SkyBlueFlux
Well-Known Member
I think while some people have rightfully been citing films from the last 20 years that have been good (and I agree there are many) I do think there is a decent point under the sentiment in the OP. The thing is, I don't think it's specific to film media. I think this is another aspect of what I think of as a sort of internet-driven popular cultural homogenisation. You see similar things across other domains like music. Things in the mainstream increasingly feel safe and a bit lacking in originality.
I'm not claiming this as original thinking, I've seen many people talk about it. Back in the 1990s and the decades before that, cultural events were very much a kind of Darwinian phenomena. There was a finite set of films, music and TV that was available to the popular masses, and so if one thing caught on and gained popularity it would quickly become a shared experience of that generation - think how back in those times, you could reliably assume that everybody had seen what was on TV the night before, which songs they heard on the radio or what they had gone to watch at the cinema that weekend. The "best ideas win" and they gain the space.
We don't have that any more, and the reason why is because the internet has done two things - firstly, it has led to people being able to find their own "clique" or "in-group" among the masses. People making niche content can strictly market and sell that content to the niche target audience, and they can be successful without ever having to touch or interact with mainstream media channels and mechanisms. This makes it less likely that somebody who isn't into... metal music, for example.... will ever experience or hear metal music. It has completely siloed people off into alternative cultural baskets, and there is very little cross-pollination going on. The second thing, which is what the OP is noticing, is that because of this hyper-fragmented cultural landscape, the big media companies e.g. Disney, WBs, Netflix or whoever else - have found that their viable market has shrunk, and so to achieve the same results they market their work to the widest possible audience. All of those alternative folks who might have watched a TV show 30-40 years ago because there was very little choice, are no longer viable target audience members. They're off watching their niche indie cinema on some obscure film-buff website.
The result of this is that those who enjoy niche interests are in their fragmented pockets enjoying the niche interests. Those niche interests never end up coming into contact with mainstream interests. The mainstream interests become increasingly beige, vanilla and safe to ensure they're capturing the widest audience. IP that is based on the tried and tested e.g. sequels, prequels, reboots, become the order of the day. Never take a risk, because risks no longer work.
This is all very general observation, and I think there are probably lots of good counterpoints and exceptions to what I've just written. I write this because this explanation feels like the one that best fits my anecdotal experience.
I'm not claiming this as original thinking, I've seen many people talk about it. Back in the 1990s and the decades before that, cultural events were very much a kind of Darwinian phenomena. There was a finite set of films, music and TV that was available to the popular masses, and so if one thing caught on and gained popularity it would quickly become a shared experience of that generation - think how back in those times, you could reliably assume that everybody had seen what was on TV the night before, which songs they heard on the radio or what they had gone to watch at the cinema that weekend. The "best ideas win" and they gain the space.
We don't have that any more, and the reason why is because the internet has done two things - firstly, it has led to people being able to find their own "clique" or "in-group" among the masses. People making niche content can strictly market and sell that content to the niche target audience, and they can be successful without ever having to touch or interact with mainstream media channels and mechanisms. This makes it less likely that somebody who isn't into... metal music, for example.... will ever experience or hear metal music. It has completely siloed people off into alternative cultural baskets, and there is very little cross-pollination going on. The second thing, which is what the OP is noticing, is that because of this hyper-fragmented cultural landscape, the big media companies e.g. Disney, WBs, Netflix or whoever else - have found that their viable market has shrunk, and so to achieve the same results they market their work to the widest possible audience. All of those alternative folks who might have watched a TV show 30-40 years ago because there was very little choice, are no longer viable target audience members. They're off watching their niche indie cinema on some obscure film-buff website.
The result of this is that those who enjoy niche interests are in their fragmented pockets enjoying the niche interests. Those niche interests never end up coming into contact with mainstream interests. The mainstream interests become increasingly beige, vanilla and safe to ensure they're capturing the widest audience. IP that is based on the tried and tested e.g. sequels, prequels, reboots, become the order of the day. Never take a risk, because risks no longer work.
This is all very general observation, and I think there are probably lots of good counterpoints and exceptions to what I've just written. I write this because this explanation feels like the one that best fits my anecdotal experience.
