The meme of "Movies are getting worse"

I shared a truncated version of this idea in the "Shower Thoughts" thread and figured I'd elaborate a bit more. Deep, beautiful, memorable movies are still being released, and even the 2010s has plenty of memorable examples. Blade Runner 2049, Mandy, Blindspotting, Suicide Squad (2021), Beyond the Black Rainbow, Once Upon a Time in Hollywood, Mank, Parasite, Interstellar, Whiplash, and Mad Max: Fury Road all come to mind, most of which are mainstream, big studio productions. However, this narrative--that Hollywood is becoming less and less of a reliable place to find great films--does carry some truth. Here are a few reasons that appear true to me, and I would love to hear additional perspectives or refutations.

· The Internet age has democratized information, making it available to everyone. This means that advertising cannot be nearly as targeted or effective as in the past, since each individual person may find themselves in a somewhat unique sphere of information, making it very easy to overlook a major ad campaign for an upcoming film.

· This democratization of info also makes it less likely for a single work of art to become as culturally monolithic as in the past. A movie's images, score, scenes, and dialogue are less impactful in a sea composed not only of various types of information, but also information that is similar to any given movie.

· More movies are released by Hollywood per year than in the past, and statistically most movies are forgotten while only a few become iconic. So this means that more unremarkable movies are released per year than in the past.

· We are living in a post-post-modern age, where large swaths of art are built from referencing other material, resulting in endless reboots, remakes, prequels, and sequels. Ready Player One and Space Jam 2: A New Legacy are particularly grotesque examples, with much of the films' appeal being contingent on the inclusion of various IPs the studio has rights to.

· Foreign markets have become more important than national markets, so it's good practice to appeal to those markets. This typically means dumbing down the dialogue to avoid culturally specific references, colloquialisms and wordplay. It also means catering to what translates best to a general audience, which are big loud blockbuster action films; films that don't require deep narratives, strong character arcs or well-structured scripts to be successful. Big loud blockbuster action films can be deep, but they don't have to in order to make a profit.

· Big name studios are more reluctant than in the past to finance mainstream arthouse films because there is a risk they will be unsuccessful. Indie films serve as an alternative, but there are not really many convenient spaces these days for big budget films with a strong artistic flair. Dune is a notable exception.

· The rise of shooting digital over film in the last decade has changed the way movies look. A competent director can get a beautiful image out of digital, but in a number of cases the color grading results in very distinct palettes that can look extremely unnatural and overdone, as opposed to stylistic. Additionally, high-end digital tends to have very little grain, and overly smooth images can look unnatural to us, as our visual inputs create their own layer of grain, so it looks "wrong" to see overly sharp images with no grain.

· Seth Rogan, on the set of the VFX YouTube channel Corridor Crew, mentioned that studios often reject any attempt to use large scale sets, miniatures, puppets, prosthetics, etc., because they believe a CG version will look better. This is in spite of the fact that a lot of practical effects from older movies still look good, and combining practical with a bit of CG can have incredible results.

· TV shows can have the high-budget look and feel of a Hollywood film, blurring the distinction between the two media and causing modern movies, even high quality ones, to sometimes appear cheap.

· The "Movies by committee" problem is not new, but more common. It results in less focus on character development, motivation, arcs, stable three-act structure, etc., and more focus on whether the various elements of the movie will generate profit overseas.

· Some studios think they can attract audiences by pretending to be woke, resulting in films place leftist political narratives up front while not actually saying anything of substance or effectively criticizing anything. This results in decisions to swap genders, push diversity and having characters deliver heavy-handed speeches, not because the studios are actually passionate about these things, but because they believe it will make the movie more profitable.

It's true that there are bad films in every era, and there are critically dismissed films in every era that eventually become respected. What's different, more than anything, is that Hollywood as a corporate entity kept raising the ceiling for the profit margin. This is okay at first, but as the ceiling raises ever higher, the pressure to release product in order to meet that margin forces increasing numbers of products to be of sub-standard quality.

2 hours ago, Graf Zahl said:

I'll make an exception for Disney's franchise milking, though. This has become so excessive that it's starting to harm the rest of the industry because one has the impression that it is all filmmaking has become these days. When the word "Marvel" appears somewhere I'll be far away in no time. I've tried watching a few but these things are so formulaic that there's not much of a point left to watch them. Why are they still getting these good reviews? And how long will this work?

I think it's just Disney being Disney, does anyone even know about the Little Mermaid sequels? It had 2 sequels, I had to check wikipedia to make sure that they weren't fever dreams I imagined watching in class.  Disney will make something good and hold on to it forever because of American copyright law (Unless Disney attempts to lobby congress for another copyright extension but we might get lucky).  I try and avoid to touch anything Disney has control over anymore.

