Anthony Mackie Explains Why Hollywood Movies Suck Now

[L.J.]

Percentage wise more teenagers go to the theater than older ones. Hollywood is going to make what ever sales, has always been that way and always will be. This was probably said when westerns were a high commodity.

[captainron_howdy]

Hollywood movies have sucked since about the early-mid 80s I'd say.

[TheSpruceMoose]

Half and half on this conversation in that the industry has changed in some regards for the worse but to say a film like Halloween would never get made doesn't line up to me, there have been tons of horror films in the vein of Halloween that have come out, there are still producers who have continued to take chances on smaller films.

[Markgway]

Originally Posted by captainron_howdy

Hollywood movies have sucked since about the millennium I'd say.

Corrected.

[moreorless]

Originally Posted by octagon

It's ironic too that he points to the likes of Stallone and Arnold in this context because back in the day they themselves were the subject of this exact 'they don't make 'em like they used to, where have all the giants gone' handwringing.

Action movies were sneered at as mindless mayhem and all style over substance and Stallone and his ilk weren't even real actors (let alone real stars), they were mere action heroes.

Some degree of "you don't know what you got till its gone" there I would say, there was a lot of disrespect around action films of that era but actually it was a period with quite a bit of invention and indeed quite a strong anti establishment edge. I would say its actually the 90's and the rise of Emmerich that US nationalism and glorification of the military started to be baked into action films as standard.

Honestly I don't think the blockbuster market is THAT unhealthy, theres a lot of dross made of course but there always was but we do still get the odd bit of quality. Whats really in trouble is the mid budget market and adult drama, this has really been gutted and what remains tends towards bland Oscar bait.

You basically end up with a gulf between blockbuster and more ambitious cinema that's now mostly confined to the arthouse market and fairly modest budgets.

[Shingster]

Mackie is absolutely, inarguably correct that cinemas have become more "blockbuster" centric and it's getting harder to push little films into theatres, but that's just the natural progression of an industry that is producing more and more big budget event cinema, causing studios to wrestle for a bigger piece of the theatre ticket and resulting in diminishing returns for cinemas, and then on top of that the average length of your blockbuster has also ballooned this century so they take up more screens just to get more showings in per day. I can speak from experience that the late 90s/early noughties was a really diverse time for the big cinema chains in my local city: Birmingham UK. Back then they would screen a wider range of arthouse and independent film alongside the big hollywood productions for a longer period, but these days you have to make sure you get off your arse and go watch the little films the weekend they come out because when they do show them (and that's becoming less likely these days) they show them for a day or two and then they are gone.

I know these boards are full of comic book fans, but as someone who regularly attends the cinema (tend to average around 120 films a year these days) I get incredibly frustrated when smaller distributors insist on releasing interesting films during blockbuster season and especially when big Marvel productions are playing, but I know I will not get a sniff of a chance of watching them. Every time a Marvel film plays my average weekly attendace to a theatre drops from 4+ to once or twice because they just completely take over multiplexes - and that's not entirely Marvel's fault, it's the fact that these days blockbusters get stacked against blockbusters, so a Marvel film comes out a week after a big Pixar film is out or something, and having these two juggernauts plating together suddenly makes options limited, even in big 14 screen mega-multiplexes.

[don3663]

Respect to him for saying this (2017 by the looks of it). China comment nailed it.

[JDub1]

That was great listening to him, and he for the most part is correct.

[Markgway]

Originally Posted by moreorless

I would say its actually the 90's and the rise of Emmerich that US nationalism and glorification of the military started to be baked into action films as standard.

In retrospect, Independence Day was a warning sign of what was to come.

[octagon]

Originally Posted by moreorless

Some degree of "you don't know what you got till its gone" there I would say, there was a lot of disrespect around action films of that era but actually it was a period with quite a bit of invention and indeed quite a strong anti establishment edge. I would say its actually the 90's and the rise of Emmerich that US nationalism and glorification of the military started to be baked into action films as standard.

There's also the fact that every generation goes through that 'when I was a kid...' phase. One of the things that struck me in Mackie's...rant's not the right word...musings was the bit about how going to movies used to be a big deal and and now it's just something people do.

Going to the movies has - like everything else - changed over the past thirty or forty years but I submit that the true source of Mackie's ennui here is that he has changed over the past thirty or forty years.

Of course going to movies used to be more of an event. He was a kid. Going through a drive-through is an event when you're a kid.

Originally Posted by moreorless

Whats really in trouble is the mid budget market and adult drama, this has really been gutted and what remains tends towards bland Oscar bait.

I kind of go back and forth on this. Sometimes I think it isn't true and other times I think it's somewhat true but doesn't really matter.

I tend to think adult dramas are doing just fine. Are they always 'Hollywood' productions? No, but I don't really care about that. Mackie said Hollywood would never make Halloween today but he ignores the fact that they didn't make it the first time either.

By the late sixties, early seventies 'Hollywood' was no longer the be all and end all of making movies. Smaller independent studios and production companies started gaining traction and while the Big Studios(tm) still made movies they shifted more toward financing and distributing movies.

Originally Posted by moreorless

You basically end up with a gulf between blockbuster and more ambitious cinema that's now mostly confined to the arthouse market and fairly modest budgets.

