All is not well in Tinseltown.
Sure, studios are still making billions of dollars, but the way they're doing it seems
less and less sustainable every year, with three or four superhero tentpoles carrying
the weight of the entire industry.
The system has basically become blockbuster lottery.
But it doesn't have to be this way.
Here's a look at some things the movie industry will regret in 20 years.
Remakes, reboots and sequels
Sure, this isn't exactly a new trend.
Twenty years ago, there were plenty of sequels and unnecessary reboots too.
But today, we seem to have reached critical mass.
It seems like almost every major release is either a remake of an older film or an adaptation
of a comic books, '90s TV series, cereal mascot, or literally any existing property.
Here's the problem: without any new ideas to draw off of, what will Hollywood be remaking
or rebooting 20 years from now?
If you thought three different Spider-man franchises in a single decade was silly, just
wait, because there's a lot more of that coming.
Making everything dark and gritty
Some franchises, like, Batman, are designed to be dark and gritty.
Others, however just aren't.
Do we really need a dark and gritty Superman?
Or Spider-Man?
Or Power Rangers?!
Considering most people go to see summer blockbusters because they want to have some escapist fun,
making those films relentlessly grim — not to mention literally dark — is counterproductive,
as it just gives people an excuse to find something else to do instead of going to the
theater.
Allowing the midsize movie to die
Two decades ago, a typical movie studio's development slate included everything from
blockbuster action flicks to modestly budgeted romantic comedies and a little Oscar bait
thrown in for good measure.
Today, studios make almost exclusively one thing: tentpole blockbusters with budgets
that rival the per capita income of small island nations.
"Is that a torpedo?!"
"Take the wheel!"
"What?!
This is crazy!"
In a way, it makes sense.
the international market has became a crucial part of yearly profit margins, studios have
turned to increasingly lavish spectacles to draw in foreign viewers.
After all, giant robots laying waste to major cities works in any language.
Subtle character drama, not so much.
But that reduces variety at the box office for fans and turns every film into an all-or-nothing
gamble for the studios.
When Netflix is snatching up a Martin Scorsese/Robert De Niro gangster movie that's deemed to be
too much of a risk for Paramount Pictures, something is definitely off.
Endless product placement
There's nothing new about product placement.
Heck, Smokey and the Bandit was one of the biggest box office hits of the '70s, and the
entire plot is about how delicious Coors beer is.
Yes, Coors.
"The problem is that Coors Beer… you take that east of Texas and that's, uh, that's
bootlegging."
But these days, product placement seems to drive the narrative itself, leading to nonsensical
scenes like an ATM for a Chinese bank showing up in the middle of Texas in the Transformers
franchise.
Plus, it's overwhelming: Man of Steel reportedly made over $160 million just from brands paying
to be in the movie.
Between Sears, Walmart, Twizzlers, Gillette, Kellogg's, Carl's Jr., and many others, the
movie seemed like 50 percent superhero and 50 percent "don't forget to buy our stuff
on the way home."
That may help the bottom line, but it erodes the quality of the movie — and the confidence
fans have in Hollywood.
"It's like people only do things because they get paid.
And that's just really sad."
Cinematic "universes"
The Fifth Element was one of the top-grossing films of 1997.
Have you watched it lately?
Go ahead, we'll wait.
Back?
That was pretty fun, right?
Now what if The Fifth Element was the middle chapter of a multi-part franchise?
How likely would you be to go back and care about it?
Would the plot make any sense if you hadn't seen, say, the Leeloo Dallas solo film or
the Fifth Element: Legacies TV series or whatever else was required viewing to enjoy a two-hour
sci-fi flick?
That's what it'll be like to watch today's movies 20 years from now.
As much as we tolerated Kong: Skull Island, which version of King Kong are future generations
more likely to look back to?
The classic one from 1933 or the one from 2017 that ties in with the dull Godzilla movie
from 2014?
Hmm.
Focusing on theatrical distribution
Recently, movie geek idols Christopher Nolan and Sofia Coppola threw their support behind
beleaguered theater owners, urging moviegoers to watch their upcoming films on the big screen
where they're, quote, "meant to be seen."
Because what better way to watch Nolan's World War II epic Dunkirk, or Coppola's lyrical
Western The Beguiled, than in a crowded multiplex jammed next to texting teens?
Look, seeing a film projected in a theater still does make for the best viewing experience,
but ignoring the streaming boom in favor of theatrical distribution is hurting the biz,
and who knows how many more streaming options there will be 20 years from now?
After all, an entire generation is growing up streaming movies on iPhones.
Over time, seeing movies on the big screen will become a niche pursuit, like music purists
who insist everything sounds better on vinyl.
The movie business needs to embrace the future — or else become forever stuck in the past.
Thanks for watching!
Click the Grunge icon to subscribe to our YouTube channel.
Plus check out all this cool stuff we know you'll love, too!