I’m of the “good and bad films exist in every era” mindset, mainly because it’s simply true - but a lot of the reasons given in the opening post really do seem to explain the phenomenon of “schlock en masse” we see in the current generation.

Sturgeon's law says that 95% of everything is crap.

As time passes, however, the crap of yesteryear is forgotten about, while the gems are remembered. This creates the effect that the works of the past seem of a consistently higher quality than the works of today.

7 hours ago, Plank_Guy_89 said:

Disney will make something good and hold on to it forever because of American copyright law (Unless Disney attempts to lobby congress for another copyright extension but we might get lucky).

They've switched to trademark now, since it's effectively unlimited as long as you defend it.

https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2019/01/a-whole-years-worth-of-works-just-fell-into-the-public-domain/

25 minutes ago, Gez said:

As time passes, however, the crap of yesteryear is forgotten about, while the gems are remembered.

And sometimes even the "crap" of yesteryear becomes classics later.

May I remind you of things like Sergio Leone's Dollar Trilogy which was butchered by the critics back in the 60's, or John Carpenter's "The Thing" which suffered the same fate in the early 80's? Both of these are now being considered classics of their respective genre.

39 minutes ago, Graf Zahl said:

 

And sometimes even the "crap" of yesteryear becomes classics later.

 

May I remind you of things like Sergio Leone's Dollar Trilogy which was butchered by the critics back in the 60's, or John Carpenter's "The Thing" which suffered the same fate in the early 80's? Both of these are now being considered classics of their respective genre.

 

Let's not forget about The Shining. No, it wasn't the book, and it was lambasted for deviating from the book. I read the book after seeing the movie, and at first I thought the book was better, but after watching the movie a few more time I think Kubrick better handled the nuances of a descent into psychosis. I think the movie is a better, more concise telling of the story than King ever could've accomplished. 

I don't dislike Stephen King, but he himself has said "Amateurs wait for inspiration, the rest of us just get up and go to work". Which is fine, and admirable. But it doesn't seem like he sees his writing as art, but a source of income. Stanley Kubrick seemed like he intended to create art more than anything, and his vision of The Shining ended up being far more compelling than the book itself.

And Nicholson's performance in that movie was just fantastic.

Well, and we have direct confirmation that King couldn't make a decent show/movie from the book. The 1997 miniseries was atrocious compared to Kubrick's 1980 movie.

56 minutes ago, Jello said:

I don't dislike Stephen King, but he himself has said "Amateurs wait for inspiration, the rest of us just get up and go to work".

I say fair enough, whilst I've wanted to be a writer since my teens I came to the conclusion I would rather stay an Amateur and not aim to go professional. King I think expresses one reason why by this quote, the other thing being, I'm not good at dealing with any kind of pressure, I wouldn't be able to work under deadlines or creative restrictions. I have a lot of respect for those that do work under that and still make quality work. But I also think a lot of work created under those circumstances is awful as well, and you can generally tell what the issues were. 

I think @Graf Zahl is right to single out Disney, they have become a factory of IP absorption, and shitting out movies on a blatant production line. And @Koko Ricky the list in your starting post I think is pretty much on point. I'd say there are still good movies being made but we have even more shit to sift through than in the past.

I have taken more of an interest in past movies because specifically the overreliance on CG now has given me more appreciation both for practical effects and smaller scale stories. 

2 hours ago, Gez said:

As time passes, however, the crap of yesteryear is forgotten about, while the gems are remembered. This creates the effect that the works of the past seem of a consistently higher quality than the works of today.

100% correct. You see the same problem in music, if not more so. People remember the legends of old like Queen, Led Zep, AC/DC, Aerosmith, Van Halen etc and forget all the disposable bubblegum pop and stupid novelty songs. All the while musicians who are every bit as good as those old bands or in some cases can outright play circles around them struggle for attention while the record companies push utter shite. Good music got more of a look in back in the day though alongside the crap, and this creates the impression in many people's minds there is no good music anymore when in reality there's never been more. It's quite frustrating.

I find the medium of music, novels and comics are pretty great these days, if you're willing to take the time to dig through a lot. These are not as gated mediums for people to break into. Videogames might even be comparable to them now because I'm seeing an increasing amount of impressive projects from small outfits. 

But film (which I will include TV and animation in) are very costly and labour intensive upfront. Amateurs can pull of short films but not full features. As a result, the pickings there are still fairly slim at the grassroots level, and likely will always be. 

I never truly enjoyed film as a medium and everything outside of Marvel or the newest "nerdy" film just plain doesn't interest me. 

All those people who spew that crap are just a bunch of YouTube reactionary grifters, and their opinions couldn't be more worthless. Their "critiques" never go deeper than the most basic plot description, and the finding of stupid "plot-holes" where a character wears shocks slightly higher in one scene compared to the previous one. They never talk about cinematography, composition, editing, colors, themes. They never review anything besides blockbuster franchise made after 1970. There is no world cinema, or the great classics of the art. All in all, there is no point in even caring about what they say. I will stop now, I've already given them too much attention, and there are better things to do with my time than be mad at such idiocy.

