Ark of the Lost Angels

The Senator Theatre (Credit: Austin Kirk)

Movies are now being made by committee, which smothers creativity.

Sam Wilson is Captain America. His debut as leading a movie, Captain America: Brave New World, is not a great film. This is not a “movie is bad because woke!” type of article. Rather it’s one of frustration with Marvel Studios wasting the potential of an incredibly fun, interesting, and diverse slate of characters played by a collection of fantastic actors. It’s a disservice to Sam Wilson as a character and Anthony Mackie as an actor to hamstring them with a movie that was made by focus groups and corporate boards rather than by a creative with a unified and consistent vision. That’s a problem cropping up all over the entertainment industry.

Marvel movies used to stand for a measure of quality storytelling and action that was a cut above the average action film. They were fun, had heart, and knew what they were trying to say. Even if the execution was a little clumsy. However, the MCU films since Avengers Endgame have followed a trend of “build the movie in post” wherein a script is written, the movie is shot, but the final direction and structure of the movies aren’t ironed out until the editing room when VFX comes in. That’s before the reshoots which are all too common these days. Not to say that reshoots are inherently bad, in fact Rogue One reshot the entire third act and it seems the movie was better for it. However, reshooting a majority of the movie as a consistent tactic has not helped Marvel movies regain the esteem they used to inspire in the viewing public.

Speaking of, Star Wars is another franchise which also suffers from the Marvel problems of movies built by committee. The Rise of Skywalker couldn’t agree on some of the main plot points such as Rey’s lineage until the final edit was being assembled, long after the actors had left the soundstages. Many of the actors were uncertain of their characters’ motivations, actions, and futures. It ties up their ability to act. It speaks to the growing trend of movies and television shows being created by committee in the worst way possible.

It’s the long burning war between art and commerce. Art is hanging in there, but commerce is the one winning these days.

A Night at the Cinema

Seinfeld is perhaps the most prolific sitcom in the modern era. It set the standard for what modern sitcoms have become in a way that still inspires new shows which have all lived and died in its shadow, as well as many which have broken out of it. Modern viewers, however, will often say “Seinfeld is unfunny” so much so that TV Tropes has a page by that very name to describe how certain things are copied from a prolific work so much that the original doesn’t seem as groundbreaking in retrospect by new viewers.

A very common Seinfeld plotline would be the gang going to see a movie, and hijinks ensuing. From the movie being sold out to having loud talkers to Kramer taking the place of MovieFone thanks to a misprinted number in the paper, a night at the cinema was a frequent focus for an episode. In the 1990s, going out to catch a movie was a fun, affordable evening activity.

Movies don’t bring in the casual audiences they did in the past. Rising ticket prices mean films are less accessible for general audiences. Rising budgets mean every film needs to make immense amounts of profit. This kills creativity because every movie has to appeal to wider audiences. It’s also expensive for movies to have long theatrical runs. Movies used to have very long theatrical runs, months sometimes. 2009’s Avatar was in theaters for so long that home video copies came with tickets to see the movie in theaters. Now, movies are barely in the cinemas for six weeks before their runs end.

Thus, going to the movies is not a simple night out the way it used to be. Movie theaters have increasingly become luxury experiences. Where tickets used to be $7.50 a person, now they are close to $25.00. Concessions also shot through the roof, and what is a movie without candy and popcorn? As a result, the casual moviegoer makes a night at the cinema a much rarer occasion. No longer is catching a movie one’s normal Tuesday night, it is a planned event, with reserved seats. More than that, going to the movies is something for which it much be budgeted.

Thus, the kinds of movies making it into theaters are either the fairly low-budget artistic pieces made to try and win Oscars, or the massive blockbusters with budgets in the hundreds of millions before advertising which require massive box office returns to make the studio a profit. Multiple movie stars, such as Matt Damon and George Clooney have talked about how the theatrically released mid-budget movie has been killed in favor of the blockbuster. Theatrical runs are now required to recoup much larger deficits in order to be profitable, meaning they have to bring in more viewers. With most of the smaller-budget movies being dumped directly onto streaming platforms, the streaming platforms get to dictate more of how those movies are made.

Battle of the Box Office

Essentially, art and creativity get screwed on both ends. Big movies have to have as wide of an appeal as possible. Smaller movies are typically commissioned to fit a certain company’s brand. Established directors are able to command a little more latitude for their creative visions, but for the most part, movies and television shows are now made with potential audiences, focus groups, and corporate interests in mind.

Distributors and studios becoming more intertwined means the profitability is paramount. Cutting corners and making production as cheap as possible for mass production of products are large concerns. For these reasons, Netflix shows tend to have a specific look to them. Bland, inoffensive, and having as large of a potential audience as possible. It’s all about maximizing the potential reach without alienating any subset of the potential viewers. Films and television shows no longer can go after an audience, they need to go after the audience. Ironically, the sheer volume of content being produced in the modern era is causing a backfire. Rather than smaller quantities of higher quality material being produced, the zone is flooded with lower-quality movies and television shows which won’t be memorable in a month. Nor are they masterpieces crafted with care, but soulless products.

Mostly because the old mid-budget entertainment isn’t made for fun, it’s made to produce a steady flow of content which will keep subscribers engaged on streaming services.

