Originally Posted by John Galt

The issue is finding them. I read this board religiously for finding upcoming films I'd like to watch and I know there's tons out there I would love but I have no clue they exist. I've got a pretty sweet home theater setup and would generally much rather watch something at home rather than go out to the cinema, but there's just so many channels to navigate and filter out the good from the shit. Used to, I could review the movies that came out in the theater each month and make a list of what I want to watch once it hit home video. Now with Hulu, Amazon, Netflix, Disney, Apple, Paramount +, HBO, Showtime, and whoever else all making movies, I really have no clue what's new and what's good.

Originally Posted by Giantrobo

One thing that has contributed to this is the Internet has made EVERYONE believe they're a Published Critic who should be listened too.

Originally Posted by morriscroy

How much different is hundreds (or thousands) of semi-anonymous film critics online, compared to the quality of professional film critics like Siskel & Ebert (for example) and/or the semi-faceless film critics writing in local / regional newspapers back in the day ?

Originally Posted by dex14

I hope you aren't using DVDTalk as your only resource to find out about upcoming films.

Originally Posted by IBJoel

I take exception to the idea of griping about blockbusters. Those in particular have narrowed considerably. Nancy Meyers films would no longer be released as blockbusters, for instance, and there are fewer Oscar-contenders that make the top grosses of the year (if any in the past 10 years). Hell even Roland Emmerich's latest is relegated to a February release.

Originally Posted by rocket1312

Even fear of spoilers I find to be somewhat dubious. I get it, but spoilers are not exclusive to franchise films. Any movie can be spoiled. Franchise movies might be the only movies people talk about online and thus more likely to be spoiled, but even if everyone and their brother were talking about Licorice Pizza last week, I don't think everyone would suddenly be rushing to the theaters to avoid being spoiled.

Originally Posted by IBJoel

I do think there are a lot of "critics" now who really only review "genre" work, which is a huge red flag for me if I notice that's exclusively their oeuvre.

Originally Posted by John Galt

Eh, it was a lot better when there was more traffic. But it's very nice to know the personalities of the posters to go along with the reviews, and that there is no compensation affecting people's opinions of movies here versus other places online.

Originally Posted by Dan

I also think "review" is being far too kind in most cases. These people do barely more than a basic plot synopsis, a comment on the visual effects, and a or while sitting in front of a shelf full of toys and movies to prove they have credibility. It's nothing like what talented critics did or do, but if you criticize this Content(tm) then you're told that you're just jealous.

Originally Posted by Dan

The essence of film criticism or critique beyond the surface level is lost on these content creators and influencers... but also their audiences.

Originally Posted by morriscroy

What would be good examples of film criticism ?

Originally Posted by Dan

These people do barely more than a basic plot synopsis, a comment on the visual effects, and a or while sitting in front of a shelf full of toys and movies to prove they have credibility. It's nothing like what talented critics did or do, but if you criticize this Content(tm) then you're told that you're just jealous.
...
Even worse, there's videos that are quite literally just text-to-speech plot summaries of movies over stock images.

Originally Posted by maxfisher

I guess I’d say there’s (at least) three ways to look at it:
1) what’s getting made
2) what’s getting promoted/released theatrically
3) what’s getting watched

My post was intended to address people complaining about #1 & #3. I think we’re rich with options both in films and longer-form limited series/miniseries/series. I feel like a lot of people complain about stuff they don’t like getting made or having success, as if that somehow is holding back stuff that they would like from being made. I just don’t think that’s the case with the enormous amount of material being produced. I probably watch around 20 hours of films and/or shows a week and can’t even begin to view everything that looks intriguing.

The complaints about #2 make more sense to me, as the theater provides a different viewing experience and I get why some people want to see specific movies they care about on the big screen. Personally, I’m lucky enough to have a decent home theater setup with a 10’ screen and the only time I’ll venture into a theater anymore, even pre-pandemic, is if it’s for something I’m really excited for that won’t be available for home viewing for a while.

Originally Posted by rocket1312

There are myriad reasons why franchise films dominate the marketplace (some of them already touched upon in this thread), but I'm not convinced it's as simple as "that's what sells." Well I mean it is what sells, but how and why did we get to that point?

