Decline of Hollywood and Western Cinema

In the Twenty-First Century a combination of factors resulting in a progressive decline relating to an absence of quality of motion picture work from our western world studios is being observed and debated in an ever increasing frequency. This is directly referencing the quality of the story itself, the characters, the acting/directing/talent and overall production of every single motion picture work manufactured by corporate Hollywood. The resulting disappointment to discerning audiences represents only a portion of the overall impact on our western culture, ideas, and foundation. Deconstruction at a brick by brick level is our true existential threat to the future of the art form. The majority misses, more or less, the masterpieces that once projected brilliantly on our screens stimulating our senses and feeding our imagination.

What is wrong with the motion picture industry today? - An ongoing exploration.

The financial model is wrong. THIS is what prevents the necessary incentive.

• Incentive to create quality entertainment
• Incentive to avoid unnecessary and offensive political statements
• Incentive to some degree of realism and believably
• Incentive to tell a new and original story
• Incentive to avoid overkill sequels prequels and so called reboots

Although the majority of audiences today have been clear that they are less than satisfied, they continue to pay for sub-standard content and thus feed the beast, the Industry monster that places profit above everything else. Capitalism is the instrument industry parasites utilize to generate ever greater wealth with the application of far less effort all while proclaiming to protest capitalism, traditionalism, and anything that is slightly sub-woke as extreme politics is their mandate and their poison. Even though it is an unsustainable model, the death of the beast is not in the foreseeable future as long as people are dumb enough to pay for putrid product. Sadly, it is possible that all of the great movies have already been made and the future of the art form is irreversible decline until eventual replacement by an entirely new medium. Does there remain any hope in a post- "A New Hope" world of sequels, prequels and manic rebooting?

Why do movies suck? Why do they ignore logic? Why do they insult your intelligence? Let me tell you why.

First, I work in the movie industry in a capacity that has allowed me to work on over a hundred films. I'm a crew member who is involved intimately in story and production. My S.O. is also in the industry and works in the realm of the Studio/Executive producer. So, I have seen first hand exactly how films are made, and more importantly, why films are made.

Second, let me state that I am aware that not all movies suck. I have worked on a film that won the Oscar for Best Picture, so I know that great film-making can be achieved. But why is it so hard?

To get to the answer, one has to understand the true nature of the movie industry. Films are made because deals are made. Deals are the genesis of the whole process. A very few, well connected people, some who have money, some who have powerful ties, some who represent talent, and less frequently, some who have massively bankable talent such as an A-list actors, decide which projects will be made. Let’s call these folks the “Above the above-the-line”. Everybody involved in this initial process will make a fuck-ton of money (except perhaps the investors) and all of this cash is guaranteed, regardless of the outcome of the project. Let that sink in for a minute. Once a film deal is made and a film is green-lit for production, the originators of the deal are going to cash in. What follows makes no practical-business difference to them. Sure it would be nice to have a box office titan but let’s be real; these folks are already rich. Their goal is to make big money, fast. That is what drives the business, not creativity, or a desire to entertain, or to inform, or to make a social statement. Those ideals are championed by the next level down.

Production. First to the trough, are the producers. They head the production companies that actually make movies. Think Castle Rock or Dimension. Some of these are wholly owned by studios and many are not. Each of these companies is headed by a producer and they receive very nice compensation each time they produce a film. They oversee writers, casting, location, budget and lastly, the crew. So next to feed, is what we call “above-the-line”. The writer, director, production designer, composer, and all the credits you see before a film begins. These are the big creative forces. These folks are paid very well and for the most part deserve it. They are almost always extremely talented. The hundreds of other crew members get what’s left in the trough.

Now that you know who’s involved, let’s talk about risk.

