Just watched Brazil earlier,and I have to ask. Why don't

Because using weird shit as window dressing got old.

If you want to make a weird movie, make a weird movie. Don't just put in odd, quirky shit to try and make it seem like there's more going on than there is.

Because they might fail commercially.

Tim Burton wore it out

>>80848346
Because it's a gamble. Modern studio filmmaking is not a gamble. Movies like "Fant4stic 4" are developed/marketed by algorithm. They know the size of their fanbase before they've made the film, they know which markets to target with their advertising and how much to spend, and they will make a certain amount of profit even if the movie is literally student-film-tier amateur garbage.

You can't market an original concept in the same way, you can't predict its profitability in the same way, so it isn't going to get a real budget or ad campaign.

>>80848569
That makes sense, can you elaborate?

>>80848346
Terry Gilliam lost a lot of money

>>80848346
Hollywood is not about creativity or experimentation, its about following recopies that are known to bring in money. They are in it for the money, not the love for the art.

>>80848478
This, the increasing costs of making and distributing movies means that studios are less willing to take on projects that won't automatically appeal to as broad and audience as possible.

>>80848478
this unfortunately

it's not about making good movies, just commercial success

>>80848821
>the increasing costs of making and distributing movies
No, the cost is decreasing constantly. What you're witnessing now is the last desperate cash-grab of the middlemen before everyone realizes they're obsolete. Movies are cheaper and easier to make than they've ever been, even the big blockbusters. Those budgets are literally a scam.

>>80848682

Not that Anon, but basically the rivalries between studios and directors has begun to completely evaporate.

It used to be that directors and their studio patrons would joust for position during the Summer.

It used to be that people would come out of the woodwork to throw money at middle budget sized films because of the potential of generate a franchise, or sleeper hit.

It used to be that directors would shit talk one another, or even actors for that matter.

What has happened is a gentrification within Hollywood.

You know how they say Hollywood is incestuous? This is what they mean.

Collectively Hollywood decided that they didn't like watching their friends go bankrupt on movies that bombed time and again. And that maybe we shouldn't try and split into one another's profit margins, you take March and I'll take April. And that maybe we shouldn't shit-talk each other because you never know where you'll be in five years.

Now it's gotten to the point where they are sharing IP's.

We're going to see a continuous centralization of power in Hollywood because no one wants to fight each other anymore. They just want to minimize loss, and maximize gain.

>>80848747
Well when they stop making physical discs or stop distributing them on physical media, the cost should go down since all they have to do is put the movie up on Netflix.

Luckily premium tv and the internet are picking up some of the slack since their production and distribution presents less of a financial risk.

>>80848934
>Now it's gotten to the point where they are sharing IP's.
Yeah, especially with all this capeshit crossover, and consolidation with Disney has me worried desu. It's politics, but film related, Trump could definitely break up some of these monopolies.

Because you just look for blockbusters. Not long ago we had stuff like The Lobster.

>>80848729
Didn't stop him to make stuff like Zero Theorem.

>>80848346
maybe because today we have statisticians and profit seeking analysts to educate filmmakers in what appeals to the lowest common denominator?

>>80848478
Nailed it.

>>80849177
>today
Seriously? You think that kind of thing is exclusive to the last 10/20 years?

I wonder if people will get eventually tired of capeshit

>>80848747
>>80848879
The thing is though, a good original film with broad appeal is literally one of the most profitable things you could ever make. "Star Wars," "Alien," even "Friday the 13th," these were pretty low-budget films, and their royalty checks are just getting bigger and bigger as the years go by. You could set yourself up for a LIFETIME, and your children too, with one movie.

But it requires vision and taste to recognize the potential in the script, before the audience already exists. Marvel movies, and the new Star Wars reboots, are a safe bet with a predictable audience, because it's just a continuation of an existing brand. The audience already exists, they can be counted and quantified and depended upon to buy tickets and merch.

...but a healthy cut of those profits still go back to the people who made/produced the original idea, that created the audience in the first place.

>>80848346
Gore Verbinski tries. Del Taco tries.

they all flop.

t. capeshit.

>>80849118

Films like that only get made on a shoe-string budget.

OP is wondering what happened to all the 40-50 million dollar films from the 70's and 80's that took risks and experimented with ideas, and had some actual money behind them.

Films like The Lobster only happen because guys like Colin Farrell agree to take a paycut. The same thing happened with TAJJBTCRF, and that's one of my favorite films of all time.

>>80849248
i somehow doubt all the kids were lining up to see citizen kane

>>80849312
Because movies are only made for teenagers and young adults, right?
You have all sorts of sci-fi and horror flicks for that market back then just as we have now.

>>80848934
>Hollywood is incestuous
>centralized power
((()))

>>80849272

They won't. Comics have been around since the beginning of the 20th century.

>>80849384
Is it, dare I say, /ourcabal/?

>>80849374
i somehow doubt all the senior citizens were outside lined up to see citizen kane

>>80848747
>>80848934

jews make me hate life

>>80848346
too close for comfort

>>80849441
I somehow doubt you're able to understand the point. But keep going, you people only deal with arguments using reality filters anyway.

>>80848346
Tell me about it, it's hard to find films with a similar atmosphere
>mfw plumber De niro

>>80849459

>took my mom to go see Beauty and the Beast today because she genuinely loved the original and likes Emma Watson for some reason
>sitting through literally 25 minutes of trailers, there was 9 in total
>one of which was for Wonder Woman
>begin to REEEEEEEEEE internally at all of the Pro-Israel propaganda

>>80849272
nope, especially now that the movies aren't consumed by mostly children these days

>>80849558
Does it really have pro-Israel propaganda, there wasn't any in the other movies, it was pretty Goy//pol/ approved.

>>80849632

All of the Amazonians speak with extremely heavy Israeli accents.

They don't pretend at all that they aren't "the master race".

Despite this being WW1, Diana is fighting Nazis.

There is an actual gas chamber/chemical weapon allusion as well.

>>80848346
they do
you just don't hear about them for ~30 years, apparently.

>>80849730
>Despite this being WW1, Diana is fighting Nazis.
>There is an actual gas chamber/chemical weapon allusion as well.

Damn senpai, I haven't seen any promos since they tend to ruin it, but that sounds pretty shit. I know Snyder's not at the helm so that is probably why.

>>80849290
Is A Cure for Welness any good?

>>80849272
>will people get tired of stories told through modern-like mythology
No, unless you change human nature

>>80848346
Because nobody can do it properly anymore.

>>80848346
>Why don't they make movies in the mainstream that are for lack of a better word, weird anymore?

Because you can make 100X more money if you create a mediocre crowd-pleaser for ching-chong bourgeois.

Now you might think then you'd have enough money to do what you like...right? Nope, the business doesn't work that way.

>>80851035
see
>>80849288

It's actually not true that the current model is more profitable. It's just less risky.