Knives Out Ruined Cinema - Here's Why
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 28 дек 2022
- Knives Out Ruined Cinema - Here’s Why
The Death of Mid-Budget Cinema: A Knives Out Mystery
Where have all the mid-budget movies gone? With Netflix purchasing the rights to the Knives Out franchise it has set a dangerous precedent for Hollywood. Finally, we were blessed with not only a great mid-budget film, but also a very successful one in Knives Out. However, it seems that major streamers such as Disney Plus, HBO Max and Netflix will be the only home for mid-budget films of the future which is not good for cinema…
Please like, subscribe and leave a comment if you enjoyed the video! 
Развлечения
Hey! Since this video hit the RUclips Algorithm again, just wanted to say that my videos are MUCH better now. Come check it out! Thanks for all of the views, likes and comments on this :)))
I see a lot of clickbait titles, are they really better?
you mean you actually do your research now?
A24 films have garnered 55 nominations and 16 wins as of the 95th Acaademy awards with an average production budget of less than 8 million per film.
I watched 59 secondss to know you were entirely full of shit.
The fact that Barbie and Oppenheimer did well internationally shows that international audiences aren't only interested in empty spectacle. The problem is that studios aren't interested in putting in money in ambitious projects if they aren't led by a Nolan or a Villeneuve.
Glass Onion was bad.
I thought it was amazing tbh, made me go back and watch the original knives out@@anubusx
@@anubusx Nah it was great. The social commentary was exceptionally clever and the idea of a culprit who out-dumbs the detective is very clever.
Lol how is barbie not empty spectacle?
@@michaelxz1305 I suppose if you're too stupid to understand the movie it can seem like empty spectacle.
I’m so tired of “audiences” being blamed for the failings of the industry and their incompetence. I didn’t stop going to mid-budget movies because they stopped being produced. They stopped being produced because I stopped going because tickets went from €5 to €20, and what used to be a cheap outing for the family or cheap date is now rivalling a fancy restaurant. People started treating cinema as an expensive item, so now only big blockbusters are worth it anymore, because of the cinematic experience as you mentioned. Here in Copenhagen, a random movie for 2 on a weekday at 15:00, without snacks or drinks, in an otherwise empty theatre is $50. No need to discuss the price gouging happening at the confectionery stand. Stupid prices (justified in the early 00s by piracy, funny how they never went down when piracy disappeared) has pushed audiences out of theatres for anything except blockbusters, and then audiences get blamed for not enabling actors to develop by taking chances on mid-tier movies.
thats a fair criticism tbh. the price of damn near everything has skyrocketed recently, so people are wary of spending their hard earned money on a movie that might not be a good cinema experience.
Yes!! This
idk what's going on in America but is costs me between £10 (certain days) and £20 for two people on recliner seats at my cinema lol.
@@user-db9fi8lc3w Copenhagen is in Europe.
@user-db9fi8lc3w Here in America we do have some deals going for weekdays in some theaters(there are 2 near my house). I saw Barbie in an AMC and it was about $17 or €15 at a large shopping district.(which are normally more expensive anyway)
It’s a shame we don’t get mid budget films anymore, a lot of my favorites were mid budget, it has the most opportunity to impress the audience.
They exist nowadays, they've just taken a backseat compared to the 90s
I would like to point out that about half of mid-budget movies you highlighted as important were considered box office flops. That didn't mean they were bad movies, most often they had The misfortune of being released at the same time as a box-office titan and just got squeezed out.
Shawshank Redemption being a perfect example. It built it's reputation and gained it's audience by people renting and buying it.
that may be true but by the studios are losing $$$ rather than making it. you'd think they'd appreciate even a box office 'flop' at this point
That’s why physical media like 4K Blu Ray is SO important! 🍿😍👌🏻
Like Megamind being overshadowed by Despicable Me and How to Train Your Dragon
Netflix left a lot of money on the table by not releasing Glass Onion widely in theaters. It did really well in its limited release, making $15 million in less than 1,000 theaters in just a week
Yeah I wanted to see it on cinemas but there were none showing it where I live so I had to watch it on netflix
Wish I could have watched this in the theater!
@@REKRAP17 It was a wonderful theater experience. Everyone was on the edge of their seat, and busting up laughing
I really wish Netflix would be able to release their films in cinemas. I would’ve given anything to see Glass Onion in a theatre, and while I still thought the film was fantastic when I saw it on Netflix, I still feel like it would have been improved by a lot. Hopefully they’ll be able to work something out for a wide release for Knives Out 3.
Agreed. Hopefully streamers will start having theatrical releases before their movies land on their service. I would love that trend!
Mid budget films are not completely gone. Everything Everywhere All at Once is a great example of a recent mid budget film that was incredibly successful both critically and financially.
M3GAN. 12 million budget I think has so far grossed more than $134 mil.
everything everywhere all at once was the one thing in my mind through out this video
Was it really mid budget? It was an amazing production
@@Rumade budget was only about $20 million
Everyone here is forgetting the true mid budget success, Joker: 50 million dollar budget and made more than a billion dollars
There has always been a difference between movies that are "big screen" vs "watch at home." In the 80s we would choose to go watch a movie or wait for VHS based on that. A good example is Deep Impact vs Armageddon. Armageddon is a movie that you needed to see in the theater popcorn movie. While Deep Impact was more of a curl up on the couch and really enjoy the story film. Unfortunately what we are getting today our movies that are almost exclusively eye candy for the theaters and character-driven movies and shows on the streaming platforms.
Both were terrible! lol
Great point . At the same time i think netflix tries to make every series and also movies - into soapoperas.
“Always” goes all the way back to the 80s?
In 1995, the average cost of a movie theater ticket was under $4.50. It was no exaggeration to say that I could go on a movie date and pay around $15, definitely under $20, including drinks and popcorn. The cost for ONE ticket to Avatar today at my local theater is $17.96 ($15.55 for a child). That same movie date is going to be easily $50 or more today. A family of 4 is going to be spending almost $70 before they even get drinks or popcorn. That same family would have been spending $18 or less in 1995. Even a "smaller" film at my local theater costs about $12.50 for a ticket.
People literally now have to make the decision: is this movie WORTH seeing in the theater? More often than not, unless that movie is a giant spectacle, the answer is going to be no.
A month subscription to a streaming service is competitive with ONE movie theater ticket.
Also, giant 4K television are more affordable than ever, putting high quality images in the living room -- and at the proper aspect ratio (unlike the pan and scan nightmare we used to endure with home video). Similarly, high quality surround sound systems are much more accessible.
If we want a wider variety of films in theaters, including lower and mid-budget films, the current studio investment strategy is going to have to change, and the movie theater industry is going to require a massive overhaul either to make the experience actually justify the inflated cost, or to reduce that cost enough so that visiting the theater again seems "worth it" for those smaller films.
True, great point you made there
Great point here - thank you for sharing! I kinda feel like if every theatrical movie didn’t cost 200 million to make the price of tix could come down. But also, by the time one subscribes to all of these streamers it becomes pricey each month as well. Totally see your point and agree with you. I hope the inflation can be better justified
@@REKRAP17 Technically, once it is released on streaming, It's free. I stopped paying for Netflix once Amazon Prime and Disney got popular. Piracy just got a lot more convenient than streaming services.
@@REKRAP17 Streaming services bank on people subscribing and forgetting. But technically, there's nothing to stop someone from subbing to one, binging content for a month, and then the next month swapping to a different service. Rinse and repeat and have a new variety every month for around $15 a month.
