of what they've been able to do digitally. A huge huge huge Unreal Engine powered screen, instead of your typical green screen. It is linked to the camera so you get proper depth and angles as the camera moves. The lighting is realistic since the screen is actually shooting light onto the actors and props. And the director can see the composition of the shot in real time.
As more aspects of production will go digital like this, costs will go way down. And hopefully we can have our "movies" again =)
Which will impact the QUANTITY of movies produced, but not necessarily the QUALITY. Granted, there's always been B-movies (and D-list actors), but surfacing interesting storytelling is going to be harder, the more we create.
What I'm saying is that A list people will use these same techniques to make QUALITY movies at a budget that makes it economically viable to release to a smaller streaming audience.
> Which will impact the QUANTITY of movies produced, but not necessarily the QUALITY.
Absolutely.
We have a signal/noise issue. We need to figure out how to find the signal.
I think one of the issues we really need to come to terms with is our absolute overReliance on algorithmic recommendations when it comes to completely subjective areas like film, music, fashion, food, art, etc… We’re just unable to reduce these things to algorithmic recommendations without the content being… algorithmic.
When discussing this I have to often repeat to people, I’m absolutely not a luddite–I work, live, and breathe-in technology. I firmly believe science and technology are part of the key fundamentals to carry us forward. However, one area where I consistently get much better results is when these things are recommended by other humans. It really is no contest in how much better human curation is when it comes to recommendations.
Obviously untested and obviously just pulling numbers out, but for me, I think algorithmic recommendations are just plain wrong about 95% of the time. Friend’s recommendations are close/spot-on about 75+% of the time. And human curation (from online reviews, real life DJs, critics, etc…) are decent maybe 60+% of the time. Far better results from humans.
I think you’re correct that we’ll have a lot more quantity and we’re going to need human curation in there if we have any hope for the quality to gain footholds, to find the signal in the ever growing noise.
I can understand most of Dillers complains but not this one:
"These streaming services have been making something that they call 'movies,' " he said. "They ain't movies. They are some weird algorithmic process that has created things that last 100 minutes or so."
I'd like to know why he disparages writers and directors who work on streaming movies this way and if it has any validity
>A team of scientists from the Spanish universities of Granada (UGR) and Cádiz (UCA) has designed the first computer system to help screenwriters write movie scripts that will do better at the box office, a model that makes use of artificial intelligence techniques to analyze the most successful clichés or tropes.
Interesting. I thought something like this was going on. I remember remarking to a friend that I got the feeling from some shows that the screenwriters had help from AI. The plots of some were at the same time more complex but had weird twists the people normally wouldn't think of. I am also not surprised the AI is mining TV Tropes. Now I think Diller is right that there is some "They are some weird algorithmic process" going on, but I rather like it. It's less formulaic.
These services have made some truely great movies possible and surely they offer a lot more opportunities for the arts. People like to complain that every netflix production is like the other when in reality they just refuse to make an effort to find the good stuff and take some minor risk of failure along the way.
I think this interview that gets at a broader point that I find depressing/scary: that the availability of so much data and analysis has ended up "quantizing" creative endeavors to the point where formulaic output is just much, much easier, and that any truly innovative or "misunderstood" productions become much harder to sustain.
I really see this issue everyone nowadays, from movies, TV and music to things like the Olympics. Two good examples: to fix problems with subjectivity and unfairness (which were definitely problems) both gymnastics and ice skating moved from 'fuzzier' 10.0 or 6.0 scales to a 'code of points' model where every element has a fixed value. The result has been that the types of competitors that can win in this model are only the ones that can do the most impressive spins/turns/jumps etc. I mean, I'd be willing to be that you will never again see a 2x "women's" olympic figure skating champion, because you have these young teenagers doing quads now (who almost always lose this ability as they age and develop), but who retire from the sport before they hit 20. These feats are surely impressive, but they also crowd out other types of competitors.
Those sports you mention like figuring skating and gymnastics already have execution scores 'style' if you will built in.
Personally, I have the opposite opinion. I prefer sports that are more quantified on difficulty alone (and the obvious 1st to finish). Looking at execution is one thing, like taking a step is clearly not as skilled as sticking it no debate there. But judging how pretty something is just doesn't seem fair to me nor personally as interesting as throwing hard skills.
Gymnastics in particular grinds me in that they have a lot of silly rules AND they actively decrement leading edge hard skills point value!
I mean, I don't totally disagree with you when it comes to sports, but e.g. then they should just get rid of the name "artistic gymnastics", get rid of the silly music, and just call it tumbling. Figure skating is probably more difficult to fix, but even there I'd prefer the simple fix of having "girl's" figure skating (say 18 and under) and women's figure skating separated. The current rulebook makes it nearly impossible to be competitive at a top level once someone develops breasts and hips.
yes! 1000% i'm totally on board with that change in gymnastics.
Age is an interesting point too. I don't know how I feel about that idea.
Though I do like that there are non-elite competitions (but still like .1% level..) with age groupings by decades that we can still fight in as we get older.
My sport is climbing. Like a lot of sports now it too has become a youthful competition (though you can be nearly 40 and still be world class on real rocks).
maybe because the type of climbing that competition climbing has morphed into (think jumping, parkour) is more gymnastic!
95% of the elite competitors are very young.
But maybe it's just because the crop of competitors my age didn't grow up with that style and we'll see today's competitors who did grow up learning it stay competitive longer.
Cinema during WW2 and the 15 years that followed was almost all cookie-cutter nonsense. For the handful of classics that we can tick off on our fingers today, there were dozens of stinkers.
Instead of computerized algorithms, they had fat walrus-like algorithms wearing well-tailored suits, big waistlines and stubby cigars trying to make the same picture over and over again (Grace Kelly, Liz Taylor, Lauren Bacall, Rita Hayworth, Bridgette Bardot, Veronica Saint, Jane Mansfield vs Marilyn Monroe, Cary Grant vs Rock Hudson, etc.).
There is always money in capturing trends, and there will always be independent cinema. Lynch, Jones, Almodovar, Coppola (both), and new emerging stars will always find benefactors to make outstanding films for every 12 Marvel/DC stinkers modern hollywood craps out.
Yup, the classics always get more attention in retrospect because they're the ones that survive. If all the superhero stuff is depressing remember that from the invention of cinema until New Hollywood in the 70's every third piece of entertainment (if not more) was a western/cowboy movie/show.
I have no clue how they're making money on these movies that are going straight to streaming platforms?
With a movie releasing in theatres there was a sense of urgency to see it on the big screen with big sound and big lights.
Being able to stream it whenever you want from home now means you never will.
Not sure if any platforms do it already but they should try to create a sense of scarcity by offering only a limited number of opening weekend tickets that you can reserve.
It’s all just investments to reach a subscriber base of X with a retention rate of at least Y by certain dates. If you are ahead or behind adjust your capital spend accordingly.
Don't take the naive position that stock prices are (or should be) directly reflective of the value of a company's business. They aren't. Stock prices are defined by what people are willing to pay for them. In the case of AMC, the price is higher because some retail investors are willing to invest in the hope that they will be able to squeeze the shorts.
Fundamentals are great, but as the old saying goes: the market can remain irrational longer than you can remain solvent.
Through my work, I have access to Placer.ai, which allows me to track foot traffic to any retail location or chain via visitors' cellphone GPS. Here's AMC's nationwide foot traffic from January 2017 through July 4, 2021.
Placer is able to track cell phones that have an app installed that uses their SDK. They currently have their SDK in over 500 mobile apps. The data is anonymized, but it would probably shock people how much information I can get from this system. I just pick a location and I can see how many people walked into that location over any time span in the past 4 years, where they live, how much money they make, where else they like to shop, etc. I work in commercial real estate, BTW. We use this software to analyze retail properties.
I’ll go on a limb and say that apps don’t even have to integrate Placer’s sdk directly. If an app uses any monetization/tracking/ad tracking system, that tracking vendor may collect the geo data and then re-sell it to Placer (i.e. talk to Placer via a server to server API to let them know about the end user)
1) A device's location can be guessed with your IP address at the very least.
2) Wifi networks.
On iOS, I'm almost sure that apps cannot access the list of wifi networks that the device sees. As you may know, the list of wifi access point MAC addresses can be used to triangulate a device's geolocation (there was a related case with Google Streets View cars gobbling up that info[0])
On Android, wifi network MAC addresses may be available to apps? Is there a special permission that apps need from the user?
However, I believe connected WiFi information can be obtained on Android without location services enabled.
On iOS, I believe an app needs special permission even to fetch connected WiFi, and I believe you are correct that there is no way to access ambient WiFi scans.
> However, I believe connected WiFi information can be obtained on Android without location services enabled.
