Why 99% Of Movies Today Are Garbage

[Psab keel]

Most movies are often too focused on either plot or story and not a balance between both, rarely with a theme to structure either on. Without a clear focus (theme) a movie or book will often fall flat because it has nothing to say. Which is why most films these days feel hollow. It's not that it has to be something truly profound either, but some sort of clear message is typically what makes or breaks a story. Contrarily a theme can also be fairly complex, but it all depends on the ability of the people behind the camera as much as those being filmed.

You can have a political message in a film but it has to be handled with care. The difference is how skillfully that message is woven into the story unfolding on screen. It can be masterfully done regardless of the content but it all comes down to the ability of those making the movie and typically it comes down to the writing above all else. I would contend that much of what is made now lacks the artistry that can get the point across without dumbing it down yet being obvious enough to absorb if you're paying attention.

I think most of Hollywood these days has about all the subtlety of a ballpeen hammer to the face.

There is something to be said for creating high art where the film maker wants to make a bold statement, but equally there is just as much credibility in escapism for the public to not feel mired down in the mundane or depressing facts of real life as long as neither type treats it's audience like imbeciles.

 

[HMSwolfe]

Well, I think what’s truly rubbing most people the wrong way about the political messages is the fact that these massive companies are only trying to say one thing: we care, so give us money. And they’ll change that tune for the demographic they need. Just take a look at Disney and the difference in their marketing and edits between, say, a U.S. release and what they put out in China. They don’t care about what they’re saying, just about their image.

 

[PoopaPapaPalps]

...The whole culture of fandom and brand loyalty is largely to blame for the endless franchises. It shouldn’t be a studio’s job to please fans, it should be a studio’s job to tell entertaining stories. There is room for overlap there, I’m not saying they’re mutually exclusive. But “catering” to fans is exactly what Disney thought they were doing with Episode IX. They thought they were including stuff “for the fans”.

This. The general, all-encompassing term for this ploy is "pandering." Pandering does not belong in art.

Well, I think what’s truly rubbing most people the wrong way about the political messages is the fact that these massive companies are only trying to say one thing: we care, so give us money. And they’ll change that tune for the demographic they need. Just take a look at Disney and the difference in their marketing and edits between, say, a U.S. release and what they put out in China. They don’t care about what they’re saying, just about their image.

Hypocrisy disguised as moral righteousness...and branded. That's the most disgusting part of it all. It might be the dumbest-of-the-dumbest thing ever produced, but if you disagree with it, you're a fiend just on "moral grounds." It's like you're either with us or you're wrong. Pandering is the first strike with average people, but to dissuade people and turn them really vitriolic, you condescend.

Movies don't need messages, they need heart. That's it.

 

[Psab keel]

This. The general, all-encompassing term for this ploy is "pandering." Pandering does not belong in art.



Hypocrisy disguised as moral righteousness...and branded. That's the most disgusting part of it all. It might be the dumbest-of-the-dumbest thing ever produced, but if you disagree with it, you're a fiend just on "moral grounds." It's like you're either with us or you're wrong. Pandering is the first strike with average people, but to dissuade people and turn them really vitriolic, you condescend.

Movies don't need messages, they need heart. That's it.

Perfection. As long as a film doesn't fall into the two extremes of pandering or propaganda, I'm open to it.

To your point though, even dummies can often sniff out insincerity from a mile away. Empty platitudes coming from the heights of Hollywood's Mount Olympus are hard not to mock. This is why I was stressing the importance of not treating your audience like imbeciles.

 

[Riceball]

This. The general, all-encompassing term for this ploy is "pandering." Pandering does not belong in art.

But there's the rub, Hollywood isn't about making art, at least the major studios aren't. They're in it to make money and have been from fairly early on, since at least the days of the old studio system. Getting as many butts into as many seats as many times they can is what the studios are about. If the movie is crap (artistically) but makes ton of money, they're happy. If the movie makes tons of money and is hailed as a masterpiece, then that's just icing on the cake for them.

This is why we get so many reboots, sequels, and prequels these days. It's easy, low risk money for them. With movies costing so much money to make these days, the big studios are unwilling or reluctant to invest a lot of money into an unknown IP. Remakes, reboots and the like bank on the name recognition which, in the minds of studio execs, is a far safer bet than something brand new.