I don't know that anyone actually does that, but the system certainly allows for that level of frugality. Also, even though all services frown on it or take steps to prevent it, I really don't know anyone who isn't sharing streaming services and spreading the costs among a couple or even an entire group of friends.
Most movie theater experiences are a one shot punch. One ticket, one movie. Sure, some theaters have monthly movie subscription plans... but even then, they often put restrictions on what movies and what times. And they bank on the fact that most people WON'T be bothered to get ready to go out and leave the house often enough in a month to actually get value out of the subscription.
Yeah you are totally right about that. I also totally get why people stay home to watch movies (I do it all the time). The cost and the sometimes obnoxious people there along with all your other points it definitely makes sense. I know companies also love the guaranteed subscription income each month from streaming services as it is critical for investors and value of a company. It all makes perfect sense, I just wanted to make a fun little commentary on the state of movie going!
That point about audiences getting sick of big budget filmmaking, that’s actually happened before. Kinda. Back in the mid-60s, many films started to get really expensive to produce as the major studios seemingly believed all the people wanted was just big, technicolour epics like The Ten Commandments or Cleopatra. When films like Cleopatra failed to make back their production budgets, that led to the reworking of the studio system, which coincided with the appearance of new and innovative filmmakers like Stanley Kubrick, Warren Beatty, Roman Polanski, Francis Ford Coppola, Martin Scorsese and Steven Spielberg.
Right! I was kinda trying to say that believe it or not. You just articulated it much better than I
Best comment in the video! A shining light in a dark road…
warren beaty? didnt direct....he produced bonnie and clyde
The big budget movies weren't making money back then which was the reason they went out of favour. Today the Hollywood movies are deeply integrated with other industries and cut costs. Achieving economies of scale. They also use already popular IPs.
Why we got Rey Skywalker trilogy? Not for the movies but to sell merchandise. The pre Nolan Batman movies were essentially giant commercials for toys. Sony keeps making spiderman movie to retain rights so there's that.
There's talks of making another Star Trek movie. Why? Because Star Trek is popular brand and despite previous movies flopped they want to keep on keeping it alive.
Can quentin be considered like those people you mention above? Since his first big hit is reservoir dog
I feel like this only matters if you romanticize the physical act of going out to the movies versus staying home, because as you pointed out, these stories are still getting told, but on streaming platforms. And personally, I don't want to spend $20 going out to a theatre to see a NON-spectacle movie because the act of going to the theatre doesn't really add anything to the experience other than overpriced popcorn.
Given the affordability of impressive home theatre systems, it just makes more sense to watch these mid-budget stories in the comfort of your own home; in my opinion, this transition didn't require any conditioning from movie studios, rather it's just a natural evolution stemming from the advance of high speed internet and cheap flat screen tv's.
I have AMC a list so i only pay $20 a month and can see up to 9 movies free. I get free concession items constantly. It’s worth it and made me love going to see film at the theatre again.
I respectfully disagree. There was a time when going to the theater was an event. Shared with good friends. All ages. But now modern releases don't have the same draw and appeal for the theater experience. There are a lot of movies. Not enough Films. Genuine artistic endeavors that engaged our interests beyond making money on cookie cutter movies released nowadays. I miss going to the theater every other weekend.
I was a kid in the 90s and I grew up on Home Alone, Forrest Gump (best film oscar), Silence of the Lambs (best film oscar), Scindler's List (Best Film Oscar) and many more. It really was a golden age of media. I miss mid budget films. Most films I see now, I think, "It's way too overdone." Or I think "This is obscure af."
I think it has more to do with just how good the movie actually is and what will attract the younger audiences ... For example, everyone knows Chris Evans as Captain America and Jamie Lee Curtis as Laurie Strode from Halloween. Throw in James Bond, the girl from 13 reasons why, and the kid from It, that will surely attract the younger audiences. Now if the movie is actually good, the audience will go and recommend it to their friends and family.
Very good points! I would be interested to see how big of a hit Glass Onion would have been if it released in theaters. I thought it was great so i’d be curious to see
@@REKRAP17 If Glass Onion was released in theater before it got to Netflix it would be as successful as the 1st movie, it grossed over $15mil during its one-week limited release proved that it could be as great as the 1st one. But sadly we will never know its full potential thanks to Netflix.
@@REKRAP17 it did release in theaters
I mean like a full wide release
Netflix had a plan for that type of release. I think it did exactly what they wanted it to do. I think they are determined to get into to producing separate theatrical releases and keep doing streaming content as well. They want to be Disney.
Everything everywhere all at once was probably a fantastic midbudget movie, it didn’t have a big huge budget and a fairly small team, but it managed to do something incredible all because it had talented people behind it
Eleven Oscar nominations, too.
Yes I wish more people would have watched it!
That was an incredible movie. So funny but still had great heart.
I wanted to throw up after seeing it
@@Whereismykar didn't like it?
Side note: Atonement, Juno, No Country, There Will Be Blood was a *stacked* Oscars lineup 🤯
Agreed
I think we are all missing the forest for the trees. People will go to theater to see a spectacle like a super hero movie, Avatar, or Oppenhiemer due to the fact that much of the experience is lost when you put them on the small screen. However, the experience watching a character driven story is not a dulled when moved to the small screen. So, the movie industry is just responding the changing technology and consumer sentiment.
Agreed, i would rather watch emotional and thought provoking films in the comfort of my house, so i can process and think about them in peace rather than risk removing the mood/thought with the rush of traffic or mall crowd
Honestly with a 65” tv and surround sound at home with a comfy chair and being able to pause for a snack/potty break I have no desire to pay a months worth of streaming services just to see a movie on the “big screen”
GODDAMN, I WAS UNAWARE OF HOW MANY GOOD FILMS ARE MID-BUDGET. It really shows that putting some restrictions on a project foments creativity and talent.
It definitely does!
Those were not mid budget movies . Well now they could be called this way , but in 90's it was big budget....
@@lukaszmalinowski8675 But it's no longer the 90s, and these are now mid-budget compared to Marvel, and big cinematic visual affects that hold the captivating principle of Movies but have lacked the well-articulated affects of storytelling
@@lorealimma By that logic, imagine how much better they would had been if they were given billion dollar budgets in the 90s.
@@lukaszmalinowski8675 It's also not taking inflation into account. Some of these films are very much high budget, though some are firmly in that mid-range.
I think you forgot Everything Everywhere All at Once, annother great movie, with positive reception, and mid-tier budget of around $25 million, and a box office of $100 million. This movie also shows in my opinion the potential for mid-tier budget movies. But considering that it was made by A24 is kinda the reason why it was able to be made though..
Very true. Love that film. A24 kind of the exception to the rule.
Okay, as someone who has LOVED A24 movies in the past, but who doesn’t love the initial vibe of the movie, is it worth watching? I’m a mystery/horror/suspense junkie, but is this really a good movie? I’ve heard such good things about it, but everything I’ve seen from it makes me not want to watch it. Should I give it a shot?