Correct, you need the "Access network state" permission (renamed to a more sensible "View network connections" in more recent versions of Android).
However, to my knowledge neither the play store or Android system warn/ask you about this permission so to avoid it you have to explicitly check every app you install.
A few months ago I chose a random set of iOS apps to decompile and view their included libraries. Its amazing how much tracking is going on. One interesting that I recall was a Bluetooth library in a convenience store app. Seems like they had Bluetooth beacons around there store and it would use the phone to track you as you walked through the store.
I recall the CVS app requesting Bluetooth permissions when I installed it. I can imagine them implementing something like this, but couldn't they just passively listen for Bluetooth beacons from people's phones using the devices in the store, without needing the app to be installed on a customers phone?
I suppose I'm not familiar enough with Bluetooth - I figured phones with Bluetooth enabled are constantly sending out some kind of "hello" beacon.
The beacons in the store are pretty dumb, so they can be cheap (on the order of a few dollars each) and plentiful, moving the real logic of tracking to the app.
You're correct in that it could be reversed and the BLE radios in the store could track the phones instead, but then they'd need far more intelligence and network connectivity, which would make them more expensive and in turn they'd be fewer of them deployed.
Source: spent the last few years writing code for wireless devices, including BLE beacons.
“The California Consumer Privacy Act gives California residents the right to direct businesses from selling their personal information. If you are a California resident, you have this right. If you are not a California resident, we may, at our discretion, grant you this right.”
It might correlate it with other vendors and signals (e.g., your trail of visited web sites, completed purchases, etc.) and also deduce it by monitoring your geo position to find where your “home” is (wherever you spend most nights / wherever you use your apps late or early in the day) and then use zip code area demographics to get the average income for that area.
Oh… and, credit card companies selling data (to these same data aggregators) on their members’ buying habits and most probably demographics as well (age, income, etc.)
It's crazy how much just having your location tracked 24/7 shows about you. It can give a pretty good idea of if you're in a relationship and sexually active (where you spend your nights and when/how often), if your parents are dead and if you're married or divorced (where you go for holidays and when you stop going there), what your life expectancy is (your zip code), if you have children (when and how often you visit schools, day care centers and play grounds/chucky cheese), what you do for a living (harder now that more folks work from home), how healthy you are (time spent at doctors/hospitals/fast food restaurants/gyms), etc.
Tracking one person's location history is invasive enough, but if they're also tracking the people around you it gets a whole lot easier. Phones spend time talking to and tracking other phones around them (even when those devices are offline or have location services disabled) along with being tracked by Bluetooth beacons and collecting info about nearby wifi connections.
There are other companies that keep track of that (experian, trans union, quick books, etc) that get this from everything from your employer's bookkeeping software to your credit applications. And they sell your data. So if they know where you live and an app knows where you live ...
As I understand it, this is also how proxy services that offer "mobile IPs" with millions available function as well. Kinda makes me pine for the good old days where they just annoyed the crap out of me with ads.
To clarify, I wasn't talking about them tracking you, I was talking about the SDKs used proxying connections unbeknownst to you using your mobile (or wifi?) data, which the SDK provider sells as a business.
Not really, not for me and many others anyway. I would just get an LTE modem for backup internet, my PC is better at everything else. I'm not sure about which sites you're talking about, but you can also do 2FA without a phone.
Wow, this seems like incredibly valuable information for traders and hedge funds. There is a well known retail analyst (Mathew Boss) who famously said they take aerial photos of mall parking lots to estimate traffic and sales. This data is even more granular.
Yeah, commercial Satellite data "intelligence" is a big thing. (This is clearly the "civilian" version of what has been going on in the military world for a very long time)
I wanted to send this example as it's exactly what you're talking about -- monitoring of retail locations (as a data service):
"RS Metrics Boeing Tracker is a custom event driven monitoring product which focuses on the activity and production at Boeing factory sites. Insights generated from Boeing Tracker help investors and PMs' to optimize their investment strategies."
Among other things, they're counting cars at the Boeing Employee Parking Lot:
The thesis that appears to be correct with AMC and GME is that the shorts never really covered, they simply kicked the can through some creative vehicles.
How do we know that? Is it possible that substantially all the active funds with a thesis on AMC/GME got out, so now the price is driven by retail meme buyers who have no price target?
Honestly, I feel that we're way past the point of productively engaging with the wallstreetbets crowd, the "Naked short squeeze" eternal narative is about as substantial as the people claiming Trump will be inaugurated again later this year. There's no evidence threshold that can be met - on an infinite timeline, the fact that these hedge funds haven't lost money is just more evidence of dirty tricks rather than the most likely scenario - they dumped the stock long ago, and either have a strategy to get back in or have a strategy to avoid being burned again.
20% of the AMC float is short, and could cover in less than 2 days. 25% of the GME float is sold short, but it would take a bit longer for shorts to cover, looks like 5-7 days based on avg 10d volume.
Interesting data. What’s holding me back from going to the theater is that my child is not vaccinated (too young), although I suppose the delta variant is also a small concern. I wonder how much difference it will make when the under 12s can get vaccinated. I’d love to go to the theater again if it felt safe for my whole family, but it doesn’t yet.
Movie industry is largely driven by massive advertisement campaigns. My guess that all of those spikes before 2020 were driven by massive AAA releases with big of ad budgets. Nothing like that happened during 2020. I think it's too early to ring the funeral bell, let's see a few massive releases first.
If that's true, we might not see it getting back to pre-covid levels for another year or so if it's going to happen. I think most the stuff we've seen over 2020 and now are things that were already in the pipeline or delayed. The lack of new projects during 2020 and early 2021 will likely affect the industry until mid to late 2022 at least, from what I've read that seems accurate.
A lot of those massive releases are Disney though and they seem to be going all in on Disney+. There might be the occasionally cultural moments that generate new box office records, but I’d expect say the average box office return of the top 20 for the year to be in decline.
Wow, this is virtually identical. If I were paying for placer I'd stop after seeing that you can get effectively the same data for free, assuming you just need the trend.
Yes, because after considering a datapoint of n=1, it's reasonable to extrapolate that the footfall of any arbitrary location correlates to the Google Trend graph of the locations's search terms /s
You can buy this data on a per-store basis on a per-month basis from SafeGraph. It'll cost you $40 for YTD data, and it should include information about time of day and nonsense like that if you're curious.
Black Widow is destroying opening expectations in cinemas as we speak.
Barry Diller is clearly disillusioned with the process, this happens a lot with veterans. But there's a constant supply of wide-eyed youngsters to fill-in those positions with new energy.
I'd say it's a bit premature to declare permanent changes. Streaming will play a stronger role over time, but none of this is new or unexpected. And cinemas will continue to thrive.
It seems like the current movie business is mostly just a parasite on the back of 50 year old content (Marvel Silver age, Star Wars universe, Disney catalogs, Netflix 3rd party licensed content, et al.)
The long tail of good content is very long. I wouldn't be surprised if Casablanca still generates annual royalties in excess of it's entire original cost, 80 years later. A great movie is a piece of artwork and like the Mona Lisa centuries later, has a timeless aspect to it.
I don't disagree with Diller per se. In fact, "They ain't movies. They are some weird algorithmic process that has created things that last 100 minutes or so." is one of the best descriptions of modern film I've ever seen.
May it is just because of the limits of the article length, but I think it's far more about short form content and limits of human attention. I'd rather watch several 10-20 minute videos from niche Youtube creators in a week than one two hour movie most of the time, and I can't do both.
In that sense, Katzenberg /Quibli were probably onto something. You have to remember Diller created the anonymous content conglomerate of IAC and is commenting on Quibli from that perspective. He admits himself, at the end, that he's working on backing Broadway productions so he's not satisfied with the content landscape, either. Maybe someone will figure out what it means to make something that squares good content with the time/format demands of a modern viewer.
TL;DR: I'm sick of Fast & Furious and Marvel franchise spin offs. Feels like someone made the film analogue of discovering that kids like candy and will preferentially take it over healthier food when offered.
I believe that you ain't seen nothing yet. Superhero comic films are king but like, say, zombie media in the 2000s, it is a mammoth fad that will eventually be overthrown by another one. Once Hollywood finally figures out how to make a good video game movie adaptation, expect the true licensing deluge to begin. Marvel and DC are but two companies. Imagine the amount of IP adaptations that an entire industry will yield.
I watched Captain Lou Albano play Mario in the 80s.
Resident Evil? Pokemon? Mortal Kombat? It's already here. I actually don't care, as long as they are good. Not all MCU is bad (and I might even say little/none of it is bad).
