They Don't Make Movies Like They Used To

Discussions about Movies & TV shows not "Super" related.
Post Reply
bushwackerbob
Legendary Member
Legendary Member
Posts: 781
Joined: 10 years ago
Location: Boston, MA

I remember when I was younger when I decided that I wanted to go to the movies that I had to decide between two or three movies that I truly wanted to see. Nowadays (and this has been true for the last ten years or so) when I have time to see a movie the pickings are very slim, that there are very few films that come out now that I want to see. Don't get me wrong, I enjoy action films, car chases, and superhero movies as much as the next guy, but (and I don't mean this literally) it seems like the only movies I see out there are action films, superhero films, and films that condescend to "teach" me about the world in which we now live. I guess what I am really trying to say is that there does not seem to be as wide range of different types of movies like there used to be. A friend of mine says that the reason that there are so many superhero and action films out there is because American film companies are trying to court emerging international markets such as China, and superhero/action films apparently translate better to international audiences. No wonder why box office numbers are down here in the U.S. Oh well, I guess there is always Netflix.
Visitor
Legendary Member
Legendary Member
Posts: 926
Joined: 14 years ago

I agree there are less movies out there that I'll pay to see in a theater. I can wait for airing on TV or maybe I'll get the DVD on sale especially if there are decent extras to make up for the cost over a movie ticket.

There's the problem that studios want to cut risk to make a profit. So sequels and remakes have known costs and past sales records to help make the decision. That's another reason you see more of the same thing and not as many choices as in the past.

The other movies that seem to get made are ones based on successful books like in the past because the studios assume the readers will see the movie. That's been a regular source for decades.

Now films with low budgets will get made because the cost of failure is low and it's now possible to sell it on DVD to recoup costs. "A Quiet Place" cost $17 million and horror movies usually make back their costs at that level. That it's going to be very profitable made it's studio happy and will lead to more like that. Woody Allen said he got to make movies because he always came in at or below budget and he always had a profit for the studio no matter how bad the film did. If he had a success, then the studio liked him even more.
User avatar
Mr. X
Millenium Member
Millenium Member
Posts: 4598
Joined: 11 years ago
Contact:

I'm thinking due to the foreign markets and the fact those markets get TV shows and movies later I could see these old revivals actually being relevant. Kind of sick of being second place to other markets but then what can one do.

Sure do miss the 70s-80s-90s where people always tried to start a new franchise. Babylon 5 for example or the original BSG or Knight Rider or Airwolf. Those were the decades of innovation. Now I think that has shifted to the internet and places like Netflix.
User avatar
tallyho
Ambassador
Ambassador
Posts: 5390
Joined: 13 years ago
Location: Land of No Hope and Past Glories

You also get the studios staggering big releases or films they think will do well, so rather than three potentially good films released at the same time and you being spoiled for choice theres one and dross.
The Superhero franchises offer the big merchandise sales too from the kids buying the toys which is another reason they get made. My personal bugbear is the origin reboots we keep getting like Hulk, Spiderman and Fantastic 4, where the dust has barely settled on the last one before the new one is rolled out. We had,what 3 Hulk origins in ten, twelve years FFS.
All the best writing now is being done in serials where you get the time to explore characters and develop plots. After movies going to longer formats for a spell they are now shrinking back to the 2 hrs or less mark (I know there are exceptions) where often things are hurried. A tv serial doesnt have those constraints and these days has big budgets so can match film for production quality and visual impact, particularly as TVs themselves are much bigger.
How strange are the ways of the gods ...........and how cruel.

I am here to help one and all enjoy this site, so if you have any questions or feel you are being trolled please contact me (Hit the 'CONTACT' little speech bubble below my Avatar).
bushwackerbob
Legendary Member
Legendary Member
Posts: 781
Joined: 10 years ago
Location: Boston, MA

I agree that some of the best stuff nowadays is on television rather than film, but there are times when I just feel like going out and immersing myself in the movie theater experience which you simply cannot get at home. In twenty years or so it will be interesting to see how the entertainment industry is affected by virtual reality technology when one will be able to replicate the movie theatre experience in their own homes by merely putting on a pair of virtual reality goggles or eyewear.
Visitor
Legendary Member
Legendary Member
Posts: 926
Joined: 14 years ago

bushwackerbob wrote:
6 years ago
In twenty years or so it will be interesting to see how the entertainment industry is affected by virtual reality technology when one will be able to replicate the movie theatre experience in their own homes by merely putting on a pair of virtual reality goggles or eyewear.
VR goggles will still need content and users will demand more content when they want to see something different. It will be a problem for the companies that show it now that will lose out with movie theaters needing better ways to lure in customers. It's the same thing with the shift from over the air TV stations selling their content to cable and satellite dish companies to keep users and them now competing with streaming services over the Internet. The cost to use them will decide what survives as people get fed up with paying several services to get a few shows from each one.

Disney is trying to find the best mix of platforms for its Marvel comics content. The Marvel Cinematic Universe for movies, commercial television stations for TV series, Netflix for limited series, and cable channels for less popular content like the forthcoming "Cloak and Dagger" on Freeform. This is ahead of their forming an exclusive content streaming service of their own.
User avatar
Heroine Addict
Millenium Member
Millenium Member
Posts: 1970
Joined: 13 years ago

One knock-on result of online piracy is that movies and TV shows are now rolled out internationally very, very close to the US release date. It took the original Star Wars years to roll out internationally. The Last Jedi, however, had reached most of the world officially within a few days.

