4 ms·

It’s sad we’re just regurgitating derivative art more and more. Everything seems to be a sequel or to be memberberries, like StarWars and the new Lord of the R

It’s sad we’re just regurgitating derivative art more and more. Everything seems to be a sequel or to be memberberries, like StarWars and the new Lord of the Rings snoozefest Amazon lit a billion dollars on fire to throw at the wall. There are stories now about investors spending hundreds of millions of dollars buying music catalogs, and then hiring brokers to pitch covers to new artists so that they can milk more money out of old songs - like Dua Lipa’s Rocketman cover. Why come up with anything new?

phasersout 4y ago
we are post-something alright. I made the same conclusion and it's weird that there is no new Bruce Willis on the market that made it in the last decade. We have people like Pedro Pascal who are good but not a-billion-dollar-garanteed-hit good. When it comes to music and cinema what changed is we replaced major labels and cinemas with Spotify and Netflix... both are not paying as much as in the old days - up front and in the long run. Music Albums are no more, most of us are just listening to singles right now – so why release an album at all? But the LP was basically invented by the Beatles who said we put out ten songs at once - before them like in the Elvis generation everything was released as singles! No one thought that you can make the kids buy an LP which was typically a collection of greatest hits until that point. Nobody thought 30-million-sellers like "Dark Side of the Moon" or "Appetite for Destruction" were even possible. Artists these days need a build in audience which cater to the taste of their audience and then they maybe get the label contract or publisher deal - but I guess most just don't bother at that point and release their things on their own. We live in a super fragmented market - I stumble upon these bubbles everyday where I think "so this person has a career for a decade appearently and I just learn now about it?" Even if it is completely up my alley... But everybody can record an album these days that sounds like it was produced by bloody Bob Rock on a 1.000 dollar notebook... when it comes to music everything sounds pitch perfect - which it is thanks to Audiotune. And even "live music" is hardly "live music" anymore in a lot of cases these days. And most of it is derivative and banal. Back in the days a major label could and would take some kids out of the gutter - who had no other choice to succeed but the Billboard 100 - and put them in front of 60.000 people where everybody just loved the same things. I mean these sort of things still happen but they are few and far between. Why bother putting in the 10.000 hours to make a career in acting or music if you can get a business degree and make 6-figures anyways? But I think it makes sense for these musicians to sell their publishing rights because its an easy way out. A lot of these people are old and its easier to give a couple o million dollars to your kids than a music catalog which they probably don't even know how to handle. I mean every musician worth a dime knows about the Frank Zappa family feud so maybe it's all in all better to give these music rights to people who actually know what they are doing.
- lttlrck 4y ago
  > it's weird that there is no new Bruce Willis on the market that made it in the last decade I always considered Dwayne Johnson to be the 80s action hero analog for today. At least the closest.
  - phasersout 4y ago
    Well Dwayne Johnson is successful but he is not really a newcomer... The Scorpion King is 20 years old by now and he started his wrestling career in the 90`s. And he is not really an "actor" actor - he is more like the Schwarzenegger of today I would say. One could argue about Bruce Willis acting chops but he might will get an Oscar eventually for his lifetime work.
    - deleted 4y ago
      [deleted]
laumars 4y ago
I once read a quote from some movie exec that basically said studios turn to old content when the economy is weak because it is lower risk. I find this to be true from a few perspectives, it’s lower risk financially for the studio but it’s also lower risk for the audience too. If you’re struggling financially and can only see one movie, you’re more likely to see something that reminds you of good times than risk seeing something totally new. I do agree with your point though. I’d love to see more original content. Also, it’s interesting that you reference South Park (membererries) while criticising Lord of the Rings given that South Park is older than the LotR’s film debuts.
- rightbyte 4y ago
  > studios turn to old content when the economy is weak because it is lower risk. Oh no. Given how many reboots and remakes there has been the last 10 years we are screwed in the coming recession.
- antisthenes 4y ago
  There's really no "studios" anymore. There's "platforms", which own content libraries and commission new media. They are all giant corporations. And of course the media they commission is KPI'd into oblivion by hordes of middle management, and done by committee rather than singular creative genius. So I think that ship has sailed. If people want to watch original content, they're better off finding some niche art house content, maybe of European origin, that seems to be more popular there.
kkoncevicius 4y ago
My guess is because the younger generation does not go to the movies that much. So the films are being produced for people who still do - the generation that likes Lord of the Rings, Star Wars, Ghost Busters, etc. What is the best way to get most of them go see your new movie? - a remake of an old classic.
- fabatka 4y ago
  My train of thought is similar, but a bit more naïve: As the generation who grew up on these classics gets into influential positions, they want to produce things similar to what they liked. But a demand-side explanation like yours is more realistic than a supply-side one.
  - chrisco255 4y ago
    I dunno, there's probably something to that. Probably a bit of both.
tsol 4y ago
People love their nostalgia and will consume derivatives of their childhood favorites for that reason. It wasn't always like that, in the past when you got older you had to develop new tastes, so producers had to keep innovating. But the way we consume media now, people are content to binge watch a bunch of derivative Star Wars series so why do anything different? And they even get their kids to join in with them so you have the next generation covered to some extent too
throwaway6734 4y ago
if people like derivative art then so be it. It's the easiest it's ever been to create new art. Good content will find a way as it always has

