They Don't Make Movies Like They Used To

[bushwackerbob]

I remember when I was younger when I decided that I wanted to go to the movies that I had to decide between two or three movies that I truly wanted to see. Nowadays (and this has been true for the last ten years or so) when I have time to see a movie the pickings are very slim, that there are very few films that come out now that I want to see. Don't get me wrong, I enjoy action films, car chases, and superhero movies as much as the next guy, but (and I don't mean this literally) it seems like the only movies I see out there are action films, superhero films, and films that condescend to "teach" me about the world in which we now live. I guess what I am really trying to say is that there does not seem to be as wide range of different types of movies like there used to be. A friend of mine says that the reason that there are so many superhero and action films out there is because American film companies are trying to court emerging international markets such as China, and superhero/action films apparently translate better to international audiences. No wonder why box office numbers are down here in the U.S. Oh well, I guess there is always Netflix.

[Visitor]

I agree there are less movies out there that I'll pay to see in a theater. I can wait for airing on TV or maybe I'll get the DVD on sale especially if there are decent extras to make up for the cost over a movie ticket.

There's the problem that studios want to cut risk to make a profit. So sequels and remakes have known costs and past sales records to help make the decision. That's another reason you see more of the same thing and not as many choices as in the past.

The other movies that seem to get made are ones based on successful books like in the past because the studios assume the readers will see the movie. That's been a regular source for decades.

Now films with low budgets will get made because the cost of failure is low and it's now possible to sell it on DVD to recoup costs. "A Quiet Place" cost $17 million and horror movies usually make back their costs at that level. That it's going to be very profitable made it's studio happy and will lead to more like that. Woody Allen said he got to make movies because he always came in at or below budget and he always had a profit for the studio no matter how bad the film did. If he had a success, then the studio liked him even more.

[Mr. X]

I'm thinking due to the foreign markets and the fact those markets get TV shows and movies later I could see these old revivals actually being relevant. Kind of sick of being second place to other markets but then what can one do.

Sure do miss the 70s-80s-90s where people always tried to start a new franchise. Babylon 5 for example or the original BSG or Knight Rider or Airwolf. Those were the decades of innovation. Now I think that has shifted to the internet and places like Netflix.

[tallyho]

You also get the studios staggering big releases or films they think will do well, so rather than three potentially good films released at the same time and you being spoiled for choice theres one and dross.
The Superhero franchises offer the big merchandise sales too from the kids buying the toys which is another reason they get made. My personal bugbear is the origin reboots we keep getting like Hulk, Spiderman and Fantastic 4, where the dust has barely settled on the last one before the new one is rolled out. We had,what 3 Hulk origins in ten, twelve years FFS.
All the best writing now is being done in serials where you get the time to explore characters and develop plots. After movies going to longer formats for a spell they are now shrinking back to the 2 hrs or less mark (I know there are exceptions) where often things are hurried. A tv serial doesnt have those constraints and these days has big budgets so can match film for production quality and visual impact, particularly as TVs themselves are much bigger.

[bushwackerbob]

I agree that some of the best stuff nowadays is on television rather than film, but there are times when I just feel like going out and immersing myself in the movie theater experience which you simply cannot get at home. In twenty years or so it will be interesting to see how the entertainment industry is affected by virtual reality technology when one will be able to replicate the movie theatre experience in their own homes by merely putting on a pair of virtual reality goggles or eyewear.

[Visitor]

In twenty years or so it will be interesting to see how the entertainment industry is affected by virtual reality technology when one will be able to replicate the movie theatre experience in their own homes by merely putting on a pair of virtual reality goggles or eyewear.

VR goggles will still need content and users will demand more content when they want to see something different. It will be a problem for the companies that show it now that will lose out with movie theaters needing better ways to lure in customers. It's the same thing with the shift from over the air TV stations selling their content to cable and satellite dish companies to keep users and them now competing with streaming services over the Internet. The cost to use them will decide what survives as people get fed up with paying several services to get a few shows from each one.

Disney is trying to find the best mix of platforms for its Marvel comics content. The Marvel Cinematic Universe for movies, commercial television stations for TV series, Netflix for limited series, and cable channels for less popular content like the forthcoming "Cloak and Dagger" on Freeform. This is ahead of their forming an exclusive content streaming service of their own.

[Heroine Addict]

One knock-on result of online piracy is that movies and TV shows are now rolled out internationally very, very close to the US release date. It took the original Star Wars years to roll out internationally. The Last Jedi, however, had reached most of the world officially within a few days.

The drawback is that UK cinemas and TV networks, for example, can't just sit back and see how a movie or show performs in the US before deciding to book it. If it's good, a year or more of piracy and social media spoilers will harm the official release. So there's extra pressure to reduce risks when US studios sell their products on the international market. Rather than just waiting to see how something has performed in the US, the international market now gets instant access to an increased amount of "part-tested" products, such as sequels and reboots.

