Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The Slow Death of Hollywood

mattstoller.substack.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

211–220 of 267 posts

Re: The Slow Death of Hollywood

#211

Post by NeedMoreTea »

goto11 wrote: post #210
NeedMoreTea wrote: post #209

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Originality? Hah! Even remaking Frankenstein every 20 years or so brought a new take to it, whether Boris Karloff, Bela Lugosi or Robert de Nero, they all brought something new. More than any point I can remember before Hollywood now turn every movie and remake into the exact same movie. There was always some degree of fashion, but there's no contrast any more - it's all highlight, so it drags and drags by being bori…

This is getting close to "all the new music is crap and sounds alike, the music when I was young and impressive was much better". Every generation says that, regardless of when they were born. Maybe those older movies just didn't seem so derivative to you because it was new to you then?

It was interesting from 50+ years before I was born, through B&W B movies of the 50s, to maybe early 00s. Independent movies don't have the same absurd tendencies, and often still have lots of contrasts. Sure, some of those are just poor too. Independents have changed too, but haven't magically ended up with the same framework every time. Hollywood didn't used to.

There were always derivatives, themes, fashions, but without dull homogeneity. Too much chasing what sells, I have no idea why, but it seems to have reached self parody with succession of predictable remakes that add the standards and take away what made the original interesting in the first place. e.g. Total Recall

I still regularly find new bands and music. shrug.

Re: The Slow Death of Hollywood

#212

Post by sytelus »

keithwhor wrote: post #172
sytelus wrote: post #165

There have been counter arguments that Netflix and Prime Video has in fact saved Hollywood. If you want to make a movie in hollywood, you have to know people who will fund you. You need big connections, close friendships, strong referrals. Even then terms are often not favorable to artists, budget cuts could happen at whims and non-established artists have little freedom. It's like a startup scene but how things used…

> It's like a startup scene but how things used to be done before YC. Jeebus. Things aren't better or worse after YC, they're just different. YC is the same kind of content farm as Netflix. It's not that YC can't produce great startups, it's that so many "dumb money" investors rely heavily on YC as an initial signal that it's (1) more difficult to succeed if you're not YC and (2) if you are YC and fail (statistically…

I think you are missing my point. YC model hasn't changed probabilities of success for startups too much. It has, however, democratized who can do startups. I don't have to have friends in VC circles, I don't need to visit dozens of VC offices, I don't get term sheets that takes away 20% of my company, I don't have board members who dictates and vetos over my vision. This is a big deal and huge improvement over older model - it's not just "different".

Re: The Slow Death of Hollywood

#213

Post by sytelus »

Animats wrote: post #169
sytelus wrote: post #164

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> This won't work for them forever You are under estimating the power of formula. Disney had a huge run with prince-princess stories for kids and they only recently toned it down because of huge negative effects on kids. They can easily go on forever on this theme if they want to. Vast majority of movies made in Indian cinema (aka Bollywood) are information-less and even story-less movies that just revolves around on…

Yes. Pixar has a template: Once upon a time there was ___. Every day, ___. One day ___. Because of that, ___. Because of that, ___. Until finally ___. Pixar movies are "nobody becomes somebody due to external event". That's a common pattern, beaten to death in the Star Wars franchise. But it's not the only pattern. It's not Game of Thrones . It's not Star Trek. It's not even most winners of "Best Picture" Oscars.

> "nobody becomes somebody due to external event"

Pixar, StarWars, Lord of Rings, Harry Potter and virtually most other big banners use "nobody becomes somebody because they were already somebody" formula. Give it a close look and you will find lead characters in these movies didn't actually worked for their super powers or earned special status. Luke can become Jedi not because he worked for it for his whole life but because he was born that way. They were already special but put in difficult circumstances which made them not look special. But eventually they overcame and their "specialness" poped out anyway. People identify with this template because everyone thinks they are special and supressed because of external circumstances. Movie with a message that you are just as normal as anyway and you have to put years of grit to be successful - this typically doesn't go well with most audiences.

Re: The Slow Death of Hollywood

#214

Post by jackcosgrove »

luckydata wrote: post #185
goto11 wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> everyday people are catching on to the fact that they're just being resold the same stuff they've already bought. But Hollywood have always done this - recycling old ideas in new wrapping. And Hollywood have always been criticized for being vapid entertainment, empty spectacle etc. "catching on to the fact" suggest that this is some secret insight which undermines the enjoyment of the movie. But I'm pretty sure mos…

> But Hollywood have always done this - recycling old ideas in new wrapping. And Hollywood have always been criticized for being vapid entertainment, empty spectacle etc. Not to this degree. The last good year for movies was 1999. This is the list of major releases that year: The Matrix Fight Club The Sixth Sense Toy Story 2 The Green Mile American Beauty Being John Malkovic Office Space The Iron Giant Magnolia Austi…

I worked in a multiplex in 1999, and that was a great year for movies. The Sixth Sense in particular was the little movie that could. If I remember correctly it was shown for like six months.

