Why Modern Movies Suck - They're Too Expensive
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 28 ก.ย. 2024
- The budgets for mainstream Hollywood movies have grown so huge that its almost impossible to turn a profit now. But how did this happen? And what impact does it have on the industry?
there's a flip side to this: the higher the budget, the bigger the flop, and more accelerated is the decline of film companies trying to push THE MESSAGE. smaller budget and indie films might actually earn the spotight out of this mess, if they are genuinely inclined in simply telling a good story.
the only exception is Barbie who was a Box office wonder, but other than that you are right, Movies with less money put are being the bigger pay off
Silver linings everywhere.
@@justsomeguywholovesberserk6375barbie earned that much money due to genius marketing and the unexpected barbenheimer phenomenon (or was it the plan all along?) either way, there's nothing about the movie itself that deserved that 1 billion box office success.
@@XeniaChowI mean there was also the memes, and the interent boosting it and the music too, the marketing was absolute genius
The audience has spoken! We need more films like Barbie! Entertaining, with intelligence, skill, and artistry. One billion in two weeks!!
This is what I liked in Netflix some years ago: they were making movies on low-ish budget. They had to compromise on visuals, hire less known actors, have an actual story to tell and, most importantly, use classic artistic creativity. Ten years ago, these direct-to-streaming sometimes felt more 'true' movies than what was in cinemas.
Yes except for (((Cuties ))) and making movies with less white main characters.
Just how true
@@josephsade3423check lockwood and co. They're still making those.
I forget what they made but I enjoyed some redbox originals as well. I miss syfy channel Saturday cheese movies not even sure they show them anymore because no cable.
@@Drak976 I miss SciFi Channel.
It’s probably why Puss in Boots: The Last Wish is so liked. It has great writing, treats its audience with respect, isn’t afraid to go into serious topics and doesn’t crack any smart ass jokes while doing so. Like you asked in your review, where DID this movie come from and where can we get more?
Same for Top Gun Maverick. It just wanted to entertain with a simple but emotionally effective story and nothing else. Felt like such a breath of fresh air.
Not as recent, but Rango (2011) was great for the same reason.
A film that talks about an important and serious message that isn’t not for kids
Same for across the spiderverse
Puss was still the hero and he wasn’t made weak
Fun Fact: the “using coconuts to make a galloping sound” bit from Monty Python was created because the filmmakers didn’t have the budget for horses. Creative restrictions give birth to creativity.
Oh no, boy. Hahaha this is just a fan fic. Did u believe?
@@Zanollo5huh?
@@jurassicthunder huh
It’s kinda funny how movies shot on Film are literally cheaper yet better even tho it’s FILM which realistically should be the more expensive way to record stuff.
Yet the digitally recorded ones are uber expensive and getting crappier, while being advertised as being the cheaper more "efficient." Alternative.
Seems to be a common trend actually amongst digital media were it just is kinda a down grade quality wise than it’s apparently more expensive predecessor, while being advertised as this thing that creates a *quantity* of "good content."
Film is a finite thing, You’re less likely to waste time and money with it than you do with digital.
Hey maybe digital media promotes worse entertainment because digital media is the pinnacle of consumerism and not great at ensuring quality or creativity especially from Artists 🤷🏻♂️
In other words, when you didnt have a limitless amount of content on a small device you probably, were more likely to think outside the box as an creative person than you were having access to limitless amount of content. Essentially with digital media you’ve essentially removed most filters of bad entertainment.
But hey i guess im just a 17 year old "regressive." boomer
I mean surely it’s just a coincidence that quantity of digital content downgraded quality of Movies, TV, Music.
It’s almost like trying to find a gold coin is almost impossible if it is submerged in a ocean of absolute Shit. Especially with Music on the Internet.
Like dude, trying to find an actually great Artist who’s on the same level as bands like Van Halen, Metallica or Black Sabbath, OR Artists like MJ, Madonna, Brittney Spears, Dr.Dre is pretty difficult when they all are overshadowed by a Sea of Mediocre Artists who all make music with a laptop in their room.
It’s almost like we make being an Artist too easy right???
@@LordBackuro Why are Blockbusters so bad now... is litrally a videotitle thx to Cody Johnston
0h and his Worker-Video and Striek-Video may also be of relevance
As a lorry driver, I spoke to a driver who worked in the film industry. He said that whilst he was one of the lowest paid jobs on set, he still got a far better rate of pay than regular driving. I imagine that the salaries become exponentially ridiculous.
What's a lorry?
@@catandrobbyfloresit's the English way of saying what the Americans call semi trucks
They are. In the US, in IATSE as of 2019, I believe the lowest a union "propmaker" could be paid was 32/hr, and they might just be sweeping floors.
@@catandrobbyflores Truck.
@@cabbageboiothank you. not all americans are savvy on british english. 😊
You have better writing in your videos than the average script for the movies offered in theaters.
He's a successful author, which is more than most guild writers are.
this is why the drinker is approaching 2M subscribers. He actually thinks about what he wants to say and then-shockingly!-crafts how he wants to say it. Clearly there is still an audience out there game for cogent, well-reasoned thought.
@@JoshuaKevinPerrynot at all
Joss Whedon ruined a generation.
Sad, but true.
_"How much money do we need to make to break even?"_
_"At least a billion."_
_"And how much of our audience have we alienated?"_
_"No idea people won't respond to our polls anymore."_
_"I like those odds let's do it!"_
Basically: Modern Hollywood
Hollywood how much money do you want to lose?
Hollywood: *YES*
Genius!!
We leaked that we're turning this character black and this one transgender, all while denigrating this legacy hero. The responses on Twitter were very favourable. Clearly, this is what the people want.
Barbie over a billion in TWO WEEKS!! 🎉
I recently read Carrie Fisher's memoir about making the first star wars movie and it was incredible to hear about all the creative ideas that were put into what they thought was going to be this tiny film with a bunch of no name actors. I blame the rise of CGI for a lot of it, if you look at early Marvel movies like Captain America or Iron Man- while they did use special effects most of the movie didn't, they weren't all standing around a green screen with a green suit on. It was focused more on the story and the characters.
Brb, I now have to go watch Pirates of the Caribbean, The Fugitive, and Mrs Doubtfire
Edit: spelling mistake
Definitely. CGI was used only to display what couldn't be done with practical effects. Even Cap's shield in the First Avenger was 90% practical, only using CGI when it bounced off walls.
You can never replace shooting on set. In my opinion, if making the movie was an adventure then the final product is going to feel like an adventure.
Pete Jackson is a good example of "the more CGI the better syndrome." One can see he relies more and more on CGI during the making of LotR from a little in Fellowship to quite a bit in Return to way too much in Hobbit.
Autocorrect - doesn’t.
@@dan1216 whoops autocorrect, thanks for letting me know! :)
I’ve worked on film sets and I can tell you they just throw money around. It seemed evident to me that there is little to know accounting for all the money changing hands, so how many people were taking advantage?
The rate at which these budgets are skyrocketing suggests to me that some people found a way to take advantage big time! I’m talking millions at a time. This is why Kathleen Kennedy staffing so many productions with “her people” is so suspicious and seems to coincide with ballooning of budgets and seemingly getting so much less for so much more money.
Agree entirely, The money isn't going on the screen, therefore I suspect it is going into someone's pocket. I bet if you 'follow the money' you'll discover the money goes to a third party firm, and then vanishes, only to re-appear as a new car/yacht/house for someone closely involved int he production. What else could possibly explain the Rings of Power?
If your goal is to siphon off money for corruption wouldn't people like Kathleen actually be working hard to ensure these movies are well received by EVERYONE to keep the cash flow going and avoid questions? It seems like she has only ever cared for half of the population or even less. So if the goal was to siphon money from Disney this whole time then she really does just absolutely suck at her job. A Russian prostitute would of done better in this position.
You guys might actually be on to something.
Hollywood's a big club and everyone needs their cut.
Most likely money laundering
My first year of college was 2009 and there were two outstanding movies I saw with my buddies. I am of course referring to District 9 and Zombieland. The combined budget of those two movies was $54 million and their total box office was $313 million . You could make six Zombieland/District 9 double features for the cost of one Indiana Jones and the Snooty British Woman Who Won't Stop Yapping. It's not rocket science guys.
District 9 was actually and indie film too
Those films are shit
@@MASTEROFEVILummm, what's your point? Indie stands for independent, and that can mean pretty much anything. The fact that that it wasn't a huge studio production qualifies it as an "indie" film, but it was produced by Peter Jackson and had a professional VFX studio behind it.... The original comment basically says District 9 was a good film made on a tight budget. Did you think you were saying something different?
😂
District 9 not only was an indie movie but it literally changed the way movies are filmed.
@@HumanityisEmbarrassingyou must be fun at parties
I just recently re-watched Lilo and Sitch. While it may not be a cinematic masterpiece, it was overall a very enjoyable lighthearted movie. I kept thinking while watching "why doesn't Disney make fun movies anymore?"
They fired everybody who knew what one looked like.
I recently watched Enchanted again and it felt like sunbathing with a beer in hand. The writing is also quite creative, the special way of mixing traits from different realms.
That movie reminded me why I love MLPFiM so much. Uncynical work of love with a cheerful base theme. - Feelgood movies seem underappreciated recently, dunno. Everybody gets obsessed with survival themes.
