Matt Damon explains why they dont make movies like they used to (2024)

Skip to content

Cinemaphile

Posted on by Anonymous

Matt Damon explains why they dont make movies like they used to (2)

>Around the halfway mark of their heated conversation, the presenter, Sean Evans, asks Damon to explain how the production of movies has changed since the ‘90s, explaining that many viewers think to themselves, “They’re not making movies for me anymore”.
>Damon’s response is remarkably candid, revealing some fascinating truths about how the industry has changed since the turn of the new millennium. “So what happened was the DVD was a huge part of our business, of our revenue stream,” Damon stated, adding, “Technology has just made that obsolete, and so the movies that we used to make you could afford to not make all of your money when it played in the theatre because you knew you had the DVD coming behind the release”.
>In effect, the loss of DVD sales has therefore dramatically reduced the maximum amount of profit any given film can make, making box-office profits the be-all and end-all of a movie’s success. As Damon further explained, “It would be like reopening the movie almost, and when that went away, that changed the type of movies that we could make”.

sources
>https://faroutmagazine.co.uk/matt-damon-explains-why-dont-make-movies-like-they-used-to/
>https://www2.deloitte.com/us/en/insights/industry/technology/future-of-the-movie-industry.html

  1. 1 year ago

    Reply

    Anonymous

    that doesn't explain why movies with a budget around $100 million sucks ass

    • 1 year ago

      Reply

      Anonymous

      More money piled on won’t make a bad script good. If anything, spending too much money makes the studio more likely to micromanage and cater to the lowest common denominator. Why take risks with that amount of money?
      But the end result is this incredibly bland homogenization of the film industry as they won’t take risks and let the people with real creative vision make anything new or interesting or good.

      • 1 year ago

        Reply

        Anonymous

        You always sacrifice somewhere to get wide appeal

    • 1 year ago

      Reply

      Anonymous

      Inflation and living expenses of caligaynians

    • 1 year ago

      Reply

      Anonymous

      It actually does when you consider they’re made for women, who actually prefer things that suck ass

  2. 1 year ago

    Reply

    Anonymous

    Not my problem

  3. 1 year ago

    Reply

    Anonymous

    this is stupid. DVDs started to be a hit in the late '90s when some of the worst movies on earth were being made.

    • 1 year ago

      Reply

      Anonymous

      fight club would have been a flop if not for dvd's

    • 1 year ago

      Reply

      Anonymous

      Before DVD it was VHS. He meant physical distribution was profitable. In part because Netflix and Blockbuster would be buying them in high volume. With digital it is a single distribution channel that puts digital files on all the services.

      • 1 year ago

        Reply

        Anonymous

        VHS was pricy, and the biggest selling point of the DVD was its cheap price. the industry at the time was trying to pivot very hard into a rental model ('member Divx?), and wanted to convince consumers that they did not want to own movies but merely borrow them. it was a huge boon when they realized that customers would be happy to pay just a few dollars above the rental price to actually own it forever. that's where all the revenue came from. vhs was a multi-million dollar profit for studios whereas DVD raked in billions upon billions.

    • 1 year ago

      Reply

      Anonymous

      >DVDs started to be a hit in the late '90s
      video rental shops are from the early 80s, anyhow the last good decade was the 70s.

    • 1 year ago

      Reply

      Anonymous

      In 1999 alone
      >fight club
      >the matrix
      >office space
      >toy story 2
      >being john malkovitch
      >blair witch project

      • 1 year ago

        Reply

        Anonymous

        more than half of these are blockbusters and not intended for certain demographic.

        • 1 year ago

          Reply

          Anonymous

          if you mean in the 90s they made lowest common denominator box office shlop I'd agree, but there was still a lot of kino in there with mass appeal.

  4. 1 year ago

    Reply

    Anonymous

    Who the frick still watches movies on linear television with commercial breaks every 20 minutes?

    • 1 year ago

      Reply

      Anonymous

      Boomers and gen X.

