5 ms·

There’s a disconnect between what the masses find entertaining vs. what the elites find artistically valuable. This gap is far wider now than it has ever been.

There’s a disconnect between what the masses find entertaining vs. what the elites find artistically valuable. This gap is far wider now than it has ever been. Throughout the 60s and 70s 19/20 films that won best picture were in the Top 10 Grossing. Since 2003 there hasn’t been a single one. Even after they expanded the number of nominations there’s still only 0-1 nominations in the Top 10 Grossing every year. This is really due to the the fact that nearly every film in the Top 10 Grossing is a sequel, a remake, or a franchise movie. These films print money so Hollywood keeps making them. In 1979 Kramer v Kramer was the highest grossing film. In 2021 it was Spider-Man: No Way Home (the 12th Spider-Man film to come out since 2000). Spider-Man made over 3 times as much when adjusted for inflation. You could say that the artistic portion of Hollywood is dying, though Hollywood is doing as good as always.

jimt1234 4y ago
One contributing factor to the lack of artsy movies is audience sensitivity. "Kramer v Kramer" would never be made today because it touches on many potentially offensive topics. Studios would rather put their money on safe bets, movies that avoid sensitive topics - sequels, remakes and comic book characters.
- midoridensha 4y ago
  Another big factor is the global market. Chinese viewers aren't going to care about anything in "Kramer v Kramer", or even be able to understand a lot of it due to the language barrier. Movies about superheroes blowing things up is easy for anyone to understand.
  - khmii 4y ago
    There is also the "Television" series. I think the confines of a 90-120 minute film have just been played out if an artist is really interested in expression. I had just watched the series The Serpent last week and that was as brilliant as any movie I can think of that I have ever watched. To cut it down to a 90 minute movie would have just made it a rehash and most likely not very interesting.
    - midoridensha 4y ago
      Seems to me that movies these days have gotten a lot longer than 90 or even 120 minutes. Now, 2 hours seems to be a bare minimum. One thing I really like about these serial TV shows (like Game of Thrones) is that they're limited to 1-hour episodes. So I don't have to dedicate 3 hours or more of my time to a single viewing; it's a lot easier to fit 1 hour into an evening. And then I can see more of the story in following evenings. I also don't have to sit in a theater holding my bladder for 3 hours, since TV shows are seen at home, and I can pause it if I don't want to wait until the end for a bathroom break.
scyzoryk_xyz 4y ago
I generally agree with the heart of what you are saying more or less. A huge shift has occured - in 1979 you could only see a movie in a theater. (Not even physical media was a big business back then yet.) However, the one thing I would note here is how the distribution business has shifted mostly to VOD subscriptions. Awards, as a marketing tool, are still worth playing and winning for the producer of a film if not mainly for the purpose of selling their title to a VOD library. And while the effect for the VOD distribution might not be 1:1, it is worth having that sort of content in your offering. Academy Awards are a strange beauty pageant - the campaigning that must happen and the way a title must be made to win is too strange. It’s kind of like food - aiming to be a fast casual franchise is different from wanting to start a michelin restaurant.
legutierr 4y ago
> There’s a disconnect between what the masses find entertaining vs. what the elites find artistically valuable. This gap is far wider now than it has ever been. When you word it like that, you make it sound like "the masses" don't find movies artistically valuable, and "the elites" don't find movies entertaining. What if "the masses" are able to find movies just as artistically valuable as "the elites", but just don't want to shell out $100 going to see a movie that can be viewed at home in a few months for free without any loss of fidelity? And what if "the elites" take just as much pleasure as "the masses" in seeing the newest Hollywood spectacle in 3D IMAX with 100+ channels of Atmos surround sound? In other words, what if this doesn't have anything to do with social class, but rather with the fact that going to the theater costs 10x as much as it used to cost while home viewing is 10x better than it used to be? I'm not saying the increased theater cost isn't worth it. To the contrary: some movies can really only be properly experienced in the theaters with all the bells and whistles—and those movies are the ones that people are willing to pay for.
- ornornor 4y ago
  > shell out $100 going to see a movie Haven’t been to the theater in over a decade, does it really now cost that much to see a movie with hundreds of other people farting, chewing on popcorn, slurping their drinks, in maybe a good seat (maybe not), on a fixed rigid schedule? If so, no wonder cinemas are dying… I’d do anything to avoid this “experience” especially if it costs so much. Instead I can watch it at home on my decent sound system without 20 minutes of ads before the movie, no risk of Covid or flu, on my OLED screen, pausing whenever I need, with the volume I like, and subtitles if I feel like it.
  - josephcsible 4y ago
    > > shell out $100 going to see a movie > does it really now cost that much to see a movie No. Even with "premium" stuff like 3D and IMAX, it's still only like $20.
    - askafriend 4y ago
      Family of 4 + some drinks / popcorn and you're already in for $125-150.
lotsofpulp 4y ago
> Spider-Man made over 3 times as much when adjusted for inflation. How much bigger is the market of buyers? I assume much bigger than 3 times if people in China/India/etc were not watching American movies in 1979.