Also, as far as movies being art is concerned, how many times have you heard people complain that when the winner of Best Picture at the Oscars is some movie that nobody has ever heard of or watched? Of course, then the next year when the big winner is some blockbuster like Titanic, you get complaints that it only won because it made tons at the box office. Damned if they do, damned if they don't.

 

[Psab keel]

The Oscars have always been more about Hollywood patting itself on the back than reflecting the tastes of the general public so while in theory the accolades sound impressive, I think the reality is that very few outside that world actually care. I respect the fact that Hollywood is a business, but their model has been shaken up because they ironically have been playing by the same rules that have made themselves obsolete. This is why streaming is the future of movies and it's no shock when the wealth of diverse content coming from streaming services has outshone them for over a decade now. The type of shows I've seen in the last few years take more risk and daring than the vast majority of what the typical studios have been pumping out.

I'd always held out hope that the movie experience would never be replaced because I thought there would always be a demand for it in the same way live music or live theater would always be in demand, but I have to admit, I was so wrong. It's not that I wanted to see the theater experience die, but it's likely going to be fewer and further between as we keep going on.

 

[Captain Dunsel]

But there's the rub, Hollywood isn't about making art, at least the major studios aren't. They're in it to make money and have been from fairly early on, since at least the days of the old studio system. Getting as many butts into as many seats as many times they can is what the studios are about. If the movie is crap (artistically) but makes ton of money, they're happy. If the movie makes tons of money and is hailed as a masterpiece, then that's just icing on the cake for them.

This is why we get so many reboots, sequels, and prequels these days. It's easy, low risk money for them. With movies costing so much money to make these days, the big studios are unwilling or reluctant to invest a lot of money into an unknown IP. Remakes, reboots and the like bank on the name recognition which, in the minds of studio execs, is a far safer bet than something brand new.

Also, as far as movies being art is concerned, how many times have you heard people complain that when the winner of Best Picture at the Oscars is some movie that nobody has ever heard of or watched? Of course, then the next year when the big winner is some blockbuster like Titanic, you get complaints that it only won because it made tons at the box office. Damned if they do, damned if they don't.

I think Mark Hamill said it best here…

“…in Hollywood, remember, kids, it’s not important that it’s high quality…only that it makes money…”

 

[PoopaPapaPalps]

But there's the rub, Hollywood isn't about making art, at least the major studios aren't. They're in it to make money and have been from fairly early on, since at least the days of the old studio system. Getting as many butts into as many seats as many times they can is what the studios are about.

....

Also, as far as movies being art is concerned, how many times have you heard people complain that when the winner of Best Picture at the Oscars is some movie that nobody has ever heard of or watched? Of course, then the next year when the big winner is some blockbuster like Titanic, you get complaints that it only won because it made tons at the box office. Damned if they do, damned if they don't.

While that's true to a certain extent, Hollywood in the early days was like a coal town but the coal were films, and the studios were primarily in business to keep cinemas stocked with films. Now, you'd have a wide array of films of varying quality, but the amount of films they put out back in their hay-day, a great deal of them are considered all-time American greats, now. Before social mores and tastes changed, and the model for making films became stagnant, despite its short-comings the studio system worked in that money-making fashion and a lot of great films came from that.

"A film doesn't need to be good, but it better be." What is and isn't "good" is always up for debate, and from big films to small films, no one ever intends to make a bad film. The biggest problem for modern films, especially larger productions, stems from "good" being interpreted as satisfying the widest, broadest, largest, market available and appealing to the lowest common denominator possible. The funny thing I see parallels with the state of the current corporate system is the old Hollywood Studio system. The majority of films just for us common folk are stagnant, rigid, and unimaginative, and I believe people are looking for something else without wanting to delve into the esoteric indie-films. I think it's just hard to intellectualize and verbalize exactly what it is. People just instinctively feel what it shouldn't be. Exactly the mentality as it was then.

With the advent of streaming and ability to make something on a smaller scale and getting it out there, I think the potential of returning to form is there. The problem is that the studios just won't die when they need to, because they are just divisions of larger corporations, now; they're too big to fail. The current studio formation needs to change, the Oscars and all that extravagance to prop up the image of the industry---that's on it's way out--- and I think corporate heads see it too. That's why they're carving up the market with their own streaming services. However, cutting up the streaming market isn't helping change anything. It's gone to a worse form of cable packages. The deal with rights and licenses to many profitable films and shows, made to protect the studios in another age, is also causing another big problem.