Maybe a different comparison: a lot of movies now feel like processed food. Consistent and made-to-please, but limits to how great it can be. It is not ideal to live only on processed food.
I think video game adaptations are almost universally bad, when they don't always have to be. We used to get pretty bad superhero movies, too, from directors that didn't seem to understand or respect what they were adapting.
Video games seem difficult to adapt generally --they often don't provide the building blocks for a good narrative. Potentially studios can do like what Detective Pikachu did, get a bit crazy, and still make something decent. Going in the other direction and making something which treats the source seriously hasn't generally worked well, even when it could have with better writing and direction.
It seems to me like Hollywood looks down on video games as an inferior medium, so their hearts (and budgets) are never in it fully. An "Iron Man moment" is possible, I think, where they put out something high quality that's faithful to the source, and its success leads to other high quality adaptations.
Barry Diller is just having a "get off my lawn" moment.
It's like Bob Lutz saying the car business is over, which he did a few years back.
Some things have changed. The difference between "movies" and "TV" has narrowed considerably. Production values for TV are up, and there's not the big distinction between "film work" and "TV work" that there used to be. After all, today "film" is just 2K or 4K video projection.
Another thing that's changed is a few huge franchises sucking up the attention supply. This seems to reflect the Disney mindset of getting a franchise going and milking it for half a century or more. (A Mickey Mouse live-action movie is scheduled for 2022. Really.)
Totally agree on this "They ain't movies. They are some weird algorithmic process that has created things that last 100 minutes or so." look at "The Tomorrow War"
491 comments
[ 1022 ms ] story [ 2856 ms ] threadIncidentally I went look for the best limited series shows, but aggregators like Rotten Tomatoes do a poor job separating them from other TV shows. Right now I see "Watchmen: Season 1" and "Unbelievable: Season 1" which as far as I know were only meant to be one season. Yet Chernobyl and Mare of Easttown are labeled as Miniseries and Limited Series, respectively. What's the difference between the two labels? Why hasn't someone went back and updated the database? Why can't I filter by ongoing versus limited?
This is just an anecdote but my local AMC theater in upper NJ is playing Zola and on Saturday night the theater was empty. I was the only one in the room. Are these movies actually making money? It seems like the demand is not really there for anything other than Superhero movies.
That's only true if you don't adjust for inflation: https://www.boxofficemojo.com/chart/top_lifetime_gross_adjus...
What arrogance.
Memory is kind. Barry Diller's Paramount made Orca, Bad News Bears Go to Japan, etc. Art and commerce were always mixed. The arrogance is in being able to convince yourself it was different in the old days without risk of being contradicted.
Still, you have to admire Barry Diller.
Of course that doesn't mean it was ever "pure" at any point in time, just that it got worse. I've seen so much regression and dumbing down in just the last 20 years, that I don't care if that guy is a hypocrite, I think he happens to be correct anyway. I see what I see, and I can only imagine how it would seem if I had overview of 50 years of that shit.
> When books or pictures in reproduction are thrown on the market cheaply and attain huge sales, this does not affect the nature of the objects in question. But their nature is affected when these objects themselves are changed rewritten, condensed, digested, reduced to kitsch in reproduction, or in preparation for the movies. This does not mean that culture spreads to the masses, but that culture is being destroyed in order to yield entertainment.
> The result of this is not disintegration but decay, and those who actively promote it are not the Tin Pan Alley composers but a special kind of intellectuals, often well read and well informed, whose sole function is to organize, disseminate, and change cultural objects in order to persuade the masses that Hamlet can be as entertaining as My Fair Lady, and perhaps educational as well. There are many great authors of the past who have survived centuries of oblivion and neglect, but it is still an open question whether they will be able to survive an entertaining version of what they have to say.
-- Hannah Arendt
^ Good luck making movies (with a budget, and an audience) that are not entertaining, because they have something serious to say that doesn't happen to be funny. They do exist, and in absolute numbers I bet there's more of them made each year than ever before, just because of accessibility of the technology. But it would be dishonest to focus on those and ignore the fact that, say, three The Hobbit movies exist, or how people break out in tears over Star Wars movies -- and all that insane, infantile, extremely commercialized utter crap.
Again, Barry Diller may have been just as guilty of that stuff. I don't know and I don't care, because he doesn't matter. The world matters, the human species matters. How cool a specific individual is or isn't doesn't matter, they and anyone who remembered anyone who remembered them will be gone in a few centuries.
> The arrogance is in being able to convince yourself it was different in the old days without risk of being contradicted.
That would be nostalgia. And I'm not even convinced the assessment is wrong. And calling someone "arrogant" isn't contradicting them anyway, it's avoiding the argument if anything.
> "The system is not necessarily to please anybody," Diller said, suggesting Prime Video's primary purpose is to get more customers to sign up for Amazon Prime.
If you don't have a large talent pool fuelled by financial prosperity, you lack the prerequisites to create works of the highest quality.
In other words, nothing much comes from it.
In Denmark the movies Godzilla vs. Kong, Nomadland and Black Widow will not be shown in major cinemas.
The reason is that Warner Bros. and Disney (Marvel) have either shortened the exclusivity period (Warner Bros) or set the streaming premiere at the same day the movie airs in cinemas (Disney).
The core of the issue is that the cinemas have to pay the same amount although the terms are clearly worse.
I can't help but think that the loss in sales of merchandise will take a hit, but i could be wrong and things will continue as they are now.
The last King Kong (vs Godzilla) was at least silly amusing to watch (once). F9 is just bad across the board, there was nothing enjoyable about it, the formula has now jumped the shark twice (the last Fast movie was the first jumping of the shark). The Fast franchise is in the guard rail, the race is over.
Maybe we can rename the trope to some sort of car-based hijinxs? I want to say "launched a car into space", but that's probably going to annoy Tesla fans.
I'd put The Wickerman (either version), The Fountain, and The Final Countdown (1980, nothing to do with the song, sadly) as easily worse than Godzilla vs Kong, and that's just off the top of my head.
It's certainly not a great movie, but it's well in-line with what you would expect from the title; slightly plausible plot, big monsters fighting in cities, trademark roar. Nowhere near the best movies, but strongly in the middle.
But that's art for you; affects people differently.
To me the movie Memento is special, both the plot itself but also the question, what if it happened to me.
So what other movies are there ???.
> "The movie business *as before* is finished and will never come back."
And I think that's correct. Superhero blockbusters taking over all box office receipts was one thing, but now those blockbusters are becoming deeply tied to streaming services like Disney+ that's bringing content into people's homes and away from movie theatres.
I won't mourn movie theatres (though I hope places emulate the likes of Alamo Drafthouse and do dinner, drinks and let us make an evening out of watching a movie), but I do worry about things like movie financing. It feels the industry has split in two, either making super-expensive superhero blockbusters or super cheap indie films.
It makes me feel like a grouch to complain about the uber-popular, widely loved thing but this intertwined superhero universe exhausts me. I don't want to have to watch three previous movies and two TV shows to fully enjoy the movie that's in front of me. So I watch a lot more limited series TV instead... and maybe that's just fine?
The change started happening slowly in the late 1990s, but at this point I’d say that the change has happened and we’re in a golden age of television. In the 1990s, TV was seen as a step down from movies in terms of cultural prestige, but nowadays we have A-list actors starring in TV shows with budgets over $10M per episode. The formats for TV shows have changed, too, and you’re much more likely to see TV shows written as six-episode or eight-episode seasons. They can be much more like a big, long movie, rather than a short TV show.
(Of course, the UK has produced six-episode TV series since forever.)
Still, I recently rewatched a few episodes of Siskel and Ebert, and it made me a bit sad to think about just how many movies were coming out every year during the 1990s, and remember being excited to go to the theater. Rewatching some 1990s movies, there are shots that just don’t have the right impact in typical home theaters.
Sopranos was a very clear break in writing style. People like to slot in The Wire next to it, but The Wire was more episodic/restricted and honestly felt like an R-rated network tv show to me.
Anyone complaining "nothing good" anymore just either have terrible taste, or don't know how to do simple searching for new content. Same for movies IMO. There are good films everywhere on almost all the streaming platforms too if you just look for them.
They’ve also just become quite formulaic and as a result, boring.
And to the parent point, on top of that, I'm now expected to understand at least some of the intricacies of a complex movie/TV universe that I don't really care that deeply about.
I'm informed by my cinemaphile friend that exactly this phenomenon has been much remarked upon in the last 15-20 years. Mid-budget films, which used to be very common, are mostly dead, leaving a couple kinds of low-budget film (the startup-model where you put out a ton of cheap movies and hope one is the next Blair Witch—and yes, most of this is horror—and the "indie" film kind) and the mega-budget ones that are basically investment vehicles. So, two kinds of films that exist because those models are the best ROI, and then indie films, and that's about it.