phasersout 4y ago

we are post-something alright. I made the same conclusion and it's weird that there is no new Bruce Willis on the market that made it in the last decade. We have people like Pedro Pascal who are good but not a-billion-dollar-garanteed-hit good. When it comes to music and cinema what changed is we replaced major labels and cinemas with Spotify and Netflix... both are not paying as much as in the old days - up front and in the long run. Music Albums are no more, most of us are just listening to singles right now – so why release an album at all? But the LP was basically invented by the Beatles who said we put out ten songs at once - before them like in the Elvis generation everything was released as singles! No one thought that you can make the kids buy an LP which was typically a collection of greatest hits until that point. Nobody thought 30-million-sellers like "Dark Side of the Moon" or "Appetite for Destruction" were even possible. Artists these days need a build in audience which cater to the taste of their audience and then they maybe get the label contract or publisher deal - but I guess most just don't bother at that point and release their things on their own. We live in a super fragmented market - I stumble upon these bubbles everyday where I think "so this person has a career for a decade appearently and I just learn now about it?" Even if it is completely up my alley... But everybody can record an album these days that sounds like it was produced by bloody Bob Rock on a 1.000 dollar notebook... when it comes to music everything sounds pitch perfect - which it is thanks to Audiotune. And even "live music" is hardly "live music" anymore in a lot of cases these days. And most of it is derivative and banal. Back in the days a major label could and would take some kids out of the gutter - who had no other choice to succeed but the Billboard 100 - and put them in front of 60.000 people where everybody just loved the same things. I mean these sort of things still happen but they are few and far between. Why bother putting in the 10.000 hours to make a career in acting or music if you can get a business degree and make 6-figures anyways? But I think it makes sense for these musicians to sell their publishing rights because its an easy way out. A lot of these people are old and its easier to give a couple o million dollars to your kids than a music catalog which they probably don't even know how to handle. I mean every musician worth a dime knows about the Frank Zappa family feud so maybe it's all in all better to give these music rights to people who actually know what they are doing.

lttlrck 4y ago
> it's weird that there is no new Bruce Willis on the market that made it in the last decade I always considered Dwayne Johnson to be the 80s action hero analog for today. At least the closest.
- phasersout 4y ago
  Well Dwayne Johnson is successful but he is not really a newcomer... The Scorpion King is 20 years old by now and he started his wrestling career in the 90`s. And he is not really an "actor" actor - he is more like the Schwarzenegger of today I would say. One could argue about Bruce Willis acting chops but he might will get an Oscar eventually for his lifetime work.
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]

laumars 4y ago

I once read a quote from some movie exec that basically said studios turn to old content when the economy is weak because it is lower risk. I find this to be true from a few perspectives, it’s lower risk financially for the studio but it’s also lower risk for the audience too. If you’re struggling financially and can only see one movie, you’re more likely to see something that reminds you of good times than risk seeing something totally new. I do agree with your point though. I’d love to see more original content. Also, it’s interesting that you reference South Park (membererries) while criticising Lord of the Rings given that South Park is older than the LotR’s film debuts.

rightbyte 4y ago
> studios turn to old content when the economy is weak because it is lower risk. Oh no. Given how many reboots and remakes there has been the last 10 years we are screwed in the coming recession.
antisthenes 4y ago
There's really no "studios" anymore. There's "platforms", which own content libraries and commission new media. They are all giant corporations. And of course the media they commission is KPI'd into oblivion by hordes of middle management, and done by committee rather than singular creative genius. So I think that ship has sailed. If people want to watch original content, they're better off finding some niche art house content, maybe of European origin, that seems to be more popular there.

kkoncevicius 4y ago

My guess is because the younger generation does not go to the movies that much. So the films are being produced for people who still do - the generation that likes Lord of the Rings, Star Wars, Ghost Busters, etc. What is the best way to get most of them go see your new movie? - a remake of an old classic.

fabatka 4y ago
My train of thought is similar, but a bit more naïve: As the generation who grew up on these classics gets into influential positions, they want to produce things similar to what they liked. But a demand-side explanation like yours is more realistic than a supply-side one.
- chrisco255 4y ago
  I dunno, there's probably something to that. Probably a bit of both.

tsol 4y ago

People love their nostalgia and will consume derivatives of their childhood favorites for that reason. It wasn't always like that, in the past when you got older you had to develop new tastes, so producers had to keep innovating. But the way we consume media now, people are content to binge watch a bunch of derivative Star Wars series so why do anything different? And they even get their kids to join in with them so you have the next generation covered to some extent too

throwaway6734 4y ago

if people like derivative art then so be it. It's the easiest it's ever been to create new art. Good content will find a way as it always has