The budgets for mainstream Hollywood movies have grown so huge that its almost impossible to turn a profit now. But how did this happen? And what impact does it have on the industry?
_"How much money do we need to make to break even?"_ _"At least a billion."_ _"And how much of our audience have we alienated?"_ _"No idea people won't respond to our polls anymore."_ _"I like those odds let's do it!"_
We leaked that we're turning this character black and this one transgender, all while denigrating this legacy hero. The responses on Twitter were very favourable. Clearly, this is what the people want.
Fun Fact: the “using coconuts to make a galloping sound” bit from Monty Python was created because the filmmakers didn’t have the budget for horses. Creative restrictions give birth to creativity.
It’s kinda funny how movies shot on Film are literally cheaper yet better even tho it’s FILM which realistically should be the more expensive way to record stuff. Yet the digitally recorded ones are uber expensive and getting crappier, while being advertised as being the cheaper more "efficient." Alternative. Seems to be a common trend actually amongst digital media were it just is kinda a down grade quality wise than it’s apparently more expensive predecessor, while being advertised as this thing that creates a *quantity* of "good content." Film is a finite thing, You’re less likely to waste time and money with it than you do with digital. Hey maybe digital media promotes worse entertainment because digital media is the pinnacle of consumerism and not great at ensuring quality or creativity especially from Artists 🤷🏻♂️ In other words, when you didnt have a limitless amount of content on a small device you probably, were more likely to think outside the box as an creative person than you were having access to limitless amount of content. Essentially with digital media you’ve essentially removed most filters of bad entertainment. But hey i guess im just a 17 year old "regressive." boomer I mean surely it’s just a coincidence that quantity of digital content downgraded quality of Movies, TV, Music. It’s almost like trying to find a gold coin is almost impossible if it is submerged in a ocean of absolute Shit. Especially with Music on the Internet. Like dude, trying to find an actually great Artist who’s on the same level as bands like Van Halen, Metallica or Black Sabbath, OR Artists like MJ, Madonna, Brittney Spears, Dr.Dre is pretty difficult when they all are overshadowed by a Sea of Mediocre Artists who all make music with a laptop in their room. It’s almost like we make being an Artist too easy right???
@@user-ol7bt4wp1j Why are Blockbusters so bad now... is litrally a videotitle thx to Cody Johnston 0h and his Worker-Video and Striek-Video may also be of relevance
Something similar happened in the 70’s. Movies became too bloated and expensive, every director wanted to be an auteur like Kubrick, and studios lost all faith in them. So, in the 80’s they gave a bunch of unknowns a chance with low budgets, and that’s how you get awesomeness like the first two Terminator movies. Then James Cameron became what he was made to destroy, but that’s just the cycle of life.
Oppenheimer cost 100M to make. Rated R, 3 Hour biopic, dialogue driven, and already half a billion (and still yet to be released in some markets). Audiences and critics sang it's praises. What an achievement.
Nolan is pound for pound the most successful director of his time if you think about it. Every one of his films have been both commercial and critical successes, and he's consistently topped both those areas for a decade straight with no signs of slowing down
@@krypticunlimited6925 i don't like his work ^^ his movies are too "scholar" to me. Not enough personality and it's very obvious through his characters who don't have any of it, they have a goal, a purpose and thats it. I don't really get all the fame around him
Braveheart - $53 Million Fellowship of the Ring - $93 Million The Two Towers - $94 Million Return of the King - $94 Million Dial of Destiny - $294.7 Million Solo: A Star Wars Story - $275 Million Rise of Skywalker - $416 Million Makes you wonder....
Remember the 60's. We had giant blockbusters bombing, writers and actors striking, and all that jazz. And that lead to a decade of "New Hollywood", where creative young directors, made cheaper, yet good movies. And once blockbusters were ready to return with Jaws and Star wars, we got a few decades of solid blockbusters. Let's hope this happens again.
This entire video essay actually applies so well to the video game industry as of late. Too much focus on innovating graphics, technology, accessibility, diversity/inclusion, etc. and making what are essentially just interactive movies instead of actually making compelling games with a focus on gameplay.
I feel like with even the best of games, you kinda sacrifice for one for another. Even when the industry was at its prime, it was rare to have both a good game and good story with both elements balancing out. I think most new games are way too safe and barely try anything new.
Sadly, you are wrong, but the sentiment is still correct. If you look at the most expensive AAA games of today, they are made with hundreds of millions of dollars, the problem is that hundreds of millions actually goes to predatory marketing, because the psychologists working for these corporate shills found out that shoving a game down your throat in the form of ads and having sheer probability over billions of people doing the work for you and hooking a few, not many, just a few hundred whales who will not be able to resist and then buy all of their skins and stuff makes so much more money than the average customer buying and praising an actually good game, that for them it's basically laughable if someone invests a good amunt of creative passion into a project ( look at the baldur's gate 3 drama, if you know, you know ). What happens next is of course a budget wise restricted studio with a marketing 20, 30, 40, 50 times the size of the actual project, and THEN they demand that from the little resources they have left, just from a couple million dollars, make a next gen visually appealing game and innovate on graphics, and then there is no money left to make good games. As odd as it sounds, the game industry has the opposite problem from the same source. Games are too big, yet too underfunded at the same time. If you were giving more time and money for the developers they COULD deliver visually stunning awesome gameplay experiences without compromises and make the AAA standard what it should be, but that's simply not what happens. Instead we have a marketing budget that's worth hundreds of millions, and an overworked, time troubled, technically and visually forced, creatively limited, underfunded, underpaid studio, who are expected to make the game. Of course they won't deliver. They can't. No one can. If you want good games then give developers more time, then market less and fund development more. That's when you get good games.
'Stimulate the eyes, not the brain' is one of the best analogies describing movies these days. It's like Hollywood forgot they're making shows for humans, not juvenile cats with ADHD
I’m reminded of the ‘feelies’ from Brave New World. Advanced projection films that stimulate the brain to elicit sensations like smell, touch, taste, etc…but have zero real plot and are almost entirely contrite pornography. There’s no subject on the human condition, grief, loss, love, meaning, etc. Remove the sexual content and replace it with hip spectacle, and you’d be pretty close to what that experience is like, I’d imagine
there's a flip side to this: the higher the budget, the bigger the flop, and more accelerated is the decline of film companies trying to push THE MESSAGE. smaller budget and indie films might actually earn the spotight out of this mess, if they are genuinely inclined in simply telling a good story.
@@justsomeguywholovesberserk6375barbie earned that much money due to genius marketing and the unexpected barbenheimer phenomenon (or was it the plan all along?) either way, there's nothing about the movie itself that deserved that 1 billion box office success.
Years ago while deployed with the military, I sat down to watch an old movie "Guns of Navarone", made before I was born. I was 37 at the time and the guys with me were in their early 20s. Though they laughed at the scene near the end that was a ship model in a bathtub, they all loved the movie. This was around 2005 and they had already gotten used to seeing movies with the big budget and special effects, but had gotten away from quality products. The rest of the deployment was me sitting down in the morning and repeating the process. They love them all! It doesn't take a big budget to make a great movie, just looking at Mario Brothers and Indiana Jones will prove that.
@@jrt2792 You're right there. Harrison Ford is one of my favorite actors, but I didn't want to see an 80 year old man run around. Clint Eastwood was a great action star, but he knew better than to do an action role in his 80s.
I was talking to a guy at work about movies and we realized every movie we've gone to see and actually liked in the last few years was put out by A24. Varying quality but tons of variety, lots to dig into, lots to think about, lots to just enjoy and appreciate. It's hard to know what to expect but almost always worth the try with those flicks. They are definitely at least trying to break the modern mold.
