Remix.run Logo
awongh 7 hours ago

The cultural relevance of movies, and American made movies isn't going anywhere anytime soon, but I think the economics of streaming is finally playing out in the loss of the geographical concentration of power in Hollywood and California.

This is the endgame of the feedback loop of streamers causing industry consolidation... the direct connection of dollars people spend to sit in a theatre seat was slowly declining, but now I think it's gotten so small that it no longer matters- and once the whole box-office feedback loop disappears a lot of the economics of how films are produced are being forced to change.

One of the reasons that people have loved to make fun of Hollywood for literally it's entire existence (besides the fact that the meta talk is self-indulgent artist stuff) is that making movies with so much money and waste is fundamentally ridiculous.

The optimistic viewpoint is that maybe new AI production tools will trigger a re-democratization of creative movies in the next wave, like in the 70s and the 90s indies.

jrowen 4 hours ago | parent | next [-]

I think the issue is that content creation and distribution has already been fully democratized. How many hours do people spend watching videos shot by individuals on their phones in their apartments?

Combined with streaming, there's just an overabundance of "good enough" content at everyone's fingertips. The moat that protected big-budget feature films is gone. You don't see a trailer for a movie and salivate and wait for it to come out, it just blends in to the stream of 5000 other things you can watch right now.

awongh 4 hours ago | parent [-]

Like I said elsewhere, I think people still want to watch 1+ hour fiction stories that are compelling. This is a broad category that I think people still want that's differentiated from 30sec vertical video, and that should exist in the cultural conversation.

It doesn't feel fully democratized because if it was, you'd see more indie things in this same format competing with "big budget" movies on the same playing field.

epolanski 2 hours ago | parent | next [-]

> I think people still want to watch 1+ hour fiction stories that are compelling

Might be an anecdote, but I've noticed several friends and family unable to focus on a movie and lately even on a tv show without pulling their phones every few minutes.

jrowen 4 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

> I think people still want to watch 1+ hour fiction stories that are compelling.

I mean, "want to" is one thing, but the numbers show what they end up doing. Instagram and TikTok, like video games as someone else mentioned, have taken a significant share of the "entertainment hours" budget. I feel like the impact of the low-to-no-budget content creator is undeniable (this traces back to ebaumsworld and early YouTube, it was just internet dorks then, now it's been industrialized. Gen Z probably wholeheartedly prefers this type of content).

My point was that content creation has been democratized -- unfunded individuals can now compete -- not that making traditional Hollywood-style movies has been. It's gone so far they've been phased out, the entire premise is largely untenable at this point. That specific sector was actually somewhat more democratized in the late stages of the heyday, when a Hollywood movie called Dude, Where's My Car was made, and indie films did flourish because the industry was healthy enough to support them.

epolanski 2 hours ago | parent [-]

> Gen Z probably wholeheartedly prefers this type of content

I think it's virtually all demographics below 70.

My 60/70 years old family are all too distracted by the phones to watch a movie, and so are millenial friends.

jrowen an hour ago | parent [-]

True but I think a lot of them would be in the "I totally want to watch feature films" camp. By wholeheartedly I meant that the kids don't even have that pretense.

fullshark 7 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Cultural relevance of movies is already greatly diminished. Maybe these AI tools will trigger a reversion of movies to the days of the nickelodeons where plot, story, and character are irrelevant and people just shell out money (attention) as long as the moving image looks cool.

awongh 7 hours ago | parent [-]

Can't it be both? In Marvel movies the plot, story, and characters are irrelevant and it's still the current greatest American cultural export.

marcosdumay 5 hours ago | parent | next [-]

You may want to watch again the movies that created the franchise.

All the successful Marvel movies are completely based on the characters.

bluefirebrand 4 hours ago | parent [-]

A lot of the best Marvel movies are really other genres wearing a marvel skin

Look at Captain America: The First Avenger. It's a pulpy world war 2 film, really. If you took Captain America out it would still be a fun film. Captain America: The Winter Soldier is a spy thriller

Ant Man is a heist movie, like Oceans 11. Guardians is a sci fi comedy.

After a while they started to all just become "Marvel Movies" and that's the point they stopped being nearly as fun imo

underlipton an hour ago | parent | next [-]

A lot of them are only "Marvel Movies" in their final act, which still leaves a lot of room for fun genre-surfing and -bending, before they have to get back to the business of, "This is part of a franchise." But even on that note, I don't think they get enough credit. Phases 1-3, Marvel et al. managed to wrangle a dozen films of varying genres, working through the stories of just as many main characters, into a single series with a coherent, overarching narrative. It was the biggest spectacle ever created in the Spectacle Industry, yet with a handful of examples of genuine cinematic sublimity (if not entire films, at least a few scenes), to boot.

And people would rather hate than just ride the wave.

awongh 4 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Right, most of the context of who the original characters were and represented in the comic books are washed away in the movie versions- it's just a marketing thing that draws people in.