jimt1234 4y ago

One contributing factor to the lack of artsy movies is audience sensitivity. "Kramer v Kramer" would never be made today because it touches on many potentially offensive topics. Studios would rather put their money on safe bets, movies that avoid sensitive topics - sequels, remakes and comic book characters.

midoridensha 4y ago
Another big factor is the global market. Chinese viewers aren't going to care about anything in "Kramer v Kramer", or even be able to understand a lot of it due to the language barrier. Movies about superheroes blowing things up is easy for anyone to understand.
- khmii 4y ago
  There is also the "Television" series. I think the confines of a 90-120 minute film have just been played out if an artist is really interested in expression. I had just watched the series The Serpent last week and that was as brilliant as any movie I can think of that I have ever watched. To cut it down to a 90 minute movie would have just made it a rehash and most likely not very interesting.
  - midoridensha 4y ago
    Seems to me that movies these days have gotten a lot longer than 90 or even 120 minutes. Now, 2 hours seems to be a bare minimum. One thing I really like about these serial TV shows (like Game of Thrones) is that they're limited to 1-hour episodes. So I don't have to dedicate 3 hours or more of my time to a single viewing; it's a lot easier to fit 1 hour into an evening. And then I can see more of the story in following evenings. I also don't have to sit in a theater holding my bladder for 3 hours, since TV shows are seen at home, and I can pause it if I don't want to wait until the end for a bathroom break.

scyzoryk_xyz 4y ago

I generally agree with the heart of what you are saying more or less. A huge shift has occured - in 1979 you could only see a movie in a theater. (Not even physical media was a big business back then yet.) However, the one thing I would note here is how the distribution business has shifted mostly to VOD subscriptions. Awards, as a marketing tool, are still worth playing and winning for the producer of a film if not mainly for the purpose of selling their title to a VOD library. And while the effect for the VOD distribution might not be 1:1, it is worth having that sort of content in your offering. Academy Awards are a strange beauty pageant - the campaigning that must happen and the way a title must be made to win is too strange. It’s kind of like food - aiming to be a fast casual franchise is different from wanting to start a michelin restaurant.

legutierr 4y ago

> There’s a disconnect between what the masses find entertaining vs. what the elites find artistically valuable. This gap is far wider now than it has ever been. When you word it like that, you make it sound like "the masses" don't find movies artistically valuable, and "the elites" don't find movies entertaining. What if "the masses" are able to find movies just as artistically valuable as "the elites", but just don't want to shell out $100 going to see a movie that can be viewed at home in a few months for free without any loss of fidelity? And what if "the elites" take just as much pleasure as "the masses" in seeing the newest Hollywood spectacle in 3D IMAX with 100+ channels of Atmos surround sound? In other words, what if this doesn't have anything to do with social class, but rather with the fact that going to the theater costs 10x as much as it used to cost while home viewing is 10x better than it used to be? I'm not saying the increased theater cost isn't worth it. To the contrary: some movies can really only be properly experienced in the theaters with all the bells and whistles—and those movies are the ones that people are willing to pay for.

ornornor 4y ago
> shell out $100 going to see a movie Haven’t been to the theater in over a decade, does it really now cost that much to see a movie with hundreds of other people farting, chewing on popcorn, slurping their drinks, in maybe a good seat (maybe not), on a fixed rigid schedule? If so, no wonder cinemas are dying… I’d do anything to avoid this “experience” especially if it costs so much. Instead I can watch it at home on my decent sound system without 20 minutes of ads before the movie, no risk of Covid or flu, on my OLED screen, pausing whenever I need, with the volume I like, and subtitles if I feel like it.
- josephcsible 4y ago
  > > shell out $100 going to see a movie > does it really now cost that much to see a movie No. Even with "premium" stuff like 3D and IMAX, it's still only like $20.
  - askafriend 4y ago
    Family of 4 + some drinks / popcorn and you're already in for $125-150.

lotsofpulp 4y ago

> Spider-Man made over 3 times as much when adjusted for inflation. How much bigger is the market of buyers? I assume much bigger than 3 times if people in China/India/etc were not watching American movies in 1979.