Influential? Yes. Was that influence for the betterment of humanity? I’m not sure. Beyond the slop many of the classics were deeply racist and built on immoral exploitation. Yes all those artists did great work but they did it in terrible conditions for where near enough pay.

Take apocalypse now: a great piece of art. Was it worth the pain and suffering of its production? Absolutely not.

▲

Yokohiii 2 hours ago | parent [-]

Terrible historical practices/immoral productions shouldn't the reason alone for such dismissal. Every industry had it's fair share of terrible things. Sometimes, we learn to do better. There are also enough ongoing things to be worried about.

Hollywood should implode and hopefully the art form will resurrect for the better. But for me the primary reason is that they don't live up to what they are supposed to do. Creating good art.

▲

rimbo789 2 hours ago | parent [-]

Hollywood was never about making art. It was about making money. That some good art came out of it was an accident of the process.

Do I want movies to survive? Sure. But Hollywood as a thing was about vacuuming up every penny it could and that I do not grieve.

	▲	Yokohiii an hour ago \| parent [-]
		The greed is the same for all players and industries. I don't see why hollywood's situation is different. They just failed to adapt to new conditions. I agree that the good stuff is just a result of shotgunning, for every great movie, there are 100 that are forgettable. But we have the habit of concentrating power in one place, so I have no clue how it could be otherwise. Sure youtube is an alternative with myriad of independent creators, but it produced totally different outcomes.