    • 1 year ago

      Reply

      Anonymous

      I watch the Andy Griffith Show on Pluto TV
      Haven't figured out how to block ads yet 🙁

  5. 1 year ago

    Reply

    Anonymous

    Matt Damon explains why they dont make movies like they used to (6)

    matt damon rapes kids

  6. 1 year ago

    Reply

    Anonymous

    b-but I was told streaming was bigger and the savior of the industry.why is it declining?

    • 1 year ago

      Reply

      Anonymous

      Streaming just replaced dvds so it's just crap. The reality is that old production houses got replaced by Netflix who cannot make good shows too save their lives because of diversity hires

      streaming is part of video/dvd in the pic.

  7. 1 year ago

    Reply

    Anonymous

    Why is he such a fricking racist?
    This is not okay.

  8. 1 year ago

    Reply

    Anonymous

    Streaming just replaced dvds so it's just crap. The reality is that old production houses got replaced by Netflix who cannot make good shows too save their lives because of diversity hires

    • 1 year ago

      Reply

      Anonymous

      >Streaming just replaced dvds
      Streaming is not a valid replacement for dvds/physical media. When a normie buys a DVD, that's more money in the studio's pocket for each individual movie that gets bought. When a normie subscribes to a streaming network, they now have access to all the movies for one lower sum of money, and they can quit anytime. That's a loss of money for the studio right there. So the streamer needs more and more subscribers all the time in order to make money, which is not happening the way they want it to. It's not a sustainable business model.

      • 1 year ago

        Reply

        Anonymous

        Checked and wanting to add my own two cents but DVD/physical media meant more cult classics, or movies designed with a specific audience in mind would have more success rather than aiming for lowest common denominator.
        If you understand that your movie may only be popular with a certain group, and DVD purchases by said group would be what you were counting on that profit avenue is gone. Combine that with media consolidation and it shows how more targeted films have really disappeared in the past decade. Theyre still there but much harder to find.

      • 1 year ago

        Reply

        Anonymous

        It's also worth noting that the studios usually aren't licensing out their movies on an individual basis to the streaming services. A lot of the times, those deals are also made before the movie's even released. So you get situations where streaming services might overpay for some titles, but vastly underpay for others.

        I like to use the first Narnia movie as an example of this. It grossed $370 million on DVD just in the U.S. It did more on DVD than at the U.S. box-office. No streaming service would pay $300 million for the second window rights for a single movie in just one market.

        https://www.the-numbers.com/movie/Chronicles-of-Narnia-The-Lion-the-Witch-and-the-Wardrobe-The#tab=summary

    • 1 year ago

      Reply

      Anonymous

      Netflix not only makes no money but the companies putting their movies there don't make much money either. And is not just Netflix, Microsoft's Gamepass only loses money too and games put there cannibalize overall game sales, so at the end everyone's losing money.

      • 1 year ago

        Reply

        Anonymous

        the whole thing is pretty fricking stupid

      • 1 year ago

        Reply

        Anonymous

        I think Netflix is the only streaming service currently at the stage where they actually do make money. Largely just due to how long they've been in the game compared to others. Everyone else is still at the stage where they're dumping all their money into making content to try to attract enough subscribers to eventually make money when they start cutting production costs. This is why they've started trying to crackdown on account sharing. They're at the point where they're making profit but everyone who's interested already has it and making content or aggressively trying to license more content will cost more than the potential subscribers it will generate. The only way to grow or to even maintain their current profit is to try to force the people interested but not paying to pay.

  9. 1 year ago

    Reply

    Anonymous

    Can we PLEASE cancel Matt Damon?

    • 1 year ago

      Reply

      Anonymous

      Marky Mark too.

      • 1 year ago

        Reply

        Anonymous

        marky mark is awesome, think about how many asians fear the man

    • 1 year ago

      Reply

      Anonymous

      I heard he got drunk and called one of his friends a b***h in 1995. It's fricking OVER for him, and the world is HEALING

    • 1 year ago

      Reply

      Anonymous

      go back to twitter ya homo

  10. 1 year ago

    Reply

    Anonymous

    If movies can no longer expect the same returns as the 90s, then the budgets have to be cut back, starting with actor salaries.
    It's that simple Matty

    • 1 year ago

      Reply

      Anonymous

      Damon is mostly producing now, he doesn't give a shit about his acting salary

  11. 1 year ago

    Reply

    Anonymous

    Because they give away the streaming rights for free, right?

