With the dvd a movie stayed relevant for far longer. Now you either make it in the first few weeks or you're done because something new will come along.
Moreover if a film was on a DVD shelf, you’d only be picking from the films on the shelf, whereas with streaming services, you would be picking from many films, and thus a film that not many people saw in a theater might not make as much from streaming as it could have from DVD’s.
Simply a function of more movies being made and more stars available to make them If something makes money, more people are going to flock to that space and want a piece
@@resa574 Except there are less movies being made in Hollywood. Technically more if you count schlock and backyard productions, but the mergers of more and more companies has led to a decrease in overall production.
I feel like people are simply at fault. Nobody goes to watch the interesting films anymore, they want the same thing again and again. Reboot the spiderman film 3 times because why the hell not. Make marvel and DC universe films again and again. These should be films for kids, not for adults.
@@whatifoundout Hollywood has been utilizing his Orwellian tactics for generations now. People have been brainwashed and culturally engineered for decades.
It seems as if dissent is under attack. Point out that anything could be better, and you're now called a "Karen" and attacked. A great deal of the time, symptoms get addressed, while the disease is left untreated. Though it very much isn't the topic of this essay, since I'm sure my comments will provoke a great deal of negative reaction, I see no reason not to lead with a highly controversial subject. For decades, there has been violent disagreement in America over the subject of abortion. One side yells about the rights of the unborn child, the other yells about the rights of the pregnant woman. I see this as utterly asinine. The focus of energy and debate should be how to most effectively prevent what neither side wants: unwanted pregnancies happening in the first place. Cure the disease, don't bicker over symptoms. A fair amount of entertainment content (movies, series, games) is just 'more of the same'. Is that a disease, or just a symptom? I've read arguments that suggest the cost of making content makes it too risky not to simply turn out the same crap with a fresh coat of paint. Well....why is that the case? During the Napster piracy controversy, college age (aka broke) kids defended internet piracy because buying music was priced out of their reach. It's generally agreed that music piracy caused the effective demise of MTV. I prefer to say that YO MTV Raps and The Real World destroyed it. Music publishing executives justified the very high cost of an individual CD this way: Only a tiny handful of bands earn the company any money, but the company pays for promoting and printing material from hundreds of bands. To me, that sounds like someone admitting that they suck at their job, deciding which bands to sign. Fast forward to today, and there isn't anything worth listening to being made, much less worth paying for, but that's a topic for another essay. Why does so much derivative content get created? I've got to think that at least some confirmation bias is at work here. Back around year 2000 or so, there were still brick and mortar book stores in my city. Wanting to get a copy of a classic science fiction novel, I was dismayed to see the shelves vacant of any of the master authors. Instead, it was a flood of crud. Eighty seven "Sword of the Douche-bag" books and literally a hundred plus variants of "star trek" and "star wars" clogged the shelves with derivative drivel. It sells because that is all that is on the shelf! (I have no issue with something becoming a long running series, IF there is genuinely still more story to tell, as opposed to the same theme rehashed and regurgitated. I waited a couple of years before trying out "Game of Thrones", but when it turned into "The Saga of Bitchy Dragon Girl which will never end" I gladly quit. ) If it's still up, there's an excellent out take that you may find helpful. Go view RU-vid title "Star Trek on West Wing" and fast forward to the 1:44 mark. Some movies are so good, there is no reason to remake them. Growing up in the sixties and seventies with antenna TV and only a handful of channels, TV stations evidently either outright purchased or long term leased a few movies, and these were aired with pretty regular frequency. This was when you had to wait for something to come on, you had no other choice. The Flight of the Pheonix, 1965, starring Jimmy Stewart, was one of the gems, and my family never failed to watch it again on TV. Now, if someone proposed remastering this for audio and visual fidelity, perhaps even improving the very limited special effects, that would be fine. Re release the original, excellent idea. Instead, the movie was remade in 2004, and it both sucked and lost money. Why the cowardice to re release an original? Are audiences so vapid that they will only watch familiar faces? The Thomas Crown Affair, 1968, starring Steve McQueen is practically flawless. Could and should have simply been re released. Instead, remade. It sucked and lost money. White Men Can't Jump, 1992. Absolutely no reason to remake, but they did. Sometimes remakes try to force an agenda down the audience throats. Did we really need a sucky all-girl ghostbusters with zero laughs in it? Mr. and Mrs Smith, with Brad and his zero-talent wife Angelina was bad enough in the original, but hey, why miss the chance to ram your agenda into an unwilling audience and make them Black and Asian instead of white? In what way, precisely, did doing that improve the movie? John Carpenter's The Thing, a flawless suspense masterpiece, just had to be remade with a female in the lead, because what's more plausible than a woman in the arctic runing around with a flame thrower? What's next? "Dirty Harriet" with a lesbian transgendered black wielding the iconic 44 Magnum? Some things should fucking stay in their own lane. The Great Wall, because of course Matt Damon is Chinese, right? It creeps me out, but I am convinced that a huge percentage of Americans, especially college age and below, are zombie sheep. They don't have ability to perceive quality. All they care about is what is popular, and out of fear, they conform.
