The Fall of the Blockbuster?
The year is 2011, it is the weekend, and the sun is shining. People are queuing up outside their local theater, popcorn in hand, eagerly anticipating a screening of the latest Summer blockbuster, Transformers: Dark of the Moon. What they don’t realize, is that in 150 minutes time, the majority of them are going to deeply regret handing over their hard-earned money, and feel as though they’ve died a little inside. Now lets rewind to 1957. People are doing exactly the same, but are off to see the critically acclaimed, Oscar sweeping, and highest grossing film in that particular year, Bridge on the River Kwai.
So the question I put to you is simple. Why has the blockbuster seen such a significant shift in quality as the years have progressed? Surely the opposite would be the case? Now despite what this article may look like, I’m not going off on one of my ‘I hate the system’ rants (but this might be a lie), as there have been some phenomenal blockbusters over the last few years. In 2o1o, we were lucky enough to get the amazing Toy Story 3, Inception, and How to Train Your Dragon, the 1st, 4th, and 10th highest grossing films worldwide. But why do movies like Transformers 3, 2012, and The Twilight Saga do so well considering how, in the nicest way possible, they are terrible?
Classic Hollywood: Substance Over Style
In the days of Classic Hollywood, a cinematic movement which lasted from the end of the 1920s to 1967, there was something innately different about the content of films. Given the fun police were on strict patrol with hefty censorship laws and film technology was not as advanced, a lot of films had to make do without special effects, with those being used often very crude. The so called ‘Golden Age’ of Hollywood was centered around its trademark narrative style and the idea of omnipresence, in which emphasis was taken away from the filming process, instead being placed on characters and story.
Take the classic Citizen Kane for example, which was the 6th highest grossing film of 1941. The plot deals with the revelation of Kane’s back-story, and the meaning of his last utterance. There are no explosions and no horrendous sections of meaningless narrative, but there is an exponentially loud parrot, which never fails to scare the life from me. Obviously the technological capabilities were far more restricted in the 40s, and bad films were indeed made, but it has become increasingly common for the modern blockbuster to be severely devoid of plot. Why is this in any way necessary, and why has the visual aspect got to be the only focal point of film?
The Case of the Missing Audience
Times change, people change. An overused expression, but it is more than applicable to the reason why blockbusters are now so visually-oriented. In 1967 there was film that came along called Bonnie & Clyde, which landed with a rather large bang, and made the censors choke on their club soda. Influenced by European art films, and particularly French New Wave, a more visual style became commonplace, with films like The Graduate employing such film-making techniques as jump shots and experimental lenses. This style of film-making in mainstream Hollywood was referred to as ‘New Hollywood’, fueled by the youth in revolt, political unrest, and various other sociological factors.
But 1967 didn’t just bring with it some awesome films, Dustin Hoffman, and copious amounts of pop culture with its associated frivolities - it also came with a sharp decline in cinema attendance. People were buying televisions, getting exercise (?!), and doing other things with their life. Film content and marketing strategies needed an overhaul, and they came in the form of Steven Spielberg riding a money and people hungry shark called Jaws, which in 1975, set a precedent for all future blockbusters. It was terrifying, brilliant, absolutely everywhere, and revolutionized marketing in film. The Hollywood Hype Machine was turned on, and advertising became a quintessential part of film production.
Explosions, Adolescent Vampires, and Transforming Automobiles
As Hollywood cinema evolved, it became explicitly bigger. The budgets were astronomical, the special effects were more realistic, the sound was louder, and somewhere along the line, people developed a penchant for seeing landmarks explode. The idea was to turn cinema from storytelling to spectacle, and not to just give audiences a movie, but an experience for the whole family. This has been the mentality ever since, as Hollywood tries to lure more and more audiences through cinema doors. It gave people a reason to leave their house again, and although numbers of cinema attendance never managed to reach those of Classic Hollywood, the film industry was making a lot of money.
Many will argue though that through focusing their attention on the monetary aspect, Hollywood has lost touch with what it takes to make a film truly special. In movies akin to the Transformers series the narrative is far from cohesive, taking the viewer on a less than smooth ride, whilst bombarding them with a constructed and hollow reality to fulfill their desire for a visual spectacle. In such abominations as the Twilight series, the characters are poorly constructed, with character development going straight out the metaphorical window. The list is almost endless for the tyrannical inadequacies that are contained within an alarming number of modern blockbusters, but there is a flip side to the coin.