@uzzivlogsu.v2697 Me too, I don't have high expectations for the movie but I'll still watch it and like it just for the concept and the kid who directs it, he made something really good out of nothing and his talents are praised rightfully.
My Big Fat Greek Wedding had a budget of $5 million. It had basically no advertising. It grossed $370 million. Why? It was funny, uplifting, relatable, and in the right place at the right time. Indiana Jokes and the Dial of Dysentery had a budget of $300 million (not counting advertising). It has grossed $370 million. Why? It's depressing.
It’s probably why Puss in Boots: The Last Wish is so liked. It has great writing, treats its audience with respect, isn’t afraid to go into serious topics and doesn’t crack any smart ass jokes while doing so. Like you asked in your review, where DID this movie come from and where can we get more?
Same for Top Gun Maverick. It just wanted to entertain with a simple but emotionally effective story and nothing else. Felt like such a breath of fresh air.
I recently read Carry Fisher's memoir about making the first star wars movie and it was incredible to hear about all the creative ideas that were put into what they thought was going to be this tiny film with a bunch of no name actors. I blame the rise of CGI for a lot of it, if you look at early Marvel movies like Captain America or Iron Man- while they did use special effects most of the movie didn't, they weren't all standing around a green screen with a green suit on. It was focused more on the story and the characters. Brb, I now have to go watch Pirates of the Caribbean, The Fugitive, and Mrs Doubtfire
Definitely. CGI was used only to display what couldn't be done with practical effects. Even Cap's shield in the First Avenger was 90% practical, only using CGI when it bounced off walls.
Pete Jackson is a good example of "the more CGI the better syndrome." One can see he relies more and more on CGI during the making of LotR from a little in Fellowship to quite a bit in Return to way too much in Hobbit.
One factor you didn't mention is streaming. There is no reason to spend 50$ on gas, parking tickets and popcorn to watch "Mrs. Doubtfire" or "The Firm" in the cinema when you can stream it 3 month later at home. So studios try to make big, expensive spectacles. Movies so massive, that you simply have to watch them on a big IMAX screen. Those movies then cost enormous ammounts of money .
There still IS a market for lower budget theatrical release movies and the industry "experts" don't or won't comprehend this. The "date night" movie is a good example. Going to some big loud spectacle does not make for a good movie experience on "date night", especially with married couples. These movies can be made on low budgets and have enough appeal to make real profits, especially when many of them can be made by the same company in a year.
Sure- Those movies exist. But why would couples go to the theaters for them? They can watch them at home on their couch. The term "Netflix & Chill" exists for a reason.
i have never had a streaming service i watch all my stuff on physical media because i dont want to leave it up to the streaming to edit and alter my entertainment
I actually don't really like that idea as much. I mean that's just me. I think theatres are a very iconic part of film and have rightful use with cinema.
this is why the drinker is approaching 2M subscribers. He actually thinks about what he wants to say and then-shockingly!-crafts how he wants to say it. Clearly there is still an audience out there game for cogent, well-reasoned thought.
As a guy that works in finance, it’s pretty odd to me that instead of “diversifying their portfolio” with medium budget films that appeal to different audiences; Hollywood would rather take on huge risk by putting all of their eggs into one basket with a stupidly expensive blockbuster film that may or may not flop.
Yup. It's because your focused on profits and those making the top level decisions over there simply are not. It sounds insane (and it is) but that is clearly the reality over there. Logically, a solid selection of low budget, medium budget, and a few high budget 'sure thing' productions would be what one could expect. The low budget films let newer staff cut their teeth and if they prove talented, you move them up. They can test ideas your not sure on with low losses when most of them fail, and you can potentially refine them to try again. The mid budget works would be more focused on smaller target audiences, bringing in notable cash at minimal expenses and risk. Those few big productions could then rely on proven appeal to justify the expense. So to give an example: Of the thirty or so low budget films made in a year, one of them proves a smash hit. So the sequel gets pushed up to medium budget range. When that turns out to make bank and potentially lead into a new tent pole franchise, then either a remake of the first or a sequel/spinoff film is made as one of the big ones for that year. Anime makes so many light novel adaptations and manga adaptations _because_ they know the product (story/characters) has an audience. The proven track record then gets a single season or OVA. If that succeeds, then you do more. It's simply a superior business model to work with.
@@Sorain1i thought about this the other day and I thought it must have some flaw since they are doing it. Maybe the head managers want to be included in every film and it's very hard to focus on 3 movies at the same time. But they can get more managers
It used to work untill last year. Disney had what 10 billion movies and even DC were doing great at box office Wonder Women, Aquaman etc but their movies turned to shite and they became way too woke and it backfired
@@toshev1988 It's not just 'wokeness.' There are plenty of woke movies that are successful. The problem is bland, cookie-cutter films that everybody has seen before. Nobody wants to watch epic super hero movie number 5,705.
I think it's also noteworthy that many iconic visuals and story elements in film were created specifically because there wasn't enough money for "plan A." A budget that accommodates virtually any cost removes a lot of the effort normally needed to bring creators' visions to the big screen. Creativity tends to flourish best when faced with some degree of limitation rather than infinite resources
This is the assessment of Lucas. When there was somebody to tell him, "No", he made great films. When he was one dude, and got whatever he wanted? He made crap. You need talented producers, and editors!, to refine his vision.
Ultimately, a film is supposed to be a work of art at a certain level. The current Hollywood approach of script writing by committee and screentesting every single thing is the biggest problem. They are going to have to learn how to let go of control and allow a talented filmmaker to have singular control over a project. They need to find the next Spielberg, Lucas, or Kubrik who is in his 20s and just empower them to make a film without interference. It is a stifling of artistic freedom combined with a corporate obsession with pushing "The Message" that is killing Hollywood.
My first year of college was 2009 and there were two outstanding movies I saw with my buddies. I am of course referring to District 9 and Zombieland. The combined budget of those two movies was $54 million and their total box office was $313 million . You could make six Zombieland/District 9 double features for the cost of one Indiana Jones and the Snooty British Woman Who Won't Stop Yapping. It's not rocket science guys.
@@MASTEROFEVILummm, what's your point? Indie stands for independent, and that can mean pretty much anything. The fact that that it wasn't a huge studio production qualifies it as an "indie" film, but it was produced by Peter Jackson and had a professional VFX studio behind it.... The original comment basically says District 9 was a good film made on a tight budget. Did you think you were saying something different? 😂
Yeaaaa when they do that this channel fines tiny flaws and calls it woke....his 14yr old anime shut in fans send him money to do it again for the next film....these channels are making money
I am convinced this era of film making (if you can even call most of this drab shite "film") is the equivilant to the music industry's "loudness war" era. Spectacle and bombastic face-slapping in place of anything with artistic merit. It will pass, but not without leaving a terrible stain on cinematic history.
Well said, and the watering down of creativity for ever more predicability is comparable too. Music gets less and less creative, involves more and more producers, costs more and more money....risk and creativity is out the window and things get generic to the point of everything being basically the same thing wearing a slightly different hat.
The biggest problem is that the movies have become corporatized generic mindless soulless cash grabs. But they aren’t grabbing that cash. They’re losing it.
If you look at the history of Hollywood, the situation today is very much like the one in the mid-1960s. Studios were churning out big-budget musicals and Technicolor epics, but they became more and more unrealistic and less and less profitable. Then everything broke down and the early 1970s brought a new golden age with gritty, realistic, diverse stories and films, with young filmmakers getting the means to make many classic movies we still love and enjoy today.