    • 1 year ago

      Reply

      Anonymous

      see

      [...]
      streaming is part of video/dvd in the pic.

      streaming money isn't big to offset dvd and tv loss. and big studios don't sell the rights as they have their own streaming service.

    • 1 year ago

      Reply

      Anonymous

      Movie studios used to

      That's fricking moronic. How does he explain the fact that good movies were made before DVD and VHS? And that stupid chart doesn't account for streaming services. What, do studios just give the streaming rights away for free, forever? I would call him a moron, but he knows that's not the issue, he just doesn't want to say the obvious:
      "Money grubbing studios are taking as little risk as possible and casting the widest net to bring in the biggest potential profits".
      When you try to appeal to everybody, and sand away every edge in the hopes of being marketable to all people in all countries, you remove anything interesting from your film.

      >What, do studios just give the streaming rights away for free, forever?
      Studios get paid by Netflix for hosting their movies, but what does Peawiener get for hosting the shit they already own? Nothing.

      • 1 year ago

        Reply

        Anonymous

        They get subscription fees, nobody is giving anything away for free, they're just not getting as much money as they'd like

  12. 1 year ago

    Reply

    Anonymous

    >it's harder for me to recoup the money I spend on the films I make....... I should increase the money I spend on the movies to 9 digits

  13. 1 year ago

    Reply

    Anonymous

    >we used to able to bilk the public by getting them to spend $30 on a DVD that cost 14c to make, we can't do that any more and that's why films are shit now

    • 1 year ago

      Reply

      Anonymous

      >YOU DON'T UNDERSTAND
      >YOU NEED TO HAVE A 200 MILLION DOLLERS BUDGET TO MAKE A 50 MILLION DOLLERS MOVIE AND THEN IT HAS TO MAKE 500 MILLIONS DOLLERS AT THE BOX OFFICE JUST TO BREAK EVEN
      >THAT'S JUST HOW THINGS WORK

      • 1 year ago

        Reply

        Anonymous

        >JUST TO BREAK EVEN
        on just their production budget. if they just break even and the run ends they have to make back the marketing budget on dvd/tv/streaming. Which is easier than box office tbh (since no theaters to take 50-75% cut) but still hard.

  14. 1 year ago

    Reply

    Anonymous

    That's fricking moronic. How does he explain the fact that good movies were made before DVD and VHS? And that stupid chart doesn't account for streaming services. What, do studios just give the streaming rights away for free, forever? I would call him a moron, but he knows that's not the issue, he just doesn't want to say the obvious:
    "Money grubbing studios are taking as little risk as possible and casting the widest net to bring in the biggest potential profits".
    When you try to appeal to everybody, and sand away every edge in the hopes of being marketable to all people in all countries, you remove anything interesting from your film.

    • 1 year ago

      Reply

      Anonymous

      >And that stupid chart doesn't account for streaming service
      see

      [...]
      streaming is part of video/dvd in the pic.

    • 1 year ago

      Reply

      Anonymous

      He's speaking from his own experience when his career started in the 90s. But either way his point is that media has not only become oversaturated but essentially free because of pirating and streaming services. In the 50s you were forced to see movies in theaters because you only had theee channels. When Star Wars came out in '78 it ran in the theaters for like a year.

  15. 1 year ago

    Reply

    Anonymous

    it's crazy how Hollywood told everyone that marketing a movie costs as much as making it and everyone just said "yeah, that seems true"

    • 1 year ago

      Reply

      Anonymous

      Marketing is more important than having a quality product. There is more good content to consume than there is time to watch it. If no new movies or tv shows came out, you could watch things you'd never seen before between now and the day you die and still not run out of things to watch. When you make a movie, you're competing against a century of other movies for views' attention, and all that past content has the added convenience of being already setup in their living room. If you aren't going above and beyond to not only show people your movie exists, but convince them to come pay you to see it, they won't watch it in theaters.

