[HN Gopher] Barry Diller: The movie business as before is finish... ___________________________________________________________________ Barry Diller: The movie business as before is finished and will never come back Author : danso Score : 187 points Date : 2021-07-09 12:08 UTC (10 hours ago) (HTM) web link (www.npr.org) (TXT) w3m dump (www.npr.org) | werber wrote: | The "movie business" is far from dead, there's an insane amount | of production now and the breadth of those productions is far | wider. The only death is the exclusivity of the industry, stories | like the movie Tangerine (shot on iphones) or the recent release | Zola (based on a twitter feed) are reaching audiences along with | a ton of others that never would have seen them. Contrary to | that, the highest grossing films of all time are mostly within | this century and past decade now. There is more representation | and choice in video content now than ever before, even if the | movie theater industry might not ever go back to it's heyday. I | personally am fine with more tailored content, tv or film, beamed | into my home on demand over going to a theater | indigodaddy wrote: | Also, the Indian movie scene appears to be exploding. Prime | knows I'm into Indian movies, and so I've noticed a huge uptick | in year 2021 Indian movies in my Prime feed. Must be like 5 or | 10 new ones added per week. And they look like good quality | movies. Indian cinema has really come a long way, and Netflix | and Prime are really the catalysts for that and are spurring | that industry along. | nebula8804 wrote: | >or the recent release Zola (based on a twitter feed) are | reaching audiences along with a ton of others that never would | have seen them. | | This is just an anecdote but my local AMC theater in upper NJ | is playing Zola and on Saturday night the theater was empty. I | was the only one in the room. Are these movies actually making | money? It seems like the demand is not really there for | anything other than Superhero movies. | lapetitejort wrote: | I've moved from watching movies and TV shows without end to | watching limited series/anthology shows. The format hits the | sweet spot between watching a self contained story and the | anticipation of a TV show. I don't think the format gets the | love it deserves, but networks like Disney+ (most of Marvel's | recent outings), Netflix (Godless, Russian Doll, Alias Grace, | The Queen's Gambit, The Haunting of Hill House), and HBO (The | Night Of, Watchmen, The Outsider) certainly understand the | benefits and have been amassing a quiet army of content. | QuesnayJr wrote: | I liked every limited run TV show you mentioned that I've | seen (Russian Doll, The Queen's Gambit, Watchmen), so I think | maybe I should watch the rest. | indigodaddy wrote: | Have you caught Mare of Easttown with Kate Winslet on HBO? | Tremendous. | lapetitejort wrote: | It's at the top of my list. | | Incidentally I went look for the best limited series shows, | but aggregators like Rotten Tomatoes do a poor job | separating them from other TV shows. Right now I see | "Watchmen: Season 1" and "Unbelievable: Season 1" which as | far as I know were only meant to be one season. Yet | Chernobyl and Mare of Easttown are labeled as Miniseries | and Limited Series, respectively. What's the difference | between the two labels? Why hasn't someone went back and | updated the database? Why can't I filter by ongoing versus | limited? | indigodaddy wrote: | And because Mare was so well received and loved by | audiences, there is now a ton of pressure on the | producers/creator for a S2. So I guess if that happens it | would get relabeled? | cwp wrote: | I hate this kind of article. It's an opinion from a knowledgeable | person, but it offers no insight at all. The only difference | between what Diller said and my uninformed curmudgeonly grumpy | opinion is that he used to run a studio. | mullingitover wrote: | We're arguably repeating history, where 100 years ago film was | the upstart (but rapidly growing) business and vaudeville was the | established incumbent. Film offered far more creative | possibilities and were dramatically more immersive than the | entertainment it replaced. | | Today the film industry is the incumbent - profits have peaked, | and the upstart video game business has already eclipsed it. Once | again, video games have far more creative possibilities and are | dramatically more immersive than the films they're replacing. | outlawBand wrote: | ...but there is a huge percentage of the population that | doesn't like / play video games. | metalliqaz wrote: | the "gaming" industry includes mobile games and things like | slot machines, in addition to the big consoles that most | people think of. | | I think there are more "gamers" than you might think. | mullingitover wrote: | It's true, and yet even with a lot of people not being | gamers[1]: | | > Global videogame revenue is expected to surge 20% to $179.7 | billion in 2020, according to IDC data, making the videogame | industry a bigger moneymaker than the global movie and North | American sports industries combined. | | So the fact that there are still lots of people who aren't | gamers just means that the video game industry has plenty of | room for growth. | | [1] https://www.marketwatch.com/story/videogames-are-a- | bigger-in... | merlincorey wrote: | Plenty of them are willing to watch people play video games, | even if they don't want to play them. | watwut wrote: | Those consider themswlves games and report themselves as | gamers. They claim to like games. | MetaWhirledPeas wrote: | I'm an avid gamer, but video games are in no position to | replace films. The mediums are fundamentally different. A film | is a story being told. A videogame is a template to explore | your own story, some more filled out than others. | | If you want to merely argue that video games will win the | battle for people's time I could see that. My guess is movies | will be like books; maybe not the biggest kid on the block, but | eternally popular. You can't say that for vaudeville. | Flatcircle wrote: | Video Games are still priced extremely high, like home video | cassettes were in the 80's. | hujun wrote: | movie theaters should become smaller, a place with many smaller | rooms, a room for only ten people with top video/audio | equipments, with good drink, food; make it more like going to a | party with friends | sammalloy wrote: | Just as the rise of the internet changed the way people read and | pay attention to information, so too did the advent of streaming | change the way audiences engage with entertainment. | | I can barely sit still through anything that's more than an hour | long now, and I can't imagine how I used to sit through entire | films back in the day. | | I've also noticed that I prefer the series arc format over the | superficial cinematic, one and done story, making standard film | releases less entertaining for me. | BTCOG wrote: | Good deal. Maybe they'll have to go back to the drawing board and | quit making spinoffs of remakes, of remakes. And these lame duck | "superhero" movies. Puke. | nathias wrote: | popular culture was always intolerable, you're just old enough to | notice | flybrand wrote: | We've got a family love of the Fast and Furious movies - we got a | big group to go see it yesterday. The movie is awful, it could be | my last experience ever in a theatre. | jollybean wrote: | He's right and it's sad. | | One positive note though is that 2 hours is very short - often | not long enough to explore a story. | | Series formats mean they can take the time they need. | | That said, often they end up being filler. | afavour wrote: | The actual quote (with my emphasis added): | | > "The movie business *as before* is finished and will never come | back." | | And I think that's correct. Superhero blockbusters taking over | all box office receipts was one thing, but now those blockbusters | are becoming deeply tied to streaming services like Disney+ | that's bringing content into people's homes and away from movie | theatres. | | I won't mourn movie theatres (though I hope places emulate the | likes of Alamo Drafthouse and do dinner, drinks and let us make | an evening out of watching a movie), but I do worry about things | like movie financing. It feels the industry has split in two, | either making super-expensive superhero blockbusters or super | cheap indie films. | | It makes me feel like a grouch to complain about the uber- | popular, widely loved thing but this intertwined superhero | universe exhausts me. I don't want to have to watch three | previous movies and two TV shows to fully enjoy the movie that's | in front of me. So I watch a lot more limited series TV | instead... and maybe that's just fine? | at_a_remove wrote: | I soured on the superhero franchise business due to a | combination of factors (the out of character _Man of Steel_ , | that first boilerplate _Thor_ film, the ghastly _Green Lantern_ | , and finally reading _Worm_ made everything else seem shallow | by comparison) and have stepped back to look at it as an | industry in a kind of spiral of intolerance to risk. | | They want product, they want it on a pipeline, they want | guaranteed returns and they do not want to gamble about it. | This has been true for a long time but we're seeing a | difference of degree here. Movie production is not merely | evolving but speciating -- and I think the new species is going | to look like a subscription streaming service (with tie-in | product) that releases dopamine-tweaking algorithmic product on | the kind of tick-tock schedule for which Intel longs. | ping_pong wrote: | > they want guaranteed returns and they do not want to gamble | about it | | This is how Hollywood is. It's the same as Silicon Valley. | They don't want to gamble if they don't have to, they both | just want as much money as possible. | ping_pong wrote: | When was the last great comedy movie you've seen in the movie | theatres? I posed this question to my buddies and we were | genuinely stumped. For me it was probably early 2000s, but | nothing in the last 15 years that's for sure. | coolspot wrote: | "Parasite", right before COVID. | | Earlier - "Nice Guys". | tshaddox wrote: | When's the last time your "list of great comedy movies" got a | new entry, regardless of whether you saw the new entry in the | cinema or even if it was a new film at the time you saw it? | ping_pong wrote: | Every couple of years? But I do think the frequency of | straight up comedies being produced is dwindling, and | aren't popular enough to go to a movie theatre for. | tshaddox wrote: | For me, comedies are so much a matter of personal taste | that I'm generally not interested in seeing them in the | theater unless it's with a group of friends or I feel | like I have reasonable expectations that I will like the | movie a lot. They're not really like superhero or action | movies where I can be pretty good at guessing whether | I'll like the film. | spywaregorilla wrote: | > It makes me feel like a grouch to complain about the uber- | popular, widely loved thing but this intertwined superhero | universe exhausts me. I don't want to have to watch three | previous movies and two TV shows to fully enjoy the movie | that's in front of me. So I watch a lot more limited series TV | instead... and maybe that's just fine? | | To me, this is like complaining that you don't want to have to | read the Fellowship of the Ring to fully enjoy the Return of | the King. | sidlls wrote: | Almost nobody expects their "cotton candy" entertainment to | require that level of effort regularly. It's fine if a small | handful of things based on prior art ("Return of the King") | are around; healthy even. When that's all there is, though, | that seems like a problem. | spywaregorilla wrote: | > Almost nobody expects their "cotton candy" entertainment | to require that level of effort regularly. | | Most people love continuations of prior art. The vast | majority of people have no problem watching a few films per | year, and consider it a luxury, not an effort. People love | seeing their favorite characters reappear and have done so | long before film. | | > When that's all there is, though, that seems like a | problem. | | Well... it's not all there is, so that's good. | Apocryphon wrote: | Movie serials were also literally at the beginning of the | medium | | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Serial_film | JKCalhoun wrote: | Also quote: | | > "These streaming services have been making something that | they call 'movies,' " he said. "They ain't movies. They are | some weird algorithmic process that has created things that | last 100 minutes or so." | | Funny. That would be my description of the block buster action | films since "Raiders of the Lost Ark". | sigzero wrote: | I will mourn movie theaters. Some shows are just 100% better in | that environment. | dijit wrote: | There's a cinema in Malmo, Sweden called "Spegeln" (meaning: | Mirror in Swedish) which exemplifies the cinema experience | for me. I would hate to lose it. | | https://www.tripadvisor.se/LocationPhotoDirectLink-g189839-d. | .. | js8 wrote: | I won't. I am from Czechia and maybe the culture here was | different, but it used to be that movie theaters were | somewhat like a normal theater, where you are supposed to be | mostly quiet, behave, and not eat and litter during the show. | | But modern multiplexes have changed that etiquette, and it's | hard for me to stand it. And the advertisements... | inglor_cz wrote: | Yeah, here in CZ we dressed quite well going to the movie | theatre in the early 1990s. These days anything will do. | acituan wrote: | Indeed, I'd argue a good chunk of the experience came | from the respect and reverence the audience had to the | occasion. Not unlike in a church, or kind of like a | primal gathering around the fire, except this time around | the projections of the "magic lantern". | | But the god of consumption got jealous and demanded we | got things (snacks and movies alike) through our system | as fast as possible while making him the maximum dime. | throwaaskjdfh wrote: | > ...not eat and litter during the show. | | Historically in US movie theaters, there's so much popcorn | grease and spilled soda on the floor that your shoes | actually get stuck to it while you're watching the movie. | | EDIT: Wow downvotes? It's true! Maybe they mop them now but | back when Diller was in the movie business, your shoes | actually did get stuck to the floor because of all the | spilled snacks. I haven't been to a movie theater in many | years, but the grime was an essential part of the | experience. Someone should open a throwback 80s theater. | gamblor956 wrote: | Hollywood's biggest film have always been adaptations of | existing material. Some of the most regarded films of all time, | like the Wizard of Oz, Gone with the Wind, the Godfather, | Lawrence of Arabia, and Chinatown, are themselves merely | adaptations of books. | ffggvv wrote: | what if i told you that you can just ignore them. just like you | probably don't listen to taylor swift despite her being popular | elliekelly wrote: | > I don't want to have to watch three previous movies and two | TV shows to fully enjoy the movie that's in front of me. | | I feel like I "missed" the beginning of all the super hero | franchises and, even though I'm sure I'd enjoy them, I'm just | not interested because getting caught up enough to understand | what's going on in the newer films feels like such a daunting | undertaking. | | At the start of the pandemic I thought maybe I'd finally watch | them all only to find out there isn't even really an agreed | upon _order_ they should be watched! | | It's an odd and (I think) new phenomenon: that someone can lack | the prerequisites to watch a movie. Even worse: no one can | quite agree on what exactly those prerequisites _are_. | tshaddox wrote: | > It's an odd and (I think) new phenomenon: that someone can | lack the prerequisites to watch a movie. | | There's nothing new about sequels and movie series. The only | difference with Marvel movies might be that they are a lot of | films and they tend to be some of the most popular films. | | > Even worse: no one can quite agree on what exactly those | prerequisites are. | | Fans might enjoy discussing nuances of different viewing | orders, but I think it's pretty undeniable that you can't go | too wrong watching them in the order they were released. | elmers-glue wrote: | > I don't want to have to watch three previous movies and two | TV shows to fully enjoy the movie that's in front of me. | | And then you still won't enjoy it, I promise you. | spoonjim wrote: | > It feels the industry has split in two, either making super- | expensive superhero blockbusters or super cheap indie films. | | The great mid-budget content is now in Streaming TV, but if | you're wedded to the feature film format, try watching anything | from A24 films. | | > It makes me feel like a grouch to complain about the uber- | popular, widely loved thing but this intertwined superhero | universe exhausts me. | | I haven't seen a superhero movie since 1999's Star Wars: The | Phantom Menace. Just stop watching them, you won't become | culturally isolated. | vincentmarle wrote: | > I don't want to have to watch three previous movies and two | TV shows to fully enjoy the movie that's in front of me. | | I recently started watched Loki on Disney+, 3 episodes in, I | still have no idea who Loki is, where he comes from, what his | intentions are and what he is capable of... | | Same problem with WandaVision. I agree, it's exhausting. | romanhn wrote: | Those shows most definitely assume prior knowledge of the | universe. That said, having avoided "superhero movies" for | years (due to not being impressed with random one-offs that I | watched), I finally bit the bullet and watched the whole set | in order with my kids and it made a huge difference, with | enormous payoff in Infinity War and Endgame. FWIW, I think | both WandaVision and Loki are