I’ve worked on film sets and I can tell you they just throw money around. It seemed evident to me that there is little to know accounting for all the money changing hands, so how many people were taking advantage? The rate at which these budgets are skyrocketing suggests to me that some people found a way to take advantage big time! I’m talking millions at a time. This is why Kathleen Kennedy staffing so many productions with “her people” is so suspicious and seems to coincide with ballooning of budgets and seemingly getting so much less for so much more money.
Agree entirely, The money isn't going on the screen, therefore I suspect it is going into someone's pocket. I bet if you 'follow the money' you'll discover the money goes to a third party firm, and then vanishes, only to re-appear as a new car/yacht/house for someone closely involved int he production. What else could possibly explain the Rings of Power?
If your goal is to siphon off money for corruption wouldn't people like Kathleen actually be working hard to ensure these movies are well received by EVERYONE to keep the cash flow going and avoid questions? It seems like she has only ever cared for half of the population or even less. So if the goal was to siphon money from Disney this whole time then she really does just absolutely suck at her job. A Russian prostitute would of done better in this position.
I’m rewatching the XFiles, half way through season two now, and the writing is so good. The characters are SO good (such strong, distinct personalities and quips). All those small, vulnerability-showing scenes between Mulder and Scully bring back every emotion. So much of this show is so simple (by today’s standards), and yet I feel more for the XFiles than I do any superhero film. Watching this show takes you back to this glorious time when two decent people built trust and respect and learnt to work together; it’s like a long, cool drink for the mind.
Clint Eastwood liked Don Siegel's work on Invasion of the Body Snatchers because Siegel shot a great movie on a low budget. So Eastwood began an association with him. Eastwood was not a fan of blowing a lot of money to shoot a movie.
My points exactly. Speaking of another Gillian Anderson adjacent movie, I watched House of Mirth instead of The Flash and Blue Beetle and that movie genuinely broke my heart because I cared about Lily Bart and her struggles. Going back to X-Files, I felt so bad for Scully in the "Irresistible" episode. He father died the previous year and she almost died after being kidnapped by a mad man (this applies to both Duane Barry and Donnie Pfaster) and being experimented on by aliens. She's dealing with a lot of PTSD, and yet she powers through it like a badass.
This has been on the top of my tongue forever when I try and think of whats wrong with movies. You just described it perfectly, they have just became too expensive! When things cost that much, less risks are taken, more sequels, more studios interfering with directors visions ruining movies… omg you hit the nail on the head!
Disney: “We promise we’re making lots of money on these films!” Me selling my house to myself every month: “Honey, I’ve started making $150,000 extra every month!”
This is what I liked in Netflix some years ago: they were making movies on low-ish budget. They had to compromise on visuals, hire less known actors, have an actual story to tell and, most importantly, use classic artistic creativity. Ten years ago, these direct-to-streaming sometimes felt more 'true' movies than what was in cinemas.
I forget what they made but I enjoyed some redbox originals as well. I miss syfy channel Saturday cheese movies not even sure they show them anymore because no cable.
check the movie "upgrade"(2018) if you want to see an example of good writing and directing with low budget, in modern times. If that movie had a little chance to advertise itself more, it would be a great hit at least. But nope, big studios tended to shoot hollow sequels..
I remember that film - great low budget sci-fi horror that's on par with "Vivarium" and "Await Further Instructions." We need more films like those today...
I watched it years ago in it's short run. Re-watching DVDs thru the public library. Still funny and acerbic in its mockery of Hollywood bullshit. I cut off cable 5 years ago, own a cache of classic well-written movies, and get the fewer recent good movies from my public library. People are suckers if they're still paying for cable and streaming....and still continually being pissed off at most of what Hollywood studios offer and being manipulated by rage-baiting... PLUS I still believe there's a lotta money laundering involved. I worked for a film distribution company in the 1980s, and the booking orders listed how Disney/Paramount/Fox got just 50% of the gross or whatever....when the studios brag about about "how much this movie made....", it's not mentioned about the theater's/distributors' cut.." Hollywood " is full of liars. It's all about "creative" bookkeeping....
Something thats also hurt the industry is the death of the Blockbuster movie star like Arnold and Stallone. Nobody gives AF about movies involving Tom Holland, Simu Liu, Daisy Ridley unless they're playing the characters from Star Wars/MCU. Tom Cruise is the only guy who studios can bank on to get people into theaters with just his name attached to the movie and he's 60. Hollywood is unable to create stars like they used to.
All the more reason to go with more cheaper movies. If you no longer have big name actors that can draw a huge audience, you just make a bit of everything instead
I don't think that is true, there are couple people from the younger-than-Tom generations, who are superstar material. They are either curbed by overbearing PR pressure; pushed aside by the industry; or simply couldn't care more about being some gigacelebrity (Hemsworth comes to mind). Another problem also is, that GenZ isn't simply that interested in movies anymore. They either still fawn over music stars (Harry Styles or Taylor Swift like), or moved now to celebrate internet personalities in their smaller Twitch / RU-vid / TikTok / whatever comes next bubbles. Hollywood is only partially to blame
Agreed Take Chris Evans for instance. He can make money as Captain America, and his social media posts can earn hundreds of thousands of likes. But outside of Cap, he's not a big star, and he can't help but run his mouth about politics, a common problem with so many other stars these days.
Who would the crazy kids look up to? Media is all over the place. There are no music superstars. It's all slivers of a small segment. Kids can't even listen to radio, cause "everything" sucks.
As a lorry driver, I spoke to a driver who worked in the film industry. He said that whilst he was one of the lowest paid jobs on set, he still got a far better rate of pay than regular driving. I imagine that the salaries become exponentially ridiculous.
You can certainly have an expensive movie, but it needs to be grounded in characters we can care about and identify with. Look at T2. Back in '91, its budget was near $100 million (well over $200 million in 2023 dollars). The special effects were cutting-edge for its time, but the movie had heart in developing and exploring the relationships of John and Sarah Connor, along with Schwarzenegger's terminator character. Those elements put together made T2 one of the greatest box office action films ever made. This seems to be lost on Hollywood nowadays.
As an aspiring film maker, I want to make it known that there still are creative people out there that want to tell an intelligent, epic, awe inspiring but well written, directed and produced story. But get shafted or denied by big companies because they see their ideas as too ambitious, complex and confusing for general audiences. They only want easy to make, cookie cutter, junk food garbage because they know that anything that is too slow, too dull, or too complex will not click with general people that don't want to have to think about the movie that they're watching.
Glad you are not working in Hollywood, we could miss movies like a Avengers Endgame, Spectre and No time to die, Lion King remaster, Dark Knight Rises, Man of Steel or Guardians of Galaxy3 :)
One of the biggest sources of inspiration an artist has at their disposal, which I think often goes unnoticed, is that having severe restrictions actually helps the creative process. Limiting how much of the medium or funding you have at your disposal and you're then forced to innovate in often surprisingly creative ways.
Yep. Lucas did original Star Wars with his hands tied behind his back and a bunch of help from people that just wanted to be part of something different.
This applies to basically everything, but a big shout out goes to Tim Follin, who is legendary in the retro gaming community for making some of the greatest NES and SNES soundtracks of all time, even if the games they belonged to weren't as good. Just look up Pictionary, Silver Surfer NES, or Plok, and you'll know what I mean. Total unrestricted creativity falls into the problem of infinite paths: you'll end up going down the most common route
Back to the Future was originally set to have an ending in the desert like the start of Indy 4 with the fridge. To save money, the knowledge of a famous lightning strike taking place in the town, to power the Delorean time circuits.
