I think that even looking beyond the 90s we can see a pattern. After WWII there was a rise in auteur driven cinema, only for the 50s and 60s to be marked by studio dominance. But then in the late 60s and throughout the 70s directors were basically running the show after the decline of the studio system. Then the 80s happened, as you pointed out, and the studios took back control of the movie making business and went all in on blockbusters. But then the 90s happened and we had a surge of original movies. I think that now with the successes of films such as Oppenheimer, Dune, Barbie, Poor Things and even Civil War studios are realizing they can trust the filmmakers once more and let them create original movies that are both succesful at the box office as well as critically acclaimed.
Except, save for Civil War, everything else you mentioned is based on IP or otherwise widely known material. Care to guess which one of them is a commercial failure?
@@alexman378 meh, that only applies to Barbie I'd say. Oppenheimer was very succesful for a biopic, most people who went to see it went because of Nolan and not necessarily for the story of Robert Oppenheimer. Dune sure had its following before the DV movies, but it was very niche and it is kind of a miracle that both movies combined to make a billion dollar franchise. Poor Things is based on a book but I wouldn't say it had a massive following before. I'd say all of these, even if based on previously existing material, have been success stories for auteur-driven filmmaking.
@@camcabbas Barbie is based on a huge IP, Oppenheimer is based on a book that was based on a true story, Dune had a large following, Poor Things had enough of a following for the small $30M budget they aimed for. And all four of them were made by directors with decent to large followings. Again, the only one of them that failed, was Civil War, which was the only one to not be based on anything.
@@alexman378 thats what I'm saying, the success is mostly due to the director's appeal. How many biopics like Oppenheimer do we get each year? How many of them earn even half of what that film did? People went to see it because it was a Nolan film first and about Oppenheimer the man second. Dune had a decent and loyal following before DV, but not big enough to bet on the franchise cracking the 1 billion mark - not even WB were sure about that before greenlighting the sequel. Poor Things book following I can't really assess, but it definitely is the type of movie -absurd, surreal, hyper sexual- that studios would have run from just 10 years ago. Now, those films are not only getting made, but being succesful at the box office. Thats in part to the directors bringing in huge followings of their own. My point is: studios might be realizing that the directors can be and in many cases already are the stars of the show, people will go watch the new stuff from their favorite director. Just give them artistic control over the project, just let them cook
14:10 exactly in Jurassic’s case the new. Trilogy didn’t grow up, it devolved into a child playing with toys. You took an already mature franchise and threw in elements it never needed
Bulk of that probably comes from terrible planning and having to redo things over and over. It's gone from "We'll fix it in post" to "We'll make the entire movie in post".
I really hope that Godzilla -1’s commercial and critical success while having a CGI budget a fraction of Marvel, Disney etc., leads to less focus on CGI and more focus on good storytelling.
Only audiences who were gaslit into thinking Waititi’s trash were good to begin with. L&T has virtually no differences in its approach and essence than Ragnarok. The curtain just fell and audiences caught up with the reality of the matter.
@@Randomaccount9470 Just copied opinions. Others said they liked it, so it must be good. Nevermind that it falls flat on pretty much every level, from a creative to a technical standpoint, no, “big man did funny, hahahaha” was enough.
@@Syntopikon A) Great video! B) Even the way they treat you at the theater is trash. I love popcorn and candy and soda. To make me pay those prices when I can walk down to the grocery store buy a months worth of fun stuff and watch The Extended Lord of The Rings Trilogy without worrying about my wallet, coughing or danger. C) Your time is worth more than the studios give you credit for. Obviously, because you make ENTERTAINING content! 🤣
I just wish streaming only films went to theatres and physical media as well. Theatres may be expensive and i get that, but for more bombastic films can do well, and also in some cases cinemas can be a more luxurious experience. Also physical media guarentees that film will never get lost to time and with having bonus features, it adds to the experience. It beats browsing through youtube looking at mainly corporate interviews, actually looking at the behind the scenes or getting a directors commentary manage to make you have a greater understanding of film. Streaming isn't perfect especially with the fact their are far too many options but physical media and a lesser extent theatres are necessary editions to either preserve the piece of media or allow for the best viewing experience possible.
