Are audiences are to blame for the death of cinema? Are most people just not interested in good movies?

What's likelier is the dude on the plane watched a youtube compilation like "The Raid and The Raid 2 all action scenes" I found one like that was like fucking 30 minutes long or something. It took 2 minutes for my friend to put it down and want to watch them.
I don't see how it's any different than a trailer. If your goal is to entice somebody to watch something you think they'd like (esp. outside their comfort zone) giving them the gist of what that will look like is a good idea.
Books have backcovers.
Music has an autistically deep sub-and-microgenre fascination.
Movies have trailers and then fans of said movies make compilations.
Shit, how many kids watched an anime cause it had music they liked synced up by a fan of both the anime and the song on youtube somewhere causing a spiral of interest without a single word spoken.
It's madness to think accessing movies is somehow denigrating the experience of the movies themselves.
It's the type of nouveau riche mentality of pulling the ladder up to spite the folks slower. It's what happens when these amazing films get locked behind film festivals and never get wider release or cuts online. That's the real masturbation, the quick stroke to get off, not somebody on a plane queueing up "John Wick 1 epic takedowns"

cinema is treated as "content" solely because of the industry; not just the film industry but entertainment industry in general, and this includes social media. audiences are a product of their heteronomously curated environment.

I stream all my movies in low quality and no longer care about film really. I just get high and watch movies to fill the void.

First grade capeshitter cope right here

Audiences are never to blame. It's a failure of cinema to adapt to what audiences want.

The consumer is to blame for just about everything. No one is forcing us to be mindless consumer retards. Sadly the consumer cannot accept this so nothing will ever change

Audiences don't know what they want.

>Are audiences are to blame
>its YOUR fault this restaurant's food sucks...

Attached: 1606005380252.jpg (1000x1000, 158.11K)

>queuing action scenes only
>cinema catering to the LCD
Wouldn't this be the fault of television / episodic programming as well as corporate boards and focus groups?

Attached: YOU_WILL_FUCK_YOURSELF_OR_I_WIL_FUCK_YOUR_PUSSY_FOR_YOU_FAGGET.gif (512x288, 3.29M)

Yup, we need more Minions movies

"People" not being interested in good movies is a reflex of their education and cultural influences that the society they live in provides

>cinema is treated as "content"
That's all it is and all it ever was.

Well gee, retard, why don't you make your movie interesting? The best movie(s) have scenes that aren't action, but still entertaining: The Godfather, 2001: A Space Odyssey, hell fucking Breakfast Club is a movie where teenagers just slack off for 2 hours. While audiences are painfully retarded, these new movies are all flair with nothing to back it up.

Attached: 1617250293756362910.jpg (653x794, 92.79K)

>good movies
Get over yourself, pseud.

Attached: 1642136355385.jpg (125x125, 3.37K)

>Audiences don't know what they want.

I hate to sound like an elitist but real art can only be created when someone has the impetus to make something IN DEFIANCE of prevailing social or economic forces. In the past there was a fine balancing act in Hollywood where the studios who were primarily motivated by money were actually willing to take risks and give directors more creative control in the hope that the risk would work out. Some of the most profitable movies in relation to their budget were movies that had no solid indication that they would succeed, especially horror movies like Halloween, The Exorcist, Friday the 13th. Some executive or producer might have had the notion that they COULD be successful, but there were no focus groups that agreed that they wanted to see a possessed teenage girl masturbate with a crucifix. To bring that scene into existence required a risk.

I only watch movies to practice foreign languages. Any other use of the medium is low IQ and retarded

For the longest time, the theater was the only form of entertainment (plays, vaudeville, etc). Then radio. Then cinema. For decades it was radio and cinema. There was no other competition. When television came, cinema looked down on it. Actors were either movies or TV, not both. Then cable blew up the choices. Finally streaming.

Like the theater, cinema is an outdated entertainment form. It’s not going to die, but it is never going to have the power, influence and financing it once did.

What is it the woke pussies say? Oh yeah…

That’s a good thing!

>Are audiences are to blame for the death of cinema? Are most people just not interested in good movies?
This has always been the case
The vast majority of people have gone to films to be mindlessly entertained for an hour and a half. It's literally always been like this, movies that end up having any artistic merit are slept on by a vast majority of the population. This is why the free market is so inefficient and ineffective by the way.

Attached: 1650331360089.png (1736x2142, 827.64K)

>Like the theater, cinema is an outdated entertainment form. It’s not going to die, but it is never going to have the power, influence and financing it once did.

You're right, I think there might even be "museums" or some other kind of archival service that will preserve the movies of the past like art museums hold the work of painters, because they were a cultural product of their time. We might be living in a post-cinema world

>people are nice thanks to state handled public transportation

It's exactly the opposite you retard.