I remember Andre from Midnights Edge pointing out how studio meddling isn't always bad. Sometimes it is justified. Like imagine if you're a film studio and you've managed to raise $10 million for a low budget, but good quality action film. The plot is simple, but engaging, and it's stylish with a lot of effort put into the fight choreography in the vein of John Wick. It's intended to be a crowd-pleaser that'll hopefully make about $80 million in the theatres and maybe $20 million in Blu-Ray sales. Over-all, a very solid investment that'll put your little studio on the map and help you raise funds for more projects. However, you made the mistake of hiring a director who has a few good movies under his belt and looked great on paper for a hire. But during production, it turns out he's one of those artistic douchebags that's hard to work with, inconsistent and demanding with the production crew and he constantly insists on adding in these long and, frankly, boring scenes that'll throw the whole pacing and tone of the movie off when you just want a stylish, crowd pleasing action film. You have to intervene to save the project and the future of your studio. In these instances, studio meddling is completely justified.
They hired the wrong person then, a mindless movie deserves a mindless director. In one scenario a director might be an "artistic douchebag" and in another, a master. If Disney hired Judorowsky to do the next star wars (I would love that tbh), who is to blame when things don't go as planned?
A lot of people in Hollywood have made complaints about the disappearance of low budget movies that were often produced in the 1970's to the early 2000's. Those were the years where studios could give to newbies the opportunity to show their talents without spending too much money on marketing for instance. All the greatest directors like Spielberg, Scorsese and so on had their chances in Hollywood because of this kind of production. If it failed it was no big deal but if it worked even a little it was a bonus for the studio and a great step for the young director. Even for writers too. You could have unknown writers getting known. There was always a risk but it was part of the success of Hollywood for years. To dare bringing new talents that can express themselves freely. That's the whole point of arts. The producers has the knowledge of the industry and funds while the director has the skills and the creativity. Now it's so expensive that they can't even take the risk of making arts. Producers make the movie from A to Z by making sure they won't lose any dollar or at least the less possible. Therefore it's at best mid and a little entertaining, at worst dull and ugly. There are no legend no more. Nothing is classic and thought to last for years.
"12 Angry Men" (1957) would cost $3.7M today, and it's a better movie than anything in the last few years. The acting, script, direction, and cinematography are all perfect, and that's where all the expense is, with not even more than one set or costume changes to eat the money. The film was intentionally minimalist, and it's beautiful because of it. An important part of art is how the artist limits themselves. Modern unlimited budgets can't produce better.
The recent movie Nefarious was like that. It was completely filmed at one location, small budget and 90 percent of it was shot in one room with two actors. It was one of the most powerful movies I've seen in decades.
My gosh. Having served on a jury before, I thought this movie would bore the everloving snot out of me. But I once took the opportunity to watch it and _I regret nothing._ Never disappointed for a moment. A film so charged and full of character and life, where stakes that might seem so mundane come into glaring focus and reality. Great movie. Big recommend.
I worked on the first movie that had a budget over $100 million, "Disclosure." It blows my mind how fast we've not only doubled that number, but TRIPLED it. We were complaining back then that Hollywood had no new ideas. That problem has only become worse in intervening years.
Hollywood has tons of ideas. "No new ideas" is absolutely false. You just don't see those ideas realized on screen because of the corporate studios, and their aversion to risk-taking. Reboots and sequels have been financially profitable in the past, so their idea is to take advantage of the pre-built fanbase these IPs have. Also, if you look at financial trends, the audience also doesn't have a good track record when it comes to supporting films outside of reboots and sequels.
One thing I didn't hear you specifically call out, but really adds to the main point being made here is that until streaming services have completely taken over the landscape, movies used to make a lot of money back with VHS/DVD sales. It would be that even if the movie doesn't do well during it's theater release, it still had the chance to turn a decent profit when it was released on VHS/DVD/Blue Ray. But this is no longer a thing and as mentioned, Hollywood studios just aren't taking any chances on anything.
Is this true though? They still get those streaming fees and save all production costs. And they still have all the merchandise rights which can be true game-changer for kids-friendly franchises. Do you think the studios would've gone all streaming when it wasn't profitable?
Another point that should be made on this topic is the reliance on overseas markets. Because these movies are increasingly more and more expensive, Hollywood needs to rely further and further on international markets to make up the difference. A side effect of this practice is that the stories being told need to be modified. A very specific story about Greenvile, NC with a complicated plot doesn't translate well, so the risk-averse decision-makers prefer to make Transformers instead.
Yep. You can see that with the relative disappearance of the sports movie, and the change in the nature of them too. The overseas market dosn't much buy movies about baseball or gridiron. But a soccer movie appeals more widely.
I just recently re-watched Lilo and Sitch. While it may not be a cinematic masterpiece, it was overall a very enjoyable lighthearted movie. I kept thinking while watching "why doesn't Disney make fun movies anymore?"
I recently watched Enchanted again and it felt like sunbathing with a beer in hand. The writing is also quite creative, the special way of mixing traits from different realms. That movie reminded me why I love MLPFiM so much. Uncynical work of love with a cheerful base theme. - Feelgood movies seem underappreciated recently, dunno. Everybody gets obsessed with survival themes.
@@blisterbill8477 Ideology is neutral. The word is referring to ideals, which are high states of being to aspire to, so it has value. You could say that Greek philosophers were idealists. The antithesis is pragmatists, which are perfectly happy only using what is already there and considered useful, thereby affirming the status quo that the takers are exploiting in a way that makes things worse.
I watched HEAT again over the weekend and all the way through it was striking how that could never be made now, the long pauses, the character development and a heart wrenching scene in the bath that served nothing other than building the struggle of a mans pain. The final scene of just two guys hiding amongst the loud sound of planes and landing lights. Ended with a couple of gunshots and the main protagonists holding hands. No backflips, no gunfu, they didn’t even get the girl. Cinematic classic
In some ways HEAT feels like it was ripped straight from the headlines today. Like the scene where Al Pacino tells his wife the reason why he doesn't tell her about his day when she asks why is because he knows that she couldn't handle hearing about his day. Than he proceeds to prove his point by talking about how a mother put her baby in the microwave and cooked it because she was HAF on Meth and she was planning to eat her baby. But she passed out the baby still died because she cooked it in the microwave. His wife than proceeds to cry and BARF. I know that HEAT was released in 1995. But that SHIT is just as relevant now as it was than.
Something similar is happening with the video game industry: Ubisoft recently canned a sequel to one of its smaller, original IPs to bring those developers over to another Assassin's Creed. In theory, 40% more developers = higher quality game, but also bigger teams = bigger budget and experience shows that large budgets = huge financial pressure to turn a big profit. What does this equal? Safe, generic, "little bit of everything", creatively compromised blobs of games that might look pretty and be liked by everyone for a while, but end up being loved by no one. Products from those kinds of producers end up being confused, bland, unfocused, undercooked, and ultimately dispassionate. To think, all that man-power and money could be put into projects that are smaller, more creative, and more profitable in the long run.
Thanks for another insightful video, Drinker. Please keep them coming. For some reason, when you mentioned the tendency of studio bigwigs to meddle in (and ultimately diminish) the films they produce, I couldn’t help but remember the story about how studio execs INSISTED that the American version of Ridley Scott’s “Blade Runner” just HAD TO have a voiceover narration, despite the fact that both Scott and Harrison Ford were vehemently opposed to adding it - and most retrospective reviews maintain that the voiceover was basically a crap idea. On the other hand, when “Rocky” was released in 1976, the studio thought it was a big risk and that it possibly wouldn’t do very well at the box office. However they decided they were willing to risk making “Rocky” because they had another film called “New York, New York” that was coming out the same year, and that “NY, NY” would hopefully be successful enough to cover “Rocky”’s expected losses. Ironically, the exact opposite is what actually happened. “Rocky” ended up covering for “NY, NY,” which did poorly at the box office. As a final example, when George Lucas screened a preliminary cut of the original “Star Wars” for his colleagues and close friends back in 1976-77, they all thought it was bizarre. In fact, quite famously, Brian De Palma sarcastically asked Lucas the question, “Hey George, what’s a wookie?” and laughed. (To his credit, Steven Spielberg liked “SW,” though. But he was in the minority at the time.) With all these examples of studio execs being wrong about what works and what doesn’t, you’d think they’d be more humble about weighing in so much… but nah.
