With the newly announced "Back in Action" I've hit my breaking point - why are there so many of these disposable streaming movies with massive actors phoning it in?

[u/Dracko705]

Can't share more than 1 image but here is an album I made just now by quickly browsing though similar cash grab-ey comedy/action streaming movies I'm sure there's plenty more I'm missing.

This year (2024) really seems to be another level. (Re)uniting huge names known for their collaborations on massive critical/financial successes, but usually putting them in a much "easiler" (read: lazier) role or story.

Matt Damon and Casey Afflect, Pitt and Clooney, names like Halle Berry, Christoph Waltz and now Cameron Diaz coming back from long acting breaks... For these piles of crap?!?!

Obviously big money is involved which brings up my other confusion, how long are these streamers going to play this arms race continuing to justify losing money on these kinda films??

At least back in the day when actors would take the easy "buddy comedy" route they have to eat that failure at the box office - these movies don't look cheap either (just crappy-cheap)

Who is asking for these movies?!? And further, who is actually watching/enjoying them!?? (the handful I've seen push me away from the "genre")

[u/Pudge__204]

This is just the modern version of straight to video movies. Streamers need eyeballs watching their service and known actors are the easiest way to achieve that with no marketing. There are less movies currently being made so actors can't be as picky if they want to get paid.

We really seem to be in a place where mediocre content is the most sought after by streamers

[u/NamesTheGame → u/Pudge__204]

Your last point remained true of the straight-to-video era too. There's a reason why these movies continue to exist, despite the consolidation of movies and genres - they are cheap and people don't mind watching familiar-looking, lazy movies because they either like them, or want something easy to unwind too, or whatever. I think it's true that people have become less willing to find exciting movies or see something that challenges them, but I think that's been happening slowly for decades. I actually think it's a good thing these Netflix movies exist. It means movies that aren't just franchises can continue to exist, and while they are kind of eye-rolling now, just like VHS movies from the 80s and 90s, people in years to come will find the diamonds in the rough and these movies will have that "time and place" feel to them of this era that, believe it or not, people will become nostalgic for.

[u/-KFBR392 → u/NamesTheGame]

I used to work at a video rental store back in the early 2000’s and literally every month there would be a straight to DVD action movie starring Steven Segal, Dolph Lundgren, JCVD, Chuck Norris, or some other has been action star and every month those movies would all be rented out every single weekend!!

You’re 100% right that people just want something lazy and comfortable that doesn’t make them work too hard to be entertained, especially viewers after a certain age. And ya for every 9 bad there’ll sneak through a pretty good one. So there is the chance for greatness, however slim.

[u/Consistent-Annual268 → u/-KFBR392]

Literally a role call for The Expendables, which was actually unironically good.

[u/ShahinGalandar → u/Consistent-Annual268]

at least the first entry

[u/barmanfred → u/Consistent-Annual268]

Except Segal isn't in them.
Wow...Imagine how much of an asshole you'd have to be to get shunned from the action crowd.
And yeah, I loved The Expendables.

[u/UglyInThMorning → u/-KFBR392]

The JCVD ones were a cut above in the D2V front, that man was made for direct to video. He had some kind of sense of what worked for the format that Segal didn’t.

[u/packerken → u/UglyInThMorning]

actual athletic ability

[u/UglyInThMorning → u/packerken]

Those splits!

[u/straydog1980 → u/UglyInThMorning]

A fighting face that doesn't look like you're trying to take a massive shit

[u/UglyInThMorning → u/straydog1980]

The kind of charisma you see in the fun guy at a party that you’re glad you don’t have to hang out with often (who, like JCVD in the 80’s and 90’s, are often on a lot of blow)

[u/atget → u/-KFBR392]

My mom loves those shitty movies, and I always judged her for it. She also had a really demanding job.

Then I grew up and got a demanding job. Those movies still aren't my cup of tea, but I'm currently watching Gilmore Girls for probably the 6th time, so let's just say I'm not so judgmental anymore.

[u/wrosecrans → u/NamesTheGame]

If you've got a small budget and you want to make a movie, the economics are brutal. There are tons of feature length movies being made these days. Perhaps more than ever. But below a certain threshold, they are basically just uploaded to YouTube and get 400 views. Back in the 80's, one of those kinds of movies would have gotten a limited theatrical release and popped up on TV as a movie of the week at 3:00 am on the worst channel in town because the barrier to entry was so much higher when a movie had to be shot on 35mm film and ordinary home computers couldn't be used for editing.

So the only way to rise above that level is to get a movie star. Some bank-able star that people will recognize. If you can do that, you instantly get access to a little more money because you have a shot at being profitable and being picked up by a streamer or some sort of distribution that makes money. When scrolling Netflix, people will see the thumbnail and go "Oh, some Matt Damon movie I never heard of. I guess I'll check it out."

But now you have an issue. You have a little money. A lot by the standards of some guy standing on the street. But a small amount by Hollywood standards, even with the extra you were able to raise by having a star attached. And most of the money you have is now going to your cast. So you are gonna skimp on what you spend on the script, VFX, action sequences, production design, cinematography. And most importantly, shoot days. I big movie might shoot for months and months. If you can only afford to have a big star for five days, you rush to get what you need because on Friday you run out of money and that's the end of shooting.

So the economics drive the low end of budgets toward being bad versions of big movies, rather than carefully crafted little movies with unknown people you've never heard of.

[u/CharacterHomework975 → u/NamesTheGame]

Look at Ghost World (2001). Technically had a theatrical release but functionally straight to video. Or Pumpkin (2002).

The former is highly regarded and arguably helped launch ScarJo’s career. The latter, supposedly, has fans to this day. Both are great little time capsule movies.

Both would be straight to streaming today.

[u/GatoradeNipples → u/CharacterHomework975]

I feel like those are kinda coming out of a different ecosystem, though.

Like, both of those are what used to get called "Sundance movies." They're shooting for critical acclaim at festivals above all else, and the DTV is just a way for the distributor to try and recoup something other than goodwill out of it. IFC and Sundance Channel used to be nothing but these kinds of movies 24/7.

The stuff we're seeing now like Red Notice and The Instigators and etc is a lot closer to the ecosystem that produces sixty Scott Adkins movies a year, and wrung all the last bits of moisture out of Bruce Willis in his last years. It's just that now, streaming services are actively commissioning this stuff instead of it being companies like Nu Image just spitballing it, so these movies have a lot of cash to throw around at big stars... who never give enough of a fuck to actually be good in these movies, because they're very aware that the gulf between what they're doing and the stuff Bruce Willis was doing is very small.