@@noneyabusiness2237 i rewatched stand up comedy from the "greats" and realized i actually didn't laugh at eddy murphy or chris rock... i still laugh at dave and louis though... it showed me that i actually didn't like ost of what i was supposed to like and that i still like the things i'm told not to. yeah i think people are dumb.
@@stuart6478 Yep .. Dave never gets old. Eddie Murphy was so overrated. I don't get it. Not really a fan of Louis CK though ... Doug Stanhope, Carlin, Bill Hicks, Jim Breuer, Dave Chapelle .. good stuff.
God, this is so depressing. I mean I already knew all this for the most part, but to hear him explain it just confirmed what I thought. So tired of superhero movies and remakes/reboots getting all the emphasis while original ideas don’t stand a chance just because they aren’t probable moneymakers.
I would say it has gone way downhill. I am very much into cinema, and almost refuse to see any hollywood movie done after 2015, and hesitate when it is between 2011 and 2015 (although there are some good ones during that period I have seen). I feel very safe seeing stuff before 2011, because even with those earlier movies that are bad, there is not this sickening propaganda or overdoing the dopamine like after 2015.
It's also that the international market, too. Steven Soderbergh's State of Cinema Address at the San Francisco International Film Festival goes into much more detail if you're interested. Basically, because movies are expensive, and the international market is a much bigger slice of the pie, we don't get the movies that we used to. Super hero movies do well because they're the Monomyth and the Monomyth does well because you can tell it as a spectacle film.
@@1stMarDiv4341It's on YT and he goes into a lot more detail than Matt Damon does. The funny thing is Behind The Candelabra, that Matt Damon mentions, is a Soderbergh film.
Hollywood believes that only under 20s watch movies, or so they keep saying. It never occurs to anyone that they'd need to make grown-up films to get some grown-up audiences - who've seen everything they're doing these days a million times already. Everyone I know over 40 or 50 says they can't find anything to watch of any interest.
@@Abcabc-rg1mq Such a friggin' shame. I've read plenty of good scripts, much more original, that can't get a hearing. Meanwhile I'm watching more Turner Classics and other older movie sights.
He is one hundred percent correct. And it goes one level deeper.. those kinds of movies still are still being produced in a similar vein in the indie scene. Maybe not identically, but the coming of age genre is still alive and well. Expenses are way down in comparison to the 90s (even if shot on film) and so the movie can be produced, bought or sold by streaming services without as much of a gamble. Digital makes things SO MUCH easier. You can make a fully produced film within reason for under 1mil. But cinema time in the market of the blockbuster? They just could not compete, cause story without spectacle is no longer enough.
@@fortynights1513 exception that proves the rule. With the audience in theaters declining and revenues from streaming nowhere close to making up the shortfall, there are only so many A24's that can operate in mid-budget, and they'd better grab attention. It's why we have a mid budget movie about another American civil war. There used to be indie labels attached to all the major studios, like Touchstone and Miramax, but they weren't making money and they're gone now. Check out a book called The Big Picture, it lays out the situation in 2017 and it's only gotten worse.
