Why do most movies suck?

[Killer Bees]

Movies suck because stars get paid too much money to do a s**tty job acting.  They know that the sheep will pony up the money to see whatever movie they're in so they don't have to try too hard.

Also, original, edgy ideas aren't welcomed in Hollywood.  And we all know there's no such thing as an original idea any more.

[Jack]

Movies suck because Hollywood is a monopoly.  There may be several studios, but for all intents and purposes there may as well just be one.  They all have identical corporate philosophies, there would be more variety in five divisions of most single corporations.  Sure, there are plenty of small independent movie makers out there, but they can't get their stuff in theaters.  Unlike most other products, everything made in other countries is excluded from the marketplace, because they're in foreign languages.  Like any monopoly, as long as you keep putting out some sort of product, no matter how &*#%$ it is, you can stay in business.  Windows Vista anyone?   

[The Burgomaster]

The studios are out to make money . . . and if they reap large profits by churning out crap, why should they change?  Only the paying public can change this.

[CheezeFlixz]

This is the primary reason I watch mostly older films, like back in the 30's and 40's and I have a ever increasing list of foreign films where they still have an original thought.

Pound for pound the number of good enjoyable movies that come out of Hollyweird are a tiny fraction of the truly purely crap movies they produce. The movies today are so full of fluff and devoid of story it's pathetic. Go to any movie story and look at the the number of new releases and the vast, vast majority of it is little to unknown DTV garbage. AS most of you know there are BAD MOVIES and then there are REALLY BAD MOVIES and I refuse to pay $4.00 to rent crap or pay $8.00 or more to see it in theaters. At least the local rental store has a policy that says "If you don't like you're movie, the next one is free." Well it's not hard to cash in on the policy with the trash setting on their shelves, even the big budget blockbuster films are crap most of the time or they rely so heavily on cussing and nudity (nothing wrong with that if it's part of the story.) to fill in for the lack of a story and between the over blown CGI and endless use of product placement todays movie are overwhelmingly just crap and do suck.

[Blevo]

I'm sure the ratio of sucky films to good ones has pretty much been constant since the beginning of the medium.  Only the good ones stand the test of time, the 30's and 40's had their fair share of crap.  Same concept with foreign films, they don't go out of their way to export lousy films because they wouldn't sell.  As long as crap produces box office numbers then they shouldn't change what works.  There will always be other options for the discriminating viewer.

[Mark1970]

To me, a movie is good if it's something I'd watch again in the future.  How many movies have come out in the past 30 years that make that list for me?  Not many when compared to the first 50 years of movie making.  For example, compare movies from the 1970s with any decade since.  It's like comparing the quality of music from the 1970s (Disco NOT included) with any decade since.  THERE IS NO COMPARISON.  In fact, now that I am off on this tangent, the entire entertainment industry SUCKS!! I am negative you say?  Think about it: TV (with all of its Reality crap and FOX News) SUCKs, MUSIC absolutely BLOWS, and MOVIES STINK!!  It's crystal clear: The dumbing down of America has succeeded .  And, if that doesn't prove the dumbing down theory this will:  We elected George W. Bush, twice!!!!!!  But, please forgive me, as I digress.

I think the final nail in the coffin for the future of quality Hollywood movies was CGI.  Take some time and look back at pre-CGI movies.  For example, the special FX in movies 30 years ago was pretty bad when compared to todays CGI.  So, maybe, back then Hollywood had to rely on a good script, good acting, good directing, good cinematography and a good soundtrack. Maybe Hollywood had to actually use it's brain, so to speak.   CGI is the new brain in Ho;;ywood and it's killed the quality of movies coming out of Hollywood.  But, then, maybe Hollywood is pumping out just what the fat and stupid majority in the screwed up country want.  CRAP!!  Because we keep buying the product, don't we?.

[ghouck]

They suck because the idea is to entertain as many people as you can JUST enough to get them to spend money. They do this for so long that any old garbage passes as a blockbuster from time to time *coughtitaniccough*. It's a completely stupid formula: Would you expect to pay the same $s for a Ferrari Enzo, a Yugo, a PT Cruiser, an F-150, and a moped? Of course not, but we get charged the same for all movies, so, we all get a moped. Yes it gets us from point A to Point B, but some, but not all of us want the Ferrari, some need the pickup, and those than need the pickup, can't really do with any of the other choices.

[meQal]

Sure someone has said this before but I'm too lazy to read the whole thread so don't care if they did. If they did and you gotta point it out to me, well then you are gonna find that I don't care that you pointed it out either. (sorry in a surly mood.)
Movies suck because they are so out of original ideas in general. What we get is formulaic crap that has been used to death, old TV shows made into lame big budget productions, bad stage plays that pseudo-intellectuals think are brilliant, countless numbers of sequels, or remakes of other films often which weren't that good to begin with. The basic idea seems to be well it made money before or it made money for them so why not us.

[schmendrik]

Movies suck because they are so out of original ideas in general. What we get is formulaic crap that has been used to death, old TV shows made into lame big budget productions, bad stage plays that pseudo-intellectuals think are brilliant, countless numbers of sequels, or remakes of other films often which weren't that good to begin with. The basic idea seems to be well it made money before or it made money for them so why not us.

Why, what do you mean "out of original ideas"? We had the original idea of taking somebody else's TV show ideas and turning them into movies, like you said. And we had the original idea of taking somebody else's SNL skits and turning them into full-length movies. And now we seem to have the original idea of taking somebody else's superhero ideas and turning them into movies. And there's always the original idea of taking a movie somebody else did in another country and doing the exact same movie in English. Or taking a movie that was already done in HOLLYWOOD and doing it again.

"No original ideas", indeed.

However, rants aside, there is interesting stuff going out there. Just not in Hollywood.

Besides, as Theodore Sturgeon famously said, "90% of everything is crap."

[Javakoala]

Besides, as Theodore Sturgeon famously said, "90% of everything is crap."

This, I think, is the point of the matter.  Back when independent stuff kept your drive-in and local theater hopping (do any of you remember theaters showing a movie for only two nights because they had a crapload of other features they had booked? Man, those were cool days.), you could have, in the course of a month, up to twenty different films roll through in a month. More if you had more than one theater and/or drive-in. Now we have 16-screen theaters and three films are showing on 12 of those screens.

20 movies being tossed out on a weekend -- apply "90% crap" rule, and you have two possible winners.

6 movies (two of which are remakes of one of the other four) -- apply "90% crap" rule, and you should stay home because you're doing good if you get 30 minutes of entertainment.