I hope physical media sees a pickup, especially as people seem to be paying more attention to it thanks to streaming shows suddenly being unavailable. As someone who buys Criterion's religiously, nothing beats physical media in terms of quality.
I'm honestly okay with nostalgia bait or sequels. The problem right now is all the sequels SUCK - the writing sucks, that's why nobody is excited to go to the movies. Gone were the days when a movie was groundbreaking. Edit to add: I was 9 when I saw the very first Jurassic Park in the theaters and I was amazed by the effects, the plot, the acting. It even made me go and read the books Jurassic Park & The Lost World
At 6:00 "Independence Day the best movie speech of all time" Lol. I was just thinking about that speech the other day, when was the last time we had a movie that had an inspiring speech like that 🤔
It's possible, though keeping up the quality is difficult + there's an inherent bias against the new in favor of the old. Sometimes the new is better, though (Dune, for example).
there’s definitely a lot of original movies that have been released recently just look at any A24 movie and compare it to any other hollywood blockbuster
Sequels do not always make money at all. In fact, the rule was always the most you could make was three movies in a series. Star Wars (original) Three. Indiana Jones (original) three. Lord of the Rings? Three. Matrix? Three. It is studios that decided to try to turn these into "franchises" and everyone, even critics bought into this. There are no "franchises". The ones that existed before were horror franchises that frankly never were huge hits, just profitable as they have a niche audiences and they dont spend a lot of money so make a small profit. In other words, people wrongly assumed they could just make these movies last as a franchise, when there is no such thing. After the third movie, people seen it and are tired of them. I love Indiana Jones. Still just rewatched the Tempe of Doom a week ago. The first one is my favorite movie of all time. When they released the last one, I had no desire to watch it. Same with the one before. Ford is old, I saw it already. After the third one, I loved them, but I saw the Indiana Jones story. I did not need to see more. Thinking people like me would just see more and more of the same thing was a mistake.
@@1378N If they are not, they are dumb. Sequels do not get new viewers, they only get a diminishing share of people who liked the original show or movie.
I think that's why so many of these come in threes - the original, prequel, and sequel trilogy, the Jurassic Park and Jurassic World trilogy, the LOTR and Hobbit trilogy, etc. If they really wanted to make Indiana Jones and the recent Matrix work, they should've established a breaking point: this is something new, the past is in the past. I think John Wick is one of the few movies that did make it to a 4th, where the last one might've been the best of the bunch. Your point re: horror franchises is a great one - thanks to the risk/reward calculus, horror is more "franchisable" than others. Comedy used to be, but that pretty much moved to streaming.
@@Syntopikon I do agree John Wick is an outlier. I think one of the reasons is Reeves, while not young, is also not some old guy reliving the past and still has his star power and it did not wear out its welcome. But that is not a template for most movies, as very few movies have Keaunu's massive screen presence and where everyone still loves the guy.
I think people just didn’t wanna see grandpa be an action hero. And the time travel plot was dumbbbb. Indiana Jones film have always have a hint of super natural but nothing truly supernatural never happens
The ark of the covenant literally vaporized the nazis towards the end of the first film, and the fake holy grail literally aged someone to death in the last crusader, not to mention the existence of aliens in kingdom of the crystal skull. Even if the time travel thing done poorly and it’s implementation a sort of jumping the shark for Indy, there is no denying that supernatural happenings within the films time and time again, dating back to the first film
What 4 bozos liked your comment? Nothing supernatural ever happens? 😂 WTF. The Ark spews out ghosts that consume the Nazis. In temple of doom, a guy reaches into chests and pulls out hearts while the victim is still alive. In Crusade, water from a cup instantly heals a gunshot wound. In Crystal Skull, there’s a giant UFO. There’s always a supernatural plot device in Indiana Jones. The time travel wasn’t the issue with Indy 5. It just didn’t treat the character the way we wanted it to. After Indy 4, he was settled down. Happy. Then, in Indy 5, he’s suddenly divorced and his son is DEAD. I get that that’s realistic. People get divorced. People suffer losses of family members. But this is fantasy. We don’t want Indy to regress so far that he’s in the worst place he’s ever been in his life. He’s an old man. He has done his part. Saved lives. Beaten Nazis. He should get a freakin’ break. Indy 5 should have found Indy as a comfortable man. Retired. Or maybe teaching a bit on the side, like he was in Indy 5. The tone of Indy 5 was all wrong from the start. It felt mean, not playful like the previous 4. We are supposed to have fun watching Indy. Not feel depressed because of everything he’s lost. This isn’t Logan. We should have gotten an Indy movie with Short Round as the lead and Indy as the sidekick as Short Round, I dunno, tries to find his daughter who disappeared looking for (insert treasure). Give people something a bit safer. Something people actually WANT. And that’s the main failure of all these movies. They’re giving people something they sorta want- a sequel- but they’re not giving them the right kind of sequel.