Solely? No.
But they do share half the blame.
Audiences are getting dumber and dumber. Only wanting big CGI battles and quips.
At the same time, studios are the ones who dumbed down audiences into gravitating towards dumb movies.

Touched a nerve I see. Reminder movies will never make you less of a loser. And you will never be a filmmaker.

People want escapism from their shitty lives caused by leftists ruining the economy and letting trannies groom children and BLM burn down homes and businesses.

I've done this before, sometimes I watched a movie already and all I want to see are the cool parts

THIS
H
I
S

US and Canadian cities are designed in way that is directly linked for a bunch of measurable health and social problems. you're right it that isn't only public transport, though.

Most people aren't creators, they couldnt make a good movie if their life depended on it.
The same problem comes when you give them a choice on how to consume movies.

cinema is treated as disposable content because it is. 90% of everything sucks complete shit, the amount of masterworks to come out per decade gets more slim as time goes on. only in retrospect can we say wow the 60s and 70s were killer because we get to select and enjoy all the masterpieces that critics deemed were valuable.

>this absolute brainlet theory

>Are audiences are to blame for the death of cinema?
Tricky question. The cinema that makes the most money is the most influential. Audiences flock to the lowest common-denominators.
Smart people enjoy films for idiots. Idiots don't enjoy films for smart people.
So it's kind of human nature. You either have to have it like fine art or opera where the entry-bar is so high that only a certain type of person can even get into it in the first place, thus preserving its "integrity" (but sacrificing innovation), or else you make it broad and appealing which leads to a simplified dumbed-down version gaining traction as the quest for more money overtakes the art itself.
At least the latter route allows for innovation and funnels enough money into it to allow filmmakers to do bold and creative things that they can't do at low-budgets, while simultaneously making some of those things cheaper and more accessible for indie filmmakers.

Not my fault they write boring dialogue. If I wanted to see boring conversations for 20 minutes and boring landscape shots, I’d just sit around my wife when she’s talking to one of her friends.

audiences may be dumb, but the people making movies these days aren't any better

maybe hollywood should learn 2 code

Yeah, let me just make a kino real quick...

Mostly yeah but seeing Soderbergh of all people bitching about that is pretty funny.

>Touched a nerve I see. Reminder movies will never make you less of a loser. And you will never be a filmmaker.

Attached: 1637868804679.jpg (780x440, 52.15K)

You're right.
I think the problem is partially that studios aren't willing to invest in low-budget risks as frequently anymore. But more than that, they actively try to push those low-budget risks out of the spotlight.
Take the reaction to Joker for example (which isn't even low-budget). Every mainstream journalist was writing hit-pieces for that film long before it released because it wasn't what they wanted films to be. And yet, none of those journalists were championing indie unknown films.
How many film journalists attend film festivals? The small ones I mean, not Cannes and Sundance but like New York Independent Horror Film Fest (I assume that's a thing).
There are filmmakers willing to take those risks but no one's giving them attention so they fade into obscurity.

What. Directors have been bitching and often lying about the state of cinema for years. You're thinking of reasonable people, not salty blockbuster directors who are mad people prefer other blockbusters.

I watch international arthouse and MCU films

>if you eat good food and shit, you are still eating shit
MCU is more like fast food

I just want to be entertained.

>Take the reaction to Joker for example (which isn't even low-budget). Every mainstream journalist was writing hit-pieces for that film long before it released because it wasn't what they wanted films to be. And yet, none of those journalists were championing indie unknown films.
Those journalists champion disney capeshit and Joker was WB capeshit, disney knew if WB started making good capeshit movies it was pretty ogre for them especially after killing star wars. That's a one of a kind case, not saying you're wrong but still

>Are audiences are to blame for the death of cinema? Are most people just not interested in good movies?
When the Hollywood jew accelerated propaganda in all forms of entertainment after Trump got elected, I started teaching people how to pirate everything. To date, Ive taught internet illiterates not only how to download everything they and their grandchildren want to watch, I taught them how to do it and not get caught.
Im talking literal boomers here.
I did this to give them a choice- buy entertainment made by people who hate you, your family and friends, and want all of you raped and killed, or refuse to give them money.
Ive taught literally hundreds how to do this, and its ongoing.
If they didnt sperg out and admit they hate everything normal, this never, I mean NEVER would have happened.
If everyone I showed these things to pirates all of their entertainment, this is likely millions the industry is losing.
I encourage everyone to do what I do.

Attached: 1derful.gif (679x365, 2.3M)

Everyone used to make fun of backpackers and middle school dad rock fans back in the day when they all believed that clubs and outdoor venues should only play shit like Pink Floyd. I don't know how we regressed back to that.