To add to that some more recent examples from animation, Jeffrey Katzenberg at Disney thought that "Pocahontas" was going to knock everything out of the park and it was considered the A movie while the B movie project the rest of Disney was working on in the interim just to kill time turned out to be "The Lion King". That same man also wanted to cut the song "Part of Your World" from "The Little Mermaid" because ONE kid got squirmy during a test screening and Howard Ashman, and a bunch of the creative staff fought tooth and nail to keep that song in because they knew how important it was to the story and Ariel's character.
Another thing that is not discussed in this video, is that these blockbusters are structured in a way, so that you can easily take out parts or add something later with several rounds of reshooting. These reshoots are now just standard practise and not just to save a film in trouble. This affects the way the story is written. There is no intricate plotline with themes, characters arcs or setups to get a payoff later. A lot of the times the plot is the following: The characters need to get from A to B, then B to C, then C to D and finally D to E, roll credits. This makes some movies like Rise of Skywalker feel like 3 hours of those boring video game fetch quests, but it is great for the studio, because they can easily take out parts and insert new ones. Add a scene to apease the LGPT+ community in America - no problem Delete the same scene for screenings in other countries - no problem Add a scene in which Chinese people saves the day for the important Chinese market - no problem Remove entire sequence that didn't test well and replace with a new one - no problem The stories does not feel like a complete story, but rather a sequence of events that happens
And how many times have you heard about filming beginning before the script was finished? They want these big elaborate expensive sequences and then try to scrape together some kind of plot to justify it. That puts actors in a position where they can't give genuine performances and where writers are hamstrung by the fact the climactic points of the film are already set in stone. There's no actual storytelling going on so obviously the writing is going to be awful.
This still kind of goes back into the cost issue. They're structure that way so that they can have the maximum appeal to lots of demographics. That's kind of what you have to do when the movie costs 300 million dollars to make. But that stuff is like network TV. Sure it's palatable, but it's never really what you want. If you think about it, what's the last show on network TV people really loved? Maybe something in the late 90s or early 200s? For the last 15 years, the shows people loved have been on cable or streaming. Where they can take more risks and cater to a smaller niche. The movie industry is the prime example of what happens when you try to be all things to all people.
The other side to what you've said is that if the movie industry starts embracing smaller experimental movies it'll give a new generation of up and coming directors and writers a chance to cut their teeth and prove themselves. That's how we got Cameron, Scorsese, Spielberg, Nolan, Scott, Lucas etc. they broke through with their talent and vision. I'm really tired of seeing the same group of (increasingly old) directors being trotted out over and over again to put their name on the cover of a film.
At this point I don’t care if franchises burn to the ground, I just want something to take their place. I don’t want a barren movie landscape because the next generation of writers and movie makers were suffocated by a bloated zombie of an industry. Artistic people will always exist, they just need the opportunity.
i care about the franchises but i have been screaming for years that we need a new fresh wave of talent not this collective of woke hacktivists they plucked from tumblr
I think another problem worth mentioning is how these big-budget issues create environments of distrust and constant conflict, which result in movies struggling to maintain consistency, ESPECIALLY across sequels. When every single movie project is a massive basket with 300 million dollars worth of eggs in it, people aren’t concerned about working together to form a fully functional, coherent movie/chain of movies, they’re concerned about hitting their “checkboxes” to avoid getting ass-blasted if the movie completely bombs. The studio bigwigs, directors AND writers are just trying to check their own personal checkboxes to avoid retaliation if (and usually when) caca hits the fan, because whoever doesn’t check enough of their boxes is primed to be the scapegoat in the fallout. I feel like that’s why movies today have these weird writing issues where political correctness or rehashing overshadows decent character writing or decent plot. It’s not about working together to make a movie, it’s about working on YOUR PART of a movie whilst simultaneously covering yourself so that no one can point a finger at you in the case of a failure.
This is why is well known that movies as an industry won't age well especially when you know it's not about the art itself but rather than corporate mishmash to fill up a political quota.
CGI and Producer indecisiveness are hand-in-hand problems that exacerbate the problems we're seeing. The behind the scenes stills of Secret Invasion (which had a reported budget of $212M) are basically the actors sitting against greenscreen backdrops holding greenscreen props, because Marvel wanted total creative control about what's in a scene, what a gun looks like, whether a character holds a gun at all, and more chopping and changing. It's expensive, puts strain on the animators, makes the animation look terrible because you have to make changes but can't start from scratch, and the actors can't creatively engage because there's no set to bounce off. It's like how studios opt for CGI blood even though squibs look way better, studios will have blood/no blood depending on what market they're releasing into. The best films are ones where there's either a singular or collaborative creative vision, backed by the studio, using practical effects where the story is clearly defined and reshoots are minimal.
I'd like to think that Hollywood is about to be the last victim of streaming content. Because, regardless of how the product was delivered, Hollywood was always a constant. They have centralized the entire process, which ranges from movie sets and props, all the way to actors, directors, producers, as well as everything in between. They have contracts with the writers and FILM Actors Guild, as well as grips, and construction companies. I think the whole process has been tainted and film-makers are starting to look for alternative ways to create content. Even a great movie concept can't survive a writers room and casting office that is based on DEI mandates. We may have to deal a short-term drought in content, but I really hope that some of the more talented writers and actors focus on doing some small to mid-size Indie films. Good Stories, with limited special effects and absolutely no pandering or virtue signaling bullsh1t. But, this may just be a naive fantasy of mine.
I so love you Critical Drinker! You clarify so accurately what is wrong with Hollywood these days. You've obviously studied the structural aspects of storytelling and scriptwriting, character creation and development, acting, production, direction, and the process of financial backing and marketing of films. I mean for Christ's sake! Just give us a good story with characters we care about, and villains we love to hate, or, even love. (Darth Vader comes to mind, with the love/hate thing on villains.)
You should talk about how Marvel movies are bankrupting studios that do CGI. How companies are undercutting eachother to get the contracts for a Marvel movie and then after the movies changed 20 times and they have to keep redoing effects they've bankrupted their company.
What’s crazy is that so many movies keep getting bigger and bigger production budgets, but yet it seems like they look more artificial every year just because of the over reliance on CGI
*Poor quality CGI. If the mountains of CGI were of good quality we would be a lot more tolerant of it but with the increasingly rushed work done by inexperienced artists in 3rd world countries we the audience can not only tell but are distracted by bad quality of the visuals.
1) You'd be shocked to see how much of the movie is CGI. Even the shit you think they just went outside and filmed... Nope CG. 2) During 09-10 western CGI companies were collapsing left and right. They were all relocating to China and India chasing massive tax subsidies and actual profit since their business model is garbage... It was at the point, western Leads were training overseas employees to replace people. You might have noticed CGI in films seemed to have taken a step back during after this... That's partially why.
@@Hybris51129 Well most cgi artists are very experienced, but they gain way to little, set time to complete scenes which ultimately end up extremely rushed and the digital artists working massive overtime for little pay to finish the project.