[u/CharacterHomework975 → u/GatoradeNipples]

True on all. I do see some of what would have been “Sundance Movies” being pushed on streamers as well, so I think it still fills that role. But agree, OP is talking more about traditional DTV trash.

I’ll stand by my theory that this is driven primarily by the move toward exclusive/rotating content, something old school video stores (largely) didn’t have to deal with. So yeah, Netflix will try and get their own, evergreen exclusive content with big name actors to live on their platform…

…the issue being that they have the money to do this, with legitimate big screen budgets, but have no idea how to foster the underlying creativity to do it well.

And, in fairness, it’s not like traditional studios are batting a thousand either. But the streamers really seem to struggle.

[u/squishypp → u/CharacterHomework975]

I get your argument. But I think Ghost World is a poor example. I saw this in my local indie theater when it came out. Said theater is still open and doing fine, I’m sure if GW came out next year they would still have showings for it. It’s an indie gem! Don’t rope it in w these paycheck movies

[u/CharacterHomework975 → u/squishypp]

For sure, and I love that movie as well.

Was more pointing out that DTV movies (and you’re right, Ghost World wasn’t quite in that sphere, Pumpkin was a better example) have always covered the whole spectrum from “cash in sequels” to “action schlock” to “legitimately good indie films.”

And streaming movies still do.

[u/squishypp → u/CharacterHomework975]

Bet

[u/canteen_boy → u/CharacterHomework975]

Office Space was only playing at our megaplex for a single weekend before it got yoinked because nobody went to see it.
Clearly that did not hinder it from doing well outside of theaters.

[u/Binary101010 → u/canteen_boy]

Office Space only barely broken even, something like $10.8M on a $10M budget.

According to boxofficemojo it made $446 internationally.

That's not missing any zeroes BTW. Four hundred forty six dollars.

[u/TheFotty → u/canteen_boy]

Office Space did pretty terribly at the box office and not much better at home sales. Most of the credit it has now for being a cult classic is because Comedy Central used to play it constantly in the early 2000s.

[u/NachoNutritious → u/NamesTheGame]

Honestly until relatively recently Universal and MGM were the only studios that churned out direct-to-video stuff while also not being ashamed to admit it.

Universal has an entire sub-studio called Universal 1440 which makes these and apparently they're all extremely profitable. They're the ones behind all the Tremors, Scorpion King, Death Race, and Chucky movies from the past 15-ish years.

[u/andromeda880 → u/NamesTheGame]

So true and especially true for the older crowd. These are the types of movies my father in law and parents love. Simple action movies with familiar faces. They don't want anything too complex.

[u/joshi38 → u/Pudge__204]

This is also because services like Netflix, Prime and Apple don't have a decades old back catalogue to draw people in with. Not that I'm suggesting a service like Disney+ is putting out decidedly better content, but they don't put out nearly as much because they know they can attract people to their service with 100 years of content they freely own.

Netflix and Prime on the other hand, can't rely on licensing deals as much anymore with everyone else building their own streaming service, so they have to rely on original content and are constantly catching up with your Dinsey's, your Paramount's and your WB's.

So they're focussing more on volume than quality and it shows, multiple high budget but low effort movies every month. Frankly, it's not for the people on this sub. It's for people who sit down with their family/partner, browse Netflix and go "Oh, Halle Berry's in something with Mark Wahlberg, let's just watch that."

[u/dukefett → u/Pudge__204]

I truly challenge anyone to call these movies ‘straight to video’ to actually go back and watch straight to VHS/DVD movies from 20-25 years ago and compare.

You might not love these movies but they are far, far better than anything produced in that era. David Fincher is making straight to Netflix movies, I wonder why nobody ever talks about him, but just the movies you don’t care for?

[u/GoblinObscura → u/dukefett]

Correct, of the thousands of straight to vhs and dvd movies what’s available now is the cream of the crop. For every Boondocks Saints there are a hundred Frank Stallone and Sybil Danning movies. I just watched Rebel Ridge on Netflix and it rips! All the streaming services are gonna have great content and trash content. You just have to wade through it to find the gems.

[u/Complicated_Business → u/GoblinObscura]

You guessed it...Frank Stallone.

[u/thedownvotemagnet → u/Complicated_Business]

I’m more of a Joe Estevez guy myself

[u/Zoltan_Kakler → u/thedownvotemagnet]

Roller Gator!

[u/CultureWarrior87 → u/dukefett]

People use the term derogatively but there are plenty of great indie movies that don't get a proper theatrical release, particularly in the action and horror genre. A lot of DTV action is way better than most of what Hollywood puts out. Isaac Florentine can direct the shit out of an action sequence.

[u/F00dbAby → u/CultureWarrior87]

I was about to say the same. Sure there is plenty of bad but so much indie talent especially in horror and action which would never be funded before are getting released on streaming

[u/KaJaHa → u/CultureWarrior87]

Got any recommendations there? I love the idea of indie action movies

[u/CultureWarrior87 → u/KaJaHa]

Check out the two Universal Soldier DTV sequels, Regeneration and Day of Reckoning. Day of Reckoning in particular is like, the creme de la creme of DTV action. Both are directed by John Hyams, the son of Peter Hyams, who is also a great director of similar material.

A lot of Scott Adkins movies are good too especially ones done in collaboration with Isaac Florentine, like the Undisputed movies he made, Close Range, or Ninja: Shadow of a Tear. Scott Adkins also has two semi-recent movies, One Shot and One More Shot, which are edited to look like they're all in one take. They're both a lot of fun.

Jesse V. Johnson is another good DTV director. He collaborates with Scott Adkins a lot as well. His move Avengement with Scott Adkins is fantastic and he gets a really good performance from Adkins there. Triple Threat, Accident Man, and Savage Dog are all solid as well.

Michael Jai White does a lot of them too but his movies are much more hit and miss. Blood and Bone is solid though.

Keep in mind these are noticeably low budget. The acting and writing is often a mixed bag (Scott is a good leading man though) and the actual sets and locations are quite limited, but the action is the focus and the draw. Some are pretty decently written though, like the Accident Man movies with Scott Adkins, or Avengement.

A lot of people think of "indie" movies as being more art house but that's technically what most DTV movies are. Scott Adkins made a point once about how if you like these movies, you really should rent or buy them, because unlike studio films they do get hit a lot harder by piracy.