fantastic. | klodolph wrote: | TV shows have also gotten more prestigious, and so the people | who would have been telling their stories as movies may be | making TV shows instead. The article compares traditional | movies to movies from streaming services, and I just think | that's avoiding the elephant in the room. | | The change started happening slowly in the late 1990s, but at | this point I'd say that the change has _happened_ and we're in | a golden age of television. In the 1990s, TV was seen as a step | down from movies in terms of cultural prestige, but nowadays we | have A-list actors starring in TV shows with budgets over $10M | per episode. The formats for TV shows have changed, too, and | you're much more likely to see TV shows written as six-episode | or eight-episode seasons. They can be much more like a big, | long movie, rather than a short TV show. | | (Of course, the UK has produced six-episode TV series since | forever.) | | Still, I recently rewatched a few episodes of _Siskel and | Ebert,_ and it made me a bit sad to think about just how many | movies were coming out every year during the 1990s, and | remember being excited to go to the theater. Rewatching some | 1990s movies, there are shots that just don't have the right | impact in typical home theaters. | res0nat0r wrote: | There are more amazing high budget TV series out now than I | have time to keep up with. Many of them are foreign also. It | went into overdrive after The Sopranos, so has been going | steady for 20+ years. | | Anyone complaining "nothing good" anymore just either have | terrible taste, or don't know how to do simple searching for | new content. Same for movies IMO. There are good films | everywhere on almost all the streaming platforms too if you | just look for them. | edgyquant wrote: | I think Breaking Bad really set the stage for TV shows being | good film. Whether you like the show or not it had a clear | and defined story and ended after 5 seasons where most shows | before would just run until their ratings dropped. | ping_pong wrote: | Better Call Saul at its best is as good, if not better, | than 99% of Breaking Bad. Of course, the best episodes of | BB are among the best in TV history. | jfengel wrote: | HBO had been doing it for a few years, with shows like The | Wire and Deadwood. But Breaking Bad helped bring it to a | wider audience, since AMC is basic cable rather than | premium. (AMC had launched into that a year before with Mad | Men, which was similarly TV as good film.) | Apocryphon wrote: | I think the turn of the century start of the prestige | drama cable age was _The Sopranos_ , with _The West Wing_ | doing something similar on network TV. | SeanBoocock wrote: | I'd add Rome as perhaps a closer model to the sort of | high budget, prestige television we're afforded now. | First season had a budget in excess of $100 million | dollars, a major increase over anything comparable | (compare this to The Wire that was filming | contemporaneously). | raydev wrote: | WW was still quite formulaic. ER, NYPD Blue, etc were all | shows that maybe pushed for more consistent storylines | but they were still boxed in by old school network | expectations, and they got their starts in the mid-90s. | | Sopranos was a very clear break in writing style. People | like to slot in The Wire next to it, but The Wire was | more episodic/restricted and honestly felt like an | R-rated network tv show to me. | jfengel wrote: | That seems a really good starting point. Oz preceded it, | but was never the breakout hit that The Sopranos became. | [deleted] | mbg721 wrote: | Roots in the 1970s (and The Thorn Birds afterwards) was | notable for being a widely-viewed blockbuster miniseries, so | the concept was there; without streaming, it was just hard to | get an audience to watch every episode at the right time. | ghaff wrote: | Also Winds of War and others. Yeah, the miniseries had its | day but, especially pre-widespread VCR, depending on an | audience to watch every episode at a scheduled time was a | high bar. It obviously could work but it depended on having | a sufficiently big "event" for people to schedule a week or | nights on successive weeks around it--in a way few would do | today. | iamacyborg wrote: | > It makes me feel like a grouch to complain about the uber- | popular, widely loved thing but this intertwined superhero | universe exhausts me. I don't want to have to watch three | previous movies and two TV shows to fully enjoy the movie | that's in front of me. | | They've also just become quite formulaic and as a result, | boring. | ghaff wrote: | Reputedly at least in part because of the increased | importance of non-English speaking markets, even the better | action movies are so dominated by long action sequences that | they really detract for me. | | And to the parent point, on top of that, I'm now expected to | understand at least some of the intricacies of a complex | movie/TV universe that I don't really care that deeply about. | KingMachiavelli wrote: | > And I think that's correct. Superhero blockbusters taking | over all box office receipts was one thing, but now those | blockbusters are becoming deeply tied to streaming services | like Disney+ that's bringing content into people's homes and | away from movie theatres. | | What's interesting is that the industry has repeatedly been | broken up due to antitrust & anti-competition issues. It will | be interesting to see how things stand in 10-15 years; will | consolidation eventually bring government action or do we now | accept 3-4 major players as being sufficient competition. | handrous wrote: | > I won't mourn movie theatres (though I hope places emulate | the likes of Alamo Drafthouse and do dinner, drinks and let us | make an evening out of watching a movie), but I do worry about | things like movie financing. It feels the industry has split in | two, either making super-expensive superhero blockbusters or | super cheap indie films. | | I'm informed by my cinemaphile friend that exactly this | phenomenon has been much remarked upon in the last 15-20 years. | Mid-budget films, which used to be very common, are mostly | dead, leaving a couple kinds of low-budget film (the startup- | model where you put out a ton of cheap movies and hope one is | the next Blair Witch--and yes, most of this is horror--and the | "indie" film kind) and the mega-budget ones that are basically | investment vehicles. So, two kinds of films that exist because | those models are the best ROI, and then indie films, and that's | about it. | | Meanwhile, there are still tons of good films coming out, but | most are (broadly) in the "indie" bucket. People who complain | that nothing good is made anymore[0] must just be looking at | what's advertised heavily, is all I can figure. Dozens of good- | to-great movies come out every year, including a whole bunch | from the US. | | [0] Then there's "it's all remakes now"--but 1) it's not, and | 2) Hollywood started churning out tons of remakes about as | early in their history as they possibly could, and never | stopped. | majormajor wrote: | The good news is that an indie film on zero budget from the | 90s was much more technologically limited than it is today, | so access to fancy cameras matters less than it did then, and | it lets talent shine more. | masayune wrote: | how do you find these good, low budget movies? would love to | know your discovery process | wwweston wrote: | Find someone who is more into movies than you are and talk | to them regularly. :) | | I got introduced to a bunch last year by making the | acquaintance of a film grad student who ran a movie club | that met via Discord every Saturday night to discuss a film | of the week. | | I think this could also probably be approximated by finding | someone into film on social media, or watching entries | accepted into well-regarded film festivals, or if you | happen to have an active mom & pop video store in your | area, talking with the clerks. | johnchristopher wrote: | Personnaly I regularly check out the sundance festival | entries and anything produced by annapurna and | https://a24films.com/ | bloat wrote: | I use Letterboxd. Its pretty easy to get started, look up a | bunch of movies you know you like, read some of the | reviews, follow some people who seem like they know movies | and would be into interesting stuff, and then see what | comes your way. | roymurdock wrote: | Can you recommend some good movies from last/this year? Have | been digging into old movies to get my fix recently thinking | there wasn't anything good out. | DullBlueDot wrote: | I highly recommend the In/Frame/Out YouTube channel for | dissections of good indie and older classic movies. His | year-end lists are always satisfying. The Scottish accent | is the cherry on top. | handrous wrote: | If you watched the film "Happy Death Day" (if not the | lesser sequel) and enjoyed its exploration of a kind-of | goofy mashup (Ground Hog Day x Teen Slasher), the same | director made a film built on, roughly, a similar concept, | just called "Freaky". If you already suspect you might like | it, don't read anything and just watch, though you may be | able to guess the mash-up from the one-word title. It's | fun, and well-made. | | I'm struggling to think of much else that I've personally | seen, from last year, that wasn't a little _too_ indie or | "genre" for me to recommend it to someone whose tastes I | don't know--I didn't get much new watched, and mostly | caught up on some reputedly-great stuff I'd missed from the | prior five years or so (I keep up with a mix of pop junk | food films, which I do like, and the "good" stuff, but | usually don't have time to watch anywhere near all of | either) aside from some fairly taste-specific newer | material I watched. | | Some other titles I'm seeing, from people I know and trust, | for 2020, include: First Cow; The Old Guard; Portrait of a | Lady on Fire (technically a 2019 film, but widely available | in 2020); Wolfwalkers (animated); Spontaneous; Bacurau; | Blow the Man Down. There are lots more, that's just a | varied sampling. | edgyquant wrote: | Happy Death Day was a great, and unique, idea I loved it. | I even thought the second was not bad even if I don't | think they needed to try and explain what was happening | scientifically. I forgot about Freaky and will have to | watch that. | | I actually think TV shows are where good film comes from | these days, especially with them not being made for | syndication so we now can get 6 episode seasons. Mare of | East Town was a great mystery that just came out. It is | true that the superhero genre has hijacked a lot of | talent. | bloat wrote: | From what I've seen released from 2020 onwards I've | particularly liked: | | Black Bear, Possessor, Palm Springs, Love And Monsters, | Psycho Goreman, Ma Rainey's Black Bottom, White Tiger, | Moxie, The Mitchells Vs The Machines | | Going back a bit further: | | Saint Maud, Color Out Of Space, Once Upon A Time... In | Hollywood, Midsommar, The Lighthouse, Crawl, The Personal | History Of David Copperfield | munificent wrote: | _> Then there 's "it's all remakes now"--but 1) it's not,_ | | It really is, if by "remake" you mean all ways of leveraging | existing IP. Here are the top ten box office films of 2020: | * Bad Boys for Life (sequel) * Sonic the Hedgehog | (videogame) * Birds of Prey (comic book) * | Dolittle (book) * The Invisible Man (book) * | The Call of the Wild (book) * Onward (original) | * The Croods: A New Age (sequel) * Tenet (original) | * Wonder Woman 1984 (sequal, comic book) | | Two originals. Now go back 20 years: * | Mission: Impossible 2 (sequel) * Gladiator (book) | * Cast Away (original) * What Women Want (original) | * Dinosaur (original) * How the Grinch Stole | Christmas (book) * Meet the Parents (remake) | * The Perfect Storm (book) * X-Men (comic book) | * What Lies Beneath (original) | | Four originals. Go back another 10 years: * | Ghost (original) * Home Alone (original) * | Pretty Woman (original) * Dances with Wolves (book) | * Total Recall (short story) * Back to the Future | Part III (sequel) * Die Hard 2 (sequel) * | Presumed Innocent (book) * Teenage Mutant Ninja | Turtles (comic book) * Kindergarten Cop (original) | | Five originals. Another ten years to 1980: | * The Empire Strikes Back (sequel) * 9 to 5 | (original) * Stir Crazy (original) * | Airplane! (original) * Any Which Way You Can (sequel) | * Private Benjamin (original) * Coal Miner's Daughter | (original) * Smokey and the Bandit II (sequel) | * The Blue Lagoon (book) * The Blues Brothers (SNL | sketch) | | Five originals again. I'm going by top box-office gross here | because I think that's a good proxy for what is successful. | You can look at other years, but there is a very clear (but | not overwhelming) trend towards movies based on familiar | content. It's not clear whether studios are leading audiences | or vice versa. Probably some iterative process of both. | | There's also a clear trend away from dramas. I think that's | because drama (and non-slapstick comedies) tend to rely | heavily on specific cultural norms for their effect which | makes them translate poorly. There is a very clear trend | especially in the last decade or so of Hollywood focusing on | movies that will also do well in China in particular. | ttmb wrote: | > Here are the top ten box office films of 2020 | | But see, 2020 was an aberration. You have to look at 2019. | | Sequel, remake, sequel, sequel, comic, sequel, | sequel/comic, remake, comic, sequel/remake, | | Oh. Oh no. Let's keep going for top 20, yeah? | | Sequel/remake, ORIGINAL, sequel, sequel, sequel, sequel, | video game, ORIGINAL, comic, comic. (from boxofficemojo) | | 2 in the top 20. | | Let's keep going? | | ORIGINAL, remake, sequel-ish? sequel, sequel, (US) remake, | ORIGINAL, sequel, ORIGINAL, remake, tv-to-film, ORIGINAL, | comic, ORIGINAL, sequel, sequel, sequel, ORIGINAL, sequel, | sequel, ... | | Let's stop there, but don't assume for a second that all | the remakes and sequels are top-loaded - they may dominate | the top of the chart but they go pretty far down it too. | Apocryphon wrote: | Looks to be a different source from the OP, but let's go | down the chart for 1980 past the top ten: | | https://www.boxofficemojo.com/year/1980/ | | Kramer vs. Kramer (book) | | Ordinary People (book) | | Popeye (comic) | | The Shining (book) | | Cheech and Chong's Next Movie (sequel) | | Caddyshack (original - franchise starter) | | Friday the 13th (original - franchise starter) | | Brubaker (book) | | The Jazz Singer (remake) | | Flash Gordon (sequel/remake) | | Bronco Billy (original) | | Raging Bull (book - biopic) | | Maybe you should go back a few decades until you can find | a time when the top 20 were mostly originals. Would have | to be before the _Star Wars_ / _Jaws_ blockbuster era, | probably. | OJFord wrote: | Dolittle is not the first time it's been adapted to film | either. '67, '98, '01 (sequel), '06 (sequel). | throwawayboise wrote: | Airplane was not strictly an original, it was a | remake/spoof of _Zero Hour_ from 1957 and more broadly | spoofing the "disaster" film concept. | selimthegrim wrote: | You could also argue it was spoofing the _Airport_ films | which were based on books. | QuercusMax wrote: | There are a significant number of scenes in Airplane that | are directly lifted from Zero Hour. I haven't checked | recently, but I think it's almost a scene-for-scene | remake in many respects. | newsclues wrote: | Spoofs are derivative works but original works compared | to remakes or sequels. | roland35 wrote: | Interesting lists, although I think maybe books based | movies are more towards original side if we map this as a | spectrum instead of a binary value :) | | New books with great stories are written every year, and I | would rather watch that than spider man reboot #4 honestly. | Apocryphon wrote: | On the other hand, would you want to watch another big- | budget Harry Potter side story spin-off ( _Fantastic | Beasts_ ), an adaptation of bad or forgettable YA novel | franchises ( _Twilight_ , _Divergent_ , _Percy Jackson_ | ), _Fifty Shades of Grey_ , or the umpteenth adaptation | of some Jane Austen novel? | | Book adaptations themselves are a spectrum of originality | and quality. | munificent wrote: | _> I think maybe books based movies are more towards | original side_ | | I agree totally. I'd also score remakes as more original | if the film being remade is significantly older. | watwut wrote: | > People who complain that nothing good is made anymore[0] | must just be looking at what's advertised heavily, is all I | can figure. | | That would be me. I am utterly uninterested in superheroes | and found movies I seen last years somewhere between boring | repetitive and annoying. Tho I liked parazite and some of | other international splash making movies. At minimum they | used different tropes. | | I have no idea where those fun indie movies are nor how to | find them. Like, where should I go to be able to find some I | might like? | handrous wrote: | 1) Try film festival schedules or lists-of-what-showed from | previous years. Not _just_ Sundance and Cannes and such | (though lots of the films shown at those _are_ , in fact, | good, so don't _not_ look at those)--if you have any | special genre or topic interests, there may be some | festivals for them, so look up a few big ones and start | browsing. Why previous years? Because those films usually | aren 't widely available the same year they're in | festivals, _and_ you 'll get the benefit of reviews, if you | don't want to just start blindly watching anything that | looks interesting. | | 2) There are niche streaming services that specialize in | genres, or in indie + international, films, which are great | for finding all kinds of wonderful things you'd never have | known about otherwise. mubi.com, for instance, features | those sorts of films from all years, including recent ones. | Shudder is a streaming service for horror films (horror is | downright _rich_ these