When i watched that Elvis biopic this became clear. I was expecting something like Ray Charles, Ali, The Five Heart Beats. I wanted to really be emersed in that time...but instead I get fast jump cuts, Doja cat playing in the background, Tom Hanks in a fat suit talking over the scenes. I was immediately taken out of the movie. It felt like a youtuber directed that film. I realized their not going to make biographic films like Ray Charles or Dorthy Dandridge anymore. Timeless movies that are landmarks that i can watch over and over. So now you have to hear Doja Cat every time you watch the Elvis biopic, that wont age well.
I enjoyed Elvis with Austin Butler if I’m being honest. I’m assuming we are talking about the same thing here. But I agree that references like that are a nod to when it was being produced as opposed to what generation is being portrayed. Also, I presume you are referring to the early 2000’s biopic Ray. What’s the Dorothy Daindridge film you are referencing?
@@fortynights1513 Austin Butler was great! But the director, Baz Luhrmann, when i found out it was him, it all made sense. The same guy that ruined The Great Gatsby, that time Rhianna was the background music....in the 1920s WTF? Now I know to avoid his movies. Introducing Dorothy Dandridge (1999) was a HBO Bio pic starring Halle Berry Another good example is the Howard Hues biopic Aviator (2004) a much better portrayal of the 1920s I really felt settled in that era watching that film.
It’s really sad to see cinema decline like this like my dream career is wanting to make my own movies not just for money like some are doing now a days but to show my passion to put all my love to put risks I hope someday I and others can make a change in cinema in a great way someday
It’s so right, I was born in the 60’s and I would hear older people like my parents say “They don’t make movies like they use to”. I grew up on Clint Eastwood and Charles Bronson movies they grew up with Clark Gable and Gary Cooper.
Well that is a little different what he is saying is that Hollywood now doesn’t really want to make original films unless Tarantino or Nolan makes them And you really couldn’t make films like good will hunting anymore unless it was made for like 2 million dollars and released by A24 or Netflix
@@enekaitzteixeira7010 that has absolutely nothing to do with anything I said. What I am saying is the objective fact those are some of the few directors in Hollywood that can get big budget original films made.
It never is. Just look at the old vlack and white films of people in the street. The way they dress and interact is totally different. Walking to horse and buggy to trains to cars and now evs that kinda self drive. It's all changing constantly. Climate, society and style will never stop changing.
The problem with streaming services is there are so many of them and the catalogues keep changing so people are getting fed up with it and it hasn’t even been that long
Matt Damon is 100% 💯correct. The streaming services have ruined how Movies are made and released. Everybody wants things fast ( Which shouldn’t be the case) on the go and that’s not right. The DVD, Blu- Ray, Ultra was so much better because everybody had the movie. Streaming Services are trying to make that obsolete because everybody is afraid to go back to the theaters and far too lazy to Buy the DVD, Blu- Ray, and Ultra. Streaming services have made things impossible for people to watch flicks and get a buck for a movie.
Sorry old man fast and on the go is only not right to you... But to millions of people it will be the only way they remember the world and they may even long for this as they age like we do for the era we grew up in. Also No ones afraid of going to the theatre. Covid forced people to move to streaming services and honestly it was only a matter of time. Covid or not. This was unavoidable the moment streaming began to gain popularity. It's way more convenient and people had been complaining about many problems in the theatres for a long time before that. I mean 20$ for popcorn. Varying screen size, quality and audio quality from theatre to theatre. It's just way easier to stay at home. Not to mention home sound systems have improved a lot. And personally that used to be one of the only advantages I thought theatres used to have. They never adapted and still haven't. Instead continually raising the price on food instead of trying other things. You know how many people like to watch shit while they eat? A fucking lot. You know how many like paying 30$ for snacks at the theatre? No one. They fucked themselves in the theatres and also by not adapting earlier to the new technology. They could have tried anything else. Selling movie posters maybe? mementos to remember the time you went with 15 of your friends to catch an awesome flick in the theatres. Merch from the movies. Anything. Binders to keep your tickets in and scrapbook around theatre visits. I know so many people that still have their tickets from as far back as 2008-2009. I have a few myself. And they are all darkened. Very few are legible now. They could have done so much more. The people aren't the problem. The industry is. All those things I listed might only be available at a theatre to some. And yet they focused on charging more for stuff that you can just enjoy by not going to the theatre. Food and comfortable seats and personalized service. Guess what? All that is a trillion times cheaper at home and sometimes better and streaming helped make it even easier.