Remember that the big fish have already cashed in and they are likely moving on to the next deal and the next big check, so they’re now only slightly concerned with the outcome. The producers must now work with the director and the writers to make the film something “good”. Reputations are on the line and a bad outcome could ruin careers. By outcome, I mean profit first and critical acclaim second. The amount to which each of the above-the-line players will risk angering or challenging the status quo varies but, in general, a production designer, for instance, isn’t going to criticize the material if it means not working, so it is here where they lying starts. The director has likely already concealed their true opinions about the script when they were vying for the job and it isn’t likely that his crew is going to express their critical opinions for fear that they will be kicked out, so everyone begins to ignore the growing number of elephants in the room. Bad writing, stupid logic, tired clichés, poor casting, ridiculous locations... All these things are allowed to grow like a toxic mold. If the material was bad to begin with, it’s going to get worse. If material was brilliant to begin with, expect it to be watered down and compromised. Endless rewrites, overzealous actors with crappy opinions, budgetary constraints, studio notes, test-audience reactions... these can beat the film into a bloody mess and all the while no one wants to risk being seen as critical. Why should they? If the movie makes big box office, they’re seen as brilliant. If it doesn’t, blame the writer. Blame the director (even though everyone played a part in the making of a piece of shit and few if any tried to avoid it). Of course, there are strong-willed directors and producers with the clout to fight off some of this nonsense but we’re talking about most films here. Smaller, independent films can also avoid some of these problems but I’ve seen the lack of criticism alive in every project on which I have worked, regardless of size. Just yesterday I saw a preview of a movie to be released next year and I wanted to set the screen on fire. I was angry and appalled that a film that was so loaded with everything that makes a movie bad, had been allowed to exist. But I know better. I’m not going to change Hollywood with my opinion. I’m not going to help make the movie better with my criticisms. I will simply be expunged from industry from which I make my living.

So when I read the weekly posts on Reddit about movie clichés or movie logic that we hate, I can only take comfort in the fact that I don’t expect a movie to be smart or logical or good. Hollywood is a place where a deal is made by the rich and powerful and the end product is virtually irrelevant. That is why so many movies suck.

Classical feminism promotes equal rights among genders. Once feminists achieved their goal of obtaining equal rights, their mission evolved into greater representation, thus the manifestation of modern feminism.

Feminists today perceive any and all differences between the genders representative of patriarchy and the consequence of what they believe to be an unjustly male dominant society. So, when the feminists observe television programs and motion pictures depicting common social roles for men and women, they perceive it as being repressed politically. Each feminist feels the need to make a statement by either refusing the role or lobbying the director to allow for some creative changes by the actor to demonstrate strong womanhood.

Modern Feminists tend to be militant feminists, and in complete denial of actual physiological difference between the genders. They proclaim that film and TV of the past portrays men as strong and women as weak. Therefore these feminist women today with power and influence feel it is only fair to represent men as weak and women as strong to make up for the past. It is a revenge ploy deceived in the name of fairness and equality. Most of the celebrities in Hollywood support this version of feminism.

Just like modern liberalism is not truthful and classical liberalism, modern feminism is no longer an honest movement. Once these forces were forces of good and a benefit to the western world. As with all political movements, and activist groups there tends to be a real need and goal for the betterment of society. Once that is achieved, those that have gained power from their position within the movement refuse to let go and push further until inequality is achieved in the opposite direction. The movement becomes corrupt, the mission perverted by power, and the outcome a detriment to society. They start out by doing good, and making things better and then go to far.

The feminists have lost perspective and it is no longer about the lack of realistic representation of women in cinema. Women playing the role of the housewife and the mother are considered repulsive to the feminist, even if the period of the script, location, or culture represented is consistent. Our culture has shifted toward women being able to prioritize their careers and have lives outside of their families, therefore it should be represented as such in contemporary cinema. However, using film and television to further push for a woman dominated society with weak male figures lacking any degree of intelligence and masculinity is not an attempt to accurately portray our world but rather to forcefully influence and change it.

