The meme of "Movies are getting worse"

That's nothing new. Even back in the 80's this type of assembly-line producers existed and generally their output flat out sucked.

These were particularly notorious for recycling the exact same stuff over and over and over again, everything they made sounded the same.

Good music is mainly found outside the mainstream.

To a degree there is a burden on the user end, to actually give a damn enough to go out and find experiences outside of pop culture. 

And unfortunately not a great deal of people ultimately care enough to do that. 

15 minutes ago, hybridial said:

To a degree there is a burden on the user end, to actually give a damn enough to go out and find experiences outside of pop culture. 

 

And unfortunately not a great deal of people ultimately care enough to do that. 

Reminds me of the fact that I used to be surprised whenever someone was unaware of a piece of media that I thought was extremely trivial. Finding out that they're only popular in that media bubble. Take The Good the Bad and the Ugly, which while very well known and even unintentionally quoted or referenced by those who don't know about the film, was not AS mainstream as I once thought.

I know film enthusiasts probably know the film and gossip about its cinematography and story and all, but in my own personal experiences not many know about it. They might've heard the title referenced somewhere or gets the just of it, but otherwise haven't seen it or know why it's pedastalled in film.

20 hours ago, Graf Zahl said:

Weren't many of the films of the past now being considered classics mostly dismissed when they were released?

And haven't the blockbusters from 20 years ago been mostly forgotten due to their shallowness.

Didn't we have this debate each decade? It's always the old stuff being declared "classic", the older and more detached from present times, the better?

My guess is that in 10 years we will have the same argument about films from now.

 

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?

 

While the "Marvel formulaic" is usually true, I do highly recommend watching Shang-Chi, particularly in IMAX. IMO, it's one of the best movies Marvel has put out and does break many of the moulds of past movies. Plus the action & martial arts are absolutely top notch; a love letter to action/martial arts.

8 hours ago, Graf Zahl said:

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.

 

Right On!

On 9/23/2021 at 12:24 AM, 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'm definitely tired of Disney, the way Marvel movies are painted so obscenely by the numbers is uncanny and sickening.

There's barely any intent in these films, no intent from the director, no intent from the writer or cinematographer, not from the actors, no, a committee tasks a director to assemble a movie according to a researched and focus tested formula, often they even have halfbaked scenes done in advance, which are then greenscreened and edited to fit the movie.

Typically they end up competent, the acting, writing, directing, effects, none of it is objectively bad, but are they memorable or interesting? Bruno Mattei shamelessly ripping off American action movies was more stimulating and memorable than these movies are at this point, and his films were TRASH.

18 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.

 

I definitely agree on the music side of things. Before Audiogalaxy existed I was basically stuck with what the main CD stores had in stock. Yes, Audiogalaxy wasn't particularly legal back then, but I found quite a few bands that I would have never known about before it existed. And hence, those bands would've never gotten any money from me. Because I did buy the albums that I downloaded when I had money.

But ASP, Deadbolt, Victim's Family, Bauhaus, Leningrad, Skyforger, and so many others never would've seen a dime from me without Audiogalaxy. I mean, I might've come across Bauhaus at some point. But the biggest one was Tom Waits, my brother suggested I download a song or two by him and I fell in love instantly. Now I've bought all of his albums on CD, and half of them (my favorite ones) on vinyl as well. 

I suppose it depends on the person, but I never really saw Napster, Audiogalaxy, Limewire, Kazaa as being much of a problem. I wanted to listen to the music, and expand my horizons, just couldn't afford it at the time. When I found a band I loved, I made a point of buying their albums over time. If they were available for purchase; some of the stuff was so damn obscure that you can't actually buy it. And this was before Youtube even existed, so my options were limited to aforementioned p2p clients, people that I knew, going to punk shows, and hitting up the only independent record store in town and finding something that looked neat. Hell, that's how I found Fugazi and Cannibal Corpse. 

I think one of the Problems that brings up such an View is, if someone gets a hit, many try to mimik it.

Example would be Troy, is a great Movie.

So others followed and released many medicore Movies.

In Video Games it would be the Wave of World War 2 Shooters and also the greyish Tone.

13 hours ago, Koko Ricky said:

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. 

Nicely summerized.

At the End i have to be thankfull that they  managed to bring over the Top Stories to the Audience.

I couldn't imagine a succsesfull Godzilla versus Kong a Decade ago.