days--I can provide lots of strong, | varied recommendations from the last few years, if you 're | into that kind of thing). Stuff like that. Really, just | look up lists of video streaming services and take a glance | at the catalogues of any you've not heard of. | mywacaday wrote: | What would have been considered a mid budget film? | prpl wrote: | Probably many movies you can think of from the 90s/00s that | were not blockbusters, especially romcoms. | xnyan wrote: | Moreso than it's production cost (though that's a big part | of it) a mid-budget is a hollywood-level (full production | and cast) movie that does not attempt to be all things to | all people. This could be something like a romantic comedy, | a medium-scale character study or a high-concept scifi - | something that costs say 40 million to make, returns 80 | million and is never intended to be a blockbuster. | | Lots of reasons why they are less common. One is absolutely | that more and more, TV is able to serve as well or better | in the mid-budget role, the quality of TV has vastly | improved in the last 20 years. Studios are less interested | in investing 40 million to double their money and would | rather risk hundreds of millions on the chance to make | billions. | handrous wrote: | Not a great link, but this covers the gist of it: | | https://www.flavorwire.com/492985/how-the-death-of-mid- | budge... | | It quotes a (clearly a bit exaggerated for effect, at the | low end) range of $500,000-$80,000,000 as "mid budget", and | gives examples of the category including Blue Velvet, The | Godfather, and Hairspray. | | It's not that _no_ films are made in that range anymore, | just that it 's much harder to find financing for a project | in that range for a film intended for wide release and any | amount of promotion. The money guys want a nothing-budget | movie that might become a hit (the startup model), or huge | can't-lose projects with likely outcomes that don't include | a loss, or not much of one (the formulaic international- | friendly [by which I mean China-friendly] action | blockbuster that everyone seems to hate, but that | nonetheless consistently make piles of money) | | It quotes a bunch of mid-budget directors complaining about | this, some leaving filmmaking entirely because their | options seem to be to go back to making shoestring-budget | movies like they did when they were starting out, or start | working on projects they don't like (huge-budget films), | aside from self-financing. They seem to be concerned about | how the next generations of directors will develop their | careers, without stable financing for directors who've | "made it" but don't want to make Marvel movies and such-- | IMO we're probably heading back to something resembling the | studio system, largely, so the era of lots of Important | Directors who Really Matter may be on its way out, anyway, | at least for a while. | | [EDIT] Also, searching things like "the death of the mid- | budget film" turns up tons of material like this. | chalst wrote: | Being John Malkovich had a budget of $13 million in 1999 - | I'm guessing that's mid-range. | iNane9000 wrote: | How do I find these movies? Amazon has some old, mostly low | quality movies, but nothing good or recent. They got rid of | the criterion collection years ago. Sincere question: How | does one even find or acquire films today? I'd love to watch | a movie, but literally don't know how to go about it anymore. | Netflix is not an answer as most of their content are not | movies and basically spam to me. | quickthrowman wrote: | I pay for Spotify and Steam Games and HBO Max, but pirate | movies since Hollywood isn't interested in making films | available to be watched. | kwertyoowiyop wrote: | Your local library probably has tons of DVD and Blu-Ray | discs (and librarians who can provide recommendations), and | maybe free access to an app like Hoopla with | classic/highbrow movies. | graeme wrote: | Criterion channel is a great streaming service for old | classics. | esperent wrote: | If it's an old film and it's not easily available on a | streaming service, I torrent it. | ghaff wrote: | Amazon has tons of movies but many of them you have to | buy/rent a la carte. At least in the US, there's Red Box | for mostly recent films. You can also subscribe to Netflix' | DVD service--although their back catalog isn't as good as | it used to be. | weeblewobble wrote: | I never understood this complaint. There are dozens and | dozens of recent, popular (good is subjective) movies on | the front page of Amazon, Netflix and HBO Max right now. | heurist wrote: | Check out the Criterion Channel: | https://www.criterionchannel.com/ | Arainach wrote: | justwatch.com lets you search and discover what services | have what movies. | | Alternatively, DIY. As streaming became more popular, | optical media and hard drives became far more cheap. Over | the last 10-15 years I've ended up with more than 500 | movies, all of which I own legally and most of which cost | me $5 or less. They get to all of my devices through Plex | (I used to use Kodi, which is fine over a LAN if that's all | you care about). | | A significant number of them aren't available for streaming | anywhere at the moment, and plenty more would require | obscure services I don't feel a need to pay for. It was a | gradual upfront cost, but not that extravagent compared to | the cost of paying for a couple of streaming services over | that time - to say nothing of the 6-10 I'd have to | subscribe to to actually have access to all of it. | marnett wrote: | Friendly plug for kanopy.com. Amazing, changing collection | and likely free signup and streaming (monthly-refreshing | limit) with your local library card (: | indigodaddy wrote: | Also/or, your library may give you access to a similar | service called Hoopla. I have access to both via my local | library, and I find Kanopy's selection (and picture | quality) somewhat better, especially for foreign (non-- | USA) content. | WalterBright wrote: | The TCM channel does a good job of organizing films into | categories. I've been watching their Film Noir picks every | Saturday night. Lots of fun movies I never knew existed. | handrous wrote: | HBO's streaming service rotates a decent selection of TCM | material, too, complete with the intros. | hallarempt wrote: | My wife and I used to buy a DVD in the second-hand | books/new dvd's shop round the corner every Friday for a | Friday-night movie viewing. He knew our tastes -- it must | be sweet, funny with a happy ending and no adultery or rape | -- but the shop closed. | | We regularly ask each other "Where's Roman Holiday but with | a cute girl instead of Gregory Peck. Audrey Hepburn can | stay."? Why all the drama in movies these days? We just | wanna see two girls kiss and walk away in the twilight, | hand-in-hand. But all we get is drama like Ammonite. | | Why isn't there yet a Poser or | Daz3D/Blender/MakeHuman/$GAME_ENGINE that combined makes it | easy for people to tell tales as movies yet? It should be | possible to put everything together in an interface that | even a movie producer could understand, which would make it | a doddle for ordinary people. | blooalien wrote: | > Why isn't there yet a Poser or | Daz3D/Blender/MakeHuman/$GAME_ENGINE that combined makes | it easy for people to tell tales as movies yet? It should | be possible to put everything together in an interface | that even a movie producer could understand, which would | make it a doddle for ordinary people. | | Okay, seriously? That's a _really good_ idea right there. | I personally would lean towards Blender + Godot game | engine for such a project, but I 'm just hugely in favor | of open source in general, so... The thing to make such a | tool useful though would be an easily accessible library | of actors (character models), animation/movement | presets/prefab library, scenery and set dressing, and an | interface to tie it all together in a way "which would | make it a doddle for ordinary people" as you say. I could | see something like that bein' a _huge boon_ for | "storyteller" types to get a good start in the media | creation arena though. | chrisseaton wrote: | > Why all the drama in movies these days? We just wanna | see two girls kiss and walk away in the twilight, hand- | in-hand. | | I don't see how that's enough to support a film? No | challenge to overcome or issue to resolve? That's a basic | of storytelling. What's left without it? | nerpderp82 wrote: | > Why isn't there yet a Poser or | Daz3D/Blender/MakeHuman/$GAME_ENGINE that combined makes | it easy for people to tell tales as movies yet? | | This is happening right now and it is mostly an update of | the film techniques used in schlock, b films, but the | results are much better. | vo2maxer wrote: | In addition to the criterion channel, already mentioned, | try MUBI [1]. It's a cinephile's dream: a film discovery | nearly everyday while also curating the great directors. | | [1] https://mubi.com/ | paganel wrote: | +1 for MUBI, really great cinephile resource. | | One can also find very interesting stuff on YouTube, | depending on how good your search skills are, I know that | at the start of the pandemic I had discovered a user who | was uploading Italian western spaghetti movies in HD | format. I think I might also have found something similar | for Hong Kong wuxia movies from the 1960s and 1970s but | I'm not sure. | sosborn wrote: | Netflix has a tab to browse only movies. | | Amazon does too. They usually have a handful of quality old | movies (lots of junk too), but some of their originals are | very good. | telesilla wrote: | This is my go-to when I want to browse Netflix | | https://www.finder.com/uk/netflix-around-the-world/genre- | lis... | reaperducer wrote: | _Hollywood started churning out tons of remakes about as | early in their history as they possibly could, and never | stopped._ | | Very true. From the 1930's until now, the percentage of | Hollywood films that aren't recreations of an earlier film, a | book, or a play is vanishingly small. | | To be sure, there is still a good number of original films, | even big-name ones, but those are very few and far between. | trynewideas wrote: | Broadway celebrates revivals, but Hollywood is almost | ashamed of remakes. There's a Tony award for best revival, | but only a Raspberry for worst remake. | | Both are a form of unoriginal profiteering, on at least a | business level. Maybe it's the permanence of a film | compared to the ephemerality of a live performance, but the | vast difference in how they're received has always bugged | me. | nineplay wrote: | > People who complain that nothing good is made anymore must | just be looking at what's advertised heavily | | I can't speak for everyone but I think it's hard to find | anything 'fun'. The indie films inevitably seem to be deadly | serious, whether it's terrible crimes or failing | relationships or the inevitably of death. If a viewer wants | 'fun' then they're stuck with formulaic superhero | blockbusters. | | It feels different. Spielberg was fun, Lucas was fun, | Hitchcock was fun. Perhaps they were the outliers even during | their times, but it seems like all that sense of adventure | has been sucked into the big franchises and mangled into | these lowest-common-dementor films. The international market | wants big explosions and 'clever' comebacks. | selimthegrim wrote: | >lowest-common-dementor | | Don't give them any ideas about more Potter films, even if | Rowling has been canceled | delecti wrote: | It's a bit late for that. There are already 3 more | Fantastic Beasts movies in various stages of development. | ryandrake wrote: | There was a thread[1] earlier in the week lamenting how | tough it is to make modern comedies. Between the Twitter | mobs scrutinizing anything for insensitivity and the need | to appeal to international markets, it's really hard to | come up with a universally funny and PC-acceptable comedy | anymore. You can't do slapstick or silliness. You can't | (even gently) poke fun at "groups" anymore. Best you can do | is a cynical "dark comedy" that provides awkward discomfort | and doesn't actually make you laugh. | | 1: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27750565 | redisman wrote: | If you cater to the international market ("make everyone | happy"). The you'll inevitably end up with cookie cutter | inoffensive garbage like we're spewing out now. Get a few | reliable IPs and milk them for all they're worth. | | If I think about some indie blockbuster comedies none of | them really did anything that would get the Twitter crowd | going crazy. Napoleon Dynamite and Super Troopers for | example I could see being hits today | smogcutter wrote: | This is bizarre, willfully blind take in a world where | _Always Sunny_ is one of the longest running comedy | series of all time. | lotsofpulp wrote: | If anything, their point is somewhat made because someone | made the decision to remove IASIP episodes from legal | streaming options. | | https://www.reddit.com/r/IASIP/comments/hgbrs8/hulu_has_r | emo... | | And if you are familiar with the show, they are not | prejudiced at all. But whoever chose to remove them is | doing the "cover your ass" move, so I can certainly see | some merit in what ryandrake is saying. | | 30 rock episodes were removed too: | | https://www.cnn.com/2020/06/23/entertainment/30-rock- | episode... | OJFord wrote: | Thanks for that, I've been watching through the whole lot | while indoor cycling (I started to see what the fuss was | about, so I have to finish now, but it's not really my | sort of thing so I watch it when I can't pay full | attention to whatever I watch) on Netflix and noticed | some gaps compared to my tracker app. One of them was | that 'takes out the trash' episode, so must be the same | (link is about Hulu). | | I really don't like this trend. Honestly, satire or not. | Rate it appropriately, and let me decide what I'm | comfortable viewing? It just seems petty and | mollycoddling to prevent me watching something because at | some point within it something that may or may not be | offensive to me or others happens. | | I actually don't even understand the reasoning? Do the | producers request it to protect the reputation of the | programme, perceiving it as a risk? | jandrese wrote: | Comedies are supposed to be mid-low budget affairs. They | are supposed to be able to ignore the international | market because they can make a profit on just the | domestic audience. | | This sort of ties in with what a previous poster was | saying about the mid-budget movies disappearing because | the money flows to the top and the bottom end is full of | recently graduated art students trying to out-serious one | another. | alisonkisk wrote: | 2019 (pre-covid) movies: | | Men In Black, Shazam, Charlie's Angels, Jumanji, Murder | Mystery, Big Time Adolescence, Scary Stories To Tell In The | Dark, Good Boys, Weathering With You, Doom Annihilation... | majormajor wrote: | That's a broader cultural issue for all sorts of art today, | not a movie specific thing. | | The depressed/angry mood has been building for a couple | decades or more, and getting more widespread. Even | something intentionally over the top like Fast and Furious | or Marvel has more "serious issue" stuff in many of the | installments from the last 5 years than previously. | | It's easier in the news to see all the bad stuff that used | to get hidden behind the scenes, so until something happens | about that or people just tired of seeing it both in the | news and in art, I imagine it'll be here for a little | longer. | reaperducer wrote: | _The depressed /angry mood has been building for a couple | decades or more, and getting more widespread._ | | You can see this a lot in comedy. Comedy used to be | mostly about humor, with occasional social commentary. | Now it's largely about anger and shock value. "Comedians" | are targeting the same brain patterns as social media. | | I think that's a reason that people like Jim Gaffigan | find such a strong following. There's a good number of | people who are just burned out on the outrage industry | treadmill. | nkohari wrote: | This has always been a thing, though: George Carlin, | Richard Pryor, etc. | reaperducer wrote: | Which is why I stated "mostly." | | Carlin, Pryor, Foxx, Bruce and others were rarities. | mumblemumble wrote: | Tangentially, last night I half-listened to an | interesting YouTube video that used the history of Robin | Hood movies to describe this trend. | | https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=428ZxrW6jhk | | It's a slowly escalating 45-minute rant, but I think that | this quote from toward the end summarizes it fairly well: | "I'm admittedly a little tired of seeing heroes always | surrounded by worlds of gray, because, if they're there | long enough, they start to feel kind of gray, too." | | I haven't ever seen the Errol Flynn version of Robin | Hood, but I suppose my equivalent is that, as far as I'm | concerned, Batman peaked with the TV show in the 1960s. | It wasn't just colorful, it was legitimately fun. To the | point where even the bad episodes were good. The Tim | Burton movies were also a bit like that. They were | visually dark, sure, but that was Tim Burton's | aesthetics, and it was a package deal that came together | with at least a few glimmerings of that same twisted | sense of humor that got him fired from Disney for making | _Frankenweenie._ | | Since then, though? It's a bunch of increasingly sad | movies by apparently sad people whose creative drive | seems to primarily come from the desire to demonstrate to | themselves and everyone else that they are Grown Ups, and | who are too busy Taking Their Jobs Seriously to have any | fun at work. And so they're working so hard that, even | though what they're producing is technically classified | as entertainment, the end result is so joyless that | watching it ends up feeling, at least to me, like work. | afavour wrote: | I think the simple answer is that movies tend to