I just thought of another thing about the theatres too. You ever have a birthday party in a theatre? You'd think it would be pretty cool. But all that you get to do at those is sit in a small room with a table in the middle and wait till the movie showtime starts and then watch the movie. That's it. Costs a fair amount extra to rent the room. How cool would it have been to have an actor do a birthday wish on a pre record. Have several actors do it then the kid can pick based on their favourite movie? Make it feel special. Theres none of that. I went to a mcdonalds birthday party when I was younger. They had their play structure just for the party kids. They give the birthday kid a little birthday package with some goodies. They have several games and activities that are mcdonalds themed and get the kids playing them. They have one of the employees sing to the kid happy birthday. And then to top it off you eat a happy meal which back then was fucking awesome as a kid plus u get a toy from that too. Bro it's messed up how little effort the theatres put in to really anything. Like how does mcdonalds do a better birthday party? Like really.
Well, hold on. Streaming services are succeful because people want them and use them. When was the last time you bought VHS or DVD or physical media? Or maybe you still buy and collect them but ask this question to 10 of your friends who a casual moviegoers. It's just business. People stopped buying physical media and that's why we are here today.
DVD sales are way, way, way down from what they used to be. For starters, there no more video stores. And those aisles and aisles of DVD racks that used to be in every Target, Walmart and Best Buy are now down to one or two racks.
Back in the days, yeah I'm in boomer mode, movies were so fun and creative, just look at everything Johnny Depp was in. Now it's either ultra expensive high gloss block busters (not mad about it but it shouldn't be the only option) or some bad indie bs about some tragic figure with romance and substance a%b%u%s%e issues and toooooooons of secks scenes to keep the kids' attention up.
@@RonsaRRR Which is an ultra expensive high gloss blockbuster based on an existing IP. We're talking movies like Ford vs Ferrari, incidentally starring Matt Damon.
Год назад
just stop watching americans movies then. There are tons of other countries that makes great film.
Movies and TV shows today cater to what I call the 'crack hit' mentality. Before, slow and methodical writing that unveiled layers of character and story progression would set and and then deliver big emotional payoffs. Now, the majority of advertisers think that everyone is addicted to their smartphone with their capability to pay attention to something for more than 20 minutes diminshed or gone. The gradual buildup and payoff is gone for explosions and fast cuts to keep the cattle subdued in their seats while the screen flashes pretty lights in front of their eyes. This is how Hollywood thinks. The last movie I even considered seeing in theatres was Triangle of Sadness, but it became available to stream pretty fast so I had no reason to go. Beyond that, in my personal experience, unless you go see a movie at like 10 AM it will be almost guaranteed to have people being distracting and aggravating while you just try to enjoy your flick. The only movies I've seen in the past few years that I had a good time at was Tarantino movies as the audience was mostly so interested in the story no one talked. When something awesome happened we all cheered and murmured to each other for a second, but that was it. I can just stay home and watch Netflix or something
Honestly, it's sad that people are sacrificing so much for the "convenience" of streaming. I think too many people don't realize all the negative ramifications (those that exist now, and those that will exist sooner or later) that come along with only streaming and not supporting physical media in addition. Damon made a very good point in this video with how declining sales have impacted certain types of movies. You also have to factor in that with streaming... -You're losing quality since things need to be more compressed -You have to be tethered to the internet -You need to have the right streaming services to watch what you want -You may have to deal with alteration, censorship, etc. -Some titles just flat-out aren't available to stream due to legal red-tape. -Even if you buy something digitally, you can lose access to it in some cases. -Etc. (And before anyone says it, piracy is not the be-all, end-all solution. There's a lot of issues that can create as well.) These are all part of the reason why, if I truly love something, I'll try to get it on Blu-Ray or 4K. Streaming is great for sure... but I don't just stream.
I would love to have a DVD collection of all my favorite shows and movies, but I just don’t have the money. Same with music, I’d be in debt if I had all the vinyl I wanted. And streaming is so damn cheap comparatively it’s so enticing.