Netflix in particular is pivoting towards a “casual viewing” model of production. These are shows meant to be put on in the background, leading to baffling directives such as having characters announce whatever they are doing to not lose people not actively watching what they’re watching. Sure, there used to be a time when daytime TV was good for putting on while doing chores around the house, which would roll into syndicated sitcoms and then children’s television around when kids got home from school. But to plan for shows, which on streaming can be watched at the viewer’s leisure, to be geared towards an audience not actively watching them only serves to hamper creative freedom.

How many great moments across cinematic history were achieved with no dialogue at all?

The mis-centralization of creativity isn’t a good thing. Having the artistic direction of a film rest with studio minds and business leaders instead of creatives results in fewer risks being taken. Creative risks are further downgraded when these films are commissioned to fulfill a need for content with similar appeal to something else rather than watching something rise on its own merits.

No Clear Direction

The financial requirements for heavier studio involvement strip away the art of the creative process in ways which negatively affect the movies. Often times, this means directors are chosen by studios because of how willing they will be to execute the studio’s demands, not because the studio wishes to allow the director to realize their vision for the movie. Without one voice guiding the entire collaborative effort in realizing a vision, a lot of movies tend to fall short.

Another issue is that writing has fallen off in recent years. Professional writers have specific skillsets often overlooked by movies. It doesn’t take a trained writer to write a screenplay, but it does take one to craft an engaging narrative. The problem with movies and prose writing is that they are very different. With screenwriting becoming so prolific, however, many of the common pitfalls in movies are affecting prose writers as well. When bad habits in prose are being taught to writers, when they want to adapt their craft for the screen, those bad habits will carry over and doubtlessly be added with new ones.

Mediocre writing can be salvaged with great cinematography, acting, sound design, and visual effects. However, a film with passable writing will miss out on the narrative and character development that makes a film memorable. Clever dialogue can only be written by a clever writer. Knowing how to use the tropes or break them in novel ways is what makes the difference between a passable, paint-by-numbers film and a truly memorable piece of cinema. Knowing how to use narrative techniques to mislead the audience can make for some truly memorable twists.

The best of films know how to use character, plot, foreshadowing, dialogue, and the vast array of narrative and character devices to make an impact on the audience. The absence of good writers is partially to blame for many films turning out ‘bad.’ The core messages and themes are distilled through proficient writing. For writers, there are plenty of lessons to be learned by these poorly written movies. For movie fans, however, the lack of quality writers is fully a problem.

Unfortunately, in the age of movies and television as content, writers are seen as the least useful to invest in. Story, plot, and characters are no longer seen as important. Movies have placed an increase focus on spectacle over substance. This comes through especially due to the fact that movies are no longer planned ahead of time as much as they previously were, instead they are assembled in the editing room using visual effects.

The switch to primarily digital filmmaking has let moviemakers get lazier with their technique. Film is expensive to use when shooting a movie. It’s why storyboards, rehearsals, and skilled cast and crews were vital to the success of movies which never really shifted the paradigm in supremely impactful ways. When every second the camera was running burned dollars in significant ways, the camera was only run when it was capturing something worth saving. Obviously there were multiple takes, and obviously reshoots happened, and no film production was perfect. The limitations of film forced filmmakers to be much more deliberate with how they used their recording equipment. It also meant movie and television production were more resource intensive, leading to fewer productions making it from concept to finished product. In some ways, this means that there is less pressure to make something as best as possible.

That is not to say that all films are shot perfectly from the jump. Reshoots are what happen when scenes or shots are done over again after principal photography is finished. Reshoots are not inherently bad. They are an often used technique in the business to fix mistakes not noticed until editing begins, or to change scenes for the better. Some filmmakers, like Christopher Nolan, do not use reshoots as a matter of principle. According to Nolan, proper planning and finding the film in the editing are what makes the product as great as it is.

Finding the film in the edit, however, comes with its own set of pitfalls. As with The Rise of Skywalker, and many of the recent Marvel movies, it is impossible for an actor to ground themselves in the moment if they are not certain of when that moment will occur in the movie. Entire sequences being shifted around can lead to major discontinuity between moments, which takes the audience out of a film. It’s also impossible for an actor to properly convey the emotions behind a pivotal moment if the facts behind that moment are not nailed down ahead of time.

In essence, the corporatization of filmmaking today is leading to the worst parts of making movies being exacerbated. The need to be profitable, the flexibility of digital recording, and the shift of film and television away from being artforms to being content all have contributed to the degradation in average quality of films.

What to Do, What to Do

The best ways to keep art from losing in the battle to commerce is to spend the money where it needs to be spent. Try and catch movies at local cinemas, not major chains (easier said than done). Purchase the home media rather than simply relying on catching shows and movies on streaming services. Give a little to the crowdfunding campaign of the high school classmate trying to make their movie independent of the theaters and vote for the finished products for accolades or spots in film festivals.

Above all, keep creating. No matter what type of art you create, keep making it. Art grounds us in troubled times, inspires us in dark hours. Art can make us laugh when we need to and cry when we should. It gives us someone to root for. It gives us an escape from our troubles. It takes us to far away fantastical worlds and brings history to life in front of our very eyes. The battle of art and commerce has been burning so long as both have existed.

Maybe art will lose one day for good. Though it’s highly unlikely, it’s better to make sure it goes out swinging if it does.