    • 1 year ago

      Reply

      Anonymous

      More like making a movie. You expect me to believe Amazon spent ONE BILLION dollars to make a TV show? How and why would budget numbers be real? Why would a studio ever tell us that? Does Ford tell you how much it costs to make their truck? The only person they tell is the IRS, the rest is just bullshit to get you to see it. This stems from the blockbuster craze that started in the 70s.

  16. 1 year ago

    Reply

    Anonymous

    Does Damon explain why the gay/slavery movie market seems unphased by the loss of dvd's?

    • 1 year ago

      Reply

      Anonymous

      Every year ww2 nonsense. Hmmm I wonder why we keep getting the same ww2 movies now for the last 60 years.

  17. 1 year ago

    Reply

    Anonymous

    Streaming services are fine for TV, but they’re crippling the movie market. Why don’t movies just make a digital release date with a QR code link where you can buy the digital copy for $5? They’d make a shit ton more money compared to flat streaming rates and $5 would be cheap enough to dissuade torrenting as well. The same model Louis CK used for his standup specials.

      • 1 year ago

        Reply

        Anonymous

        Streaming "replacing" DVDs is a big reason why the financiers won't greenlight riskier original material. There's no back end profit for a movie that becomes a cult classic, so they might as well only make reboots and franchises that have established fanbases who will turn out to the theater.

      • 1 year ago

        Reply

        Anonymous

        no shit buddy, that's literally what he's saying. movies have become total slop ever since streaming took over.

        • 1 year ago

          Reply

          Anonymous

          Streaming "replacing" DVDs is a big reason why the financiers won't greenlight riskier original material. There's no back end profit for a movie that becomes a cult classic, so they might as well only make reboots and franchises that have established fanbases who will turn out to the theater.

          This is bs the guy who produced fight club was fired because it made no money. This is the reality the consumers don't want independent movies that are risky. S craig zahler is regulated to comic books because his movies make 0 money. The reason the 70s had such great film was because they were made for an all white audience for americans. They were not global releases for browns and blacks. Everything has to be dumbed down for these people. Only white people care about independent cinema.

          This is a demographics issue. More movies are being made for the low iq hordes. You will never get a blockbuster as good jaws again because its culturally american for americans. The remake of jaws will have hispanics and blacks and a white villain.

          Also Blaxploitation was made specifically for a black american audience. Black panther is made for every black person on black earth, you see the difference,

          • 1 year ago

            Reply

            Anonymous

            >This is bs the guy who produced fight club was fired because it made no money.
            What does this even mean? You can't fire a producer after the movie is already released, and Fight Club made a killing on the DVD market. Your demographic argument is also a problem, but the financial incentives of back-end profits are a legitimate issue.

            • 1 year ago

              Reply

              Anonymous

              >but the financial incentives of back-end profits are a legitimate issue.
              We went from french connection, to fast & the furious and you think this is a money problem? All the money in the world is not going to bring back those great films. We're in a decline, those filmmakers no longer exist or cannot exist. The general audience is also too dumb and dumber each passing decade. French connection was billed as an action movie, yes that slow boring piece of shit was an action movie back then. People had the patience to sit through a slow paced movie with talking. You think Jaws can be recreated today? Do you think the audience would even want that?

              Streaming services are fine, you can find your niche series or films and enjoy them. The reason you can't find any good shit is the people today are too inept to make anything good or worthwhile. Its why straight to vhs 80s trash is better than anything made today. Boomers. White/israeli/Italian Boomers.

              Also they're millions of independent movies being made each year. And yes most of them are fricking trash. You see the other problem is that too many movies are being made thanks to digital. Every moron thinks they're the next tarantino not realising his movies could only be made in a very specific time in American Culture. The culture we have now is female, so the next big director will be a woman. The next big cultural icon will be a woman.

              • 1 year ago

                Anonymous

                >Every moron thinks they're the next tarantino
                is it because they're unoriginal and think by mixing up old classic movies they can be as successful despite lacking any hint of originality?

              • 1 year ago

                Anonymous

                you become what you study
                at least of 'the internet' is Youtube
                pulling a number out of my ass, I'd bed at least 5 percent of youtube is videos that reference Tarantino. It's fricking dumb.

                So that's who they steam from.

                But everyone steams these days is the bigger truth and it goes beyond remakes and reboots. It's too easy to make movies and look competent but say nothing worthwhile.

