4 ms·
You hit the nail on the head about how we need more complex stories. I'm not sure if this is a result of me getting older but I think people in general are gett
by opportune 9y ago
You hit the nail on the head about how we need more complex stories. I'm not sure if this is a result of me getting older but I think people in general are getting more prone to black vs. white thinking over time (which I suspect is due to becoming bombarded with ads which are always either very positive/funny/nice or vitriolic, or an increasingly polarizing and histrionic media, but I digress). Even movies made for adults usually have some fixed, obvious good guys vs. bad guys these days.
I don't think it's that nobody can understand things anymore, or even that people don't want to, I think people simply don't want to limit their potential sales by making things too difficult to understand. Big studios don't make movies like The Hateful Eight (which I thought was great because it didn't have good guys) because they don't appeal to enough people, and writers don't write with nuance anymore because you get the most impressions if you simply pander to a specific political camp.
- zxcmx 9y agoThere is also the issue of marketability, focus grouping, age group bracketing and the crafting of narratives that will appeal commercially across cultural boundaries. We have these massive "story engines" but only the simplest stories can have predictable universal appeal.
- opportune 9y agoVery true. I hope one day we can have a better premium media market than we have currently so that businesses feel less pressured to appeal to everyone. I don't think you could pay me to sit through a Transformers movie but I would have paid $25 to see the Hateful Eight in theaters.
- icc97 9y ago> Big studios don't make movies like The Hateful Eight It had a $50M budget, that is pretty big, just not in the blockbuster category. But I simply don't think that blockbusters have ever or will ever care about more complex movies (there are obviously exceptions but not a significant amount). It's simply a numbers game, you make bland stuff that attracts the lowest common denominator and pays the bills with very little risk and then put the money you're left over with to pay for movies with higher risk.
- opportune 9y agoTrue, but it was also directed by Tarantino, who was the one guy trusted enough to be able spend $50m on that kind of movie (and it still didn't pay off well by hollywood standards). I don't think many movies like that get funded anymore.