You make some good points about streaming, but there are many counters. Sure printing and distributing media is expensive, but just how much profit were/are they creaming with dvd’s? Streaming provided a low cost alternative that was more convenient then physical video rental - Sure the quality on streaming is in general worse, but your old dvd’s are stuck in an old format unless you repurchase them. You can upgrade your streaming service for a few dollars. - Some services allow offline viewing. Sure it’s a whole kettle of restrictions, but it allows viewing on many portable screen types without the hassle of ripping your collection - Not sure if you’ve ever had to deal with region locks on dvds and bluray, but that too was a pain in the arse. I would legitimately buy discs and have to jump through hoops to get them to play -physical media had non skippable piracy warnings and ads/previews before you could watch what you wanted Admittedly the whole loosing access to items or playing roulette to find which service they are on has become increasingly annoying. Streaming could allow cheaper productions to make it as the cost of distribution is so much cheaper. I dare say the distribution of wealth could be better to compensate the creators, but it isn’t necessarily the soul cause for the death of Hollywood as it was.
Matt Damon is 100% correct.!!!! The streaming services have ruined how movies are made. Everybody wants things fast paste now when it comes to a movie because people are to afraid to go back to Movie Theaters and too lazy to buy the DVD, Blu- Ray, Ultra so, now the streaming services are taking over and dictating how films are released and made which should not ever happen.
Original movies are hard to find now because dvd sales used to help studios recover. Films like Austin Powers, Bourne, Fight Club etc didn't get big till at home. Streaming services pay creators pennies so why invest. It's why 1000 more remakes and CGI fests. 🍿
Wow I feel like Matt really explained it, as if he were a producer because I’m looking for decent movies to watch on cable and I cannot find anything worthwhile, and I was a film major in college.
@@TheBusbyBabes not true. When marlon Brando got paid 3 million for Superman everyone freaked out, why would actors and other celebs complain for an actor making 3 million in a movie? Today no one would care an actor makes 3 million cause a lot of them are making 20 million and more.
Films are now made to be viewed by a global audience. This is why you don't see in depth stories grounded in American culture. The films today have to be enjoyed by people in other countries. Films that translate are action, super heroes, kids films, These require minimal plot, alot of visual action and excitement. Thats the primary reason.
@@Abraham-xi9ep Not to the same scale or budget. Disney and crew are now putting 300-500MM in the movie, advert, distribution, etc., etc. because they are expecting profits over seas, before over seas sales either wouldn't exist (not distributed globally) or would be seen as extra like dvd sales.
@@fortynights1513 It started when VHS became affordable. In the beginning it was like 80 bucks to buy a movie on VHS but that started to come down when Top Gun was released for like 20 bucks back in the mid 80s. Once DVDs showed up it really accelerated things. International royalties on this media really exploded profits for studios. Back in the early 90s I worked as an accountant at Columbia TriStar. I did the accounting for video royalties international and domestic. This soon became the focus.
Don't streaming services have to pay licensing fees to film companies to get their movies onto them? Why not charge as much as the typical expected DVD sales? Not to mention cutting out the middleman of the movie theaters.
Isn't that what Prime does? Every movie I was interested in seeing charges "rent" on top of the monthly fee. So I dumped them. What's the point of the monthly fee?
@@gamkal7231 Im not sure if you are talking about prime or prime movies. Im not sure if the question is rhetorical Regardless, there will always be an distributor interests to consider. Paying a monthly subscription is your buy in to have access to a selection that a platform has available at that time If the studio doesn't find amazon profitable, they are going to list it at the msrp that they can anywhere. On the basis of the subscription service, you are roped in at a rate that provides perks and associated membership value for a series of consumers. It doesn't really mean anything to the studio, but they rely on distributors to provide them analytics All they care about ia their end product, they are not concerned about how an Amazon or a Netflix determines what is popular from day to day A lot of capitalism works this way. You don't have to pay $45 for a candy bar (the cost on a persons time, labor, distribution/production cost, and intellectual property despite costing pennies to manufacture wholesale) because millions of people are willing to pay 2.50 for it Try selling that same product to a nomad from the hills a Brazil rainforest, the matter becomes a different beast entirely
Streaming licensing fees are upfront and depends on how well the film did in the theaters. So what they make off streaming is still directly tied to first-run box office, and substantially less than what they used to make on DVD (especially when DVD rental was still a thing which accounted for a huge chunk of DVD sales). Besides, a lot of studios now have their own streaming platforms on which they put their films after original release. Which means missing out on tier 1 vod fees.