Hmmm…the holy grail cup literally saved his dad and healed his gunshot wound…then the entire building crumbled because the grail crossed the seal…the ark literally shoots out spirits that melt people…haha. Not hating, just saying 😅
It’s not a sequel or nostalgia problem. Even original movies have been failing and underperforming, and sequels have still been amongst the highest grossers - Guardians of the Galaxy 3 was the fourth highest grossing movie of last year, so far Dune Part 2 and Godzilla x Kong are the highest grossing movies of this year while original movies like the Fall Guy (heavily promoted) although no 1 in the box office is 50% down on the box office of the same weekend of the past few years. The problem is budgets, people’s lack of disposable income and a changing landscape for media consumption. When movies cost over $200,000,000 to make, when people the world over are earning less and less each year with less and less disposable income and when people only have to wait a couple of months to watch a movie at home, people won’t go watch movies theatrically. It has nothing to do with the quality of movies or the usual BS that right leaning idiots preach - since there are plenty of examples that disprove that - it does have everything to do with studios basically eating their own tails by making the theatrical experience too expensive and less convenient than streaming (a format that isn’t even profitable for the studios).
great content and writing. but i couldn't finish because audio quality.(tone and smoothness of voice) A good microphone would fix this. Ill check back in a few months :)
I agree with everything youre saying but aqua man 2 would've done much better probably still lost money if the whole amber heard situation didnt happen.also nostalgia works if the movie is good fallen kingdom was terrible saw it day one packed theater. dominion day 1 not even half filled
I like your content, but I find that you don’t really go too hard into the title. You kinda go off on tangents and I want to hear more about the nostalgia. That’s why I clicked on the video.
Thanks for the constructive criticism. That's something I need to get better about 😮💨 I end up going on tangents in regular conversation, too, and that's found its way into the videos. I'll try to be more focused going forward.
@@Syntopikon awww I hope I wasn’t too harsh!! I just found u and I will subscribe just bc you too the time to respond to me!! I’m a new fan!! I enjoy your videos. I just had that little criticism. I see that you take other criticism and you’re forming your channel so I’m looking forward to more.
@@lsimon343 Not harsh at all! You expressed yourself quite constructively, which I really appreciate. While I've already finished up a couple videos, I'm taking your words into account for the next one I'm writing.
I think that even looking beyond the 90s we can see a pattern. After WWII there was a rise in auteur driven cinema, only for the 50s and 60s to be marked by studio dominance. But then in the late 60s and throughout the 70s directors were basically running the show after the decline of the studio system. Then the 80s happened, as you pointed out, and the studios took back control of the movie making business and went all in on blockbusters. But then the 90s happened and we had a surge of original movies. I think that now with the successes of films such as Oppenheimer, Dune, Barbie, Poor Things and even Civil War studios are realizing they can trust the filmmakers once more and let them create original movies that are both succesful at the box office as well as critically acclaimed.
Except, save for Civil War, everything else you mentioned is based on IP or otherwise widely known material. Care to guess which one of them is a commercial failure?
@@alexman378 meh, that only applies to Barbie I'd say. Oppenheimer was very succesful for a biopic, most people who went to see it went because of Nolan and not necessarily for the story of Robert Oppenheimer. Dune sure had its following before the DV movies, but it was very niche and it is kind of a miracle that both movies combined to make a billion dollar franchise. Poor Things is based on a book but I wouldn't say it had a massive following before. I'd say all of these, even if based on previously existing material, have been success stories for auteur-driven filmmaking.
