Why 99% Of Movies Today Are Garbage

[Psab keel]

I do agree that the word "visionary" is thrown out too easily when describing directors these days. They are few and far between but if you were to buy the hype you'd think every director working today is one.

 

[Bigdaddy]

No, they are made by competent people, those with individual vision and talent. In fact, many excellent films, books, etc are made by some pretty reprehensible people. But that doesn't negate their craft.

Yeah that was kind of my point. People often apply how they feel about a film to the filmmaker. Just because someone makes a movie you might consider "****" doesn't imply that the person is "****".

 

[Cephus]

Yeah that was kind of my point. People often apply how they feel about a film to the filmmaker. Just because someone makes a movie you might consider "****" doesn't imply that the person is "****".

No, but there are an awful lot of terrible filmmakers in Hollywood right now. That's kind of the point.

 

[Riceball]

No, but there are an awful lot of terrible filmmakers in Hollywood right now. That's kind of the point.

There's always been a lot of terrible filmmakers in Hollywood, I don't think that all that much has changed. The reason that it seems like there are a lot more terrible filmmakers is that all of the terrible films and the filmmakers behind them from the past have all been forgotten and we only remember the good ones. I can pretty much guarantee you that in another 20 - 03 years people will be saying the same thing about how movies in their time all suck and how good they were now. They'll cite movies like the best of the MCU, LoTR, and others ignoring the less well received movies of today because off of the truly garbage movies of today will be forgotten by then.

It's the same deal with music and classical art. We remember names like Mozart, Beethoven, DaVinci, & Michelangelo because they were the best of their time. But for all of those famous names, there were likely dozens, if not hundreds of lesser artists (some good, some not so goo) that are all but forgotten except by dedicated art historians.

 

[Bigdaddy]

No, but there are an awful lot of terrible filmmakers in Hollywood right now. That's kind of the point.

That's the point of what? The thread? Your quoting me completely out of context rather than actually following the conversation. I was referring to the point I made in a previous post. I think everyone realizes the point of the thread, it's in the title.

 

[ScourgiousJinx]

There's always been a lot of terrible filmmakers in Hollywood, I don't think that all that much has changed. The reason that it seems like there are a lot more terrible filmmakers is that all of the terrible films and the filmmakers behind them from the past have all been forgotten and we only remember the good ones. I can pretty much guarantee you that in another 20 - 03 years people will be saying the same thing about how movies in their time all suck and how good they were now. They'll cite movies like the best of the MCU, LoTR, and others ignoring the less well received movies of today because off of the truly garbage movies of today will be forgotten by then.

It's the same deal with music and classical art. We remember names like Mozart, Beethoven, DaVinci, & Michelangelo because they were the best of their time. But for all of those famous names, there were likely dozens, if not hundreds of lesser artists (some good, some not so goo) that are all but forgotten except by dedicated art historians.

Very true. I would add that what's very popular during a particular time period isn't necessarily the best of that era and isn't an indication of how well it will stand the test of time. Theres a lot of things that have been very popular in the last 15-20 years that will eventually not be so well received.

 

[batguy]

I agree with George Lucas. The average quality of Hollywood's content has been getting better over the decades, not worse.

'Raiders' is better than 'Crystal Skull'. But that's not representative of the whole. If you compared two randomly-selected theater releases from 1981 and 2008, my money is on the latter one.


Many of the low-grade theater movies from before about 1985-1990 didn't make it to video stores. The TV channels hardly ever showed them, then or now. That portion isn't in the data set when younger people are trying to evaluate the quality of old movies.

There's a fair amount of forgetfulness at work even with newer stuff. There are studio franchise movies from the 2000s that were released on DVD at the time and they still haven't made it to Blu-Ray yet.

 

[Psab keel]

There's also a lot more content to choose from now though so statistically the chances are higher that something will be well made. Even film equipment and software has lowered the bar of entry for even amateurs to get into film making and at a level of quality unheard of in the past.

Though despite these things I don't really think there's as many distinct voices like there was years ago. So you have a wealth of content but not not as much innovation in technique or narrative craft. So all the technology in the world means nothing if you're not a good storyteller.

That's not to say that everything in the past was cinema gold either. There was certainly a lot of crap then too.

 

[Cephus]

That's not to say that everything in the past was cinema gold either. There was certainly a lot of crap then too.

Yet in the past, at least you could come out of a movie and be excited about it. There were lots that you wanted to go and see again. I can't remember the last modern film I saw that I gave a damn about after I saw it and extremely few that I wanted to get on Bluray when they came out. We used to get dozens and dozens of DVDs and Blurays every year. Now... virtually none. I'm trying to remember the last TV show box set that I bought, one that's a modern show and I haven't got a clue. I'll get older shows, although I have most of them that I want, but new stuff? Everything I see is completely forgettable.

 

[Psab keel]

That's what I was driving at with the first part of my post. The quality of the stories being told was stronger then in a lot of ways. A lot of the current content is made by mediocre writers and it was much easier to separate the art from the artist because the end result was something that just about anyone could enjoy and ego played a much less important role in the process. Which was a testament to the types of stories being told and the strength of the writers and the directors who had the skills to translate those ideas into moving images. We just don't come across strong writers or directors like we used to.

