[jknecht]

I think it has always been this way. I worked in a video rental store in the 90's, and every movie was either a military story (Vietnam: bad, Russians: bad, current US military: good), courtroom drama, divorce drama, or high school / college comedy. A few decent psychological thrillers and campy horror flicks too. Basically a never-ending stream of the same movie with different actors. Hollywood has never been accused of being creative or daring.

At least in the 90's, most movies were around 90 minutes. Nowadays, if it's less than 2.5 hours, it's a minor miracle.

All that said, I'm still a sucker for mindless entertainment. Even if movie night has become a bladder endurance contest.

[riffraff]

I think the '90s had a bit more variety than the '10s and (for now) '20s. E.g. we seem to have lost good legal procedurals, thrillers, weird fiction, and "small scale" sci-fi.

Fo example, what are the'10s equivalents of "A Few Good Men", "Seven", "Dark City" and "The 13th Floor"?

There is _some_ stuff, but less than before, replaced by a massive amount of super hero movies or long-running franchises.

As a support clue, I invite you to consider the winners of the MTV Movie Awards, which are more "popular" than other Awards:

   92 Terminator 2: Judgment Day
   93 A Few Good Men
   94 Menace II Society
   95 Pulp Fiction
   96 Seven
   97 Scream
   98 Titanic
   99 There's Something About Mary
   00 The Matrix (bonus: not 90s)

compare with the 10s

   10 The Twilight Saga: New Moon
   11 The Twilight Saga: Eclipse
   12 The Twilight Saga: Breaking Dawn – Part 1
   13 Marvel's The Avengers
   14 The Hunger Games: Catching Fire
   15 The Fault In Our Stars
   16 Star Wars: The Force Awakens
   17 Beauty and the Beast
   18 Black Panther
   19 Avengers: Endgame

I have the feeling most "risky" movies, for lack of a better word, have moved to streaming services.

[deltarholamda]

The 90s also coincides with the end of the theater business. It trickled into the 00s a bit, but not by much.

You could have a first run movie in a movie theater that cost less than a few millions to make, and it had a shot of finding an audience. Movies could hang around for more than a couple of weeks because it didn't cost three digits to take a family to the theater and have a box of popcorn.

Now, if the movie doesn't make $900 billion by the end of the opening credits, it's yanked. Movie makers can't compete with major studios with tent pole IP for screen space, so they've taken their talents to streaming services like Neflix, or even YouTube.

There's also a communal aspect of movies in the US that's gone. Cultural touchstones aren't made in the movie theater anymore. It's all divided and subdivided by algorithms so the geeks and jocks (or greasers and socs, or Jets and Sharks) never have to mingle unless they make an effort. These days you can mix in a constant stream of ethnic and racial grievances about who is represented or not, or how much, or all the other social justice palaver that makes our current world so very lovely and livable.

[acchow]

> At least in the 90's, most movies were around 90 minutes. Nowadays, if it's less than 2.5 hours, it's a minor miracle.

I didn't even notice this inflation in movie length until I went back to try to watch older 90 minute movies. They feel short now, almost unfulfilling. Gladiator (2000) at 2h35m feels like the right pace.

I think after Game of Thrones (ex the last 2 seasons), I'm used to more drawn out scenes and development

[kevin_thibedeau]

I think it has more to do with directors not planning effectively for runtime and no longer being constrained by the cost of shooting on film.