> cinema is having its most successful years ever, so clearly many people are enjoying the films Hollywood is putting out.
Is that really true or is it just films like "Avengers" who make Hollywood's balance sheet look better than ever?
I'm not entirely convinced that the film industry can survive without giant blockbusters like that.
You might say that there's always been blockbusters, but although I don't have any data on this I imagine the proportion of $ that these films make up has only grown over time. Maybe leading to a reliance on a few big hits.
I consider this one of the reasons we've seen a proliferation of super-hero/comic adaptions (an endless supply of material here) and other giant movies tapping into an existing fanbase (Star Wars, Fast/Furious, etc).
Some people I know in film have told me the following:
A lot of films that would have US pull no longer get made. That's because the US is at most 300m people, and there's billions more that aren't reached. Whereas any movie made now needs to have international trends. So you end up with comic books made as movies and tv shows. They have been tested in print, work with other cultures, and make money hand over fist.
Tl;dr. Making movies for a country is last century. New movies need to capitalize on international sales.
Poignant example is the World of Warcraft movie; it bombed in the US, but it was super popular in China.
This is also why Netflix will probably not die; for me personally, 90% of their original content is a bit shit, however I am also very aware that a lot of people enjoy that 90% I don't, e.g. my parents. And then there's the huge international market, each country, each region has its own preferences.
What I'm saying is there will be people that enjoy some content and keep their subscription for that show. Netflix doesn't need to optimize for one demographic.
That's an interesting take on the quality issues of these recent films. It's true that you sort of have to dumb down your content if you aim to make it popular for a wider population. If the movie plots require a bit of thinking or the use of brain resources then most viewers probably will not get it.
Though I understand Hollywood has always been about about making profits, but in the end this will only lead to more movies simply being treated as a tool to generate revenue rather an outlet for creativity and great story telling, which was exactly what made them great in the past. In that perspective, there's no difference between a movie and a piece of commercial software.
Big explosions and FX effects are not elements that make a film great as they do nothing to connect deeply with the audiences on a human level. They are shallow, cool and awesome for five seconds but that's about it. The more you watch these films, the more you become like the population they want to target.
Is that really true or is it just films like "Avengers" who make Hollywood's balance sheet look better than ever?
I'm not entirely convinced that the film industry can survive without giant blockbusters like that.
You might say that there's always been blockbusters, but although I don't have any data on this I imagine the proportion of $ that these films make up has only grown over time. Maybe leading to a reliance on a few big hits.
I consider this one of the reasons we've seen a proliferation of super-hero/comic adaptions (an endless supply of material here) and other giant movies tapping into an existing fanbase (Star Wars, Fast/Furious, etc).