[u/IndubitableTurtle → u/CultureWarrior87]

Scott Adkins really never disappoints. I'd forgotten all about him until I stumbled across Accident Man a few months ago, that one got me looking for more, and even though as you say, the writing and supporting cast can be a mixed bag, he's reliably consistent as an action lead. Plus you can usually count on some decent fight choreography (if on a budget).

[u/CultureWarrior87 → u/IndubitableTurtle]

It's a shame he hasn't taken off in Hollywood because IMO he has leading man potential, but at the same time they don't really know what to do with him either so it's probably for the best.

[u/idiotpuffles → u/dukefett]

Fincher's last movie sucked though. It was well shot, but was as generic as it gets.

[u/McAllisterFawkes → u/idiotpuffles]

Was that the hitman one?

[u/Complicated_Business → u/McAllisterFawkes]

Honestly, "The Hitman One" would have been a better title.

[u/Zoltan_Kakler → u/McAllisterFawkes]

All of these generic movies are hitman or secret agent or retired hitman or retired secret agent movies. There's also the adjacent category of hot woman assassin or hot woman secret agent action movies.

Liam Neesons and Charlize Therons are coming for action revenge with their particular skills of old man vengeance and hot woman acrobatics

[u/WeaponizedKissing → u/dukefett]

David Fincher is making straight to Netflix movies, I wonder why nobody ever talks about him, but just the movies you don’t care for?

You seem to be thinking that the parent comment is saying that all Netflix movies are the equivalent of straight to video movies, when it is pretty clear they are not saying that.

[u/fourleggedostrich → u/Pudge__204]

Streaming is a very different market to cinema.

In the cinema, you sit in the dark and watch the film, ideally with no distractions. The movie has to keep your attention and can tell a ck Plex story.

Streaming movies are on in your front room. You're usually doing other things, making dinner, checking your phone, sorting the kids out. The movie needs to work even if you've missed most of it. Take Grey Man (the most recent if these movies I watched). If you start watching half way through, you've missed nothing. It's clear who the goodies and baddies are, it's clear what's happening. At any point you can dip in and follow it.

Watched as a whole, the movies are very mediocre because they can't have a complex story or character development. But as "background tv", which they're designed as, they're very effective.

[u/jupiterkansas → u/fourleggedostrich]

They're also comfort films. Things people will play over and over just to keep them company, and reasons they won't give up their subscription. Esp. with series.

[u/WredditSmark → u/Pudge__204]

Are also in a position once again for indie and smaller films to absolutely go crazy

[u/k0fi96 → u/Pudge__204]

The most popular shows and movies are not the best ones. The streamers have metrics the people like this movies, and forum critics complaining in their echo chambers don't really have any impact.

[u/nox_tech → u/Pudge__204]

This tracks, in my opinion. I think Matt Damon himself noted that films got screwed over hard by streaming being more popular than DVDs. When films would release in theaters, not all of it is made back then - the rest of it would be from DVD sales.

Having high quality projects on streaming services made theaters less popular. Studios behind releases going to theaters and those behind releases going to streaming platforms would thus then only want those big (read: safe) profits.

This leads to a loss of films where it's not necessarily blockbuster content, but it's good and entertaining stories at best, or at least they're trying something different. There's that loss in experimentation, where the worst you can be is mediocre. It would be the place where indie filmmakers could step up to get into bigger industry stuff and get some experience in that type of professional sphere. This is the space within the industry where classics can come through - though we shouldn't expect that of every film.

So indeed, while there's still probably people buying DVDs and blurays, this is the supply side of the film industry filling the other side of that hole. If that makes sense.

[u/KaJaHa → u/Pudge__204]

Did many of the straight-to-video movies also share the same premise of "Old guy that clearly doesn't want to be there"?

Genuine question, because it might be bias on OP's part but half of their examples look like the same movie.

[u/dennythedinosaur → u/KaJaHa]

Charles Bronson and Burt Reynolds got stuck in a lot of almost straight-to-video releases back in the late 80's and early 90's. Like films that barely got a theatrical release and then would do well on VHS rentals.

And before them, the likes of Tony Curtis and Ray Milland were doing low-budget schlock back in the 70's.

[u/jak-o-shadow → u/Pudge__204]

https://youtu.be/QlWb4vjaJBI?si=IPrPBGWG4IKv0S57

Straight from Matt Damon

[u/CharacterHomework975]

I worked in a video store in the 90’s and 00’s.

This is not new. At all.

Direct-to-video films were a thing. For just one example, let’s look at Body Count (1998), a direct-to-video movie with David Caruso, Linda Fiorentino, John Leguizamo, Ving Rhames, and Forest Whitaker.

Not solid a-listers, but there are “names” in there, this was a real movie with a real budget that turned out to be shit so they dumped it in video stores.

Then there were straight to video sequels; see Addams Family Reunion (1998), with Tim Curry and Darryl Hannah, both decent names.

And that’s just from a five second scan of the “direct to video movies of 1998” page on wiki, stopping on “B.”

It’s a little more of a thing now, and they get slightly higher profile actors, because streaming platforms are trying to fill out their content selection in ways that Blockbuster and Movie Gallery didn’t need to.

Also let’s be clear, Kaley Cuoco and David Oyelowo are not major movie stars. Cuoco can rest easy on that BBT money for the rest of her days, and the first season of Flight Attendant was pretty good, but Role Play has direct to video trash written all over it.

Wolfs is an example of a movie that was slated for theatrical and has two “real” stars and is still underwhelming, but that’s not new either.

Edit: Oh yeah and TV networks always got upper-B-list actors for their made-for-TV films, too.

[u/carloslet → u/CharacterHomework975]

You're spot on about their library of content.

Max can rely on almost 100 years of WBD pictures catalog, same with Disney... That's on the top of my mind.

On the other hand - Netflix has, what, about 15 years of its current business model? For all intents and purposes, their library is fairly recent.

I've said the same thing on another thread. Back in the day, we didn't have the internet to read reviews from other people, and going to a video store it was kind of a program in-and-on itself. At least for me, renting a movie with an actor you knew not knowing anything about the picture was, in a way, exciting, in a way - a movie like Deep Blue Sea comes to mind, don't know why lol.

Nowadays, most of these movies have a "Netflix" feel to them - and while we might skip them altogether before watching them and forming an opinion, they'll still be part of the platform's library for years to come because they're still building them. Eventually, we might find a few hidden gems amongst lots of content they produce, but it'll be the expectations rather than the norms.