23 minutes ago, Jello said:

I suppose it depends on the person, but I never really saw Napster, Audiogalaxy, Limewire, Kazaa as being much of a problem. I wanted to listen to the music, and expand my horizons, just couldn't afford it at the time. When I found a band I loved, I made a point of buying their albums over time.

And here's why these services were such a threat to the music industry. Not because they lost profits but because they lost control. Before Napster they could basically dictate what people were supposed to listen to and were relentlessly pushing the genre of the day until it was squeezed dry. Grunge is one of the best examples for this, and it had the added 'benefit' for the industry that it did serious harm to the underground/independent scene.

Of course, in the end it was inevitable that these services, illegal as they were, were a harbinger of things to come, i.e. paid streaming, ad-supported music offerings (e.g. Youtube) and bands self-releasing their work on such channels.

They still got enough momentum to go forward but I am certain that this industry will never be again what it was 2 or 3 decades ago when they reigned supreme. They still try to push through some shitty laws, but even that is getting harder with every passing year.

Sadly with movies it is different, because they cost too much, and the same goes for high profile computer games. Fortunately with the games it is economically feasible to grab an engine, do a simpler game and make do with a fraction of the profits of an AAA game. But with truly independent movies it's a lot harder to get exposure, and you need a lot more expensive talent to get started, so I do not really see things improving here.

5 hours ago, ChopBlock223 said:

I'm definitely tired of Disney, the way Marvel movies are painted so obscenely by the numbers is uncanny and sickening.

There's barely any intent in these films, no intent from the director, no intent from the writer or cinematographer, not from the actors, no, a committee tasks a director to assemble a movie according to a researched and focus tested formula, often they even have halfbaked scenes done in advance, which are then greenscreened and edited to fit the movie.

Fully agreed on anything. No matter whether it's the big tentpoles or the single character movies, the run-of-the-mill formula that's being used to create them renders them uninteresting for me by default, and people can tell me ten times over that *that* particular one is different. I've been disappointed so many times, I won't even try anymore. Technically they are all perfect to a fault, but they are truly soulless mass products. If it says "Marvel" I am out. Warner/DC at least try to be a bit more diverse but the big ones of them aren't really any better.

Marvel movies are meant to be comfort food. Accessible, fun entertainment. The public knows this, the fans know this, but on the internet there's a growing contingency of people who are demanding the movies be High Art and sacrifice what makes them so entertaining. You want experimentation in your superhero films, the DCEU is that way (I'm sure they could use the fans.) 

Even for my comfort food I'd like something different, not this monstrous "universe" where you must not miss a single film to enjoy the next one, and certainly a bit more variety.

I think Marvel highlights one big problem of entertainment media in general. Once something works it is repeated ad nauseum. The result is that these films have started to drown out all alternatives with their market power. Instead of trying competing formats, other studios just try to copy the fomula (and constantly fail at that)

Logan's a good film, Marvel or otherwise, and GOTG 1 was funny beyond the usual That Just Happened stuff and you don't need to watch the other films to get into them.

imo

I guess the general problem is that the world's full of interesting art movies but half the people posting on DW are from the generation who'll say "cowboys eating pudding" and move on without ever dipping their toes in

My thoughts on phenomena like the MCU...I think it's a bit of a movie killer. Sequels and prequels and reboots are fine, Hollywood has done it for decades. But this idea of a massive anthology of films that are all interconnected because it's convenient for the IP they're attached to...I don't think we need to indulge that approach as much as we have. Superhero/comic book adaptations can be fun, but they end up being the go-to for big budget movies and action blockbusters. If you look back a few decades, a variety of films--from science fiction to thriller to arthouse to animated--could receive that sort of big budget treatment. It can still happen now, but a studio is more likely to reserve that for a "safe" IP like MCU.

I'd just best to remember that movies do not equal hollywood and you can try new stuff from home.

BFI is a good way to discover new stuff: https://player.bfi.org.uk/rentals 

Think Curzon Home Cinema is UK-only but should be similar outlets everywhere for indy/foreign: https://homecinema.curzon.com/ 

Rides of Justice is one of the best I've seen recently, recommended.

26 minutes ago, Steveb1000 said:

I'd just best to remember that movies do not equal hollywood

A VERY important fact to remember indeed, Steve. So many great movies out there made outside of the machine.

1 hour ago, Steveb1000 said:

I'd just best to remember that movies do not equal hollywood and you can try new stuff from home.

 

I made it clear in the OP I was specifically criticizing Hollywood.