>Music has an autistically deep sub-and-microgenre fascination.
That shit is insufferable as a casual. That being said I don't watch trailers either because they all tend to make movies like generic trash, I judge whether I'm interested in the movie based on the premise, director, maybe actors, and the poster.

But that's sort of my point.
It's an insider's club. Nepotism doesn't even begin to describe how bad it really is. Why support independent avant-garde filmmakers when you can support the nephew of that guy who donated $10k and was friendly with you at a charity gala?

It was always content, something to do in the evening after work. It was important art only to a small niche, the one that watched and still watches indie movies.

I always help people on Yea Forums when they ask how to pirate movies. Not because fuck le man or whatever but I just assume they're poor like me and I think poor people should be able to watch whatever they want considering they can't do much else. Your idea is dumb because if the movie is made by people you hate then you shouldn't even watch it for free.

Box office figures say otherwise.

The audience is in its current state because of the visual and audio stimuli they have been receiving for at least the past 50 years. It's like when you jerk off too often, or do too many drugs too often. You begin to lose the ability to produce the same level of pleasure, so the only way to get it again is to increase the activity. Who is to blame for that? The content makers who chase that financial nut by giving people a higher dose. That's why people like JJ Abrams are so rich. His career is built on injecting a higher dose of stimulus, so much so that it reached a ludicrous level.

Attached: mortal kombat 3.jpg (361x395, 19.98K)

Small and mid-budget movies still get made without focus groups, and 90+% of the time fail.

You dont understand.
Boomers barely watch the stuff. Its background noise.
I show them how they dont need cable tv. I show them how to get old Disney movies for their grandkids. Thats what they want.
Imagine how many boomers are hard-wired to just pay for cable and on-demand movies, then they just....stop.
Ponder the loss of that revenue stream for a moment.

>and 90+% of the time fail.
Because the studios don't market them properly. Also they don't fail compared to their budget, they fail compared to blockbusters.

they fail because the US economy is weakening and production costs keep rising. Disney could disappear tomorrow and nothing would change.

People will still go watch Fast and Furious 18 over some faithful adaptation of a historical poem

Steven Soderbergh fucking sucks.

this. sodabug is a shitter. his only claim to fame is being the youngest director to win a palme d'or. it wasn't even the best movie that year.

>Your idea is dumb because if the movie is made by people you hate then you shouldn't even watch it for free.
That's not the idea though. A boomer has a netflix account because he likes watching [old 90s show] they don't watch [woke netflix original]. If you teach the boomer how to get his 90s show for free, he won't need netflix anymore.

this guy gets it

Neatly sidestepping how if you're the people who are financing or making these films and you're only making movies that appeal to the largest possible audience you've already prioritised money over art, which is the source of the whole death spiral to begin with. You don't have to make Dumb Action Movie 43 (starring the guy from the thing) just because it's a guaranteed half billy, nobody is forcing you at gunpoint. All that happens if you make Thought-Provoking Character Study is you might not pushy your investment's earning potential to its absolute theoretical max.

Basically it is once again because of the Jews.

Countries that privatize their public transportation tend to get worse service and eventually higher prices. See the UK and Italy.

>some guy was watching action scenes on his iPAD
>ALL AUDIENCES ARE LE DUMB
Dunning Kruger at it's finest.

you have a point but it only works when you have good demographics
if public transportation gives nocar nignogs easy access to your neighborhood you'll realize that there can be a downside to public transportation in certain conditions.

>I hate to sound like an elitist but real art can only be created when someone has the impetus to make something IN DEFIANCE of prevailing social or economic forces.
Utter bullshit. Art does not exist to further "the revolution."

God yes. People exist that consume whatever comes from a franchise regardless of quality because it has the bran name on it.

>Countries that privatize their public transportation
Problem is with public transportation in general.

A small or mid-budget movie today still costs tens of millions of dollars, when in the past a movie made for under $15 million could recoup it's budget 3x over or more easily. Jaws made over 50x it's budget just at the box office

No
If theaters only showed good films, good films would be popular.
But the theaters show mostly capeshit and other garbage.

>An audience is never wrong. An individual member of it may be an imbecile, but a thousand imbeciles together in the dark form a critical genius — Billy Wilder

There's nothing I like better than the cope of pretentious pseud "filmmakers" who make shitty flicks and then think the reason they bombed was because it was all 2deep4u

Attached: 1640526902273.png (772x1012, 286.47K)

>I always help people on Yea Forums
You should be helping retards who otherwise pay for it too
Boomers generally dont even know they have a choice

I don't mean defiance like a countercultural revolution, I mean doing something even if there is no outward support for it from society at large. For example, to be a professional painter in the past you had to have patrons who would support your work, there was no "market" for fine art.