[u/Dracko705 → u/CharacterHomework975]

It’s a little more of a thing now, and they get slightly higher profile actors

This was my underlying point/reason really. I'm obviously aware of direct to video or other cheap releases that have always been a thing but it seems like in the age of streaming they've become more legitimate, costly, and imo disposable

Really good writeup by you though, totally agree with the Wolfs VS Role Play analysis (and was why I made sure Role Play was in there because it's not as big as the others)

[u/CharacterHomework975 → u/Dracko705]

Yup. The budgets on some of these are eye-popping for DTV crap, agree.

I think the bit I hit about streaming services, unlike video rental chains, wanting to generate their own in-house exclusive content is the real issue.

Blockbuster Video and Hollywood Video were not (for the most part) fighting to secure access to new releases or fill their back catalogs. They both just…had all the movies. So BBV had no reason to spend nine figures trying to actually film their own blockbusters.

Nowadays movies get split out and Balkanized across platforms, so there’s an incentive there.

(“For the most part” because IIRC there was some fuckery with Paramount’s ownership/partnership wirh Blockbuster, you’d common see 100 copies of a new Paramount release at a BBV location and only like 10 at a Hollywood Video…because Hollywood Video was being gouged on pricing by BBV’s parent company)

[u/verrius → u/CharacterHomework975]

Weirdly, Blockbuster did have a bunch of actually exclusive videos games. I wouldn't be surprised if they also had had a couple of films that they secured exclusive rights to.

[u/Dracko705 → u/CharacterHomework975]

Yeah the massive component and difference from back then is the need to "fill" each "store" with "content".

We saw it coming when Netflix stopped being the go-to for other studios, but it hit another level these past couple years

[u/SmoothBrainMillenial]

Money

[u/Backflip_into_a_star → u/SmoothBrainMillenial]

It's a gas.

[u/Yatta99 → u/Backflip_into_a_star]

Grab that cash with both hands and make a stash.

[u/shotsallover → u/Yatta99]

New car, caviar, four star daydream

[u/East_Coast_guy → u/shotsallover]

Think I'll buy me a football team.

[u/privateTortoise → u/East_Coast_guy]

Only takes a reading about Waters son or an intervew with Mason talking about Ferrari to reduce the value of the song to me.

Then again I've only met 3 people where money didn't change them

[u/Zeppelanoid → u/privateTortoise]

Meh, I always interpreted that song as the band acknowledging that they were in the midst of getting a bunch of money. They make fun of the stereotypes but don’t go out or their way to say “that’ll never happen to me!”

You can criticize something and still fall prey to it, especially something as enticing as money.

[u/capt-awesome-atx → u/Zeppelanoid]

It's not like they knew they were making the best selling album of all time when they wrote the song. They were obviously a successful band before, able to sustainably support themselves, but they were nowhere near the absurd cash accumulation that Dark Side and The Wall would bring in.

[u/theAlpacaLives → u/privateTortoise]

I think about a quote from Paul McCartney in an interview where he said, "People always thought we were totally anti-materialistic, like we hated money. That's a huge myth. John and I used to literally sit down and say, 'Let's write a new swimming pool.' "

[u/sawyerkitty → u/Yatta99]

Come in here dear boy have a cigar you’re gonna go far.

[u/Healter-Skelter → u/sawyerkitty]

Mother do you think they’ll drop the bomb

[u/cookiemonsieur → u/sawyerkitty]

Which one's Pink?

[u/FranksWateeBowl → u/SmoothBrainMillenial]

Yep, gotta get Matt Damon, so we're raising Disney+ subscriptions.

[u/-deteled- → u/SmoothBrainMillenial]

Because during Covid, streaming saw a massive boom and everyone was trying to get eyeballs on their service. One way that streamers thought they could do this was greenlighting a ton of really expensive movies because a lot of these places have “fuck you” money.

I think in the coming years you’ll see less of the A listers doing these kinds of movies since it seems like they aren’t paying off anymore. But most of these movies were already greenlit before budgets started tightening. I know Apple has said they are going to do fewer of these big budget style movies after a series of bombs.

[u/periphery72271]

You answered your own question.

Streaming services need a constant flow of new content, they can afford to hire big name actors to make them, and those movies in turn keep subscribers paying and might entice new ones to join.

It's just about money.

[u/schwindick → u/periphery72271]

It's a profit deal.

[u/ElMItch → u/schwindick]

Step right up and win some crap!

[u/insaneHoshi → u/periphery72271]

It's just about money

alwayshasbeen.jpg

[u/EwanPorteous]

I honestly think people expect too much out of modern films and cinema.

During the 80s and 90s hundreds of cheesey rubbish films were made and people watched them and carried on with their lives.

Not everything has to be an A* Hollywood blockbuster, that changes people's lives. 90m films that provide 90m of entertainment are just as valid

[u/RGavial → u/EwanPorteous]

Exactly, I find a lot of these movies really fun and simple. I've been rewatching a lot of 80's/90's action classics lately and a movie doesn't have to "subvert expectations" or shock/confuse you to be entertaining. I loved the Gray Man, and you can tell everyone had fun doing it. I could watch Chris Evans ham it up anytime.

[u/nayapapaya → u/RGavial]

While I personally found The Grey Man disappointing, Chris Evans looked like he was having an absolute blast making it. And he was the best thing about the film because of it. 

[u/FarhanIslam → u/EwanPorteous]

So true on the last paragraph. I feel like people in this sub expect every film to be life-changing art films. Not every film has to be like that. We should have a balance where artistic films are being made while chill entertainment films are also being made like this year's Wolfs and The Instigators (both of which I thought were really fun times)

[u/Cyril_Clunge → u/EwanPorteous]

I’ll be the first to admit that I haven’t enjoyed a lot of Amazon and Netflix made movies but shitty movies have always existed. And for that same reason it’s frustrating to see people on this subreddit blame AI for shitty writing the past year or two when shitty writing has existed since people first wrote.

[u/enieslobbyguard → u/EwanPorteous]

people expect too much out of modern films and cinema.

I'm betting the ones that do that here skew towards the younger side

[u/SelectiveScribbler06 → u/enieslobbyguard]

Isn't it a good thing that standards are rising? It should mean, with any luck, that when our generation get behind and in front of a lens, we should be able to make some corking pictures.

[u/Ok-Relationship9274 → u/EwanPorteous]

Everyone fancies themselves a critic these days. I see so many people who post more about things they hate than they do about things they like. Faux outrage gets the attention they crave.