@@goofrider But I don't know how many streaming services they imagine people are going to pay for. Especially with inflation on a gallop the way it is. when people have to cut costs to pay for basics, they'll probably choose one or two, and basta, don't you think? I've also got a question re what you said above. I'm not sure how streaming fees can be tied to the majority of films on Prime or Netflix, for ex, which have never been released in theaters. I'm really curious as to how they calculate those fees.
If the stores hadn't removes physical devices that play physical media, then people would still be buying blurays. Everywhere you look people want physical media. It's not being sold.
Maybe, he’s mostly right, though, everyone on the internet thinks they’re a film critic. And none of them actually form an opinion for themselves, they just trust whatever RU-vidr or Media influencer they like. That or they just hop onto to whatever seems to be the most popular opinion.
Well yeah, but buying films digitally comes with a slight drawback. For one, you don’t actually own the film like you would a physical disc. You’re holding a code to the movie, for however long that platform owns the license to that film. So, let’s say Amazon sold you Dawn of the Dead, but they lost the license to distribute the film. Well, now you also lose the film, even if you paid for it. And, believe it or not, this has happened ALOT. People who have paid for a bunch of digital films from sites like Amazon or Vudu, and lost their entire library’s worth of movies.
I would say it has gone way downhill. I am very much into cinema, and almost refuse to see any hollywood movie done after 2015, and hesitate when it is between 2011 and 2015 (although there are some good ones during that period I have seen). I feel very safe seeing stuff before 2011, because even with those earlier movies that are bad, there is not this sickening propaganda or overdoing the dopamine like after 2015.
But let's be honest, the smaller-scale movies Matt is referring to never made huge amounts of money in DVD sales either. There is 100% a correlation between commercial success in theatres and back-end DVD/Blu Ray sales. The blockbusters I'm sure have lost some back-end revenue today bc most of these films will go straight to Disney+ or Crave/HBO Max after their cinematic runs. I think in general, Hollywood has become more risk-adverse and that's been compounded by blockbusters like CBMs routinely pulling in billions of dollars. It's more about the bottom-line than it was in the 90s.
Many movies that we now consider great such as Shawshank Redemption or Office Space did not make money in the theaters but took off with their DVD sales/rentals so I see Matt's point.
honestly small movies that ended up becoming popular were because of tv channels that aired movies. Cartoon Network's movie segments were especially good for "flop" children movies.
@@icymoons Not always. "Little Miss Sunshine" had an $8M budget and made $101M in box office; "Juno" earned $232M off a $7.5M budget. "The Blair Witch Project" earned a quarter million too off just a $60,000 budget, and "Paranormal Activity" made $193M off just a $15,000 budget. And all that before any of them even got to TV & DVD sales; There are tons of examples, though those 4 are the most often cited. It's just luck and word of mouth b/c small budget films don't have the advertising bucks to inundate us with commercials, so you never know what will get noticed and talked about.
@@gamkal7231 it's just like Friday, That movie was a 3 million dollar low budget movie and it did extremely well with the DVD sells fasho, it's a cult classic fr .. it's just that nowadays people don't know how to make a fun story no more everything is depressing nowadays
Matt Damon & Robin Williams gave a different answer to Charlie Rose in 1998 (see finisher489 clip, from 10:00). It took 5 years to get this film funded. Even back then studios but also movie stars wanted the big bucks, the safe bet.
I just walked back into the house from the smoking porch and what did I smell? The bernie taupin unmistakable, inimitable aroma of bell peppers (I knew this wandering would be come relevant) and pineapple--the sour and the sweet. I digress. How good was Bernie Taupin at his craft? I give you the song whose title escapes--goes "...large hands lift him through the air, excited eyes contain him there, the eyes of those he loves and knows this is your brand new brother..."