Because leftists don't believe in fun, it's a bougie trait. Never forget that ultimately socialism is a death cult.
Ideology precludes fun.
Happy people are evil in woke world.
@@blisterbill8477 Ideology is neutral. The word is referring to ideals, which are high states of being to aspire to, so it has value.
You could say that Greek philosophers were idealists.
The antithesis is pragmatists, which are perfectly happy only using what is already there and considered useful, thereby affirming the status quo that the takers are exploiting in a way that makes things worse.
One factor you didn't mention is streaming. There is no reason to spend 50$ on gas, parking tickets and popcorn to watch "Mrs. Doubtfire" or "The Firm" in the cinema when you can stream it 3 month later at home. So studios try to make big, expensive spectacles. Movies so massive, that you simply have to watch them on a big IMAX screen. Those movies then cost enormous ammounts of money .
There still IS a market for lower budget theatrical release movies and the industry "experts" don't or won't comprehend this. The "date night" movie is a good example. Going to some big loud spectacle does not make for a good movie experience on "date night", especially with married couples. These movies can be made on low budgets and have enough appeal to make real profits, especially when many of them can be made by the same company in a year.
Sure- Those movies exist. But why would couples go to the theaters for them? They can watch them at home on their couch. The term "Netflix & Chill" exists for a reason.
@@DrunkenPadawanDo you want to stay at home all the time? That's your preference. People have preferences you know.
i have never had a streaming service
i watch all my stuff on physical media
because i dont want to leave it up to the streaming to edit and alter my entertainment
I actually don't really like that idea as much. I mean that's just me. I think theatres are a very iconic part of film and have rightful use with cinema.
You should talk about how Marvel movies are bankrupting studios that do CGI. How companies are undercutting eachother to get the contracts for a Marvel movie and then after the movies changed 20 times and they have to keep redoing effects they've bankrupted their company.
That is bad business management. Not marvels fault.
Filmmaker: *"I would like to make a small budget movie"*
Hollywood: *"We'll double the budget and must cater to... M0dern Audiencezzzzzzzz"*
Pretty much
And fill the studio executive's bank accounts..
Yeaaaa when they do that this channel fines tiny flaws and calls it woke....his 14yr old anime shut in fans send him money to do it again for the next film....these channels are making money
My reaction: "Fine, I will take my business to Angel Studios."
@@Shawn6751you've never heard of them besides one movie
Ultimately, a film is supposed to be a work of art at a certain level. The current Hollywood approach of script writing by committee and screentesting every single thing is the biggest problem. They are going to have to learn how to let go of control and allow a talented filmmaker to have singular control over a project. They need to find the next Spielberg, Lucas, or Kubrik who is in his 20s and just empower them to make a film without interference. It is a stifling of artistic freedom combined with a corporate obsession with pushing "The Message" that is killing Hollywood.
Only a minute in and the amount of editing for this one is unreal. Excellent job, bro. You had like 300 million movie shots in here.
I think also the problem is that Hollywood had a twofold issue that became a begative feedback loop:
1. Bigger has to be better: every subsequent film must be bigger than the last. An audience won't voluntarily see a film that is subdued compared to what came before, so what comes next has to be bigger and flashier.
2. Streaming services ike Netflix and Amazon Prime were making crazy money, so they were happily throwing around huge sums spend on vanity projects and especially trying to poach star power away from Hollywood. Hollywood had to respond in kind by upping their expenditure.
There is potentially light at the end of the tunnel. A lot of these decisions were driven by audience predicition models which don't seem to be matching reality. They were correct at first, but how can you predict audience apathy? Downward trends need to be understood, but an algorithm can't tell you until the trend actually begins, but by this point it's too late. Hopefully cool indie flicks will resirge in response.
Anything that relies on marketing, where they tell you "better taste", more "filling", by offering you less, with more chemicals, or other brainwashing is never going to be normal. The media's income is solely based on lying to its customers. After 30 years of this, you are so far offside, that this is what you get. No one normal in charge, with no brains to relate to normal folks.
They THINK audiences won't come and see a less spectacular film. At best that's unproven.
Engineer's note: Negative feedback loop is stable/self-correcting. Positive feedback loop is what you meant
Netflix & Amazon aren't making money on their shows, or movies. They make money through subs, like Airlines do through Rewards.
Fact: Game of Thrones generated $0, while Fast & Furious generated $7 Billion.
@@eitantal726Think of it as NEGATIVE...Feedback loop, not "negative feedback loop."
This has been on the top of my tongue forever when I try and think of whats wrong with movies. You just described it perfectly, they have just became too expensive! When things cost that much, less risks are taken, more sequels, more studios interfering with directors visions ruining movies… omg you hit the nail on the head!
There can be a lot of reasons why Hollywood has been failing:
- The general lack of new original content.
- Relying on past IPs or rewriting them, which can promote lazy writing and degraded content.
- There are a plethora of movies more than ever, forcing companies to rely more and more on advertising to pass a product.
- Pushing agendas more importantly than telling a story (Not every movie, obviously).
- Criticizing the audience when the shows fail or do poorly, which is an absolutely dumb move in trying to sell future products.
- Less and fewer people to watch movies, forcing companies to rely even more on trying to promote their product.
There's a whole drinker series of these videos. This is just the latest installment.
You left out terrible writing
Lack of talent from top to bottom. From producers all the way down to writers. In the case of the recent Star Wars movies how unlikable was the main actress? The one person that absolutely had to win the audience over stunk. Take away Robin Williams salary, how much do you think a movie like Dead Poets Society cost to make? Dirt cheap I imagine and better than anything Hollywood is currently able to make. How much do you think Good Will Hunting cost, Shawshank Redemption, etc? these are movies with good writing and good acting, not wiz bang boom. With big budgets you get no story, stifled dialogue, and mostly lots of wiz bang boom. Mostly the script writers in Hollywood today are just awful, they're currently striking, but they should be replaced. You know when Game of Thrones went downhill? you guessed it its when the show got ahead of George R Martin, the Hollywood writers screwed it up. The most horrific recent script writer was Patty Jenkins for Wonder Woman 1984.
Nepotism as well. When you hire someone based on their name or family rather than talents, you get someone lazy who doesn't know how to effectively tell stories. They're also set on telling their own story because it's all about them.
@@destinyhntr Uhm, the armorer on Alec Baldwin's movie comes to mind.
It's not an accident, it's called gatekeeping. Price out genuine talent and/or dissenting opinions, monopolize on propaganda. Same thing has happened with video games
The mainstream videogame scene is even worse than mainstream TV over the past few years, I dare say. Once upon a time videogames were essentially the one media outlet, the one sanctuary, largely untouched/unsubverted by progressive cartel that dominates just about every other industry today. Then BioWare happened, dialogue-intensive roleplaying games with a focus on romance became the next frontier, and now it's all but required for every game to have LGBTLMNOP++++ 'romance' options. Even in AC:Valhalla they made half the vikings homosexual, which is absurd given it was a capital crime in viking society.
To add onto the above, it's hard to miss how upset people get if every society in every video game isn't this perfect mix of global representation. People got upset at Final Fantasy XVI because the predominantly western European inspired world of swords, sorcery, and kingdoms wasn't a bastion of representation. It's getting exhausting to engage with AAA gaming because either the developers put revisionist history nonsense into their games to try to be as non-controversial as possible, or they don't cater to that crowd and get crucified for having a game vision and bringing it to life without compromise.
@@vladivanov5500AC went woke since Unity. Stop playing their games since. Anime is the only entertainment that's safe that's because The people in power (which by that I mean the Dems/lefts) have no power over what Japan does. That's why the left been going after Anime and Manga for years but can't really touch them. Sure their been a few force stuff. Like MHA had a T person in it. But they were quickly killed off because people in Japan know that crap don't sell. They only put it in the show to please the lefts.
@@Necrofitz
Preach.
Indie games or older games are virtually the only avenues for good ass shit without worrying about problems. Sometimes, even if they have problems, they’re still better because they’re still fundamentally good games. You’re also not having to spend $60+ for over 100 gb’s of game
Yep, monopolies develop due to the driving force of capitalism pushing for competitive self-interest, profit maximization and infinite growth - and they we wonder why we don't have as many nice Mom and Pop shops in town, or unique indie films or video games or music being offered to us? Corporate capture is late stage capitalism and that's where we will be until we start creating a better system.
WE can do that, but only if we recognize the root problem and start taking steps, using a shared strategy to make it better. One Small Town is trying, other groups like it are developing something. We can all at least share good thought-provoking media and connect that way.
Another thing to consider, the ballooning of budgets requires international audiences. That means scripts and dialogue need to be simple so that they aren’t lost in translation.
hmm, if that would be truth anime wouldn't be popular, and nobody would have interest in subtitled movies over dubbed with regional voice actors. If anything watching other cultures, including from my corner, U.S. culture, is stimulating. Believe me, the Death Note adaptation by Netflix, made simpler, is taken as a writing made by simpletons, to simpletons, instead of the story narrated in the manga. I guess movies like Master and Commander wouldn't exist either with this approach to be "open" to the world.
I think the bigger problem would be, that you start to have to take into account the politics of all the other big markets. Like, say, not doing anything that the censors in china finds to offensive to them.