@@duffal0 I watched it a couple of months ago, and my biggest regret was that I wasn’t able to catch it in the theaters. I don’t think it’s everyone’s cup of tea, but for me, it was a really fun movie experience :>
@@duffal0 it absolutely is. I think there is something in that movie for everyone, and you just have to see it not expecting much. It is a great movie to aprecciate the art of cinema and the way of portraying a theme in the most unexpected way. It is not perfect by all means, but it's a good movie to explore what we are capable to do in that medium when there is pasion behind
I think this video more applies to the major studios as opposed to houses like A24 or Annapurna. The big studios used to crank out mid-budget films like crazy, which was OK because if they didn’t do well theatrically there was always the home video, cable, and broadcast markets. Streaming definitely disrupted things but I predict a shift away from streaming big enough to re-balance things out. It’s gonna take a while tho.
The pattern I see here is streaming studios bought out the mid-budget film categorically to claim the existing niche/market and ensure they have less competition from The Big Five studios. That also gives streaming the ability to take those creative ideas and expand them to series if accounting agrees their different goals (subscription retention vs box office) are better served by the change in format, further suggesting a shortage in mid-budget film when in truth the success of the mid-budget film in its time lay more on the creativity of the people involved being transferable but not having a better venue for expression when TV production was geared toward safe super-formulas.
You described my thoughts perfectly. Every time I go on Netflix, I'm searching for a good 80's or 90's movie. They just don't make 'em like they used to.
Turns out, they never did.....
Yeah, your just getting nostalgia boners.
Crazy as it sounds, Puss in Boots 2 is also likely a good example of a mid-budget film seeing both modest profit while at the same time being immensely enjoyable, critically well-received (Death was an amazing villain, just wow), and a pop culture sensation. I don't think mid-budget movies will be phased out completely, and I honestly don't ever really bother with big budget movies these days, unless I really want to. Good video.
You are right. Puss in Boots 2 was amazing!
I seen a lot of reports on Facebook groups of mothers walking out of the cinema and saying their 6-10 year old kids now have nightmares because of the Death character.
So I took my 5 year old daughter to see it and she loved it 🤣 Really good movie.
I think these parents probably instilled the nightmares by making such a big deal of a the character.
That movie was amazing, dreamworks is really coming back with their recent movies
@@kramvk I took my 3 siblings to watch it and they don't seem to be bothered. Because they knew it's just fiction.
Puss in Boots 2 is disgustingly good.
There's comparisons to Shrek 2 in terms of quality, which is pretty much one of the best animated movies of all time.
All the praise it gets, completely earned.
That movie is a SOLID 9.5/10, because when the only real complaint about the movie i have is "i want more", _it's pretty damn good._
it blows my mind that 40million dollar busgets are considered "mid budget" when the most expensive dutch movie ever made had a 14 million euro budget (15 million dollar). I think this is why dutch cinema will always hold a special place in my hart (i'm dutch myself): you can see how movies are challenging their financial limits by getting creative!
The creativity sparked from limitations is unmatched. Well said!
Yeah I’m also biased so I agree with you!
I mean, are you taking into account purchasing parity? Shits a lot more expensive in the dumb US of A. But i do agree, it's excessive for caring it mid budget.
Norwegian here. I can definitely relate our most expensive movie dosent even cross 10 million dollars it’s more like 8 million if I’m not mistaken. It’s a ton of money, but nothing compared to the big budget Hollywood movies
But nobody watches that shit. Even in the Netherlands.
9:27 yeah dude "cancel culture" is dictating what this corporations do... instead of, you know, _CAPITAL_
I wish I could remember a time before big blockbusters monopolized public interest. I watched Rain Man recently and was astounded that there was a time when a road-trip dramedy could be the highest grossing movie of the year. I can’t imagine how the current general audience could shift away from it’s appetite for spectacle and IP. Maybe lowering ticket prices to enhance to power of word-of-mouth, but I don’t see that as reasonable expectation. The death of theatres feels more reasonable than the decline of franchises.
When Rain Main came out most people didn't have a video player or games console. There were a handful of broadcast TV channels showing a limited amount of content stuffed full of adverts. You had no internet, mobile phones, or social media. Your friends were from the community you lived in and maintaining those friendships required a shared cultural framework. Movies were our lives in the way that streaming platforms are now.
I was one of the lucky few to have seen Glass Onion in theaters and I wish more people got to experience that. It's the type of movie that's made to be seen in theaters. You and everyone in the audience slowly discovering the mystery together is something you can't really replicate at home. But alas Netflix swooped in once and ruined it. What a shame.
I agree. I loved watching the first one in an audience setting. Wish I could’ve with this one too
It was a good film. What a rotten way to watch.
I guess, but the cinematography just didnt warrant a theatre viewing for me. It’s probably the worst job his director of photography has ever done with him
watch it with friend and family all together in the comfort of your home, even better
It wasn't much of a mystery. First one was much better, mystery with a sprinkle of comedy. The second one was comedy with a sprinkle of mystery. It wasn't so fun to watch when you solve it in first 20 min. They dropped the ball on the Glass Onion, hope that 3rd one will be better
The mid budget movies were definitely the ones that I remember most growing up
Need more of them today for sure!
@@REKRAP17 agreed
I lament the loss of these films so much.
The wierd thing is that those mid budget movies were better at being blockbusters too. Rocky (1976), First Blood, and the first Terminator were all mid budget films.
horror movies are a great example of mid-budget movies that do well & can present interesting ideas, aesthetics, techniques & introduce us further to excellent actors.
I especially love Ari Aster & A24 has an interesting selection
A decade ago, when I was in high school, I would go to the movies just about every weekend. Twenty bucks was enough to buy a ticket, a drink, and a popcorn, and keep me occupied for a few hours. Just recently, I went out with my parents to see Wonka in theaters for the new year. Between the three of us for tickets, popcorn, and drinks, it was nearly $100. I will make a guarantee that it is the only time I will sit in a theatre all year.
A decade ago, I had seen every single movie in-theatres below R-rating at least once, some of them multiple times. Today, I am constantly telling people I will see whatever film they recommend when I can find it on a streaming service I already pay for. There just literally isn't anything a movie theatre can do to convince me that it's worth $30 for a 2-3 hour experience.
The lack of mid budget movies is also why there are so little gen z super stars. There aren’t as many opportunities for someone to develop their career into stardom. This is why 42 year-old Ryan Gosling is playing Ken in the Barbie movie. There’s just not many younger actors/actresses to pick from that are universally loved by the audience.
I think this is why we see most of the famous Gen Z stars coming from mini-series or other short TV runs - it's really seems to be the only space to make a name for yourself at this point. We get some new faces in the supporting cast of bigger movies but rarely as the main character, and even if they are the main character, it seems to taper out because they don't have the recognizability needed for Hollywood to justify spending the big bucks on them
Ryan Gosling played Ken because Greta Gerwig wrote the film with him in her mind as the character.
Not interested in gen z stars anyway. :^)
@@Hyldassims iam
the biggest issue here is the same issue everywhere else in america. money is prioritized over literally everything else. but its ironic because some of the best movies were made not as a quick cash grab but a genuine piece of art. these massive companies think they can just keep pumping out cash grabs and no one would notice but everyone's noticing how much the quality has dropped.
Not even money. Just endless growth
Except most of the American film industry producing series and movies for theatres, satellite, and streaming doesn't spend remotely this kind of money. The typical independent film in the U.S. costs just a few to several million dollars.
I agree with just about everything said during this video. One point that I think was overlooked, however, was how the economics of attending the movies have shifted significantly. Movie tickets in 1995 were less than $5 apiece, and a family of four could have an evening out at the theater, complete with snacks, for less than $30. We would often go to the movies 1-2 times a month, and I happily saw my share of mid-budget films on the big screen. Nowadays, movie tickets are $15 apiece, and a family trip to the theater is closer to $80, more if you attend a fancier theater. Consequently, those trips are comparatively rare, and we hold off on going until we're ready to see a big-budget, FX-laden spectacle, because those are immensely satisfying to experience in a theater. Instead of going to the movies 10-12 times a year, we go maybe once or twice.