Meanwhile, there are still tons of good films coming out, but most are (broadly) in the "indie" bucket. People who complain that nothing good is made anymore[0] must just be looking at what's advertised heavily, is all I can figure. Dozens of good-to-great movies come out every year, including a whole bunch from the US.
[0] Then there's "it's all remakes now"—but 1) it's not, and 2) Hollywood started churning out tons of remakes about as early in their history as they possibly could, and never stopped.
I'm struggling to think of much else that I've personally seen, from last year, that wasn't a little too indie or "genre" for me to recommend it to someone whose tastes I don't know—I didn't get much new watched, and mostly caught up on some reputedly-great stuff I'd missed from the prior five years or so (I keep up with a mix of pop junk food films, which I do like, and the "good" stuff, but usually don't have time to watch anywhere near all of either) aside from some fairly taste-specific newer material I watched.
Some other titles I'm seeing, from people I know and trust, for 2020, include: First Cow; The Old Guard; Portrait of a Lady on Fire (technically a 2019 film, but widely available in 2020); Wolfwalkers (animated); Spontaneous; Bacurau; Blow the Man Down. There are lots more, that's just a varied sampling.
I actually think TV shows are where good film comes from these days, especially with them not being made for syndication so we now can get 6 episode seasons. Mare of East Town was a great mystery that just came out. It is true that the superhero genre has hijacked a lot of talent.
Black Bear, Possessor, Palm Springs, Love And Monsters, Psycho Goreman, Ma Rainey's Black Bottom, White Tiger, Moxie, The Mitchells Vs The Machines
Going back a bit further:
Saint Maud, Color Out Of Space, Once Upon A Time... In Hollywood, Midsommar, The Lighthouse, Crawl, The Personal History Of David Copperfield
I can't speak for everyone but I think it's hard to find anything 'fun'. The indie films inevitably seem to be deadly serious, whether it's terrible crimes or failing relationships or the inevitably of death. If a viewer wants 'fun' then they're stuck with formulaic superhero blockbusters.
It feels different. Spielberg was fun, Lucas was fun, Hitchcock was fun. Perhaps they were the outliers even during their times, but it seems like all that sense of adventure has been sucked into the big franchises and mangled into these lowest-common-dementor films. The international market wants big explosions and 'clever' comebacks.
Yeah, good point. Fun films from the more indie side exist, but they aren't the norm, that's true.
The depressed/angry mood has been building for a couple decades or more, and getting more widespread. Even something intentionally over the top like Fast and Furious or Marvel has more "serious issue" stuff in many of the installments from the last 5 years than previously.
It's easier in the news to see all the bad stuff that used to get hidden behind the scenes, so until something happens about that or people just tired of seeing it both in the news and in art, I imagine it'll be here for a little longer.
It sticks around until people get bored of it and studios move on for a while. Only to circle back in a few year and try again.
You can see this a lot in comedy. Comedy used to be mostly about humor, with occasional social commentary. Now it's largely about anger and shock value. "Comedians" are targeting the same brain patterns as social media.
I think that's a reason that people like Jim Gaffigan find such a strong following. There's a good number of people who are just burned out on the outrage industry treadmill.
Carlin, Pryor, Foxx, Bruce and others were rarities.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=428ZxrW6jhk
It's a slowly escalating 45-minute rant, but I think that this quote from toward the end summarizes it fairly well: "I'm admittedly a little tired of seeing heroes always surrounded by worlds of gray, because, if they're there long enough, they start to feel kind of gray, too."
I haven't ever seen the Errol Flynn version of Robin Hood, but I suppose my equivalent is that, as far as I'm concerned, Batman peaked with the TV show in the 1960s. It wasn't just colorful, it was legitimately fun. To the point where even the bad episodes were good. The Tim Burton movies were also a bit like that. They were visually dark, sure, but that was Tim Burton's aesthetics, and it was a package deal that came together with at least a few glimmerings of that same twisted sense of humor that got him fired from Disney for making Frankenweenie.
Since then, though? It's a bunch of increasingly sad movies by apparently sad people whose creative drive seems to primarily come from the desire to demonstrate to themselves and everyone else that they are Grown Ups, and who are too busy Taking Their Jobs Seriously to have any fun at work. And so they're working so hard that, even though what they're producing is technically classified as entertainment, the end result is so joyless that watching it ends up feeling, at least to me, like work.
The cynic in me thinks that another problem is that fun is bad for business. Fun makes people feel good, and people who feel good aren't as likely to engage in retail therapy, and modern movies make a whole lot of money off of merchandising.
I think there is something to what you are saying, and Americans are not feeling as well as the (average) GDP data should indicate compared to the Nordics, but in general data shows we feel fine.
- Henry David Thoreau, Walden (1854)
It was one of the few Marvel movies that seemed to remember its comic book origins. Quick pace--individual comic issues are short, snappy (not necessarily quippy) dialog--because there isn't space on a comic panel for walls of text, colorful and interesting character designs, and a good dose of humor sprinkled in.
It would probably get old if every Marvel movie were like that, but all in all I think the formula works. Guardians of the Galaxy also did pretty well in this regard, but making most of the characters assholes in one way or another undercut the theme somewhat.
Heh. Like in Batman Returns were the Penguin yells at Batman: "You're jealous, because I'm a genuine freak and you have to wear a mask!". I loved that bit :)
Danny DeVito, man. A comedian playing a deformed super-villain. That was cinema, once. That was even superhero movies, once.
> . If a viewer wants 'fun' then they're stuck with formulaic superhero blockbusters.
I dont think this is true either. The industry producing formulaic is not because it is only way to have fun. If you look at series that came out lately (Money Heist, Westworld ... ) they are not formulaic and are fun.
Last série I really appreciated: the OA.
It's not obvious that one would rather apply 'cult' than 'independent' to something one likes, but there we go, language!
[1] https://www.imdb.com/title/tt7914416/
Anyone up for laughs can check out Timo Vuorensola works.
Or the whole Troma Entertainment corpus.
Srsrly, cinema isn't limited to just the cali crap that gets on the networks.
Don't give them any ideas about more Potter films, even if Rowling has been canceled
I’m going to assume Rowling isn’t “cancelled”, but has a strong tiny population very upset at her. That’s usually how it goes for most “cancelled” people who aren’t already pretty old and retired instead of trying to continue in any limelight.
That's probably the prime demonstration of the sillinr ess of cancel culture complaints; yes, people have criticized Rowling's gender essentialist views, but she clearly has not been, in any meaningful sense, “cancelled”.
1: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27750565
If I think about some indie blockbuster comedies none of them really did anything that would get the Twitter crowd going crazy. Napoleon Dynamite and Super Troopers for example I could see being hits today
This sort of ties in with what a previous poster was saying about the mid-budget movies disappearing because the money flows to the top and the bottom end is full of recently graduated art students trying to out-serious one another.
https://www.reddit.com/r/IASIP/comments/hgbrs8/hulu_has_remo...
And if you are familiar with the show, they are not prejudiced at all. But whoever chose to remove them is doing the "cover your ass" move, so I can certainly see some merit in what ryandrake is saying.
30 rock episodes were removed too:
https://www.cnn.com/2020/06/23/entertainment/30-rock-episode...
I really don't like this trend. Honestly, satire or not. Rate it appropriately, and let me decide what I'm comfortable viewing? It just seems petty and mollycoddling to prevent me watching something because at some point within it something that may or may not be offensive to me or others happens.
I actually don't even understand the reasoning? Do the producers request it to protect the reputation of the programme, perceiving it as a risk?
An episode was focused on a D&D game, and one character was cosplaying as a drow elf, with facepaint. Removed because of 'blackface'.
Men In Black, Shazam, Charlie's Angels, Jumanji, Murder Mystery, Big Time Adolescence, Scary Stories To Tell In The Dark, Good Boys, Weathering With You, Doom Annihilation...
They weren't exceptional but when you're awash in 'swords & sandals', 'comic book' crap and Adam Sandler formula-thons, even middling fare seem great.
On the TV front, True Detective Season 2 [3] is sorely underrated. Though fictional, it gives you a glimpse into the many possible dimensions of California graft and corruption that are all too close to real life developments surrounding the recent California High-Speed Rail mismanagement junket [4].
I agree with the sentiment expressed in this thread that well-financed, movies for adults with good casting and talented filmmakers have become very scarce.