[bushwackerbob]

I just finished watching the 2012 version of the movie Red Dawn. (terrible movie by the way) After watching the movie, I wanted to know more about this horrible excuse for a film. I was shocked to learn that the film's original bad guy/adversaries were the Chinese. Because of pressure from China and a desire to make money for the film in the Chinese market, the studio spent one million dollars to digitally alter the film so that North Korea are now the film's bad guys and not the Chinese. I may be naïve, but I think it is really sad that a Chinese totalitarian regime can have that kind of influence on an American film company just for the sake of the almighty dollar.

[Visitor]

That's part of the reason for the ever changing villains of all movies, but especially the James Bond series. Trying to find bad guys and gals that won't offend a market audience. Back during the Cold War of the 1960s it was fine to use the Russians and Chinese, but now you have villains with no national origin or it has no importance to the plot. Although back then you had to be careful not to upset corporate America and its advertising with the use of certain products.

[Disciple]

That's part of the reason for the ever changing villains of all movies, but especially the James Bond series. Trying to find bad guys and gals that won't offend a market audience. Back during the Cold War of the 1960s it was fine to use the Russians and Chinese, but now you have villains with no national origin or it has no importance to the plot. Although back then you had to be careful not to upset corporate America and its advertising with the use of certain products.

Actually, the old-school Bond films also bowed to the whole international market thing. Most of the Russian villains were written as 'renegade' from Moscow, who'd joined up with the 'nationless' crime cartel SPECTRE (TV Tropes even has an article on this). And I believe the Chinese were only ever off-screen villains (giving Goldfinger his nuke, hiring Blofeld to manufacture war between America & the USSR, etc.).

You want 100% non-PC Bond, you want the original Bond novels by Ian Fleming. Those were almost hilariously rife with 'ethnic' villains.

[tallyho]

I may be naïve, but I think it is really sad that a Chinese totalitarian regime can have that kind of influence on an American film company just for the sake of the almighty dollar.

Chinese companies own a controlling interest in 40% of Americas top 200 listed companies. They have bought Piraeus Harbour from the Greeks which is the biggest container port in Europe if not the world and dominates mediterranean trade. They have built a road through north Pakistan to have access to a port in the Indian Ocean /Arabian Sea and have a military base as of last year in Djibouti, which sounds like a pointless speck of a country but controls access to the Suez canal. All that as well as their man made islands in the Pacific. They are in it for the long haul. If I were you, I would get your kids learning mandarin. Theres a reason they speak it on Firefly.

[bushwackerbob]

While you are certainly correct in that China is in an expansion phase, and that many believe that in regards to their economy their size will eventually surpass the United States if it has not already, China has some issues that may prevent them from being the dominant power of the 21st century. China's economic model is not a sustainable in the long run for one, and furthermore, they have a huge demographic problem with a huge part of their population aging, and not having nearly enough young people. Also, China, like all other communist countries has a problem with the lack of innovative young minds. The solution to the lack of innovation in these communist countries inevitably is to steal and co-opt other countries ideas. The problem with that solution is that you are always chasing someone else's ideas, reacting to trends instead of creating one's own.

[Visitor]

Being the first with innovative ideas doesn't mean as much if you can follow quickly and let the first break ground for you. Despite everyone knowing about intellectual theft and counterfeit goods, China is such a large market that companies tolerate it and have little ability to stop it even as it costs our economy billions of dollars. Like the OPEC countries when oil prices were high and Japan back in the 1980s, when you have money you can get what you want.

Apple's iPhone was no where near being the first smart phone, but it did capture the market for years. Motorola came out with one before and its employees knew at the time it wasn't going to be successful, but they also knew they were going to get paid ridiculously large salaries while it lasted.

[Lurkndog]

Apple's iPhone was no where near being the first smart phone, but it did capture the market for years. Motorola came out with one before and its employees knew at the time it wasn't going to be successful, but they also knew they were going to get paid ridiculously large salaries while it lasted.

That used to be Apple's game plan: look for a developing market and put together a really good product to try and take it over.

Microsoft had been trying to put together a tablet PC for more than a decade before Apple launched the iPad. I know, I bought a Panasonic tablet PC, used, back in 2001. But the early tablets were really clunky and awkward, and they didn't have wifi. Apple were the one who put it all together and came up with the complete package of what a tablet needed to be.