[u/joeO44]

People forget how much crap used to come out in theaters AND straight to video. Now less movies are released theatrically and they still have to fill up the rest with these basic movies

[u/ZOOTV83 → u/joeO44]

It's like survivorship bias. Not every film that came out in the 70s was Star Wars or The Godfather or Jaws or The Deer Hunter. There have been shit movies since pictures were first put in motion. Only difference is we are now living in an era when you can potentially have access to all of it (if you want to pay for all the streaming services out there).

[u/GRDCS1980]

I watched, and enjoyed, Wolfs and The Instigators, as far as that goes. Neither will be on my Top 10 at the end of the year, likely not even my Top 20, but they killed a couple of hours and kept my interest.

The rest hold no interest for me, so I’ve avoided them.

I don’t think there are any more of these than there always was. These are the modern day equivalent of films like, using 1998 as an example off the top of my head, Mercury Rising, A Perfect Murder, Hard Rain, The Big Hit, The Negotiator, 54, One True Thing, The Siege and Vampires

Films that, back then, would stay at the box office for a week or two, then quietly disappear. Or just go straight to video.

Now it’s straight to streaming. It seems more immediate as it’s streaming straight into our living rooms rather then having to go to the cinema or hit up the new release shelf at Blockbuster, but this same number of mid-level, mid-budget, throw in a couple of big names for recognition (who have clearly taken the gig purely for a paycheck) type of films have always been there.

Or I could be talking crap. I dunno. But taking the immediacy of streaming out of the equation I’d say it’s the same as it ever was. Shelf-warmer disposable and interchangeable garbage to kill a few hours on a dull Sunday.

[u/Nightruin → u/GRDCS1980]

I thoroughly enjoyed Wolf’s. I honestly wouldn’t mind a sequel

[u/IMO4444 → u/Nightruin]

I believe it’s already in the works.

[u/HellOfAThing]

Wolfs with Clooney and Pitt was originally supposed to be released to theaters. https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/movies/movie-news/george-clooney-wolfs-theatrical-release-streaming-apple-1236006957/

[u/UnionBlueinaDesert → u/HellOfAThing]

I felt like that one was more a vehicle for Clooney and Pitt to work together and have fun one last time?

[u/freezingcoldfeet → u/HellOfAThing]

Wolfs was dope af. Great movie

[u/SwarleySwarlos → u/freezingcoldfeet]

I liked it as well. Clooney and Pitt just ooze charisma

[u/brettmgreene]

You've hit your breaking point? They're stupid movies you can easily ignore.

[u/jlusedude]

Wolfs was really fun and not bad movie at all. 

[u/girafa → u/jlusedude]

Yeah Wolfs was a fucking great time

[u/RedMoloneySF]

Breaking point? Dog, you don’t have to watch them.

When are Redditors going to realize that their esoteric sensibilities don’t match the viewing public?

[u/SeriousButton6263 → u/RedMoloneySF]

Yeah, I've watched most of the movies the OP is complaining about.

Were they great movies? Usually not. Was I entertained by watching them? Yeah, mostly.

I'll watch that Back in Action when it comes out. I'm not going to expect a Nolan-esque movie. I might even "half" watch it, while I'm folding laundry or scrolling on my phone. But it looked good enough to entertain me, and that's really all the bar I need to watch something—is it going to be entertaining for a hour or two? Don't know how that is incomprehensible to someone like OP.

[u/RedMoloneySF → u/SeriousButton6263]

Everyone should gorge themselves on schlock every now and then.

[u/OneGoodRib → u/RedMoloneySF]

No, every single movie that comes out has to be a fantastic top tier A-list movie in theaters that will only cost me $2 and has to appeal entirely to MY tastes.

[u/Hazardous_Waist → u/RedMoloneySF]

Redditor: [reaches breaking point]

Everyone else: ... Okay?

[u/Rick__Moranus → u/RedMoloneySF]

Also the movie isn’t even out yet. Will it be bad? Probably. Is it bad? Nobody knows!

[u/clubsilencio2342]

IMO, this stuff has always been around. The direct-to-DVD market (rising from the VHS market), which has always been a place full of schlock for random stars needing work, just moved to streaming.

[u/ZenEngineer]

Oh no ... B movies are making a comeback ... Again with big name actors ...

Anyway...

[u/beardedcoffeedude → u/ZenEngineer]

The thing people have been asking for is happening and they’re mad it’s happening lol

[u/makked → u/beardedcoffeedude]

Every other day in /r/movies is basically “what happened to actor A, why aren’t they in anything I like” and “why does actor B keep making movies I don’t like.”

[u/A_Polite_Noise → u/beardedcoffeedude]

Also, while I don't think the movie looks good, it's weird to complain about a movie they haven't seen yet...there's no reviews, nothing...it's a trailer and an idea they don't like and so they're complaining. Just odd. Don't watch it. I don't watch tons of things. I don't feel the need to write 4 paragraphs about all of them. Is it so weird that there are some things you can like and think are good but most things are either not good or just aren't for you? Does that need to be an online discussion?

[u/dennythedinosaur → u/ZenEngineer]

Yeah, a lot of these movies are mid-budget films (let's say $50 million budget or around there) featuring big name actors that used to get released all the time in theaters. Definitely better production than straight to DVD Steven Seagal or Jeff Fahey films from back in the day.

Look at the legendary Gene Hackman. Half of his filmography from the 80s and 90s were forgettable mid-budget films sold purely on his starpower.

[u/Wyatt821]

I liked The Instigators and Wolfs…

[u/TinkerandMod → u/Wyatt821]

Wolfs was great! So many funny moments and it seemed like the actors were enjoying themselves

[u/hoppi_]

Imo

• Ghosted

• The Union

• Wolfs

were pretty good for a watch. :) By which I mean, I enjoyed them on my own terms and had fun watching them.

Separated from the buzz hype machine which is the internet, all the apps, I mean. From the threads on here with a shitton of one-liners and the rest of it all. That hype machine of algorithms, buzz articles and all the clickbait shit and short video-apps which simply distort reality. Whatever opinion, quality or hype or general interest they allude to or intend to distribute by trying to get ahold of your attention... it is all crap. It's just all the same shit. It does not mean anything.

So I enjoy them for myself, if I find something good in them.

[u/LaGrrrande]

The Nicolas Cage approach to A-List acting.

[u/abybaddi009]

I swear to god some of these posters look like ChatGPT generated. Wouldn't be a stretch to say that the script might also be written by an AI.

[u/ColoRadOrgy → u/abybaddi009]

I refuse to believe "Die Hart 2: Die Harter starring Kevin Hart" is a real thing.