The drawback is that UK cinemas and TV networks, for example, can't just sit back and see how a movie or show performs in the US before deciding to book it. If it's good, a year or more of piracy and social media spoilers will harm the official release. So there's extra pressure to reduce risks when US studios sell their products on the international market. Rather than just waiting to see how something has performed in the US, the international market now gets instant access to an increased amount of "part-tested" products, such as sequels and reboots.
"A brass unicorn has been catapulted across a London street and impaled an eminent surgeon. Words fail me, gentlemen."
bushwackerbob
Legendary Member
Legendary Member
Posts: 781
Joined: 10 years ago
Location: Boston, MA

I just finished watching the 2012 version of the movie Red Dawn. (terrible movie by the way) After watching the movie, I wanted to know more about this horrible excuse for a film. I was shocked to learn that the film's original bad guy/adversaries were the Chinese. Because of pressure from China and a desire to make money for the film in the Chinese market, the studio spent one million dollars to digitally alter the film so that North Korea are now the film's bad guys and not the Chinese. I may be naïve, but I think it is really sad that a Chinese totalitarian regime can have that kind of influence on an American film company just for the sake of the almighty dollar.
Visitor
Legendary Member
Legendary Member
Posts: 926
Joined: 14 years ago

That's part of the reason for the ever changing villains of all movies, but especially the James Bond series. Trying to find bad guys and gals that won't offend a market audience. Back during the Cold War of the 1960s it was fine to use the Russians and Chinese, but now you have villains with no national origin or it has no importance to the plot. Although back then you had to be careful not to upset corporate America and its advertising with the use of certain products.
User avatar
Disciple
Stories Mod
Stories Mod
Posts: 517
Joined: 15 years ago
Location: In front of a computer.

Visitor wrote:
5 years ago
That's part of the reason for the ever changing villains of all movies, but especially the James Bond series. Trying to find bad guys and gals that won't offend a market audience. Back during the Cold War of the 1960s it was fine to use the Russians and Chinese, but now you have villains with no national origin or it has no importance to the plot. Although back then you had to be careful not to upset corporate America and its advertising with the use of certain products.
Actually, the old-school Bond films also bowed to the whole international market thing. Most of the Russian villains were written as 'renegade' from Moscow, who'd joined up with the 'nationless' crime cartel SPECTRE (TV Tropes even has an article on this). And I believe the Chinese were only ever off-screen villains (giving Goldfinger his nuke, hiring Blofeld to manufacture war between America & the USSR, etc.).

You want 100% non-PC Bond, you want the original Bond novels by Ian Fleming. Those were almost hilariously rife with 'ethnic' villains.
User avatar
tallyho
Ambassador
Ambassador
Posts: 5390
Joined: 13 years ago
Location: Land of No Hope and Past Glories

bushwackerbob wrote:
5 years ago
I may be naïve, but I think it is really sad that a Chinese totalitarian regime can have that kind of influence on an American film company just for the sake of the almighty dollar.
Chinese companies own a controlling interest in 40% of Americas top 200 listed companies. They have bought Piraeus Harbour from the Greeks which is the biggest container port in Europe if not the world and dominates mediterranean trade. They have built a road through north Pakistan to have access to a port in the Indian Ocean /Arabian Sea and have a military base as of last year in Djibouti, which sounds like a pointless speck of a country but controls access to the Suez canal. All that as well as their man made islands in the Pacific. They are in it for the long haul. If I were you, I would get your kids learning mandarin. Theres a reason they speak it on Firefly. :giggle:
How strange are the ways of the gods ...........and how cruel.

I am here to help one and all enjoy this site, so if you have any questions or feel you are being trolled please contact me (Hit the 'CONTACT' little speech bubble below my Avatar).
bushwackerbob
Legendary Member
Legendary Member
Posts: 781
Joined: 10 years ago
Location: Boston, MA

While you are certainly correct in that China is in an expansion phase, and that many believe that in regards to their economy their size will eventually surpass the United States if it has not already, China has some issues that may prevent them from being the dominant power of the 21st century. China's economic model is not a sustainable in the long run for one, and furthermore, they have a huge demographic problem with a huge part of their population aging, and not having nearly enough young people. Also, China, like all other communist countries has a problem with the lack of innovative young minds. The solution to the lack of innovation in these communist countries inevitably is to steal and co-opt other countries ideas. The problem with that solution is that you are always chasing someone else's ideas, reacting to trends instead of creating one's own.
Visitor
Legendary Member
Legendary Member
Posts: 926
Joined: 14 years ago

Being the first with innovative ideas doesn't mean as much if you can follow quickly and let the first break ground for you. Despite everyone knowing about intellectual theft and counterfeit goods, China is such a large market that companies tolerate it and have little ability to stop it even as it costs our economy billions of dollars. Like the OPEC countries when oil prices were high and Japan back in the 1980s, when you have money you can get what you want.

Apple's iPhone was no where near being the first smart phone, but it did capture the market for years. Motorola came out with one before and its employees knew at the time it wasn't going to be successful, but they also knew they were going to get paid ridiculously large salaries while it lasted.
Lurkndog
Elder Member
Elder Member
Posts: 376
Joined: 13 years ago

Visitor wrote:
5 years ago
Apple's iPhone was no where near being the first smart phone, but it did capture the market for years. Motorola came out with one before and its employees knew at the time it wasn't going to be successful, but they also knew they were going to get paid ridiculously large salaries while it lasted.
That used to be Apple's game plan: look for a developing market and put together a really good product to try and take it over.

Microsoft had been trying to put together a tablet PC for more than a decade before Apple launched the iPad. I know, I bought a Panasonic tablet PC, used, back in 2001. But the early tablets were really clunky and awkward, and they didn't have wifi. Apple were the one who put it all together and came up with the complete package of what a tablet needed to be.
Post Reply