reflect | the world around them. Not to get too political on HN but | I think no matter your political stripes we can agree | that the general mood of the country has been _not great_ | since at least 2015 or so. You could argue that means we | need more escapism, not less, but somehow that doesn 't | happen. | kmonsen wrote: | That is actually not true, Gallup says right know we feel | the best we have done in 13 years: | https://news.gallup.com/poll/351932/americans-life- | ratings-r... | | I think there is something to what you are saying, and | Americans are not feeling as well as the (average) GDP | data should indicate compared to the Nordics, but in | general data shows we feel fine. | mumblemumble wrote: | I think it goes both ways. The stories we tell reflect | our thinking, and our thinking is shaped by the stories | we tell. | | The cynic in me thinks that another problem is that fun | is bad for business. Fun makes people feel good, and | people who feel good aren't as likely to engage in retail | therapy, and modern movies make a whole lot of money off | of merchandising. | Y_Y wrote: | > The mass of men lead lives of quiet desperation. What | is called resignation is confirmed desperation. From the | desperate city you go into the desperate country, and | have to console yourself with the bravery of minks and | muskrats. A stereotyped but unconscious despair is | concealed even under what are called the games and | amusements of mankind. There is no play in them, for this | comes after work. But it is a characteristic of wisdom | not to do desperate things. | | - Henry David Thoreau, Walden (1854) | irrational wrote: | I've felt tremendously better since Biden was elected | and, as an introvert, the lockdown for the past year and | a half has done wonders for my mental health. I'm happy | now than I've ever been (at least for the past four | decades). | jandrese wrote: | IMHO this what Thor: Ragnarok got right. | | It was one of the few Marvel movies that seemed to | remember its comic book origins. Quick pace--individual | comic issues are _short_ , snappy (not necessarily | quippy) dialog--because there isn't space on a comic | panel for walls of text, colorful and interesting | character designs, and a good dose of humor sprinkled in. | | It would probably get old if every Marvel movie were like | that, but all in all I think the formula works. Guardians | of the Galaxy also did pretty well in this regard, but | making most of the characters assholes in one way or | another undercut the theme somewhat. | YeGoblynQueenne wrote: | >> They were visually dark, sure, but that was Tim | Burton's aesthetics, and it was a package deal that came | together with at least a few glimmerings of that same | twisted sense of humor that got him fired from Disney for | making Frankenweenie. | | Heh. Like in Batman Returns were the Penguin yells at | Batman: "You're jealous, because I'm a genuine freak and | you have to wear a mask!". I loved that bit :) | | Danny DeVito, man. A comedian playing a deformed super- | villain. That was cinema, once. That was even superhero | movies, once. | Retric wrote: | It's really difficult to make a successful movie nowadays | when you need to appeal to multiple different cultures at | the same time. The depressed/angry mood is simply easier | on the artist because it's universal by default. | | It sticks around until people get bored of it and studios | move on for a while. Only to circle back in a few year | and try again. | alisonkisk wrote: | It's so weird to have people say Marvel is getting "so | serious" now, when the movies are all using stories from | decades old comic series. | jedberg wrote: | They use the old stories and then add walls of serious | text and sadness and darkness that weren't there in the | original comics. | nineplay wrote: | That's an interesting point. Certainly the zeitgeist | among the millennials seems to be that things are bad and | they are only going to get worse. Maybe Star Wars seems | hopelessly optimistic since civilizations will implode | well before they invent hyperdrives. | Flatcircle wrote: | it's so true. These days a "fun" movie will be super dark | and violent, or insanely cheesy. There's no slick, fun, | adventure films anymore. | handrous wrote: | > I can't speak for everyone but I think it's hard to find | anything 'fun'. The indie films inevitably seem to be | deadly serious, whether it's terrible crimes or failing | relationships or the inevitably of death. If a viewer wants | 'fun' then they're stuck with formulaic superhero | blockbusters. | | Yeah, good point. Fun films from the more indie side exist, | but they aren't the norm, that's true. | devonkim wrote: | Psycho Goreman is a great example of a mid-budget movie | that's 100% about the fun. The issue really appears to be | about movie investors being unwilling to take risks like | they used to, which makes sense given investor sentiments | as a whole across the past several decades leaning more | and more conservative as wealth loss protection is a | requirement, which removes a lot of creative room for new | IPs. | anigbrowl wrote: | Go back and watch films from the early 70s - the comedies | are farcically stupid and the serious films are violent and | paranoid, because between Vietnam, Watergate, and other | political issues, its was a tough time and people were | angry, disillusioned, and pessimistic. Spielberg's first | commercial film _Duel_ is a very fine piece of cinema but | it 's far from being 'fun.' Likewise Lucas' early work like | _THX1138_ or _American Graffiti_ is shot through with | anxiety about the future and lost innocence. Hitchcock | could do great screwball comedies but he alternated them | with nightmarish vortexes on taboo subjects. | | What you want are optimistic films where people get into | trouble but keep their sense of humor and eventually bounce | back. That requires a social and cultural environment, and | a showbusiness industry, in which people can do the same. | Have you heard many stories lately where a talented | director goes way over budget or even bombs but makes a | great comeback because people are forgiving and want to | support a real artist? You have not, because the arts are | heavily professionalized these days and computers have made | accountants very powerful. | wozniacki wrote: | The last good American indie film I've watched was | Hereditary (2018) [1] and before that 'Blue Ruin' (2013) | [2]. | | They weren't exceptional but when you're awash in 'swords & | sandals', 'comic book' crap and Adam Sandler formula-thons, | even middling fare seem great. | | On the TV front, True Detective Season 2 [3] is sorely | underrated. Though fictional, it gives you a glimpse into | the many possible dimensions of California graft and | corruption that are all too close to real life developments | surrounding the recent California High-Speed Rail | mismanagement junket [4]. | | I agree with the sentiment expressed in this thread that | well-financed, movies for adults with good casting and | talented filmmakers have become very scarce. | | [1] Hereditary | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hereditary_(film) | | [2] Blue Ruin https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blue_Ruin | | [3] True Detective (season 2) | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/True_Detective_(season_2) | | [4] California High-Speed Rail | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_High-Speed_Rail | watwut wrote: | I remember seeing indie comedies and horrors. I dont think | indy implies serious, altrough there are also sad indie | movies. | | > . If a viewer wants 'fun' then they're stuck with | formulaic superhero blockbusters. | | I dont think this is true either. The industry producing | formulaic is not because it is only way to have fun. If you | look at series that came out lately (Money Heist, Westworld | ... ) they are not formulaic and are fun. | johnchristopher wrote: | I only watched the first season of Westworld and I found | it very formulaic and full of common trope but it's been | too long now for me to discuss it. | | Last serie I really appreciated: the OA. | jandrese wrote: | Westworld tied itself in knots trying to "gotcha" the | audience. At the end of the day I think a more | straightforward storytelling method probably would have | worked better. | johnchristopher wrote: | Westworld was also more or less my serie fatigue point. I | was not a big consumer of TV shows and certainly didn't | ever binge but nonetheless it was a tipping point. | zo1 wrote: | Take this with a grain of salt and bias on my part. But | indie movies from my perspective seem to be stuck on the | "weird". They have to be "weird" (or "different") | otherwise they're not "indie" but rather low-budget | "b-movies" that I think everyone despises to some degree. | Unless of course they end up being a hit in which case | they're cult-classics. | OJFord wrote: | Agreed. 'Indie' = low budget and weird/niche/slightly | pretentious/not for me but grudging respect for it; 'B' = | low budget and I think it's bad; 'cult' = low budget and | I think it's good. | | It's not obvious that one would rather apply 'cult' than | 'independent' to something one likes, but there we go, | language! | zambal wrote: | Interesting observation! I think it's the same with | music. I love all kinds of music, from the very | weird/experimental to big budget larger than life | sounding mainstream productions. Being also a bedroom | music producer with limited time, I would love to match | these big budget productions, but I don't have the | ability to get to that level. So instead of trying to | make a weak imitation, it's more fun and rewarding to | create something different or weird. | bee_rider wrote: | Seems inevitable that streaming services would | cannibalize some of that low-invest fun media. The format | is just more relaxed and if I want to see something kinda | silly and fun, I'd rather just pop on my TV. | mrec wrote: | For anyone looking for a fun and surprisingly | heartwarming indie gem, I can highly recommend 2017's | _One Cut of the Dead_ [1]. Budget: $25,000. Worldwide box | office: $31,200,000. | | [1] https://www.imdb.com/title/tt7914416/ | lstodd wrote: | Haha yes, this one is great. | | Anyone up for laughs can check out Timo Vuorensola works. | | Or the whole Troma Entertainment corpus. | | Srsrly, cinema isn't limited to just the cali crap that | gets on the networks. | quickthrowman wrote: | > It makes me feel like a grouch to complain about the uber- | popular, widely loved thing but this intertwined superhero | universe exhausts me. | | I feel the same way and here is how I approached it: buy a | bunch of DIS stock, don't watch superhero movies. | jtwaleson wrote: | Ok, here's my problem with the movie theatre industry. There's | 100+ years of fantastic historical content and we're not doing | anything with it. 99% of what's shown in theaters is new | releases. I understand we don't want to "go stale" as a society | and that movie producers also need to make a living, but the | balance is just way off. | | I would pay good money to see "the good the bad and the ugly" | with my kids in a couple of years. If you compare movie theatres | to classical music we seem to play only 10% new content at | concert halls, the rest are the 100+ year old classics. | cbanek wrote: | Totally agree here. Especially since a lot of the newer | projectors and movies I think are digital formats. There's a | local art theater here that is excellent that does a lot of | older movies and movie marathons. But I think also getting the | rights can be a trick too. | | I just want to say being able to see Wrath of Khan in a theater | was really worth it! | imranq wrote: | You could also say that 99% of the internet is stale and that | we are typically consuming content created over the last few | days. Maybe we need some all purpose content curation system | that gets us the movies, articles, books that would be most | relevant to us regardless of when they were created. | GormanFletcher wrote: | Before everything shut down last year, my local theaters played | a showing of a classic film each month, often Hitchcock. The | few I went to had plenty of attendees. | | Another local theater took the lockdown as an opportunity to do | outdoor socially-distanced showings of previous blockbusters, | like _The Dark Knight_. Plenty of attendees there, too. | | I'd be happy to have more showings like that. | jtwaleson wrote: | Interesting! Where is this? In Amsterdam I know one theater | that's showing old films and that's the 1% I was talking | about ;) | eatonphil wrote: | Sharing from somewhere totally different: NYC has a number | of theaters that show (mostly or half-half) not-new kids | films, art films, and cult classics like Miyazaki or | Blaxploitation films. | | These theaters are typically small businesses owned by | locals who have been in the business for decades. But there | are also some US chains like Alamo Drafthouse that do this | too. | | On a slight tangent, in the suburbs of Lancaster, PA the | chain theaters ran free re-runs of children's movies in the | summer each Wednesday morning. | GormanFletcher wrote: | I'm in Raleigh/Durham, North Carolina, USA. | clydethefrog wrote: | Which theatre in Amsterdam? Lab111? | blooalien wrote: | We have a neat theater in the town I live in called | "Brewvies" (it's a pub/theater) that on weekends often shows | classic old cinema matinees for _free_. There 's also a group | that shows "classic" movies in the parks for free, too. Much | fun! | jack2222 wrote: | You're completely right and obviously many many people would | want to go and see something like the good the bad and the ugly | in theatres - probably enough to fill the theatre for a showing | or two - but the problem is how would they know it's on? A lot | of people look up what movies are on that week, but most people | are aware that the big movies are ok a the moment because | they're marketed and obviously that marketing costs money. What | studio or theatre chain is going to spend millions (or even | thousands) on marketing a 30+ year old movie that might take in | a couple of hundred k at the box office. | | There's a reason cinemas don't play old movies and it's not | because they think there's no one who wants to see them, sadly | the logistics of it are too costly (in all sorts of ways beyond | just base line finances too). | enchiridion wrote: | I'm not too sure about that. I'm also trying to decide if a | movie is worth seeing when watching an ad. Clearly the | classics are worth seeing, so they would just need to let | people know. Is that enough to make up the difference? I'm | not sure... | kbenson wrote: | Often movie theaters run special programs for periods of the | year (or continuously), where they take a showing or two a | week on a less busy night, and dedicate it to a series of | movies they advertise through fliers. Since it's all planned | out in advance for a few months, it's easy to see what's | coming whenever you're at that theater. For example, they | might to a horror themed series of movies, and you get | Nightmare on Elm Street, Hellraiser, Halloween, etc, each | their own week and advertised together on a flier or poster | months in advance with the date of each. | karmelapple wrote: | Event calendars in cities I've lived in typically have | "special midnight movie" or "classic film screening" events | listed, alongside things like "art in the park" or "July 4th | fireworks." I think event calendars like that can be pretty | big drivers of traffic, and they should be relatively easy to | setup almost anywhere. | | Meetup.com could even be used to get the word out, though use | of that might be limited in many places. | rmah wrote: | What you want is done in many cities across America. And | probably across the world. Both by businesses and by the | municipalities themselves. Typically, movie theaters that show | "classics" tend to exist in larger cities, of course. Because | smaller towns cannot support them economically. But many small | towns also show classic movies, often for free, on a regular | basis. Just look for it. | [deleted] | fshbbdssbbgdd wrote: | Movie theaters have a financial incentive to show old films if | audiences are interested in watching, because the theaters get | to keep a larger cut of the box office revenue compared to new | releases. If the theaters aren't showing old movies, I don't | think it's because of a lack of imagination on their part. | twoodfin wrote: | As I understand it, though, studios won't release many of | their more valuable library titles for theatrical exhibition | at any price, presumably to marginally enhance their cachet | on streaming services. | stragio wrote: | In Europe this is different though. In Amsterdam we have 10+ | cinemas showing a lot of classics too, unlimited for 20 euros a | month in amazing theatres. I rarely go to these large cinemas | anymore. | jelling wrote: | Every top comment on HN is someone with an unprofitable use | case complaining that no one serves them. Change my mind. | kbenson wrote: | There are theaters that are dedicated to playing older | movies, and they apparently turn enough profit to subsist in | some locations. I think that makes this a top comment on HN | with a _profitable_ use case complaining that there 's not | enough around. | | Also, I would watch the shit out of the Good the Bad and the | Ugly in a theater. Same with original Star Wars (which I | think happened during extra trilogy releases occasionally), | The Matrix, the Princess Bride, and anything in that vein | which either has a cult following, is a different/better | experience to watch in a theater, or both. | chrisseaton wrote: | You can watch all these anytime on streaming - why do you | need a cinema to see them? | logical_proof wrote: | There is a remarkably different experience between seeing | Clint Eastwood 20 feet tall versus 25 inches tall | 542458 wrote: | Anecdotally, there