Re: The Slow Death of Hollywood

#215

Post by raxxorrax »

Hollywood has often claimed to be in the process of dying. While I think the current content is mostly boring, it still generates profit. Predictable scripts but the industry demands it like this. Remakes are popular because they have a somewhat predictable return of investment because they provide a fanbase from the start.

If engagement suffers further, movies are going to change again. But on the other hand rehashed content is always new content for new generations.

Re: The Slow Death of Hollywood

#216

Post by patrick5415 »

l33tbro wrote: post #142
patrick5415 wrote: post #131

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You’ve asked for hard data, and then make a contrary assertion for which you have no data either. No, glancing at a website periodically doesn’t count.

Conversely, you made a broad claim that runs contrary to popular consensus. Cursory glance or not, the onus is on you to back up your initial wild claim with a source. Regardless, are you really going to double-down on Hollywood producing more original stories than ever? Hollywood studios today are in the business of SASOR (sequels, adaptations, Spin-offs, Remakes). That is their primary business model. They may buy…

I’m not the op. But I see you doubling down on your own claim, still without providing any data. What makes the op’s claim any more wild than your own? Why is the onus them, rather than you?

You have presented no data to back up you claim that greater than 50% of people (popular consensus) believe Hollywood produces less original content than at some time in the past. Even if you did, the fact that most people believe something is distinct from that thing actually being true.

For what it’s worth, my intuition says you’re right. But intuition is not data. Confirmation bias is real...

Re: The Slow Death of Hollywood

#217

Post by goto11 »

NeedMoreTea wrote: post #211
goto11 wrote: post #210

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is getting close to "all the new music is crap and sounds alike, the music when I was young and impressive was much better". Every generation says that, regardless of when they were born. Maybe those older movies just didn't seem so derivative to you because it was new to you then?

It was interesting from 50+ years before I was born, through B&W B movies of the 50s, to maybe early 00s. Independent movies don't have the same absurd tendencies, and often still have lots of contrasts. Sure, some of those are just poor too. Independents have changed too, but haven't magically ended up with the same framework every time. Hollywood didn't used to. There were always derivatives, themes, fashions, but…

You think older movies were better because of the time filter - we remember the classics and forget the crap.

You think movies you saw in your youth were great because they were original to you - you hadn't seen all the previous movies and plays they were inspired by or remakes of.

This is the same for everybody, which is why people was saying the exact same thing as you do 10, 20, 30 years ago.

> Too much chasing what sells, I have no idea why,

Hollywood is a business, it exists to make money. It have always been like that.

Re: The Slow Death of Hollywood

#218

Post by a_imho »

boudin wrote: post #113
JansjoFromIkea wrote: post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The main one is my health insurance, which consistently gives me a free cinema ticket ever fortnight (was every week) for walking distances I'd've walked anyway. Mubi gives me free cinema tickets each week to a designated film. My phone network gave free ones occasionally for a while too, have switched networks since but I believe they still do.

Those tickets are all paid through the services you are mentioning though. The health insurance, the phone network and Mubi don't get those tickets for free. You do pay a fraction of the tickets through those subscriptions, and a lot of people are paying this fraction too but whithout taking advantage of those tickets, so actualy spending money on movie theatre tickets not even knowing it :)

if it is free you are the product

Cinemas show so many ads I would not be surprised playing movies is just a side gig.

Re: The Slow Death of Hollywood

#219

Post by thisisit »

liber8 wrote: post #98
magduf wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>But Hollywood have always done this - recycling old ideas in new wrapping. Yes, but I think it's safe to say that there were a lot more original movies a few decades ago than there are now. Hollywood used to take more risks. >According to Wikipedia, Aladdin grossed "$923.7 million, against a production budget of $183 million". So despite you and your nephew, Disney seem to manage OK. Exactly. People are bemoaning th…

"Hollywood" has never, ever taken more risks than they are taking today. Netflix alone spent $12 billion on new content in 2018. They expect to spend $15 billion in 2019, and expect this to hit almost $18 billion in 2020.[1] There is more new, original content being produced than anyone could ever expect to watch in one lifetime. Compare this to a few decades ago when you had 3 or 4 networks on TV each making a dozen…

Is Netflix taking risks though? If you look closely most of their content seem to be written by bots trying to maximize revenue. They are taking everything people love and then writing stuff around it. Sure, there are originals here and there but look closely there is lot of rehashed stuff as well.

Re: The Slow Death of Hollywood

#220

Post by goto11 »

l33tbro wrote: post #142
patrick5415 wrote: post #131

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You’ve asked for hard data, and then make a contrary assertion for which you have no data either. No, glancing at a website periodically doesn’t count.

Conversely, you made a broad claim that runs contrary to popular consensus. Cursory glance or not, the onus is on you to back up your initial wild claim with a source. Regardless, are you really going to double-down on Hollywood producing more original stories than ever? Hollywood studios today are in the business of SASOR (sequels, adaptations, Spin-offs, Remakes). That is their primary business model. They may buy…

To even discuss this quantitatively, we have do define what "original" means. Is a movie based on a book, play, or comic original? What about a sequel with an original story but existing characters/universe?
Post reply on HN