Jump to content
 
Search In
  • More options...
Find results that contain...
Find results in...

Why Hollywood as We Know It Is Already Over


JakeHolman
 Share

Recommended Posts

A few months ago, the vision of Hollywood’s economic future came into terrifyingly full and rare clarity. I was standing on the set of a relatively small production, in Burbank, just north of Los Angeles, talking to a screenwriter about how inefficient the film-and-TV business appeared to have become. Before us, after all, stood some 200 members of the crew, who were milling about in various capacities, checking on lighting or setting up tents, but mainly futzing with their smartphones, passing time, or nibbling on snacks from the craft-service tents. When I commented to the screenwriter that such a scene might give a Silicon Valley venture capitalist a stroke on account of the apparent unused labor and excessive cost involved in staging such a production—which itself was statistically uncertain of success—he merely laughed and rolled his eyes. “You have no idea,” he told me.

 

Vanity Fair > http://www.vanityfair.com/news/2017/01/why-hollywood-as-we-know-it-is-already-over

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Remakes, reboots, rehashed zombie / alien invasions, boring horror, stupid superhero / action. Creativity RARE!  Been over for quite some time.

 

You left out low-brow comedies and endless cartoons. Hollywood produces what people go to see. If thoughtful, serious films made money, they would make them all of the time. And it becomes a vicious cycle, in that when one of those kinds of movies get made, they don't get wide enough distribution to break out, since the beancounters don't think they'll be hits.

 

I have a single movie theater in my town, with six screens. There has not been a #1 film released in the past decade that has not played at my theater. Meaning that distribution is key. If the product went out to more outlets it may have a better shot. Demographers and other "experts" tell the theater chains and the studios what won't "play" where, so we don't get a chance to show a change in taste.

  • Like 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Remakes, reboots, rehashed zombie / alien invasions, boring horror, stupid superhero / action. Creativity RARE!  Been over for quite some time.

 

And of course, with the international market presently being a major contributor to Hollywood's bottom line, lets not forget here that because the actors playing zombies/aliens/monsters of all sorts/stupid or smart superheroes/et all, usually aren't quoting Shakespeare while delivering their lines, and because action films entice more of a universal(and I ain't talkin' that movie studio/theme park located in the San Fernando Valley here) audience, THIS is one of the main reasons you get all that low-brow stuff now days, ham.

 

(...but I'm sure you already knew this) 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

AND btw...

 

"Hollywood" hasn't been "the same" since they tore the Red Car trolley lines out from of the middle of the boulevard that bears its name!

 

(...to say nothin' of the one that veered off the main line and went up over the Cahuenga Pass and right past that famed outdoor amphitheater shaped in a bowl-like arrangement) 

 

;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Remakes, reboots, rehashed zombie / alien invasions, boring horror, stupid superhero / action. Creativity RARE!  Been over for quite some time.

 

Those who love dramas and suspense tend to want to watch them in a quiet , peaceful environment. You won't find that at a theater with kids running up and down the aisles, people playing on cell phones, kicking the back of your chair etc...

 

Those looking for that type of film tend to also have a beautiful hi def tv, stereo sound with speakers placed all around the room. No need to wait in line, pay $10 for a bucket of popcorn. Can even have an adult beverage not worry about driving home.

 

Home theater has come a long way. Times change. While movies seem to be stuck on one note like a broken record. Television has never been better. So many good things to watch, I literally can't watch them all. 

  • Like 6
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've spent the last six months blogging on exactly the reasons for the topic--

It's one thing to parrot the "I hate remakes, superhero movies and sequels", it's another thing to know WHY studios are doing it, and why they're panicking that it didn't work last summer, and they have no plan B to fall back on.

 

At some point--I put the historical cutoff date somewhere in the mid-90's, right after "Last Action Hero" popped the Pen Densham/Shane Black/Joe Esterhaz "Screenwriter Bubble" that ballooned big-name original action-screenwriter salaries into seven figures, only to line up a string of megaflops--studios started looking for ways they could make movies WITHOUT someone to make them up.

Led by Warner, movies are now "Franchises", and sold like brandnames:  If one movie is a hit, you'll literally hear producers talk about what movie will be next in the "new franchise".  

Look at what new catalog movies are still licensed to Netflix, Hulu and Amazon for streaming on an average month:  Back to the Future 1-3, Lethal Weapon 1-4, Superman 1-5...Studios in the 10's are honestly unable to see audiences watching one movie as opposed to another; they see audiences attracted to what they associate with a corporately-owned name, and all you have to do is slap the logo on a summer teaser poster for the next movie, and they'll already know what to buy a ticket for.