So while I believe that all it takes is one film to start the kindling that sets the whole cinema-zeitgeist on fire, the fact that so many fingers in the streaming pie means that a lot of films that could do that are buried and are never seen. Theaters may be in danger but they are still a filter as to what's worth seeing. If there was a way to get the potential of these two together, I think there would be a huge shift in the culture akin to that of the 60's New Wave. The components are there, I just don't know what it will take and what has to be done; all the things out there that's on these platforms, they can be accessed and watched readily, but out of all of them, splashed across the marquee are the truly notable things that exist alongside your big studio monsters.

 

[AnubisGuard]

Authors base their characters on actors when they create the story, with an eye to getting it filmed. I've used the phrase "Hard Cover Screenplays" for most bestsellers since the 90s.

I picked up The Andromeda Evolution recently and was hit hard with this thought. It's horribly written on a technical level, having almost no pleasures as a novel -- the language is not beautiful, the descriptions are not evocative, the rhythm of the sentences and paragraphs are choppy and unpleasant -- but boy it sure has the propulsive four-quadrant plotting of a $200 million blockbuster. I devoured it and hated myself for it at the same time.

 

[ScourgiousJinx]

This. The general, all-encompassing term for this ploy is "pandering." Pandering does not belong in art.



Hypocrisy disguised as moral righteousness...and branded. That's the most disgusting part of it all. It might be the dumbest-of-the-dumbest thing ever produced, but if you disagree with it, you're a fiend just on "moral grounds." It's like you're either with us or you're wrong. Pandering is the first strike with average people, but to dissuade people and turn them really vitriolic, you condescend.

Movies don't need messages, they need heart. That's it.

Exactly, well said. But it's not just agree with us or you're wrong. Quite often it's agree with us OR ELSE.

 

[HMSwolfe]

That's why they're carving up the market with their own streaming services. However, cutting up the streaming market isn't helping change anything. It's gone to a worse form of cable packages.

So while I believe that all it takes is one film to start the kindling that sets the whole cinema-zeitgeist on fire, the fact that so many fingers in the streaming pie means that a lot of films that could do that are buried and are never seen.

I personally think that the streaming service formula is a bubble ready to burst. It can’t sustain every studio having their own distribution system. I mean, hell, the United States even has laws against what’s essentially happening—the vertical integrating of controlling both production and distribution is a clear violation.

 

[Kokanee]

I don't care about them anymore either. The first couple of movies were good, but after they did the first Avengers, I mostly checked out and now, I don't care if I ever see another MCU movie ever again. It's too quota driven and not enough about the characters. I'm honestly having trouble thinking of a really good movie that's come out in the past 5 years.

No good movies in the last five years? How about:

Hidden Figures,
Arrival,
BR2049,
Dunkirk,
The Shape of Water,
First Man,
Ready Player One,
Once Upon a Time in Hollywood,
Yesterday,
Knives Out,
Jojo Rabbit,

 

[G W Zipper]

As for "most movies today are garbage..." Most movies have always been garbage.

This is soooo true for many things, not just movies. I especially like people who say "Saturday Night Live" isn't nearly as good as it was back in the old days of Belushi, Ackroyd, etc. Fact is, most of SNL was unwatchable back then, with a few excellent iconic exceptions. Same is true for TV, same is true for film, same is true for pop music. Most of it is crap - just plain utter crap. That's what makes the good stuff so exceptional.

 

[cboath]

I think Mark Hamill said it best here…

“…in Hollywood, remember, kids, it’s not important that it’s high quality…only that it makes money…”

I think says it perfectly. I get sick of studio's working up a movie by saying it's going to be a 'universe'. No one cares if you're planning parts 2-6 if part 1 sucks. Just look at the ill fated Ghostbusters of a few years ago. It wasn't just a movie, but there was a second (featuring men as i recall) in the works, with games, cartoons, etc. Then the movie came out, imploded, the end of all the rest. Man of Steel was so-so at best, the Avengers hit, and the head of DC literally says 'we have to cash in on this now'. No building of squat, just immediate jump in to middle of the franchise and it too bombed (for it's cost anyhow)..