[1] Hereditary https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hereditary_(film)
[2] Blue Ruin https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blue_Ruin
[3] True Detective (season 2) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/True_Detective_(season_2)
[4] California High-Speed Rail https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_High-Speed_Rail
What you want are optimistic films where people get into trouble but keep their sense of humor and eventually bounce back. That requires a social and cultural environment, and a showbusiness industry, in which people can do the same. Have you heard many stories lately where a talented director goes way over budget or even bombs but makes a great comeback because people are forgiving and want to support a real artist? You have not, because the arts are heavily professionalized these days and computers have made accountants very powerful.
https://www.flavorwire.com/492985/how-the-death-of-mid-budge...
It quotes a (clearly a bit exaggerated for effect, at the low end) range of $500,000-$80,000,000 as "mid budget", and gives examples of the category including Blue Velvet, The Godfather, and Hairspray.
It's not that no films are made in that range anymore, just that it's much harder to find financing for a project in that range for a film intended for wide release and any amount of promotion. The money guys want a nothing-budget movie that might become a hit (the startup model), or huge can't-lose projects with likely outcomes that don't include a loss, or not much of one (the formulaic international-friendly [by which I mean China-friendly] action blockbuster that everyone seems to hate, but that nonetheless consistently make piles of money)
It quotes a bunch of mid-budget directors complaining about this, some leaving filmmaking entirely because their options seem to be to go back to making shoestring-budget movies like they did when they were starting out, or start working on projects they don't like (huge-budget films), aside from self-financing. They seem to be concerned about how the next generations of directors will develop their careers, without stable financing for directors who've "made it" but don't want to make Marvel movies and such—IMO we're probably heading back to something resembling the studio system, largely, so the era of lots of Important Directors who Really Matter may be on its way out, anyway, at least for a while.
[EDIT] Also, searching things like "the death of the mid-budget film" turns up tons of material like this.
Lots of reasons why they are less common. One is absolutely that more and more, TV is able to serve as well or better in the mid-budget role, the quality of TV has vastly improved in the last 20 years. Studios are less interested in investing 40 million to double their money and would rather risk hundreds of millions on the chance to make billions.
Amazon does too. They usually have a handful of quality old movies (lots of junk too), but some of their originals are very good.
https://www.finder.com/uk/netflix-around-the-world/genre-lis...
Alternatively, DIY. As streaming became more popular, optical media and hard drives became far more cheap. Over the last 10-15 years I've ended up with more than 500 movies, all of which I own legally and most of which cost me $5 or less. They get to all of my devices through Plex (I used to use Kodi, which is fine over a LAN if that's all you care about).
A significant number of them aren't available for streaming anywhere at the moment, and plenty more would require obscure services I don't feel a need to pay for. It was a gradual upfront cost, but not that extravagent compared to the cost of paying for a couple of streaming services over that time - to say nothing of the 6-10 I'd have to subscribe to to actually have access to all of it.
[1] https://mubi.com/
One can also find very interesting stuff on YouTube, depending on how good your search skills are, I know that at the start of the pandemic I had discovered a user who was uploading Italian western spaghetti movies in HD format. I think I might also have found something similar for Hong Kong wuxia movies from the 1960s and 1970s but I'm not sure.
We regularly ask each other "Where's Roman Holiday but with a cute girl instead of Gregory Peck. Audrey Hepburn can stay."? Why all the drama in movies these days? We just wanna see two girls kiss and walk away in the twilight, hand-in-hand. But all we get is drama like Ammonite.
Why isn't there yet a Poser or Daz3D/Blender/MakeHuman/$GAME_ENGINE that combined makes it easy for people to tell tales as movies yet? It should be possible to put everything together in an interface that even a movie producer could understand, which would make it a doddle for ordinary people.
This is happening right now and it is mostly an update of the film techniques used in schlock, b films, but the results are much better.
Corridor Crew makes a movie in Unreal Engine, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2K7a_aMGA7Y
Sassy Justice talked to Jared Kushner about Deep Fakes, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WjmmP1rE_3A
1/3 of the posts on Two Minute Papers, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SEsYo9L5lOo
I won't be surprised when someone can feed a script into a model and out comes a fully rendered movie.
Okay, seriously? That's a really good idea right there. I personally would lean towards Blender + Godot game engine for such a project, but I'm just hugely in favor of open source in general, so… The thing to make such a tool useful though would be an easily accessible library of actors (character models), animation/movement presets/prefab library, scenery and set dressing, and an interface to tie it all together in a way "which would make it a doddle for ordinary people" as you say. I could see something like that bein' a huge boon for "storyteller" types to get a good start in the media creation arena though.
And of course, that library... That would be a source of _real_ money.
I don’t see how that’s enough to support a film? No challenge to overcome or issue to resolve? That’s a basic of storytelling. What’s left without it?
It really is, if by "remake" you mean all ways of leveraging existing IP. Here are the top ten box office films of 2020:
Two originals. Now go back 20 years: Four originals. Go back another 10 years: Five originals. Another ten years to 1980: Five originals again. I'm going by top box-office gross here because I think that's a good proxy for what is successful. You can look at other years, but there is a very clear (but not overwhelming) trend towards movies based on familiar content. It's not clear whether studios are leading audiences or vice versa. Probably some iterative process of both.There's also a clear trend away from dramas. I think that's because drama (and non-slapstick comedies) tend to rely heavily on specific cultural norms for their effect which makes them translate poorly. There is a very clear trend especially in the last decade or so of Hollywood focusing on movies that will also do well in China in particular.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8-v2BHNBVCs
It really was a remake of a "serious" drama as a comedy.
New books with great stories are written every year, and I would rather watch that than spider man reboot #4 honestly.
Book adaptations themselves are a spectrum of originality and quality.
I agree totally. I'd also score remakes as more original if the film being remade is significantly older.
But see, 2020 was an aberration. You have to look at 2019.
Sequel, remake, sequel, sequel, comic, sequel, sequel/comic, remake, comic, sequel/remake,
Oh. Oh no. Let's keep going for top 20, yeah?
Sequel/remake, ORIGINAL, sequel, sequel, sequel, sequel, video game, ORIGINAL, comic, comic. (from boxofficemojo)
2 in the top 20.
Let's keep going?
ORIGINAL, remake, sequel-ish? sequel, sequel, (US) remake, ORIGINAL, sequel, ORIGINAL, remake, tv-to-film, ORIGINAL, comic, ORIGINAL, sequel, sequel, sequel, ORIGINAL, sequel, sequel, ...
Let's stop there, but don't assume for a second that all the remakes and sequels are top-loaded - they may dominate the top of the chart but they go pretty far down it too.
https://www.boxofficemojo.com/year/1980/
Kramer vs. Kramer (book)
Ordinary People (book)
Popeye (comic)
The Shining (book)
Cheech and Chong's Next Movie (sequel)
Caddyshack (original - franchise starter)
Friday the 13th (original - franchise starter)
Brubaker (book)
The Jazz Singer (remake)
Flash Gordon (sequel/remake)
Bronco Billy (original)
Raging Bull (book - biopic)
Maybe you should go back a few decades until you can find a time when the top 20 were mostly originals. Would have to be before the Star Wars/Jaws blockbuster era, probably.
Even if box office leaders were never mostly originals, there's still a very big difference between 50% and 20%.
That would be me. I am utterly uninterested in superheroes and found movies I seen last years somewhere between boring repetitive and annoying. Tho I liked parazite and some of other international splash making movies. At minimum they used different tropes.
I have no idea where those fun indie movies are nor how to find them. Like, where should I go to be able to find some I might like?
2) There are niche streaming services that specialize in genres, or in indie + international, films, which are great for finding all kinds of wonderful things you'd never have known about otherwise. mubi.com, for instance, features those sorts of films from all years, including recent ones. Shudder is a streaming service for horror films (horror is downright rich these days—I can provide lots of strong, varied recommendations from the last few years, if you're into that kind of thing). Stuff like that. Really, just look up lists of video streaming services and take a glance at the catalogues of any you've not heard of.
What would you recommend?
No particular order. Since 2010ish. Not an exhaustive list of all good horror in that time frame.
- You're Next. It's a trad home-invasion/slasher kinda thing but... then changes genre. I'll leave it at that.
- Cabin in the Woods. Needs no introduction? Solid humor-horror.
- Evil Dead. The soft reboot. Pretty good for the kind of thing it is, which is an Evil Dead-type movie, of course.
- The Babadook. Great horror for people who like to be scared but don't want gore. Extremely efficient use of a tiny cast and very few locations.
- It Follows. A core concept that's creepy as hell, and some damn fine imagery that will stick with you. Lots of moody, slow-paced (but good!) scenes but... it does follow. Unsubtly very much about the harmful aspects of sex and sexual behavior.
- The Witch (or, The VVitch, as it's styled). If you like frontier-type stuff, with period-accurate dialog, plus horror, this will very likely be up your alley. Nb that here "frontier" means "New England, probably just a few miles in from the coast", not, like, the "Old West".