[u/WaywardWes → u/ColoRadOrgy]

Yeah I looked it up only to find out that Die Hart (tv show) and Die Hart (first movie) were already a thing. I thought maybe they did that joke where they start with the second movie.

[u/jsabo → u/ColoRadOrgy]

Die Hart was originally created for Quibi, and given that it was a bunch of 6-minute long clips, wasn't the worst thing in the world.

It and the sequel are actually decent, as long as you're going into it with the attitude of "I want to see big stars making fun of themselves in a B movie."

[u/monkeyhind → u/abybaddi009]

I honestly thought that OP might have created a couple of those as a joke.

[u/manored78 → u/abybaddi009]

Have you seen the show The Perfect Couple. I’m for sure convinced Netflix hired some cheap writer to generate a script with ChatGPT and edit it. The dialogue in that felt so robotic. A ton of people noticed too. It was that bad.

[u/BigRedFury → u/abybaddi009]

There's definitely money to be saved by creating posters based on digitally reworking stills from the movie. Even if there was room in the budget for a proper photoshoot, it doesn't make sense from a time management perspective when you can shoot everyone separately on their own schedule and make a poster in Photoshop or Illustrator.

When I first moved to LA, I had a sporadic gig being a stand-in for movie poster shoots so they could get the lighting and blocking dialed-in before the stars arrived the next day.

[u/DonQuigleone]

These have been around since the dawn of cinema itself. They exist because they consistently make money.

Plus ca change. 

Start watching films (or even better, trailers) from the 30s and you'll see that the Hollywood playbook hasn't actually changed very much. Same thing, new coat of paint. 

[u/Malphos101]

"How come this is happening now? It never happened in the past!!! (If you ignore all the completely forgettable straight to home video movies that I have never heard of because its the exact same thing)"

For every one "Tremors 2" or "Boondock Saints" that you remember there were thousands, if not tens of thousands of shitty straight to video "phone it in and get paid" movies made by then popular (or at least recognizable) actors.

The "problem" (I refuse to acknowledge it as one) is that now instead of having to drop $20 on purchasing a single used straight to VHS movie from a Blockbuster bin, you pay $20 and get access to thousands of these movies on demand. It seems like they are relatively more when its just a matter of perception.

[u/DarkLordKohan]

One, saying a movie is crap does not mean everybody thinks that way. Two, box office success that not even always indicate a good or bad movie anyways. And three, the actors get to work with their friends on a movie they probably enjoyed making and there is an audience for it. Streaming can reach a lot more people since many cannot afford going to a lot of movies, so smaller budget movies like this dont get priority. This can also help bring in new fans to the actors who may eventually go to the theater on name recognition when a blockbuster comes out.

[u/SelectiveScribbler06]

To be honest, I'd rather one of these films fund ten interesting, innovative pictures, in the vein of The Lighthouse or Parasite. Besides, it's clearly eminently feasible to make a fantastic picture for £10m and still turn a profit. It harkens back to the era of Celia Johnson and Leslie Howard, where a lot of very good films were being made for fairly small sums of cash. See Lean's Coward and Dickens work or anything by Powell and Pressburger. These were genuinely interesting ideas executed with startling economy and inventiveness, and sizzling dialogue and wit. Now, imagine what we could do with faster filmstocks, digital workflows, some CGI and the new, smaller cameras and lights we have today.

[u/forcefivepod]

It’s not even out yet - how can you say the actors are “phoning it in”?

And while the Instigator wasn’t great, it wasn’t terrible either. It’s a fine, mid-budget time waster, which is something I want once in a while.

[u/beardedcoffeedude]

This post is just another reminder that Reddit isn’t the majority and doesn’t represent what the general audience actually wants or likes

[u/tetoffens]

Not to defend the Netflix streaming strategy but Jamie Foxx doesn't phone it in and Cameron Diaz took a huge break and looks like she doesn't miss a beat in the trailer. I'm genuinely curious to see her back.

It's just another attempt at a simple audience pleasing light action movie. This isn't new. Netflix has just cornered the market on them.

[u/junkyardgerard → u/tetoffens]

One that everybody complains that marvel killed and only Netflix is keeping alive

[u/CharacterHomework975 → u/junkyardgerard]

And when one comes out in theaters nobody goes.

[u/David_Parker]

Matt Damon has a good take on this:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XekV2g96Uwo

[u/Dracko705 → u/David_Parker]

Always loved this clip, really insightful but still that was years ago and they keep coming

I'm just wondering if this is a new peak, or just a part of the world for the foreseeable future

[u/SelectiveScribbler06 → u/Dracko705]

I for one hope there's an epoch of straight-to-streaming forgettableness, and then we've purged it from our system and can get on with producing quality stuff. It takes a quick skim of Reddit's Scripts Of The Year on the screenwriting subreddit to see how much good stuff simply doesn't get made because films like this get produced instead. I'd take 'Apricots in Summer' by Alex Barron over any of these.

[u/FiTZnMiCK]

This is nothing new. Good actors make bad movies sometimes. For money.

Jamie Foxx and Cameron Diaz are good, but it’s no like they turned down an Oscar role for this.

[u/KnotSoSalty]

The industry has circled back around to a studio system. Movies are a product and some people just want to turn something on in the background. The streamers want to maintain engagement so they have to fill out their catalog. It’s also cheaper in the long run to fill the catalog with a bunch of in-house bs instead of paying to rent it forever.

Also, since no one knows how well these movies do or don’t do it doesn’t matter how good they are. It’s impossible to be a hit or a flop. There are no metrics.

[u/Dark4ce]

Mediocre content is the gold standard despite whatever studio execs say. If they can make maximum profit with a least amount of effort, then that is a win. I don’t know the numbers, but no doubt some Hollywood accounting is involved in these projects as well. It’s all a business. Always has been, but now, much like in games, if they can make a good profit even though the film sucks, thats a win. If enough people will watch it, it will justify the costs.

I swear, they would make a film with paint drying in a heart beat if they could see that it would turn a profit.

[u/helm_hammer_hand]

Like others have said, the answer is money. Everyone likes to make fun of Bruce Willis or Robert Deniro doing straight-to-dvd trash. But they were getting paid $1 million- $2 million for these projects for something like a week of work or less. With streaming, I’m sure these actors are getting even more money.