9 hours ago, Mr. Freeze said:

Marvel movies are meant to be comfort food. Accessible, fun entertainment. The public knows this, the fans know this, but on the internet there's a growing contingency of people who are demanding the movies be High Art and sacrifice what makes them so entertaining. You want experimentation in your superhero films, the DCEU is that way (I'm sure they could use the fans.) 

Oh no, imagine people sick of seeing the same shit trotted out over and over and wanting to see something different. What assholes. 

:P

Quote

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

Of those I've seen Bladerunner, Insterstellar, Mad Max and wished I had spent my time doing something else after watching each of them.  The last hollywood production that I saw and thought was worth the time was Sicario, a 2015 film.

1 hour ago, hybridial said:

 

Oh no, imagine people sick of seeing the same shit trotted out over and over and wanting to see something different. What assholes. 

 

:P

OK so watch something other than Marvel movies. Nobody's holding you at gunpoint and making you watch the Avengers. 

3 minutes ago, Mr. Freeze said:

OK so watch something other than Marvel movies. Nobody's holding you at gunpoint and making you watch the Avengers. 

I cede your point, can't really argue with that, lol. 

23 minutes ago, Mr. Freeze said:

 

OK so watch something other than Marvel movies. Nobody's holding you at gunpoint and making you watch the Avengers. 

This gets a *bit*of a problem because nowadays 'blockbuster' means 'part of some crappy movie universe'. This whole thing is killing diversity left and right, only leaving low budget stuff as an alternative which may not be to everyone's taste.

1 hour ago, Graf Zahl said:

This gets a *bit*of a problem because nowadays 'blockbuster' means 'part of some crappy movie universe'. This whole thing is killing diversity left and right, only leaving low budget stuff as an alternative which may not be to everyone's taste.

Sounds more than a little like the AAA games industry.

Unfortunately I think going to lower scale productions is kind of the only choice left. 

I don't think hollywood was "a reliable place to find iconic films" at any point during our lifetimes.

Some films I quite liked recently: Psycho Goreman, the Death of Stalin, Host (2020)... can't remember what else.

I thought Beyond the Black Rainbow was alright, but a bit slow and not much happened. If you're gonna have a horror movie be that slow paced, I think the violent bits have to be a lot scarier/more memorable than this for it to work (for example, the original texas chainsaw massacre is even more slow paced to begin with, but works perfectly because the violent bits are so well done). Great visuals and performances though, of course.

On 9/22/2021 at 10:10 PM, Koko Ricky said:

· 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.

Damn, why did you bury this nugget of gold at the end of your post.

Did you use to be Goatload, by any chance

7 minutes ago, Grain of Salt said:

I don't think hollywood was "a reliable place to find iconic films" at any point during our lifetimes.

 

Some films I quite liked recently: Psycho Goreman, the Death of Stalin, Host (2020)... can't remember what else.

 

I thought Beyond the Black Rainbow was alright, but a bit slow and not much happened. If you're gonna have a horror movie be that slow paced, I think the violent bits have to be a lot scarier/more memorable than this for it to work (for example, the original texas chainsaw massacre is even more slow paced to begin with, but works perfectly because the violent bits are so well done). Great visuals and performances though, of course.

 

 

Damn, why did you bury this nugget of gold at the end of your post.

 

Did you use to be Goatload, by any chance

Disagree on your disagreement about Hollywood! C'mon, we both know there are lots of monolithic IPs that were also excellent films, that are also household names. Yes, most films are forgotten, not due to poor marketing (I would say the poorly marketed or misunderstood ones are in the minority here) but because they're just not that great. However, it doesn't change that there was a time that a film could really impact the culture because it was such an effective work of art. That whole "democratization of information" thing the Internet afforded us does make monolithic works of art less of an occurrence, but there is something that feels different about films now versus the past that I think is directly connected to that whole "we must make as much product as possible, regardless of quality" philosophy they uphold.

I also agree that Beyond the Black Rainbow as maybe a bit too slow, but I really dig it. The movie puts me in a trance and it's ecstatic. The director's follow-up, Mandy, is even better, but is still very slow in the first half. I love slow burners so to me it's perfect. And yes, I am formally Goatlord. Koko Ricky is my branding, so I've been changing all my accounts to reflect that.

I don't think movies are getting worse. On the contrary, it seems to me that they are better. Many interesting special effects. that may interest the viewer.

I especially agree with the Netflix adaptation meme, as a former Netflix user.

On 9/22/2021 at 2:10 PM, Koko Ricky said:

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.