Celebrity actress Emily Blunt has publicly stated she is Sick of Feminism in Hollywood. From the article referenced, "Hollywood has been working hard in recent years to promote an agenda that not only portrays women as perfect – to the greater glory of feminism – but also systematically deconstructs men, who are shown as weak and stupid at best, or evil and perverse at worst."

Sequels, prequels and so called reboots have become nauseatingly the norm. It is not due to lack of good story ideas, as the collective work of the human race provides nearly an infinite amount of interesting and creative material. So many great novels could be adapted to film. Contemporary writers are capable of original screenplays, and those that put forth the effort are ignored. There are a million stories to tell that could be major hits with audiences. Yet audiences are insulted by poor imitations of stories already told dressed up with CGI, invasive politics, and poor acting.

Sequel overkill is nothing new to the industry. This is purely economically driven. Audiences want more and more to a story even when the story is tapped completely out and has lost all degree of plausibility, defying any intelligence. Audiences just can't get enough of their hero even if the hero is dead they are willing to accept it was "all a dream," or the hero didn't actually die despite circumstances not actually leaving any room for believable survival. People pay to watch this drivel, it is easy to make, and the risk is low for the industry.

Prequel proposes to provide the story before the story. The concept inflates industry giants fragile egos since a prequel is so damn clever as it is not just another sequel, because it actually happened first. This even solves the problem of the dead hero, since now we can go back in time to a point before the hero died. Writers and directors either tie everything together so neatly that it feels weak and contrived or they are sloppy and ignore details. Either way, it usually results in once again insulting the intelligence of audiences. Furthermore, the backstory or origins of these characters and their world can often destroy some of the mystery that made the original film even better. Have you ever watched a prequel and thought, "that is not how I imagined their beginnings nor was this backstory even very satisfying?"

Reboot an old movie and tell the story utilizing modern resources so that the special effects are better and the characters are more identifiable to our time does sound like a legitimate goal for modern producers. There are a few examples where this has been pulled off effectively, and none in the last few years. About the time that industry people started to use the cringeworthy term "reboot" is the same time when you could count on every so called reboot being a miserable failure. Producers seem to think retelling a story using a different actor might make the hero even better if the same story is just retold with more modern CGI and contemporary influences. They are wrong, and there are absolutely no recent exceptions. If you even hear someone mention the word "reboot" then don't waste your money or your time. The reboot rightfully deserves the boot, out of existence so it is no longer in our vernacular. After all, a motion picture is not a personal computer and if you make another reboot you deserve the blue screen of death.

There is a pretty good saga of three motion pictures that tell a story spanning the events of an interesting group of characters. There was a mysterious back story, plenty of lore, interesting characters, and a clear purpose to their struggle. It was reasonably well done and became a memorable part of my generation's youth. By the third installment of the saga the quality had degraded to a noticeable degree, however, the story needed wrapped up and a satisfying end was provided. The entire thing, all three movies, was a financial success. Artistically speaking the portion of a greater story was told and told well. The backstory was best left to the small tidbits and details we learned from characters speaking of the past and the rest was mystery. The future held further stories, but nothing that would ever have the impact of the original. It was played out and played out well.

In brief, the past was best left to lore and the future was not worth dragging the saga down. The Hollywood Money Machine, an industry of parasites, destroyers of art and creativity needed to feed more. It smelled life and needed to suck until all life was gone. More money could be made. The beast made prequels and more sequels, irreverent to the quality of the original story and lacking originality. In fact, the original saga was pulled down so heavily by the prequels that all lore was destroyed. The detailed backstory was simply glib and unconvincing. It was all insulting and some of it politically motivated. The sequels become ever more woke, feminist, and crude. Any of the original actors that made appearances in these sequels have lost all respect from most original fans.