This really hits close to home for me. Aside from Top Gun 2, I haven't been to the theater for a film since 2019...which was actually to see Knives Out. Before Knives Out, I'd only go to see "mid-budget" films. Aside from that, my local movie theater doesn't play anything outside of the big budget movies.
I have to drive 1hr away to a big city theater to watch anything outside of popcorn flicks. The Outfit was a criminally overlooked film that I would've really enjoyed seeing in theater!
FYI: The Glass Onion had a 1 week release cycle just before Christmas. I managed to catch it in the cinema that week and it was phenomenal, but I had to plan it out to ensure I caught it before it left. The theater was reasonably filled as well and the theater staff was impressed by the turnout.
I believe Netflix did it so it could get into the Oscar’s. The Glass Onion was one my best picture of the year. I fully understand where you are coming from though. Thank you for the video essay.
Thanks so much for the kind words. Yeah very limited release and not in my home country unfortunately
@@REKRAP17 I sincerely hope you get a special cinema viewing in your country! It does happen from time to time.
Maybe when they make the third (planned) sequel, they will give it a longer, and more widespread, theatrical release.
Glass Onion was shown in theaters? I didn't know and honestly think barely anybody else knew or went to the theaters. Knives Out was good, Glass Onion was meeh but I bet people watched it on netflix because of Knives Out. Both of them seemed like Netflix productions, meant for streaming and they were fun and entertaining. I just don't see their signifiicance, as they were just good streaming films, nothing else.
@@Jahaay you should look up nives out on RUclips. (There are a ton of videos breaking down the movie) The movie is much deeper than you are giving it credit for. Earned the Oscar for sure.
I also saw this in the cinema in the UK. It did have a very short screening window, but it was actually almost full and we had made a conscious effort to go see it as we had watched the previous one on the big screen too.
Excellent franchise, great film. We did also see black panther 2 and Avatar 2 towards the end of 22, so it was great to have something different to look forward to!!
Point of order: Apocalypse Now was made in the *70's,* and was not a mid-budget movie at the time. Star Wars (1977) _was,_ ironically enough - the studio didn't want to spend too much on it, and Lucas and his ILM had to invent cheap methods to do things that had cost a fortune before.
Yeah, Copolla had to pause filming a couple of times to budget constraints and also had to make The Godfather Epic (a cut of both the first and second film spliced together on chronological order) to secure the extra funding
I came down here to say a version of this. Star Wars cost about a third of what Apocalypse Now cost. Apocalypse Now also wasn't supposed to cost anywhere near what it wound up costing, but a hailstorm of things made it go way over its initial budget. I'm also scratching my head a bit at the nineties claim. Maybe the uploader got Apocalypse Now and Hearts of Darkness: A Filmmaker's Apocalypse mixed up?
@@smurfthumper yeah that was waaay off... consider inflation also...
In a way, inventing novel and cheap ways to do (relatively) realistic special effects was probably the real breakthrough for Star Wars, and the reason for its success.
The story is good too, but doesn't most people remember it for its spectacle?
@@shoam2103 The cheapness wasn't as big of a part of it as the high quality of a thing, which was seen as more of a niche nerdy genre.
Great video! I miss the creativity of mid-budget 80's and 90's films that focused more on storytelling than spectacle, especially the thriller genre. Some of my favorite directors are Michael Mann, Brian de Palma, and William Friedkin. They made amazing thrillers with great neo-noir atmospheres and a solid cast of actors. I would love to see a thriller revival at the cinema again.
Also, I am know I am late to this video, but the RUclips algorithm just recommended this video. Any way, you earned a new subscriber.
I appreciate this so much! Thank you!
Nice video, I had no idea about all of this but I'm realizing you're right. Some of my favorite movies of all time were mid budget and I didn't even know.
Many European countries force big US studios to reinvest a portion of their profits in local productions. This has blessed us with a host of great mid-budget films that, sadly, rarely seem to cross the Atlantic.
Not sure where the money for it came from but "Another Round" has been my favorite film from y'all's side of the Atlantic so far.
That's sucks, can you give me some recommendations?
Anything done by Thomas vinterberg or Ruben östlund is gold
americans cant read subtitles
wdym force?
Spot on! What a pity the mid-budget films don't exist in theaters anymore. They are among the best ones to go see with a date or the family.
Ay! I agree!
Every single person you mentioned as an innovator of film or TV is a talent vacuum and all but 1 has had their work cancelled and they have bombed when given control. These are the people who killed the MCU and modern TV 😢.
This is so rich - full of well thought out historical data. Thank you for providing such an important review.
As a budding filmmaker who would likely mostly work within the mid-budget range, I agree 1000% percent. When the news broke that Netflix acquired the rights to the Knives Out franchise, I was so disappointed, and when I saw Glass Onion (in theaters, because I don’t have Netflix), I was even more disappointed because a.) money had clearly been left on the table and b.) the film’s one-week gross showed that there is an audience for mid-budget films as long as they are GOOD.
And while I agree that TV is a great place to seek up-and-coming talent, there should also be a focus on those of us coming up outside of television. That’s not the medium for me, and there’s not much opportunity for crossover if you’re not a “name.”
Very good points! I am definitely glad there are more avenues for films to get made and released. It’s just unfortunate that the theatrical experience seems to be fading away. Best of luck with filmmaking though! That is super cool. I always wanted to be one too so go out there and crush it 💪
@@REKRAP17 I think the streaming honeymoon period is almost over! People seem unhappy with how HBO Max is removing content and there seems to be a growing movement of physical media ownership again. All that, coupled with the reviving theatrical box office, and I think we may enter a new era of theatergoing within the next year or so. We shall see.
And thanks so much for the words of encouragement. 🙏🏾
@@JayFingers calm, it just the COVID strikes that killing cinema in last 2 years, 2023 surely starting to get back to old cinema reign, believe me! 👏🏼
IT'S YOU. YOU'RE THE KID NAMED FINGER!
Nah money is not left on the table. They were banking on the theatrical release convincing folks to keep their subscriptions to watch it online instead.
The thing that is crazy about Glass Onion to me, is that I didn't even know they were making a second movie, only for it to be released and everyone only called it it's subtitle (Glass Onion as opposed to Knives Out) so I didn't know it was a sequel to Knives Out until I was literally looking at the listing on Netflix. Additionally, I would have absolutely LOVED to see it in theatres. I watched it twice on Netflix and if they did a limited re-release in theatres I would still go see it again for that full cinematic experience. But I missed the original theatre release due to not even knowing it was happening at all.
Yeah I would’ve loved to have seen it in the theater too!
What is it about this "experience" that makes someone want to rewatch a movie? I am genuinely curious.
@@rikachristianti people like the surround sound and hearing the reactions of everyone else in the crowd. A good movie with rapt viewers has everyone gasping at the same time, or all laughing together, and people like that sort of community experience. Also, sometimes going to the theatre is just fun! It's something different
@ELDuPont not to mention, theres hardly a reason to leave the house anymore. Not leaving the house may make it harder to enjoy something simple as a movie. For example, if you went to the theatres, you are more likely to dress up, more likely to get snakcs like popcorn. More likely to eat a meal like dinner before or after the movie. More likely to get dessert. Even just taking a car ride to the theatres can be fun. Not to mention the big part which is that many people dont have big screens (and nobody just owns a massive theatre screen) or THAT great of surround sound. And ngl, the theatre seats are more comfy than the ones I own (young adult here). And honestly hearing other people i may never talk to again is part of the fun, I agree.