- Bone Tomahawk. Action-horror that is set in the Old West. Not exactly a piece of fine film-making but it pretty much does exactly what it sets out to do, and does it well, which makes it a success in my book.
- The Void. Carpenteresque creature work and Lovecraftian baddies. Excellent example of a throwback horror movie that aims to feel like it was made in another decade.
- The Girl with all the Gifts. Some people liked this a lot more than I did, so I'm including it. I thought it was just OK. Basically a zombie movie, kinda.
- Krampus. I'm not usually into Christmas-horror, which tends to be sub-b-grade garbage and otherwise just isn't to my taste, but watched this because I kept seeing it recommended, and... wow, it's actually good. Careful that you get the right film, there are a bunch with similar titles and I'd guess most of them are terrible. This is the 2015 one directed by Dougherty.
- Get Out. I'd call it just OK (I don't... think I was supposed to find as much if it laugh-out-loud funny in the final act, as I did?) but accept that I'm probably wrong about that, given the overwhelmingly-positive reaction.
- Train to Busan. Maybe my favorite zombie-hoards type of movie I've seen.
- Sorry to Bother You. If you like genre-bending and lots of absurdism in your horror, this one's for you.
- Happy Death Day. Slasher x Ground Hog Day, with that concept explored for just about all it's worth. Relatively light-hearted (it'd almost have to be) but not without tension. Sequel's less good—not awful, but a big step down. Same director made a similar film, "Freaky", that's another mash-up concept, and is quite good.
- It Comes at Night. Uh... if you really like movies that make you kinda wish you'd never watched them, not because of, say, realistic gore, but because they sorta make your soul hurt, this is a very good movie of that kind. But maybe don't, though?
- One Cut of the Dead. Brilliant concept, fun throughout. Not in any sense a traditional zombie movie, and I would 100% recommend it to people who usually don't like zombie movies. Don't spoil it, go in as cold as possible. It's one that is much better if you know almost nothing about it before you start.
- Game Night. Horror-adjacent, at least. Not amazing but another one that I watched after being repeatedly assured by many people that it was much better than it looked like it would be (it looked pretty bad), and it was.
- Hereditary. I hated this one but it's another where my opinion is way, way in the minority. Lots of people love it.
- Colour out of Space. If you can tolerate, or actually enjoy, Nic Cage, and like Lovecraftian horror, this is worth a watch. Good FX work.
- The Last Matinee. By-the-numbers sla...
I got introduced to a bunch last year by making the acquaintance of a film grad student who ran a movie club that met via Discord every Saturday night to discuss a film of the week.
I think this could also probably be approximated by finding someone into film on social media, or watching entries accepted into well-regarded film festivals, or if you happen to have an active mom & pop video store in your area, talking with the clerks.
Very true. From the 1930's until now, the percentage of Hollywood films that aren't recreations of an earlier film, a book, or a play is vanishingly small.
To be sure, there is still a good number of original films, even big-name ones, but those are very few and far between.
Both are a form of unoriginal profiteering, on at least a business level. Maybe it's the permanence of a film compared to the ephemerality of a live performance, but the vast difference in how they're received has always bugged me.
But modern multiplexes have changed that etiquette, and it's hard for me to stand it. And the advertisements...
Historically in US movie theaters, there's so much popcorn grease and spilled soda on the floor that your shoes actually get stuck to it while you're watching the movie.
EDIT: Wow downvotes? It's true! Maybe they mop them now but back when Diller was in the movie business, your shoes actually did get stuck to the floor because of all the spilled snacks. I haven't been to a movie theater in many years, but the grime was an essential part of the experience. Someone should open a throwback 80s theater.
But the god of consumption got jealous and demanded we got things (snacks and movies alike) through our system as fast as possible while making him the maximum dime.
https://www.tripadvisor.se/LocationPhotoDirectLink-g189839-d...
The great mid-budget content is now in Streaming TV, but if you’re wedded to the feature film format, try watching anything from A24 films.
> It makes me feel like a grouch to complain about the uber-popular, widely loved thing but this intertwined superhero universe exhausts me.
I haven’t seen a superhero movie since 1999’s Star Wars: The Phantom Menace. Just stop watching them, you won’t become culturally isolated.
To me, this is like complaining that you don't want to have to read the Fellowship of the Ring to fully enjoy the Return of the King.
Most people love continuations of prior art. The vast majority of people have no problem watching a few films per year, and consider it a luxury, not an effort. People love seeing their favorite characters reappear and have done so long before film.
> When that's all there is, though, that seems like a problem.
Well... it's not all there is, so that's good.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Serial_film
> "These streaming services have been making something that they call 'movies,' " he said. "They ain't movies. They are some weird algorithmic process that has created things that last 100 minutes or so."
Funny. That would be my description of the block buster action films since "Raiders of the Lost Ark".
They want product, they want it on a pipeline, they want guaranteed returns and they do not want to gamble about it. This has been true for a long time but we're seeing a difference of degree here. Movie production is not merely evolving but speciating -- and I think the new species is going to look like a subscription streaming service (with tie-in product) that releases dopamine-tweaking algorithmic product on the kind of tick-tock schedule for which Intel longs.
This is how Hollywood is. It's the same as Silicon Valley. They don't want to gamble if they don't have to, they both just want as much money as possible.
And then you still won't enjoy it, I promise you.
What's interesting is that the industry has repeatedly been broken up due to antitrust & anti-competition issues. It will be interesting to see how things stand in 10-15 years; will consolidation eventually bring government action or do we now accept 3-4 major players as being sufficient competition.
I feel the same way and here is how I approached it: buy a bunch of DIS stock, don’t watch superhero movies.
I feel like I “missed” the beginning of all the super hero franchises and, even though I’m sure I’d enjoy them, I’m just not interested because getting caught up enough to understand what’s going on in the newer films feels like such a daunting undertaking.
At the start of the pandemic I thought maybe I’d finally watch them all only to find out there isn’t even really an agreed upon order they should be watched!
It’s an odd and (I think) new phenomenon: that someone can lack the prerequisites to watch a movie. Even worse: no one can quite agree on what exactly those prerequisites are.
There’s nothing new about sequels and movie series. The only difference with Marvel movies might be that they are a lot of films and they tend to be some of the most popular films.
> Even worse: no one can quite agree on what exactly those prerequisites are.
Fans might enjoy discussing nuances of different viewing orders, but I think it’s pretty undeniable that you can’t go too wrong watching them in the order they were released.
I recently started watched Loki on Disney+, 3 episodes in, I still have no idea who Loki is, where he comes from, what his intentions are and what he is capable of...
Same problem with WandaVision. I agree, it's exhausting.
Earlier - “Nice Guys”.
(disclaimer of bias: NZer)
I have a suspicion that this is the direction surviving movie theatre chains will move toward.
Something that hasn't been remarked on too much but that I think might be significant is that a long-standing antitrust regulation that prevented movie studios (the "Paramount Decree") from owning their own theatre chains was sunsetted in August 2020, which means that starting in August 2022 studios can start running their own theatres again -- and I think that's very likely to happen. Disney won't just tie their blockbusters to Disney+, they'll tie them Disney-owned theatres that provide theme park like experiences. Other studios will join in on this.
> It makes me feel like a grouch to complain about the uber-popular, widely loved thing but this intertwined superhero universe exhausts me. I don't want to have to watch three previous movies and two TV shows to fully enjoy the movie that's in front of me.
Despite mostly really enjoying said superhero universe, I've been feeling that recently, too. I can't help but suspect this has a point of diminishing returns; next year we're going to be entering a "phase" of the MCU that's going to build not only on the past twenty-odd movies but now the past Disney+ streaming shows.
Plus, these channels have opened up more categories of film to wider audiences. Big budget, full length films and multi-season tv series aren't the only viable options anymore—some of the most talked about media in my circles over the last couple of years have been limited series. Try dragging a brilliant 8 hour limited series across an entire 23 episode season or trimmed down to a two hour film and it's a completely different story.
Brilliant film makers are still brilliant film makers and the number of studios willing to take a chance and fund them has never been greater. The traditional movie-watching experience is still here, it's just no longer the only option. I don't think declaring the movie business as dead is accurate, it has simply evolved and adapted. But from where I sit, this evolution has just given us more stories and more ways to hear them.
Just because you can distribute a story without a year-long PR blitz doesn't mean you can't tell a good story.
What I do miss is "going out" to see a movie. Alamo Drafthouse has a good model that entices "going out" but most chains couldn't shift to adapt to a similar model. Auto-managed streaming quality is something I don't really like either, let me buffer my own selection.
