6 ms·

Matt Damon quickly explains why they don’t make movies like they used to

54 points by Flatcircle 5y ago

Cosmopolytan 5y ago
He really explained it clearly and simply. But while I understand his answer, I don't understand the question, lol. I might not be old enough. I think the film industry has evolved incredibly because of technology, and I'm happy because of that. I'm the kind of person who goes to the cinema and sees all the movies that are out. I love it.
- 0-_-0 5y ago
  Well then you're a very lucky person to be able to enjoy today's movies so much. Can I ask how old you are?
- wodenokoto 5y ago
  I think the question is “why are there only big, expensive action movies?” Or maybe it is “why aren’t you doing more goodwill hunting films?” But I too disagree with those premises. Matt daemon is saying there isn’t room for the ~25 million dollar movie, because cinema ticket sale now has to carry the entire revenue stream. But I’ve seen mostly smaller movies in cinema for the past two years. Hell, parasite, which won best picture was a $15 million production, so obviously there is room for “small” movies
  - Aeronwen 5y ago
    There's room for $15 million movies because it's a relatively cheap gamble. They can risk releasing a few cheap movies a year, hoping that one becomes popular enough they can milk the IP dry. Or they find their next big actor/actress. But past the cheap gamble phase, studios start doubling down and throw in big name actors, and start advertising the crap out of it, hoping to get people to watch it. There's no $25 million movies, because they end up $50 million movies.
- coldtea 5y ago
  >I think the film industry has evolved incredibly because of technology, and I'm happy because of that. Well, evolved incredibly because of the technology mostly amounts two "3 out of 4 movies are superheroes in spandex for adult-children" who can't handle more depth even in their 30s and 40s...
  - GekkePrutser 5y ago
    True, the amount of shallow superhero movies is baffling the last few years
  - p_l 5y ago
    The shallowness isn't because of some imaginary man-children. It's a well-researched and planned strategy to ensure largest possible geographic spread, avoiding anything that would be too problematic for the box office. After all, the studios aren't planning just on local release for financials and considering international as bonus. Capitalism, ho!...
    - coldtea 5y ago
      >It's a well-researched and planned strategy to ensure largest possible geographic spread, avoiding anything that would be too problematic for the box office. Yes, but without the men-children to gulp those movies down, those scripts would themselves be "problematic for the box office".
      - p_l 5y ago
        No, they wouldn't be. The shallowness is exactly what makes it easy watching for large groups that can fit in whatever gaps they find with local preferences, combined with making it much easier for localised edits to be done. Whether the movie includes comic book superheroes or not is not relevant - arguably, many a comic geek could probably point to reduction of depth in the plotlines in some of those. Same goes for typical US DoD propaganda pieces ^W^W^W^W Hollywood action movies, Disney reboots, "Butchered Love Actually Remake" CXXVII, and many other big budget plays that use this approach. It works because while it's not a great meal, it gets you an equivalent of mcdonald burger in foreign country. Not great, not terrible, and the local adaptations probably aren't big enough to stop it from being "safe" choice.
cable2600 5y ago
You won't see Gone with the Wind remade any time soon. Nor will you see The Song of the South. Because they are considered racist. Society, culture, laws, language, philosophy all changes.
- Keysh 5y ago
  From the video, the question is, in effect, “Why don’t they make movies like they did in the 1990s any more?”
  - RedComet 5y ago
    The same thing applies.
trabant00 5y ago
Too quickly, there's not enough enough details. So the DVD is gone, but isn't streaming making up for it?
- arblor 5y ago
  Moreover, I’d expect DVD to have higher variable costs (physical, distribution, Blockbuster fees) that increase the time for breaking even. But maybe the revenue from streaming is much lower to undo all the cost savings.
- TrackerFF 5y ago
  Too many choices, maybe? So they all get spread out too thin. Back when VHS and DVD's were the thing, you'd pretty much get a very finite amount of choices, and usually went with one of those. Of course, you had the huge rental stores with thousands of flicks, but in most places, the selection was just a small fraction of that. 20 years ago, we'd go to the rental store/kiosk/whatever, set on seeing a movie. So we picked one, of the maybe 30 titles. Could be good, could be bad, who knows. Today, I spend probably 20 minutes browsing 5 different streaming services before I find anything. And I've probably browed through hundreds of titles in that amount of time. I'm not sure how much the studios get for letting streaming services show their movies either, compared to the rental stores back in the day, or flat out selling DVDs to consumers.