 

And...then...came........MARVEL.  The idea that you could join all your movies together under one banner, make five or six movies over the next three years ("Hey, our hands are tied, we have to make this one or the others won't make sense!"), and then an even bigger movie where the disconnected characters all meet.

Problem is, Marvel had already been doing it in print for fifty years--They had an entire story department of writers working on the same story universe, where the characters all lived in the same city, so it just made story-logic sense that Iron Man would run into Spiderman at some point.

For the other studios, it's a little harder when you try to take three disjointed studio-staple franchises, remake them with new story excuses for why one might someday run into the other, and, like Sony with the Ghostbusters remake, gear up for that big Ghostbusters-Jumanji-Goosebumps crossover, to remind you of the good people at Sony Pictures!

 

Last summer, Paramount hoped that Star Trek would build the studio and that the Ninja Turtles would run into the Transformers, Fox hoped that they could squeeze out one more Bryan Singer X-Men movie in time to figure out how Deadpool would meet them, Sony had its own aforementioned problems with obviously misogynistic racist geeks who couldn't "get over" funny women, and even Disney thought we still cared about Tim Burton's Alice six years after we'd stopped.

It didn't end well for any of them.  Now they have to figure out new strategies, and the strategy most studios fall back on is, "Okay, those didn't work, what else have we got?"

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

And of course, with the international market presently being a major contributor to Hollywood's bottom line, lets not forget here that because the actors playing zombies/aliens/monsters of all sorts/stupid or smart superheroes/et all, usually aren't quoting Shakespeare while delivering their lines, and because action films entice more of a universal(and I ain't talkin' that movie studio/theme park located in the San Fernando Valley here) audience, THIS is one of the main reasons you get all that low-brow stuff now days, ham.

 

ACTION movies??  After they stopped hiring the aforementioned screenwriters, studios literally forgot how to write and package action movies, and found themselves stuck to continuing "franchises" they'd begun in the 90's and early-00's:  Die Hard, Mission: Impossible, Jason Bourne, etc.

Now action movies seem to exist only as a contractual obligation to keep Bruce Willis, Matt Damon or Tom Cruise employed and justify not taking their A-list salaries to other studios--And the more off-the-rails that Tom goes offscreen, the more that audiences don't want to subsidize his latest personal X-stunt, when Cruise's Scientology engrams convince him he really can hang from airplanes just like Ethan Hunt.

 

So, studios are just now starting to realize they can't sell action movies in the US anymore.  Look at any action sequel in the past fifteen years, and show me a sequel that didn't take the action to London, Paris or Hong Kong for the second film, for the folks who do still watch "bang-up action films from Hollywood, USA".

But there's still a basic insecurity of, shall we say, underperformance, if once-mighty Hollywood studios who remember the 90's can't make a decent action film anymore.  They start to mythologize the great action films of the 60's and 70's, with Lee Marvin and Steve McQueen, and hope we'll come back if they remake "The Magnificent Seven"...Even if they visibly have no clue what the original movie was about.

 

(One time, I had a focus-group survey on a disastrous earlier draft of a "Scarface" remake they still hope to hash out someday--

One of the wrap-up questions was "What other franchises(sic) would you like to see rebooted?:  The Godfather, Pulp Fiction, The Dirty Dozen, Die Hard, etc.?"

Those weren't in production, that was literally a cry for help:  They weren't asking for sequel/remake ideas, they were asking "What magic words can we say to summon you back to a theater again, just like the old days?...'Abracadabra, Bridge on the River Kwai!'")

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Before people get too hysterical (well, too late, probably), I'd like to point out three of the 30 biggest-grossing films of 2016 are among the Best Picture nominees: La La Land at No. 24 (so far), Hidden Figures at No. 26 and Arrival at No. 30. Also, Manchester by the Sea and Fences have done very well, given their respective budgets. Moonlight is a major nominee that hasn't had the financial success of some of these others (it's probably the most challenging of any of these films), but some significant wins might change that.

 

Now, I can't deny this is still pretty dramatically different from a generation ago. In 1976, the two biggest grossing films of the calendar year (Rocky being released too late in the year to have much impact) were One Flew over the Cuckoo's Nest and All the President's Men. Then you had Dog Day Afternoon at No. 7. And even something as bleak and challenging to sit through as Taxi Driver made No. 12!

