Is Hollywood in decline?

I am from the generation who watched movies from "start" of 21 century. Matrix,Spider Man(s), the Lord of the rings, AND everything Great of hollywood between 2000 to 2007.
From 2007 on, I only liked Animated films of hollywood.
Not to mention that I like Catch me if you can of Spielberg, I had a friend of him as mine, but because of Jewishness in there, I liked Coen brothers, too.
I like No Country For Old Men. And I say I like Phone Booth, too. But I here talk of Coen brothers.
I judged many films without watching, I could understand I didn't like them to watch. I am very hard on choice of my films, I often feel those films are trash......
After it, I watched "True Grit". IT was a great Western Movie. Though, I like Raising Arizona most from Coen brothers, other great films of them are my beloved, too.
Yes, I watched Unbroken and Bridge of spies, but I didn't like Inside Llewyn Davis and Hail Caesar!
I can't find new films I like from Coen brothers.
I miss those days Phone Booth and No Country For Old Men are made....... What is wrong with Hollywood?





Thanks!
 
...................
I judged many films without watching, I could understand I didn't like them to watch. ..........................

Ah, this explains why you think people will pay for a script that is not written.
You are able to judge unseen movies, so you expect other to judge unread scripts.... :P

It is interesting you name 2007/2008 as a turning point.
That is the year the great credit crunch crisis started.
Film business is a business and if it is harder or more expensive to get credit, people want to take less risk.
When more people are stuggling to survive, there are less people who buy tickets for the movies.

I'm not sure I share your conclusion, but since 2000 the amount of big studios seems smaller and more focussed on 'milking' successfull franchises with some exceptions.
It is a business.
The mid budget indiefilm hardly exists anymore.
We see this in movies, we see this in music, we this in life: more and more goes to the top 1%, while a middle class is getting wiped away.
 
Film business is a business and if it is harder or more expensive to get credit, people want to take less risk.
When more people are stuggling to survive, there are less people who buy tickets for the movies.

I'm not sure I share your conclusion, but since 2000 the amount of big studios seems smaller and more focussed on 'milking' successfull franchises with some exceptions.
It is a business.

Exactly. It's a business. There have been enough failures of untried IP for Hollywood to be a little concerned about taking a risk on an untested IP or one-off films - especially without big names.

But then, Hollywood has always been a business. We have the star system we have for this exact reason.

The mid budget indiefilm hardly exists anymore.

I disagree. I personally believe it is alive and well. I think that perhaps many mid-tier 'indie' films don't get either as wide a release or as large of a marketing campaign as the big multi-million dollar franchises that the studios need a success from. But I think this particular market is more alive than ever. There seems to be much more of a chance of getting some form of distribution from the likes of Cannes or Sundance than ever before, with Hollywood trusting other filmmakers to make the new IPs/one-off films and acting as a distributor for these if they think it will sell (takes the risk out of stumping up up-front money). At the same time, there are all new distribution platforms and models.

It's not all doom and gloom. I think there's an exciting market there for content. It is different than it used to be, but industries evolve.
 
I miss those days Phone Booth and No Country For Old Men are made.......

"Those days" are two years. Separate from each other. You're telling me that before and after those years, Hollywood has made nothing but garbage? Couldn't it just be that you're not going to like MOST things, and that each year the same output is generated?

I found both of those movies dull and hard to watch. I say this to reintroduce you to the concept of taste. I wouldn't say that Hollywood is in decline just because you think the Coen Brothers aren't as good as they used to be.


What is wrong with Hollywood?

Your post seems to be more about The Coen Brothers than Hollywood as a whole. But the answer is: "Hollywood" is not a single entity, it's an umbrella term for the mainstream film industry as a whole, which includes MANY creative people, each with different ideas, and most with a love of movies, trying to figure out what people want to watch, as well as how to complete the nearly impossible task of making a great film.
 
I particularly enjoy the current trend of visual craftsmen becoming the building blocks of the industry. Watching the latest Caribbean entry to the franchise (specially in 3D) you realize that you spend your buck on gorgeous visuals, while the music, script, and acting are clearly in servant position.

Just pitty it does`nt work everytime though, cause in my opinion, those avenger movies have become unwatchable no matter what.

-
 
Last edited:
you realize that you spend your buck on gorgeous visuals, while the music, script, and acting are clearly in servant position.

People always say this about anything that ends up not working. As if the creators of the big-budget movies have never heard the advice that the story, characters, and execution of the film are more important than spectacle.

I think it's way more likely that it's an almost impossible task to make a great film, and you absolutely NEVER know if it's great until it's all said and done. (Not to bring up taste again, but audience reception also matters in how the film is perceived.)
 
People always say this about anything that ends up not working. As if the creators of the big-budget movies have never heard the advice that the story, characters, and execution of the film are more important than spectacle...

Well, not exactly... As in any genre of performance arts, there is a tendency for a one major element to take lead in the process. For example - vocal music is the main ingredient in opera, and while orchestra is seemingly ever-present during the opera, or I assume, could be undistinguished from a symphony orchestra music for some untrained ear, it is different. Should opera be criticized for subordinating orchestra, texts, and acting, in relation to singing? Of course not.

My remark about the gorgeous visuals, and the situation in which visual artist, color compositor, 3D mastery guy and postwork peep seem to be the show stars here, was sincere, and not cynic. I really do like this trend. Maybe it worked best with high seas, ships and pirates, but still, if anything, Hollywood talents are on the rise in my view.

-
 
I think you're merely interpreting it that way. Opera was designed to be that way, whereas film was not. Sure, something's always going to stand out more than everything else, but in the case of those pirates movies, the spectacle only stands out because the content is lacking. The first film's story and characters shined alongside the spectacle.
 
Back
Top