6 ms·

“For example, before 2000, only about 25% of top-grossing movies were sequels, spinoffs, and remakes. Now it’s usually over 75%.” It’s a tough pill to swallow

“For example, before 2000, only about 25% of top-grossing movies were sequels, spinoffs, and remakes. Now it’s usually over 75%.” It’s a tough pill to swallow but YOU are the problem. People spending lots of money to make movies, for example, want a high probability of making money. So, the movies that the audiences pay to see are what get made. Crappy news sources? Few people want to pay for news either.

marcosdumay 4y ago
An usual top rated movie today costs easily 100 times more than in the 00's. It's no wonder people don't want risks, but the explanation isn't as simple as you are making it.
syzarian 4y ago
There’s a percentage of people who will watch a movie with a plot they don’t particularly care for due to lack of better options. You discount that sometimes the market drives viewership by constricting choice. Some decide that a barely acceptable movie is better than no movie. Thus is one of the problems of oligopolies; the incentive isn’t for improvements but for what is barely acceptable.
stepanhruda 4y ago
Agreed - I have been doing the bare minimum by avoiding Marvel and Star Wars, but people simply seem to love franchises.
SQueeeeeL 4y ago
YOU are not the problem. The individual has ridiculously low power to influence corporate decisions. Individuals may desperately want high quality moving media, but those have lower expected value than "sure bets" of franchises. Art has become dictated by demands of MBAs and shareholders. Also look at FIFA World Cups right when they were formed versus now, same exact tournament and participants, but the modern has become completely filled with "value" through ads.
- TOMDM 4y ago
  High quality media hasn't stopped being produced, but the sure bets are performing better. Sure, the risky subversive stuff doesn't have multi-million dollar marketing budgets, but why should it, it's risky and subversive. The current media environment is the product of what people give attention to.
  - SQueeeeeL 4y ago
    It's a construct that the purpose of art is to turn a profit and not enrich. But that construct is so deeply instilled that you'd be very hard pressed to find someone who thinks producers of works have responsibility to anyone other than shareholders.
    - TOMDM 4y ago
      Yes, literally every statement about what art is, what it should be, how it should be made and for who is a construct. That's entirely beside the point and not an argument for why certain kinds of art thrive.
- BlargMcLarg 4y ago
  People are the problem in cases of entertainment. You don't need to watch only sequels or remakes, or deal with the latest broken mess made by some AAA filled with lootboxes. The options are out there still. It's a different story for industries where doing the alternative has a high amount of friction. Entertainment is not one of them.
- godelski 4y ago
  Exactly this. If you listen to the stories told by directors and writers of cult classic movies/shows then you'll hear them often talk about having to fight for it and how much of a "risk" the movie was. Hell, Guillermo del Toro has yet to produce At The Mountains of Madness despite it already having many eager fans waiting. But we also have problems with advertising and distribution. Every Sci-Fi lover I know loves Arrival but that movie didn't even play in half the theaters when it came out. Ironically we're seeing many streaming services produce higher quality content and a big part is that they are taking more risks. People are not just being vocal, but voting with their dollars. I'd far rather see something in the theaters than at home but not only is the price of a movie far higher than a month of streaming, but there just are so few good theatrical movies now. A major part of streaming services' success actively demonstrates that YOU are not the problem.
the_lonely_road 4y ago
It seems like it should trend more and more that way as time goes on. I like new things, variety is the spice of life after all. However, a natural part of that journey is disappointment and lots of middling enjoyable experiences, be it food, movies, or anything else. That said, once I have found a good thing (Star Wars) I want more of that good thing in addition to new experiences. I am enjoying the new take on Game of Thrones, the new take on Lord of the Rings, and really looking forward to the upcoming new take on Harry Potter (hog warts legacy). As more time passes the tried and true franchises should continue to produce while new things are tried on the side in an attempt to build new franchises.
oreally 4y ago
No matter what you say though, the crowd never apologizes. Only a few will try to make concessions but it will not be enough. There's also the fact that people will optimize for certain ends, and the most common end is to be 'sucessful' or at least look like it.
javajosh 4y ago
>It’s a tough pill to swallow but YOU are the problem. Don't blame the victim. I'm really unhappy that many of these media mergers were allowed to go through by the USG. This was an executive branch failure to enforce existing anti-trust laws. The FCC, FTC, SEC, the DoJ and the President are responsible for this failure. The question remains, in this "American experiment", whether or not "The People" can do anything other than be led by the nose.
- wpietri 4y ago
  I think it goes beyond that. To the judiciary for sure, but further. The notion of what antitrust is for has really shifted over the years. Something like the Bell System breakup, which I think was a great choice, is inconceivable today. And that's due to decades of concerted and well funded effort from parts of the US right to be "business friendly". And the specific businesses they mean here are not the small players and the up and comers, but the relatively small number of very rich people running very large companies.
navane 4y ago
Yes, the commons are the problem in the tragedy of the commons.
wpietri 4y ago
Viewers are far from the only problem here. Indeed, part of is us, the nerds. One giant thing that has changed since 2000 is how people consume media. The number of movie tickets sold peaked in 2002. [1] It's a declining market. DVD sales are even worse, down by 90% or more. [2] And perhaps worse yet, shifting video to the internet changed expectations from theater- and DVD-style pricing to free and/or all-you-can-eat pricing. All that plus YouTube and expanding video games created massive competition for entertainment dollars, further diminishing the competitive advantage of long-form film. Given that it's not shocking that movie funders have generally become risk averse. Or theatergoers, really. The comparative effort between picking something cromulent off Netflix and hauling over to the mall means people are going to be less likely to take a gamble on a film than they were 40 years ago. And that's not going to change much. So instead, I think we people in tech need to figure out better ways to fund and distribute good movies. That, or accept that the good stuff will be happening mostly in places other than the silver screen. [1] https://www.the-numbers.com/market/ https://www.the-numbers.com/market/ [2] https://www.wired.com/story/why-do-dvds-exist/ https://www.wired.com/story/why-do-dvds-exist/
- imbnwa 4y ago
  The Last of Us Part I & II are better than most feature releases in the 2010s. I'm sure there are other games on that level as well.
- imbnwa 4y ago
  I've read that the decline of DVD sales are the precise reason for much of the monoculture in feature releases since you could re-coup much of the budget of e.g. rom-coms, which were plentiful in the 90s and 00s.
Buttons840 4y ago
> It’s a tough pill to swallow but YOU are the problem. This seems like an argument that is always true, and thus close to meaningless. What movies are popular? My fault. Rising economic inequality? My fault, I should negotiate harder and not accept poor treatment. Climate destruction? My fault, I didn't choose the most environmentally friendly options every time. Rising obesity? My fault. It's not wrong, but it's not very satisfying, and we should be looking for more insight and more reliable solutions. "My plan is for 8 billion people to change their habits" isn't as reliable as "let's regulate 100 companies".
- ryandrake 4y ago
  > "My plan is for 8 billion people to change their habits" isn't as reliable as "let's regulate 100 companies". 100? You could probably apply crushing regulation and taxes to 10 companies on the planet, and the outcome would be a measurably better world! That’s how bad it’s become.
wwweston 4y ago
I'm willing to believe I'm the problem with news (I don't pay for any directly, though I don't generally run adblockers), but the movies... I watch more non-sequels/spinoffs/remakes than I do franchise films. Perhaps it's better to say the demand-side in general is a big part of the problem? But on the other hand, sometimes it's hard to know you want something that isn't being made and marketed.