 

The relaxation of television censorship standards, especially on cable, premium pay networks and now Internet networks have meant that people no longer have to go to the theaters to see sophisticated works like those listed above.  And, as noted below, the quality of the home viewing experience being through the roof for those who can afford it anyway. I suppose a lot of it depends on where you live. Most of the big American cities have thriving movie houses that feature indie or foreign films or films that at least fit outside the most successful commercial genres these days. I happen to live in a big city. I suppose it's tougher to find films like these in the theater for people who don't. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've spent the last six months blogging on exactly the reasons for the topic--

It's one thing to parrot the "I hate remakes, superhero movies and sequels", it's another thing to know WHY studios are doing it, and why they're panicking that it didn't work last summer, and they have no plan B to fall back on.

 

At some point--I put the historical cutoff date somewhere in the mid-90's, right after "Last Action Hero" popped the Pen Densham/Shane Black/Joe Esterhaz "Screenwriter Bubble" that ballooned big-name original action-screenwriter salaries into seven figures, only to line up a string of megaflops--studios started looking for ways they could make movies WITHOUT someone to make them up.

Led by Warner, movies are now "Franchises", and sold like brandnames:  If one movie is a hit, you'll literally hear producers talk about what movie will be next in the "new franchise".  

Look at what new catalog movies are still licensed to Netflix, Hulu and Amazon for streaming on an average month:  Back to the Future 1-3, Lethal Weapon 1-4, Superman 1-5...Studios in the 10's are honestly unable to see audiences watching one movie as opposed to another; they see audiences attracted to what they associate with a corporately-owned name, and all you have to do is slap the logo on a summer teaser poster for the next movie, and they'll already know what to buy a ticket for.

 

And...then...came........MARVEL.  The idea that you could join all your movies together under one banner, make five or six movies over the next three years ("Hey, our hands are tied, we have to make this one or the others won't make sense!"), and then an even bigger movie where the disconnected characters all meet.

Problem is, Marvel had already been doing it in print for fifty years--They had an entire story department of writers working on the same story universe, where the characters all lived in the same city, so it just made story-logic sense that Iron Man would run into Spiderman at some point.

For the other studios, it's a little harder when you try to take three disjointed studio-staple franchises, remake them with new story excuses for why one might someday run into the other, and, like Sony with the Ghostbusters remake, gear up for that big Ghostbusters-Jumanji-Goosebumps crossover, to remind you of the good people at Sony Pictures!

 

Last summer, Paramount hoped that Star Trek would build the studio and that the Ninja Turtles would run into the Transformers, Fox hoped that they could squeeze out one more Bryan Singer X-Men movie in time to figure out how Deadpool would meet them, Sony had its own aforementioned problems with obviously misogynistic racist geeks who couldn't "get over" funny women, and even Disney thought we still cared about Tim Burton's Alice six years after we'd stopped.

It didn't end well for any of them.  Now they have to figure out new strategies, and the strategy most studios fall back on is, "Okay, those didn't work, what else have we got?"

 

How many here have watched "The Thin Man" and not watched the other films in the franchise ? Or the many other films Powell and Loy made together.   Movie "franchises" , serials, whatever name they were called.  Who could watch only one installment of Boston Bla...ie or The Saint or so many other films ?   This is nothing new.

 

Didn't King Kong eventually fight Godzilla ? That's joining two "franchises". Its really about giving the public what they will pay to see. Its always been this way.

 

One thing is for sure, no matter how much money is spent on a film. If there is no diversity, it will under perform. Not only are we now more diverse but, international. And a good way to get people to watch your film is to include them or someone who looks like them in the film. Now films can premiere in the U.S.A, Europe and China all at once. One big splash.

 

This is a major reason so many action films are being made. You don't need too much translation of a punch, an explosion or some car driving off of a cliff. If you look at box office results ( I use http://www.boxofficemojo.com/ ), a film that supposedly has bombed actually does well overseas. Hence the reason for a sequel. They don't care where the money comes from as long as it comes.

 

Marvel checks all the boxes. Its action that is easy to follow : Simple plot. Diverse. International cast and characters. Pretty effects. And as EricJ has noted, Marvel has been doing this in their magazines for decades. Its a simple transition to film. And when they are bringing in a billion+ a film, its real easy ! 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Didn't King Kong eventually fight Godzilla ? That's joining two "franchises". Its really about giving the public what they will pay to see. Its always been this way.