I mean, sheesh, maybe focus on making something people like before worrying if it's worth doing a second. Marvel wasn't working up 9 flicks when Iron Man was being made. They flat out were saying 'we have to make the best IM movie we can or there's no chance at anything else'. George wasn't prepping ESB and ROTJ while doing ANH because he knew he had no guarantee of any more. He had a larger story in mind, but wasn't actively developing those.

Focus on the project at hand. There's no point in wasting time on what's potentially down the road. It distracts you from the task at hand, and if that task doesn't succeed, all the rest was a colossal waste of time.

 

[Ron]

I was skimming through this thread last night while watching a series on the History Channel about the men who the built the automotive industry: Ford, Olds, Rolls, Royce, Bentley, Daimler, Maybach, and later on Chrysler, Porsche, Ferrari, Toyoda, Honda. The one trait they all had? They were visionaries. Certainly determined to be financially successful as well but very aware that recognition, and by extension wealth, wouldn't happen without innovation. Clearly this is the main problem with modern cinema and after watching the video just now, Chris appears to think the same. No visionary talent or perhaps more so the lack of courage of studio heads to give that visionary talent a chance.

Is there no sense of pride anymore? Are filmmakers today really satisfied with the dreck they put out?

When I was young, I thought about pursuing a career in film. My dream was to make movies of everything I grew up with from Star Wars to Superheroes to action movies to you name it. Now if I had the chance? I'd want nothing to do with any established franchise. I'd rather make something original than retread old ground. Guys like Spielberg, Scott, and Lucas thought the same. That's why they have the legacy they do. Now we live in a world of Abrams and Taika Waititi. God help us.

It seems to me so many industries have become stale. Cinema, music, radio, news, sports, TV, books, cartoons, video games all seem to have their best days behind them. It makes me wonder if there isn't a broader dilemma at work here.

So while I believe that all it takes is one film to start the kindling that sets the whole cinema-zeitgeist on fire, the fact that so many fingers in the streaming pie means that a lot of films that could do that are buried and are never seen. Theaters may be in danger but they are still a filter as to what's worth seeing. If there was a way to get the potential of these two together, I think there would be a huge shift in the culture akin to that of the 60's New Wave. The components are there, I just don't know what it will take and what has to be done; all the things out there that's on these platforms, they can be accessed and watched readily, but out of all of them, splashed across the marquee are the truly notable things that exist alongside your big studio monsters.

Call me an optimist but I believe this will happen one day. As much as studios have muddied the quality of cinema in the past 10 years, audiences will eventually have had enough and demand something newer and better. Interestingly it was this very notion that catapulted Star Wars.

It's a shame really. I may one of the few who does not care about the MCU but it really has seemed to impact movies as a whole. It seems it's a lot of checking the box, reaching untapped demographics, and most importantly the cash.

Just watching the LOTR again, I was saying how the film still looks better than a lot of the movies currently coming out now. Wish WB would invest in their live action films more but they want to have that special MCU recipe.

I don't care about them anymore either. The first couple of movies were good, but after they did the first Avengers, I mostly checked out and now, I don't care if I ever see another MCU movie ever again. It's too quota driven and not enough about the characters. I'm honestly having trouble thinking of a really good movie that's come out in the past 5 years.

You can add my name to that list as well. I love the first Iron Man and really enjoyed the first round of movies leading up to Avengers 1 but after that it ranges from decent to awful for me with a couple of notable exceptions that were great (CA: Winter Soldier and Guardians of the Galaxy). That's not to say I hated all the subsequent movies but they were just not as interesting or memorable to me as that first round was. Like Cephus said, it was more character driven at the beginning. The later movies were more "event" driven. I'll tell you this, with the exception of the first phase ones, I've never had a desire to rewatch any of the MCU movies. There's a couple of the recent ones I didn't even bother with at all. Phase 4? I have zero interest. The only one that intrigues me is the next Spider-Man movie and that's only because I like the premise and hopefully it means it's unattached to the rest of the MCU.