@@ReinoldFZgranted anime is popular but rarely does an anime movie get a wide theatrical release in the us it’s usually just select theaters so although it’s popular it’s kinda niche too
@@ReinoldFZ I agree this is the reality for anime consumers. The problem is American studios BELIEVE others can't understand our culture. They also don't want to cut out things that get censored elsewhere. The difference between theses two industries is that Japan is making stuff for Japanese people but it happens to appeal to international audiences, whereas Americans are making movies to please a strawman "international" movie goer. They seem to think movies need to represent America instead of just entertaining Americans.
@@taln0reichShame they didn't learn anything with Maverick.
I’m rewatching the XFiles, half way through season two now, and the writing is so good. The characters are SO good (such strong, distinct personalities and quips). All those small, vulnerability-showing scenes between Mulder and Scully bring back every emotion. So much of this show is so simple (by today’s standards), and yet I feel more for the XFiles than I do any superhero film. Watching this show takes you back to this glorious time when two decent people built trust and respect and learnt to work together; it’s like a long, cool drink for the mind.
Clint Eastwood liked Don Siegel's work on Invasion of the Body Snatchers because Siegel shot a great movie on a low budget. So Eastwood began an association with him. Eastwood was not a fan of blowing a lot of money to shoot a movie.
My points exactly. Speaking of another Gillian Anderson adjacent movie, I watched House of Mirth instead of The Flash and Blue Beetle and that movie genuinely broke my heart because I cared about Lily Bart and her struggles.
Going back to X-Files, I felt so bad for Scully in the "Irresistible" episode. He father died the previous year and she almost died after being kidnapped by a mad man (this applies to both Duane Barry and Donnie Pfaster) and being experimented on by aliens. She's dealing with a lot of PTSD, and yet she powers through it like a badass.
There was a little clip there of Akira Kurosawa's Ran. I was reading recently that its budget was $20million dollars (mostly raised by Spielberg and Lucas). Adjusted for inflation, thats around $60million. This, for a huge epic that featured huge samurai armies slaughtering each other on the side of a volcano, and an entire replica castle which was burnt down just to provide a cool framing shot and zero CGI, everything was built from scratch. And it still cost around one fifth of the latest Indiana Jones. There is something very broken about the industry.
You used to be able to see where the money was going on the screen. Not anymore. Everything is the same computerized crap. There is no more magic to it, no more wonder. No more sense of “how did they do it?“ Just “which software did they use and which button did they push?“ There is no artistry to any of this.
You’re leaving out A LOT of variables here. First, this movie was not filmed in the US, where you have strict health and safety regulations. On top of that, each state has varying fees for movie productions. Perhaps this isn’t the case where Ran was filmed. Perhaps the size of the film crew was small on this production. Perhaps the government gave the production a huge tax break for filming a movie promoting Japanese culture. The point is, you’re trying to compare apples and oranges and blaming one particular store because oranges don’t taste like apples
@@eyespy3001 yeah I was gonna say, its very hard to compare movie budgets across countries, and especially across countries. Like Jackie Chan's movie Police Story cost $2 million but there's no way you could've made anything like it for $2 million in the US in 1985. $2 million goes a lot further in a place like Hong Kong
@@artirony410 Precisely. I was actually going to use Hong Kong movie productions- specifically Jackie Chan’s run-and-gun style of filmmaking back in the day- as an example of different standards, but it would’ve made an already long response even longer. Thank you for adding it to the conversation.
It's interesting because the same thing happens in gaming. AAA titles are trash and indie games are the only thing worth spending money on these days. Great video as always!!
Capitalism is and always be a bad thing. AAA companies like Xbox, EA, Konami, Ubisoft, Bethesda, Activision-Blizzard, Square Enix and so on clearly forgot why they were so famous 10-15 years ago. For me, only 2 companies and 2 studios at other companies are left whom I still trust in the AAA sector: Sony, Capcom, From Software and Rockstar. That is all!!!
The truth is I believe less and less that they still have that level of dedication, intention and creativity, which would allow them to make such a spectecular resurrection as the one we saw in Capcom's Case in the past 6 or 7 years.
I just need one word to prove You wrong:
FromSoft.
Yeah, MOST big budget productions are trash, but frankly so are most indie games. I would know, 90 % if my gaming purchases are indies.
They're just cheaper and less hyped so it doesn't hurt as much when they end up being mediocre.
@@w12266 But indie gaming is planted in the same capitalist system, so it's morel ike a partial soft reboot. Now you got many small creative competitors engaging in a brutal elbowing game for marketing, complete with highly corrupt media.
@@w12266video games would not exist past tennis for 2 without capitalism dawg. Even the best indie games, assuming they ain’t free, are to make their designers a profit. It just so happens that at that level making a genuinely good product is the best way to make money.
@@w12266 I wouldn't write capitalism off. I'm no apologist; capitalism has definitely contributed to exploitation at the ground level, but I think the fact that these AAA companies have been allowed to peddle garbage for so long at ridiculous prices is almost the opposite of capitalism.
Capitalism invites competition and innovation because it's measured on consumerism. These big game companies (and Hollywood for that matter) became complacent in thinking that they control the market, so they'll do what they want-- shitty movies, buggy games-- because you have no other alternatives. The indie market exists because brave souls decided to use their capital to create an alternative, and in turn a parallel market, and we as consumers buy into it as the better purchase to Hollywood's/the game companies' detriment. Capitalism can save these industries, but not the big ones anymore; they're too big and too distant from the consumer.
It’s the modern example of doing more with less. Some examples that come to mind are “The Blair Witch Project” and “Saw”.
Or the early Tarantino movies or anything by Kevin Smith. God, Kevin Smith's career started when he maxed out his credit card to make a black and white art house film. Or really, any of the franchises that they are killing into the ground -- Star Wars, Indiana Jones, Star Trek, Terminator and many others started out as fairly low budget endeavors. Or best example of all, Mad Max, budget of beer and pocket lint, made 100 million in 1979. All on good story.
Horror movies are still pretty good with this. They're more niche than your typical blockbuster but it doesn't matter because they're financially viable.
@@supermax64 Only good recent horror is Megan.
@@supermax64 Exactly. Smile had a budget of "just" 17 million USD, had relatively few characters which I only really just considered now because I was invested in the characters and the story. It made $217 million back.
Hollywood could make 15 movies at those budgets and get more back overall instead of chancing it on a single 300 million USD "bet".
I like the Jason Blum model: low budgets, big back-end participation. He says this combo incentivizes the creation of better movies, because there's less studio interference (they don't care as much about the movie because the budget is low) and because the talent is motivated to make a great movie because their compensation depends on the box office.
I agree with the idea in practice, but let’s be honest Blum house makes trash.
@@josephmayfield945 Yeah, it only occasionally works but hey at the end of it, we can still have a good laugh at all the bad movies put out by Blumhouse too.
I’m actually pretty depressed about this. My young children will never have the same experience from contemporary movies that I had as a teenager working in the local movie theater back in the day. From Jurassic Park to Forrest Gump, from Independence Day to The Green Mile, from Armageddon to Schindler’s List, from Braveheart to Gladiator, and you name it - we had it all. I’m reliving it all right now and they’re watching along. But they’ll never experience this level of quality in their own lifetime. Hollywood destroyed it all.
Yeah but they’ll have onlyfans 😂
Nah you’re right society is fucked. Home school your kids
I feel like 1990's and early 2000's were the last Golden Age of movies. All movies you listed are still on my watchlist, I rewatch theam often and they never ever get boring. Meanwhile, I can't remember the last contemporary movie I felt like watching again
@@kria9119that's actually a great question what is the most recent movie that you actually want to watch more then once. Most of mine are from the late 70s to the early 80s.
I mean, this seems to be a pretty blackpilled mindset. Aside from the fact that no one said that level of quality can't return, they'll probably just grow up with their own movies to relive.
@@RambleOn07 For me, it's all stuff within the last 10 years.
I would genuinely be on board for a Drinker "recommends" one hour special of low budget high success film study. Start somewhere in the 1960s and bring us to modern day with 40-50 films with low budgets but high value and great entertainment. MadMax, Rocky, Pulp fiction, The Terminator, Taxi, American graffiti, Monty Python, Eastwood westerns.... this list could on . All made 10x their budgets and are still seen today as great productions.
Evil Dead, Clerks...
Yeah. would be happy to see him get into titles that aren't mainstream or have massive marketing behind it. Unfortunately, hate watching/reviewing is the real money maker. Saw a channel that got a huge spike of viewers when High Guardian Spice was the hot shit, then just died out when they started doing something more positive.
@@ItsJustTeddington I'm not sure he really knows much about movies outside of mainstream movies. Like the stuff he upholds as the greatest movies ever made are just blockbusters from his childhood for the most part. I'd be glad to be proven wrong on this, but it seems like he knows very little about "the canon" of great cinema.
@@artirony410this is very true
Sprung to my mind just now to add to the list: The Babadook.
You know, you showed extremely short clips of movies made in the 90s and 80s and I instantly named and remembered the entire plot of them. I honestly don't remember most movies released in the past 10 or 15 years. Even when shown clips of them. It's a struggle to just remember the name. It's not that they are bad, it's worse. They're bland.