The only way a movie theater experience can be consistently great is if you banish all food. Too many people lack even basic manners & consideration for others, they can't be trusted to not be inconsiderate idiots.
While technologically everything has improved, creativity feel like going from the golden age of the greco-roman world to 8th century Europe, where indie bands/movies are like the churches that preserved some measure of past glories. What argument can one make when the burden of proof is to show cultural regression?
Movies are largely the same with streaming. The movie theater model is rough. Even before streaming the vast majority of movie tickets go unsold, and to many people there's a sort of social group requirement to justify going there. So you get mass appeal as a requirement. But the actual space of film has more richness than ever before. People who say the only films are marvel films just don't know about the other films being released.
On the other hand, if one was to lower the definition of "movie" to moving pictures entertainment, there is a bonanza of content on YouTube and other video streaming services. But they are not in the same format of traditional movies.
Maybe it's because trying new music is so costless compared to new movies/tv shows and I'm ignorant? Maybe it's because good music can be made for a lot less money? IDK but this hardly feels like the beginning of a golden age of long tail movies.
Maturing industries lose diversity as they trend towards optimization. This is something that is bound to happen regardless of industry. America has far fewer automotive manufactures than it 100 years ago and diversity has suffered; same goes for soda manufactures, etc.
With about any industry, you can gauge how mature it is by the diversity it has achieved. It starts with one or two who demonstrate the viability of the market, then there is an explosion of interest as many people break in, trying different strategies to gain market share, then the few winners consolidate the industry. Sometimes, the big players rest on their laurels and an upstart takes hold, but they are usually acquired by the establishment or their strategy is emulated then they are crushed by the inherent resource imbalance.
The big movie studios know what works and they are going to stick to that. Occasionally a Pixar will come along and disrupt the market, but when that happens, a Disney is going to step in and acquire them and change or adapt their formula to prevent another upstart.
https://www.hottopic.com/tees/music-tees/?cm_sp=LP-_-TeesGri...
Ultimately the post WW2 period was the birth of mass media youth culture, this was a truly revolutionary thing culturally speaking, and everything else has been a series of progressively less meaningful waves as we have 75 years of music/films artfully expressing what it means to be young.
Same as it always was. (SPIN magazine, April 2005):
https://books.google.com/books?id=3ftHVmAonmoC&lpg=PA107&dq=...
> A few days after the Orange Bowl, I saw the video for Simpson's "La La." In one segment, she wears a vintage Adam and the Ants T-shirt; later, she wears a Motley Crue shirt. I suppose it's theoretically possible that Ashlee Simpson honestly likes those bands. But within the context of this video, her identification with them does not feel remotely organic; it feels like somebody put a lot of thought into whom Ashlee should align herself with. All young artists do this, but some are less subtle than others. I once saw singer/songwriter Leona Naess perform in Cleveland wearing a ZZ Top T-shirt. "I don't even know who this band is," she said between songs. "I just like this shirt." Naess played Minneapolis on the same tour, but this time she wore an Aerosmith T-shirt. "I don't even know who this band is," she said between songs. "I just like this shirt." Obviously, this was an attempt at cultural positioning: Leona Naess wanted to appear like the kind of girl who (somehow) had never heard of ZZ Top and Aerosmith, just as Ashlee Simpson wants to appear like the kind of girl who's intimately aware of Motley Crue and Adam Ant. Yet both artists failed in their attempts, and that's because even a child could tell they were trying way too hard. And people hate that.
What's surprised me though is the amount of times I've received questions from teenagers about how to make Nintendo 64 games. Given their ages, I would have thought something like the Nintendo DS might have been more interesting to them.
It reminded me of when Nintendo was marketing repackaged 1980s NES games to me as a child. [1] I remember being interested in them partially because of being exposed to nostalgia from others online. Part of me wonders if a bit of institutional momentum can help give a brand more of an edge for some audiences.
[1] https://nintendo.fandom.com/wiki/Classic_NES_Series
First, you will need to give examples of what kind of movies you find "creative" that were done in the past and there is no current equivalent for that level of creativity.
"Jojo Rabbit", "Parasite", "Blade Runner 2049", "Coco", "Lady Bird", "Arrival", "The Nice Guys", ... that is the past 5 years with one almost missing because the pandemic. Is any of that any good for you?
What do you think that it was so creative in the past and has no comparation today?
Still haven't seen Blade Runner 2049 ... which is the only sequel on that list, so I perhaps that's why!
I had the impression,the movie business was a shit show for at least half a century now.
Today the film industry is the incumbent - profits have peaked, and the upstart video game business has already eclipsed it. Once again, video games have far more creative possibilities and are dramatically more immersive than the films they're replacing.
> Global videogame revenue is expected to surge 20% to $179.7 billion in 2020, according to IDC data, making the videogame industry a bigger moneymaker than the global movie and North American sports industries combined.
So the fact that there are still lots of people who aren't gamers just means that the video game industry has plenty of room for growth.
[1] https://www.marketwatch.com/story/videogames-are-a-bigger-in...
I think there are more "gamers" than you might think.
If you want to merely argue that video games will win the battle for people's time I could see that. My guess is movies will be like books; maybe not the biggest kid on the block, but eternally popular. You can't say that for vaudeville.
One positive note though is that 2 hours is very short - often not long enough to explore a story.
Series formats mean they can take the time they need.
That said, often they end up being filler.
1) The demand for movies outside of what the streaming services are making.
2) Most aspects of movie production go completely digital to bring costs down astronomically.
The easiest way to embrace digital is to just make an animated movie that looks animated with some interesting cool art style / rendering techniques. Maybe the boomer generation doesn't respond well to animation, but Gen X and Millennials are fine with it.
Otherwise, just look at The Mandalorian for an example of what they've been able to do digitally. A huge huge huge Unreal Engine powered screen, instead of your typical green screen. It is linked to the camera so you get proper depth and angles as the camera moves. The lighting is realistic since the screen is actually shooting light onto the actors and props. And the director can see the composition of the shot in real time.
As more aspects of production will go digital like this, costs will go way down. And hopefully we can have our "movies" again =)
Absolutely.
We have a signal/noise issue. We need to figure out how to find the signal.
I think one of the issues we really need to come to terms with is our absolute overReliance on algorithmic recommendations when it comes to completely subjective areas like film, music, fashion, food, art, etc… We’re just unable to reduce these things to algorithmic recommendations without the content being… algorithmic.
When discussing this I have to often repeat to people, I’m absolutely not a luddite–I work, live, and breathe-in technology. I firmly believe science and technology are part of the key fundamentals to carry us forward. However, one area where I consistently get much better results is when these things are recommended by other humans. It really is no contest in how much better human curation is when it comes to recommendations.
Obviously untested and obviously just pulling numbers out, but for me, I think algorithmic recommendations are just plain wrong about 95% of the time. Friend’s recommendations are close/spot-on about 75+% of the time. And human curation (from online reviews, real life DJs, critics, etc…) are decent maybe 60+% of the time. Far better results from humans.
I think you’re correct that we’ll have a lot more quantity and we’re going to need human curation in there if we have any hope for the quality to gain footholds, to find the signal in the ever growing noise.
If vinyl records can come back, Boutique films in a movie theater and maybe even rental stores can too.
"These streaming services have been making something that they call 'movies,' " he said. "They ain't movies. They are some weird algorithmic process that has created things that last 100 minutes or so."
I'd like to know why he disparages writers and directors who work on streaming movies this way and if it has any validity
https://blog.richardvanhooijdonk.com/en/the-entertainment-in...
https://tecreview.tec.mx/2021/04/26/en/how-to-make-a-blockbu...
>A team of scientists from the Spanish universities of Granada (UGR) and Cádiz (UCA) has designed the first computer system to help screenwriters write movie scripts that will do better at the box office, a model that makes use of artificial intelligence techniques to analyze the most successful clichés or tropes.
I really see this issue everyone nowadays, from movies, TV and music to things like the Olympics. Two good examples: to fix problems with subjectivity and unfairness (which were definitely problems) both gymnastics and ice skating moved from 'fuzzier' 10.0 or 6.0 scales to a 'code of points' model where every element has a fixed value. The result has been that the types of competitors that can win in this model are only the ones that can do the most impressive spins/turns/jumps etc. I mean, I'd be willing to be that you will never again see a 2x "women's" olympic figure skating champion, because you have these young teenagers doing quads now (who almost always lose this ability as they age and develop), but who retire from the sport before they hit 20. These feats are surely impressive, but they also crowd out other types of competitors.
Those sports you mention like figuring skating and gymnastics already have execution scores 'style' if you will built in.