are two in my town. One seems to go | bankrupt every few years. I've been told (by somebody who | would know) that the other basically survives thanks to the | Rocky Horror Picture Show, the Room, and Troll 2. | Everything else loses money according to that fellow. | frainfreeze wrote: | Don't confuse profitable with making millions based on hype. | joe_the_user wrote: | GP isn't planing a business, they're wishing for a different | reality. That reality could be realized in a number of ways - | a nonprofit sponsoring art films is one example. | | The Pacific Film Archive[1] is example of such a non-profit. | With sufficient interest we could considerably more of these | things. | | [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Berkeley_Art_Museum_and_Pac | ifi... | renewiltord wrote: | Interestingly, SF's Fort Mason Drive-in during the pandemic | was all old movies https://www.eventbrite.com/o/fort-mason- | center-for-arts-amp-... | | I think I watched like Monsters Inc there. That's two decades | old haha! | blhack wrote: | Alamo draft house does this as a core part of their business | model. They even usually give you souvenirs and have a themed | menu around it. | MivLives wrote: | The smaller independent theaters near me tend to do more of | this sort of thing. The one near me is doing an entire month of | a Samurai movies. Also Month Python and the Holy Grail, and War | of the Worlds (2005). All their first run movies tend to be | independent ones. | | Not saying that chains shouldn't rerun old movies, just saying | those types of theaters do exist. It's the only way I can | truely get a movie theater experience for things made before I | was born. | albatross13 wrote: | > an entire month of samurai movies | | Man, that is awesome. When my wife and I first started | dating, our date nights consisted of going and seeing all of | the harry potter movies as they were being re-shown in a | local theater. We bought the expensive seats and this theater | served food/beer with the movie, which made it that much more | fun. I wish more theaters would adapt their business model do | to stuff like this- I'd LOVE to see the LOTR trilogy | (extended) in theaters again. | chrisseaton wrote: | Did you know you can hire a cinema and show whatever you | want? Probably cheap during quiet hours. | whoooooo123 wrote: | London is full of independent cinemas that show a fun mix of | new releases and older films. Plus they're usually much nicer | theatres than the big chains like Odeon and Vue, and the | tickets are usually cheaper too. | hn_throwaway_99 wrote: | I think this interview that gets at a broader point that I find | depressing/scary: that the availability of so much data and | analysis has ended up "quantizing" creative endeavors to the | point where formulaic output is just much, much easier, and that | any truly innovative or "misunderstood" productions become much | harder to sustain. | | I really see this issue everyone nowadays, from movies, TV and | music to things like the Olympics. Two good examples: to fix | problems with subjectivity and unfairness (which were definitely | problems) both gymnastics and ice skating moved from 'fuzzier' | 10.0 or 6.0 scales to a 'code of points' model where every | element has a fixed value. The result has been that the types of | competitors that can win in this model are only the ones that can | do the most impressive spins/turns/jumps etc. I mean, I'd be | willing to be that you will never again see a 2x "women's" | olympic figure skating champion, because you have these young | teenagers doing quads now (who almost always lose this ability as | they age and develop), but who retire from the sport before they | hit 20. These feats are surely impressive, but they also crowd | out other types of competitors. | Apocryphon wrote: | Optimization is eating the world. | [deleted] | dillondoyle wrote: | What would the other type of competitor be? | | Those sports you mention like figuring skating and gymnastics | already have execution scores 'style' if you will built in. | | Personally, I have the opposite opinion. I prefer sports that | are more quantified on difficulty alone (and the obvious 1st to | finish). Looking at execution is one thing, like taking a step | is clearly not as skilled as sticking it no debate there. But | judging how pretty something is just doesn't seem fair to me | nor personally as interesting as throwing hard skills. | | Gymnastics in particular grinds me in that they have a lot of | silly rules AND they actively decrement leading edge hard | skills point value! | hn_throwaway_99 wrote: | I mean, I don't totally disagree with you when it comes to | sports, but e.g. then they should just get rid of the name | "artistic gymnastics", get rid of the silly music, and just | call it tumbling. Figure skating is probably more difficult | to fix, but even there I'd prefer the simple fix of having | "girl's" figure skating (say 18 and under) and women's figure | skating separated. The current rulebook makes it nearly | impossible to be competitive at a top level once someone | develops breasts and hips. | edflsafoiewq wrote: | The reign of quantity and the sign of the times. | sanj wrote: | I spent a while in London and the cinema theater experience there | was worth going out: | | - couches | | - beer | | - good food | | Sure it was expensive, but it was a far far cry from my | experience in the US. | throwaway5752 wrote: | It seems like the current movie business is mostly just a | parasite on the back of 50 year old content (Marvel Silver age, | Star Wars universe, Disney catalogs, Netflix 3rd party licensed | content, et al.) | | The long tail of _good_ content is very long. I wouldn 't be | surprised if Casablanca still generates annual royalties in | excess of it's entire original cost, 80 years later. A great | movie is a piece of artwork and like the Mona Lisa centuries | later, has a timeless aspect to it. | | I don't disagree with Diller per se. In fact, _" They ain't | movies. They are some weird algorithmic process that has created | things that last 100 minutes or so."_ is one of the best | descriptions of modern film I've ever seen. | | May it is just because of the limits of the article length, but I | think it's far more about short form content and limits of human | attention. I'd rather watch several 10-20 minute videos from | niche Youtube creators in a week than one two hour movie most of | the time, and I can't do both. | | In that sense, Katzenberg /Quibli were probably onto something. | You have to remember Diller created the anonymous content | conglomerate of IAC and is commenting on Quibli from that | perspective. He admits himself, at the end, that he's working on | backing Broadway productions so he's not satisfied with the | content landscape, either. Maybe someone will figure out what it | means to make something that squares good content with the | time/format demands of a modern viewer. | | TL;DR: I'm sick of Fast & Furious and Marvel franchise spin offs. | Feels like someone made the film analogue of discovering that | kids like candy and will preferentially take it over healthier | food when offered. | Apocryphon wrote: | I believe that you ain't seen nothing yet. Superhero comic | films are king but like, say, zombie media in the 2000s, it is | a mammoth fad that will eventually be overthrown by another | one. Once Hollywood finally figures out how to make a good | video game movie adaptation, expect the _true_ licensing deluge | to begin. Marvel and DC are but two companies. Imagine the | amount of IP adaptations that an entire _industry_ will yield. | throwaway5752 wrote: | I watched Captain Lou Albano play Mario in the 80s. | | Resident Evil? Pokemon? Mortal Kombat? It's already here. I | actually don't care, as long as they are good. Not all MCU is | bad (and I might even say little/none of it is bad). | | Maybe a different comparison: a lot of movies now feel like | processed food. Consistent and made-to-please, but limits to | how great it can be. It is not ideal to live only on | processed food. | smolder wrote: | I think video game adaptations are almost universally bad, | when they don't always have to be. We used to get pretty | bad superhero movies, too, from directors that didn't seem | to understand or respect what they were adapting. | | Video games seem difficult to adapt generally --they often | don't provide the building blocks for a good narrative. | Potentially studios can do like what Detective Pikachu did, | get a bit crazy, and still make something decent. Going in | the other direction and making something which treats the | source seriously hasn't generally worked well, even when it | could have with better writing and direction. | | It seems to me like Hollywood looks down on video games as | an inferior medium, so their hearts (and budgets) are never | in it fully. An "Iron Man moment" is possible, I think, | where they put out something high quality that's faithful | to the source, and its success leads to other high quality | adaptations. | Animats wrote: | Barry Diller is just having a "get off my lawn" moment. | | It's like Bob Lutz saying the car business is over, which he did | a few years back. | | Some things have changed. The difference between "movies" and | "TV" has narrowed considerably. Production values for TV are up, | and there's not the big distinction between "film work" and "TV | work" that there used to be. After all, today "film" is just 2K | or 4K video projection. | | Another thing that's changed is a few huge franchises sucking up | the attention supply. This seems to reflect the Disney mindset of | getting a franchise going and milking it for half a century or | more. (A Mickey Mouse live-action movie is scheduled for 2022. | Really.) | mdoms wrote: | What's ruining cinema is the utter dreck that most people are | gagging to watch. I look at my local cinema today and every | single movie, save for The Hitman's Wife's Bodyguard, is either | lazy nostalgia bait, generic marvel film #4715, yet another | sequel to a summer blockbuster franchise or a kid's movie. And | you people just eat this garbage up. | rglover wrote: | Studios should create "backlot" theaters where you can come to | the set, do Q&A/photos with actors/crew, and see the movie (or, | similar to kickstarter, see the dailies/weeklies in progress) | with regular screenings and events. | | Charge a premium for it, minimal cost to operate, and fans would | love it. Would revitalize the role of the actor while generating | a unique revenue stream. If multiple studios did it, you could | have a meta business around doing "backlot screening" tours. | xnx wrote: | And yet a lot of people think that AMC stock is worth 4x what it | was last year. | metalliqaz wrote: | Don't take the naive position that stock prices are (or should | be) directly reflective of the value of a company's business. | They aren't. Stock prices are defined by what people are | willing to pay for them. In the case of AMC, the price is | higher because some retail investors are willing to invest in | the hope that they will be able to squeeze the shorts. | | Fundamentals are great, but as the old saying goes: the market | can remain irrational longer than you can remain solvent. | sisk wrote: | Sure, the _amount_ of content has grown given the lowered | technological barrier for entry and the ease of distribution but | content quality isn't some finite resource that is spread out | within some limit. If anything, more content means more | opportunities for truly great stories to come from corners of the | world that might not have previously had that opportunity due to | any number of reasons. | | Plus, these channels have opened up more categories of film to | wider audiences. Big budget, full length films and multi-season | tv series aren't the only viable options anymore--some of the | most talked about media in my circles over the last couple of | years have been limited series. Try dragging a brilliant 8 hour | limited series across an entire 23 episode season or trimmed down | to a two hour film and it's a completely different story. | | Brilliant film makers are still brilliant film makers and the | number of studios willing to take a chance and fund them has | never been greater. The traditional movie-watching experience is | still here, it's just no longer the only option. I don't think | declaring the movie business as dead is accurate, it has simply | evolved and adapted. But from where I sit, this evolution has | just given us more stories and more ways to hear them. | | Just because you can distribute a story without a year-long PR | blitz doesn't mean you can't tell a good story. | ilamont wrote: | _"I used to be in the movie business where you made something | really because you cared about it, " he said, noting that popular | reception mattered more than anything else._ | | What arrogance. | MrBuddyCasino wrote: | Also its such horse shit. Surprised someone like him said | something like that. Nothing much has come from this "l'art | pour l'art" approach, because as it turns out you need to make | money from films to keep the industry running, first and | foremost. When you have a large industry, ideally locally | concentrated, you also have a large talent pool of the best of | the best actors, directors, writers etc. Sometimes this then | results in art, but usually not. | | If you don't have a large talent pool fuelled by financial | prosperity, you lack the prerequisites to create works of the | highest quality. | howaboutnope wrote: | > Sometimes this then results in art, but usually not. | | In other words, nothing much comes from it. | dbsmith83 wrote: | I think you missed the point. He's saying that now things are | made with other purposes in mind (like Amazon Prime). Obviously | the people on the ground creating the thing care about it, but | at the top things probably look different than they used to. | | > "The system is not necessarily to please anybody," Diller | said, suggesting Prime Video's primary purpose is to get more | customers to sign up for Amazon Prime. | rajin444 wrote: | Really? At least in the US, most movies are either remakes or | oscar grabs (which while novel somehow manage to be predictable | and dull). | howaboutnope wrote: | How is that arrogant? | [deleted] | georgeecollins wrote: | I think the OP means that this is a person-- late in a | storied career-- saying in effect: "We used to care about | art, now they only care about money." | | Memory is kind. Barry Diller's Paramount made Orca, Bad News | Bears Go to Japan, etc. Art and commerce were always mixed. | The arrogance is in being able to convince yourself it was | different in the old days without risk of being contradicted. | | Still, you have to admire Barry Diller. | howaboutnope wrote: | At no time in history has there been so much "art" as a | result of about measuring the audience and seeking please | it, or at least extract money from it. We're now already at | the point where fans think in term of "franchises" and | applaud "smart moves" made by "brands", i.e. even large | swaths of consumers are now marketing drones, too. | | Of course that doesn't mean it was ever "pure" at any point | in time, just that it got worse. I've seen so much | regression and dumbing down in just the last 20 years, that | I don't care if that guy is a hypocrite, I think he happens | to be correct anyway. I see what I see, and I can only | imagine how it would seem if I had overview of 50 years of | that shit. | | > When books or pictures in reproduction are thrown on the | market cheaply and attain huge sales, this does not affect | the nature of the objects in question. But their nature is | affected when these objects themselves are changed | rewritten, condensed, digested, reduced to kitsch in | reproduction, or in preparation for the movies. This does | not mean that culture spreads to the masses, but that | culture is being destroyed in order to yield entertainment. | | > The result of this is not disintegration but decay, and | those who actively promote it are not the Tin Pan Alley | composers but a special kind of intellectuals, often well | read and well informed, whose sole function is to organize, | disseminate, and change cultural objects in order to | persuade the masses that Hamlet can be as entertaining as | My Fair Lady, and perhaps educational as well. There are | many great authors of the past who have survived centuries | of oblivion and neglect, but it is still an open question | whether they will be able to survive an entertaining | version of what they have to say. | | -- Hannah Arendt | | ^ Good luck making movies (with a budget, and an audience) | that are not entertaining, because they have something | serious to say that doesn't happen to be funny. They do | exist, and in absolute numbers I bet there's more of them | made each year than ever before, just because of | accessibility of the technology. But it would be dishonest | to focus on those and ignore the fact that, say, three The | Hobbit movies exist, or how people break out in tears over | Star Wars movies -- and all that insane, infantile, | extremely commercialized utter crap. | | Again, Barry Diller may have been just as guilty of that | stuff. I don't know and I don't care, because he doesn't | matter. The world matters, the human species matters. How | cool a specific individual is or isn't doesn't matter, they | and anyone who remembered anyone who remembered them will | be gone in a few centuries. | | > The arrogance is in being able to convince yourself it | was different in the old days without risk of being | contradicted. | | That would be nostalgia. And I'm not even convinced the | assessment is wrong. And calling someone "arrogant" isn't | contradicting them anyway, it's avoiding the argument if | anything. | wolverine876 wrote: | Barry: Call me. I'll show you where you can find great art in | movies, an order of magnitude more than what was available | before. | | I'm a big