I remember Andre from Midnights Edge pointing out how studio meddling isn't always bad. Sometimes it is justified. Like imagine if you're a film studio and you've managed to raise $10 million for a low budget, but good quality action film. The plot is simple, but engaging, and it's stylish with a lot of effort put into the fight choreography in the vein of John Wick. It's intended to be a crowd-pleaser that'll hopefully make about $80 million in the theatres and maybe $20 million in Blu-Ray sales. Over-all, a very solid investment that'll put your little studio on the map and help you raise funds for more projects.
However, you made the mistake of hiring a director who has a few good movies under his belt and looked great on paper for a hire. But during production, it turns out he's one of those artistic douchebags that's hard to work with, inconsistent and demanding with the production crew and he constantly insists on adding in these long and, frankly, boring scenes that'll throw the whole pacing and tone of the movie off when you just want a stylish, crowd pleasing action film. You have to intervene to save the project and the future of your studio. In these instances, studio meddling is completely justified.
They hired the wrong person then, a mindless movie deserves a mindless director. In one scenario a director might be an "artistic douchebag" and in another, a master. If Disney hired Judorowsky to do the next star wars (I would love that tbh), who is to blame when things don't go as planned?
I was surprised that Oppenheimer was only at 100 million in its budget. It certainly used its budget well and it therefore was a hit even with another film making more money than it week to week.
Because it wasn't laundering money disguised as a woke shit production.
Nolan knows what he is doing. He is one of the few directors who will get me to watch his work sight unseen. He does not always hit, but he is always original and competent.
@@chuckhoyle1211 I even liked Tenet for trying something new and for some of its action set pieces. Not my favorite film of his but I had fun with it.
My favorite rebuttal of ADHD-bait, bright-lights and big explosion fetish modern movies is simply The Empath. As in, Star Trek TOS S03E12 "The Empath." The writer of the episode, Joyce Muskat, was working at a local theater at the time, and wanted her story to be shot on a bare, surreal set, like a stage play that focused on the characters. And that's all you got! A bare stage with nothing but a black curtain backdrop for the entire episode! Oh and of course the actors, doing actual acting and engaging in interesting and compelling dialog! And the bare-bones premise works! The episode is gripping and memorable and holds your attention from start to finish. What could flashy special effects and a multi-million dollar budget possibly add?
IMO take any modern movie and imagine it stripped down to nothing but a real life stage production. If you can imagine the story and acting as still compelling even as a stage-play, then it's probably a great movie where the special effects are just bonus. But if you can only imagine the stage play version with inane dialog, nonsense plot and terrible acting, then likely the movie itself is just bad regardless of its pretty effects.
Not to mention that episode was DeForest Kelley's (Bones) personal favorite.
"What could flashy special effects and a multi-million dollar budget possibly add?"
Variety.
If every movie and episode of a TV show was shot the same way, then even if the acting and writing could hold up, it would get bland and boring very fast; Going from a special artistic choice to pretentious and overused schlock.
@@OzixiThrill I think that question was both A. rhetorical and B. slightly hyberbolic, in order to prove a larger point. That being being that special effects are supposed to enhance the script, not replace it, and a good enough script might not even need big effects in the first place. Obviously you shouldn't actually make every product that way, but you should also try to imagine sometimes as a quick way to gauge how compelling the script actually is.
I'd say that rather than a stage play, go even further: Imagine the book version of it. Or just literally reading the script. Or your friend saw the movie first and is talking about their favorite scene, explaining some of the stuff they love about it. Not even any actors, just a situation where you have to imagine everything yourself.
Does it still feel like something that would make you go "I would love to see that (as a) movie!" or is it just... Bland and boring because the flashy effects were all there really was to it?
If the script is strong enough to work even when the movie is stripped down to "just" a stage play or even a book, the special effects can elevate it to true greatness. But if the script is inane garbage, it's more than likely it's probably only used to hide how there's actually nothing there.
Not the entire episode, but most of it was for the Vian lab/torture chamber scenes. And the black background worked because the set pieces that were used for those scenes now stood out in sharp, harsh contrast, like Linke and Ozaba's tubes with their bodies twisted in their death agony in it or the torture chamber itself. It helped focus the audience on those things, and the actors, just like in a theatrical play.
It also helped in keeping the budget down for the episode, since other than the science station set, there wasn't much new in terms of props. It was all action on the Enterprise (standing sets), the planet's surface (again, existing standing sets), and then minimal sets for the Vian lab and torture equipment.
Yup. Also, science fiction shows back then tended to be worked on by actual science-fiction writers and not by dude-bros who didn't care about the franchise.
One thing I didn't hear you specifically call out, but really adds to the main point being made here is that until streaming services have completely taken over the landscape, movies used to make a lot of money back with VHS/DVD sales. It would be that even if the movie doesn't do well during it's theater release, it still had the chance to turn a decent profit when it was released on VHS/DVD/Blue Ray. But this is no longer a thing and as mentioned, Hollywood studios just aren't taking any chances on anything.
Is this true though? They still get those streaming fees and save all production costs. And they still have all the merchandise rights which can be true game-changer for kids-friendly franchises. Do you think the studios would've gone all streaming when it wasn't profitable?
I found Elemental fascinating, that they had the assembled minds of the best comedy writers in the industry and couldn’t write a single joke or humorous reference in 90 minutes of cartoon.
That's because wokeness kills comedy.
@@1992holycrapThere's no wokeness in that movie though?? Like bruh, it's a generic cutesy heterosexual romance story.
@@helion_ut Except there is. The man is a pussy and the woman is a badass who gives up on her dream of owning her dad's restaurant because why not. It's point about racism makes no sense because the fire people can KILL THE OTHER RACES.
@@1992holycrap Everything's "woke" to you sheep.
@@helion_ut What you're saying is true, but on a much broader scale he's right, nowadays thanks to woke culture most comedy must remain completely inoffensive in every conceivable way. Not that clean humor is inherently bad, but when it's so clean and especially bland that a G-rated film could be considered a Hard R, you start to notice a decline.
Look at stand up routines of old and compare them to today's, comedy is trash now because God fucking forbid someone somewhere will take offense to it.
I was re-watching the old Bond movies with my family, and found it really quite interesting to note the difference in scale of the 'big' finale/fight scenes there compared to modern movies. The Bond films were *famous* (for their era) for massive, over-the-top fight scenes, with hundreds of ninjas rappelling into a volcano-rocket-base, space marines brawling in orbit, scuba-gunmen fighting underwater, and the like.
But compared to modern films? You see 'bigger' (in terms of raw numbers of actors, cgi or not, and effects) fights in almost every scene in a modern film. Just watching the clips here from this Drinker video made me feel almost exhausted, trying to follow the massive complexity of what was on-screen. And it's all so meaningless - for all that scale, the fight scenes mean nothing more (at best) than any of the much-smaller battle scenes in the finale of a Bond film.
I know several channels have covered the whole 'scale =/= quality' of a fight scene in a movie, but this really illustrated the comparison for me.
What a good movie needs is not ever bigger action scenes. It needs what the drinker often refers to as "stakes", on a proportionate level. Because the stakes have gone up as well: with Bond it's sometimes about the fate of the world, but often about something smaller, like a critical piece of military tech, or even just money. But now? When it's not just the world at stake but all other worlds, the universe, or even the multiverse... we stop caring. Just as we the audience need to be able to relate to the characters, we need to be able to relate to the stakes as well. Do that on the right scale, and a gunfight between 20 guys can become more poignant and interesting than any given MCU mega-battle.
@@kaasmeester5903For example: Tombstone, Kill Bill, and possibly the best of all; the final confrontation in the original Infernal Affairs, though the diner scene in Heat is an all-time classic too in terms of tension vs stakes.
I mean, which is better: The Ultron 'battle' in Age of Ultron, or the cliff fight in Last of the Mohicans?
"Nobody" just has a guy getting the crap beaten out of him in (mostly..) a bus.
@@kaasmeester5903 I don't need men butchered by the million by machine-guns or death rays - we have enough of that in real life. Give me two men, pistols at dawn, and make me care about them, make me understand why each hates the other and believes himself to be in the right. Make me uncertain of the outcome, and make me uncertain as to what outcome I should desire. Modern film is the same as modern warfare: indiscriminate destruction. At least two men sizing each other up at twenty paces have the human capacity to hate.
When I used to be involved in projects at a major media company I noticed that the more budget you had the less free you where to do what you want. Once you have budget you have a committee of people second guessing every decision.
The only thing worse than a movie ruled/created by a committee is a tv series ruled/created by commitee( "Earth: Final Conflict" as an example).
Art by committee can't end well.
Consider this. I watched an MST3K movie this weekend called Robot Monster, made in 1953. It's considered to be one of the worst movies ever, BUT, it only cost $16,000 to make and took in $1,000,000 at the box office.
Also consider, how many great movies, were also done with low budgets. Clerks, Blair Witch, Pulp Fiction, Mad Max, the Original Halloween. These movies were all done on the cheap, are now iconic, and turned a huge profit.
All those movies were character-driven, not effects driven. That's why they could be made cheap. Acting and story had to keep the viewer's attention when effects were too expensive. "Halloween" is an outstanding example. As cheaply as that movie was made it could have been made even CHEAPER if necessary. The whole thing could have been shot on a good camcorder.