Maybe but it's worth nothing that a lot of those 'fairly modest budgets' are still a shit ton of money

What's 'fairly modest' these days? Ten million? Twenty million? Forty million?

People look at a thirty or forty million dollar budget and think 'well, that's not much by today's standards' but yeah, it still kind of is.

In 1972 The Godfather cost Paramount somewhere around $7M which comes to about $43M in current dollars. Goodfellas cost roughly $25M in 1990 which works out to about $50M today.

And yeah, things change but even in today's climate I would submit that a good filmmaker could scrape by on thirty or forty million dollars.

Originally Posted by Shingster

Mackie is absolutely, inarguably correct that cinemas have become more "blockbuster" centric and it's getting harder to push little films into theatres,...

This is a fair point. I obviously tend to roll my eyes when people complain about Hollywood officially running out of ideas or not making them like they used to or whatever the rant du jour happens to be.

The theater ecosystem though can be another story. Even though good movies are still being made I'm definitely sympathetic to people who say it's getting harder and harder to see them in theaters.

Originally Posted by Shingster

...but that's just the natural progression of an industry that is producing more and more big budget event cinema, causing studios to wrestle for a bigger piece of the theatre ticket and resulting in diminishing returns for cinemas, and then on top of that the average length of your blockbuster has also ballooned this century so they take up more screens just to get more showings in per day.

There are a lot of things at play here. One of the Mackie said that totally rang true with me is that watching a movie at home is a really appealing substitute to watching it in a theater. Since the advent of television, watching movies at home has been a substitute for watching them in theaters but there were always trade-offs. And there still are trade-offs but even over the past ten or so years (a blink of an eye in the grand scheme of things) that balance has really shifted.

[Alister_M]

Originally Posted by moreorless

I would say its actually the 90's and the rise of Emmerich that US nationalism and glorification of the military started to be baked into action films as standard.

Emmerich is a small fish in that pond compared to Michael Bay.

[Tony208]

I blame audiences. They vote with their wallet and this is what they wanted.

[octagon]

Originally Posted by Tony208

I blame audiences. They vote with their wallet and this is what they wanted.

I stopped going to theaters years ago and when I do go it's for things like Star Wars or Bond (although even that petered out after Casino Royale).

I obviously don't think things suck but if I did, yeah, I wouldn't have to look far to find somebody to take a big chunk of the blame.

[Zero_Cool]

Papa Doc trying to climb out of the hole that B-Rabbit tossed him in.

[MountainMan23]

He had balls for saying this but what amazes me is how he's still getting work in Hollywood after these statements? Then you have someone like Martin Scorsese getting slammed for only saying that comic book movies are like theme park rides.

[Poya]

Originally Posted by Foggy

“Hey cinemas dead, let me cash in these Marvel cheques and tell you how bad everything is”

Seriously, I’m fed up of hearing about how Hollywood doesn’t take risks anymore. It’s pretty much been like that since the 80’s, it’s been like this my entire life, I don’t know why people are acting like they’ve only just woken up and smelt the coffee now. You are all part of the problem, stop acting like films begin with superheroes and end with Star Wars, stop being complicit in your own navel gazing and go and support some original projects, independent films and world cinema and make a point to show there’s some interest in new shit.

Original =\= Good. Birdemic was an original movie. Wasn’t a good movie. You’re just a gate keeping elitist, and I hope all the Marvel movies in the future make movie just to see you cry.

[levcore]

Originally Posted by MountainMan23

He had balls for saying this but what amazes me is how he's still getting work in Hollywood after these statements? Then you have someone like Martin Scorsese getting slammed for only saying that comic book movies are like theme park rides.

How long ago did he make these statements?

[L.J.]

Originally Posted by Tony208

I blame audiences. They vote with their wallet and this is what they wanted.

Hollywood is going to go where the money is.

[MountainMan23]

Originally Posted by levcore

How long ago did he make these statements?

Video says 2017.

[VagueSimplicity]

I get what’s he’s saying. I’ve noticed the better stories and star system shifting to streaming and miniseries.

In the last year there’s been Marriage Story, Honey Boy, and The Irishman. And then you got your limited series like Chernobyl, Big Little Lies, and The Haunting of Hill House where they can take time to tell their story yet remain cinematic.

Even Alex Garland (Ex Machina, Annihilation) has made the transition to television with Devs. It seems these days the big screen is reserved for pure spectacle with no substance. Low risk cinema. I am especially tired of these uninspired remakes and reboots. Yet sadly audiences have managed to bankroll endless remakes and sequels for Disney through the next decade (Aladdin 2, Robin Hood).

If any movie stars are being forged in this era it’s because they started out as superheroes or were lucky enough to make a name for themself on TV (Tom Holland, Chris Pratt), and even then movie stars only sell out if attached to big name IP (Jurassic Park, Beauty and the Beast, Mission Impossible). Otherwise, you’re a Chris Hemsworth attempting to draw in fans to something aside from Thor or a Renee Zellweger getting her own Netflix show.

But I digress, it’s just the world of entertainment we live in currently. It comes with it’s pros and it’s cons.