 

[scarf man]

Strong writers and directors are actively suppressed by the culture of Hollywood. Anyone with a strong will and vision is branded as difficult to work with, when they actually mean difficult to grind down and be made to capitulate to the committee thinking. This is a case of too many cooks ruining the broth, and serving it anyway.
I don’t mean to characterize this as an ideological or political situation, rather an ego situation.
Non creatives, ie producers and executives, have become bolder and bolder with their meddling as cost and profits have gone up.
Even if you complain about the wretched soup you’re served, you as the consumer will be blamed for not having a sophisticated enough palette.

 

[Riceball]

Strong writers and directors are actively suppressed by the culture of Hollywood. Anyone with a strong will and vision is branded as difficult to work with, when they actually mean difficult to grind down and be made to capitulate to the committee thinking. This is a case of too many cooks ruining the broth, and serving it anyway.
I don’t mean to characterize this as an ideological or political situation, rather an ego situation.
Non creatives, ie producers and executives, have become bolder and bolder with their meddling as cost and profits have gone up.
Even if you complain about the wretched soup you’re served, you as the consumer will be blamed for not having a sophisticated enough palette.

I don't think that it's so much as that or that movies have truly gotten worse in the past decade or two. I think that the difference is, apart from changing tastes as we get older and forgetting about all of the crap movies of the past, is that twofold. One is with the increasing costs of producing films the studios have become more reluctant to gamble on new ideas. They're more comfortable banking on known properties and name recognition thinking that they're more likely to be a sure thing. But that's even not a new thing, anybody remembers how popular disaster movies were during the '70s? Studios were churning them out one after the other with little differences except of the nature of the disaster. And how many sequels did popular horror films spawn since the days of the classic Universal monster films?

But what's really changed and is truly new is the phenomena of Hollywood seeing how much money there;'s to be made in the foreign markets, particularly China. Because of that, they're producing more movies with the foreign market and China in mind. And since a lot of American culture doesn't necessarily translate, they go heavy on the action since action is universal. However, that's bound to change due to either political or cultural shifts in China and/or as they develop their own domestic film industry.

 

[scarf man]

That committee thinking I mentioned is precisely what you’re mentioning Riceball. “How can we pander to this market, or that to maximize profitability“. “Ooh, this story would be great with this property or that property attached, to maximize familiarity and reduce risk”.
I think we’re on the same page.
Too many agendas that don’t serve the story.

 

[Psab keel]

I've long argued that the shows and movies courtesy of streaming services have outpaced Hollywood by a decade now. They're so far behind the curve that it's only in the last few years that they've had to shift into creating their own streaming networks. The glaring difference is that the Netflix's, Hulu's, Amazon's, of the world are willing to tell different kinds of stories. Partly because they don't own the rights to most of the tentpole films and shows, and leaning into the market with more variety of content has set them apart from their counterparts in California.

Where Hollywood is being "risk averse" by creating endless sequels, reboots, and spin offs, a streaming movie or show is doing something that breaks that mold by telling genre stories, or offering content by lesser known film makers, or casting unknowns to tell new types of stories. I've seen more interesting and engaging content from those in the last few years than I've seen from the mainstream. It's refreshing. It's really the most innovation we've seen in a long time.

-Stranger Things
-Ted Lasso
-Sex Education
-9 Perfect Strangers
-What We do in the Shadows (granted this is on FX but we stream this show)
-Veep (we stream this on HBO too)

That's just some of the variety of content that we watch too.

 

[batguy]

Comparing a 2-hour movie (or several 2-hour movies) to a TV series that goes on for dozens of episodes . . . not a very fair matchup.

 

[Psab keel]

Long form or short form, the writing is all that matters. I've sat through 90 minute movies that felt like 5 seasons of a show because the writing was a slog. I've also sat through 5 seasons of a show that felt like 90 minutes because I was so engrossed in the story the time just flew by. Quality is everything, not quantity.

 

[Funky]

The very title of this thread is ridiculous.

 

[batguy]

Long form or short form, the writing is all that matters. I've sat through 90 minute movies that felt like 5 seasons of a show because the writing was a slog. I've also sat through 5 seasons of a show that felt like 90 minutes because I was so engrossed in the story the time just flew by. Quality is everything, not quantity.

Quality alone < Quality and quantity combined. The latter has an inherent advantage.

Quantity alone doesn't cut it. Watching four 'JAWS' movies is not better than watching the first one alone. But watching the entire Star Wars OT is better than any one of them alone. Same with LOTR, the Nolan Batman flicks, etc.

 

[Psab keel]

Some films are best as stand alones though. Not every story needs to be a franchise. Just because you can make more of something doesn't mean you should.

The Hobbit is a perfect example. There was no reason at all to make it into 3, 2.5 hours movies. One 2.5 hour movie would have sufficed.

 

[batguy]

I agree. I'm just saying that short & long form stuff aren't on a level playing field.

It's like comparing a movie's trailer to the actual movie. Umm, yeah, the full-length movie had better character development. And yeah, the trailer had more action & SFX per minute.