Personally, I have the opposite opinion. I prefer sports that are more quantified on difficulty alone (and the obvious 1st to finish). Looking at execution is one thing, like taking a step is clearly not as skilled as sticking it no debate there. But judging how pretty something is just doesn't seem fair to me nor personally as interesting as throwing hard skills.
Gymnastics in particular grinds me in that they have a lot of silly rules AND they actively decrement leading edge hard skills point value!
Age is an interesting point too. I don't know how I feel about that idea.
Though I do like that there are non-elite competitions (but still like .1% level..) with age groupings by decades that we can still fight in as we get older.
My sport is climbing. Like a lot of sports now it too has become a youthful competition (though you can be nearly 40 and still be world class on real rocks).
maybe because the type of climbing that competition climbing has morphed into (think jumping, parkour) is more gymnastic!
95% of the elite competitors are very young.
But maybe it's just because the crop of competitors my age didn't grow up with that style and we'll see today's competitors who did grow up learning it stay competitive longer.
Cinema during WW2 and the 15 years that followed was almost all cookie-cutter nonsense. For the handful of classics that we can tick off on our fingers today, there were dozens of stinkers.
Instead of computerized algorithms, they had fat walrus-like algorithms wearing well-tailored suits, big waistlines and stubby cigars trying to make the same picture over and over again (Grace Kelly, Liz Taylor, Lauren Bacall, Rita Hayworth, Bridgette Bardot, Veronica Saint, Jane Mansfield vs Marilyn Monroe, Cary Grant vs Rock Hudson, etc.).
There is always money in capturing trends, and there will always be independent cinema. Lynch, Jones, Almodovar, Coppola (both), and new emerging stars will always find benefactors to make outstanding films for every 12 Marvel/DC stinkers modern hollywood craps out.
With a movie releasing in theatres there was a sense of urgency to see it on the big screen with big sound and big lights.
Being able to stream it whenever you want from home now means you never will.
Not sure if any platforms do it already but they should try to create a sense of scarcity by offering only a limited number of opening weekend tickets that you can reserve.
Fundamentals are great, but as the old saying goes: the market can remain irrational longer than you can remain solvent.
https://i.imgur.com/s3H7EYj.png
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22704138
I’ll go on a limb and say that apps don’t even have to integrate Placer’s sdk directly. If an app uses any monetization/tracking/ad tracking system, that tracking vendor may collect the geo data and then re-sell it to Placer (i.e. talk to Placer via a server to server API to let them know about the end user)
2) Wifi networks.
On iOS, I'm almost sure that apps cannot access the list of wifi networks that the device sees. As you may know, the list of wifi access point MAC addresses can be used to triangulate a device's geolocation (there was a related case with Google Streets View cars gobbling up that info[0])
On Android, wifi network MAC addresses may be available to apps? Is there a special permission that apps need from the user?
[0] https://www.wired.com/2012/05/google-wifi-fcc-investigation/
However, I believe connected WiFi information can be obtained on Android without location services enabled.
On iOS, I believe an app needs special permission even to fetch connected WiFi, and I believe you are correct that there is no way to access ambient WiFi scans.
Correct, you need the "Access network state" permission (renamed to a more sensible "View network connections" in more recent versions of Android).
However, to my knowledge neither the play store or Android system warn/ask you about this permission so to avoid it you have to explicitly check every app you install.
I suppose I'm not familiar enough with Bluetooth - I figured phones with Bluetooth enabled are constantly sending out some kind of "hello" beacon.
You're correct in that it could be reversed and the BLE radios in the store could track the phones instead, but then they'd need far more intelligence and network connectivity, which would make them more expensive and in turn they'd be fewer of them deployed.
Source: spent the last few years writing code for wireless devices, including BLE beacons.
Their opt-out page is interesting: https://foursquare.com/data-requests/
“The California Consumer Privacy Act gives California residents the right to direct businesses from selling their personal information. If you are a California resident, you have this right. If you are not a California resident, we may, at our discretion, grant you this right.”
(Emphasis mine)
Oh… and, credit card companies selling data (to these same data aggregators) on their members’ buying habits and most probably demographics as well (age, income, etc.)
Tracking one person's location history is invasive enough, but if they're also tracking the people around you it gets a whole lot easier. Phones spend time talking to and tracking other phones around them (even when those devices are offline or have location services disabled) along with being tracked by Bluetooth beacons and collecting info about nearby wifi connections.
It also gives you backup internet..
I wanted to send this example as it's exactly what you're talking about -- monitoring of retail locations (as a data service):
https://learn.rsmetrics.com/trafficsignals/retail/monitoring...
... but I found this from the same company which is crazier:
https://learn.rsmetrics.com/cedm/boeing-tracker
"RS Metrics Boeing Tracker is a custom event driven monitoring product which focuses on the activity and production at Boeing factory sites. Insights generated from Boeing Tracker help investors and PMs' to optimize their investment strategies."
Among other things, they're counting cars at the Boeing Employee Parking Lot:
https://learn.rsmetrics.com/hubfs/BA_2_Boeing%20Renton%20Fac...
Yeah, ok. Wow.
https://imgur.com/a/jTkXhtx
The thesis that appears to be correct with AMC and GME is that the shorts never really covered, they simply kicked the can through some creative vehicles.
I see a lot of people kicking and screaming. I have no stake in this but I'm enjoying it all the same.
The thesis you posted is Wrong.
Trading is getting really graphic these days
"short squeeze" (1960s or earlier): https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=short+squeeze&...
"naked shorts" (1970s): https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=naked+shorts&y...
I just heard an acquaintance is in the ICU with blood clots in his lungs due to Covid. Young fit guy, but didn't get vaccinated.
Here's Cabela's: https://i.imgur.com/SLsba42.png
BTW, I should note that this is showing weekly visits (and the same is true for the AMC chart). Again, this is Jan 2017 through July 4, 2021.
Try something like https://shop.safegraph.com/?brands=SG_BRAND_aa55d5b692887ce4... and choose their Patterns dataset.
Barry Diller is clearly disillusioned with the process, this happens a lot with veterans. But there's a constant supply of wide-eyed youngsters to fill-in those positions with new energy.
I'd say it's a bit premature to declare permanent changes. Streaming will play a stronger role over time, but none of this is new or unexpected. And cinemas will continue to thrive.
The long tail of good content is very long. I wouldn't be surprised if Casablanca still generates annual royalties in excess of it's entire original cost, 80 years later. A great movie is a piece of artwork and like the Mona Lisa centuries later, has a timeless aspect to it.
I don't disagree with Diller per se. In fact, "They ain't movies. They are some weird algorithmic process that has created things that last 100 minutes or so." is one of the best descriptions of modern film I've ever seen.
May it is just because of the limits of the article length, but I think it's far more about short form content and limits of human attention. I'd rather watch several 10-20 minute videos from niche Youtube creators in a week than one two hour movie most of the time, and I can't do both.
In that sense, Katzenberg /Quibli were probably onto something. You have to remember Diller created the anonymous content conglomerate of IAC and is commenting on Quibli from that perspective. He admits himself, at the end, that he's working on backing Broadway productions so he's not satisfied with the content landscape, either. Maybe someone will figure out what it means to make something that squares good content with the time/format demands of a modern viewer.
TL;DR: I'm sick of Fast & Furious and Marvel franchise spin offs. Feels like someone made the film analogue of discovering that kids like candy and will preferentially take it over healthier food when offered.
Resident Evil? Pokemon? Mortal Kombat? It's already here. I actually don't care, as long as they are good. Not all MCU is bad (and I might even say little/none of it is bad).
Maybe a different comparison: a lot of movies now feel like processed food. Consistent and made-to-please, but limits to how great it can be. It is not ideal to live only on processed food.
Video games seem difficult to adapt generally --they often don't provide the building blocks for a good narrative. Potentially studios can do like what Detective Pikachu did, get a bit crazy, and still make something decent. Going in the other direction and making something which treats the source seriously hasn't generally worked well, even when it could have with better writing and direction.
It seems to me like Hollywood looks down on video games as an inferior medium, so their hearts (and budgets) are never in it fully. An "Iron Man moment" is possible, I think, where they put out something high quality that's faithful to the source, and its success leads to other high quality adaptations.
It's like Bob Lutz saying the car business is over, which he did a few years back.
Some things have changed. The difference between "movies" and "TV" has narrowed considerably. Production values for TV are up, and there's not the big distinction between "film work" and "TV work" that there used to be. After all, today "film" is just 2K or 4K video projection.
Another thing that's changed is a few huge franchises sucking up the attention supply. This seems to reflect the Disney mindset of getting a franchise going and milking it for half a century or more. (A Mickey Mouse live-action movie is scheduled for 2022. Really.)