                Basically, the vast majority of new releases are essentially student films. Netflix adaptations. They look great, but they all look the same, tell the same types of stories the same way.

              • 1 year ago

                Anonymous

                you become what you study
                at least of 'the internet' is Youtube
                pulling a number out of my ass, I'd bed at least 5 percent of youtube is videos that reference Tarantino. It's fricking dumb.

                So that's who they steam from.

                But everyone steams these days is the bigger truth and it goes beyond remakes and reboots. It's too easy to make movies and look competent but say nothing worthwhile.

                Basically, the vast majority of new releases are essentially student films. Netflix adaptations. They look great, but they all look the same, tell the same types of stories the same way.

                tarantino is an unoriginal hack himself tho. he just got by the niche of ultra violence and witty dialogue. He isn't great as actual great directors.
                The only ones that are good and are sitll making movies nowadays are scorsese, nolan,Spielberg, And these all started their careers more than two decades ago. There's no modern great director (2010+).

              • 1 year ago

                Anonymous

                >We went from french connection, to fast & the furious and you think this is a money problem?
                In part, yes. Because financial incentives attract competent writers, directors and actors. The only real money being made now comes from franchise IP projects or sleeper hit horror movies, because it all has to come from the box office. There aren't any movie stars under 50 who can put asses in seats, because IP/genre has become the star. To incentivize classic movie making, you have to lure talent in with the possibility of a big pay day if the movie is exceptionally well made, and that has a lot to do with word-of-mouth and back end profits. Otherwise the most talented people who could've been writer-directors or movie stars end up just creating content for social media where they can actually get paid on an individual basis by their consumers.

              • 1 year ago

                Anonymous

                Matt Damon explains why they dont make movies like they used to (7)

                You dont think movies have gotten worse because of changing demographics and a mass moron audience? We all see what is being consumed what makes money. The dumb action movies from the 80s are miles apart from the dumb action movies of today. Why? You would assume with all our knowledge we would improve but it's the opposite.

                This dolph lundgren movie bombed and bombed hard trashing his career and everyone in it. Yet if this came out now it would be considered a modern classic. Thats how low we have fallen. I remember thinking die hard 4 was the worse of the franchise then they made 5. Things just keep getting worse each decade. People will look back and say "Ant Man and The Wasp was a classic miss those days, movies are shit now".

                Also we went from Crouching tiger hidden dragon, Hero, to Everything all at once. Even the asians are getting shafted.

              • 1 year ago

                Anonymous

                Both things can be true, buddy. It's not either or. But a big reason the studios are chasing international money is to make up for what's been lost in the transition from DVD > Streaming. Everything they make has to come from box office, so it makes sense that movies are increasingly dumbed down spectacle slop trying to appeal to bug people.

              • 1 year ago

                Anonymous

                Yeah the studios are greedy, they rely on the overseas money and china. They cannot and will not make movies for an american audience it has to be global. Has to be asian friendly, which is silly since these movies are filled with woke leftist propaganda. So you have woke directors but you have the money hungry producers who only care about profit, just an awful mix of people creating shit. But this is only a problem for the blockbusters. The indy scene is the same as it ever was. Mediocre to decent.

                We need blockbusters to be great again, remember the classics we all love were not niche indy projects but studio backed and funded.

              • 1 year ago

                Anonymous

                >We need blockbusters to be great again
                They never were.

              • 1 year ago

                Anonymous

                We have great female directors already?

                Tarantino worked because he was pre internet.

              • 1 year ago

                Anonymous

                Name some

    • 1 year ago

      Reply

      Anonymous

      Because streaming’s bad business design has given everyone the impression movies should be basically free. Disney tried something like this with Mulan and people lost their minds

      • 1 year ago

        Reply

        Anonymous

        because mulan was 20 bucks on top of a service you were already paying for

        that's different than paying to see it in theatres and getting a voucher in theatre for the same movie for 5 bucks

        it's not the same thing at all, especially for a live action remake of one of your properties that no one asked for

  18. 1 year ago

    Reply

    Anonymous

    Is streaming the new DVD? As in it can make good bold movies keep their heads above water? Seems like a possibility, but only if they get some sort of royalty per exhibition/watch. The movie that manages to grab an audience "later" could encourage a few filmmakers to try more stuff.