marcosdumay 4y ago

An usual top rated movie today costs easily 100 times more than in the 00's. It's no wonder people don't want risks, but the explanation isn't as simple as you are making it.

syzarian 4y ago

There’s a percentage of people who will watch a movie with a plot they don’t particularly care for due to lack of better options. You discount that sometimes the market drives viewership by constricting choice. Some decide that a barely acceptable movie is better than no movie. Thus is one of the problems of oligopolies; the incentive isn’t for improvements but for what is barely acceptable.

stepanhruda 4y ago

Agreed - I have been doing the bare minimum by avoiding Marvel and Star Wars, but people simply seem to love franchises.

SQueeeeeL 4y ago

YOU are not the problem. The individual has ridiculously low power to influence corporate decisions. Individuals may desperately want high quality moving media, but those have lower expected value than "sure bets" of franchises. Art has become dictated by demands of MBAs and shareholders. Also look at FIFA World Cups right when they were formed versus now, same exact tournament and participants, but the modern has become completely filled with "value" through ads.

TOMDM 4y ago
High quality media hasn't stopped being produced, but the sure bets are performing better. Sure, the risky subversive stuff doesn't have multi-million dollar marketing budgets, but why should it, it's risky and subversive. The current media environment is the product of what people give attention to.
- SQueeeeeL 4y ago
  It's a construct that the purpose of art is to turn a profit and not enrich. But that construct is so deeply instilled that you'd be very hard pressed to find someone who thinks producers of works have responsibility to anyone other than shareholders.
  - TOMDM 4y ago
    Yes, literally every statement about what art is, what it should be, how it should be made and for who is a construct. That's entirely beside the point and not an argument for why certain kinds of art thrive.
BlargMcLarg 4y ago
People are the problem in cases of entertainment. You don't need to watch only sequels or remakes, or deal with the latest broken mess made by some AAA filled with lootboxes. The options are out there still. It's a different story for industries where doing the alternative has a high amount of friction. Entertainment is not one of them.
godelski 4y ago
Exactly this. If you listen to the stories told by directors and writers of cult classic movies/shows then you'll hear them often talk about having to fight for it and how much of a "risk" the movie was. Hell, Guillermo del Toro has yet to produce At The Mountains of Madness despite it already having many eager fans waiting. But we also have problems with advertising and distribution. Every Sci-Fi lover I know loves Arrival but that movie didn't even play in half the theaters when it came out. Ironically we're seeing many streaming services produce higher quality content and a big part is that they are taking more risks. People are not just being vocal, but voting with their dollars. I'd far rather see something in the theaters than at home but not only is the price of a movie far higher than a month of streaming, but there just are so few good theatrical movies now. A major part of streaming services' success actively demonstrates that YOU are not the problem.

