4 ms·

I think the video doesn't go deep enough: the problem is not that movies teach the wrong lessons, but rather that the movies are so hyper-optimized for engageme

I think the video doesn't go deep enough: the problem is not that movies teach the wrong lessons, but rather that the movies are so hyper-optimized for engagement and ROI that there's no room for nuance. He may not like the newest Star Wars trilogy, but it nonetheless made a lot of money. That said, I think the author (and also me in the previous paragraph) uses the term "movies" to refer to "big budget movies", which are by no means the only movies out there. There are lots of good movies out there, but most people aren't watching them. If you have the chance, I suggest everyone spend a couple weeks going to a "mystery movie night". Sure, sometimes you may end up watching "Blackhat" (or even worse, "Tracers"), but the good movies you'll end up also watching will make up for it.

jpgvm 5y ago
This video is actually just one in a series of videos on the subject, you might want to watch the others if you want a more complete picture of his views.
danielrpa 5y ago
And don't forget that they are also optimized to the lowest common denominator of American and Chinese sensitivities.
dmitriid 5y ago
> uses the term "movies" to refer to "big budget movies", which are by no means the only movies out there They kinda are. Franchises have sucked all the air out of the room, and movies are given money on the premise that they will make money. Edit: not just money. But shit-tons of money that can be milked from multiple angles for many years. Already 10 years ago filmmakers were struggling to find funding for their projects. Birdman and Gravity were very close to not being made even they had Oscar-winning directors and stellar casts. It's significantly worse today.
- chii 5y ago
  > movies are given money on the premise that they will make money so what would be an alternative funding model? A patreon or kickstarter like model where directors and stars are pre-paid via crowd funding? A state sponsored funding model? Non-profit model?
  - dmitriid 5y ago
    The original model where 1 big movie would pay for 6 break-even and 4 non-profitable movies :) Too bad we may never return to that.
    - chii 5y ago
      If you could make 1 big movie that pays out a lot (enough to cover the "duds"), then why not just drop the "duds" and keep making those big movies? the current status quo is a natural evolution of the prior status quo. That's why i think you have to have a new status quo by finding an alternative funding model. I think potential crowd funding is possible - a movie is crowd funded with no expectation of profit from the funders (they only get a ticket/copy of the movie for their backing dollar). I don't like a state-sponsored funding model, mainly due to the ability for the state then to manipulate the movie against the artistic vision. This can't happen with a crowd funding model, since the crowd cannot directly manipulate the director (after all, the money is already paid, the director would not need to acquiesce to anyone but his own artistic direction!). Whether these funding models can out-compete a studio big budget funding model remains to be seen. I'm not holding my breath tho.
      - dmitriid 5y ago
        > the current status quo is a natural evolution of the prior status quo. Indeed, unfortunately. > I think potential crowd funding is possible - a movie is crowd funded with no expectation of profit from the funders (they only get a ticket/copy of the movie for their backing dollar). This is a pipe dream. A few amateur movies managed to get funding this way, but that's about as far as you can go. Movies cost a lot. And even if the cast agrees to work for no money, there's still equipment, and sets, and all the people responsible for those, and editing, and music, and about a million other things. > I don't like a state-sponsored funding model, mainly due to the ability for the state then to manipulate the movie against the artistic vision. There's also corruption and lack of transparency. France and Russia both subsidise movies heavily, and the results are ... mixed. In Russia award-winning directors and producers are still looking for sponsors to fund their movies because state money goes to some truly awful shit.
- JKCalhoun 5y ago
  > Franchises have sucked all the air out of the room Ahh, to remember the 1970's when a whole new crop of young American filmmakers were given the reigns to create some of the more original but still engaging content.
  - dmitriid 5y ago
    These days everyone is immediately drafted into <Franchise X Phase Y Spin Off Z Origin Story> :) IIRC Marvel had trouble finding directors for their latest phase (or the one before that) because everyone was tied up doing franchise movies (or series).
bsenftner 5y ago
Check out non-US filmmakers, there are some incredible films outside the Hollywood/Netflix cabal. For example, if you want nuance, check out "I am not an easy man", a French film, on Netflix at the moment, where a male chauvinist is transported to a world where females are the dominant gender, and he's forced into a frivolous, weak and sensitive male stereotype. That's just the setup, and it is multiple view worthy for all the nuance.
- dazc 5y ago
  I enjoy watching French comedy dramas becuase the humour is incredibly subtle, unlike the majority of Hollywood films that are the exact opposite. I'll tolerate Jeniffer Aniston though.
JKCalhoun 5y ago
> He may not like the newest Star Wars trilogy, but it nonetheless made a lot of money. So "franchise" is golden. I suspect all of us can agree that in some alternate universe where the prequels were released before "Star Wars" ... there never would have been a franchise.