Originally Posted by DJariya

Just my personal opinion, but the overall value of many movies has been greatly diminished now and a lot seem to think of movies as disposable, especially when it can be accessed with a few button clicks. And I see this mentioned so much...."Oh that's a not a theatre-quality movie, I can wait until it hits streaming" So what exactly is a "theatre-quality" movie?

Originally Posted by DJariya

ust my personal opinion, but the overall value of many movies has been greatly diminished now and a lot seem to think of movies as disposable, especially when it can be accessed with a few button clicks. And I see this mentioned so much...."Oh that's a not a theatre-quality movie, I can wait until it hits streaming" So what exactly is a "theatre-quality" movie?

Originally Posted by rocket1312

I think you're missing one key point here. Movies and TV are different. They obviously share a lot of fundamental similarities, but they're still different formats with different strengths and weaknesses. Boiling that down even further, there's a difference between small budget movies and large budget movies. One isn't necessarily better or worse than the other, but there are differences. Yes, there's more content than ever, but as first and foremost a MOVIE fan, I have a lot of itches that aren't getting scratched.

Originally Posted by PhantomStranger

Franchises do a lot for the studio beyond simple theatrical revenues. There's merchandising, potential spin-offs, lowering talent costs, predictable box office results and more. It's also easier hiding the money laundering and graft in larger studio projects. A lot of Hollywood financing would be considered inappropriate in most corporate settings and often skirts the edge of legality.

Have you ever seen a blockbuster and come away thinking how did this cost $200 million? Surprise, it didn't actually cost $200 million. That's an accounting fiction cooked up by the studio.

Originally Posted by DJariya

There's a few here who are pretty passionate movie-goers and maybe could offer some insights like pundits. But, I would say the majority here and it likely applies to most people simply don't care about the business of movies, IPs, blockbusters, theatre revenue streams and such. They see what they want to see and move on.

Before streaming and high speed internet, movies was a really valued experience. You see it in theaters, wait about 6 months and it gets released on VHS and then it hits premium cable and network TV. This lifespan goes over the course of a year or maybe a little longer.

Just my personal opinion, but the overall value of many movies has been greatly diminished now and a lot seem to think of movies as disposable, especially when it can be accessed with a few button clicks. And I see this mentioned so much...."Oh that's a not a theatre-quality movie, I can wait until it hits streaming" So what exactly is a "theatre-quality" movie?

Originally Posted by rw2516

Before cable and home video there was an immediatcy to seeing a movie in the theater. An anxiety that this may be your only chance to ever see it. There was no guarantee that any movie would ever show up on tv. See it now or lose out forever. There were 7 James Bond movies before any showed up on tv. Ten years after the first one. In the 70s we went to every horror movie at the drive-in, even if freezing outside because stuff like Texas Chainsaw Massacre, Hills Have Eyes, Rabid, etc. would never be on tv.

Originally Posted by IBJoel

I do feel that this is a more recent trend than when home video wasn't very widespread. More of a result of the past couple of decades. Even in the 90s, I think audiences were a bit more forgiving and each movie was in the zeitgeist for more than a week.

Originally Posted by PhantomStranger

The real answer is Hollywood's changing business model. The studios used to produce dozens of mid-level projects each year, which mostly made minor profits and occasionally produced real gems in different genres. It was a sweet spot that met both commercial and artistic demands, simultaneously allowing talented filmmakers and creatives the chance at making an unforgettable film. The example I'd list is Chinatown, if I am allowed to go that far back. $6 million budget. Hollywood makes far fewer mid-budget films like this today. Everything now is either programmed genre schlock made on the cheap or $200 million superhero movies.

What happened is that the MBAs running most studios noticed their actual profit margins are entirely driven by their biggest and most expensive films. I'm pretty sure Titanic's massive success was the final nail for smaller projects with small returns. It made no sense anymore to keep investing in mid-level projects when the ROI for the studio's cash was higher on blockbusters.

Once a film's budget gets over $100 million, good luck getting anything which hasn't been sliced and diced by large committees. There are just too many people giving input, making it nigh impossible to make a truly compelling blockbuster. I'll give Nolan credit, he's been given more latitude than just about any modern director in Hollywood and made some interesting blockbuster films despite these issues. I'm not sure how he does it, because almost no one else is today on a consistent basis.

The best scripted content coming out of Hollywood today are long--form shows running on premium channels and top streaming outlets. It's much harder for a studio to meddle on 12 hours of television than a two-hour movie.