Batman and the different actors and directors over the different versions of the franchise is another example.

fullshark 7 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

There will be some creative people that can now tell stories they couldn't before with AI, but I think by and large the major use case is to create short form video clips to get attention on the internet (advertising). I don't foresee a "movie" (meaning narrative story told via visuals and sounds in 1-3 hours) renaissance happening, in part because I think the form is fully mature and there's not really much more that can be done with it. It's essentially gonna be where Jazz music is today in 40 years, it will have its fans, and there will be talented practitioners, but every year it will be more and more culturally irrelevant.

awongh 6 hours ago | parent [-]

It could be "film" as a medium is dead- but most likely 1+ hour video fictional story telling as a medium is just a very broad category and will probably continue to exist as a format that people enjoy.

It could be that in 20 years the Oscars are like the Jazz awards (the Grammys? - I listen to Jazz but I can't name a single Jazz Grammy winner)

underlipton 39 minutes ago | parent | next [-]

Samara Joy, famously, for the past few years.

https://www.facebook.com/CBSMornings/videos/start-your-morni...

https://www.cbsnews.com/video/saturday-sessions-samara-joy-p...

whycome 4 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

You mean the Gramophone awards where they hand you a little mini gramophone statue.

philwelch 7 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

They might have been in the last decade, but now it’s just yet another franchise audiences have stopped caring about.

sbarre 7 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

As much as I support unions and labour rights, the last SAG-AFTRA strike mostly just helped the big studios realize they could do more with less.

Hollywood is a factory town at the end of the day, and we all know what happened to most factory towns in America. This one is just getting there a few decades after the others.

ThrowawayR2 4 hours ago | parent | next [-]

Ironic that pro-unionization people on HN frequently use SAG as an example of what a software industry union could look like. Ignoring that that's absurd (no other engineering union I know of works like that), just as the parent highlights, unions won't make a difference when the economics of an industry no longer make sense and that is what is happening to software right now.

awongh 2 hours ago | parent | next [-]

One of the main differences I've heard referenced is that acting and being a movie star means that the work is fundamentally differentiable via the end-product, where producing software is meant to have the same outcome no matter who creates it.

That is just not the case with acting, where the end product being differentiable is part of the inherent value of the product.

Also, it's probably true that SAG's loss of industry power has very much to do with the loss of the power of movie stars in general.

shimman 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Don't really see anyone doing this, more like the pro-union arguments I see on HN are mostly about getting paid for on-call, wanting a worker elected member to the board, and having leadership actually held accountable for their decisions.

Getting paid for being on-call seems straight forward to me.

awongh 7 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

This is definitely another case where a union could either understand where the bigger economic forces are headed (in this case globalization, IP licensing, residuals that no longer make sense, attention economy fracturing the marketplace etc) and adapt to how people will consume content in the future, or double down on an economic model that is one generation behind.

In theory the union is the only org capable of standing up to the streamers' buying power, but it has to make sense within a business model where consumers pay one monthly fee for content. I'm not even sure what that really looks like in the end.

Maybe it's also that the FTC allowed all this monopolization to happen, and turns out that having three media companies in the US is bad.

raw_anon_1111 6 hours ago | parent [-]

How will unions help stand up to streamers? Many of the “Netflix originals” are already just co financed or licensed foreign films and many others are filmed in Canada.

People always think unions are magic when I saw in my small town where I grew up in South GA was that when union demands got to onerous - factories just picked up and left.

Just like software engineers scream unionization when tech companies can just expand departments overseas and as a bonus, they don’t have to worry about H1B shifting policies

epolanski 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Small but important correction: the biggest issue for the movie industry aren't streaming services or them filming in locations with good tax incentives like UK or Australia but Youtube.

It's hard to compete with millions of videomakers, some of them extremely skilled and able to produce interesting content on a budget.

cnobody 4 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

American movies suck.

closewith 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

The cultural relevance of all kinds of American media has been declining as the U.S. is not cool or aspirational anymore.

HerbManic 2 hours ago | parent | next [-]

For some nations there is still a sort of paternal fixation with US influence but it does seem to be fading with time. Couldnt point to any one factor than maybe just an overall sort of boredom of it.

awongh 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

It's easy to say that because the whole idea of "movies" has been fundamentally linked to the USA for the last 60-70 years. So if nowadays there are a few other countries who also have "movies", you could say it's true, but it speaks more to the level of cultural dominance and soft power USA movies have held up to this point than anything.

jrowen 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Can you comment further on this? As an American it's kind of hard to see that. Is this just kind of a temporary reaction to the Trump administration or a larger trend? What is taking its place? Are there more localized media pockets (e.g. is there a significant German-language Instagram influencer world)? Geographically which areas are you talking about?

the_af 7 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

> The optimistic viewpoint is that maybe new AI production tools will trigger a re-democratization of creative movies

I don't think so.

Part of the downfall of movies -- blockbusters movies anyway, the kind where being a box office hit matters -- is that they have seemed produced like AI slop even before AI. Making it easier to produce more slop isn't going to fix this.