Blockbusters with Soul
Christopher Nolan’s Inception may have suffered from ‘shallow character syndrome’ but nobody can fault how it combined some of the most stunning CGI to date with an original and multi-layered narrative. Toy Story 3 made audiences of all ages laugh and cry, and was later nominated for several Academy Awards, including best picture. Going back further you have such films as The Dark Knight, The Lord of the Rings, Terminator, and Back to the Future. All excellent examples of Hollywood-produced films that aren’t just a pretty face… well, screen.
Even though these wonderful films have done remarkable well and embody those beloved elements of Classic Hollywood to an extent, one cannot ignore how the ratio of good films to bad films is seriously imbalanced compared to that of Hollywood’s Golden Era. With 3-D films making a reemergence as a popular medium of entertainment, the foundations for a new era of cinema are being laid. But one thing is for sure – no matter how hard you try, you can’t stop change.
Is the blockbuster being completely consumed by visuals alone, or are Hollywood just giving the people what they want? Do you prefer special effects or a good story? Or are you an offended Transformers fan? Have your say below!
![Watch: Creepy Trailer for Slasher Pic ‘Maniac’ [NSFW]](http://www.anomalousmaterial.com/movies/wp-content/themes/yamidoo_pro/scripts/timthumb.php?src=http://www.anomalousmaterial.com/movies/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/elijah-wood-maniac-tb.jpg&w=50&h=50&zc=1)
35 Comments
I think the blockbuster is going into a decline. What was the last great year of the blockbuster? I can’t really remember where there was a summer filled with loads of great movie. What is there to look forward next summer? “The Dark Knight Rises” and “The Avengers”? Is that it?.
I think audiences should take some part of the blame because they don’t really know what they want and have become more shallow to the point that they’re used to seeing the same thing over and over again. Plus, I think there’s a bit of resistance of something challenging which is probably why there’s been a divided reaction towards “The Tree of Life”.
I really don’t have a lot of answers. I’m just not really into the new blockbuster films this year and I’m waiting for the fall film season to start. Still, I don’t think the year has been a total loss as there’s been some good movies out this year so far.
Exactly Steven, thanks for reading. I can’t think of the last Summer in which we had loads of excellet movies, and the future prospects aren’t looking too great either. As you pointed out the audience is a HUGE influence on this, and intelligent films are taking an undue hit.
We have had some good films this year, but with the money being invested there should have been much more.
Going into decline? Hell no, people are lining up without any hesitation to see the next Transformers, Twilight and Harry Potter (Yes I include HP to this category) just to mention a few. The strange thing with Transformers is really that the crowd are willing to sit through something like that for a couple of tidbits of action.
I’d say that the blockbuster is flourishing more than ever right now while the small films (Tree of Life, Midnight in Paris) actually also are doing quite well. I mean both of them have had really high seating filling and that goes for Sweden too. Tree of Life has had the highest or second highest average seat number since its release. However, this trend has been in Sweden the last couple of years with blockbusters and small films being the only ones worth putting out in the cinema. The broad range of films in the middle segment are the ones doing bad at the theaters and I think there might be a change in distribution that these films actually get released in several distribution windows at the same time with a limited time in the cinema.
Finally I think you are on to something but its only theoretical when the average movie hoards are flocking to the latest “smash-and-grab” blockbuster which I tend to call them.
Well put Joel. This is exactly the case, and as long as people continue to crave this, Hollywood will keep providing.
I have to agree that the small films are also doing brilliantly, and its great so see films like The Tree of Life doing well. The same is the case in England to an extent – the huge blockbusters do well automatically, and the smaller films get bums on seat at the indie cinemas. Those in between appear to be stuck in a sort of cinematic purgatory.
‘Smash-and-grab’ is a fantastic description! I like that!
Nice write-up, and I agree, however I would argue against using Citizen Kane as your example for the first point. You say “in which emphasis was taken away from the filming process, instead being placed on characters and story.” and then use Kane as your prime example.
For as great as the narrative of that film may be, the actual filming of that movie was quite revolutionary and groundbreaking (which I’m more than sure that you are aware of). To this day, people argue that it’s still the biggest game-changer when it comes the film making process. Just seems counter-productive to list that movie for your first point.
Cheers Red – interesting point.