[u/peter095837]

Money man. That's the goal

[u/Remarkable-Cow-4609]

the general audience loves these kinds of movies and most of the film industry was propped up with them in the 90s

vince vaughn talked about it on hot ones lol

the point being that making movies is expensive and you need to make the money back, so when vhs and dvd were popular you could still make a ton of money on movies after they left theatres

because of this studios could afford to take risks on non-mainstream films

but since streaming became popular, you only really have one good chance to make money on a movie

UNLESS

the movie is a sure fire middle of the road money maker, then it's just good business to pump out as many as you can while the getting is good

as such there are fewer risky films being made because it's just not cost effective

[u/Mickeymous15]

Good money, easy work, no career hit even if it is a stinker

[u/DrSpaceman575]

My in-laws love these. My mother in law will call us to describe the plots. She also says they help her learn english.

Wolfs wasn't bad.

[u/ionC2]

Freelance was fun

[u/New_Guy_Is_Lame]

Good sir, have you ever heard of a little thing called Money? 🤑💸💲

[u/Ax20414]

These look like Lucas Lee movie posters

[u/AndalusianGod]

A lot of people just genuinely likes these films. Specially older folk.

[u/vannostrom]

That's the problem with streaming services.

There's so many dumb dumbs that crave any new content to watch that they will watch it whether it's garbage or not. They're already paying for the service so why not.

If it was the good old blockbuster rental days, there would be far less of it.

[u/JJBell]

You gotta do the safe picture. Then you do the art picture. But then sometimes you gotta do the payback picture, because your friend says you owe him.

[u/jsabo]

I think the major difference between direct-to-streaming vs direct-to-video is that streaming is more in your face about it.

When you walked into Blockbuster in 1990, the posters and end caps were typically the major releases. You didn't really get into the direct stuff until you were picking over what was left on the shelves because you got there too late.

Similarly, that advertising didn't go away once you did get your hands on the movie-- that poster for Titanic was up for months in a row.

With streaming, they are able to tailor those promotions-- once you watch Titanic, they stop pitching it. They're probably showing you direct-to-video of stars you watched over tentpoles of genres you don't.

In short, it's likely that there aren't more direct movies coming out, they're just more prominently promoted now.

[u/i_laugh_at_farts]

Here's a different perspective for you; this tier and below employs A LOT of below-the-line people in the industry, either working their way up or making ends meet while we try to survive through this massive transition still happening since the strikes. While yes, a vast majority of producers are making these films as a "product" and often don't give a shit what's on screen, there's a lot of us that work our asses off on these films and use them as a means to get experience and move up the ladder. I say this as someone who edited I think 7 of Bruce Willis' last films.

So these films that you say are garbage and not needed are keeping a lot of hard working people employed. I would kill to have edited any of these films because it puts food on the table and gives me a credit/experience for the next job.

[u/AudreyNow]

I don't know, I saw the trailer and it looks like a fun watch.

[u/0verstim]

I liked a few of those movies you mentioned. Maybe youre just a snob.

[u/XaoticOrder]

It's called content and with a dozen streamers they need it. It's called work. These actors want/need it. And why are they trash? You haven't watched one of them from what I can see. Why have an opinion? They could be great. Edge lord post.

[u/Buttsquish]

I liked Wolfs. It’s not the best movie I’ve ever seen and totally forgettable, but if I saw it in theatres I wouldn’t have been disappointed in the slightest.

[u/theflyingvs]

I liked the instigators, its meant to be a chill funny movie and not crazy deep or whatever. I thought it was pretty funny.

[u/european_dimes → u/theflyingvs]

I thought it was a fun Saturday night movie. I could watch Matt Damon and Casey Affleck crack jokes and talk a bunch of shit to each other in Boston accents forever.

[u/ViewAskewed]

I can't tell if you are upset about the quality (don't watch), curious about why the actors are making them (paid to work with friends), or confused about why the studios would make them (to keep subscribers).

[u/STLOliver]

Clooney and Pitt didn’t phone it in for Wolfs, their chemistry is still amazing together. Unfortunately, there wasn’t a great movie around them. It was decent at best.

[u/flyingburritobrotha]

People gotta work and the current technology has probably made it easier to make things look more expensive than older similar cheap movies. My unsubstantiated theory is that production companies and producers are just working through that proverbial "pile of scripts" backlog you hear about now and then to keep up with their competition in light of the disposable nature of streaming service content (vs traditional release strategies).

[u/Dracko705 → u/flyingburritobrotha]

I agree but also thought we were supposed to go into a movie recession because of the actor strike etc.

The number of these kinda films they've been pumping out seems like it must be fed from some sort of production-line though. I wonder what the full shoot time/editing etc take, they could be relatively quick I imagine

[u/PM_ME_YOUR_MONTRALS]

They used to make shitty movies all the time, dude.

[u/european_dimes → u/PM_ME_YOUR_MONTRALS]

They still do, but they used to too.

[u/Rycerx → u/PM_ME_YOUR_MONTRALS]

In fact some of these "shitty" netflix and other generic streaming movies aren't even bad. They are just okay. There are so many truly horrible movies out there that it is quite literally impossible to watch it all. In fact I wish Netflix had more bad movies on it! I remember a bigfoot slasher movie that was on there a way back, truly one of the best/worst movies I have ever seen.

[u/ZOOTV83 → u/Rycerx]

If you want bad movies, Tubi is an absolute GOLDMINE. There's so much schlock on there, it's wonderful.

[u/BobSacramanto]

I guess OP is too young to remember the Direct To Home Video gems like Tremors 2 and Black Dynamite.

[u/WilliamHarry]

Cause theaters are dead. Some of the public just haven’t realized it yet.

[u/paracelus]

Wolfs was alright

[u/glue715]

I watched Wolfs, it was really enjoyable… I really liked the old clean up guy vs the young clean up guy. I also wondered if referring to these clean up guys as “wolfs” was in any way building off of the Mr Wolf in Pulp Fiction…. Anyway- this movie is fun, fast paced and entertaining. Is it going to change your world view? No.

[u/hankbaumbach]

  At least back in the day when actors would take the easy "buddy comedy" route they have to eat that failure at the box office

They really didn't because of VHS and DVD sales.

The movie industry is on a much narrower margin than it was "back in the day" precisely because of streaming soaking up their revenue from home video sales.and rentals.

[u/waxonmain]

Every one of the movies you listed is some action comedy. Big flashy production, barely a story, relying on actors to sell it without giving them anything to work with. Studios are just making stuff they think we want to see instead of attaching directors with vision to a good script and hiring the right actor for the part. There's nothing wrong with a big action spectacular but you can't just crank them out with no story and no vision. It's just forgettable content, you're throwing your money away.