believer in data and not personal anecdotes, but if I | can do it, Barry can (and you can). I never imagined so much | incredible art existed on video as what I've seen in the last 5+ | years on streaming. The standard for what I will watch has risen | dramatically - I don't have to compromise; I don't have the time | and energy to see everything incredible thing I want to. | | I rarely go to movie theaters because what is available on | streaming is _so much better_ , it's not a close call. Partly | that's due to the availability of old stuff - what is the chance | that the movie in this theater this weekend is at the level of | the best movies in history? What is the chance that it's close | enough to be worth the extra money and time for the better video | and audio? | | But the new quality stuff has exploded in volume too, and yes | some is structured episodically (i.e., like TV) but why should | the director be restricted in form? And I have access to new | stuff from all over the world, from small to large productions. | And I can take a risk on something new and change my mind, which | isn't really practical at the movie theater. | | I live in cinephile heaven. I'm not sure where Barry is? | anigbrowl wrote: | There is indeed lots of great art about at all levels, but what | Diller is complaining about is the business of balancing | mediocre productions that ae sure to be popular and make money | with stuff that almost certainly won't be popular in the short | term but deserves to be financed and produced so people can | catch up to it later (which might be decades). | | Diller worked in a business where studios banked on a | combination of taste and business skill. What we have now is | algorithmically curated entertainment product. That's why it's | so easy to and amusing to make up imaginary Netflix categories | like 'comedic survival-horror' or 'superficially profound | movies you can quote at dinner parties while chasing a | promotion.' | | I agree with you in one way, but in another you're having your | existing tastes affirmed within safe boundaries, and | StreamCorp's goal is to be better at doing that than your | friends or circumstances. You'll get lots of great viewing | material that meets your aesthetic preferences, but not | anything that really surprises or shakes you; you won't ever | have a movie experience that causes you to walk around for 3 | hours in the rain because _you_ changed. | Y_Y wrote: | Where's the data? Let's have some references to all this high | quality stuff. | hughrr wrote: | Well The Expanse quite frankly teabags to death 20 years of | science fiction moves. I can't watch anything else now. | DubiousPusher wrote: | The quality of genre work has increased mightily but it | really does feel like the budget has fallen out of more | high minded stuff like "MOON" and "GATTACA". Maybe this | isn't real. After all, we've had some pretty good snooty | stuff. Ex Machina, Interstellar, Arrival, etc. | | Very much could be just how much Avengers flicks have | absolutely dominated the marketing. I think it's akin to | how music seems to have died of you listen to the radio | because the decline in listenership has resulted in more | pop stations playing the absolutely most widely appealing | stuff. But there is a thriving ecosystem off to the side | that's way fuller and more varied than anything we had in | the 90s. | crooked-v wrote: | One also can't forget the power of survivorship bias. 'Old | [thing] was better' tends to go along with most of the the | low-quality instances of [thing] being lost and forgotten | about because nobody cares about them. | ctdonath wrote: | The local cinemas have at most a dozen movies available at | any one time, maybe one of which is interesting. One viewing | requires $10-50 in assorted expenses. | | For $10-50 monthly, I have available approximately every | movie ever made - and I don't have to leave this chair. | | That is, at any given moment, one good movie vs _all movies | ever_. Data sufficient. | Y_Y wrote: | Certainly not. Even the most torpid of us doesn't find the | time or interest to watch _all movies ever_. Must likely | the major cost here isn't your subscription fee, but the | amount of limited leisure time and energy you can allocate. | I'd be doing well too watch one movie a week if I was | trying and I'd say that's not much to worse than average. | lostlogin wrote: | > I rarely go to movie theaters because what is available on | streaming is so much better, it's not a close call. | | Better seats, better sound (for me this means not being | deafened), better food, better drinks, better price (and no | dick moves to get a few more $), no parking issues, less | annoying lights/sounds etc from other patrons. I also haven't | seen a theatre with a wood burner. | | It misses is the feeling of it being an occasion, but as a plus | it also misses any Covid anxiety. | | I completely agree with you. | hughrr wrote: | The real killer of the streaming for is that there is a pause | button. I missed out a whole 5 minutes of Avengers Endgame | thanks to my bladder. | thanhhaimai wrote: | The pause button is just one part of the "complete control" | package the in-home experience is. | | Missed a sentence? Rewind it. Watch some international | movie? Turn on the subtitles. Enjoy some explosion scenes? | Turn up the bass? Wanna relax with a drink and chat? Lower | the volume. Watch a food scene and suddenly feel hungry? | Put a pack of popcorn in the microwave. | | I'd only go to theater for social events, not for the movie | itself anymore. I'm way too spoiled by the freedom at home. | crooked-v wrote: | I want intermissions back. | ahmedalsudani wrote: | Some would argue that your bladder was doing you a service | ;) | hughrr wrote: | I think the films were fairly enjoyable as long as you | don't turn up with a film critic's hat on. But yes, | missing 5 minutes probably wasn't a big deal at the end | of the day. | DubiousPusher wrote: | It's gerting harder to be less of a snob. Years ago I | decided to stop turning my nose up at "dumb" movies and | just enjoy them but it feels almost as if the industry | saw it as a challenge to make people like me scoff. The | fandom and fauning is just endless and inescapable to the | point tbat it is very hard to ignore. | | It was also easier when we were getting big budget art | pieces like "No Country" and "The Master" but those seem | to have all but disappeared. | hughrr wrote: | The trick I find is to drink enough alcohol before you | get there not to give a shit any more. Whether or not | that's a good or a bad idea I haven't established yet. | sleavey wrote: | No adverts. | zarq wrote: | Subtitles! | ftio wrote: | The open-mouthed chewing, soda slurping, and bag rustling is | unbearable for me. It completely takes me out of the film, | particularly during quiet scenes. | hoten wrote: | I once endured A Quiet Place (wonderful movie) while some | teenaged kids behind us spent the movie loudly making out. | Of all the movies to do that in! | kace91 wrote: | Perhaps it's a bit off topic, but do you mind sharing some | recommendations? | | I'm always in the lookup for new stuff, but the one thing I | think has become worse for me is finding sources of | recommendations. The age of old forums is gone and mainstream | sites like IMDb are very hit or miss for me. | | I'll take both movies/shows, and the places where you discover | them :) | tootie wrote: | He's basically saying he doesn't like it anymore and it's not | fun. Not that it's not active or making money. | mihaic wrote: | What I find exhausting is having any systemic criticism of the | movie/music industry met with arguments along the lines of: "It | was just different, you're merely nostalgic/you have golden age | syndrome", and have a hard time answering back with anything | except: "It really was better, sometime things do get | substantially worse". | | While technologically everything has improved, creativity feel | like going from the golden age of the greco-roman world to 8th | century Europe, where indie bands/movies are like the churches | that preserved some measure of past glories. What argument can | one make when the burden of proof is to show cultural regression? | scandox wrote: | I find the cure to this frustration is to accept that | everything I love is obsolete and that it's OK. As you say | there are historical periods we now look back upon and say | objectively they took a step backwards in terms of skill and | artistry in many areas. But we don't know if this is that | period, because maybe the creativity is shifting into something | we can't yet observe clearly. | cblconfederate wrote: | It's more like, the spotlight has shifted away from the medium | and creative people have left. Old movies, like old books, are | by definition more important. Looking at the highest grossing | movies of the past 2 decades almost all are based on older | stories/franchises, from star wars to marvel , to LOTR, to | harry potter (newest one). | spywaregorilla wrote: | They're wrong, and the reason they believe it is because | they're stuck on older mediums. In music, the radio and the | record store defined the market. You had a small window so you | invested big and mainstream stuff tended to be pretty good. Now | music access is decentralized and you can chase a long tail of | niche personal tastes. Music is incredibly healthy right now. | There's so much great content going in myriad different | directions, but you'd think otherwise if you're only listening | to the radio which has tripled down on non-differentiating | hyper mainstream blandness. | | Movies are largely the same with streaming. The movie theater | model is rough. Even before streaming the vast majority of | movie tickets go unsold, and to many people there's a sort of | social group requirement to justify going there. So you get | mass appeal as a requirement. But the actual space of film has | more richness than ever before. People who say the only films | are marvel films just don't know about the other films being | released. | fullshark wrote: | I'm with you on music, but movies? These streaming services | are all making the same type of content, and browsing any | streaming service for content just feels like looking at a | wall of direct to video films at your local video store from | 20 years ago + cable TV shows. | | Maybe it's because trying new music is so costless compared | to new movies/tv shows and I'm ignorant? Maybe it's because | good music can be made for a lot less money? IDK but this | hardly feels like the beginning of a golden age of long tail | movies. | Apocryphon wrote: | I think both you and the GP are conflating the movie and | music industries a little too much, but I agree with your | points more. Music is indeed going through a renaissance, and | tech has very much helped with discoverability of indie | artists. Movies I feel are a different medium as they are | more capital and resource-constrained. It's more difficult to | cultivate a long tail of indie films that can match those of | the blockbusters (whereas music quality between major label | and indie is far more fungible). | | On the other hand, if one was to lower the definition of | "movie" to moving pictures entertainment, there is a bonanza | of content on YouTube and other video streaming services. But | they are not in the same format of traditional movies. | mywittyname wrote: | > What argument can one make when the burden of proof is to | show cultural regression? | | Maturing industries lose diversity as they trend towards | optimization. This is something that is bound to happen | regardless of industry. America has far fewer automotive | manufactures than it 100 years ago and diversity has suffered; | same goes for soda manufactures, etc. | | With about any industry, you can gauge how mature it is by the | diversity it has achieved. It starts with one or two who | demonstrate the viability of the market, then there is an | explosion of interest as many people break in, trying different | strategies to gain market share, then the few winners | consolidate the industry. Sometimes, the big players rest on | their laurels and an upstart takes hold, but they are usually | acquired by the establishment or their strategy is emulated | then they are crushed by the inherent resource imbalance. | | The big movie studios know what works and they are going to | stick to that. Occasionally a Pixar will come along and disrupt | the market, but when that happens, a Disney is going to step in | and acquire them and change or adapt their formula to prevent | another upstart. | fullshark wrote: | It's hard to refute, cause it really is true that everyone's | most instrumental pop culture experiences happened when they | were 10-25 years old. I think one thing that is fascinating is | how popular iconography and music/films from 20+ years ago | still is. Like I see teenagers wearing t-shirts with NOFX or | Van Halen on them, instead of Billie Eilish. | | https://www.hottopic.com/tees/music-tees/?cm_sp=LP-_-TeesGri... | | Ultimately the post WW2 period was the birth of mass media | youth culture, this was a truly revolutionary thing culturally | speaking, and everything else has been a series of | progressively less meaningful waves as we have 75 years of | music/films artfully expressing what it means to be young. | Apocryphon wrote: | > Like I see teenagers wearing t-shirts with NOFX or Van | Halen on them, instead of Billie Eilish. | | Same as it always was. (SPIN magazine, April 2005): | | https://books.google.com/books?id=3ftHVmAonmoC&lpg=PA107&dq=. | .. | | > A few days after the Orange Bowl, I saw the video for | Simpson's "La La." In one segment, she wears a vintage Adam | and the Ants T-shirt; later, she wears a Motley Crue shirt. I | suppose it's theoretically possible that Ashlee Simpson | honestly likes those bands. But within the context of this | video, her identification with them does not feel remotely | organic; it feels like somebody put a lot of thought into | whom Ashlee should align herself with. All young artists do | this, but some are less subtle than others. I once saw | singer/songwriter Leona Naess perform in Cleveland wearing a | ZZ Top T-shirt. "I don't even know who this band is," she | said between songs. "I just like this shirt." Naess played | Minneapolis on the same tour, but this time she wore an | Aerosmith T-shirt. "I don't even know who this band is," she | said between songs. "I just like this shirt." Obviously, this | was an attempt at cultural positioning: Leona Naess wanted to | appear like the kind of girl who (somehow) had never heard of | ZZ Top and Aerosmith, just as Ashlee Simpson wants to appear | like the kind of girl who's intimately aware of Motley Crue | and Adam Ant. Yet both artists failed in their attempts, and | that's because even a child could tell they were trying way | too hard. And people hate that. | danbolt wrote: | Throughout the COVID-19 restrictions, I've been writing | little games that run on the Nintendo 64. I was born in the | early 1990s and liked to play video games as a child, so the | platform has some nostalgia now that I'm older. | | What's surprised me though is the amount of times I've | received questions from teenagers about how to make Nintendo | 64 games. Given their ages, I would have thought something | like the Nintendo DS might have been more interesting to | them. | | It reminded me of when Nintendo was marketing repackaged | 1980s NES games to me as a child. [1] I remember being | interested in them partially because of being exposed to | nostalgia from others online. Part of me wonders if a bit of | institutional momentum can help give a brand more of an edge | for some audiences. | | [1] https://nintendo.fandom.com/wiki/Classic_NES_Series | ElViajero wrote: | > What argument can one make when the burden of proof is to | show cultural regression? | | First, you will need to give examples of what kind of movies | you find "creative" that were done in the past and there is no | current equivalent for that level of creativity. | | "Jojo Rabbit", "Parasite", "Blade Runner 2049", "Coco", "Lady | Bird", "Arrival", "The Nice Guys", ... that is the past 5 years | with one almost missing because the pandemic. Is any of that | any good for you? | | What do you think that it was so creative in the past and has | no comparation today? | [deleted] | socialist_coder wrote: | I think "Movies", as we remember them from the decades of yore, | will have a resurgence in the near future due to 2 things: | | 1) The demand for movies outside of what the streaming services | are making. | | 2) Most aspects of movie production go completely digital to | bring costs down astronomically. | | The easiest way to embrace digital is to just make an animated | movie that looks animated with some interesting cool art style / | rendering techniques. Maybe the boomer generation doesn't respond | well to animation, but Gen X and Millennials are fine with it. | | Otherwise, just look at The Mandalorian for an example of what | they've been able to do digitally. A huge huge huge Unreal Engine | powered screen, instead of your typical green screen. It is | linked to the camera so you get proper depth and angles as the | camera moves. The lighting is realistic since the screen is | actually shooting light onto the actors and props. And the | director can see the composition of the shot in real time. | | As more aspects of production will go digital like this, costs | will go way down. And hopefully we can have our "movies" again =) | SkyPuncher wrote: | I have a home theater. I love watching high-production quality | shows like The Mandalorian on it - but I also like getting out | of the house. | Damogran6 wrote: | Which will impact the QUANTITY of movies produced, but not | necessarily the QUALITY. Granted, there's always been B-movies | (and D-list actors), but surfacing interesting storytelling is | going to be harder, the more we create. | toofy wrote: | > Which will