 

[Cephus]

I was skimming through this thread last night while watching a series on the History Channel about the men who the built the automotive industry: Ford, Olds, Rolls, Royce, Bentley, Daimler, Maybach, and later on Chrysler, Porsche, Ferrari, Toyoda, Honda. The one trait they all had? They were visionaries. Certainly determined to be financially successful as well but very aware that recognition, and by extension wealth, wouldn't happen without innovation. Clearly this is the main problem with modern cinema and after watching the video just now, Chris appears to think the same. No visionary talent or perhaps more so the lack of courage of studio heads to give that visionary talent a chance.

Is there no sense of pride anymore? Are filmmakers today really satisfied with the dreck they put out?

When I was young, I thought about pursuing a career in film. My dream was to make movies of everything I grew up with from Star Wars to Superheroes to action movies to you name it. Now if I had the chance? I'd want nothing to do with any established franchise. I'd rather make something original than retread old ground. Guys like Spielberg, Scott, and Lucas thought the same. That's why they have the legacy they do. Now we live in a world of Abrams and Taika Waititi. God help us.

It seems to me so many industries have become stale. Cinema, music, radio, news, sports, TV, books, cartoons, video games all seem to have their best days behind them. It makes me wonder if there isn't a broader dilemma at work here.



Call me an optimist but I believe this will happen one day. As much as studios have muddied the quality of cinema in the past 10 years, audiences will eventually have had enough and demand something newer and better. Interestingly it was this very notion that catapulted Star Wars.




You can add my name to that list as well. I love the first Iron Man and really enjoyed the first round of movies leading up to Avengers 1 but after that it ranges from decent to awful for me with a couple of notable exceptions that were great (CA: Winter Soldier and Guardians of the Galaxy). That's not to say I hated all the subsequent movies but they were just not as interesting or memorable to me as that first round was. Like Cephus said, it was more character driven at the beginning. The later movies were more "event" driven. I'll tell you this, with the exception of the first phase ones, I've never had a desire to rewatch any of the MCU movies. There's a couple of the recent ones I didn't even bother with at all. Phase 4? I have zero interest. The only one that intrigues me is the next Spider-Man movie and that's only because I like the premise and hopefully it means it's unattached to the rest of the MCU.

Same here for a lot of the same reasons. Especially when you get to things like Endgame, where you have so many characters running around, the overwhelming majority of them are just there to punch things. There were no character moments at all for most of them. It's why the first Avengers movie was fine, it was manageable with 5 characters in an ensemble. 500 characters? Not a chance.

Besides, I really think that the MCU has all of the problems that the comics do with power creep. Their characters start out relatively weak and over time, to up the odds, they have to keep digging deep and getting stronger until they're out there fighting cosmic horrors and they're completely unrelateable anymore. By the time they got to Thanos, they weren't characters I cared about anymore. That's about the time in the comics where they reboot continuity so they can start over and do it all again and again and again.

 

[Laspector]

While I do enjoy the Marvel movies, I do agree and wish some of them would get back to more personal stories. I take Spider-man as my example. I don't need a Spiderverse filled with multiple Spider-people doing cosmic sized things. I still prefer the friendly neighborhood Spider-man. Sure, he can fight super powered villains, but Peter having all that Stark tech is not really what Spider-man is all about.

 

[George]

^100% when talking Spider-man. In the comics he made everything himself and did not solely rely on gadgets to win a fight; most of the times it was about him combining superpowers with science.

 

[mtpalin]

Two words - John Wick.

 

[Ron]

While I do enjoy the Marvel movies, I do agree and wish some of them would get back to more personal stories. I take Spider-man as my example. I don't need a Spiderverse filled with multiple Spider-people doing cosmic sized things. I still prefer the friendly neighborhood Spider-man. Sure, he can fight super powered villains, but Peter having all that Stark tech is not really what Spider-man is all about.

Totally agree. The thing with Spider-Man is that he usually never has help in the comics. He has to figure out his problems on his own. That's what Homecoming had going for it (minus the Stark tech I agree). A smaller story with a compelling villain who poses an appropriate level threat. After Endgame, I was really hoping they'd get him away from the rest of the MCU and keep making smaller stories. But then Far From Home was more MCUness and save the world.

I don't know if you saw Into the Spiderverse but while it had multiple Spider-mans, it didn't go overboard with the cataclysmic scenarios. Hopefully they keep No Way Home in the same vein but I'm guessing they won't.