  - coldtea 5y ago
    >Back when VHS and DVD's were the thing, you'd pretty much get a very finite amount of choices, and usually went with one of those. Of course, you had the huge rental stores with thousands of flicks, but in most places, the selection was just a small fraction of that. Streaming has even less choices. The Netflix catalog for example is laughable, and they push even more for their own stuff.
    - TrackerFF 5y ago
      I don't know if (Netflix catalog) has shrunk, but it seemed to be much larger back when they started out. I guess it's a result of too many steaming services, it's almost as we're back to the days of cable - but instead of various packages, we're paying $10/month to the various services. Sad to say, but (semi-legal) services like popcorn time etc. were almost the pinnacle of online streaming. These days, I still have to fly the black flag, from time to time, if I want to find certain titles to watch on the go.
aaron695 5y ago
It's hard to find the Chinese Hollywood market but Fast and Furious 9 earned US$135 million at the Chinese box office opening weekend 2021. Hollywood sequels do very well in China. DVD's and Blue Ray have plummeted, but streaming is up. Over all home market is up. https://www.cnbc.com/2019/11/08/the-death-of-the-dvd-why-sales-dropped-more-than-86percent-in-13-years.html https://www.cnbc.com/2019/11/08/the-death-of-the-dvd-why-sal... I would have thought Behind the Candelabra would do better in a streaming market. Compared to buying super hero movies. Behind the Candelabra had no cinema release in the US, it was released straight to HBO.
jackvalentine 5y ago
There are plenty of great movies made out there 'on the cheap' but Hollywood isn't where you go to do it.
nickthemagicman 5y ago
Why isn't technology reducing the costs to make these movies as well? Why does it cost a hundred million? Is it because actors are paid millions for a few months of work? Maybe that's the real problem. Previous to technology the limited number of movie stars and rock stars had a more or less monopoly because the entertainment was funneled through a very few channels. Now entertainment is democratized and widely available. Maybe the real reason is that these people aren't willing to work for reasonable wages.
- takinola 5y ago
  Star salaries can definitely bloat a movie budget but it still costs 10s of millions to make a "small" film. Look up Blumhouse productions, they make low budget horror movies (if a big star is involved, they get a low salary and a share of profits/revenue) and it still gets into the $20-$40 million range
  - nickthemagicman 5y ago
    Maybe I'm just if ignorant about what it takes to make a movie. But 25 million seems like a lot for a small film that's mainly script and acting. Horror movies require a ton of special effects which I imagine is where huge budgets start to come into play. But many of the best movies I've ever seen don't require tons of special effects. Taxi driver, good will hunting, the godfather, moonlight, etc. It's possible if the quality is there.
- boublepop 5y ago
  > Maybe the real reason is that these people aren't willing to work for reasonable wages. If you want cheaper actors you can cast cheaper actors. But obviously you won’t get any actor to take minimum wage gig if they have a better offer somewhere else. This has nothing to do with unwillingness to work for less money. And trying to put the blame for what movies get made on actors who have absolutely no control over that is just silly.
  - nickthemagicman 5y ago
blippage 5y ago
I saw the Robocop (2014) remake on telly the other day. I couldn't help but wonder why the movie even existed. Its production values were vastly higher than the original, but it was just a completely boring movie. It's like the Total Recall remake. They just have no soul. There's just nothing there in terms of writing. Nothing witty, no great lines. In the original a guy rips his face of revealing his skull, and collapses. Completely daft to be sure, but it was funny. There's a creative spark that current films just don't seem to have. The characters have no personality. The actors have no charisma. Let's face it, Arnie is not a great actor. But he does have onscreen charisma. There's just a different level of acting in the original Total Recall. Arnie, Ronny Cox, the growling Michael Ironside, Sharon Stone. The other supporting actors bought something to the table. With the remake? Nothing! Colin Farrell was boring, and his wife was leagues behind what Stone portrayed. Maybe the problem is with the film certificate. RoboCop was a 12A, so I guess the executives thought "to hell with the writing, writing is hard." Hollywood occasionally gets it right, I guess. Joker (2019) was pretty good, despite being a 15. I thought it was a very cohesive film in the way they chose characters like the dwarf, why Fleck committed the murders he did, and how the whole thing developed. You could tell there was a whole lot more thought put into the script.