Well they also don't put the same creativity into things anymore. No big tent pole concepts, everything is just recycled product. Where is today's version of Ghostbusters, Predator or Alien? Something completely new from the ground up, a total mystery not knowing what to expect.
We're in a golden age of music. Turn off the radio and go snoop around bandcamp or niche youtube channels that focus on strange genres. Just because new good stuff isn't pushed into your ears on the radio doesn't mean good music doesn't exist, there's more of it for every genre now then ever before, but the consumer needs to put a bit of effort into figuring out what they like and chasing it down.
Nah its really the best time for music and recording, u have unlimited free acess anytime any place, just have to do a little digging. Music is more diverse and better today (outside of everything going on in pop culture) than it ever was.
Is this why movies like the “After” series have so many sequels? Like, it’s not a good story to begin with and it just reusing the same story line over and over. Or “Tall girl”?
All the people here saying he's right etc - if everyone actually had bought DVDs in the past instead of using Torrents etc, the situation would have been massively different. With streaming services there is actually an income source - they also invest into new productions. People just downloading for free for the last 2 decades is what mostly ruined it. Saying this as someone who is familar with the licensing business.
Piracy has an effect but we're overlooking the cause of it here. DVDs at the time were cheap to make and massively overpriced, and region locking made things even worse for people that wanted to import films from other countries. The format was nowhere near as flexible as VHS (as terrible as THAT one was), so piracy kinda grew out of that. Blu-Ray has made some steps in the right direction (ie: reducing regions down to three, typically coming with a DVD copy that lets you lend it to a friend), but it's still not perfect. And of course, the average person doesn't want to fumble around with hundreds of discs for stuff they may watch once or twice. Hence the appeal of streaming, which corporations will exploit to the best of their abilities. I'm saying this as someone who collects physical media: it's still the best way to experience media you like, but it's not very convenient.
When they were at their peak in 2003-2006 DVD sales were over 15 billion dollars a year. Using torrents was not nearly as popular in the early 2000's, people were much more likely to be stealing music as both file sizes for video, internet connections and storage space were an issue, especially for people with older computers at the time. Plus people were much less likely to have a setup that allowed them to easily view that content on their TV. And those that were downloading any kind of media online tended to skew very young, chances are anyone over 30 was going to buy the DVD if they wanted to see the movie at home. Now of course some of that 15 billion is going to TV shows but whatever the split it is it was obviously a pretty big secondary revenue stream for movies like Damon said. I would say that the thing he's missing is that some of those medium size more chancy productions are what streaming services are making but there aren't many in the true mid budget category, there is a lot of truly bad movies that get made very cheaply for streaming services that are worse than almost anything you'd ever see in a theatre. But he's right losing back end DVD sales definitely hurt mid budget Hollywood movies, that revenue is gone and steaming services only pay big money for big movies that everybody knows. If your movie doesn't do well in the theatre streaming services are not going to be running up the price competing to get it. There isn't that same chance to have someone pick up a lesser known movie at the rental store because they've seen everything else and then end up liking it so much they buy the DVD and most of that money goes right back to the people that made the movie. That's the second chance Damon is talking about that is gone.
It's pretty sad. But, I've always wondered as to why I'd find myself exiting off in the middle of a film I would watch, that was released in the last 5 to 10 years. That explains it. The writing seems to be always terrible and far from realism. Almost as if it is done on purpose? This is why when I search of films to watch, I just stick to the classics and all of the old films/tv series. The new stuff is not worth the time.
Very sad at what capitalism and pandering for Chinese money has done to creativity. Hollywood was once the pinacle. Thank God for South Korea cinema with the likes of Okja and Parasite
Capitalism is what led the movie industry to begin in the first place. Anyhow, SK is no different. MOST Korean movies are about the same few topics and every once in awhile a good movie comes along (same with Hollywood). If anything, it's the fact that Korean movies have to compete against US movies that pushes them to try to do better. But I do think it's unfortunately that since the market has changed, movies (and inevitably culture) are suffering.