Citizen Kane is indeed a visually spectacular movie. In a lot of respects it was experimental before it was cool to be experimental, especially in the use of shadow and camera movement. The reason I used Citizen Kane as an example was because its visuals and narrative co-exist so wonderfully as opposed to the modern blockbuster. You’re completely right though – should have perhaps made that clearer.
I understand what you mean. When I told a coworker that I was going to watch a movie about the New York Times, she told me that I watched such weird movies. But for some reason, a car that turns into a robot is normal.
However,
a) What actually roped me into Citizen Kane are the articles about it saying how visually innovative it is. And I saw it again and it was pretty awesome in that respect. However, I agree with Carmela Soprano’s movie club friend about the characters in that film.
b) We’re going through the same problems that we did in the early 60′s. For every Lawrence of Arabia there was a Cleopatra, a Hawaii and a Far from the Madding Crowd. The same thing happened in the late 80′s, the first year of the sequel.
The studios don’t know that aiming cheap isn’t the same thing as aiming low. They should learn this especially because of the economy.
c) With all due respect, every TCM subscriber knows that the batting average for good movies aren’t as high as we think they are. I even think that there are better movies made now. For every Green Lantern there’s a Midnight in Paris. But despite Netflix, the accessibility to great (and world) cinema is still an uphill climb, and that you’re right that people are still lining up for the wrong movies.
Thanks for reading Paolo – that sounds awfully familiar!
a) I had the pleasure of seeing it on the big screen recently, and it was well before its time. The camera movements, shadows, and shot variety is incredible. I used it as an example for how narrative and visuals can co-exist.
b) Indeed – there have always been poor blockbusters, however I believe it is to a much greater extent progessively. That’s an excellent point though, and the studios should take heed!
c) Another good point. We have some fantastic services in Netflix and TCM, but there are many that are overlooked due to inaccessibility and I think that is a shame. There have been some excellent movies released over the last decade, but I just hope some of this quality can resonate into some of the more mainstream releases.
I think that ratio is more like three to one at the very least.
3 good to 1 bad or 3 bad to one good?
I agree that the blockbuster is an ever changing genre… I not that you are vague as to if you believe this is a good thing or a bad thing… but the blockbuster is simply a film that does very, very well at the box office – if you really have a problem with films like Transformers then your finger of blame should not be on the people who make or fund these films but the people that pay to see them – which apparently includes you. (BTW, as you know, I personally enjoyed Trans. 3 … it wasn’t intricate or clever but it was fun and entertaining – which is all I ask of a high budget hollywood action film).
The biggest films of the last few years, and this year, have been from all walks of production houses, budget and genre… the blockbuster has exploded wide open. Personally I think that we are living in a new golden age of cinema.
We can always look back and remember the greats, but this is just another way of saying ‘forgetting the shit’ – there have always been bad movies, some of which made it to become blockbusters.
I recently went, with my fiance and a friend (maybe you know him) to see Captain America… a highly ‘americanized’ romp across europe, with Tommy Lee Jones for comic effect… It’s not clever, it wasn’t brilliant writing, acting, directing… and the 3D was pointless…. BUT I had fun. Not all films need to be as cleverly scripted as C. Kane, not all films need to be as convoluted as Inception and not all films need to be as superbly gripping as Jaws.
So I say let them write their moody-teenage-ninja-vampires, let them say their stupid cliches… and let Michael Bay blow up whatever he wants because it’s fun… and anyway, if every film were perfect then perfect would be normal… and then you’re really fucked!
“if you really have a problem with films like Transformers then your finger of blame should not be on the people who make or fund these films but the people that pay to see them – which apparently includes you.”
My thought too. As long as the masses line up and pay for these kind of movies we will be getting them showed down our throat.
Exactly – both sides of the argument are equally as valid. As I’ve said a couple of times replying to comments, the blockbuster is such a conflicted topic, in that is pleases and infuriates in equal measures. It gives the people what they want and provides them with an escape, whilst doing it on a relatively simple level in some cases.
This is actually another argument that I would have liked to have cover in the article, but couldn’t do so without uncovering another 4 more. It can be argued with some quite evidential proof that Hollywood has not changed in the slightest, and we’re still in the Golden Age. I personally belive things have changed myself, but it differs from person to person. It’s a matter of perception.
Yeah I think I’ve heard of him. Handsome devil they say – a man of intelligence and greatness. Might just be rumours though! Captain America is a good example of a blockbuster. It was formulaic, and yes the 3D was redundant outside of the projectile gimmicks, but it was an enjoyable film.