@@davestang5454 Even the original Star Wars was made for only $11 million.
@@davestang5454 The Terminator was low budget too, yes the film is carried by the characters but also by the sfx of the terminator and Arnie pulling off the performance of a machine. Lower budgets due to being "character driven" matters little to the majority of the audience and box office, it factors in to the budget but not at the box office. The point being made is that movies can be made with low budgets and still be big hits. Regardless of being character driven or spectacle driven.
@@williampilling2168 i think 11 mil was a lot back then though, inflation costs effect hollywood too
@itsakindamagik5891 $11 Million would translate to about $46 Million in 2019. Compare that to the $275 Million that was spent in 2019 on The Rise of Skywalker.
Modern Hollywood executives aren't solely driven by money. Spreading The Message™ has become equally if not more important. If money was the only thing they cared about, they would strive to make content that is less divisive like they used to.
Wow! You must have been working on this one pretty long to get all those clips together. You covered nearly every big movie in the last 50 years. Well done Mate!
Halfway through the video, I stopped listening and started pondering this question. How did he do that? Did you go into each of those movies and cut it out and splice it together? Or is there some AI generation engine that can do this? Because if this was all done by hand, then his editor deserves a big fat raise.
It’s not difficult nor timely to do this y’know.
Yeah I was curious why there were so many random movies shown for a split second nonstop
@@maxthedoomer how do you do it? what's the secret sauce?
The other side to what you've said is that if the movie industry starts embracing smaller experimental movies it'll give a new generation of up and coming directors and writers a chance to cut their teeth and prove themselves. That's how we got Cameron, Scorsese, Spielberg, Nolan, Scott, Lucas etc. they broke through with their talent and vision. I'm really tired of seeing the same group of (increasingly old) directors being trotted out over and over again to put their name on the cover of a film.
Disney has basically gotten itself back into the 1980’s situation where they were dangerously close to bankruptcy due to a bunch of flops. Michael Eisner and Frank Wells came in as CEO and COO, respectively, mirroring the balanced relationship of creativity and financial thinking that Walt and Roy had back at the start.
Eisner was focused on getting movies that were “singles” and “doubles”: not home runs but would nevertheless turn a profit and keep the company from going under.
Crazy how they might get themselves in a pickle for simply refusing to put down the superhero flicks for a second
Not just due to flops. They went tens of billions into debt acquiring other companies just before streaming took off and COVID and probably recession. That was a stupid idea.
@@Yosemite_sam694 It's not just superhero flicks, they have picked up the baton for wokies, lefties and SJW's. Everything they have must include diversity and feminism above the storytelling, characters defined by who they are rather than what the story makes them into. Who is going to identify with that? Where is the imagination and creativity? They alienate so much of their audience because many will not expose their kids to that crap. And then it's the sheer volume of it to fill up their failing streaming service. Everything on there sticks two fingers up at the people who loved the MCU up until Infinity War.
@@jayb2705
I don’t think anyone actually considers Disney to represent left wing political ideology lmao
That’s more of a Republican talking point. I’ve never heard anyone on the left praise Disney.
Disney literally edits every single “diverse” addition they make to appeal to Chinese audiences/censorship.
@@Yosemite_sam694
Franchise fatigue!
The underlying problem isn't new but I agree that it has gotten worse. Several hit movies were initially turned down by studios who didn't think they would make money including American Graffiti, My Big Fat Greek Wedding, and the original Star Wars.
I recently heard a story that Peter Jackson lied to get Lord of the Rings made. They turned him down when he said he wanted to do them all at once so he agreed to make one film and let the studio decide if the sequels would be worth it. He took the money and filmed a little bit of all three movies but not enough to make anything, ultimately telling the studio that if they wanted a finished product they had to fund the whole trilogy up front. They took the risk rather then write off the millions already spent.
The story I heard was that Jackson had gone to nearly every studio with a plan to make TWO LOTR movies, (and had been turned down) but when he went to New Line the Executive said "I'm confused...there are THREE books, so why don't you want to make three movies?" Jackson said "Yeah, I think that would probably work." and history was made.
@@michaelnash2138 That's the story that's told in the DVD extras on one of the trilogy, just don't ask me which one.
The version I heard was that the folks running New Line Cinema knew the place was almost certainly about to get shut down thanks to it recently being acquired, so they figured they were gonna lose their jobs whether _LoTR_ did well or not, and putting down for the full set would keep the company around for longer before the new owners could unwind everything.
Then the movies performed superbly, and New Line looked like geniuses.
@@boobah5643 To be fair it was quite a risk not 1 year before the D&D movie came out and it was just so incredibly horrible. The fact that LOTR was so good really is a testament.
@@martindixon54 That's where I heard it. Also read it in a magazine. I suppose that's the story Jackson wants people to believe, whether it's true or not.
I remember 2 things from the new Avatar movie, the landing sequence of the Venture Star being the first. The ship has a very realistic design, I appreciate the thought that went into it and seeing the landing sequence was impressive, not just visually, but conceptually. From the first movie, I would not have gussed that they can actually do that. The second thing is the whale hunting, once again not just for the visuals, but for the story bit about the de-age serum that they can make from the alien whale braingoo. That is 100% a thing mankind would do, no matter how smart and cultured those damn whales may be. They wouldn't just be hunted though, they would be farmed and harvested industrially, much like machines harvest humans in the Matrix universe. That was some wasted potential. Through the existence of Avatars, it is proven mankind has ways to interface with brains, not just humans brains mind you, the whales would be put in a simulation/coma/trance like state and mass farmed. Eternal life for everyone, provided you can enslave and reproduce a sufficiently large population of them, I feel like that is what the movie should have been about, not just some whale hunting to visually echo conventional whale hunting from history, that was cheap as hell to get viewers to go like whale huntinfg bad!!!111
Avatar's setting is in the somewhat far future and the future should be waaayyy darker. Be honest, you know it is true! Really, the most difficult task would be to not copy the Matrix too much, but just keeping those intelligent whales as lifestock seems unreasonable. Tubed up whale fields beyond fields and fields around the narrow shore waters around the beautiful beaches of Pandora, with sedated, wired up whales fixated upright in upright compartments, a shocking sight to behold, as the remains of harvested whales are fed to others. Anyway, such a contrast would have given the sequel some much needed identity. You could even go one step further and make the harvesting process a longer-lasting thing, where the whale is artifically kept alive for weeks while the braingoo is being drilled out untill it runs dry. The whole place would obviously be a secret, even eternal life can't be connected to so much bad publicity. As far as the bigger picture is concerned, you can even construct a decent story around it, it makes 100% sense for the company to want Jake Sully dead if he found out, heh, it even explains why humans have such a large presence on the planet again.
Yeah, this whole concept isn't very family friendly, neither was the whale hunting scene, so depending on how much is clearly shown and how much is implied, I think this could have worked.
Damn, this way more ambitious than Avatar 2's rehash of the first movie and whatever it's sequels have in store. Honestly the live forever juice idea was completely stupid but if it was the central concept and explored as darkly and in-depth as you suggested it could have actually been salvageable.
@@MagcargoManjust a note that Cameron explained already that avatar 2 and 3 were originally supposed to be one movie so whenever 3 comes out , whatever problems U have with A2 I'm sure A3 will bring complete satisfaction
@@firebros9492 Well I didn't even care for the first movie, so I doubt that.
Thing is, you could change _anything_ about Avatar/2 and it would become a better film. It's a film for kids basically, and for really, REALLY stupid adults.
Two reasons for this:
1. A lot of people want a reason to go to the theater. Otherwise, why not watch it at home?
2. Catering to international audiences. China is a huge pull and I think these factors have lead to dumbing and watering down movies to risk not offending anyone or be culturally irrelevant
Matt Damon also talked about risk in spending( etc.
The first point you're making is a big one for sure. With going to the cinema getting more expensive while TVs get bigger and better all the time, most people really need a reason to go to the movies. So I understand Hollywood's attempts at creating something bigger that you HAVE to see on the big screen. That being said, there are still ways to create visual masterpieces that don't break the bank. If only they trusted the creatives they hire...
@@misterwhyte I suspect there's also the influence of how things work in other industries that has been wrongly applied to filmmaking. In an industry like microchip manufacturing or aerospace, each new generation of product tends to cost more than the last and the money spent on R&D or capital investment grows exponentially with time. This is because each new generation is more complex than the last and manufacturing it requires the development of entirely new technologies that were previously beyond the state of the art. Films aren't like that at all and a low budget film can compete with a megabudget blockbuster, but I suspect that some of the Hollywood execs have this belief that better must equal "more" of everything, perhaps because (consciously or not) they see filmmaking as being the same as those other industries.
@@trolleriffic Very possible yes.
In 1989, The Little Mermaid cost $40 million to make ($98 million if we adjust for inflation), and made $235 million at the box office (or $578 million adjusted for inflation). Contrast with the Diverse Mermaid we received a few months ago, which $250 million at the *lowest estimate,* but only made $564 million at the box office.
Remember, they killed their 2D animation studio because it was too expensive.
I think it only got views out of negative controversy.
I watched quigley down under again yesterday. I think it's my favorite movie of all time. The attention to detail with the weapons and clothing is awesome. The narrative has perfect focus and scope. The acting is amazing. It's a film that could have spawned three more films, but it didn't...and it's perfect that way.