 

If you mean the Toho/Universal version, yes.  (And Toho, like the Universal Monsters, was another early example of "Franchise Universes", since they told us that Godzilla lived on Monster Island with Mothra, Rodan and the Twin Fairies, where they all buddied around with each other.)

 

If you mean the one that Warner is currently concocting to try and join sequels to the '14 "Godzilla" with "Kong: Skull Island", and then tie a new string of Pacific Rim sequels in with for their, new, quote, "MonsterVerse", that's a little more strategically artificial and less audience-intuitive than Toho used to do it.

And that was sorta my point.

 

Marvel checks all the boxes. Its action that is easy to follow : Simple plot. Diverse. International cast and characters. Pretty effects. And as EricJ has noted, Marvel has been doing this in their magazines for decades. Its a simple transition to film. And when they are bringing in a billion+ a film, its real easy ! 

 

 

I don't think Marvel really PLANNED to do a "Franchise universe" when Samuel L. Jackson popped up to drop the A-word at the end of "Iron Man", it just sort of...happened, and then sounded like a neat idea when they thought it might be possible.

When you have Universal trying to figure out what "solo spinoffs" they can spin off of "Fast & the Furious", just because it's their house franchise (do they give Vin Diesel or Dwayne Johnson his own movie, or both?), it sort of emphasizes why it was a better thing that Marvel already knew how to do this thing.

The new guys just aren't quite getting it.  Even Warner, which does own a comic-book company doesn't quite seem to get it, probably because they're not the ones writing the comics.

 

Another thing to bring it back to the point is, the solo heroes that have recently been most successful for Marvel--Doctor Strange, Ant-Man, the Guardians of the Galaxy--seem to be the ones we've never heard of in our lives, and are just hearing about for the first time.

Gee, it's almost like...we're enjoying hearing stories that are completely NEW to us!  Y'know, like Pixar and Disney have been doing with their original stories!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It does seem like motion picture companies( there's no real "studios" anymore) followed the lead and are using the formula that worked so well for the MUSIC industry.....based on  the notion:

 

"If you feed enough people enough  garbage  over a long enough period of time, they'll eventually start to think it's gourmet cuisine." 

 

I remember as a kid riding with my Mom and Grandmother to the restaraunt they worked at in Detroit.  En route we rode through a neighborhood that was permeated with a strong and horrible stench.  I noticed there were several houses in a small residential section nearby.  I remember asking, "How can these people LIVE around here with that STINK?"  And my Grandmother answering, "They probably lived here so long that they got used to it."

 

 

Sepiatone

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It does seem like motion picture companies( there's no real "studios" anymore) followed the lead and are using the formula that worked so well for the MUSIC industry.....based on  the notion:

 

"If you feed enough people enough  garbage  over a long enough period of time, they'll eventually start to think it's gourmet cuisine." 

 

I remember as a kid riding with my Mom and Grandmother to the restaraunt they worked at in Detroit.  En route we rode through a neighborhood that was permeated with a strong and horrible stench.  I noticed there were several houses in a small residential section nearby.  I remember asking, "How can these people LIVE around here with that STINK?"  And my Grandmother answering, "They probably lived here so long that they got used to it."

 

 

Sepiatone

 

That "garbage" is thinly veiled propaganda, often done in poor taste.  At least the little bits and pieces I have "consumed."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

I don't think Marvel really PLANNED to do a "Franchise universe" when Samuel L. Jackson popped up to drop the A-word at the end of "Iron Man", it just sort of...happened, and then sounded like a neat idea when they thought it might be possible.

 

Actually, they did plan it out starting with Iron Man I  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Marvel_Cinematic_Universe_films#Phase_One:_Avengers_Assembled And they have movies planned until 2020, Dates of premieres out to 2028.

 

We now live in the world of "Freddy vs. Jason (2003)" and "Alien vs. Predator (2004)" . Franchises have been merging for such a long time. And with competition from so many streaming devices, anything that will get people to the theaters will be be utilized. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Actually, they did plan it out starting with Iron Man I  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Marvel_Cinematic_Universe_films#Phase_One:_Avengers_Assembled And they have movies planned until 2020, Dates of premieres out to 2028.

 

Although, as pointed out, Marvel's entire print history was based on conjuring up an interlocked universe, where we knew the characters had to be "real" because they knew and ran into each other.  

If the movies are "serial"--in that the plot of Avengers 2: Age of Ultron doesn't seem to exist except as a reason to plant needed story references for Captain America: Civil War the next year--it's capturing the serial feel of the print comics, and anything else just literally wouldn't be Marvel.