Despite how I feel about certain directors and films, I in a way want them to keep going. If they didn’t I’d be out of work and the publics opinion wouldn’t be represented. All tastes need to be accounted for :]
I think that we are in an age beyond the ‘Golden Age’ … if it has indeed stopped. Films are costing more than ever before to make, and low budget films are still pulling in the viewers. Films are grossing more than ever and, despite cinema tickets costing more than they ever have done (even taking into consideration inflation etc.) people are still going to see movies in their millions (and billions in some cases). This age of cinema is beyond anything we’ve seen and, if the ‘Golden Age’ did die long ago… then this is the Platinum Age….
Or so I believe anyway
Nice post. It sums up a really complex issue well and introduces some great questions. There’s no simple answer, and I feel that the film viewing populating is more segmented than it’s ever been. Because of the ease of access to so many different films, lovers of certain genres are able to just focus on that genre. But I also think our perspective as bloggers and film lovers makes us look at things differently. I work with a ton of people who rushed out to see The Hangover 2 and Transformers 3, and that was about it for the summer. I don’t really understand it, but blockbusters that people really love and return to like The Dark Knight are few and far between.
Cheers Dan, thanks for reading!
My point exactly – the blockbuster is such a conflicted entity. Very well put though, and as you said our perspective differs greatly from the general movie-watching population. Complete agreement that truly brilliant blockbusters are a rare thing though, and in a way that makes me appreciate them more.
Thought provoking piece.
Hollywood’s always been in the business of making money though, it’s just that back then they thought making a good movie would do it, and now they feel that making a BIG movie will do it. Honestly, I dont think that H’Wood has given up trying to make movies that are good, it’s just difficult to incorporate all the special effects, action sequences and production values that people expect out of Summer Movies in a film that carries narrative heft.
Plus, they’re willing to give the go ahead to films that don’t have outstanding narratives because they know people will cough it up just to see the effects and action.
I’m sure that if someone wanted to research a counterpoint, they could go back and point out all the ways that Hollywood has always been throwing out crap just to try to make a buck, nowadays its just eveolved to the point where it all comes in a couple of months, accompanied by enormous promotion.
And as always, as you mention in your hand off to the readers, H’Wood is just giving the people what they want. Spending a dollar is like casting a vote. You’re (well people are) saying “Give me more of this please” and H’Wood is only too happy to oblige.
Nice piece, dude.
Thanks very much – and thanks for reading :]
That is indeed the mentality Hollywood employs – we’ve seen a very defined shift from story to spectacle. A pefect balance is an extremely difficult task to manage though, and its impossible for every film to achieve this.
They have indeed. During the studio era the big 5 (RKO, Paramount, MGM, Fox Pictures, Warner Bros) owned the majority of cinemas and distribution rights, and released films on a production line at an extremely rapid pace. If cinemas wanted to show the big films, they’d have to screen the rubbish ones for a couple of weeks too. That’s how they made their money. The studio system eventually got disbanded over a course of about 20 years for monopolizing distribution and production which was illegal, and cinemas didn’t have to buy the films they didn’t want to screen – hence why promotion is so big now.
As an industry I feel bittersweet about Hollywood. But the good thing is they give the public what they want.
Well, it’s a good thing and a bad thing. I think guys like you and I – not that I know you from Adam, but based on the piece – wish that “The Public” wanted a little bit better for themselves.
I know I do.
Nail on head – exactly! :]
The main factor is the fan…though most of my blogger friends didn’t even think of watching Transformers 3, those who were dying to catch it left satisfied… and those who weren’t completely sold on it said “it wasn’t that good, but it was good to pass the time.”
Hollywood is… an industry, a business – they just need to make movies for profit, it’s up to the audience to decide what to pick. Unlike all of us who would wait for a film or… find any way to get our hands on a particular film with no distribution, the average moviegoer just… goes to the cinema and watches what’s there. It’s no major concern for them whether they pass the time watching a good film or a bad one – it’s sorta like turning on the tv while you’re having lunch and running into Maury. LOL You eat as you see all the tacky subjects they deal with, whether or not the man in the baby daddy, roll your eyes because you can’t believe these people… turn off the tv and off with your life. LOL
You could also compare Hollywood with a local cafe that served pretty good meals, and it was so big that it became a franchise – it sprung everywhere and because it’s covering so much in such a vast space, it declines in quality. I think it’s pretty normal. xD
Good post – it would be interesting to get the opinion of someone who only watches Hollywood mainstream films, though.