    • 1 year ago

      Reply

      Anonymous

      The people today are incapable of making good classic movies. Has nothing to do with streaming. They're too many independent filmmakers making crap no-one cares about. We need the blockbusters to regress back to the 70s-80s. Indy movies have always been niche.

    • 1 year ago

      Reply

      Anonymous

      >Is streaming the new DVD? As in it can make good bold movies keep their heads above water?
      Absolutely not. Streaming is a battle of attrition. In order to make money, streamers have to increase the amount of subscribers, or increase their subscription fees. Increasing fees encourages people to UN-subscribe, and there isn't much they can do to increase subscribers without a familiar franchise to bring morons in. So just like movie theaters, streamers keep rebooting shit but make it woke in order to farm for outrage publicity.

  19. 1 year ago

    Reply

    Anonymous

    The spicy truth is that actors dont need to make as much as they do, craft services dont need to exist, production crews need to be halved, marketing budgets need to be used intelligently, and more money and attention needs to go to writers and editors. On top of this, more chances need to be taken on the big screen, we arent out of ideas, its simply that these dinosaurs are afraid of taking a breakout risk and would rather make a safe profit on time tested formulas than make a 100k movie and pull in 10 million in profit

  20. 1 year ago

    Reply

    Anonymous

    Matt Damon explains why they dont make movies like they used to (8)

    Yep, thus you have to make slop for the pleb crowds.
    Or move to TV - so much the talent and money went there. But looks like the streaming bubble is over as well.

  21. 1 year ago

    Reply

    Anonymous

    frick boomers
    frick blockbuster and their piss carpet.

    long live Netflix.

    • 1 year ago

      Reply

      Anonymous

      Matt Damon explains why they dont make movies like they used to (9)

      >long live Netflix.
      Once in a while they deliver kino.

  22. 1 year ago

    Reply

    Anonymous

    Every time The French Connection had a VHS, DVD rental or buy, every time it aired on cable TV, all the filmmakers and actors got residual checks for it. There was a major incentive for making an enduring piece of cinema that people would return to. Nowadays it would just be tossed on a streaming service, the filmmakers would get a flat small payment and then nothing else. So we get quickly shat out pieces of slop like The Gray Man instead, because there's no reason to give a shit what anyone thinks about the movie, even a week after its release.

    • 1 year ago

      Reply

      Anonymous

      Matt Damon explains why they dont make movies like they used to (10)

      I kinda agree, but we've had kino slow burn crime thrillers but noone cares, we have so much shit is the problem. Every week some new thriller is release on apple tv or amazon. Every week some new action schlock. We have a quality problem, too many movies and series are being made. We need some quality control.

      Also the gray man was bad because the russo are tv directors and have 0 idea what makes good action also Goslin is not an action star. Now if you gave that budget to someone like Isaac florentine, sheldon lettich, you would get something decent. Even then I wouldn't hold my breath. Also its not just budget its time, 20-30 days is not enough to shoot an action flick or a thriller even. Apocalypse now for instance was around 16 months, thats how kino the 70s were.

      • 1 year ago

        Reply

        Anonymous

        Filmmakers have to make a stand against the streamers. Everything gets lumped into one commodified forgettable mess on these platforms.
        I still think this idea

        Streaming services are fine for TV, but they’re crippling the movie market. Why don’t movies just make a digital release date with a QR code link where you can buy the digital copy for $5? They’d make a shit ton more money compared to flat streaming rates and $5 would be cheap enough to dissuade torrenting as well. The same model Louis CK used for his standup specials.

        has some merit. Let the movie play its theatrical run, then at some point between 3-9 months after that, announce a digital release date. Not on any streaming platform, just a link to buy the digital copy for $5. Everyone gets a piece of those buys for residuals, you undercut the streamers and make it affordable enough for people who would've otherwise pirated it. We need a new model, because streaming fricking blows. I love movies and am subscribed to zero (0) streaming platforms.

