Have you ever scrolled through IMDb’s top 100 movies and noticed something peculiar? Only a handful from the last decade made the cut. Sure, you might think it’s just a matter of taste, but there’s more to it. Between 1960 and 2016, the number of movies released annually in the U.S. skyrocketed from 100 to a whopping 750. Yet, the newer gems are noticeably absent from the all-time greats list.
Why this cinematic drought? According to a 2023 Rasmussen Report poll, 42% of people believe movies have taken a nosedive in quality. Forget the intricacies of film ratings; the trend is clear. It’s not just your imagination — there’s a shift in the air. The shift towards unoriginal content, driven by economic considerations on a global scale that not only dominates traditional theaters but is amplified by streaming services, creates a cinematic environment that prioritizes quantity over quality and risks sacrificing the distinctive creativity that once defined the industry.
We’re living in a tech wonderland. Thanks to rapid advances in the film industry, movie editing has grown into a digital medium that can bring magic to the silver screen. Despite these advancements, our movie experience hasn’t soared to greater heights. Christopher Nolan’s “Interstellar” black hole scene took months to render in 2014; today, it would be a breeze. The amount of advancement in computer technology, particularly in graphics processing units (GPUS) and central processing units (CPUS) has allowed studios to make life-like imagery in a cheap, quick and reliable manner. But does it translate to better movies? Not really.
In the age of streaming, our screens are flooded with choices. But before you get excited, let’s take a cursory look at where the 750 movies released in 2016 are available. Only around 100 were shown in theaters. The cinemas are losing their appeal, with a 50% decline in attendance over four years.
The movie market is now a digital realm dominated by Netflix, Hulu and their ilk. But here’s the snag: subscription-based platforms are more concerned with quantity than quality. A glance at IMDb ratings for Netflix originals reveals a sea of mediocre films. Gone are the days when you paid for a single movie in a theater; now, streaming services aim for “just okay” content. They’ve ditched unique plots for a slew of cookie-cutter storylines. Originality is at an all-time low, and the graph of good movies needs help to keep up with the influx of mediocrity.
However, that is not to say that streaming services are all bad. “Roma,” the Oscar-winning 2018 film likely would never have seen the light of day had Netflix not funded the project. Taking on a monochrome art film discussing class and race in Mexico would be too risky for most production studios. Streaming services can give directors an incredible amount of creative freedom due to the more risk-absorbing format of subscriptions for the platform’s movie library rather than pay-per-view styles of movie theatres. This means potentially setting new cinematic standards in the industry. Unfortunately, stories like the success of “Roma” are not representative of what the streaming industry aims for when producing its films.
But what about the theaters? Aren’t they the bastions of original, quality cinema? Think again. Franchise films, sequels and remakes have become the norm. Since 1993, sequels and remakes have shot up by 700%. In 2021, 44 out of 91 global blockbuster films were unoriginal offerings. Why? It’s a cost-effective strategy for studios. Repackaging what worked before is easier, safer and cheaper. Disney, in particular, has mastered the art of remaking animated classics into live-action hits. The 2019 remake of “The Lion King” grossed nearly 1.7 billion dollars worldwide by simply being an incredibly nostalgic film that pandered to both the new generation of Disney goers as well as the adults who had seen and fallen in love with the original. The movie was good because it already had the formula to be good. The first one was amazing, so the same thing repackaged was almost guaranteed to do well.
Original content is riskier, and studios are not keen on taking chances when the bottom line is at stake. The international box office is another player in this cinematic saga. In 2019, the U.S. and Canada contributed less than 13% to the global box office revenue. Over 70% came from the international market, shaping studios’ decisions. Filmmakers tweak their creations to cater to global audiences, often at the expense of creativity. Altering plots, changing filming locations and even revising characters to avoid offending specific markets have become standard practice.
Despite these challenges, the movie industry is booming. Valued at nearly $95 billion in 2022, it’s estimated to reach $170 billion by 2030. So, why should we care if movies aren’t what they used to be? Martin Scorsese once questioned the purpose of film franchises, likening them to AI-generated content. What’s the value in consuming something that’s created, consumed and forgotten?
Movies aren’t just entertainment; they’re an influential part of our culture. They tell stories that shape our perspectives and emotions. By sacrificing creativity for a formulaic approach, we risk turning cinema into a mere consumable. The art of filmmaking lies in taking risks, pushing boundaries, and embracing the imperfect. Taking risks is what makes movies great. Stanley Kubrick, arguably one of the greatest American directors in history, before making what many consider to be the greatest film of all time – “2001: A Space Odyssey” – made “Fear and Desire,” a movie which he himself regretted making. Failure comes from seeking perfection and coming short in the movie industry. By settling for mediocrity and blandness, we trap ourselves in an endless, miserable loop.
If we settle for mediocrity, we lose the essence of cinema as a source of inspiration. As consumers, we hold the power to demand more than the mundane. Let’s celebrate risk-taking, encourage creativity and ensure that cinema remains a source of magic rather than a forgettable pastime. It’s time to reject the formula and demand a return to the golden age of storytelling.