8 minutes ago, hybridial said:

I find the medium of music, novels and comics are pretty great these days, if you're willing to take the time to dig through a lot. 

With music things definitely have improved with streaming services and Youtube.

In the past it was virtually impossible to get any non-mainstream music at all - the radio stations did not play it, the charts did not list it, so the stores did not stock it.

Today I only need to click through Youtube with the right keywords and there's more than enough content. And if I like something there's ways to buy it.

It's just too bad that the big companies still have sufficient control over what more passive people get to hear, but IMO their best days are over. They are dinosaurs in a market that has outlived their usefulness.

I dunno man, it feels to me that Disney/Marvel stuff is too dominant this era, with every movie studio still trying to create new cinematic universes instead of simple standalone movies.

I´m also getting sick of superhero/nerdy stuff in general and would preffer something more serious/gritty/standalone.

i wouldn't really say movies are getting objectively "Bad", But a common practice is sticking to motif's and Formula's because it is the most financially "safe" thing a company can do. I feel people forget that Hollywood is a thriving business and thus, they will do whatever they think is best for the companies that make up the industry. Does that excuse the same rehashed movies? and overall Quality? no not necessarily, But to say that newer films are getting "bad" is not correct imo.

Since the beginning of Cinema, Movies have catered to the audience of the time. In order for movies to continue to be relevant, they must change with the times. Movies aren't getting worst, they simply are keeping up with the modern era.

1 minute ago, Morpheus666 said:

but one cannot live in the past, Less they be blind to the future. 

I find that to be a complete misnomer here.

Good storytelling and good film making have some rules that were always important and will always continue to be important, and the actual good films made now are by people who realise this. 

2 minutes ago, hybridial said:

Good storytelling and good film making have some rules that were always important and will always continue to be important, and the actual good films made now are by people who realise this. 

Movies are changing with the times, if you don't like the new films, don't watch them. It's not like someone is forcing you to consume there products.

I hold high respect for people like Stanley Kubrick and David Lynch, but sticking to what older films did will not make breakthroughs in movies.

Just now, Morpheus666 said:

Movies are changing with the times, if you don't like the new films, don't watch them. It's not like someone is forcing you to consume there products.

The above was a misnomer, this is just ignorant of what I said and fails to convey any meaning whatsoever. 

I won't waste time with someone who's being insolent. I'm trying to have a conversation and your worrying about the logistics of what i say

8 minutes ago, Morpheus666 said:

I won't waste time with someone who's being insolent. I'm trying to have a conversation and your worrying about the logistics of what i say

I am not being intentionally aggressive, but I am going to say my responses straight. What you said was an extreme generality and it doesn't apply to what I said logically. It's dismissive, because I'm not hating on new movies, I'm pointing out that the good ones generally have analogues in the past as to why they are good. I've spent a lot of time learning the craft of writing, a mix of by doing, observation, research and study,  and a lot of what I've learned is ignore those that came before you at your peril. There's a lot to be learned.

You just said a platitude which I think can have a point in certain contexts but comes across as incredibly trite when used generally. 

16 hours ago, Koko Ricky said:

We are living in a post-post-modern age, where large swaths of art are built from referencing other material, resulting in endless reboots, remakes, prequels, and sequels. Ready Player One and Space Jam 2: A New Legacy are particularly grotesque examples, with much of the films' appeal being contingent on the inclusion of various IPs the studio has rights to.

This one isn't really all that unique to the time we live in now, unfortunately. I'm old enough to have witnessed the Hollywood machine fart out thousands of remakes, reboots, sequels and prequels for the last 15 years as they plunder the depths of the same handful of films from 40 years ago. It's certainly gotten even more desperate in recent years, that's for sure. They're making sequels to films that are 20 years too late that nobody wants. I mean, who the hell asked for Independence Day 2? Also, the phenomenon of film companies farting out some garbage film linked to an IP they haven't been using for years isn't new either. It's done simply so they can re-validate their ownership of it and make the real money off it from licencing it out to people who actually want to do something cool with it.

The more things change, the more they stay the same. Fortunately, I haven't become insanely cynical and still find plenty of movies to love. Sometimes you just have to put in the effort and wade through the shit to find the good stuff.

I broadly agree with the idea here. While it's true that we usually only remember the "gems" of previous decades and forget most of the crap, which means we tend to see them through rose-tinted glasses, I do feel like you can throw on any middle-of-the-road 90s-or-earlier movie and generally have a better time than any middle-of-the-road 00s/10/20s movie, mainly because:

1. It'll be shot on film
2. It'll have practical effects
3. It will probably only be 90 minutes long (or even shorter!)
4. 90s action movies were still more often than not marketed towards adults - so you might see actual violence, and you'll probably see at least an acknowledgement of sex/sensuality, something that's almost totally absent from mainstream American film.