54 points by Flatcircle 5y ago

He really explained it clearly and simply. But while I understand his answer, I don't understand the question, lol. I might not be old enough. I think the film industry has evolved incredibly because of technology, and I'm happy because of that. I'm the kind of person who goes to the cinema and sees all the movies that are out. I love it.

0-_-0 5y ago
Well then you're a very lucky person to be able to enjoy today's movies so much. Can I ask how old you are?
wodenokoto 5y ago
I think the question is “why are there only big, expensive action movies?” Or maybe it is “why aren’t you doing more goodwill hunting films?” But I too disagree with those premises. Matt daemon is saying there isn’t room for the ~25 million dollar movie, because cinema ticket sale now has to carry the entire revenue stream. But I’ve seen mostly smaller movies in cinema for the past two years. Hell, parasite, which won best picture was a $15 million production, so obviously there is room for “small” movies
- Aeronwen 5y ago
  There's room for $15 million movies because it's a relatively cheap gamble. They can risk releasing a few cheap movies a year, hoping that one becomes popular enough they can milk the IP dry. Or they find their next big actor/actress. But past the cheap gamble phase, studios start doubling down and throw in big name actors, and start advertising the crap out of it, hoping to get people to watch it. There's no $25 million movies, because they end up $50 million movies.
coldtea 5y ago
>I think the film industry has evolved incredibly because of technology, and I'm happy because of that. Well, evolved incredibly because of the technology mostly amounts two "3 out of 4 movies are superheroes in spandex for adult-children" who can't handle more depth even in their 30s and 40s...
- GekkePrutser 5y ago
  True, the amount of shallow superhero movies is baffling the last few years
- p_l 5y ago
  The shallowness isn't because of some imaginary man-children. It's a well-researched and planned strategy to ensure largest possible geographic spread, avoiding anything that would be too problematic for the box office. After all, the studios aren't planning just on local release for financials and considering international as bonus. Capitalism, ho!...
  - coldtea 5y ago
    >It's a well-researched and planned strategy to ensure largest possible geographic spread, avoiding anything that would be too problematic for the box office. Yes, but without the men-children to gulp those movies down, those scripts would themselves be "problematic for the box office".
    - p_l 5y ago
      No, they wouldn't be. The shallowness is exactly what makes it easy watching for large groups that can fit in whatever gaps they find with local preferences, combined with making it much easier for localised edits to be done. Whether the movie includes comic book superheroes or not is not relevant - arguably, many a comic geek could probably point to reduction of depth in the plotlines in some of those. Same goes for typical US DoD propaganda pieces ^W^W^W^W Hollywood action movies, Disney reboots, "Butchered Love Actually Remake" CXXVII, and many other big budget plays that use this approach. It works because while it's not a great meal, it gets you an equivalent of mcdonald burger in foreign country. Not great, not terrible, and the local adaptations probably aren't big enough to stop it from being "safe" choice.

cable2600 5y ago

You won't see Gone with the Wind remade any time soon. Nor will you see The Song of the South. Because they are considered racist. Society, culture, laws, language, philosophy all changes.

Keysh 5y ago
From the video, the question is, in effect, “Why don’t they make movies like they did in the 1990s any more?”
- RedComet 5y ago
  The same thing applies.

trabant00 5y ago

Too quickly, there's not enough enough details. So the DVD is gone, but isn't streaming making up for it?

arblor 5y ago
Moreover, I’d expect DVD to have higher variable costs (physical, distribution, Blockbuster fees) that increase the time for breaking even. But maybe the revenue from streaming is much lower to undo all the cost savings.
TrackerFF 5y ago
Too many choices, maybe? So they all get spread out too thin. Back when VHS and DVD's were the thing, you'd pretty much get a very finite amount of choices, and usually went with one of those. Of course, you had the huge rental stores with thousands of flicks, but in most places, the selection was just a small fraction of that. 20 years ago, we'd go to the rental store/kiosk/whatever, set on seeing a movie. So we picked one, of the maybe 30 titles. Could be good, could be bad, who knows. Today, I spend probably 20 minutes browsing 5 different streaming services before I find anything. And I've probably browed through hundreds of titles in that amount of time. I'm not sure how much the studios get for letting streaming services show their movies either, compared to the rental stores back in the day, or flat out selling DVDs to consumers.
- coldtea 5y ago
  >Back when VHS and DVD's were the thing, you'd pretty much get a very finite amount of choices, and usually went with one of those. Of course, you had the huge rental stores with thousands of flicks, but in most places, the selection was just a small fraction of that. Streaming has even less choices. The Netflix catalog for example is laughable, and they push even more for their own stuff.
  - TrackerFF 5y ago
    I don't know if (Netflix catalog) has shrunk, but it seemed to be much larger back when they started out. I guess it's a result of too many steaming services, it's almost as we're back to the days of cable - but instead of various packages, we're paying $10/month to the various services. Sad to say, but (semi-legal) services like popcorn time etc. were almost the pinnacle of online streaming. These days, I still have to fly the black flag, from time to time, if I want to find certain titles to watch on the go.