Also i suggest everyone go see the new puss n boots movie in theatres. It was super fun to watch with a big crowd
In “Knives Out” there was a flashback scene where Michael Shannon’s character was trying to convince Christopher Plummer’s character-the murdered writer- to sell out to Netflix by allowing the company to adapt his books, only for Plummer to easily turn down the offer, believing in the artistic integrity of his work. Watching this video reminded me of that scene, and now Rían Johnson seems to have taken the route that Shannon’s character wanted to take. Ironically, the effect of Johnson’s decision somewhat proved Plummer’s character right.
I think it's pretty well known at this point that it's a certain way of thinking that infested the Writer's Guild that is behind 90% of bad movies.
Something I feel is overlooked is just how much cheaper it’s becoming to make quality movies. From a lighting standpoint in particular, it takes hundreds of kilowatts to light a solid night exterior. Now with camera sensitivity and more efficient lights, it can be done with a few 7k genies placed well. If anything microbudgets are the new medium budgets, and a director/producer who can prove capable in those endeavors usually skyrockets to the majors quickly. Those mid budget directors mentioned made micro budget shorts, then were given a shot with mid budgets if the early 2000’s. Maybe we’re just starting to skip the middle-budget man.
These weren’t mid budget movies. They had the highest budgets of their day.
Exactly what I wrote in my other comment. If we adjust for inflation and FED's policies, the 90's movies are high-end budget, not much different than todays high-end budget movies.
10M back then doesn't equal 10M today...
This video was terrible.
@@denvvver2 no he doesn't. I looked them up, those were the budgets of those movies back then, not the budgets adjusted for inflation.
E
But his point is still valid
Movies in the top 20 domestic grossing films for 2023 that cost 15-75 million to make:
Scream IV, TMNT: Mutant Mayhem, Creed III, Sound of Freedom. That 1/5 of the top 20.
All things considered that doesn't seem too bad at all. Many of the films you cited as being these classic mid-budget films I think mainly got into the mid-budget range because of actor salaries. They got the bigger stars so it cost more to make. But I'm not sure they all needed that much money to present us these stories.
Also, the 90s, in the wake of Pulp Fiction, were in general known for bigger studios trying to make the next big-budget indie hit. It was a trend that started and died pretty much in that decade. In American cinematic history it was an anomalous time.
Ruin Johnson ruined cinema? I can believe that.
I used to go to the cinema for new releases but kind of stopped once the blockbusters got underwhelming film after film and I'm pretty sure I'm not the only one. What will probably happen is that cinemas will have to change their role from showing only new releases to showing a mix of new releases for blockbusters and playing stuff that people already liked on the streaming services 6-12 months after they came out. There are also a bunch of older films that I would love to watch/rewatch on a big modern cinema setup. Cashing in on nostalgia like that will have to become a part of the cinema business if they want to survive and having 20-30% of a multiplex playing old stuff which should be cheap to license seems like an easy decision.
Great idea
You should check to see of any of the theaters in your area have any showings from Fathom Events. It's really the only reason I've still been going to the cinema in recent years. They show a lot of classic films, as well as stage productions, ballets, and operas. I got to see Singin' In The Rain on the big screen for it's 50th anniversary which was really neat.
Yep, the Pathe cinema chain (in Europe) will screen old movies now and then, and I used to go to those all the time. My first time seeing 2001: A Space Odyssey was in a theater only a few years ago. I can't imagine watching that one on my computer monitor at home and it having the same effect.
There's a small theater in Seattle which airs older beloved movies like what you mentioned. I remember watching The Princess Bride on that big screen. It was something else to be present in the theater with other people my age who had brought their kids to see it in the same way we all had in our own childhood. Nostalgia will never go out of style, so I sincerely hope there will be more theaters that bring back the "classics" for everyone who's fed-up with the underwhelming blockbuster assembly line.
Alamo Drafthouse is a pretty popular theater chain now and they do exactly that. Also, for certain movies they will make a menu specifically designed for the movie that’s showing. I saw When Harry Met Sally with my family and they served us brunch and cocktails. It was great.
Wes Anderson films take about the same approach, for the most part it's a mid-budget film but is filled with people that have recognizable names. And he makes an amazing stories that involve multiple languages part of the time, so they're enjoyable to a domestic and international audience. I feel like with more Blockbusters coming out in the future a lot of people are just going to be annoyed by the overstimulation and start making their own low budget, good story films. There's a ton of books out there that don't have a movie made about them that deserve it and people will have the opportunity and good enough cameras to do it themselves. Indy stuff will probably be on the rise because stuff that isn't trendy is actually cooler.
Wes anderson is so mid
Yes, people like Wes Anderson, Christopher Nolan, Ridley Scott, etc are the exception to the rule. Because they established themselves as top tier directors in the era before those kinds of films fell out of favor, they can still obtain financing and demand creative control at the same time. But a young filmmaker with a great idea is not going to be able to easily follow that path anymore.
E
wes anderson is now making 4 movies for netflix :D
Wes Anderson is being bankrolled by a Billionaire fan, which is why he can do it.
He's the exception proving the rule.
Thank you for the video! I'd like to add that it's also a financial and time issue today. As a young mom, I simply cannot go to the movie theaters in the evening, I also can't take my kid to the movies during the day because his attention span isn't long enough (and I also don't want to expose him to TV oder anything related too early). But it's reasonable to watch on Netflix / Amazon Prime or another streaming service once the little one is in bed. It was hard enough to find the time and place to see the new Hunger Games installment with a friend, while my husband watched our son - and I'm lucky, because I'm not an only parent and can share the workload.
1) Don't forget the role piracy played. Studios went to "blockbusters only" when they realized the money they made from theater ticket sales was all they were going to get.
2) Why doesn't streaming count? It may not be good enough for Matt Damon, but actors can still start and build their careers that way, can't they? Are studios too snobby to let a stream-born star into their movies?
Glass Onion did have a limited theater release, where I did see it, and the turnout there was pretty good for such a short timeframe. I do think streaming services should at the very least offer limited release theater showings before the movie goes straight to streaming. I love the movie theater experience and I do not want to lose that
I couldn’t agree more!
“Apocalypse Now” was released in 1979. It’s $31 million original budget is equal to $120 million today. The director, Francis Ford Coppola, was never known for making a low budget movie. Even his failures were high budget.
In France, movies in cinema have to wait a whole year before being available on bluray or vod, which does help to some extent. It is being criticised though
@Brian Boulter BINGO thats exactly it! Ive been reading through some replies to the limited release comments seeing if someone mentioned this. These types of movies get the limited release primarily to check off that award show qualification box, to see if they can get a shoe-in during award season
I don’t think we’re ever gonna lose the movie theater experience because films make significantly more money when they go to theaters as opposed to when they go straight to streaming
There's a similar discussion about video games... the simplicity and great stories of some of the older games are missed by many. Today we have extremely expensive games with fantastic graphics, but lacking on gameplay, story or overall appeal.
Interesting! I'm not much of a gamer so that's fascinating to hear. Hopefully it all turns around soon...
