Why Most Modern Movies Are Terrible

[ralfy]

Error 404 (Not Found)!!1

TL:DR

"Terrible" doesn't mean not entertaining but not edifying, and because of that in the long run makes movies not entertaining, and thus terrible (the assumption is that viewers value works that are not just entertaining)

Reasons:

Business: the need to gain sales from an international audience through stories that are easy to follow to cover bigger budgets, rehash material in franchises to keep them alive, etc.

Bad Writing: ultimately driven by business demands

***

Additional points on bad writing:

Two ideas to consider: Horace's point that poetry should entertain and instruct, and Aristotle's rules for storytelling (e.g., stories should be unified, characters consistent, etc.)

[Trevor]

I've always felt that filming on 35mm looks way better than digital: digital is faster and it speeds up production and post production time but it's never looked as good for me.

[zelmo73]

I've always felt that filming on 35mm looks way better than digital: digital is faster and it speeds up production and post production time but it's never looked as good for me.

My wife and I were watching Midway (1976) the other night, and she made the comment about how grainy the movie looked on DVD, and I told her that it makes the movie look more authentic "and see all of those planes? Those are real planes, and they had to find pilots to fly all of them. No CGI in this movie." I couldn't even sit through Midway (2019) after buying it on 4K blu ray a while back. I might force myself to watch it someday just to justify my purchase of the movie, but it doesn't even compare to the original movie in any real way; I never thought that fake action scenes could ever bore me so much, but this one did. The main difference for me between the two films, using your quote as an example, is that the original movie looks authentic and believable even though they were also using a lot of actual war footage in that film, while the digital remake looks almost like a video game and the crappy performances didn't help it at all (Woody Harrelson as Admiral Nimitz, for example!)

[ralfy]

The problem isn't the type of film used but the storyline. That's why they spend hundreds of millions of dollars in movies that are still terrible. The irony is that compared to other film costs writing is the cheapest.

[zombie no.one]

Reasons:

Business: the need to gain sales from an international audience through stories that are easy to follow to cover bigger budgets, rehash material in franchises to keep them alive, etc.

Bad Writing: ultimately driven by business demands

yep. first thing that comes to mind... and studios having too much control over directors. or rather companies and corporations having too much control over studios.

complete lack of originality and risk taking in major releases. bio-pics, remakes, and movies about recent news stories taking precedence  over brand new stories.

an 'old boys network' of actors (of both sexes, and not all of them old) dominating casting choices based on past reputation alone. (to an extent this has always happened I guess? seems ubiquitous now)

PC warlords influencing what can and can't be said and/or done in a MOVIE. It's a movie. it won't steal your soul and hang you upside down from a crane.


who was it that said "85% of everything is garbage"? ...I also agree with that guy. (most of his other quotes suck though  )

[ER]

I think modern studios have to pander to so many special interests that storytelling is handicapped. For example, I'm told that in the Top Gun sequel the Japanese and Taiwanese flags that Tom Cruise sported on his jacket in the 1986 original had to be removed in the 2020s sequel to avoid insulting the Chinese, who own a big share of many modern Hollywood studios. We live in repressive times.

[pennywise37]

i think part of is the reason is that they rely too much on the test audiences too, a good example is the Pet Sematary (2019) remake it had that godawful ending because 14 year old boys liked it better than the Original ending which actually was far better and i think the film would have been greatly improved because of it.

it would have still prolly have sucked but not as  much anyways

[indianasmith]

I like a lot of modern films, actually.

[pennywise37]

there are some out there that are good though ya just have to find them and not all of them get nominated for an oscar i'd say half of them maybe that get nominated are terrible. i am just throwing a number out there of course. though i did watch Hidden Figures (2016) recently and that was a modern flix and it was a damn good one too

[ralfy]

It's not so much repression as the need to cover costs. The domestic market has not been able to do that, which is why producers have to market to an international audience.

One can see that and other factors in light of what's called Hollywood accounting. I think the gist is that what's usually given as the cost of the movie is the production budget, but there's also a marketing cost that can also be very high, as well as additional costs for distribution, licensing, etc. Meanwhile, what's seen as the producers' earnings in the form of revenues is cut by up to half because the other half goes to theater owners, distributors, etc.

That means a movie has to earn around 2.5 times more than its production cost just to break even, and given the fact that these are for-profit companies with investors who want to maximize returns, breaking even is obviously not good enough.

Other points:

Producers may spend a lot on holding on to franchises, which means they have to squeeze out as much as they can from them. This explains why even in television shows, producers will instead of ending them in a high note run them to the ground, and it certainly explains why they have to come up with sequels, prequels, remakes, reboots, and so on.

There are returns from spinoffs and merchandising, but investors want their returns right away; otherwise, they might not fund future endeavors and move elsewhere. But even with success, the need to maximize profits continues, which explains why there are director's cuts, special editions, TV series spinoffs, and so on.

Industrialized countries have been weakening during the past two decades because of late capitalism while the rest, such as China, are becoming stronger. This explains why there are more investors from other countries, and can also be connected to the first point, which is to sell to an international market.

Major studios rely on tent-pole flicks derived from such, but may make much larger amounts in relation to cost through cheaper movies, especially those shown during dump months, or times of the year where more members of the audience are busy with work or school. Examples include The Blair Witch Project and Paranormal, which made many times more than their costs. However, even though relative profits may be high, absolute profits are not as great as those gained from successful tent-poles.

Finally, the potential for financial disaster is much higher because of much larger amounts at stake, too many producers competing with each other, audiences who are growing tired of seeing too many of the same things while facing high ticket prices and cheaper options (like paying a few dollars a month for streaming or just waiting for prices to drop as they are released physically or digitally in bargain bins), and technology (including digital cameras and computers) which makes movie-making more accessible.

[pennywise37]

i was watching something or maybe i read it? i forget where it had people complain about the price of going to the movies and why it's so damn expensive these dates and the answer from i think it was some manager was that it wasn't their fault at all nor are they the ones that raise the prices but it's the studio's who are to blame.  i dunno if that's true but i can see that actually

[pacman000]

The problem isn't the type of film used but the storyline. That's why they spend hundreds of millions of dollars in movies that are still terrible. The irony is that compared to other film costs writing is the cheapest.

Moving from film to digital production methods still may have been a catalyst. With computers it's much easier to reshoot a scene, fix problems in post production, cover up poor storytelling with FX pieces, etc.

[zelmo73]

I think modern studios have to pander to so many special interests that storytelling is handicapped. For example, I'm told that in the Top Gun sequel the Japanese and Taiwanese flags that Tom Cruise sported on his jacket in the 1986 original had to be removed in the 2020s sequel to avoid insulting the Chinese, who own a big share of many modern Hollywood studios. We live in repressive times.

The Mulan (2020) remake was not bad. But it got a lot of flak over what was going on in China just down the road from production with the Uyghurs being oppressed by the CCP government. Disney+ doesn't care because you can watch the movie on there. It's a shame that people will get turned away from the movie by woke-ism, because while the story itself is okay, the cinematography itself is beautiful.

[pennywise37]

yeah the use of CGI was part of it but i dunno we have shaky cam now and talking with my brother  a couple months ago i think it was? & he was saying how the reason it's stuck they did studies is that it gives your heart to start pumping fast like if there is an action scene for example. and i freaking hate Shakey Cam i just want to shove that camera up the directors ass and that director would be Paul Greengrass who last time i watched one of his Jason Bourne films it gave me a headache cause of shakey cam and my mom got ill just watching it

[The Burgomaster]

Most modern movies are terrible because they are full of suck, suckosity and suckism.