[bushwackerbob]

I didn't think my post here necessitated a new topic, so I will post it here. I just came out from seeing the film "Sinners" starring Michael B Jordan. This was a really weird and bizarre film, and I mean that in a good way. Sometimes it is good to go into a film not knowing a lot about the plot of a film, the twists and turns can enhance one's enjoyment of a film. Oftentimes if you know a ton about an upcoming film, your expectations are raised, and you can come away disappointed if the film doesn't meet your expectations. Going into a film "flying blind" can be fun. Sometimes I think we know too much about upcoming films, especially in the social media era where information is much more available and accessible. We practically know the beginning, middle and end to some of these films before we even get to the theatre. We ruin it for ourselves to some degree.

[Femina]

Every ten years you have to be aware that they don't make movies like they used to... last decade, much less since the dawn of time. Film making 'gently' evolves with the world as it grows, it's imperceptible from one film to another... but over periods of time even as small as just a decade, enormous shifts in how certain elements are done and made change.

This is not new. Films TODAY aren't made the way films were made... when this topic was first published. If films never changed, we'd still be watching films with overly dramatic line delivery in black and white. It's a GOOD thing that film making changes.

[bushwackerbob]

Every ten years you have to be aware that they don't make movies like they used to... last decade, much less since the dawn of time. Film making 'gently' evolves with the world as it grows, it's imperceptible from one film to another... but over periods of time even as small as just a decade, enormous shifts in how certain elements are done and made change.

This is not new. Films TODAY aren't made the way films were made... when this topic was first published. If films never changed, we'd still be watching films with overly dramatic line delivery in black and white. It's a GOOD thing that film making changes.

Yes, it has occurred to me as I get older, they don't make films I want to see like they used to. This really isn't a political or woke thing with me, I saw both Avatar films in the theatre, which are clearly political in terms of allegories for how we treated Native Americans when we colonized America, if I know that going in, I will still watch the film if I think it might be good. Movie theatres have closed all across the nation, films are not as prominent part of our culture nowadays as they used to be. I totally agree with your point that filmmaking evolves, changes over time, that is quite natural and normal, but, forgetting my personal bias and tastes for a moment, do the studios still make as many movies that people want to see as they used to? I don't think so. There is a social media clip going around with Matt Damon who explains in depth the dearth of films folks want to see that was due to the DVD revenue market disappearing, but that seems too simplistic an explanation in my view. You look at any objective list of the top 100 films of all time, you will see comparatively few from this century. "Sinners" was a wonderful film though, I recommend it. Michael B Jordan was wonderful in the film, I hope he gets an Oscar nomination for his performance.

[Femina]

Every ten years you have to be aware that they don't make movies like they used to... last decade, much less since the dawn of time. Film making 'gently' evolves with the world as it grows, it's imperceptible from one film to another... but over periods of time even as small as just a decade, enormous shifts in how certain elements are done and made change.

This is not new. Films TODAY aren't made the way films were made... when this topic was first published. If films never changed, we'd still be watching films with overly dramatic line delivery in black and white. It's a GOOD thing that film making changes.

Yes, it has occurred to me as I get older, they don't make films I want to see like they used to. This really isn't a political or woke thing with me, I saw both Avatar films in the theatre, which are clearly political in terms of allegories for how we treated Native Americans when we colonized America, if I know that going in, I will still watch the film if I think it might be good. Movie theatres have closed all across the nation, films are not as prominent part of our culture nowadays as they used to be. I totally agree with your point that filmmaking evolves, changes over time, that is quite natural and normal, but, forgetting my personal bias and tastes for a moment, do the studios still make as many movies that people want to see as they used to? I don't think so. There is a social media clip going around with Matt Damon who explains in depth the dearth of films folks want to see that was due to the DVD revenue market disappearing, but that seems too simplistic an explanation in my view. You look at any objective list of the top 100 films of all time, you will see comparatively few from this century. "Sinners" was a wonderful film though, I recommend it. Michael B Jordan was wonderful in the film, I hope he gets an Oscar nomination for his performance.

A lot of this is just... 'covid' right? Covid killed cinema, but it was a gut stab and cinema has been slowly bleeding to death in a corner and the medical crew hasn't been able to get to them, probably cause it doesn't have medical insurance or something idk... I think that the majority of filmgoing 'traffic' has majorly just shifted from theater to the home, i.e. TV shows, streaming etc. I don't know if they're making less films 'overall' or if it's just like... the medium? I do very much wonder if we'll even still be making movies AT ALL in like 30 years now... which is something I could never even have imagined when I was young. Our venues of just 'entertainment' period are shifting real hard these days... We might all just be wearing VR headsets and watching whatever we tell the AI to show us at this point... who even knows...

[Void]

I tend to agree with the broad point here. Virtually all of my favourite films were released before 2010, and the vast majority of that selection were released before 2000. But there have still been plenty of good, even GREAT films released in the last decade. The main thing that really stands up for me is the film franchises - both that their more recent iterations are almost universally much worse (in my opinion) than their earlier ones, and that there aren't ANY new film franchises being born. I mean, that's such a ridiculously strong statement that it must be wrong, but as I write this I cannot think of any brand new franchise that has been launched. Nothing new has been born - everything is reheated cabbage.