To be fair, there are plenty of games with good story and gameplay, often very cheap, but they are, again, typically indie rather than mid-budget.
I agree, and I think it's largely because of PC gaming overtaking consoles and arcades. Today's gamers will dock a game a whole star in their rating or 2 points out of ten as soon as the framerate drops or a single glitch pops up. The culture of "get good" online competitive gaming and monetization of live services combined with hyper-focus on graphics, mechanics, and technical performance has essentially guaranteed that any AAA game will either be a live service or a technically impressive rehash.
I think videogames differ though in that an indie movie is much more overwhelming and a bigger risk to watch because there are so many and you have so little to judge how good it can be. With games a 10 second clip of gameplay is enough information to give the customer a good idea so indie games become much more approachable
Yeah because people don’t know how to boycott they just buy the shit anyway and they buy micro transactions
1:53
"here's the thing"
i lost it lmaoo😭
Nicely put together! The editing was very nice on this one, better than most essays I've seen
Wow, thank you so much!
Dynamic ticket prices might help. A lot of people put movies into two categories: the ‘watch in theater’ and ‘wait and watch at home’ varieties. And the movies that most often fit into the theater category are the spectacle ones. I think this is mostly due to ticket pricing, which is near $20 ea these days. Even the small matinee theater near me that used to sell $5 tickets got bought out by amc and now sells $15 tickets. People have to make a decision to either spend 20 to over 100 dollars for a theater experience, and weigh that against just waiting a while and watching it at home. I think that’s the biggest driving force here.
I think if theaters instead charged more for bigger budget movies and less for lower budget movies, we’d probably see proportional in-theater viewership.
You put it better than I could 👏🏽👏🏽👏🏽
Or more people would sneak into the more expensive one
I think you are dead right here. I love the theater experience way more than streaming. I have no issues paying $15 for a tub of popcorn. However, as the ticket prices go up, so does my money meter and what I would consider a worth it movie, or not. Additionally, placing all the eggs in one basket ideal is dramatically failing for WB. You can only write off so much before shit hits the fan. For all of the bologna that WB has had to deal with Ezra Miller and The Flash, will it even be close to worth it on an estimated $200M budget? Time will tell.
Nailed it. I was sick when I got dinged $23 a ticket for Avatar 2 the other day
@@brandonclelland8091 just post a second ticket check in front of the big blockbuster films, shouldn't be too hard
This video made me realize why I feel like cinema has died. Almost all of my favorite movies have been mid-budget. I’ve never been able to get into the superhero spectacle genre. I used to love going to the theater as a kid. Now I go once every two or three years and only for certain directors.
How on God's green earth do you ONLY have 20k subscribers!?!? Thank you for your money, time, and energy!! NEW SUBSCRIBER!!!
I love how you were more informal here. I too really miss mid-budget movies, I personally liked mid-budget movies because they are fresh and have a different feel to them. Not all spectacles are over the top but y'know a high budget film is largely based on the wild cinematic experience a viewer craves but mid-budget movies dig into you and are a good refreshing treat. The part you about modern audiences being fatigued is absolutely true, if everything is so spectacle all time, it wouldn't be. Intimacy is needed alongside Spectacle to maintain freshness of both. (The different intimacy if I'm gonna get trolled, more personal, human stories)
Couldn’t agree more! It’s not that I don’t love the big blockbusters (cause I most definitely do!) I just wish it wasn’t at the expense of these other great types of films.
@@REKRAP17 You're right
I had a similar thought recently. It seems like older movies were both fun and could have a solid plot, in depth characters, and interesting themes.
Nowadays, you seem to either get CGI fests that are entertaining but extremely simplistic; or arthouse movies that are interesting and unique but it's arguable if they are fun.
Knives Out si a good example of a modern old-school movie. Had a very fun plot, but also touched on social issues and was a criticism of income inequality.
Well said!
While some trends might be there, I'm pretty sure there were as much bad movies before as there are now
incredibly surface level critique. I am surprised so many like the film, at most its somewhat fun
@@REKRAP17
I was shocked that _Apocalypse Now_ only took $31M to make, but even more so, that the film's year of release, 1979, is considered to be "around 90s". 😁
Yeah movies like Die hard to me are the gold standard for fun movies and I dont see many modern movies like that at all
Netflix is Big Streama
How this only got 7 likes
was genuinely not expecting this video to be SO GOOD my man be doing THE work 👏👏👏
This means so much! Thank you
I'm already fatigued by big budget cinema. They haven't made a penny off of me in years, and I used to be a frequent consumer. This current stream of money they are relying on will dry up eventually, and at that point I hope they start giving artists what they need to make art.
you missed one of the most critical pieces of this studio decision making swing: Since the introduction of streaming services, the rent/buy video release 6 months after a film is in theatre can no longer be counted on for profits, which means that the full risk of a feature film is on box office sales, which in turn makes it much more risky from a business perspective to make a film. This is why films that have a fanbase already (comic book/etc) are more commonly made, because there's less risk at the box office
There's less risk at the box office until they end up bankrupt. Once fatigue sets in bankruptcy is imminent.
Thanks Matt Damon
Why, films are still rented/bought after a films release via streaming sites or on peoples home network?
Makes no sense. Theater releases are generally only available to rent at first on streaming platforms such as Amazon, before becoming free streams. Instead of renting at blockbuster, you rent from a streaming platform. The only time this isn't the case is if studios choose to release it as a free stream on a platform they own (like WB movies on HBO max) however they are still available to rent on other platforms if people dont sub to HBO.
They make money from streaming. More than from sales, physical or digital. It takes longer but like software and games companies they'd rather have recurring income than a one off purchase. Talent needs to catch onto that shift. They need to stop buying the studios BS and stop negotiating contracts based purely on box office takings.
I dont really think theyre gone at all. Moonlight, Minari, Banshees of Inshirin, all of Jordan Peele's movies, all of Taika Watiti's movies, all of Edgar Wright's movies, all of Yrogos Lanthimos's movies. all under $75m.
@2:06 Apocalypses Now was 31 Million, plus 9 Million in advertising... but it was not released in the 1990s it was released in 1979. Filming started in 1976 and wrapped in 1977 and had two years of post production and associated cost over run. --- This film was made with 1970s money, so you can't say that the 31 Million mid budget as it is more like 160 million in today's money.
Gattaca has got to be one of the best mid-budget films ever. The effects were so creative. They used refuse and knick-knacks to create a cinematic marvel.
Gattaca is amazing!
...except that in his selfishness, the protagonist condemns an entire starship full of people to death by impersonating a healthy person with tremendous longevity to become their navigator. His hereditary heart defect will kill him long before they return home.
@@TheSamLowry his health defects might kill them. There's a difference. He has a chance of having heart issues but he does not have them yet
@@TheSamLowry 🥱
@@mayam9575 But he most certainly does not have a much longer life than what we would have, and he would die, anyway, before they're expected to return.
In a way, that's exactly what has happened with video games. In the late 90's, early 2000's, we used to have both Triple A games made by studios like Nintendo, Rockstar, Ubisoft and Sony.
But we also had "Double A" games, by smaller game devs that aren't really recognized, but still had a mid-to high budget thanks to alliances with different publishers. This gave us different weird little games, like Gex and many of the platforming anomalies of the nineties. Hell, even recognized characters were develiped with a smaller budget and scale in mind, like the Crash Bandicoot games from the early 2000's or the Megaman games.