@@camcabbas Barbie is based on a huge IP, Oppenheimer is based on a book that was based on a true story, Dune had a large following, Poor Things had enough of a following for the small $30M budget they aimed for.
And all four of them were made by directors with decent to large followings.
Again, the only one of them that failed, was Civil War, which was the only one to not be based on anything.
@@alexman378 thats what I'm saying, the success is mostly due to the director's appeal. How many biopics like Oppenheimer do we get each year? How many of them earn even half of what that film did? People went to see it because it was a Nolan film first and about Oppenheimer the man second. Dune had a decent and loyal following before DV, but not big enough to bet on the franchise cracking the 1 billion mark - not even WB were sure about that before greenlighting the sequel. Poor Things book following I can't really assess, but it definitely is the type of movie -absurd, surreal, hyper sexual- that studios would have run from just 10 years ago. Now, those films are not only getting made, but being succesful at the box office. Thats in part to the directors bringing in huge followings of their own. My point is: studios might be realizing that the directors can be and in many cases already are the stars of the show, people will go watch the new stuff from their favorite director. Just give them artistic control over the project, just let them cook
14:10 exactly in Jurassic’s case the new. Trilogy didn’t grow up, it devolved into a child playing with toys. You took an already mature franchise and threw in elements it never needed
200 million dollars worth of CGI just isn’t worth what it used to be. Especially without new ideas
Bulk of that probably comes from terrible planning and having to redo things over and over. It's gone from "We'll fix it in post" to "We'll make the entire movie in post".
@@Syntopikonthe worst parts how much film has regressed as an art form, compared to the greats of yesteryear a lot of big budget movies suck today
I really hope that Godzilla -1’s commercial and critical success while having a CGI budget a fraction of Marvel, Disney etc., leads to less focus on CGI and more focus on good storytelling.
‘Thor: Love and Thunder’ felt like a betrayal for audiences.
Seriously. The most disappointing Marvel movie I've seen. And extremely disappointing after Ragnarok, which I enjoyed immensely.
Only audiences who were gaslit into thinking Waititi’s trash were good to begin with. L&T has virtually no differences in its approach and essence than Ragnarok. The curtain just fell and audiences caught up with the reality of the matter.
@@alexman378fully agree
Never got the hype for ragnorock
Felt like a kids cartoon
@@Randomaccount9470 Just copied opinions. Others said they liked it, so it must be good. Nevermind that it falls flat on pretty much every level, from a creative to a technical standpoint, no, “big man did funny, hahahaha” was enough.
Prices have skyrocketed, quality has plummeted. Don't take a MBA to figure this one out.
Fair enough. It's why I use the Regal movies subscription. Flat price and so long as I see at least 2 movies a month, I'm in the clear.
@@Syntopikon
A) Great video!
B) Even the way they treat you at the theater is trash. I love popcorn and candy and soda. To make me pay those prices when I can walk down to the grocery store buy a months worth of fun stuff and watch The Extended Lord of The Rings Trilogy without worrying about my wallet, coughing or danger.
C) Your time is worth more than the studios give you credit for. Obviously, because you make ENTERTAINING content! 🤣
Hollywood studios need to good movies again like it was in the 1980s-1990s-2000s to great new storie that we wanna see.
Yup. In general, they should bring down the budgets for the large tentpoles and spread them across more mid-budget movies.
I just wish streaming only films went to theatres and physical media as well. Theatres may be expensive and i get that, but for more bombastic films can do well, and also in some cases cinemas can be a more luxurious experience. Also physical media guarentees that film will never get lost to time and with having bonus features, it adds to the experience. It beats browsing through youtube looking at mainly corporate interviews, actually looking at the behind the scenes or getting a directors commentary manage to make you have a greater understanding of film. Streaming isn't perfect especially with the fact their are far too many options but physical media and a lesser extent theatres are necessary editions to either preserve the piece of media or allow for the best viewing experience possible.
I hope physical media sees a pickup, especially as people seem to be paying more attention to it thanks to streaming shows suddenly being unavailable. As someone who buys Criterion's religiously, nothing beats physical media in terms of quality.
I’m ready for more original movies to come.