the_lonely_road 4y ago

It seems like it should trend more and more that way as time goes on. I like new things, variety is the spice of life after all. However, a natural part of that journey is disappointment and lots of middling enjoyable experiences, be it food, movies, or anything else. That said, once I have found a good thing (Star Wars) I want more of that good thing in addition to new experiences. I am enjoying the new take on Game of Thrones, the new take on Lord of the Rings, and really looking forward to the upcoming new take on Harry Potter (hog warts legacy). As more time passes the tried and true franchises should continue to produce while new things are tried on the side in an attempt to build new franchises.

oreally 4y ago

No matter what you say though, the crowd never apologizes. Only a few will try to make concessions but it will not be enough. There's also the fact that people will optimize for certain ends, and the most common end is to be 'sucessful' or at least look like it.

javajosh 4y ago

>It’s a tough pill to swallow but YOU are the problem. Don't blame the victim. I'm really unhappy that many of these media mergers were allowed to go through by the USG. This was an executive branch failure to enforce existing anti-trust laws. The FCC, FTC, SEC, the DoJ and the President are responsible for this failure. The question remains, in this "American experiment", whether or not "The People" can do anything other than be led by the nose.

wpietri 4y ago
I think it goes beyond that. To the judiciary for sure, but further. The notion of what antitrust is for has really shifted over the years. Something like the Bell System breakup, which I think was a great choice, is inconceivable today. And that's due to decades of concerted and well funded effort from parts of the US right to be "business friendly". And the specific businesses they mean here are not the small players and the up and comers, but the relatively small number of very rich people running very large companies.

navane 4y ago

Yes, the commons are the problem in the tragedy of the commons.

wpietri 4y ago

Viewers are far from the only problem here. Indeed, part of is us, the nerds. One giant thing that has changed since 2000 is how people consume media. The number of movie tickets sold peaked in 2002. [1] It's a declining market. DVD sales are even worse, down by 90% or more. [2] And perhaps worse yet, shifting video to the internet changed expectations from theater- and DVD-style pricing to free and/or all-you-can-eat pricing. All that plus YouTube and expanding video games created massive competition for entertainment dollars, further diminishing the competitive advantage of long-form film. Given that it's not shocking that movie funders have generally become risk averse. Or theatergoers, really. The comparative effort between picking something cromulent off Netflix and hauling over to the mall means people are going to be less likely to take a gamble on a film than they were 40 years ago. And that's not going to change much. So instead, I think we people in tech need to figure out better ways to fund and distribute good movies. That, or accept that the good stuff will be happening mostly in places other than the silver screen. [1] https://www.the-numbers.com/market/ https://www.the-numbers.com/market/ [2] https://www.wired.com/story/why-do-dvds-exist/ https://www.wired.com/story/why-do-dvds-exist/

imbnwa 4y ago
The Last of Us Part I & II are better than most feature releases in the 2010s. I'm sure there are other games on that level as well.
imbnwa 4y ago
I've read that the decline of DVD sales are the precise reason for much of the monoculture in feature releases since you could re-coup much of the budget of e.g. rom-coms, which were plentiful in the 90s and 00s.

Buttons840 4y ago

> It’s a tough pill to swallow but YOU are the problem. This seems like an argument that is always true, and thus close to meaningless. What movies are popular? My fault. Rising economic inequality? My fault, I should negotiate harder and not accept poor treatment. Climate destruction? My fault, I didn't choose the most environmentally friendly options every time. Rising obesity? My fault. It's not wrong, but it's not very satisfying, and we should be looking for more insight and more reliable solutions. "My plan is for 8 billion people to change their habits" isn't as reliable as "let's regulate 100 companies".

ryandrake 4y ago
> "My plan is for 8 billion people to change their habits" isn't as reliable as "let's regulate 100 companies". 100? You could probably apply crushing regulation and taxes to 10 companies on the planet, and the outcome would be a measurably better world! That’s how bad it’s become.

wwweston 4y ago

I'm willing to believe I'm the problem with news (I don't pay for any directly, though I don't generally run adblockers), but the movies... I watch more non-sequels/spinoffs/remakes than I do franchise films. Perhaps it's better to say the demand-side in general is a big part of the problem? But on the other hand, sometimes it's hard to know you want something that isn't being made and marketed.