impact the QUANTITY of movies produced, but not | necessarily the QUALITY. | | Absolutely. | | We have a signal/noise issue. We need to figure out how to | find the signal. | | I think one of the issues we really need to come to terms | with is our absolute overReliance on algorithmic | recommendations when it comes to completely subjective areas | like film, music, fashion, food, art, etc... We're just | unable to reduce these things to algorithmic recommendations | without the content being... algorithmic. | | When discussing this I have to often repeat to people, I'm | absolutely not a luddite-I work, live, and breathe-in | technology. I firmly believe science and technology are | _part_ of the key fundamentals to carry us forward. However, | one area where I consistently get much better results is when | these things are recommended by other humans. It really is no | contest in how much better human curation is when it comes to | recommendations. | | Obviously untested and obviously just pulling numbers out, | but for me, I think algorithmic recommendations are just | plain _wrong_ about 95% of the time. Friend's recommendations | are close /spot-on about 75+% of the time. And human curation | (from online reviews, real life DJs, critics, etc...) are | decent maybe 60+% of the time. Far better results from | humans. | | I think you're correct that we'll have a lot more quantity | and we're going to need human curation in there if we have | any hope for the quality to gain footholds, to find the | signal in the ever growing noise. | socialist_coder wrote: | What I'm saying is that A list people will use these same | techniques to make QUALITY movies at a budget that makes it | economically viable to release to a smaller streaming | audience. | Flatcircle wrote: | Also just the novelty of it, in a world where it went away for | a bit. | | If vinyl records can come back, Boutique films in a movie | theater and maybe even rental stores can too. | fullshark wrote: | Blurays / physical media are making a comeback, like Vinyl I | think part of it is a collection impulse among the top 1% of | fans. | okareaman wrote: | I don't work in the movie industry, but it seems to me the | superhero and fast and furious type movies are designed to appeal | to young people in America, China, India and Europe. A movie like | that offers an incredibly large potential audience. | | Three films I watched recently that might have a hard time | getting made today are Broken Flowers by Jim Jarmusch starring | Bill Murray, After Hours by Martin Scorsese and The Muse by | Albert Brooks. I know Martin Scorsese and others have been | complaining about the death of cinema, but I don't understand why | the two types of movies can't coexist on streaming media. The | audience for the latter type is nowhere near as big as the | former, but it's not nothing. The world still wants thought | provoking art. | truthwhisperer wrote: | And too much woke content | master_yoda_1 wrote: | Totally agree on this "They ain't movies. They are some weird | algorithmic process that has created things that last 100 minutes | or so." look at "The Tomorrow War" | croes wrote: | "The Tomorrow War" is not an Amazon movie, they only bought the | distribution rights. It's a Paramount Pictures film. | sharken wrote: | The business of running movie theatres is what he is talking | about and it's certainly changing. | | In Denmark the movies Godzilla vs. Kong, Nomadland and Black | Widow will not be shown in major cinemas. | | The reason is that Warner Bros. and Disney (Marvel) have either | shortened the exclusivity period (Warner Bros) or set the | streaming premiere at the same day the movie airs in cinemas | (Disney). | | The core of the issue is that the cinemas have to pay the same | amount although the terms are clearly worse. | | I can't help but think that the loss in sales of merchandise will | take a hit, but i could be wrong and things will continue as they | are now. | _trampeltier wrote: | I'm a cinema guy, go to cinema about once a week. But to be | honest, nobody misses movies like Godzilla vs. Kong. I think | one of the worst movies ever. | iab wrote: | Now now, let's not be too hasty to make that determination | until we've seen what fast & furious 9 has to offer | adventured wrote: | No need to wait. It's really bad. | | The last King Kong (vs Godzilla) was at least silly amusing | to watch (once). F9 is just bad across the board, there was | nothing enjoyable about it, the formula has now jumped the | shark twice (the last Fast movie was the first jumping of | the shark). The Fast franchise is in the guard rail, the | race is over. | SketchySeaBeast wrote: | > the formula has now jumped the shark twice | | Maybe we can rename the trope to some sort of car-based | hijinxs? I want to say "launched a car into space", but | that's probably going to annoy Tesla fans. | silon42 wrote: | Hopefully a new Riddick. | toast0 wrote: | If you think Godzilla vs Kong was one of the worst movies | ever, I don't think you've watched very many movies. | | I'd put The Wickerman (either version), The Fountain, and The | Final Countdown (1980, nothing to do with the song, sadly) as | easily worse than Godzilla vs Kong, and that's just off the | top of my head. | | It's certainly not a great movie, but it's well in-line with | what you would expect from the title; slightly plausible | plot, big monsters fighting in cities, trademark roar. | Nowhere near the best movies, but strongly in the middle. | kbelder wrote: | Funny. I've watched quite a few movies, indy and studio, | foreign and domestic, and The Fountain is the only movie I | ever immediately re-watched the second it ended. I thought | it was absolutely a masterpiece. | | But that's art for you; affects people differently. | sharken wrote: | Might want to give The Fountain a go then, sounds | interesting. | | To me the movie Memento is special, both the plot itself | but also the question, what if it happened to me. | birdyrooster wrote: | Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid would be excellent in theatres | okareaman wrote: | I can understand most of Dillers complains but not this one: | | _" These streaming services have been making something that they | call 'movies,' " he said. "They ain't movies. They are some weird | algorithmic process that has created things that last 100 minutes | or so."_ | | I'd like to know why he disparages writers and directors who work | on streaming movies this way and if it has any validity | grawprog wrote: | Possibly this? | | https://blog.richardvanhooijdonk.com/en/the-entertainment-in... | | https://tecreview.tec.mx/2021/04/26/en/how-to-make-a-blockbu... | | >A team of scientists from the Spanish universities of Granada | (UGR) and Cadiz (UCA) has designed the first computer system to | help screenwriters write movie scripts that will do better at | the box office, a model that makes use of artificial | intelligence techniques to analyze the most successful cliches | or tropes. | okareaman wrote: | Interesting. I thought something like this was going on. I | remember remarking to a friend that I got the feeling from | some shows that the screenwriters had help from AI. The plots | of some were at the same time more complex but had weird | twists the people normally wouldn't think of. I am also not | surprised the AI is mining TV Tropes. Now I think Diller is | right that there is some "They are some weird algorithmic | process" going on, but I rather like it. It's less formulaic. | HellDunkel wrote: | These services have made some truely great movies possible and | surely they offer a lot more opportunities for the arts. People | like to complain that every netflix production is like the | other when in reality they just refuse to make an effort to | find the good stuff and take some minor risk of failure along | the way. | onelastjob wrote: | Before streaming, a movie studio actually had to convince an | audience to leave their houses and buy a ticket to make money | from a movie. This meant the studio had to pour a lot of money | into marketing for each movie. The cost to market a movie could | be up $30M to $50M range for a blockbuster movie. For a mid- | budget drama like Meet Joe Black or A River Runs Through It, you | could be looking at a marketing budget that matches the | production budget ($30M production + $30M marketing). These big | marketing costs for every movie meant that the quality of those | movies needed to be pretty high to justify the marketing costs. | Streamers don't have to convince people to go out and buy a | ticket for every movie they release. They just have to keep the | existing subscribers paying and get more people signing up. So | the marketing cost per title goes way down. This takes some | pressure off to make quality content because the risk per title | is lower. Also quality movies on streamers don't necessarily get | the marketing and fanfare they would have before streaming. | MeinBlutIstBlau wrote: | I think this is why I've been struggling with finding good | films to watch nowadays. Shows are doing great but movies have | been suffering. Take the movie "Nobody" for instance. How the | hell that movie got the ratings it did I will never know. Not | only is it not good, but it was nothing what it was marketed | as. | | My solution to this is to watch actual films that are made with | artistic intent or to see certain things that are submitted | into festivals instead of just the main films shown to | everyone. It's helped tremendously but it becomes a chore quick | when there are a lot of "artsy" movies that tell the exact same | story you've seen a million times. | rmah wrote: | Isn't it said that there are only seven actual stories? That | every story is a variation of those seven plots with | different names, places, times, etc? | xarope wrote: | I guess you are referring to this? | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Seven_Basic_Plots | | This, for example, is a perennial favourite: | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hero%27s_journey | | However, I'd like to think it's not just the plot, but the | acting and the interpersonal relationships, that makes | things interesting. | MeinBlutIstBlau wrote: | At their root core, sure we could generalize that. But I | would say like any art, the expression of the story is what | matters. I have a hard time connecting films like The Lives | of Others, Monty Python and the Holy Grail, Les Innocentes, | Star Wars, and Austin Powers as "just the same story." In | essence all films are either a comedy or tragedy if you | really want to get down to it. | alisonkisk wrote: | It takes off the pressure to make _popular_ content. Quality | content can be unpopular, niche, wonderful content. Popular | content needs to be _tolerable_ by as many people as possible, | which means taking fewer risks on high-quality slightly | controversial or intellectual or unfamiliar material. | blooalien wrote: | > Quality content can be unpopular, niche, wonderful content. | | I was about to say this _exact_ thing. I 've seen some | _amazing_ content on various streaming services that would | have simply not even _existed_ in prior decades. Even some of | the "big boys" of media have been able to produce _some_ | shockingly good content these days thanks to the lowered | risks and costs of available outlet channels for their more | "experimental" media offerings. | agumonkey wrote: | It's funny, I keep seeing this era the same way. There used to | be such a different structure behind things. Everything was | more expensive but we went to grab them because they were so | superb. Also it imposed some kind of order.. those who managed | to fabricate large things in front of the random nature of | workgroups, social trends and audience desires got to grab the | hero / fame status (for better or worse). | | Today, available means flattens the whole landscape, you can | indeed do everything at a fraction of the cost but so the goal | vanished because there's nothing of greatness now ? (and many | groups are in the "availability is key for .. whatever" .. I | find the idea too naive) | | This weird tension, or contrast, is interesting. | foolfoolz wrote: | think of it as "leveling the playing field" in which it over | time asymptotically approaches shit | wodenokoto wrote: | Those numbers seems incredibly low for a blockbuster. | | I see the google info box saying the average movie marketing | spend matches your quote, but they are talking about | productions averaging only 60 millions in costs. | | Blockbusters like transformers or large marvel movies are much | more expensive to produce and market. | | Hollywood reports sets the marketing costs of summer | blockbusters at 200 million worldwide - in 2014! | | https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/general-news/200-mill... | sida wrote: | As a quick tangent, has anyone tried watching movies in VR? | | If you haven't, try it. I have been watching stuff in my oculus | quest 2 and it is pretty darn awesome. I think this is the | future, most definitely. | | Oculus quest 2 still is not perfect. But I cannot imagine going | to the theater with a few more generations of VR. (Oculus quest 5 | maybe???) | moralestapia wrote: | Ugh, I love watching movies on my 2D screen while talking to | other people and having some snacks. | | I can't imagine myself (EVER!) changing that experience to one | that isolates me and requires me to have a crappy headset | squeezing my temples for two hours or so. | | Just, no. NOOOOO! | MisterBastahrd wrote: | Trying to shoehorn a meaningful story into 1.5 hours is not great | for storytelling. The production costs for 8 hours of streaming | television isn't that much different from 2 hours of movie | filming when filming for the same genre in the same manner. | | Try to get 1.5 hours of meaningful story out of the recent | Netflix production of Shadow and Bone, or any of the Game of | Thrones books, without sacrificing major parts of the story (that | weren't already being sacrificed in their expanded versions). | Flatcircle wrote: | I love how he ends the article by saying, "I'm gonna produce | plays on Broadway" | arkitaip wrote: | My understanding is that musicals have the exact problem of | being way too commerical and basically adaptations of already, | mediocre, work. The difference is that the indie scene is even | smaller due to the relative costs of creating musicals. | ghaff wrote: | There's certainly a fairly steady diet of musicals/plays on | Broadway/West End that are adapted from popular films. And, | while many are well done, they also just feel utterly | unnecessary in most cases. (There are exceptions--Network for | example.) | jeffreyrogers wrote: | It's unfortunate, but I think he's probably right. Some movies | are just better in theater. The experience of watching Mad Max: | Fury Road in theater vs at home is a night and day difference. | iamacyborg wrote: | Depends on your home setup, a big screen and some big speakers | go a long way | jbay808 wrote: | Living in an expensive area like Vancouver, a home theater | might not be an option. Most of my friends rent a room in a | sharehouse where they're not allowed to have guests, or where | the TV is a communal area. Others live in basement suites | with noise rules and can watch TV by themselves but not with | friends. The theatre is much better for watching a movie with | a group, unless you're very wealthy. | exo-pla-net wrote: | I managed a pretty good theater setup in a _dorm room_ , | using a projector, mounted speakers, and a pull down | projection screen. | yepthatsreality wrote: | I agree. No sticky floor, no person behind me that decided to | take off their giant winter coat when the movie started | (instead of previews), no people ruining my immersion because | they have to pull out their pocket PC to address their | attention deficit, no large groups of people clapping at | every character reveal during a film or audibly cheering on | the protagonists, no untrusted heavily farted-in seating, no | reduced premium of the experience because big corp decided to | save a few bucks by cleaning less, no overpriced concessions, | no lines. | | What I do miss is "going out" to see a movie. Alamo | Drafthouse has a good model that entices "going out" but most | chains couldn't shift to adapt to a similar model. Auto- | managed streaming quality is something I don't really like | either, let me buffer my own selection. | adventured wrote: | Not having to listen to people eat like pigs during the | movie while I'm trying to enjoy being immersed in the audio | of the movie (while some guy nearby very loudly assaults a | giant bucket of popcorn over the next two hours). Because | if they didn't consume two thousand calories during the | movie, they might starve, seeing as the US has no other | available food options. | | The only way a movie theater experience can be consistently | great is if you banish all food. Too many people lack even | basic manners & consideration for others, they can't be | trusted to not be inconsiderate idiots. | yepthatsreality wrote: | I feel like the easier solution is to contain the seating | so the noise doesn't leave the viewers booth. Instead of | just a bunch of empty chairs in an auditorium. Then | people can be inconsiderate all they want. | ghaff wrote: | I have somewhat mixed feelings about the Alamo Drafthouse | type of experience. On the rare occasions I go to a movie | theater it's because I want the big immersive experience. | If I want food and beer while I watch a film I can do that | at home. | croes wrote: | How big is your screen? I bet cinema screen is bigger. | mentos wrote: | I have no clue how they're making money on these movies that are | going straight to streaming platforms? | | With a movie releasing in theatres there was a sense of urgency | to see it on the big screen with big sound and big lights. | | Being able to stream it whenever you want from home now means you | never will. | | Not