| No literally the opposite. Instead of having to create blockbusters that appeal to everybody and therefore none at all, we can create stuff that appeal to smaller audiences and try new things. If you are the type of person who complains about the fifth transformer movie, or ask why Hollywood doesn't want to take a try on new things, the cheaper a production can be made, the better the ods that somebody can make it. In a world where you need 200 million dollars to create a game, only studios of that size can make the games, and we never get Kerbal Space Program, Rimworld or Minecraft. As a quick example of movies: Pearl Harbor would have been a great war movie if it had toned down the rom-com part by about 80%, but then it would have lost a big part of the audience. On the other hand, it would have been a great romantic movie if it had turned down the war content by about 80%, but then it would have lost the other part of the audience. As it is, it is too long, and not a good movie in the first place. Now it appears to me from your comment that you want to find a way to hate this no matter the merits, but honestly most people will want to watch things they like, and then be delighted and surprised. Game of Thrones did as well as it did because of the plot twists, not because it was predictable. The CGI and general budget went up for the last seasons and they are universally looked upon as the worst ones. As a challenge for you: which movie, that you consider art, sold at least 10 million tickets in its original theater run? |