I remember 2 things from the new Avatar movie, the landing sequence of the Venture Star being the first. The ship has a very realistic design, I appreciate the thought that went into it and seeing the landing sequence was impressive, not just visually, but conceptually. From the first movie, I would not have gussed that they can actually do that. The second thing is the whale hunting, once again not just for the visuals, but for the story bit about the de-age serum that they can make from the alien whale braingoo. That is 100% a thing mankind would do, no matter how smart and cultured those damn whales may be. They wouldn't just be hunted though, they would be farmed and harvested industrially, much like machines harvest humans in the Matrix universe. That was some wasted potential. Through the existence of Avatars, it is proven mankind has ways to interface with brains, not just humans brains mind you, the whales would be put in a simulation/coma/trance like state and mass farmed. Eternal life for everyone, provided you can enslave and reproduce a sufficiently large population of them, I feel like that is what the movie should have been about, not just some whale hunting to visually echo conventional whale hunting from history, that was cheap as hell to get viewers to go like whale huntinfg bad!!!111 Avatar's setting is in the somewhat far future and the future should be waaayyy darker. Be honest, you know it is true! Really, the most difficult task would be to not copy the Matrix too much, but just keeping those intelligent whales as lifestock seems unreasonable. Tubed up whale fields beyond fields and fields around the narrow shore waters around the beautiful beaches of Pandora, with sedated, wired up whales fixated upright in upright compartments, a shocking sight to behold, as the remains of harvested whales are fed to others. Anyway, such a contrast would have given the sequel some much needed identity. You could even go one step further and make the harvesting process a longer-lasting thing, where the whale is artifically kept alive for weeks while the braingoo is being drilled out untill it runs dry. The whole place would obviously be a secret, even eternal life can't be connected to so much bad publicity. As far as the bigger picture is concerned, you can even construct a decent story around it, it makes 100% sense for the company to want Jake Sully dead if he found out, heh, it even explains why humans have such a large presence on the planet again. Yeah, this whole concept isn't very family friendly, neither was the whale hunting scene, so depending on how much is clearly shown and how much is implied, I think this could have worked.
Damn, this way more ambitious than Avatar 2's rehash of the first movie and whatever it's sequels have in store. Honestly the live forever juice idea was completely stupid but if it was the central concept and explored as darkly and in-depth as you suggested it could have actually been salvageable.
@@MagcargoManjust a note that Cameron explained already that avatar 2 and 3 were originally supposed to be one movie so whenever 3 comes out , whatever problems U have with A2 I'm sure A3 will bring complete satisfaction
Thing is, you could change _anything_ about Avatar/2 and it would become a better film. It's a film for kids basically, and for really, REALLY stupid adults.
The best movies i've seen lately were ones that didn't use CGI, used on location filming, or was animated. And none of them broke the 5 mil mark in budget, i think the most expensive one was 3.5 mil. 300 million dollar movies that do nothing but throw actors into green screens just seem like scams meant to hire useless people who were nepotism kids.
Another thing to consider, the ballooning of budgets requires international audiences. That means scripts and dialogue need to be simple so that they aren’t lost in translation.
hmm, if that would be truth anime wouldn't be popular, and nobody would have interest in subtitled movies over dubbed with regional voice actors. If anything watching other cultures, including from my corner, U.S. culture, is stimulating. Believe me, the Death Note adaptation by Netflix, made simpler, is taken as a writing made by simpletons, to simpletons, instead of the story narrated in the manga. I guess movies like Master and Commander wouldn't exist either with this approach to be "open" to the world.
I think the bigger problem would be, that you start to have to take into account the politics of all the other big markets. Like, say, not doing anything that the censors in china finds to offensive to them.
@@ReinoldFZgranted anime is popular but rarely does an anime movie get a wide theatrical release in the us it’s usually just select theaters so although it’s popular it’s kinda niche too
@@ReinoldFZ I agree this is the reality for anime consumers. The problem is American studios BELIEVE others can't understand our culture. They also don't want to cut out things that get censored elsewhere. The difference between theses two industries is that Japan is making stuff for Japanese people but it happens to appeal to international audiences, whereas Americans are making movies to please a strawman "international" movie goer. They seem to think movies need to represent America instead of just entertaining Americans.
It's not an accident, it's called gatekeeping. Price out genuine talent and/or dissenting opinions, monopolize on propaganda. Same thing has happened with video games
The mainstream videogame scene is even worse than mainstream TV over the past few years, I dare say. Once upon a time videogames were essentially the one media outlet, the one sanctuary, largely untouched/unsubverted by progressive cartel that dominates just about every other industry today. Then BioWare happened, dialogue-intensive roleplaying games with a focus on romance became the next frontier, and now it's all but required for every game to have LGBTLMNOP++++ 'romance' options. Even in AC:Valhalla they made half the vikings homosexual, which is absurd given it was a capital crime in viking society.
To add onto the above, it's hard to miss how upset people get if every society in every video game isn't this perfect mix of global representation. People got upset at Final Fantasy XVI because the predominantly western European inspired world of swords, sorcery, and kingdoms wasn't a bastion of representation. It's getting exhausting to engage with AAA gaming because either the developers put revisionist history nonsense into their games to try to be as non-controversial as possible, or they don't cater to that crowd and get crucified for having a game vision and bringing it to life without compromise.
@@vladivanov5500AC went woke since Unity. Stop playing their games since. Anime is the only entertainment that's safe that's because The people in power (which by that I mean the Dems/lefts) have no power over what Japan does. That's why the left been going after Anime and Manga for years but can't really touch them. Sure their been a few force stuff. Like MHA had a T person in it. But they were quickly killed off because people in Japan know that crap don't sell. They only put it in the show to please the lefts.
@@LuckyTrouble777 Preach. Indie games or older games are virtually the only avenues for good ass shit without worrying about problems. Sometimes, even if they have problems, they’re still better because they’re still fundamentally good games. You’re also not having to spend $60+ for over 100 gb’s of game
Yep, monopolies develop due to the driving force of capitalism pushing for competitive self-interest, profit maximization and infinite growth - and they we wonder why we don't have as many nice Mom and Pop shops in town, or unique indie films or video games or music being offered to us? Corporate capture is late stage capitalism and that's where we will be until we start creating a better system. WE can do that, but only if we recognize the root problem and start taking steps, using a shared strategy to make it better. One Small Town is trying, other groups like it are developing something. We can all at least share good thought-provoking media and connect that way.
Actually here's a fun fact: despite Elemental having a bad global opening-weekend it has now crossed $480 million+ which now makes it the highest-grossing animated movie in the 2020s decade so far that's NOT an animated sequel or based on an existing IP like Spider-Verse or The Super Mario Bros. Movie.
The reason budgets have gotten bigger is because the big studios have to compete with streaming which offers thousands of hours of content, including television series that cost more than movies. The studios thought they could also screw over their workers indefinitely by denying them fair wages. Every decision the studios made in the last several years has led to this point and it's shocking that no one could see the signs until now.
There was a little clip there of Akira Kurosawa's Ran. I was reading recently that its budget was $20million dollars (mostly raised by Spielberg and Lucas). Adjusted for inflation, thats around $60million. This, for a huge epic that featured huge samurai armies slaughtering each other on the side of a volcano, and an entire replica castle which was burnt down just to provide a cool framing shot and zero CGI, everything was built from scratch. And it still cost around one fifth of the latest Indiana Jones. There is something very broken about the industry.
You used to be able to see where the money was going on the screen. Not anymore. Everything is the same computerized crap. There is no more magic to it, no more wonder. No more sense of “how did they do it?“ Just “which software did they use and which button did they push?“ There is no artistry to any of this.