I love that film. It has such personality.
I said I didn't have much use for revolvers. Never said I couldn't use one.
@@Laneous14 - 🤣
I love that movie.
That's a great movie!
They could take more small novels to turn into inexpensive films, or even franchises.
That would be great. They still get an existing audience, plus a cohesive story behind it.
The worst part of this is that theres a modern example of a studio taking the exact OPPOSITE approach and making tons of money.
Blumhouse is one of the most successful studios in Hollywood because they invest 10 or 20 million in a bunch of different original properties. Some are like The Hunt that dont make any money (although that movie is actually pretty fun) and some are like Get Out, Paranormal Activity, and Insidious thay spawn careera and franchises and male a bajillion dollars.
The losses are vastly outweighed by the profits and the studio has gotten so big and respected that they have branched out into big budget franchises like Haloween and still make money
Exactly. I think its a shame that Northman didn't have a bigger marketing budget and that Bullet Train went straight to Netflix after a limited release across USA and Europe.
Think about this, Oppenheimer's production cost is just above 110 million USD. And wasn't marketed like Barbie. Because Chris Nolan was well aware that the movie was a 3-hour monster about a heavy subject, no family is sitting through that. Might as well make it an R-rated flick and bank on the blood and horror of the central event and the lead up to it. All the actors took a pay-cut. Result? Barbie ate up the market, but Oppenheimer is the highest opening movie in India this year. Despite the censorship of the nudity and certain scenes in which characters read Hindu texts while in bed together.
@@valentinegonsalves7322lol, I'm literally watching The Northman right now. I've never seen it.
@@markzuckergecko621 Hope you like it. Its underrated.
This series continues to be fantastic because you really hammer home why some modern movies tend to feel lifeless while others stand out for going against the norm and audiences seem to be more aware of this thus more big BO bombs while giving their attention and money to movies that deserve it.
Back in the day even though the internet existed I wasn't tech savvy enough to find any movie reviews. If you wanted movie reviews you had to watch Siskel and Ebert babble about why horrible movies are great to prop up their hollywood friends. Maybe a newspaper review from someone equally as stuffy. People have such better word of mouth and ability to find reviews now and the reviews are so much better. I never have to watch Velma when I can just watch funny people dunk on it instead.
@@Drak976 It's gonna be more entertaining at least and the reviews are more informative. It also helps you discover something you never would have thought you'd be interested in until someone really breaks it down like when I found Shape of Water through a review from Chris Stuckmann.
A lot of these sentiments can be applied to the video game industry these days too. Creating something from the heart and mind is too risky, so you just get hollow, rehashed rereleases of the same game for over a decade. For a while I found myself feeling totally disillusioned by games, and I realised with games like Disco Elysium, or Baldur's Gate 3 which are actually designed by creative, passionate people, it's the industry that's hollow and empty. It bleeds through in the big budget triple A games which come with day 1 dlc, or ship with micro transactions ready to feed off of our weakest instincts, designed with the help of psychologists to prey upon the most susceptible to these predatory tactics.
Doesn't Disco Elysium speak derisively of all government systems save for Communism? Also, you should really keep your eye on what Polish devs are producing, save for CDPR, because Poland is set to exceed the UK's wealth. For example, MOUSE from Fumi Games looks like what Walt Disney would make if he saw Doom.
@SirBlackReeds Dude MOUSE looks like it's gonna be awesome. Kinda like Cuphead but FPS.
'WAAAH, DLC! WAAAH TRANSACTIONS!'
All enabled and encouraged by consumers eating up every scrap but you'll all keep pointing the finger at the industry lmao
@@grabble7605 because the industry makes them pay for them. They could easily release them for free. There is no law against that.
@@SirBlackReeds I never got that sense personally, but I wasn't really looking for it either. I felt like all sides were criticised, but maybe with a different lense on a replay I'd feel differently. MOUSE looks interesting, I dig the art style, but as for DOOM I've never been a fan of the series.
This is exactly what the games industry faced and is still facing now where the main focus was on realistic and beautiful graphics but the games were not really fun or interesting and once you get passed the spectacle you realized that there was nothing else
like the Pokemon franchise
Real
This assessment is very close to my own. I can't think of ANY industry where constantly and incessantly making your product more expensive to manufacture and market works out well for the company. There has to be a way to make movies that are both visually and intellectually stimulating that does not require HUGE budgets.
This is why I love Nolan so much, I know some people thinks he Movies are too complicated or loud, at least he try something original every time, and his budget tends to be lower even without heavy CGI.
Dude can use actual nuke and it still cost lower then Dial of Boredom.
High budget projects make huge payout for managers ... That's why they are a priority for big companies. And you can hide "extra" expensive there,
Jesus, did your editor just show a few seconds of every movie ever? That's pretty damn impressive.
Indeed! My eyes were so dazzled by cinematography heaven that I had to really focus on the message being said. That being said: SO ON POINT!
"The Fugitive" is a great example: I remember the great story being told, and I remember the joke that the 'never ending train crash' was. Proof if there ever was that the story triumphs over irrelevant special effects.
I enjoy watching some of the Bollywood Indian movies sometimes, they don't have big budgets, so they need to tell a good story.
The fugitive was both a remake and a reboot that had its budget raised thousands of times of the original.
"Bollywood movies don't have high budgets so they need to tell a good story" Lol no. A lot of Bollywood movies (most small budget films in general) are hot garbage. Small budget doesn't automatically mean good story, in that case you just get a small budget film with a bad story. Of course there are absolute gems made on a tiny budget as well, in Bollywood and elsewhere, but it's far from being the norm
@@exantiuse497 I'm sorry your English comprehension isn't so good, maybe get Mum to explain what "some of, sometimes" means.
@@DeadPianoPlayer from Wiki: "It was a critical and commercial success, spending six weeks as the #1 film in the United States, and grossing nearly $370 million worldwide against a $44 million budget".
So $44 million, and Ford and Jones' salary were over $10 million combined. Not exactly a massive budget Hollywood movie.
@@DeadPianoPlayerStill worked, though, didn't it? You cared about Dr. Richard Kimball, the one-armed man, didn't you?
When you have a giant budget, you become careless. When you have a tight budget, you focus and utilize it all to the fullest.
Todays young cinemaphiles should investigate Val Lewton. He produced about 10 good low budget thrillers in the 40’s, relying heavily on lighting, shadow, and sound to achieve great films.
yeah its funny, a lot of the visual style of film noir came from budgetary constraints and so they'd shoot scenes with a lot of shadows, fog, smoke, etc to hide how cheap everything was lol
It's hard to be creative when you are constantly concerned about whether or not you are going to offend someone.
When one actor costs you $25 million, your budget tends to have to go up. The studios aren't the only ones to blame. Greed is universal.
Movies are like firework displays these days...you sit and watch them, but you can't for the life of you recall anything but tiny bits that really stood out. I've watched that last "star wars" movie twice, and I still don't recall what happened or how it turned out. I still recall where I was sitting, what I was thinking, and how it affected me, when empire strikes back left us hanging. I went back to the theater so that I could catch all the things I missed. I only watched star wars because I could see it with a click mouse click...and it STILL wasn't worth the effort!!
My friends and I would put a limit on how much money we could spend on gifts for each other on birthdays and Christmas. That spending limit was only $20 +/- $5. This was so we wouldn't buy each other anything extravagent, which would force the receiver to purchase something extravagent in return. However, it did have a POSITIVE side-effect: it would force use to REALLY THINK about our friend's likes/dislikes, and force us to put actual THOUGHT into our gifts. Hollywood can learn a lesson from us putting a limit on the amount of money we were able to spend. It's easy to just throw money at something, and put very little thought into whether or not the person/people like the THING. However, using LESS money would force Hollywood to THINK about what they are making, for whom they're making it, and how to make it while wasting A LOT less resources. Just putting a little extra thought into something could make all the difference in making a better product which people might actually enjoy. But, what do you expect? It's Hollywood. That place is as corrupt and greedy as can be. They want the movies to be as expensive as possible so the producing studios can skim as much off the cost as possible from the investors whom financed the movie. And, if it flops? They don't care...just open a new production studio, lather, rinse, and repeat.
Well said.
That third sentence in your post, indicates you and your "friends", aren't really friends.
Try this little experiment. Get nothing for anyone this Christmas. Then sit back and
observe the response. You'll be surprised at what you might discover.
there's a saying for what you describe. limitation drives creativity
@@stephensmith7293 Actually, none of us really wanted anything from each other in the form of gifts. We would always say, "Your presence is my present." However, we would always just buy each other SOMETHING simply because it's traditions. Our most popular gifts to give are/were a couple of boxes of bullets, or two packs of socks.
You can't say we aren't truly friends. We've been friends since 7th and 8th grade (1995 and 1996). That's a long time to be hanging out with people during birthdays and holidays when they're not really my friends.
Fair enough. Our most popular gifts to give are/were a bazooka, or two pairs of combat boots.
One friend hit the lottery, and offered to buy me a fighter plane. I said it wouldn't fit in my garage.
So all I got were a couple of boxes of bullets, and a landmine. Cheers.