When the indie scene hit it big with Cave Story, now we had three different models of games running at the same time, and it was really nice! But it's not something you really get now. You either have the small indie game darling, or the big budget triple A game.
It's gotten better, sure, during the PS3 era it was hellish. It felt like the industry was putting itself in a box, but I miss when scale and spectacle didn't matter much in games and they were...fun.
Psychonauts was one of those video games
I remember when it seemed like every game I liked by a smaller developer was bought up and ruined by EA. Like ESPN NFL 2k, Dead Space, and Mass Effect.
damn this is so true
Actually there were like 6 or so, because single-A, handheld, downloadable, and arcade games also existed at the time. Nowadays these formats are either dead or no longer taken seriously.
However, there do exist a very small number of mid-budget games like Skullgirls, the difference being that they start out as straight-up indie projects but balloon in budget over a long period of time.
I think this year's box office will see a change. Many big budget assembly line movies flopped hard, really loosing money. Especially super heroes seem to be no longer a big draw, same for Fast X and Mission Impossible 217 (I think).
Also keep in mind, that studios can't finance the big budget movies on their own. In the last decade, interest rates were close to 0, so money was cheap and easily available.
This has changed in the last 2 years and now interest rates are quite high, meaning supply is more limited, financiers will ask for a higher return and less risk. Couple that with the old formula of the last 15-20 years clearly not working anymore, we are in a similar situation to the early 70s. The big budgets don't work anymore and have become too risky. One flop can mean that a studio does not break even over the summer.
So the money will look to diversify, spread risk. At the same time streaming services come under more pressure to become profitable and companies are no longer willing to dump huge sums into them in the hope of future returns. Disney+ is a drag on the company as a whole. So is Marvel by now. And financiers get increasingly frustrated with streaming deals, where they simply don't see the returns they see in cinemas (and over a longer time period).
I think change is coming to the industry, and hard!
Cinema: This movie and the mcu is killing me!
Johson: Nobody tried to kill you, ya vainglorious buffoon!
It's fascinating seeing this explained. It's like another world. I didn't grow up going to the movies, it was too expensive. We occasionally used Blockbuster or equivalent to rent movies for a couple dollars. As a young adult, the only movies I saw in theaters with my own money were Marvel movies. However, I stopped going to the theaters long before 2020. I don't remember which movie was the last one I saw, probably Winter Soldier. It just became easier and significantly cheaper to watch movies at home when they were released to Netflix or Disney+.
Now, I don't watch modern movies at all. There's nothing compelling. I find the movies from 20+ years ago to have much better plot/acting and the practical effects hold up much better over time than the rushed CGI of today, which often times looks out of place even at it's release.
that mindy kaling example at 10:33 aged like milk with the release of velma
E
TLDW: It didn't. Some whinge about streaming services releasing things. There was never any need to watch a film with zero need to be seen in a cinema. The examples of "mid budget" films from the 90s were big budget at the time.
Keeping in mind that actors are striking against streaming not paying them well, really explains why actors would kill to be in mid-size budget movies. They really allow you to get paid and seen while getting residuals properly.
A mid-budget movie that I really thought would make some money was The Nice Guys. All star cast, an original story, and in my opinion one of the best comedies of the 2010’s. Shame it underperformed, would love to see a sequel.
Yes! Crowe and Gosling were a match made in heaven for movies. I wanted to see their duo solve a couple more crimes! Marketing for that film was mediocre, though, and choosing May for a release date was an awful idea because I believe Captain America 3 was released that month too. And X Men Apocalypse was quick to follow.
I recently saw an interview where Ryan gosling said that they were competing with angry birds in the cinema and so that’s probably why it didn’t do as well as it should’ve. It’s a shame because its such a good film
So many great points are made in this video. As a lover of cinema I can definitely say that I hope that people do sort of get a little tired of the constant expanse of streaming services… while I understand the convenience of streaming like Netflix… I feel that it is at the forefront of reasons why movies that should do quite well in the box office have been “flopping”. Cause there’s always that, “well we can just wait for it to come out on Netflix” thought that I think a lot of people are getting used to in current years. Love this video👏
I appreciate this so much. Thank you!!!
Has streaming made that much of a difference though? My family used to wait for it to either go to the dollar theater or to the local rental. I still only go to the equivalent of the dollar theater: $5 Tuesdays. So it's not like my spending habits have changed much.
I am so glad you're calling out Knives Out. It's a trash mystery made into a property heavy conent dependent empty shell of a movie. Story is an impediment. Ot slows the process, it drnied the formula, and it rivals the corporate overlords. Hollywood hates writers. Mid budget films were dependent on writing....they take chances. Corporate Hollywood will no longer tilerate that risk. Now it must be franchises, content, properties and the formulas that go with them.
Hey! loved the video. Is there any books you have read on this type of topic that you recommend looking into? Thank you so much!
The x-factor that really tipped the scale was COVID. That initial lockdown made a lot of people realize not every film needs to be seen on the big screen. As it stands: mid budgets risk being downed out in the streaming content pool or big blockbuster films (that to the laymen viewer, makes more of the movie going experience).
Now personally, I'm not really a "def of synimuh" type guy. But I do think you're onto something with audience fatigue. I think the growth of A24 could also signal to Hollywood that more mid budget, concept films like Everywhere At Once with its heartfelt absurdism and action could once again be a viable middle ground (given support from studios and marketing).
Agreed
Growing up I noticed major differences between film and 4:3 TV concerning cinematography. On the big screen it was easier to see actors in wide shots which showed so much more and there wouldn't be so many close-ups, like in television's smaller screen and format. Now with every movie 'destined' to make it to TV, film is much less cinematic overall. Add mobile devices and many times film close-ups are so severe you can't even see the entire head.
@@terrylandess6072 Thing is a lot of audience members simply won’t notice that (that or it might matter as much with certain films). I myself prefer viewing the original aspect but there’s countless times I’ve just gone with whatever the default is (especially if I just want to veg out to a movie).
Top Gun is a great example of a movie that justifies the price of admission for your average movie goer. They want to see Tom Cruise pushing the limit, they want to see those birds and the impressive piloting. To an untrained eye such as myself and just a film fan: I saw it twice because it was a fun, heartfelt movie with some really impressive cinematography tech. By comparison, the cinematography of the planes in the original felt like looking a toy airplane you controlled just listing around in the air.
Bedbugs in theaters were the beginning of the end
A related thing is that is you look as best picture winners from a few decades ago, you see movies that were not only critically well-regarded but also big hits. Forrest Gump, Braveheart etc. Then it shifted to where the best picture nominees tended to be small budget stuff most people haven’t heard of.
Yes, because you can't give "Best Picture" to some big budget spectacle that follows the same old formula and people don't even need to understand the dialogue to enjoy. So that just leaves indie films and film festival fare that most people haven't seen.
@@keepinmahprivacy9754 That's not the point bro. The point is that a few decades ago filmmakers weren't scared of high-concept and high budget films which were artistically brilliant and ALSO publically appealing.
Braveheart is dreadful so it's a bad example but you get the idea.
@@keepinmahprivacy9754 almost every best picture film is hot ass. Shape of Water.... I'm not tryna watch someone fuck a fish man.