Then there's one thing making noise in my brain. It's not polite to say it, but here it is anyway: should movies be democratized? And art in general? Maybe people without the means of making art that reaches millions shouldn't be enabled by AI. Maybe it's ok that not everyone can produce this kind of art. Maybe the world is saved from a crapton of, well, garbage. More than what's currently being produced, anyway.

As for non-blockbuster art, it's already democratic. Everyone can grab a phone camera or a paintbrush and create art for their friends and family. And that's ok.

jl6 7 hours ago | parent | next [-]

Anton Ego in Ratatouille gives this take on what democratization should mean:

Not everyone can become a great artist, but a great artist can come from anywhere.

the_af 6 hours ago | parent [-]

That's a pretty good take, I think.

What I object to is this notion that everyone should make art, and that AI empowers them. As in (and yes, I've read this, I'm not making this up) "people without writing skills can now write novels". That seems wrong to me. People without writing skills (or drawing, or movie making) should not be making those things.

mentalgear 6 hours ago | parent [-]

I would distinguish: they could make them for their own entertainment, but should not market them. But come to think about it, how much non-AI slop is out there that has become popular from entities with no or mediocre talent in it: generic Hollywood blockbusters, supplements, yellow papers, influencers ... all slop that became popular not due to its quality but secondary resources in form of marketing, placement and persistence of the propellants.

the_af 4 hours ago | parent [-]

Yes, I thought of this too: the industry was full of slop way before AI. We spoke of "Netflix's algorithm", but even before Netflix blockbuster movies were done with a cookie cutter. Transformers (to pick one example) existed way before this brand of AI. Movies like it are perfect candidates to be prompted and built by an AI, since they were almost there anyway.

I can't help but think this "AI empowerment" will make it even easier for studios to produce more garbage at an unprecedented pace. And they won't have to even let actors age gracefully and die; now we can have Tom Cruise (or whomever, pick your poison) forever.

SoftTalker 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

For me the "blockbuster" movies use so much CGI that it's impossible to suspend disbelief. They've gone too far and ruined the experience. AI will only make it worse.

ThrowawayR2 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Democratization is a specious argument. The artistry in an AI assisted work is the part that the human contributes as opposed to the the part that the AI contributes. If the human contribution is negligible, the artistry is negligible and there is no meaningful democratization because there was only token artistic intent in the first place.

And what's actually happening with AI? Someone mentioned in another submission that 7500 new books _per day_ are being released on Amazon Kindle. The wave of low quality AI submissions to HN was so severe that the HN mods had to restrict them. Whatever democratization is actually happening is drowned out by those taking advantage of the low cost of AI slop for profit.

awongh 6 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

In the end people have limited number of hours to watch content, and only a few things bubble up to the popular attention.

What I meant is that I don't see truly indie-produced feature films reach the zeitgeist anymore.

I don't mean AI slop, but the next gen of creative tools that will allow people to make cool and creative and compelling stuff without the backing of 100's of millions of dollars.

It seems like movies are just another cyclical creative industry and this has already happened multiple times before- with each new technology and distribution platform there's the potential to get a wave of creative output that wasn't possible before.

Another aspect could be that the hollowing out of the top / polarization of the industry is another catalyst.

It could be enough that people who don't work on 100's of million dollar budget films get funding to do the next 1 million dollar film that looks great and is amazing.

That's more analogous to the SaaS startup boom that happened in the previous gen of tech startups. Initial costs went down and platform access went up.

raw_anon_1111 4 hours ago | parent | next [-]

They don’t have to reach the zeitgeist. Tyler Perry has made a good living producing crappy movies and plays that appeal to certain demographic. It’s a lot easier to get 5x ROI on a $5 million movie than a $200 million movie.

Before the pearl clutching starts - yes I’m Black.

the_af 6 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

> What I meant is that I don't see truly indie-produced feature films reach the zeitgeist anymore.

Maybe they shouldn't. Maybe word of mouth from among those in your circle of friends that have good taste is enough. I'm not sure that blockbuster cinema reaching millions is tenable, or a good thing.

As for "watching content"... yuck, I hate the word "content".

gzread 3 hours ago | parent | next [-]

Saw this link posted elsewhere on HN: https://fgiesen.wordpress.com/2025/07/06/content-creator/

Summary: it's okay to talk about "content" if you're a "content plumber" like some kind of backend video engineer or sysadmin, someone whose job is to help the bits get to the viewers and doesn't need to care what the bits represent. It's not okay if you're a director, actor or viewer, someone who's actually interacting with the the specific piece of content.

awongh 4 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

> Maybe they shouldn't

looking at the last 4 years of world events, I think some people already have some nostalgia for a shared cultural experience, instead of everyone being in their own algorithmically and socio-culturally / demographically segregated bubbles. Or maybe it's just looking back with rose colored glasses shrug

vl 2 hours ago | parent | next [-]

Arguably this existed for the limited time in history with invention of over-the-air TV and ended with advent of cable. Event before internet streaming nobody watched same stuff anymore.

the_af 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

To be honest, I'm ambivalent about it. I do value a shared experience (contradicting somewhat what I wrote earlier). I don't have everything figured out...