Without specifically naming the motion picture saga you can probably guess, however, in a more general sense the outcome applies to countless other examples. While this kind of butchery takes place with woke Hollywood dismantling all the great motion picture works my generation holds dear there are writers with outstanding original stories to tell that are ignored and rejected. It is absolutely criminal and today's producers and directors should be ashamed of the trash they manufacture.

Covid-19 itself can not harm a motion picture, the economy, nor can it kill the majority of healthy people in the United States. This is not a debate on the dangers of the Corona Virus which is no more deadly than some of the worst flu strains and with notable exceptions among the very old and compromised which are at high risk under either circumstance. But when you combine Covid-19 with some powerful science.... political science, then we are all in trouble. Thanks to the government lock-downs, panic, and unnecessary antisocial behavior resulting from political propaganda not only did people everywhere suffer, so did the motion picture industry.

Few movies were being produced during the forced government lock-downs and antisocial climate created by mass hysteria, fear of the invisible bug, and those that were produced were total rubbish. Those films were most predominately awkward as it was impossible to hide the forced "social distancing" among the actors. Television and film production was either made by trying to use camera angle and other techniques to disguise the ridiculous physical space between actors, or even worse, the face-mask and other personal protection germaphobe gear was incorporated into the work.

Either way, no serious film maker wished to proceed with telling a good story of any reasonable production value and quality script while having to work under the personal protection and social distancing mandates for fear of spreading the invisible death bug. Those that did try to make movies either went overseas where they could work in countries with fewer regulations and relaxed restrictions or they just settled for producing complete rubbish.

Consequently, any film produced during the Government Lock-downs of 2020-2021 is most likely not worth a penny and this period of our history is best thought of as a very long and uncomfortable nightmare. Trying to sit though a film produced with actors practicing social distancing or wearing dopey face-masks everywhere they go is like sitting though a root canal procedure without the benefit of general anesthesia. I would not recommend it.

Lets be completely honest here, if the movie was released after about 2018 it is probably rubbish. There may be exceptions from very small studios and independent sources, however, anything big budget from Hollywood since about this time period is pretty much poisoned by so much political agenda and liberal communist wokeism that people of above average intelligence, politically moderate, and remotely patriotic will be completely turned off. An entire political group of the audience is directly attacked and insulted, and everyone that is center between the two strongest opposing contemporary ideologies is hopelessly ignored so that what remains is a limited group that will pretend to enjoy what Hollywood is producing. Even an clever communist is going to be bored. Moreover, there is no relief in sight as the beast continues to feed, making money and sucking the life out of everything as nothing is off limits anymore.

Here is an idea, and it is not a new one. This is not the only place where the concept is being shared. It is neither original nor particularly profound. In fact, it is both obvious and easy to understand. Sadly, it is also completely ignored as the idea, or ideas rather as a concept has not yet been embraced. If it as a concept were embraced, I believe the industry would be rewarded with even greater profit and success while audiences gained the reward of much better entertainment, a real symbiosis of manufacturer and consumer.

It is possible to tell an original story with characters that reflect real people, those that audiences can find someone to identify with. Women can be important leads, with characteristics and traits that reflect how our real female leaders are while Men can be masculine and equally intelligent to their female counterparts in the story. Each gender can utilize the strengths offered by nature. A story can have great people of either gender or simply ordinary people trying to cope with a situation in an identifiable way. The character's behavior and characteristics can actually match the time period of the work. The story does not and should never try to push a political agenda.

It is not too late to tell a story with heroes and villains or realistic dramas without having to preach an ideology. It is possible to ENTERTAIN and provide us with an ESCAPE from reality in the same way a good book does with the benefit of directly touching additional senses so we can feel something genuine and gratifying when the experience is concluded.

Finally, it is possible to SHARE with audiences an original story from the millions of ideas and creations of people from all over the world. Rather than ignoring people that deserve to have their stories told, their ideas cast onto a great screen before audiences everywhere their creativity should be embraced so their gift can provide us great new material for entertainment well into mankind's future as long as the motion picture is a relevant art form.