For a few good years, I’ve seen a handful of movies because the calibre of the stuff that comes out has been sub-par for a long time, I’d say since the early 2000’s. What’s happened? Why is it that the Movie industry, coming off I’d say a pretty good decade of decent movies (The 90’s) has suddenly just become a business of either;
A) Rehashing old films
B) Sequels, Prequels, Quadrilogies
C) Comedies which go to the lowest common denominator
The question is, has Hollywood really ran out of ideas to put to film or is it something inherently wrong in the system of how the business is ran that’s stopping it from it’s films having a bit more substance and depth to them?
It’s either this, or I’m getting older and just realising this is how it has always been, but I can’t shake off the feeling that something isn’t right with how films are made in this time.
I blame the increasing importance of international markets. They’re way more important than they used to be, which means a focus on films that are easily translatable, transcend culture, and are less nuanced. That means lots of explosions and fart jokes. Also, many emerging nations are at the point where big-budget Hollywood blockbusters are just inherently impressive, because of the scope of their special effects and technical quality, regardless of the inanity of the plot. Countries like China and Thailand and Malaysia now have enough money that people can see movies, but not enough to produce movies with two hundred million dollar budgets of their own. If they were poorer, like they were 50 years ago, Hollywood wouldn’t be eyeing them as a source of revenue. If they were richer, like they will be in 50 years, they’d be making their own super-high budget action films which would appeal to their own citizens, and Hollywood wouldn’t be eyeing them (as much). We’re just stuck in a bad spot right now.
Why spend more on increasing quality of the script or actors when you can have better ticket sales by spending on CGI. They are simply reacting to the market.
I was all set to defend Hollywood and say that they produce more new ideas than people think. Then I looked at the 2011 box office results. You have to go all the way down to number 13 before you find a wholly new property* (The Help). That’s much worse than I thought.
*I suppose you could make a case for Thor at number 10 being a new property, but it’s based on a previously existing comic book character.
It’s always been true that the box office is almost always dominated by your A, B, C movies. Nothing’s really changed except that fewer people are supporting the smaller, really good movies. They figure they can wait for DVD and leave the big screen for the big event movies.
It amazes me that so often when some people do go see one of the good ones they’re so critical and nitpicky and pedantic (even if they like it!) that it puts other people off the movie so they don’t see it. Some movies can withstand such assholery (like Inception, which did amazingly well at the box office) but others can’t because they need all the word of mouth they can get.
Do you seek out and support non-blockbuster, non-sequel/remake movies? Or does a movie not exist if you haven’t seen ads for it on TV? Do you have any arthouse movie theaters at all where you live? Did you see The Guard in the theater last year? Did you see Beginners? Moneyball? Did you see Barney’s Version? Did you see Win Win? Midnight In Paris? Did you see The Company Men? A Separation? The Artist? Limitless? Did you see Martha Marcy May Marlene? Hugo? We Need to Talk About Kevin? Beautiful Boy? Bill Cunningham New York? Attack The Block? The Descendants? Potice? The Devil’s Double? Cedar Rapids? The Trip? From Prada to Nada? Melancholia? Super 8? The Tree of Life? Everything Must Go? Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy? (ok, that’s a remake, but still…), My Week With Marilyn? The Lincoln Lawyer? Contagion? Source Code? Arthur Christmas? 50/50? 13 Assassins? I could go on for about 3 pages but I already know the answer for most people. Not all of those were strictly arthouse movies. Several played in multiplexes too.
I see a lot of movies. Most are very good (like all of the above, IMO), some are great. A few are not good, but not many because I rarely go see movies I think I’ll hate/dislike. I’m impatient with people who bitch about “Hollywood” when Hollywood encompasses all kinds of films, studios and distributors.
How old are you (I ask not snarkily but because a lot of people tend to view as better the music/tv/movies/etc. as better that coincided with certain phases of life)? Personally, in terms of mainstream movies I though the '90s were nothing remarkable.