I'm honestly okay with nostalgia bait or sequels. The problem right now is all the sequels SUCK - the writing sucks, that's why nobody is excited to go to the movies. Gone were the days when a movie was groundbreaking.
Edit to add: I was 9 when I saw the very first Jurassic Park in the theaters and I was amazed by the effects, the plot, the acting. It even made me go and read the books Jurassic Park & The Lost World
Good video. Just one thing id add is I think Aquaman 2 was also hurt by a certain someone in the movie who a lot of people wanted fired.
At 6:00 "Independence Day the best movie speech of all time" Lol. I was just thinking about that speech the other day, when was the last time we had a movie that had an inspiring speech like that 🤔
Lol the closest was probably Idris Elba in Pacific Rim.
The top grossing film this year so far is Dune 2. The money, sadly, is still on nostalgia and familiarity, not novelty and originality.
I think it'll be a slow change (especially due to the strikes), though I think the change will eventually come.
@@Syntopikon I hope so. I yearn to be pleasantly surprised again.
Dune was not a success with original...
Great video man. Just discovered this channel and you got my sub. Keep up the great work
Glad you enjoyed it!
Nostalgia works, just do it right!
It's possible, though keeping up the quality is difficult + there's an inherent bias against the new in favor of the old. Sometimes the new is better, though (Dune, for example).
It hasnt been for years. Movies haven't been original in a long time.
there’s definitely a lot of original movies that have been released recently just look at any A24 movie and compare it to any other hollywood blockbuster
@@PaulTheSloth Not that many.
Sequels do not always make money at all. In fact, the rule was always the most you could make was three movies in a series. Star Wars (original) Three. Indiana Jones (original) three. Lord of the Rings? Three. Matrix? Three.
It is studios that decided to try to turn these into "franchises" and everyone, even critics bought into this. There are no "franchises". The ones that existed before were horror franchises that frankly never were huge hits, just profitable as they have a niche audiences and they dont spend a lot of money so make a small profit.
In other words, people wrongly assumed they could just make these movies last as a franchise, when there is no such thing. After the third movie, people seen it and are tired of them.
I love Indiana Jones. Still just rewatched the Tempe of Doom a week ago. The first one is my favorite movie of all time. When they released the last one, I had no desire to watch it. Same with the one before. Ford is old, I saw it already. After the third one, I loved them, but I saw the Indiana Jones story. I did not need to see more. Thinking people like me would just see more and more of the same thing was a mistake.
Maybe they're not even thinking about folks like you. Sequels are just a cash grab to reel in more viewers.
@@1378N If they are not, they are dumb. Sequels do not get new viewers, they only get a diminishing share of people who liked the original show or movie.
I think that's why so many of these come in threes - the original, prequel, and sequel trilogy, the Jurassic Park and Jurassic World trilogy, the LOTR and Hobbit trilogy, etc. If they really wanted to make Indiana Jones and the recent Matrix work, they should've established a breaking point: this is something new, the past is in the past.
I think John Wick is one of the few movies that did make it to a 4th, where the last one might've been the best of the bunch.
Your point re: horror franchises is a great one - thanks to the risk/reward calculus, horror is more "franchisable" than others. Comedy used to be, but that pretty much moved to streaming.
@@Syntopikon I do agree John Wick is an outlier. I think one of the reasons is Reeves, while not young, is also not some old guy reliving the past and still has his star power and it did not wear out its welcome. But that is not a template for most movies, as very few movies have Keaunu's massive screen presence and where everyone still loves the guy.
I think people just didn’t wanna see grandpa be an action hero. And the time travel plot was dumbbbb. Indiana Jones film have always have a hint of super natural but nothing truly supernatural never happens
The ark of the covenant literally vaporized the nazis towards the end of the first film, and the fake holy grail literally aged someone to death in the last crusader, not to mention the existence of aliens in kingdom of the crystal skull. Even if the time travel thing done poorly and it’s implementation a sort of jumping the shark for Indy, there is no denying that supernatural happenings within the films time and time again, dating back to the first film
What 4 bozos liked your comment? Nothing supernatural ever happens? 😂 WTF. The Ark spews out ghosts that consume the Nazis. In temple of doom, a guy reaches into chests and pulls out hearts while the victim is still alive. In Crusade, water from a cup instantly heals a gunshot wound. In Crystal Skull, there’s a giant UFO.