Thanks for reading Amy :]
Very true. This is an equally as valid side to the argument. People want to see these films, so Hollywood provides them and gets fat doing so – everybody wins.
Haha! That’s a great point, and I will admit I am guilty of occasionally vegetating in front of the television watching day time chat shows from time to time! It’s perculiarly satisfying, but gives you an escape which as you said you can control :]
It seems that indeed, Hollywood is shot to shit. So long as people like Michael Bay are around, we have horny teenage boys looking at Megan Fox’s ass when they could be looking at the merged faces of Liv Ullmann and Bibi Andersson in Persona. We have teenage girls with a developing vampire fetish looking at the chests of so called actors in movies about mythological creatures when they could be looking at the hairy chest of an ape throwing a bone in the air, sparking a timeless evolutionary jump in the space of a second. We have pretentious cu*ts like Bay acting as if their films are works of art that one day will be appreciated when we could be watching the films of true movie scholars such as Godard and Bergman.
What I’m trying to say (and probably not in the best way) is that we need to face the fact that really great summer movies in vast quantities are a thing of the past. Hollywood’s got cancer, and the tumour’s malignant. I spend most of my time watching old movies or foreign movies, because in times of filmmaking turmoil, those are the only guys I can trust. Hollywood will make good movies, but in vastly smaller quantities as time goes on. And if I may be honest, I’m losing respect for them. It’s really, really sad, but it’s true.
I hate to break it to you but neither Persona or 2001 were huge summer blockbusters even though we really want them to be the example that everything was always better in the past.
This is not a new hollywood trend it has been like this since Jaws (earlier films too but Jaws became the obvious example due to its success) and I think The Tree of Life is a good modern example of those films you are mentioning.
Jim: Have you read High Concept? Its a great book about the blockbuster/roadshow trends in the history of Hollywood. Its well worth picking up.
Great piece of writing but I do think this is an older trend and we are going to continue see it as long as the masses are lining up to see the films on the opening weekend.
I haven’t but I shall look into it – thanks for the recommendation! I’ve read similar books such as New Hollywood Cinema: An Introduction and various other text books on blockbuster movements. I’m fascinated!
Very true. Whilst narrative quality is diminished, you can’t say that Hollywood doesn’t give the people what they want. Thanks very much, and thanks for reading! :]
To my mind, movies have never been better. International productions get wide exposition, small indie projects find audiences by means of festivals and the internet and dvds and torrents/netflix have made it possible for older movies to be enjoyed by new cinephiles. And yeah, the blockbusters suck, but you have to remember that they’re often made simple on purpose so that international markets can understand them without grasping all kind of nuanced American traditions. But hey, I fell in love with movies through some pretty awful movies as well, so maybe Transformers will open up the 5-year olds of 2011 to cinema.
Long story short: enjoy the good stuff, fuck the bad stuff, and kindly stop bitching.
Thanks for reading Max!
The blockbuster is the single and most important type of film in history – not only do they support the film industries through their huge profits and give audiences what they want, but they’ve shaped the world of film since their conception. I love your point about Transformers opening up younger audiences to film – mine were xXx and 2 Fast 2 Furious, and hopefully this will continue.
The point I was making is that they shouldn’t so often suffer from a poor narrative. Yes their nature is to be simplistic, but not to the extent in which they become undermining.
Well, they’re not exactly being made with quality or artistic integrity in mind. I see your point, but it’s just something I really can’t get worked up about so much. Yes, some people make movies for the sole purpose of making money. Yes, those movies mostly suck. Yes, people go see them anyway because they like them. If everyone was into Lawrence of Arabia, that would be popular.
Besides: people made cash-cow turds in the good ole days as well. We’ve just forgotten about them, in the same way the world will forget about Transformers within a decade.
Good write up Jim and I pretty much agree with you. I think a lot of movie going audiences today tends to have short attention span, if a film doesn’t have an explosion or action scene within the first 20 minutes or so, they’ll lose interest in the film. I think we can blame Hollywood for churning out crappy blockbuster films and the audience for paying to see them.
Thanks Ted! This is very true, and through an increase in action heavy films, they have been conditioned to be this way. Its a duel motion as you said – Hollywood keeps on pushing, audiences keep on taking.