You’re leaving out A LOT of variables here. First, this movie was not filmed in the US, where you have strict health and safety regulations. On top of that, each state has varying fees for movie productions. Perhaps this isn’t the case where Ran was filmed. Perhaps the size of the film crew was small on this production. Perhaps the government gave the production a huge tax break for filming a movie promoting Japanese culture. The point is, you’re trying to compare apples and oranges and blaming one particular store because oranges don’t taste like apples
@@eyespy3001 yeah I was gonna say, its very hard to compare movie budgets across countries, and especially across countries. Like Jackie Chan's movie Police Story cost $2 million but there's no way you could've made anything like it for $2 million in the US in 1985. $2 million goes a lot further in a place like Hong Kong
@@artirony410 Precisely. I was actually going to use Hong Kong movie productions- specifically Jackie Chan’s run-and-gun style of filmmaking back in the day- as an example of different standards, but it would’ve made an already long response even longer. Thank you for adding it to the conversation.
I like the Jason Blum model: low budgets, big back-end participation. He says this combo incentivizes the creation of better movies, because there's less studio interference (they don't care as much about the movie because the budget is low) and because the talent is motivated to make a great movie because their compensation depends on the box office.
@@josephmayfield945 Yeah, it only occasionally works but hey at the end of it, we can still have a good laugh at all the bad movies put out by Blumhouse too.
They could take more small novels to turn into inexpensive films, or even franchises. That would be great. They still get an existing audience, plus a cohesive story behind it.
I’m actually pretty depressed about this. My young children will never have the same experience from contemporary movies that I had as a teenager working in the local movie theater back in the day. From Jurassic Park to Forrest Gump, from Independence Day to The Green Mile, from Armageddon to Schindler’s List, from Braveheart to Gladiator, and you name it - we had it all. I’m reliving it all right now and they’re watching along. But they’ll never experience this level of quality in their own lifetime. Hollywood destroyed it all.
I feel like 1990's and early 2000's were the last Golden Age of movies. All movies you listed are still on my watchlist, I rewatch theam often and they never ever get boring. Meanwhile, I can't remember the last contemporary movie I felt like watching again
@@kria9119that's actually a great question what is the most recent movie that you actually want to watch more then once. Most of mine are from the late 70s to the early 80s.
I mean, this seems to be a pretty blackpilled mindset. Aside from the fact that no one said that level of quality can't return, they'll probably just grow up with their own movies to relive.
I think also the problem is that Hollywood had a twofold issue that became a begative feedback loop: 1. Bigger has to be better: every subsequent film must be bigger than the last. An audience won't voluntarily see a film that is subdued compared to what came before, so what comes next has to be bigger and flashier. 2. Streaming services ike Netflix and Amazon Prime were making crazy money, so they were happily throwing around huge sums spend on vanity projects and especially trying to poach star power away from Hollywood. Hollywood had to respond in kind by upping their expenditure. There is potentially light at the end of the tunnel. A lot of these decisions were driven by audience predicition models which don't seem to be matching reality. They were correct at first, but how can you predict audience apathy? Downward trends need to be understood, but an algorithm can't tell you until the trend actually begins, but by this point it's too late. Hopefully cool indie flicks will resirge in response.
Anything that relies on marketing, where they tell you "better taste", more "filling", by offering you less, with more chemicals, or other brainwashing is never going to be normal. The media's income is solely based on lying to its customers. After 30 years of this, you are so far offside, that this is what you get. No one normal in charge, with no brains to relate to normal folks.
Netflix & Amazon aren't making money on their shows, or movies. They make money through subs, like Airlines do through Rewards. Fact: Game of Thrones generated $0, while Fast & Furious generated $7 Billion.
To sum it up: to make money on an expensive movie, you have to make it appeal to everyone, because there are only so many movie watchers on the planet. It's like designing a mode of land transportation, but it has to appeal to BMW SUV lovers and Harley Davidson fans: no matter how much money you spend on it, you'll get a mediocre product that doesn't fully satisfy either side. It's easier to just build a Harley motorcycle and a BMW SUV and have two designs, just like it's cheaper and more efficient to just make two movies that satisfy two dissimilar niches.
I would genuinely be on board for a Drinker "recommends" one hour special of low budget high success film study. Start somewhere in the 1960s and bring us to modern day with 40-50 films with low budgets but high value and great entertainment. MadMax, Rocky, Pulp fiction, The Terminator, Taxi, American graffiti, Monty Python, Eastwood westerns.... this list could on . All made 10x their budgets and are still seen today as great productions.
Yeah. would be happy to see him get into titles that aren't mainstream or have massive marketing behind it. Unfortunately, hate watching/reviewing is the real money maker. Saw a channel that got a huge spike of viewers when High Guardian Spice was the hot shit, then just died out when they started doing something more positive.
@@ItsJustTeddington I'm not sure he really knows much about movies outside of mainstream movies. Like the stuff he upholds as the greatest movies ever made are just blockbusters from his childhood for the most part. I'd be glad to be proven wrong on this, but it seems like he knows very little about "the canon" of great cinema.
This assessment is very close to my own. I can't think of ANY industry where constantly and incessantly making your product more expensive to manufacture and market works out well for the company. There has to be a way to make movies that are both visually and intellectually stimulating that does not require HUGE budgets.
We need more original, and thought provoking films again. Soft reboots, and pointless sequels, and superhero franchises ran their course, but it's safe to say that the time has come to move on from them and get back to stand alone movies that stick with you. "Thelma and Louise", and "The breakfast club" are prime examples of timeless IPS on a tight budget that stick with you decades after their releases. Hopefully soon, we can get back to those days. Great video drinker. 🎉
*Thelma and Louise* would be improved if the car they drove off the cliff was Chitty Chitty Bang Bang. Either way, that movie was when the second wave of feminism degenerated into the third wave. That’s when we really started to see the shit hit the fan. I’m just glad my age was almost in double digits by that point so I could have a few good years of childhood under my belt before boys and men became public enemy number one.
It's an escalating energy vampirism reaching its end of possible growth. That's when the stripmining phase begins, with massively diminishing returns and eventual gridlock.
Or the early Tarantino movies or anything by Kevin Smith. God, Kevin Smith's career started when he maxed out his credit card to make a black and white art house film. Or really, any of the franchises that they are killing into the ground -- Star Wars, Indiana Jones, Star Trek, Terminator and many others started out as fairly low budget endeavors. Or best example of all, Mad Max, budget of beer and pocket lint, made 100 million in 1979. All on good story.
Horror movies are still pretty good with this. They're more niche than your typical blockbuster but it doesn't matter because they're financially viable.
@@supermax64 Exactly. Smile had a budget of "just" 17 million USD, had relatively few characters which I only really just considered now because I was invested in the characters and the story. It made $217 million back. Hollywood could make 15 movies at those budgets and get more back overall instead of chancing it on a single 300 million USD "bet".
Budgets of the past: Alien $11M Back To The Future $19M Godfather $6M Aliens $18M Terminator $6.4M Predator $18M Raiders of the Lost Ark $20M Star Wars $11M Jaws $9M
I have so much respect for the Back To The Future crew not greenlighting a cash - grab movie. I think with the quality of home entertainment systems and streaming services there must be a massive pressure to produce a big-screen experience. Low budget risky movies are done (well) on streaming services. The Fugitive The Firm Mrs Doubtfire and Sleepless in Seattle would all probably be made by streaming services today.
A present day Back to the Future would send Marty McFly back to 1993. And frankly if I wanted to see a movie about high school in the mid 90s, I'd just watch Clueless which managed to be racially diverse, anti-wealthy, and extremely feminist while also being, you know, good.