There’s always a supernatural plot device in Indiana Jones.
The time travel wasn’t the issue with Indy 5. It just didn’t treat the character the way we wanted it to. After Indy 4, he was settled down. Happy. Then, in Indy 5, he’s suddenly divorced and his son is DEAD. I get that that’s realistic. People get divorced. People suffer losses of family members. But this is fantasy. We don’t want Indy to regress so far that he’s in the worst place he’s ever been in his life. He’s an old man. He has done his part. Saved lives. Beaten Nazis. He should get a freakin’ break.
Indy 5 should have found Indy as a comfortable man. Retired. Or maybe teaching a bit on the side, like he was in Indy 5.
The tone of Indy 5 was all wrong from the start. It felt mean, not playful like the previous 4. We are supposed to have fun watching Indy. Not feel depressed because of everything he’s lost. This isn’t Logan.
We should have gotten an Indy movie with Short Round as the lead and Indy as the sidekick as Short Round, I dunno, tries to find his daughter who disappeared looking for (insert treasure). Give people something a bit safer. Something people actually WANT.
And that’s the main failure of all these movies.
They’re giving people something they sorta want- a sequel- but they’re not giving them the right kind of sequel.
Hmmm…the holy grail cup literally saved his dad and healed his gunshot wound…then the entire building crumbled because the grail crossed the seal…the ark literally shoots out spirits that melt people…haha. Not hating, just saying 😅
It’s not a sequel or nostalgia problem. Even original movies have been failing and underperforming, and sequels have still been amongst the highest grossers - Guardians of the Galaxy 3 was the fourth highest grossing movie of last year, so far Dune Part 2 and Godzilla x Kong are the highest grossing movies of this year while original movies like the Fall Guy (heavily promoted) although no 1 in the box office is 50% down on the box office of the same weekend of the past few years.
The problem is budgets, people’s lack of disposable income and a changing landscape for media consumption. When movies cost over $200,000,000 to make, when people the world over are earning less and less each year with less and less disposable income and when people only have to wait a couple of months to watch a movie at home, people won’t go watch movies theatrically. It has nothing to do with the quality of movies or the usual BS that right leaning idiots preach - since there are plenty of examples that disprove that - it does have everything to do with studios basically eating their own tails by making the theatrical experience too expensive and less convenient than streaming (a format that isn’t even profitable for the studios).
Accurate 99.9%
great content and writing. but i couldn't finish because audio quality.(tone and smoothness of voice) A good microphone would fix this. Ill check back in a few months :)
I appreciate the constructive feedback! Will try to improve tone and treat the room I record in.
@@Syntopikon you just need to open your mouth wider dude
I agree with everything youre saying but aqua man 2 would've done much better probably still lost money if the whole amber heard situation didnt happen.also nostalgia works if the movie is good fallen kingdom was terrible saw it day one packed theater. dominion day 1 not even half filled
Indiana Jones digs up a relic made when he was middle aged
good.
People figured out they can just wait till it comes to streaming and watch it with subscription...
Maybe some just aren't worth watching at the cinema
@@arvinjay336most * these days have you seen the slop the past 2 months
@@Randomaccount9470 Thought Alien romulus was alright, then again, that's the only movie I watched on cinema this year.
I like your content, but I find that you don’t really go too hard into the title. You kinda go off on tangents and I want to hear more about the nostalgia. That’s why I clicked on the video.
Thanks for the constructive criticism. That's something I need to get better about 😮💨 I end up going on tangents in regular conversation, too, and that's found its way into the videos. I'll try to be more focused going forward.
@@Syntopikon awww I hope I wasn’t too harsh!! I just found u and I will subscribe just bc you too the time to respond to me!! I’m a new fan!! I enjoy your videos. I just had that little criticism. I see that you take other criticism and you’re forming your channel so I’m looking forward to more.
@@lsimon343 Not harsh at all! You expressed yourself quite constructively, which I really appreciate. While I've already finished up a couple videos, I'm taking your words into account for the next one I'm writing.