Movies share many parallels with video games. For a long time the video game industry has been chasing hyper-realism in video games, trying to make the lighting better, graphics more photo-realistic, the physics behave how we expect, and they have made great strides in that field. However, we're rapidly approaching photo-realism in video games. The technology is there (UE:5) and it will eventually make its way to games, but that's not really what people want. Obviously it helps with immersion, but thinking back on some of my favorite games, a lot of them are stylized and not hyper-realistic. Nintendo is a great example, the Switch (and previous Nintendo systems) is lacking in the hardware department and is roughly on par with an Xbox 360 in terms of performance. However, in terms of units sold in December of 2022 it had sold ~123 million, compared to the PS4 which had sold ~110 million in it's entire lifetime.
Obviously this neglects quite a few things in comparison, namely IP's and the fact that the Switch encourages multiple systems per household, but the point stands. Commercial success does not come down to graphics alone, a lot of it comes with the story, how the game handles, the gameplay and a myriad of other factors. Graphics are just one aspect of that puzzle. All of that to say, in video games there will always be a place for photo-realism just like there will always be a place for spectacle in movies, but at the end of the day that is not the only consideration a consumer makes before buying a game or seeing a movie, it's just a piece of it.
Nintendo focuses more on the fun / gameplay instead of the graphics most of the time ,and it works : Smash Bros is a blast, Zelda doesn't look as realistic as Far Cry 6 and is changing the open world landscape...
Lots of movies have such a bloated cost is because they do something called scrappbooking. They reshoot scenes multiple times with minor variations and 'choose the best versions' and piece them together like a visual Frankenstein monster. Heck they seem to do that to whole films. I remember hearing that Indy 5 was reshot with like 5 movies worth of stuff. The best 'version' had a 35% approval rating from test audiences. we didn't get a much better product.
They also don't have a concrete story, Rarely have any idea what they're doing day to day and a story can be completely changed half way through the project to do something completely different.
All are reasons why the budgets can get so massively inflated that its impossible to actually turn out a good product that can recoup the money spent.
Imagine how many children hospitals Disney/Marvel could have made with their movies with their messages about "the rich should give to the poor" budget
Yeah or feed the homeless
Satan is the great deceiver.
Capitalism is a wealth redistribution scheme. It will create illusory worlds as detailed as necessary to continually fool the masses.
The Matrix is an educational piece. It is only mildly allegorical.
Spielberg saw the writing on the wall with too many movies costing 200 million dollars plus flopping and immense risk aversion. That is just one of many problems Hollywood is facing along with streaming, uptick in costs just going to movies, studio-heads getting crazy bonuses while the writers get peanuts, and the near elimination of the mid budget film. They instead would rather bet big every time instead of giving smaller budgets to younger hungry filmmakers desperate to prove themselves in the studio system. It's a shame really and that's why some people flock to the independent scene, but even independent film and the filmmakers themselves are running into so many roadblocks.
I mean even Spiderman across the Spiderverse had only 100 million dollars compared to Elemental who had twice that and it still made less, wanna know why? because it was less visually unique and it wasn't willing to take risks and chose a safer option
the downside of Modern Buisness: You have to make ALL the Money ALL the Time or you dont even get started. Now EVERY movie needs to be the next big, epic, ground braking blockbuster which also sells all the Merchandise etc. or the Studios, investors and so on dont even give you a glance.
The movie isnt made to make a movie, it stepped aside to be just a Tool to make ALL the Profit. And they still havent noticed that this fails more and more...
06:40 My word, they were so obsessed with diversity IN movies that they'd forgotten about diveristy OF movies.
There are still a lot of (relatively) low budget movies being made these days, and some of them are terrific. I think The Menu cost $30 million to make, for example, it grossed $79.6 million so far and will probably make more in the future, and IMO it’s one of this year’s best films.
Part of being a competent boss is knowing when to spend smarter, making important changes to address an issue or pursue an opportunity, and when there's no outsmarting a problem and you just have to open your wallet. Working for someone who makes the wrong calls is always a nightmare, but it is a hallmark sign of incompetent management when the solution to every problem is to throw more money at whatever they're already doing.
3:20 “They stimulate your eyes but not your brain”
Just like Tatyana!
I can remember of only 4 movies in the 90's that costed more than 100 million: Waterworld, Titanic, Godzilla and The Perfect Storm (it was released in the year 2000)
...three of which are more or less garbage 😂 (while not taking anything from them; 1998 Godzilla is still my guilty pleasure 😋)
And Waterworld was roundly (and rightfully) mocked for its ridiculous budget compared to the quality of the film. These days people are falling all over themselves to make excuses for these subpar films that have bloated costs.
@@Johann_Gambolputty_of_Ulmthis is exactly the point, every movie you liked in the 90s was "cheap"
"Evil cannot create anything new. It can only corrupt and ruin what good forces have invented or made."
- JRR Tolkien
Absolutely spot on. A lot of films from the past that didn't make their original budget came through by their quality. In this state, I have a hard believing that, 70 years from now, anybody is going give a flying fiddler's high jump about the last "cash grab" Nonsense
I don';t want this to go unsaid: thank you for watching all those movies so that I can enjoy the small percent that don't suck. You are the saint of movies in clownworld
I have to admit I used to go to the movies regularly when younger but now it's only to see an amusement ride basically - its hard to get me out to see something that won't be an enjoyable assault on the senses. Have audiences like myself been so bombarded with SPFX that other types of films just won't cut it on the big screen anymore? Add the cost of going out to the cinema - pricey tickets, transport and parking, popcorn - it's an expensive night to see a rom-com that'll pop up somewhere eventually to watch on your home theatre system at home. Bit of a conundrum..
The problem is only by ruin and failure can Hollywood hope to regain anything it once had even a tiny shred of it.
They count so much on big-budget movies "tent poles"that were once the absolute bedrock of keeping Hollywood afloat have failed them completely.
Sound of Freedom proves you can make a good and profitable movie without having to spend $100 Million + long as you have a good story, good acting and a good script.
I mean the Barbie movie made a lot of bucks like holy crap mate, but yeah agreed look at Joker it had 55 million dollars but made over a billion dollars
But they are saying all sorts of things about sound of freedom and even tried cancelling the movie
@@justsomeguywholovesberserk6375 Barbie still cost over $100 to make and is mainly making money because of it's marketing rather than it's quality. Sound of Freedom on only cost like $10 Million.
@@T0NYMANUEL Yeah cause the people in Hollywood likely have something to hide and don't happen to like the politics of the main star, which is only making more people see it and making them look worse by comparison .
Actually, it seems like Sound of Freedom is getting astroturfed. I've seen a number of stories of "sold out showings" where the theatre is actually empty. This is like right wing "best selling" authors buying their own books, or having the RNC buy them and give them out, to elevate the author to "best selling" status. It's seriously misleading.
Honestly I agree, it would be better to cast a many nets and hope some of them are a catch, then cast a huge net and not get as much, and if you look at the top movies of this year most of them are either very hyped, have great animation or are just so obscure that they stand out amongst the sea of movies, and let’s be real this type of movie production was a coming for a long time, because how many more movies can spider man generate, how many cookie cutter marvel production can be produced before you’re just burning money and how many bland remakes can be made before the audience just doesn’t care anymore, I mean equalizer 3 is coming but honestly I would have rather seen extraction 2 in the big screen than that, a simple roller coaster of event with good cinematography is just what movie producers need in all honesty
You know it's bad when there aren't even enough movies that are worth being made fun of (we get videos like this instead of a review). To think they're spending billions on them now.
I've grown fond of foreign films because they're so much cheaper and real, just about people in situations and not insane super hero predicaments in front of green screens for 2 hours. Other than that, if I watch something in the west it's usually made by Annapurna, A24, maybe Focus...theres a few good places still pumping out decent stuff.
Escape New York (which came out in 1981) cost only 6 million to make and ended up making 10 or 11 million in return and became a iconic action film of the 80's.
I understand something with heavy CGI or very expensive set pieces or locations driving up the price but it’s utter madness these days. John Wick 4, the Mario movie and Sizu together budget wise equals the last Indy movie.
There was a showing recently of Alien, so I had to see it. First time in the cinema of course, but it looked amazing.
Practical effects, minimal computer interface. Minatures and sets with real special effects, like smoke and fire. Incredible script and acting with some heavy-hitting moments. Even some levity.
It cost $11 million dollars to make back then, just under $50 million today...
yeah, real sets and real effects dont age like cgi. i watched the conan movie with arnold a year or two ago and that was made entirely with styrofoam and painted sets. do you see it, sure. but im more immersed in that than i am in entirely greenscreened sets.
@@TheSuperappelflapthat’s because it looks tactile. Like you can interact with it. Cgi looks like real people interacting with cartoons. It never feels like it exists.
Imagine what practical effects could be like in movies with the advancements we have in robotics. If they took the budgets for cgi and invested it into that - we would have amazingly immersive films.
@@josephmayfield945 and awesome robots
Me & my boyfriend actually really enjoyed Guy Ritchie's last 3 films. We both think he's still producing solid quality.
Someone once told me that if you spend $100,000,000 on a movie then you have to save the world. Nothing short of that is worth the money you are putting into it. Another great problem is that most of these sequels or reboots are not even different then the last one to come out. How many times have we seen the Phenix saga for xmen?