sure if any platforms do it already but they should try to | create a sense of scarcity by offering only a limited number of | opening weekend tickets that you can reserve. | nmz wrote: | That's how you get piracy. | tibbydudeza wrote: | Fast and Furious Marvel | | So what other movies are there ???. | OzzyB wrote: | Fast and Furious Marvel - Jack Snyder Cut | k12sosse wrote: | It broke new ground subverting all those expectations! | johnohara wrote: | The Allen and Co. Sun Valley Conference is winding down. | | The pandemic forced a lot of reaction to, realignment of, and | reflection on, all of the current paradigms. But nobody was able | to meet last year and many conversations that needed to happen | were left hanging in abeyance. | | As the many attendees represent organizations that pull heavy | carts as it is, there is no doubt an eagerness to get the wheels | turning again. The sooner the better. But they have also had a | year to completely evaluate what was causing them to be so laden | prior to February 1st, 2020. | | This year's conference will be remembered as a watershed moment. | Great food and real-world golf scores notwithstanding. | moomin wrote: | I mean, I don't disagree with him, but he dates back to the birth | of the blockbuster, which was the 70s version of "algorithmic | things that last 100 minutes". | | The movie industry has had seismic shifts every couple of decades | and has been shrinking since the 1950s. | specialist wrote: | That interview was rough. | | TLDR: The studio and distributor's chokehold on movies is dead. | | Hallelujah, good riddance, piss off. | | For some historical perspective, 99% had a nice episode about | movie theaters. The Megaplex! | https://99percentinvisible.org/episode/the-megaplex/ | | TLDR: The movie theater biz has always been in flux, now is no | different. | | PS- After the dust settles, I'm sure new gatekeepers will arise. | Same as it ever was. | clouddrover wrote: | > _The studio 's chokehold on movies is dead._ | | No, the reality is studios are consolidating control over their | content. For example, Disney controls distribution and access | more than ever before with their Disney+ streaming service. | Disney produces the content and directly distributes it to the | end user: | | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disney%2B | | https://www.disneyplus.com | specialist wrote: | > _No, the reality is studios are consolidating control over | their content._ | | Ya, it sure seems like everyone's pulling their own content | in tighter. | | I couldn't quickly find out how many movies, shows, etc are | published every year. If anything, it seems like the | entertainment industry is in a free-for-all. I'm almost | curious how it shakes out. | | Can we agree that the prior _theatrical distribution_ system, | so near and dear to Barry Diller 's heart, got mooted? | k__ wrote: | _" I used to be in the movie business where you made something | really because you cared about it,"_ | | I had the impression,the movie business was a shit show for at | least half a century now. | JKCalhoun wrote: | Yeah, the big studios for sure. It's like he's describing indie | films. | historyloop wrote: | Black Widow is destroying opening expectations in cinemas as we | speak. | | Barry Diller is clearly disillusioned with the process, this | happens a lot with veterans. But there's a constant supply of | wide-eyed youngsters to fill-in those positions with new energy. | | I'd say it's a bit premature to declare permanent changes. | Streaming will play a stronger role over time, but none of this | is new or unexpected. And cinemas will continue to thrive. | IAmGraydon wrote: | Through my work, I have access to Placer.ai, which allows me to | track foot traffic to any retail location or chain via visitors' | cellphone GPS. Here's AMC's nationwide foot traffic from January | 2017 through July 4, 2021. | | https://i.imgur.com/s3H7EYj.png | syntaxing wrote: | Wait, how does Placer.ai work? Like you need to have some sort | of AMC app? | IAmGraydon wrote: | Placer is able to track cell phones that have an app | installed that uses their SDK. They currently have their SDK | in over 500 mobile apps. The data is anonymized, but it would | probably shock people how much information I can get from | this system. I just pick a location and I can see how many | people walked into that location over any time span in the | past 4 years, where they live, how much money they make, | where else they like to shop, etc. I work in commercial real | estate, BTW. We use this software to analyze retail | properties. | gregsadetsky wrote: | This is also Foursquare's business. | | Their opt-out page is interesting: | https://foursquare.com/data-requests/ | | "The California Consumer Privacy Act gives California | residents the right to direct businesses from selling their | personal information. If you are a California resident, you | have this right. _If you are not a California resident, we | may, at our discretion, grant you this right._ " | | (Emphasis mine) | impendia wrote: | I'll bite. Where I live and where I shop, I can understand. | But how does my cell phone know how much money I make? | gregsadetsky wrote: | It might correlate it with other vendors and signals | (e.g., your trail of visited web sites, completed | purchases, etc.) and also deduce it by monitoring your | geo position to find where your "home" is (wherever you | spend most nights / wherever you use your apps late or | early in the day) and then use zip code area demographics | to get the average income for that area. | | Oh... and, credit card companies selling data (to these | same data aggregators) on their members' buying habits | and most probably demographics as well (age, income, | etc.) | autoexec wrote: | It's crazy how much just having your location tracked | 24/7 shows about you. It can give a pretty good idea of | if you're in a relationship and sexually active (where | you spend your nights and when/how often), if your | parents are dead and if you're married or divorced (where | you go for holidays and when you stop going there), what | your life expectancy is (your zip code), if you have | children (when and how often you visit schools, day care | centers and play grounds/chucky cheese), what you do for | a living (harder now that more folks work from home), how | healthy you are (time spent at doctors/hospitals/fast | food restaurants/gyms), etc. | | Tracking one person's location history is invasive | enough, but if they're also tracking the people around | you it gets a whole lot easier. Phones spend time talking | to and tracking other phones around them (even when those | devices are offline or have location services disabled) | along with being tracked by Bluetooth beacons and | collecting info about nearby wifi connections. | syntaxing wrote: | Appreciate the response, super interesting! What do you | mean how much they make? Like how much the retail makes or | how much the people visiting makes? | arcturus17 wrote: | I don't want to live on this planet anymore. | cdstyh wrote: | Well one of the first things we do on Mars will be to | deploy a GPS constellation so our robots are able to | locate themselves. | kbenson wrote: | As I understand it, this is also how proxy services that | offer "mobile IPs" with millions available function as | well. Kinda makes me pine for the good old days where they | just annoyed the crap out of me with ads. | ipaddr wrote: | My cellphone doesn't leave my home. Makes location | tracking much harder. | kbenson wrote: | To clarify, I wasn't talking about them tracking you, I | was talking about the SDKs used proxying connections | unbeknownst to you using your mobile (or wifi?) data, | which the SDK provider sells as a business. | umeshunni wrote: | Also beats the point of having a cell phone. | ipaddr wrote: | Isn't the point to play games and being able to login to | most sites these days? | | It also gives you backup internet.. | dvdkon wrote: | Not really, not for me and many others anyway. I would | just get an LTE modem for backup internet, my PC is | better at everything else. I'm not sure about which sites | you're talking about, but you can also do 2FA without a | phone. | lotsofpulp wrote: | There are a ton of big companies and even governments | that only do SMS 2FA. The US social security website is | one of them. | nodesocket wrote: | Wow, this seems like incredibly valuable information for | traders and hedge funds. There is a well known retail | analyst (Mathew Boss) who famously said they take aerial | photos of mall parking lots to estimate traffic and sales. | This data is even more granular. | gregsadetsky wrote: | Yeah, commercial Satellite data "intelligence" is a big | thing. (This is clearly the "civilian" version of what | has been going on in the military world for a very long | time) | | I wanted to send this example as it's exactly what you're | talking about -- monitoring of retail locations (as a | data service): | | https://learn.rsmetrics.com/trafficsignals/retail/monitor | ing... | | ... but I found this from the same company which is | crazier: | | https://learn.rsmetrics.com/cedm/boeing-tracker | | "RS Metrics Boeing Tracker is a custom event driven | monitoring product which focuses on the activity and | production at Boeing factory sites. Insights generated | from Boeing Tracker help investors and PMs' to optimize | their investment strategies." | | Among other things, they're counting cars at the Boeing | Employee Parking Lot: | | https://learn.rsmetrics.com/hubfs/BA_2_Boeing%20Renton%20 | Fac... | | Yeah, ok. Wow. | bananabiscuit wrote: | Is there a list somewhere of apps that use placer so that I | can delete those apps off my phone forever? | gregsadetsky wrote: | There was a flagged submission about a year ago about | them | | https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22704138 | | I'll go on a limb and say that apps don't even have to | integrate Placer's sdk directly. If an app uses any | monetization/tracking/ad tracking system, that tracking | vendor may collect the geo data and then re-sell it to | Placer (i.e. talk to Placer via a server to server API to | let them know about the end user) | tolbish wrote: | How much geo data can they obtain if my location is | disabled for almost all of my apps? | gregsadetsky wrote: | 1) A device's location can be guessed with your IP | address at the very least. | | 2) Wifi networks. | | On iOS, I'm almost sure that apps cannot access the list | of wifi networks that the device sees. As you may know, | the list of wifi access point MAC addresses can be used | to triangulate a device's geolocation (there was a | related case with Google Streets View cars gobbling up | that info[0]) | | On Android, wifi network MAC addresses may be available | to apps? Is there a special permission that apps need | from the user? | | [0] https://www.wired.com/2012/05/google-wifi-fcc- | investigation/ | kevinventullo wrote: | Android requires location services enabled to do ambient | WiFi scans: https://developer.android.com/guide/topics/co | nnectivity/wifi... | | However, I believe _connected_ WiFi information can be | obtained on Android without location services enabled. | | On iOS, I believe an app needs special permission even to | fetch connected WiFi, and I believe you are correct that | there is no way to access ambient WiFi scans. | gregsadetsky wrote: | Super interesting, thanks! | xriddle wrote: | Placer is one of many, many platforms that do this. | Assume any app that requests location permissions is | selling your data. Hopefully anonymized. | nebula8804 wrote: | A few months ago I chose a random set of iOS apps to | decompile and view their included libraries. Its amazing | how much tracking is going on. One interesting that I | recall was a Bluetooth library in a convenience store | app. Seems like they had Bluetooth beacons around there | store and it would use the phone to track you as you | walked through the store. | hhh wrote: | Doesn't Walmart do this? | deadbolt wrote: | I recall the CVS app requesting Bluetooth permissions | when I installed it. I can imagine them implementing | something like this, but couldn't they just passively | listen for Bluetooth beacons from people's phones using | the devices in the store, without needing the app to be | installed on a customers phone? | | I suppose I'm not familiar enough with Bluetooth - I | figured phones with Bluetooth enabled are constantly | sending out some kind of "hello" beacon. | HeyLaughingBoy wrote: | The beacons in the store are pretty dumb, so they can be | cheap (on the order of a few dollars each) and plentiful, | moving the real logic of tracking to the app. | | You're correct in that it could be reversed and the BLE | radios in the store could track the phones instead, but | then they'd need far more intelligence and network | connectivity, which would make them more expensive and in | turn they'd be fewer of them deployed. | | Source: spent the last few years writing code for | wireless devices, including BLE beacons. | nomel wrote: | If you're on iOS, leave location services to "while using | app" to prevent this. I take the extra step of turning | background services off. | mataug wrote: | Looks kinda similar to the google search trends | https://imgur.com/a/bbTjUkf | IAmGraydon wrote: | Yep. That's because people use Google to get directions to | the nearest theater. | demadog wrote: | Good validation that Google Trends gets the quick and dirty | job done for some queries for free. | endisneigh wrote: | Wow, this is virtually identical. If I were paying for placer | I'd stop after seeing that you can get effectively the same | data for free, assuming you just need the trend. | roland35 wrote: | I took the liberty of overlaying the stock price over the foot | traffic :) | | https://imgur.com/a/jTkXhtx | david927 wrote: | Of course it looks strange -- the stock price reflects a | short squeeze on naked shorts, not value or growth. | jjcon wrote: | > short squeeze on naked shorts | | Trading is getting really graphic these days | dredmorbius wrote: | Those terms are decades old. | | "short squeeze" (1960s or earlier): https://books.google. | com/ngrams/graph?content=short+squeeze&... | | "naked shorts" (1970s): https://books.google.com/ngrams/g | raph?content=naked+shorts&y... | ant6n wrote: | I thought the short squeeze was in jan/feb, what's that | late spring jump? | ganoushoreilly wrote: | > https://imgur.com/a/jTkXhtx | | The thesis that appears to be correct with AMC and GME is | that the shorts never really covered, they simply kicked | the can through some creative vehicles. | fshbbdssbbgdd wrote: | How do we know that? Is it possible that substantially | all the active funds with a thesis on AMC/GME got out, so | now the price is driven by retail meme buyers who have no | price target? | Traster wrote: | Honestly, I feel that we're way past the point of | productively engaging with the wallstreetbets crowd, the | "Naked short squeeze" eternal narative is about as | substantial as the people claiming Trump will be | inaugurated again later this year. There's no evidence | threshold that can be met - on an infinite timeline, the | fact that these hedge funds haven't lost money is just | more evidence of dirty tricks rather than the most likely | scenario - they dumped the stock long ago, and either | have a strategy to get back in or have a strategy to | avoid being burned again. | quickthrowman wrote: | 20% of the AMC float is short, and could cover in less | than 2 days. 25% of the GME float is sold short, but it | would take a bit longer for shorts to cover, looks like | 5-7 days based on avg 10d volume. | | The thesis you posted is Wrong. | post_break wrote: | For kicks can we see home depot and cabelas? If not no worries. | IAmGraydon wrote: | Sure. Here's Home Depot: https://i.imgur.com/bqoV3LI.png | | Here's Cabela's: https://i.imgur.com/SLsba42.png | | BTW, I should note that this is showing weekly visits (and | the same is true for the AMC chart). Again, this is Jan 2017 | through July 4, 2021. | nodesocket wrote: | Can you aggregate multiple locations? I am interested in | Apple stores. | renewiltord wrote: | You can buy this data on a per-store basis on a per-month | basis from SafeGraph. It'll cost you $40 for YTD data, | and it should include information about time of day and | nonsense like that if you're curious. | post_break wrote: | Thanks! | cecilpl2 wrote: | Clearly, people do renovations in the spring and their | Christmas shopping at Cabela's. | TrainedMonkey wrote: | Movie industry is largely driven by massive advertisement | campaigns. My guess that all of those spikes before 2020 were | driven by massive AAA releases with big of ad budgets. Nothing | like that happened during 2020. I think it's too early to ring | the funeral bell, let's see a few massive releases first. | kbenson wrote: | If that's true, we might not see it getting back to pre-covid | levels for another year or so if it's going to happen. I | think most the stuff we've seen over 2020 and now are things | that were already in the pipeline or delayed. The lack of new | projects during 2020 and early 2021 will likely affect the | industry until mid to late 2022 at least, from what I've read | that seems accurate. | BadCookie wrote: | Interesting data. What's holding me back from going to the | theater is that my child is not vaccinated (too young), | although I suppose the delta variant is also a small concern. I | wonder how much difference it will make when the under 12s can | get vaccinated. I'd love to go to the theater again if it felt | safe for my whole family, but it doesn't yet. | hellbannedguy wrote: | I was just starting to get a bit comfortable in my county. | (Marin County) | | I just heard an acquaintance is in the ICU with blood clots | in his lungs due to Covid. Young fit guy, but didn't get | vaccinated. ___________________________________________________________________ (page generated 2021-07-09 23:00 UTC)