Why is there such a lack of memorable movies/shows coming out? From my memory, even 2000-2010 had amazing advances in CGI, camera work and scriptwriting.
What happened in 2010-2016? Where are the classics?
I like to think it's a combination of my standards getting higher and general level of effort and innovation decreasing. Studio influence have increased to the point where they are micro-managing movies and shows.
remakes
manchildren
Hollywood wont grow up
Sony's/big studio incopetence
Foreigners invest in their soap operas instead
movies are dated.
A24 produce good films
>>71225775
I just like that retro as fuck title card of theirs.
>>71225644
here have been plenty of good movies in that time frame. You've just got a mental block/confirmation bias thing happening.
>>71225690
>Studio influence have increased to the point where they are micro-managing movies and shows.
Except studios have never been more irrelevant than now, and the trend is only going to increase in the next few years.
Just look at the production value required to make something look professional? You have literal who schlubs on youtube with professional looking sets and cameras, surviving on ad revenue and patreon dollary doos, and producing content on a regular basis. Shit, look at the major studios. Summer block busters have to break a billion or else its considered a flop - that isn't a sustainable plan. Its fucking killing WB, and Sony entertainment filed for bankruptcy in '14(?).
So to answer your question OP. Plenty of good movies have been made in the last 5 1/2 years, just not by the major studios.
>>71225644
I can only think of Inception or Gravity right now.. then Mad Max Fury Road?
>>71226123
But the problem is that there's absolutely no money OUTSIDE the major studios. The mid-budget film is dead, and that's why we haven't seen a new wave of American auteurs like we had in the '90s. There's just no path for advancement for them in film, they're all migrating to television.
The best they can hope for, for a VERY select few, is to jump straight from a $500,000 indie film to a $200 mil franchise blockbuster where they have no creative control, like Josh Trank or Marc Webb did. And that's usually a recipe for failure. But there's no middle ground anymore, no small steps towards success, nobody gets to make a "Boogie Nights" or "Pulp Fiction" and have it screened/marketed for a wide audience.
And I don't really understand why. When they're STILL forking over cash for the rights to remake/reboot a decades-old low-budget film like Alien or Terminator, it boggles my mind that NONE of them have the vision to say "hey, maybe we should try to make a movie like that, so WE'RE the ones getting paid for the endless string of sequels"
>>71226299
It's because the audience. They're ALWAYS skeptical of a new IP. Mostly because studio's don't know HOW to do a new IP.
BUT also that 500 indie film is the middle of the road, most indies are done for 100k
500k is just more budget for advertising.
That's really what makes the movie BIG.
The cost of stars, the advertising, then the IMAX edit, and indie films and big budget are not that different.
>>71225856
Name some then.
>>71226299
Its still a pretty young medium though, and certainly a new distribution model that's only now being noticed by the general public. I wouldn't be the least bit surprised to see it become a viable alternative without the necessity of the baggage and cost that comes along with traditional distribution.
>>71226243
>gravity
HAHAHAHAHA
>>71227224
>>71227256
>Sandra Bullock barking like a dog
>not memorable