Honestly I have just stayed away from Hollywood every since it succumbed to endless remake-itis. Besides I much prefer films from the 70s, 80s, 90s, anyway (a lot of which I haven't seen since I wasn't alive then).

Some of your points are valid and make sense--the global economy is far more interconnected in the internet age and appeasing the totalitarian regimes in China for instance is something the evil Mickey Mouse corp has been known to do.

And obviously studios have always preferred low risk, predictable crap that sells over anything slightly risky. Every investor does.

Other things I disagree with, such as being inside a personalized ad bubble. Maybe if you're plugged into the Matrix they call Twitter/Facebook that's true, but some of us care about privacy and disable personalized results.

However I think you neglect to articulate the #1 reason movies (and to far lesser extent) games suck major balls today: the people. I am honestly astounded that these pure, unadulterated garbage films that pass for remakes/reboots of a once beloved series still manage to sell so much they topple records. This downward spiral has been going on over a decade at least, and I lose track of how many of my favorite tv series/movies have had their legacy completely annihilated by the same handful of corporate mega-conglomerates that own everything, and still people show no signs of wanting something different. Good god how many derivative, pre-pubescent-oriented Marvel and DC superhero films do you need before people stop buying tickets (or subscribing to streaming services these days). It's like they reboot Batman and Spiderman every other year.

Or it's some famous movie/tv series from the 80s/90s --Westworld, Magnum PI, Total Recall, X-Files, Silence of the Lambs, Ghostbusters, Star Wars, Star Trek, Dr Who, Terminator, Robocop, etc. The reason Hollywood keeps making more of the same old IPs is because people keep watching this stuff. The day people don't immediately have Pavlovian salivation in response to a famous name getting a millionth do-over is the day companies will be forced to make something actually original. Blame the Demand, not the Supply.

P.S. Digital Cameras suck compared to film, and no matter how realistic CG gets (which is really impressive these days) something built by people that's physically present will always feel more real in some sense. Good CGI can be a bit of a crutch. You don't have to get as creative and innovate anymore to create the kind of effect you wanted in the past, because there's already a set method in place to create anything on a computer.

Edit: Oh, and lest we forget, cancel culture is a thing (as are the people who fall back on it as an excuse for their own incompetence or misdoing getting them fired) Innocent, often classic episodes are whitewashed, cleaned, or more likely outright erased from the archives, because it might offend the Puritanical masses. New movies love to put the "strong wahmen" trope which has only fueled more misogyny because then people assume you can't have a good action movie with a female lead even though there used to be tons of those. It's not the women but the horrible writing and politics over art that's the issue.

I don't think they're getting worse because they've already reached rock bottom.

2 hours ago, QuaketallicA said:

New movies love to put the "strong wahmen" trope which has only fueled more misogyny because then people assume you can't have a good action movie with a female lead even though there used to be tons of those. It's not the women but the horrible writing and politics over art that's the issue.

And they mostly fail bacause those "strong women" are just the same old warrior clichés used for most male action heroes just with a female twist.

Ironically for me the best female action hero is still Geena Davis in "The Long Kiss Goodnight", because what defined her strength was not being a warrior/fighter but ultimately being a woman/mother. I've never seen such characters in modern comic book movies.

"A Quiet Place" was a rare exception that also did it right.

All cliches aside, I find, personally, that it's rare for me to enjoy a theatre experience for any films shorter than 2:30, and tend to prefer >3 hour runtimes when I have the option. Even medocre plots I enjoy more when they have time to breathe, though I do agree with people who endorse practical effects and shot-on-film, the latter of which is a personal love of mine.

In regards to Disney, I don't explicitly hate the Production-line process they've been applying, though I do think that companies should compete with them more seriously, because Disney's frankly not very good at creative writing. And when they succeed there, they alienate long-lived fandoms, no in-between. I very much loved the DCEU, for what little success its had, but I think more companies need to take the Marvel formula of planning a dozen or more installments and not waiting to see if one individual film is successful before determining success, which has been Disney's secret ingredient, IMO. If any other company had had an Ant Man, a Thor: Dark World, or the like, they would have dropped their franchises. (Not saying those films were bad, just kind of "came and went" in the fandom, and didn't get appreciation til later.)

Long story short, I want to see the "Some will win, some will lose" production line mindset Disney's using applied by their competition to more creative fare, particularly aimed at different niches. I think we'd see a real evolution of the cinema landscape if it was committed. But if you try to half-heartedly clone their film formulas, without committing to long stories, you get a whiff, and Disney just growing bigger.