I’d have to say that the author has missed a few points. The decline of ticket sales between 1947 and 1967 was not just because of television, which was a cheaper form of entertainment, but because there was a lack of places for the same cinema-going population (the new middle class) to catch a movie. Most of the theaters were located in urban centers. This was of course before multiplexes and drive-ins would not become common place for a few more years.
Today, the same has happened. Instead of television, there is the internet and its many distribution forms. To justify another $7 to $15 dollars per screening when you’re already paying between $20 to $50 to have high speed internet is a factor and the added cost of Netflix and/or Hulu. I’m not considering the supposed hit from piracy as many scholarly articles have pointed to that not being true.
Hollywood is still getting over the writers’ strike that occurred several years ago. Studios had to return to intellectual property that their conglomerates had rights to and chose to develop those into projects.
On top of that, there is evidence that audiences are getting tired of the 3D gimmicks. There have been more 3D installations, but the complaints about headaches, poor images, and lack of films truly taking advantage of the format have all contributed to audience distrust of theaters and studios.
Last, in all honesty, Indiewood films have been rather poor as well. Win Win, marketed as a independent film, was just as mindless as most other Summer blockbuster and high-concepts.
At the end of the day, the studios are going to have a profit motive. They have shareholders, executives, and larger conglomerate departments that depend on income. For the major studios, making money on the film is even less of an importance as building and strengthening the franchise so parents can buy their children merchandise that receives much, much higher gross margins. In other words, studios do not necessarily rely on films to make money if they know they get a hefty cut from action figures. That is why Harry Potter 6 was apparently a 1 Billion dollar loss.
The high-concepts of the 1980s showed that visual-based story-telling increases over-seas profits. So, that is why action films do so well. They assume that American spectators are as English-deficient as a foreign spectator. It’s an insult.
Thanks for reading Aaron – the article was merely an abridged history of the blockbuster’s evolution. Thanks for bring up the lack of theatres though. It wasn’t until several years later that multiplexes started popping up everywhere, so the aspect of travelling and trying to get a ticket was off-putting for many people.
Mediums of movie-watching such as Huli and Netflix are something I want to talk about in the future. We’re definitely seeing a new authority of affordable and good quality film, which as you said is having an impact on cinema.
I certainly hope so. A lot of people haven’t realized 3D cinema has been around for decades – it isn’t a new invention. Yes it was impressive for Avatar, but with films like The Room in talks for a 3D remake (although that would be certifiably awesome), you’ve got to wonder whether it is entirely necessary.
I was focussing solely on blockbusters in the article, but yes you get poor films everywhere. This has always been the case and always will be. Great points though – and thanks for such an insightful response!
What an interesting post, Jim. It hits the nail perfectly.
As a person who enjoy movies from non-Hollywood and at the same time enjoy crazy visual effect by Hollywood…I would agree with you completely but still going to watch some of those crappy blockbuster.
Transformers is on my watchlist for long…not because the story was great or the acting was brilliant, but because it was a treat for my eyes. The kind of movie that looks good on cinema but not in DVD to watch several times. Let’s just say, it’s a kind of snack.
When it comes to main course, most movies I like don’t appear in the cinema in my country .. what a shame
… so, DVD is the only answers. And most of my main course are not blockbuster movies.
The fall of the blockbuster? yeah you can say that…sad but true. Fortunately, I don’t watch movies because many had watched it…blockbuster means nothing to me. But I do missed blockbuster like The Lord of The Rings, The Matrix and many others that I truly enjoy in both visual and plot. Well at least we got The Hobbit next year
Great article. I think the decline of the blockbuster is misleading. I grew up loving the big budget extravaganzas – nothing can beat the sheer spectacle of seeing Jurassic Park in the cinema as a ten-year-old. But at that time I wanted fast-paced action, simply stories, and easily identifiable characters. Has that changed? Not really. Have I changed? Most definitely.
Now I crave originality, characters with depth, director’s with interesting visual flair etc. The successful blockbusters don’t provide that because their budgets demand they appeal to the largest audience possible.
So there’s loads of connotations and I do believe there has been a serious fall in originality in Hollywood blockbusters – so many sequels, far too many remakes. But I think I’ve changed more than the films have got worse. I’m going to stick my neck out and say that may well be the case for others as well.
Trackbacks