jpgvm 5y ago

This video is actually just one in a series of videos on the subject, you might want to watch the others if you want a more complete picture of his views.

danielrpa 5y ago

And don't forget that they are also optimized to the lowest common denominator of American and Chinese sensitivities.

dmitriid 5y ago

> uses the term "movies" to refer to "big budget movies", which are by no means the only movies out there They kinda are. Franchises have sucked all the air out of the room, and movies are given money on the premise that they will make money. Edit: not just money. But shit-tons of money that can be milked from multiple angles for many years. Already 10 years ago filmmakers were struggling to find funding for their projects. Birdman and Gravity were very close to not being made even they had Oscar-winning directors and stellar casts. It's significantly worse today.

chii 5y ago
> movies are given money on the premise that they will make money so what would be an alternative funding model? A patreon or kickstarter like model where directors and stars are pre-paid via crowd funding? A state sponsored funding model? Non-profit model?
- dmitriid 5y ago
  The original model where 1 big movie would pay for 6 break-even and 4 non-profitable movies :) Too bad we may never return to that.
  - chii 5y ago
    If you could make 1 big movie that pays out a lot (enough to cover the "duds"), then why not just drop the "duds" and keep making those big movies? the current status quo is a natural evolution of the prior status quo. That's why i think you have to have a new status quo by finding an alternative funding model. I think potential crowd funding is possible - a movie is crowd funded with no expectation of profit from the funders (they only get a ticket/copy of the movie for their backing dollar). I don't like a state-sponsored funding model, mainly due to the ability for the state then to manipulate the movie against the artistic vision. This can't happen with a crowd funding model, since the crowd cannot directly manipulate the director (after all, the money is already paid, the director would not need to acquiesce to anyone but his own artistic direction!). Whether these funding models can out-compete a studio big budget funding model remains to be seen. I'm not holding my breath tho.
    - dmitriid 5y ago
      > the current status quo is a natural evolution of the prior status quo. Indeed, unfortunately. > I think potential crowd funding is possible - a movie is crowd funded with no expectation of profit from the funders (they only get a ticket/copy of the movie for their backing dollar). This is a pipe dream. A few amateur movies managed to get funding this way, but that's about as far as you can go. Movies cost a lot. And even if the cast agrees to work for no money, there's still equipment, and sets, and all the people responsible for those, and editing, and music, and about a million other things. > I don't like a state-sponsored funding model, mainly due to the ability for the state then to manipulate the movie against the artistic vision. There's also corruption and lack of transparency. France and Russia both subsidise movies heavily, and the results are ... mixed. In Russia award-winning directors and producers are still looking for sponsors to fund their movies because state money goes to some truly awful shit.
JKCalhoun 5y ago
> Franchises have sucked all the air out of the room Ahh, to remember the 1970's when a whole new crop of young American filmmakers were given the reigns to create some of the more original but still engaging content.
- dmitriid 5y ago
  These days everyone is immediately drafted into <Franchise X Phase Y Spin Off Z Origin Story> :) IIRC Marvel had trouble finding directors for their latest phase (or the one before that) because everyone was tied up doing franchise movies (or series).

bsenftner 5y ago

Check out non-US filmmakers, there are some incredible films outside the Hollywood/Netflix cabal. For example, if you want nuance, check out "I am not an easy man", a French film, on Netflix at the moment, where a male chauvinist is transported to a world where females are the dominant gender, and he's forced into a frivolous, weak and sensitive male stereotype. That's just the setup, and it is multiple view worthy for all the nuance.

dazc 5y ago
I enjoy watching French comedy dramas becuase the humour is incredibly subtle, unlike the majority of Hollywood films that are the exact opposite. I'll tolerate Jeniffer Aniston though.

JKCalhoun 5y ago

> He may not like the newest Star Wars trilogy, but it nonetheless made a lot of money. So "franchise" is golden. I suspect all of us can agree that in some alternate universe where the prequels were released before "Star Wars" ... there never would have been a franchise.