I think the death of DVD's (and physical medias) also played a big role in the killing of that part of the industry, since they don't have that "second wind" of cash, which in the past helped alot of movies to gain fame even thou they werent a hit in the cinemas
True plus the fall of DVDs was further exasperated by Covid with folks not going to the Cinema and instead choosing to use streaming services at home, although the Cinema experience has slowly recovered to an extent with the removal of restrictions there's very little incentive to buy DVDs these days now that folks have realised they can just wait until a popular movie is available on Disney+, Prime, HBO, etc (sometimes not even bothering with the Cinema in the first place). It kinda goes hand in hand with the destruction of physical media and the attempts to preserve entertainment/art in its original state (E.g; the unedited original SW trilogy).
Whats weird isnt that the movies are so expensive, its that they put all this money to cgi and actors instead of hiring some good writers. Even when making a movie based on a book it seems like the writers are actively trying to make the already successful story a lot worse, and they end up with a terrible product
I was surprised that Oppenheimer was only at 100 million in its budget. It certainly used its budget well and it therefore was a hit even with another film making more money than it week to week.
Nolan knows what he is doing. He is one of the few directors who will get me to watch his work sight unseen. He does not always hit, but he is always original and competent.
I’m starting to believe the massive production costs are to offset something sinister behind the scenes… money laundering? I’m not sure… but it’s insane how so many movies can be so bad and so expensive
Universal appears to be the only studio honestly reporting box office statistics. Otherwise they would be claiming *Bros* grossed a billion and *The Super Mario Bros. Movie* flopped. #ReReleaseMario
Also the balloning budgets are from companies wanting to get their cut before it releases. Breaking even already covers what they earned/were paid while it was being developed. By minimizing profits you reduce residuals you need to pay.
Because they’re like universities/colleges- required to have DEI reps, equity managers, diversity hires that require another hire to fix the many fuckups of the diversity hire, script writers and script rewriters because said script just isn’t woke enough, on-locations therapists, therapists for the therapist, all the different food requirements, the God-forsaken CGI needs, etc., and suddenly you’re into multibillion dollar territory with not much hope of even breaking even.
Hollywood accounting is a real thing, that happens for a variety of reasons: taxes, not paying percentage of profit, etc. Look it up, it's an open secret that they setup a shell company per movie, and do a lot of shenanigans with the costs and profits.
One of the best movies I've seen in the last 15 years is Gran Torino. It starred and was directed by Clint Eastwood, AND THAT'S IT. I can't name another actor or actress, it wasn't a big budget flashy experience with explosions and super special effects. It was a movie that told a great story. The Mule, also by Clint was more of the same, and it was good(not as great as Gran Torino, but I'm a Michigander who's white dad grew up in Detroit and my Grandpa was designated too important to the war effort because he was an engineer to serve, so he quit his job and enlisted, so the whole Detroit back in the 40's and 50's and 60's thing till it went to shit really hits home for me). You don't need a huge budget to tell a good story, all you need is a good story and a director and cast willing to tell it. Good luck finding that in most modern big budget movies, because they want to make sure that they don't piss off certain groups, while at the same time not caring if they piss off others like straight(not cis, straight) white men.
Absolutely loved Gran Torino, and I'm with you on the rest of what you say too. I would add in Django Unchained, but then Tarantino always delivers, and although the budget is probably quite high for his stuff, they're not filled with unconvincing greenscreen. Look at Reservoir Dogs, it was mostly shot in a garage. It's all in the writing for sure!
@paulwilson6357 Tarantino is a hack. Every one of his movies follows a very tight, unwavering formula. Not to mention he's one of the biggest Hollywood asshole hypocrites, calling for the abolishing of gun rights while making his movies exclusively about huge gun fights and glorifying hyperviolence.
We've come full circle. In the 50s and 60s, Hollywood would try to inflate the production value of their films by making them bigger, in scale, and in cost; typically through large sets, and extras casting. Films like Ben Hur, The Ten Commandments, Lawrence of Arabia. These movies, by today's standards, are fairly drab; a snoozefest; just arent good. Their appeal was for the spectacle. We've hit that point again
I'd like to second the drinker's opinions with this one gem Everything everywhere all at once 1/ Costs barely 25 mils to make. 2/ Stars a diverse cast 3/ Story centered around the Multiverse 4/ Shot and wrapped in 38 days 5/ Made in 2022 6/ Won almost every prestigious award known to film making...including a "Drinker Recommends" Why do we need big budget movies again?
I think Sounds of Freedom proves your point. No super effects, so shaking cameras and edgy cameral angles, just a straight shot movie, and because of that it had to survive on a good plot. I liked that I could actually see what was going on in the fight scenes that were taken at - one angle.
There can be a lot of reasons why Hollywood has been failing: - The general lack of new original content. - Relying on past IPs or rewriting them, which can promote lazy writing and degraded content. - There are a plethora of movies more than ever, forcing companies to rely more and more on advertising to pass a product. - Pushing agendas more importantly than telling a story (Not every movie, obviously). - Criticizing the audience when the shows fail or do poorly, which is an absolutely dumb move in trying to sell future products. - Less and fewer people to watch movies, forcing companies to rely even more on trying to promote their product.
Lack of talent from top to bottom. From producers all the way down to writers. In the case of the recent Star Wars movies how unlikable was the main actress? The one person that absolutely had to win the audience over stunk. Take away Robin Williams salary, how much do you think a movie like Dead Poets Society cost to make? Dirt cheap I imagine and better than anything Hollywood is currently able to make. How much do you think Good Will Hunting cost, Shawshank Redemption, etc? these are movies with good writing and good acting, not wiz bang boom. With big budgets you get no story, stifled dialogue, and mostly lots of wiz bang boom. Mostly the script writers in Hollywood today are just awful, they're currently striking, but they should be replaced. You know when Game of Thrones went downhill? you guessed it its when the show got ahead of George R Martin, the Hollywood writers screwed it up. The most horrific recent script writer was Patty Jenkins for Wonder Woman 1984.
Nepotism as well. When you hire someone based on their name or family rather than talents, you get someone lazy who doesn't know how to effectively tell stories. They're also set on telling their own story because it's all about them.
The main issue is that companies have become lazy and greedy. They want to have a new movie of Star Wars every year and don't care about the story. To them, most of their budget goes to CGI and stuff. These big companies simply don't understand what people want in a movie anymore. I'm ok with them going bankrupt as huge loss after loss is bound to do something sooner or later. The fact they can absorb this much loss already is simply showing the greed they have had for years now.
I feel like the comment "They're money men. Narrative cohesion and creative integrity don't factor into their thinking because all that really matters is keeping their shareholders happy." applies to more than just Hollywood productions.
You know, you showed extremely short clips of movies made in the 90s and 80s and I instantly named and remembered the entire plot of them. I honestly don't remember most movies released in the past 10 or 15 years. Even when shown clips of them. It's a struggle to just remember the name. It's not that they are bad, it's worse. They're bland.
One movie I saw recently which I loved as a kid but never saw as an adult was the mummy with Brendan Fraser, seeing that movie made me realize just how shit most movies have become, it was all action comedy and romance and didn’t have a single beat about politics or views, just a guy beating a mummy and getting the girl in the end and the story, practical effects and scenes still hold up, what the fu~k happened to movies nowadays
It also had a budget of $80 million. But while most of the CGI effects don't hold up well, the fact that most of the action and explosions were practical really does say something.
Movies are like firework displays these days...you sit and watch them, but you can't for the life of you recall anything but tiny bits that really stood out. I've watched that last "star wars" movie twice, and I still don't recall what happened or how it turned out. I still recall where I was sitting, what I was thinking, and how it affected me, when empire strikes back left us hanging. I went back to the theater so that I could catch all the things I missed. I only watched star wars because I could see it with a click mouse click...and it STILL wasn't worth the effort!!
I could see big studio producers jumping ship when things get worse and moving to A24, and they'd most likely try to clamp down on them like the other studios they ruined.