We don't grab a comic book off of a shelf to read a complete self-contained story, we buy one because, like Daffy Duck, we can hardly wait to find out what happened to Dick Tracy this week (manic laughter! Loooove that man!)

 

Which unfortunately falls perfectly in line with studios' idea to turn movie franchises into yearly TV series, and end their movie "mid-credit sequences" with "Tune in for next year's exciting episode, same Bat-month, same Bat-theater!":

When Universal makes their new Cruise/Crowe "The Mummy", or Warner sets up "Kong: Skull Island" for literally no other reason than to set up the plots for future '18-'19 films--for which they've already announced the dates--you can see how storytelling has been destroyed by the need to set up audience anticipation for five-year corporate-strategy plans.  

It's become more important for Warner or Disney or Fox to announce RELEASE DATES now, three or four years into the future, and then assume they'll have something written, filmed and ready by then.  More importantly--like Bryan Singer always chain-teasing Fox's "next" X-Men film at the end of the last one--it's meant to "blackmail" both the studio and the audience into insisting that the film should be made whether the audience clamors for one or not.  Which uses a "connected story" excuse to shout down any audience objection that maybe the studio should just retire the danged series already and move on...Hey, he said it and we have to make this, hands 're tied, so there!

(Studios were historically spoiled by the fact that Harry Potter, Twilight, and LOTR were all based on books, which were written to be a multi-story arc over a so-many-year period, and they just wish they could find some way to make it happen with new movies that aren't books.  Unless they can adapt another hit YA book series, instead, and have the multi-film arc all planned out for them.)

 

And while Marvel has been Making It Look Easy, because they have diversity in their own characters (they pride themselves that "Civil War" is stylistically not the same film as "Ant-Man" or GotG, and Doctor Strange is not the Black Panther), they're basically something Nobody Else Can Do, especially not Warner/DC with their Zack Snyder movies.  

Marvel films, like the unstoppable original stories coming out of Pixar and WDFA, are different enough for us to appreciate on the value of STORY.  And that's sort of what we've been missing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Times change. While movies seem to be stuck on one note like a broken record. Television has never been better. So many good things to watch, I literally can't watch them all. 

Well, I literally can't watch all of the good films that I know are out there.

 

Really, this situation is nothing new and it's not as if most old Hollywood content wasn't juvenile and low brow. Today, there's plenty of great stuff being made all around the whole gigantic world and it isn't exactly hard to find the recommendations if you really do want to know about it. As for TV, movies have their junk but let's not pretend that 90% or more of TV isn't the kind of stuff that TLC shows.

 

The current status of film is underrated while the quality of television, while high, is absolutely overestimated.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

you know, beyond the humor of meryl streep knocking trump for his campaign 'performance' the real problem is that hollywood has now locked itself into it's own narcissistic millennial-catering box.


 


nothing is being made out there today in terms of subject matter that is gonna appeal to anyone over the age of 15.


 


hollywood of today can no longer appeal to white middle america because they have removed themselves from it.


 


how many people like myself are only going to tune into the academy ceremonies just to get a kick out of the continuing sour grape anti-trump statements? :lol:


 


when the late carrie fisher once said that she saw her problem as having grown up on rodeo drive, I think she was trying to tell her peers something.


 


she was trying to say stop knocking the real America. maybe they're the ones living the real lives while we wallow in make-believe.


Link to comment
Share on other sites

hollywood over? I've known that for quite some time now.

 

everything now sucks compared to 40 and even 30 years ago.

 

the quality of weekly network episodic television is long dead.

 

I knew that TV was in bad shape as recently as the 1980s.

 

here's what I mean. the A-1 guys of the 60s and 70s knew what they were doing and HOW to do it well. dramatically and in terms of believable human interaction.

 

if the kind of human interaction we see in movies and TV today is any accurate depiction of the millennial behavioral mindset...we're in big trouble.

 

here's just one example between the difference in quality between yesterday and today.

 

look at the opening of mannix and how the fabulous lalo schifrin theme music is meshed with the opening montage imagery. they simply cannot do that today for lack of any skill knowing how to do it.

 

meshing music with visuals always enhances dramatic impact. the same with the opening to The SIx Million Dollar Man or Star Trek.

 

now here's an example of how not to do it. one of the worst examples of meshing of music and visuals I have ever seen...the opening to Fred Dwyer's Hunter.