When Matt Damon said that nowadays it's too risky to fund creative projects and that something like Good Will Hunting would never be greenlit today, I've pretty much been jaded about anything from Hollywood. There's the occasional masterpiece, but super rare now.
It would be green lit. It would just be a cable or streaming show.
A Why Modern Movies Suck analysis without even one slight mention of The Message is damned impressive, Drinker!!! 😊
You don't need to mention The Message. That's a separate issue. The main thing making movies bad is indeed the money (and the fact that moviemaking is run by money men vs. creatives).
Wokeism is why it’s all being ruined lol nothing to do with money
@@kamalaparkerballs , The one he's referenced in countless production review or essay videos, either by that name or alternately, by intoning, "Modern Audiences", often with a signature graphic of a howling Gen Z-er. I think you know the one.
@@kamalaparkerballs , I found it interesting he didn't mention it, even as a side remark, NOT as the main issue being discussed (I'm well aware the Drinker's broached it elsewhere in this video series). Would such a passing notice of it in this one have been so remarkable?
The main issue is that Hollywood doesn't cater to its audience while claiming it does. The writers are no longer a part of the culture - they are trying to remake the culture into their own image. They will not succeed. They are on strike, right? Has anyone noticed? Give them each a participation trophy and send them home. They reek of the "message" and it's not playing well - not even IN Hollywood.
See, that’s not how it works. The creators aren’t beholden to the audience. Well, at least the better creators out there.
The creator’s job is to create; not to get mired in the shifting tastes of the audience.
@@eyespy3001 Then you have no audience and lose money - lots of money. I do see your point that artists should be free to create their own vision without feeling a need to pander That's fine but it won't pay the bills if no one likes it. THAT is how it works. My point was that the writers are no longer a part of the culture and therefore cannot write about it in any way which is appealing or even watchable in many cases. They want to shape it not reflect or examine it.
@@mikeyh0 Well, that’s why art is a gamble. That’s why the movie business is a gamble. That’s why starting a band is a gamble, or becoming a painter or a sculptor or an author or screenwriter or a chef or a fashion designer or a landscape designer… it’s all a gamble. But has it stopped anyone from making anything, or starting a business? No, of course not. Well, except for those too afraid to take the risk out of fear of not being “good enough,” which is so subjective.
To put this in the easiest to understand terms- was George Lucas concerned with audience expectations when he was making the first Star Wars, or was he just doing it because it was something inside of him that he needed to let loose? Obviously it was the latter, because there was no audience for this yet. His creation MADE the audience.
@@eyespy3001 I guess you never saw a science fiction or space adventure movie before 1979. that's sarcasm. And you kind of prove my point. Why would an artist even be concerned with his product being a "gamble" if all he wants is to create something? If the money isn't an issue - oh, but it is - then knock yourself out and be as creative as you wish. However, Hollywood isn't in the business to NOT make money - at least not on purpose. I have some nice paintings in my home that I painted. I like looking at them My Mom mentioned maybe I could sell some. No thanks. So I do appreciate art for art's sake. That actually has nothing to do with the movie BUSINESS. Take care. I think we've exchanged enough on this topic.
Mel Gibson said this about Superhero films years ago. He pointed out how much less he would spend and why it's important due to the amount of selection available to audiences.
So, so very true. I've found myself more often than not retreating to older movies. Some from obscure, or defunct studios, just to see something someone loved putting together, or because it was different.
I happened to watch The Hunt For Red October recently. Well written, well acted. There are only a few films in the last 5-6 years that I could say that about.
I just brought the first few seasons of Alias.
Just going to casually point out that this is not only a problem in cinema, but also video games. They cost so much to make these days that most studios are not willing to take any risks, and who can blame them? Well, I can, because they don't HAVE to cost so much, at least for the majority of them, they can have more modest graphics and instead focus on more interesting mechanics. Fortunately, modest budget and indie games, unlike movies, are not buried as much by the AAA stuff, because if they are good, people eventually do find and buy them. And frankly, we have to thank gamers for that, they are a lot more engaged in their medium than the average movie goer.
Gaming is dying bro..
2000 to 2016 was the golden age of gaming.
A video game's success is reliant on these TH-camrs like Markiplier or CoryXKenshin
It's too bad there isn't really an equivalent to a retro sprite game for movies. As soon as you need special effects (whether practical or not) it's gonna get expensive
@@piercethroughheart5700 Gaming is absolutely not dying; we're in a golden age of indie gaming right now.
At the very least *most* Nintendo franchises try to innovate with their new titles
I think this is true of the video games industry too. You see franchises like Battlefield, Call of Duty, Diablo falling short of their promise (and putting their vampiric monetisation practices aside for a second) struggle with the sheer scale and ambition of their visions. Too much emphasis is placed on visual fidelity and not enough on simple game design/game loop mechanics - and they suffer under the weight of all that technical guff to adapt, pivot and change during production. You might have 5 artists, 2 animators and 4 stack devs getting a horse to gallup - but when you realise the horse doesn't play well in game you can't just quickly pivot and adapt - you've created a monster. A big scary and annoying horsey monster (looking at you Blizzard).
I think that's why 8-bit/retro styled games have had such a succesful comeback - you can focus on gameplay and quickly make changes for the player. A handful of talented people can make a Game-of-the-year game. The answer is to build high quality prototypes without the visuals and polish and get them playing well. Same goes for movies, focus on the story-arc, the pivotal moments, the interactions, the little things that hang it all together and build up around it, instead of the reverse.
I'm looking forward to this Sci-Fi upcoming movie in September called The Creator. You would think with the visuals on display that it was made for a minimum of around $150 mil.. nope.. it was produced for $87 mil. Right out the gate it's a movie thats setting itself up for a decent chance of success. I'm rooting for it to be honest. I'll be there opening weekend.
Yes I saw a trailer for that movie too, and it looks great. I have noticed in recent years, that Blumhouse Productions make some damn good movies on pretty low budgets. If I were to recommend a movie from that studio, it has got to be 'Upgrade'. There's no one in it that you would recognise at all, but what I can aay is that it easily wipes the floor with anything Hollywierd has produced in the last decade - it really is a must see - you won't regret it, I promise you that.
Hands down The Critical Drinker is the most knowledgeable and analytical reviewer on my subscription list.
Thank god for DVDs, or thank Toshiba at least, so I can just go and watch my old Dredd blu ray! (amongst hundreds of other brilliant movies from a better era)
I think there is going to be a huge media crash. Media like social media, gaming media, and movie media is going to collapse in in itself. And only a few companies will come out on top. Which is kind of a good thing.
i really appreciated what barbie brought to the table in terms of uniqueness, creativity and message
It actually was unique and creative in the first third. The message was absolutely fucking abysmal and I'm not sure why you would appreciate it.
Wow, the opinion at 6:32 and onward is *_so well said._* Bravo!
Why are Blockbusters so bad now... is litrally a videotitle thx to Cody Johnston
The thing about the good old days is that there weren't that many movies that came before the ones that were being made, so there were lots of new ideas still to be tried out. Perhaps we have now reached the peak of our creativity with story telling and movie making. There probably aren't infinite ways by which one could appeal to a human's emotions and imagination.
I disagree. New books are still being written, I'm sure new screenplays as well. But it's easier (i.e. lazy) to just revamp something that already has audience, that's why we are suffering through all of these remakes
Right? The same thing happened with books. I for one am just glad no one is writing books anymore. Authors were honestly creatively bankrupt well before they stopped writing books.
@@kria9119That's funny. I was writing my comment before I saw your comment.
Also, I wouldn't say easier. For the executives and people investing it feels safer because of the inbuilt audience. I would argue it is harder to deliver something good because they have to balance making the inbuilt audience happy while simultaneously virtue signaling because of all the Hollywood scandals.
When they were not so worried about virtue signaling we got products like The Lord of the Rings trilogy.
@@kria9119 True, but are they truly original or are they still about ideas that have already been tried before?
Wouldn't agree with that - there is no "no new ideas"now, because there always were no new ideas. The structure of basic plots hasn't changed much since literally the dawn of time.
The problem today is that, as Drinker pointed out, people in charge of production opt for the safest routes, and that leaves almost no room for passion-projects that would explore "unmarketable" stories.
Been following you for a couple years now, Drinker and I have to say that is one of your more thought provoking videos. I wonder if this mindset from the big movie studios will eventually lead to more success for smaller, indie movie studios due to us as the consumers seeking out more thought-provoking movies? I guess streaming has changed the landscape for studios and their go to market strategy, and good indie films are maybe harder to discover??
studio execs ignore that audiences are not dumb. they can be forgiving of some mistakes at first but they will always end up noticing they're being fed bland garbage and of course will start to ignore whatever new stupid idea comes next. you can give the audiences a well-made film and the responses will follow through. and I'm not talking about pretentious art house cinema, but well-written stories with good acting and so on. Doesn't even have to be extremely deep, but depth in any different ways that can be expressed will be appreciated. not every movie needs to be the next citizen kane, but not every single movie needs to be a remake of the current trend that studio exces take out of their asses. even well made dumb comedies with butt jokes can be appreciated if they know how to handle their comedy (Norbit comes to mind). audiences want something good no matter the film genre. I mean, why would you want to waste your time and money to get bored as hell, right?