@@keepinmahprivacy9754 I mean.....they nominated Avatar 2 this year lmao
@@alexmiller4534also the academy wasn’t as stagnant and took risk with what they nominated and what won. These days even if no one really cared about your movie they can still win because it was a slavery biopic or something
The word _franchise_ makes me sick most of the time. It's usually about milking a good idea, a great concept until you drain it, like trying to sell bones, hoofs, tails after the flesh has been sold. But the plebs lap it up. It was bad to hear that Knives Out turned into a franchise. The story's over. It's complete and self sufficient. No sequels, prequels, presequela, spinoffs or offspins are necessary.
I prefer to stay at home since theaters overcharge because they can at the audience's expense....
I was thinking recently that I was burnt out with movies but you've basically presented it amazingly. There's so much cgi riddled movies in the cinema which has made it aching to sit down for 2+ hrs at a time just watching the same thing over and over again. And the creativity is so lost on these big budget movies in terms of presenting strings of cgi scenes not to mention lackluster storylines. I used to really love going to the cinemas but now I'm just finding myself rewatching old flicks because they will always give me a breath of fresh air compared to newer cinema
The thing is, American blockbusters are not the only movies that exist. Maybe it's harder in the US, but in my country there are cinemas that show movies from all around the world and some of them are pretty good. I usually watch a couple of at least decent new movies ever month.
@@connaeris8230 Watch some south indian movies, especially Malyalam movies. Original stories without CGi.
90 ercent of the world's movies don't even have any CGI, it's your fault for only watching the top movies of Hollywood.
@@connaeris8230 The majority of the media I watch now is made outside of the us.
Not to mention the constant sludge pipeline of propaganda spewing "the message" in literally every single movie
clickbait title worked, wouldnt have usually watched this style of video but it was pretty fire. good job man :)
great video, the only thing lacking is your mic quality but that's a very simple problem to resolve so don't worry too much.
Homie really tried to sneak in Mindy Kaling t 10:25. Not after Velma she aint.
There are other two factors. First is ticket price. More and more people are choosing wait and not to go see mid budget movies and go only watch movies you "need" to see on big screen because of the ticket price. They will watch mid budget movies in cinema when they are sold as big event. And this also costs lots of money. This is the second factor. Marketing cost for movie with $35 million budget can cost easily up to $50 million or more if you want to sell it as a big event you need to see.
Totally agree! It’s a tough spot, I wish spending would come down on these movies, but as you say they gotta market a lot to create buzz!
Some people I know have completely dropped going out to the cinema, even for large scale blockbuster films. When I suggest they should see it on the big screen their usual response is, “I’ll just wait until I can watch it on Netflix“. 😢 Streaming, among other reasons mentioned in this video, is ruining theaters and shaping the content studios choose to create.
The bigger the budget, the more you can loot, embezzle and grift from the production.
I appreciate that you admit the video title was clickbait lol...kudos, sir.
Good, but you didn't mention one of the biggest reasons for budget growth: special effects. They are used more and more all the time in movies, especially in the superhero films that you talk about. They cost a lot, but can attract a lot of crowds to see the latest movie.
It has become a circle of competition between who can make the flashiest and most amazing effects. To draw audiences movie theaters must have an amazing spectacle each time they screen a new movie, better than the previous one.
Simultaneously, audiences who prefer more quiet and slow films are discouraged by the high volume and bright screens which are calibrated for audiences that want loud and brash spectacles. They already know most titles will be boring to them (superhero movies, thrillers etc.), so they won't even think of going to movies. It becomes a self-perpetrating circle.
There's a logic though - the quiet and slow movies can be more easily experienced in your home couch, while the special effects can only be fully realised in a theater.
While in former eras, due to limitations in the ability to employ special effects and in techniques of filming, it was the plot and acting that were emphasised in making of the movies. Thus, they were often dramas, dealing with human relations in mundane settings, filmed in studios and easy-to-access locations. Later on, as technology developed, things like cinematography, shooting on location, sound design, set design, clothing, pyrotechnics became more important, but it was the development of CGI (computer generated imagery) broke the bank, when whole scenes and movies could be made without any human imput whatsoever.
I have been watching a few films from 1930s lately: it has been quite relaxing, just to concentrate on the plot and not flashy effects all the time. There is a sense of calmness and relaxation that I never feel with movies anymore. Interesting to compare to some modern Marvel superhero movie, which is the polar opposite of it. This also seems to affect children's shows: there is nothing like the old Postman Pat episodes (that I loved as a child) made anymore. The series has been completely ruined by the modern continuations to it.
In fact, I don't think either extreme is a good in and of itself. The best movies are the ones that have been able to combine good special effects with good acting, like LOTR, Inception. But, between a well-acted naturalistic drama and a flashy superhero movie, there's no doubt I will choose the former.
There was probably a golden middle between the extremes of underuse and overuse of special effects - somewhere from 1970s to early 2000s perhaps - and now we have gone across that into the territory of Too Many Special Effects
Wait... Most people have been sick of marvel for awhile now though... Not only is the overall storytelling bad, which most people point to when criticizing marvel, but their effects has had a significant downgrade since infinity war.
The original Star Wars was a good example of a film that made a good balance between overuse and underuse of special effects. It had budget problems (George Lucas and ILM got very creative and revolutionised some ideas) but it didn’t overuse the effects and had lots of scenes of just actors in a physical location
@@Anonyomus_commenter exactly, that's what I meant
@@Anonyomus_commenter another example is Peter Jackson's Lord of the Rings trilogy
It's interesting that Taika Waititi is a director that successfully jumped from low budget to incredibly high budget films. His Thor films are fun, but it just makes me sad that they prevented us getting another Jojo Rabbit or Hunt For The Wilderpeople
his Thor is disgusting
He’s terrible as a director. He’s all over the place, continuity is crap, and his movies are just falling short from him trying to impress his girlfriend
His Thor film ... singular was fun .... Love and Thunder was so so horribly bad not only did Helmsworth call out they need to fix the character but Waititi also said he would not put another second on the film for a directors cut. It was so bad he hated it to. It was one of the worst commercial films I seen in decades.
yeah no, we should get him as a director but with a HEAVY HEAVY HEEEEEEEEEEAVY leash. give him full control and we get utter garbage like thor: love and thunder. there needs to be someone there to rein him back when he decides to go full crazy.
He's a hack
"Always take what you can negotiate" might be one the dumbest things I've heard. It makes no sense.
You probably won't see this because this was uploaded a year ago but I clicked on this as background noise and stopped what I was doing to watch this video. It's really funny the editing is hilarious and I subscribed
I appreciate this so much!
Idk man I loved this movie, as a thriller and mystery enthusiast (my favorite series is Black Mirror) this movie was such a breath of fresh air and I hope more of these types of movies are made
Oh I totally love the Knives Out movies as well!
I would’ve loved seeing Glass Onion in the cinema just like the previous movie. I really don’t get why they outright didn’t release the movie in cinemas in some countries.
I would've loved to see it in theatres too!
It's kind of like what our society is becoming. No more middle-class.
I actually loved your analysis. This, coming from a filmmaker who loves all the mid-budget films you mentioned and wants to make movies like that. Kudos!
I appreciate this so much! Best of luck with all of your filmmaking endeavours!
Thanks!
Granted, The Glass Onion would have been an even better experience in the theaters, but I am watching it for the 7th time on Netflix.
Wow! 7th time! Awesome, glad u love it! I really enjoyed it as well
Woah hahahaha nice one. Keep enjoying it!
AMC theatres make movies better 🚀🚀
7 times of a disappointing film? Sheesh
"Mindy Kaling is revolutionary"
Aged like Milk