        • 1 year ago

          Reply

          Anonymous

          >just a link to buy the digital copy for $5
          $1, at most

          and it has to be completely unencumbered
          just a plain mkv file, or better yet a selection of several at 1080p/4k, x264 or x265, and various bitrates
          most important of all, it needs to be playable on any device without restrictions, no specific player required, no drm, no geolocking, no nothing
          and especially no fricking ads anywhere

          gaben said that piracy is not a pricing problem, its a service problem
          i disagree, its both
          piracy currently offers any movie/show released in digital format (and many that weren't, but were encoded from vhs), in mkv form, various formats/bitrates, unencumbered, available 24/7, without regard to geographic location, for $0.
          i'll accept $0 becoming $1 to support the movies/shows i like
          nothing more
          add any more cost or any restrictions, deal's off.

          • 1 year ago

            Reply

            Anonymous

            >and especially no fricking ads anywhere
            Yeah I always hated this back in the dvd days. I just paid for this why are you forcing me to watch adds. These fricks always want to bleed you for every fricking penny.

            • 1 year ago

              Reply

              Anonymous

              yes.
              and as i result, i haven't paid for media since i first got adsl
              and i won't be paying for media ever again, until they get their act right

          • 1 year ago

            Reply

            Anonymous

            gayben was right that I'll pay $15-30 for something I've already pirated just to get automatic updates instead of having to bother downloading and installing every time it's patched.

            • 1 year ago

              Reply

              Anonymous

              for games, maybe
              updates/patches/dlcs are worth some money, as is centralized multiplayer with proper matchmaking

              movies have none of that
              there's no updates or dlc for the godfather
              maybe i'd be inclined to drop another dollar on a 4k scan of a movie previously only available in 1080p or dvd
              but that's it

              • 1 year ago

                Anonymous

                >maybe i'd be inclined to drop another dollar on a 4k scan of a movie previously only available in 1080p or dvd
                >but that's it
                Give me a "white actors only" dlc and I'll pay it

        • 1 year ago

          Reply

          Anonymous

          Matt Damon explains why they dont make movies like they used to (11)

          I agree I just don't think we have those filmmakers. Those based boomers would go as far as almost kill their crews to get a shot. Now if you so much as raise your tone you're labeled toxic and thrown out of hollywood. Its the people behind the scenes. They're remaking wages of fear again. Imagine that. Friedkin almost killed his crew for his masterpiece and went over budget and they plan to make another one. You see the problem we're facing.

          • 1 year ago

            Reply

            Anonymous

            Tbf alec baldwin still does that

          • 1 year ago

            Reply

            Anonymous

            I'm an aspiring writer-director who has written 15+ spec scripts and still trying to break in. If I ever get my shot I'm going to propose the direct-download model and fight to keep my stuff away from streaming platforms. An issue I can see arising though, let's say WB bought my script and lets me make my movie... they're going to want it on their shitty Max streaming service. It's going to be tough to convince them of the direct download model, because so many resources have already been poured into streaming. But someone has to buck this shitty trend.

            • 1 year ago

              Reply

              Anonymous

              Time to give up. If you really cared you would have self-financed by now.

              • 1 year ago

                Anonymous

                >just self finance $5m and hire an entire cast/crew with no connections bro
                It's everything I can do just to keep paying my rent in LA. I don't come from money.

                There's no need to buck the trend. just agree for a % share of streaming revenue. though that's hard to actually agree upon. You can't wrestle with big studios as a first time writer/director. you need clout.

                The quality of the writing should afford me a certain amount of first-timer clout, but haven't gotten the lucky break of the right eyes landing on my pages yet. Need the Harvey Keitel reading Reservoir Dogs kind of moment. Just doesn't seem to be many independent producers like Lawrence Bender or Weinstein anymore who will take a shot on something new and unproven.

              • 1 year ago

                Anonymous

                > It's everything I can do just to keep paying my rent in LA. I don't come from money.
                >too stupid to manage his own finances
                >too stupid to write any of his 15 scripts for a small budget
                >expects someone to give him multi-millions in a gamble
                Give up. Focus on getting really good at flipping those burgers/washing cars/whatever it is you do to feed yourself.