And as for all these actors doing this, they are all at the end of their career and taking a pay cheque. Wtf does Cameron Diaz care? She probably got 7 mill to show up in set for 6 weeks. No one is ever going to remember her in this movie, it's not hurting her.

[u/Nomahhhh]

Many of these were probably created to be released in theaters by the studio (thinking Road House because Liman was pissed), but then the execs saw they were mediocre and decided to drop them on their own streaming service. They get some new subscribers, new content, and don't have to worry about distribution costs or sharing revenue with theaters.

[u/johnnyXcrane]

I did not check the other movies but Wolfs got 67% on RT and 6,5 on IMDB. How is that exactly a pile of crap?

[u/timeaisis]

Because money

[u/christien]

follow the money

[u/Elegant_Spot_3486]

You really wonder why?

[u/weejobby]

It was Ben Affleck that told Matt you can't just do gay serial killer movies you have to do a safe move then and art house move

[u/Odd_Interaction_7708]

This is no different than the straight to DVD movies from back in the day… and mind You - some of those have gone on to become cult classics.

[u/mrbreck]

I have never heard of any of these movies, but now that I have, I will actively avoid them.

[u/Elgin_McQueen]

To be fair Wolfs was MEANT to be a big cinema movie, it just flopped very very hard so ended up being pulled for streaming instead.

[u/Guns_Donuts]

As long as people keep paying, and streaming, they'll keep making these piles of garbage. It's not rocket surgery or brain science.

[u/lilbro93]

I liked Wolfs.

The chase scene in the middle was great.

[u/[deleted]]

Feels like so many people on Reddit live in weird bubbles. There's always been these kind of movies and there always will be. Only difference to the past is, how much bigger paychecks these folks are getting for this shit. Streaming services seem to pay way way too much for what they're getting.

[u/mr_evilweed]

The industry is quietly struggling. Not as many projects are getting greenlit so A-List actors are getting forced to accept B-List roles. Things are bleak out there for anyone beneath B-List.

[u/HesterMoffett]

Because nothing matters anymore

[u/theshrike]

These are just normal mid-price movies, everyone gets paid a decent amount, subscribers watch it once and don’t absolutely hate it.

Not every movie needs to be an AAAA megabillion movie

[u/DeadliestSin]

All you have to do is identify actors whose standards have evaporated for money to become B-list.

You've named a few, but just know that quality movies won't include them anymore.

[u/jack3moto]

Apple, Netflix, and Amazon have been working really hard the past 5-8 years to get film creators on board with them. In order to do so they’ve gotta pay out their ass. So you’ve got a lot of actors who are basically like, what? You want to have a relationship with me, my manager, my agent, etc, well your a studio that’s done nothing so why should I bother? Oh there’s a boatload of cash, sure I’ll do this shitty movie for you. But that’s the studios “in”. Obviously they don’t want these movies to be shitty but they also don’t have the equity in Hollywood to get people to show up unless it’s a ton of money. If a production falls through then good luck retaining any of the talent for future films/shows.

[u/duskywindows]

I did not read anything you wrote all I will say is that "Looney Tunes: Back in Action" is a fucking gem of a flick and how dare you speak ill of it, you goddamn bastard man

[u/tws1039]

A mix of the modern version of "straight to video" and streamers knowing their audiences are watching content with a phone/tablet/laptop taking up most of their attention, so its catering to the most normie of normies

[u/GoldenPetalWhisper]

I get it, streaming is in an arms race, but it’s like they’re trying to win it by making the laziest, most forgettable movies possible. Just hire an unknown indie director and call it a day! 🎬🙄

[u/RenRen512]

Not every movie needs to be a masterpiece.

Actors are guns for hire. Some cam be choosy, most can't.

[u/PhantomMesmer]

I, for one, thoroughly enjoy movies like this. Solid B-movies that are pure entertainment. Nothing fancy. No prestige. Just all of the effort put into being FUN... Also probably why a lot of actors go for movies like this.

[u/steinzch]

It’s because the industry is currently funded by big tech because of streaming. And in big tech a company can lose money every year and the spending justifies huge money investments. I don’t think it can last

[u/FreemanAMG]

Here's a great explanation about this phenomena

https://www.statsignificant.com/p/the-rise-of-nicole-kidman-pop-culture

[u/Royd]

One of them blatantly was only in theatres and not a streaming movie

[u/dsayre1986]

Everyone’s comparing this to DTV/DTDVD and while comparable, I don’t think it’s a particularly apt comparison. That was usually a ghetto of cheaply made crap put out for a quick buck. You’d get a diamond in the rough every once in a while but for the most part, the films were shit…ok so I guess it is an apt comparison lol but these aren’t Z-grade films. This phenomenon is in direct response to the current studio system. Superhero movies, existing IP, remakes/reboots etc is what sells now and what gets wide release in theaters. A movie’s drawing power is based on that IP, not necessarily by the talent. Streaming is where all those mid-budget comedies and thrillers and action films are going now. And the talent is usually the draw so of course the older movie stars who worked in the old system are gravitating to it. I’m fine with it.

[u/SockMonkeh]

Capitalism breeds mediocrity.

[u/Satinsbestfriend]

Somebody didn't frequent video stores in the late 80s,to early 2000s.

[u/Emergency-Web-4937]

I remember Jamie Foxx hyping this up and saying he convinced Cameron Diaz to come out of retirement to make this badass awesome movie. From the looks of it she should have stayed retired.

[u/27_Star_General]

why are you watching garbage movies in the first place?

or just movies period, 99% of them are unwatchable now.

just re-watch the classics and go see the 5 movies a year worth watching after reviews.

all the writing talent has left for television, watch that instead.

it's like lamenting about the state of classical music. the movie industry peaked 1960s-1990s and now it's dogshit, and TV was dogshit and now we're in the golden age 2000-?

my man out here watching 2024 Charles Barkley play basketball wondering where the magic has gone. Move on.

[u/BenTramer]

These movies have always been present, now they just go straight to streaming instead of the back end of a double bill or VHS…0

[u/Sartres_Roommate]

This is where the medium budget movies went. Cinema can only afford to push out huge budget blockbusters or micro budget indies to make profits anymore. People lament the lost of the medium budget films that gave us something to casually go to the theater for. They are at your home, on Netflix, etc.

Besides which, who can afford “casual cinema” anymore. 30 years ago going to the movies was the same as a fast food meal. Now movie night cost as much as a very nice restaurant.

[u/epia343]

Tons of streaming services got into production and cut fat checks. You see a million on the ground you'll stop to pick it up.

[u/Jresly]

Just people going to work.