aaron695 5y ago

It's hard to find the Chinese Hollywood market but Fast and Furious 9 earned US$135 million at the Chinese box office opening weekend 2021. Hollywood sequels do very well in China. DVD's and Blue Ray have plummeted, but streaming is up. Over all home market is up. https://www.cnbc.com/2019/11/08/the-death-of-the-dvd-why-sales-dropped-more-than-86percent-in-13-years.html https://www.cnbc.com/2019/11/08/the-death-of-the-dvd-why-sal... I would have thought Behind the Candelabra would do better in a streaming market. Compared to buying super hero movies. Behind the Candelabra had no cinema release in the US, it was released straight to HBO.

jackvalentine 5y ago

There are plenty of great movies made out there 'on the cheap' but Hollywood isn't where you go to do it.

nickthemagicman 5y ago

Why isn't technology reducing the costs to make these movies as well? Why does it cost a hundred million? Is it because actors are paid millions for a few months of work? Maybe that's the real problem. Previous to technology the limited number of movie stars and rock stars had a more or less monopoly because the entertainment was funneled through a very few channels. Now entertainment is democratized and widely available. Maybe the real reason is that these people aren't willing to work for reasonable wages.

takinola 5y ago
Star salaries can definitely bloat a movie budget but it still costs 10s of millions to make a "small" film. Look up Blumhouse productions, they make low budget horror movies (if a big star is involved, they get a low salary and a share of profits/revenue) and it still gets into the $20-$40 million range
- nickthemagicman 5y ago
  Maybe I'm just if ignorant about what it takes to make a movie. But 25 million seems like a lot for a small film that's mainly script and acting. Horror movies require a ton of special effects which I imagine is where huge budgets start to come into play. But many of the best movies I've ever seen don't require tons of special effects. Taxi driver, good will hunting, the godfather, moonlight, etc. It's possible if the quality is there.
boublepop 5y ago
> Maybe the real reason is that these people aren't willing to work for reasonable wages. If you want cheaper actors you can cast cheaper actors. But obviously you won’t get any actor to take minimum wage gig if they have a better offer somewhere else. This has nothing to do with unwillingness to work for less money. And trying to put the blame for what movies get made on actors who have absolutely no control over that is just silly.
- nickthemagicman 5y ago

blippage 5y ago

I saw the Robocop (2014) remake on telly the other day. I couldn't help but wonder why the movie even existed. Its production values were vastly higher than the original, but it was just a completely boring movie. It's like the Total Recall remake. They just have no soul. There's just nothing there in terms of writing. Nothing witty, no great lines. In the original a guy rips his face of revealing his skull, and collapses. Completely daft to be sure, but it was funny. There's a creative spark that current films just don't seem to have. The characters have no personality. The actors have no charisma. Let's face it, Arnie is not a great actor. But he does have onscreen charisma. There's just a different level of acting in the original Total Recall. Arnie, Ronny Cox, the growling Michael Ironside, Sharon Stone. The other supporting actors bought something to the table. With the remake? Nothing! Colin Farrell was boring, and his wife was leagues behind what Stone portrayed. Maybe the problem is with the film certificate. RoboCop was a 12A, so I guess the executives thought "to hell with the writing, writing is hard." Hollywood occasionally gets it right, I guess. Joker (2019) was pretty good, despite being a 15. I thought it was a very cohesive film in the way they chose characters like the dwarf, why Fleck committed the murders he did, and how the whole thing developed. You could tell there was a whole lot more thought put into the script.