            • 1 year ago

              Reply

              Anonymous

              There's no need to buck the trend. just agree for a % share of streaming revenue. though that's hard to actually agree upon. You can't wrestle with big studios as a first time writer/director. you need clout.

        • 1 year ago

          Reply

          Anonymous

          Matt Damon explains why they dont make movies like they used to (12)

          I agree I just don't think we have those filmmakers. Those based boomers would go as far as almost kill their crews to get a shot. Now if you so much as raise your tone you're labeled toxic and thrown out of hollywood. Its the people behind the scenes. They're remaking wages of fear again. Imagine that. Friedkin almost killed his crew for his masterpiece and went over budget and they plan to make another one. You see the problem we're facing.

          why would they? everyone who's interested on martin or nolan movies will seek it. the only ones that get forgotten are already forgettable. 99% of directors are forgettable.

          • 1 year ago

            Reply

            Anonymous

            Matt Damon explains why they dont make movies like they used to (13)

            >99% of directors are forgettable.
            Who cares as long as they deliver kino. Quality vs Quantity. Too many movies being created and not enough kino. Half the 80s movies were made by nobody people remember. Like my Black person who made first blood,The Karate Kid, Stand by Me, Ghostbusters? Bunch of nobodies people care about.

            • 1 year ago

              Reply

              Anonymous

              >Quality vs Quantity. Too many movies being created and not enough kino
              this
              im fricking tired of opening rargb and seeing tons of new 4-5/10 rating movies

      • 1 year ago

        Reply

        Anonymous

        Matt Damon explains why they dont make movies like they used to (14)

        >Also its not just budget its time, 20-30 days is not enough to shoot an action flick or a thriller even. Apocalypse now for instance was around 16 months, thats how kino the 70s were.
        You are a fricking moron.
        You have no idea what you are talking about.

        • 1 year ago

          Reply

          Anonymous

          explain?

          • 1 year ago

            Reply

            Anonymous

            Nta but you seem to think apocalypse now was an action film or a thriller.

  23. 1 year ago

    Reply

    Anonymous

    Here's why Hollywood sucks now
    1. Inflation
    2. Hollywood's unionized nature
    3. Throwing gays and blacks in everything
    4. Nepotism
    5. Writers trying to be edgy rather than actually entertaining an audience
    6. Most stories that would be popular are against Hollywood's politics, so they aren't filmed
    7. The movie theater experience is absolute shit now

  24. 1 year ago

    Reply

    Anonymous

    I think $5 is reasonable. Still a lot cheaper than a theater ticket, streaming subscription or a DVD buy. I would definitely pay $5 to support quality original filmmaking and help collapse the streaming monopoly.

  25. 1 year ago

    Reply

    Anonymous

    Movies are boring boomer shit. I'd rather just watch twitch and youtube if I want long videos

  26. 1 year ago

    Reply

    Anonymous

    codswallop all of it, just like craig bond's insisting they can't make comfy campy action anymore because austin powers ridiculed the genre.
    The reason is that there is just way more creative will at the top that wants to extract the guaranteed "bored & stupid" money from lowest common denominator "crypto"-political stuff.

  27. 1 year ago

    Reply

    Anonymous

    >ignoring streaming rights revenue
    Sure thing pal

  28. 1 year ago

    Reply

    Anonymous

    The real answer is that all modern media is made for middle aged women, and they have no standards.
    Except for asian media which is all aimed at teenage women, who have even less standards.

Matt Damon explains why they dont make movies like they used to (2024)

References

Top Articles
Latest Posts
Recommended Articles
Article information

Author: Delena Feil

Last Updated:

Views: 5669

Rating: 4.4 / 5 (45 voted)

Reviews: 92% of readers found this page helpful

Author information

Name: Delena Feil

Birthday: 1998-08-29

Address: 747 Lubowitz Run, Sidmouth, HI 90646-5543

Phone: +99513241752844

Job: Design Supervisor

Hobby: Digital arts, Lacemaking, Air sports, Running, Scouting, Shooting, Puzzles

Introduction: My name is Delena Feil, I am a clean, splendid, calm, fancy, jolly, bright, faithful person who loves writing and wants to share my knowledge and understanding with you.