We still live in the creative shadow of the 70s to 90s, trying, usually terribly, to capitalise on the appeal of those old IPs, with virtually no new IPs being born. And, to really push up my angry geek glasses here, usually the writers who are handed the reins to do something new with those old IPs don't even understand the appeal or even the identity/content of the IPs they are writing for, and instead use them as a platform to push their own indepedant story wearing the thin husk of the IP.

It's not as acute in gaming and TV series, mercifully, but they also have this issue to a lesser extent.

Of course, all this stuff is sort of co-morbid with us, the viewers making these observations, all getting older and more jaded - and more inclined to tear a story to pieces than we were as younger people. We aren't as forgiving or charitable to these things as we used to be.

[Malice]

I tend to agree with the broad point here. Virtually all of my favourite films were released before 2010, and the vast majority of that selection were released before 2000. But there have still been plenty of good, even GREAT films released in the last decade. The main thing that really stands up for me is the film franchises - both that their more recent iterations are almost universally much worse (in my opinion) than their earlier ones, and that there aren't ANY new film franchises being born. I mean, that's such a ridiculously strong statement that it must be wrong, but as I write this I cannot think of any brand new franchise that has been launched. Nothing new has been born - everything is reheated cabbage.

We still live in the creative shadow of the 70s to 90s, trying, usually terribly, to capitalise on the appeal of those old IPs, with virtually no new IPs being born. And, to really push up my angry geek glasses here, usually the writers who are handed the reins to do something new with those old IPs don't even understand the appeal or even the identity/content of the IPs they are writing for, and instead use them as a platform to push their own indepedant story wearing the thin husk of the IP.

It's not as acute in gaming and TV series, mercifully, but they also have this issue to a lesser extent.

Of course, all this stuff is sort of co-morbid with us, the viewers making these observations, all getting older and more jaded - and more inclined to tear a story to pieces than we were as younger people. We aren't as forgiving or charitable to these things as we used to be.

I hear you, but I 'd add that movies and video games have changed fundamentally, just in different ways.

Twenty years ago, “games as a service” didn’t exist, you bought a game once and that was it.

Now everything is built around customer's retention and microtransactions, which hurts innovation and storytelling.

Same goes for film. Back when consumers were mostly bound to theaters or cable, movies (even the barely okay ones) could appeal to broad audiences and deliver a real event experience.

Now streaming killed that.

So agreed, but it’s not just nostalgia. Let alone that cinema is constantly evolving.The media and the way it is consumed has shifted.

[Dogfish]

The subscription model of MMO started in the late 90s, that's as 'game as a service' as it gets, and World of Warcraft popped up in the early 2000s and was bigger than Jesus. Since then we lost the subscription model is all.

Other than that, yeah, mostly not wrong.

[Malice]

You have a point, but still, it’s a bit of a stretch to compare the early MMO era to today’s microtransaction hellscape.

Games like Dark Age Of Camelot or even WoW were outliers, yes FFXI was on PS2, but online play wasn’t mainstream, and the integration of monetization pipelines were not the obsession it is for shareholders now.

Not to say it was perfect or better, but it has changed, we definitely don’t make entertainment the way we used to.

[Mr. X]

You have a point, but still, it’s a bit of a stretch to compare the early MMO era to today’s microtransaction hellscape.

Games like Dark Age Of Camelot or even WoW were outliers, yes FFXI was on PS2, but online play wasn’t mainstream, and the integration of monetization pipelines were not the obsession it is for shareholders now.

Not to say it was perfect or better, but it has changed, we definitely don’t make entertainment the way we used to.

Also, in the old days, you got a shipped product. Today you're the QA for the product. Star Trek Online was beta for quite a while.

[Visitor]

Also, in the old days, you got a shipped product. Today you're the QA for the product. Star Trek Online was beta for quite a while.

Today your online copy can be taken down and you'll never see it again. That happened with movies on services.

[Femina]

Games are a very different landscape of nonsense. Videogame publishers have been uniquely whining about getting royalties no other entertainment medium has ever been afforded. Videogames didn't ALWAYS have ballooned Hollywood film budgets, that's more or less a recent development, but even as far back as the early 00's they wanted 'games as a service' and complained that it was impossible to deliver a product without seven DLC accompaniments for additional profit... despite the fact they were mainly shipping complete products, at lower budgets than films, with a 'copy' of the 'film' that cost 60 bucks instead of 20 bucks, they still moaned they weren't making enough money, all the while their profit margins were rising exponentially.

"Growth for the sake of growth is the ideology of the cancer cell" - Edward Abbey

[Mr. X]

Did people know the video game industry is one of the top government subsidized industries in the US?