 

why should anyone assume that such a badly meshed opening is going to be followed by anything good dramatically or otherwise?

 

TV's best series' are those with well-meshed opening music and visuals. that's an indicator of know-how.

 

today's hollywood mantra is simply feed the millennials and bleep everybody else!...since they probably voted for trump anyway.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Many of the movies and television programs today are geared to a youthful audience.  Marketers have targeted their products toward the 20-40 year old demographic for decades.  If tastes change over the course of time, and we don't like what we see, it's because we ourselves have gotten older and moved out of the targeted age group.  Nostalgia is nice, and we lament about "the good old days" now being gone, but we have to ground ourselves in the reality that we are aging, which can account for why we don't particularly understand or accept what is popular today, compared to what was popular when we were growing up as kids.

 

The movie trailers shown at commercial breaks during the Super Bowl did not appeal to me at all, but I have no doubt they will be financially successful and draw in millions of theater-goers (for the most part).

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Many of the movies and television programs today are geared to a youthful audience.  Marketers have targeted their products toward the 20-40 year old demographic for decades.  If tastes change over the course of time, and we don't like what we see, it's because we ourselves have gotten older and moved out of the targeted age group.  Nostalgia is nice, and we lament about "the good old days" now being gone, but we have to ground ourselves in the reality that we are aging, which can account for why we don't particularly understand or accept what is popular today, compared to what was popular when we were growing up as kids.

 

The movie trailers shown at commercial breaks during the Super Bowl did not appeal to me at all, but I have no doubt they will be financially successful and draw in millions of theater-goers (for the most part).

I agree with you, midwestan, but can everything being churned out today be explained as due to changing tastes?

 

back in the 1960s and 70s in cop and detective shows it was still clearly right against wrong and the law vs. criminality but the move away from that then entered a kind of kitschy street coolness in the 1970s with shows like starsky & Hutch which had it's roots I guess in The Mod Squad. cool cops who tried to empathize a bit with the criminals.

 

but today's fare seems to be empty of that and it's all about what looks cool on the screen like lady gaga's super bowl pyrotechnics last nite.

 

I know things and societies change and nothing stays the same BUT...

 

I think today's millennial fare is absolute garbage.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree with you, midwestan, but can everything being churned out today be explained as due to changing tastes?

 

back in the 1960s and 70s in cop and detective shows it was still clearly right against wrong and the law vs. criminality but the move away from that then entered a kind of kitschy street coolness in the 1970s with shows like starsky & Hutch which had it's roots I guess in The Mod Squad. cool cops who tried to empathize a bit with the criminals.

 

but today's fare seems to be empty of that and it's all about what looks cool on the screen like lady gaga's super bowl pyrotechnics last nite.

 

I know things and societies change and nothing stays the same BUT...

 

I think today's millennial fare is absolute garbage.

 

I guess you haven't seen any pre-code gangster \ crime films.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree with you, midwestan, but can everything being churned out today be explained as due to changing tastes?

 

back in the 1960s and 70s in cop and detective shows it was still clearly right against wrong and the law vs. criminality but the move away from that then entered a kind of kitschy street coolness in the 1970s with shows like starsky & Hutch which had it's roots I guess in The Mod Squad. cool cops who tried to empathize a bit with the criminals.

 

but today's fare seems to be empty of that and it's all about what looks cool on the screen like lady gaga's super bowl pyrotechnics last nite.

 

I know things and societies change and nothing stays the same BUT...

 

I think today's millennial fare is absolute garbage.

 

Hey ND. All this you said (again around here) and James' reply to ya is remindin' me of somethin' I've been meanin' to ask ya for quite some time now.

 

And that is: You wouldn't happen to be a descendant of this dude with the winning smile here, would ya?!...

 

 

 

 

11159-004-15F85739.jpg

 

This would be Will Hays, of course.

 

(...oh, and if ya are, do your ears stick out like that too?)

 

;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Many of the movies and television programs today are geared to a youthful audience. Marketers have targeted their products toward the 20-40 year old demographic for decades. If tastes change over the course of time, and we don't like what we see, it's because we ourselves have gotten older and moved out of the targeted age group.

I used to be with it, but then they changed what *it* was. Now what I'm with isn't *it*, and what's *it* seems weird and scary to me. It'll happen to you...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 Share

© 2023 Turner Classic Movies Inc. A Time Warner Company. All Rights Reserved Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Cookie Settings
×
×
  • Create New...