That said, if mainstream production has shifted towards recycled properties I’d argue that it isn’t so much because Hollywood is “out of ideas.” Rather it is because we reward studios for recycling properties.
Nobody makes us go to them. If Hanna had made $250 million and The Hangover II had made $40 instead of the other way around, Hollywood would make more movies. But since the people who are given the responsibility to decides how tens or hundreds of millions of dollars are spent have the mission of making sure more than that much comes back, why do we always blame them for giving us what we (on average, if not individually) want to watch.
“Damn you all for making movies that 80 million people went and saw instead of more movies like the ones only 5 million people saw!” is not the most compelling rallying cry for making business decisions.
My theory is that movies have become so expensive to make that they take less risks in order to recoup costs and choose projects with already built in audiences.
I’d argue we’ve gotten better at them over time. Sequels used to be as laughable as a second blade on a razor. Studios eventually learned it was worth it to keep the creative team and cast on the payroll and wait for a script worthy of the original overall. Remember how bad sequels used to be? Jaws 2, The Fly II, Teen Wolf Too (ugh), The Sting II, Speed 2: Cruise Control, etc. All of the above second rate for forgoing the above reasoning. Now? Even the Transformer movies are good sequels compared to what we used to get. I don’t like Transformers, but they’re clearly good sequels.
Wait – you’re counting “Annie” and “The Best Little Whorehouse in Texas” in 1982 as original properties, but not “Thor” in 2011? (I didn’t look at any of the other years, I just did a spot check on those two.)
I agree with your premise, but you don’t need to massage it any more than necessary, IMO.
Crap, that was supposed to be 1981. I didn’t even look at 1982. Also, every year in that list is one year off, except 2011. I don’t quite know how I did that. It was supposed to be every five years up until 2011. You are correct about 1982. That would be six. Also, I did count Thor for 2011 in the list. I’ll fix it below:
1981: eight
1982: six
1986: seven
1987: nine
1991: seven
1992: seven
1996: six
1997: ten
2001: five
2002: six
2006: five
2007: three
2011: one
I think it’s a trend that goes further back, though. 1982 is something of an anomaly, as is 2011. Box Office Mojo only goes back to 1980, but it seems like around 6 is what the average of original productions is.
1980: 7
1981: 8
1983: 6
2009: 6
2010: 6
(While I was typing this stuff became irrelevant. Sorry about that. The stuff below it is still ok, though.)
Sequels are always going to take up a large proportion of the top 10 movies. People know what they are getting. They aren’t always among the top moneymakers since, they are usually more expensive to produce. (Actors have star power now. Bigger effects can be approved. etc) But, they are more likely to get greenlighted since the audience is already tehre.
And, the cinematic fields are especially fertile for sequels right now, because of all these book to film adaptations. Harry Potter, Twilight, and soon, The Hunger Games make for built in sequels.
I think this is more of a perspective issue. And, not much to do with what is being produced. The 90s were a period that made it so indie movies were a big business for awhile there, and that made for great films. The other stuff remained. If you look at the lists you still see movies like Ace Ventura, Jumanji, Casper, or Mrs Doubtfire in there among the Pulp Fictions, and Shawshank Repemptions.
Not to be nitpicky, but 1997’s top 10 list is not 100% original films. The Lost World:Jurassic Park, Star Wars (rerelease), and Tomorrow Never Dies are on that year’s top 10.
Whoops That was the only one I pulled from IMDB instead of box office mojo. It appears that list is “most popular” rather than “highest grossing”. I just can’t get the list right, can I?
Huh, that makes for an interesting comparison. Look at 2011. MI:Ghost Protocol is the only sequel that remains on the top 10 for the year. It shows that people who vote on the IMDB movies don’t necessarily like sequels as much as the box office shows.
The 2010 book The Hollywood Economist: The Hidden Financial Reality behind the Movies by Edward Jay Epstein has a lot of information about what sort of financial considerations affect which movies get made.