He doesn’t explain why they don’t make movies like they used to. He only discusses the financial end of it. Movies today lack creativity. They are poorly written and directed. And on the off-chance that a film is a hit, Hollywood becomes addicted to remakes which we’re sick of. The theatre experience is also torturous. Expensive, loud, crappy snacks, too many commercials. I remember what it was like to go to the theatres in the late 70’s and 80’s. it was a fun experience. A big deal. Today the whole thing sucks. Crappy films in crappy theatres.
That's why I went on modern movies maybe 5 times in a decade. Prefer classical movies screenings. I personally don't need all that CGI, super powers and other stuff. I like deep and intersting scenario.
They're risk-averse because its safer, they can guarantee their money back, and more, by capitalising on those franchises. It's a relaxing low risk high reward, scenario for them. If you wanna keep making money, without gambling it in high-stakes projects, go for the tried and true method.
Thanks a lot technology. We'll never see a good movie again. Now instead of movies we have thousands of useless garbage shows that get renewed season after season until the audience is bored out of their minds so they skip to a new show that's only good for 1 or 2 seasons.
@@prosperprosperprosper No people haven't and if you can turn someone on to good channel give them that support love. For both the viewer and content creator.
Seems like a reasonable explanation, but it does not explain how movies used to make money befor the 80's, before DVD's and VHS. What has different back then , as opposed to now ?
Most of the ideas are already told in movies. There is nothing much to explore further. So majority of the directors now are just recycling the old ideas, and put it in a new bottle with defamiliarizing strategies.
Probably a lot of advertising costs when you rely on the initial release as your only revenue stream + big name actors get to charge whatever they want when their face is what brings in people. Robert Downey Jr made something like 75 million for starring in Avengers Endgame lol
Everything costs more. They barely make movies in LA because it's too expensive. Of course if you try to cut corners and film out in New Mexico, you might get killed by Alec Baldwin.
TV reruns were a thing, stations would pay to rent the films out for over-the-air broadcasting for a time. That was one of the reasons that VHS was so controversial when it first came out with a recording feature, because of the fear that it would upend the market.
Streaming is a big reason movies are terrible and all spectacle. In the end, its not just Hollywood's fault. But our fault for buying into the "convenience". We live in a tyranny of convenience ... and its utterly our fault.
AKIRA SCOTT PILGRIM DRIVE 2011 PINK FLOYD THE WALL BABY DRIVER AND ALL OF THE TIMELESS MOVIES IS WHY MATT DAMON DESCRIBES THEY DON'T MAKE GOOD MOVIES LIKE THIS ANYMORE IN 2024. PERIOD.
I’ve thought they do a lot of remakes too scared to make something original and make them too woke to try and please everyone which makes them stagnant
Word! I can personally list dozens of memorable, original quality flicks every year from 1990-2004, meanwhile i can't list a single memorable movie from 2010 and onwards that really pushed the envelope. Similar plague applies to the music or the video games industry as well.
The 80’s and 90’s man I mis those decades. Renting movies from the video store, (not just blockbuster) blockbuster it’s just the trend mainstream people remember. Hollywood video was way better. They had longer rental times, and they had their own game store like game stop. Even before that we had mom and pop video stores. My mom worked at one in the 80’s and we always go free rentals. Like he says here it changed what movies are made. I ignore most the blockbuster bullshit movies. Like how many fast and furious or Jurassic world Lmao. It’s crazy to me people even go to see those still. The stories usually suck, and it over the top stunts and cgi.
I used to love going to Hollywood video on the weekends and load up on movies. But I too remember the mom and pop video stores of the 80's. Those were the days.
Because there was only TV, Cinema and Radio for entertainment. Now you have streaming, pirating, RU-vid and millions of other things ppl would rather do than see. Also movies were alot cheaper to make back then.
One of the poorest excuses i've ever heard. DVD stream being cut is just partially the issue, doesn't justify releasing endless of poor quality flicks these days. Even original titles, which are very few these days doesn't hold enough substances. The directors, or any creator these days lacks any creativity, even the actors and actresses are worse than previous generations.
Films stayed in theatres for a year and periodically got re-released. Such as RAIDERS OF THE LOST ARK got released in 1981, and then released again in 1982.