The 10s/20s also have their own exhausting trend wherein everything is IP. Obviously franchises have been around for decades now, but you can pretty much watch any Bond movie, for example, on its own, whereas you can't just hop into a Marvel or post-80s Star Wars movie without watching 50 other movies and TV shows first. And it gets even worse with the Ready Player One/Space Jam 2/Free Guy/Ralph Breaks the Internet-style films that have literally nothing holding them up except references to other, superior works of art.

HOWEVER. I do think there's a difference between American movies and just movies in general (though obviously the former is the bulk of the latter). Every time I feel down and think cinema is dead, I go see what filmmakers from other countries are making - Bong's Parasite, Carax's Annette, Ducournau's Titane, Gan's Long Day's Journey Into Night, etc. - the list of masterpieces could go on and on.

TL;DR: American movies are definitely getting worse, but I think international cinema is still as alive as ever, if not moreso in some circumstances (see: the Korean New Wave that started in the later 2000s).

The types of films made today that really piss me off personally are the ones that are attempting to ride off on the success of the MCU. How many movies have we seen that tried to make a cinematic universe and failed? Too many to count.
 

They try to sequel build the first film and essentially try everything imaginable to make the first film as close to worthless as possible, because they just throw in bullshit to tie it to another film (or even films) they want in their series of movies. This ensures that the first film has little chance of standing on its own as an individual experience, especially if the build up leads to the sequels never coming to fruition.

Some movies wait to do this until the sequel, and then the sequel suffers instead by becoming the “middle filler film” to bridge the gap between part 1 and 3. Lame. Why don’t they just make a fucking show?

I think my biggest complaint as far as there being a lot of cinematic excrement these days is bad comedy films. I don't know about you guys, but I can't remember the last time a modern comedy made me laugh. All my favourites are stuff from 30 years ago or even older! I genuinely can't think of any comedy film I love that was made post-2006. Nobody seems to know how to make a funny movie anymore, which is depressing.

1 hour ago, ICID said:

1. It'll be shot on film
2. It'll have practical effects
3. It will probably only be 90 minutes long (or even shorter!)
4. 90s action movies were still more often than not marketed towards adults - so you might see actual violence, and you'll probably see at least an acknowledgement of sex/sensuality, something that's almost totally absent from mainstream American film.

Literally none of these points correlate to the overall quality of a film, and are clearly more a reflection of your preferences.

3 minutes ago, Faceman2000 said:

Literally none of these points correlate to the overall quality of a film, and are clearly more a reflection of your preferences.

Fair enough, but there is no objective measure of film quality. We're all just talking about our preferences here imo.

1 hour ago, Biodegradable said:

This one isn't really all that unique to the time we live in now, unfortunately. I'm old enough to have witnessed the Hollywood machine fart out thousands of remakes, reboots, sequels and prequels for the last 15 years as they plunder the depths of the same handful of films from 40 years ago.

Heck, the poster child for pointless crap sequels, Breakin' 2: Electric Boogaloo, is itself nearly 40 years old already.

I'm not even that old and I will say that there has always been an absolute boatload of trash movies, I actually really love trash stuff like Samurai Cop and shit like that but the amount of yawn-tastic, middling, offensively boring wastes of time have always been churned out, in fact I think early 2000 was probably the worst time for it.

Literally any daytime TV movie fits the bill, if the film is broadcast on Daytime TV then it is because it is shit and nobody remembers it, they're little more than broadcast/schedule fillers doomed to be left on in the background during cleaning, they're also 95% romance or teen coming of age films usually.

4 hours ago, Graf Zahl said:

 

With music things definitely have improved with streaming services and Youtube.

In the past it was virtually impossible to get any non-mainstream music at all - the radio stations did not play it, the charts did not list it, so the stores did not stock it.

Today I only need to click through Youtube with the right keywords and there's more than enough content. And if I like something there's ways to buy it.

 

It's just too bad that the big companies still have sufficient control over what more passive people get to hear, but IMO their best days are over. They are dinosaurs in a market that has outlived their usefulness.

 

With modern music, there is a problem that extends far beyond how corporate entities control what is heard, which is not something that I think is even possible at this point, as it's easier than ever to avoid advertisements despite their ubiquity. That problem is one of homogeny, where many of the hit songs of today are made by the same pool of producers, who all use similar software/hardware, similar samples for drums, similar chord progressions, similar compositional structures, and similar vocal lines, resulting in an overall similar sound across various disparate genres. In addition, they tend to be a bit flat, with too much compression and very little sense of space. It's very much the same with the Hollywood movie industry: You have a few studios making most of the hits, and most of the hits share a number of characteristics, resulting in movies that all seem oddly similar.