[vl]

> There just aren’t as many good new movies.

Is this true, or you just can’t discover them anymore because everything else competes for your attention? Arguably in the last decade more great content in both movies and TV shows produced than ever, it’s just so much, that it’s hard to choose.

[jrowen]

I recently watched A League of Their Own and Die Hard. In my opinion, these movies are just categorically different from what's being made today, are still totally compelling start to finish, and really capture the magic and the high art of the golden age of cinema. I truly believe movies were just better 30-40 years ago.

That was the era of "every second counts." Every second has meaning and purpose and adds something to the narrative. The Fifth Element is another good example, and almost 30 years old. Now in the age of binging, where a 2 hour plot is stretched into 17 hours of TV, there is SO much filler and downtime and it's honestly just offensive in comparison.

I kind of enjoyed Pluribus, I liked the concept and what they did with it, but there's way too much forgettable filler that dilutes it into a slog. The movies I mentioned are (again, IMO) absolutely gripping and just lean and mean storytelling vehicles.

[fhdkweig]

> I truly believe movies were just better 30-40 years ago.

That's the problem with nostalgia, you don't remember all the bad movies you had to watch just to get those two gems. Someone probably suggested those movies rather than you stumbling onto them. That's pretty much the job of a critic. Siskel and Ebert in the 1980s would often talk about the pain of having to sit through hours of awful movies every week just so that they could find one or two worth recommending.

[jrowen]

I'm talking about the best of the best though, the top of the form at the time. Yes those are classics and for good reason. But there were also lots more. Lucas, Kubrick, Spielberg, Lynch...feels like they just don't make 'em like that anymore. It's crazy that in some ways nothing has really eclipsed a movie from 1977 and we're still awash in its glow.

I tried to provide specific examples and contrast with something in the current zeitgest. I'm open to counter-arguments. I liked Barbie and Oppenheimer, both were well-done, but I don't think they'll stand up with the greats. I admit that I don't watch as many movies now but what stands out in the past 10 years? What has captured the zeitgeist like The Matrix or The Lord of the Rings?

[fhdkweig]

Big budget films today don't take risks. They go through focus groups and oscar checklists. They are homogenized to the point of banality. Don't focus on the big budget films. If they spend a lot on marketing, it's reeks of desperation.

Those great directors you just named were nobodies at the time those films were made. You need to find movies made by the current nobodies. Those are indie films. Go find more indie films. Those are the ones you will enjoy. My favorite movie of all time is Everything, Everywhere, All at Once (2022). I just now had to look up the director and did not recognize the names.

[jrowen]

I didn't see that one, I added it to my shortlist.

Part of my point though is that, for a long time, the big-budget Hollywood stuff was actually "the good stuff." Like people can quibble about whether indie art films were better or not but I think it's pretty well agreed that (some set of) the big name directors and actors and blockbusters were pushing the art form. And it required those kinds of budgets to pull off, and it was seen as legitimately elite status to be given the chance to do it. The crazy complicated shit they did with practical effects and elaborate set building, for example. Teams of visionaries coming together to build deeply immersive worlds. It was a bleeding edge of art, and it attracted those types.

Read about the making of Die Hard. They're legitimately blowing up and ramming SWAT vehicles into a huge office tower in Los Angeles. Alan Rickman of all people is doing crazy stuntwork with flying cameras and real explosions and everything needs to be timed to the millisecond and executed by the whole team. There is no "do it in post", there is no CGI. And you can feel it.

Some in this thread have made the point that it was wasteful and excessive, and dangerous, and exploited labor, and that is all true, but...it was art.

[cguess]

> Big budget films today don't take risks

It's hard to argue Sinners wasn't taking risks, or One Battle After Another (not my favorite this year, but it was a wild ride). Even Marty Supreme was a very weird and strange film that was very high budget (the CGI was in the background, but there's a lot).

[spc476]

Survivalship bias. Here's a list of movies released in 1985: <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_American_films_of_1985>. How many of those are good? How many have you heard of? Here's a list of movies released in 2025: <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_American_films_of_2025>. Same questions.

[spc476]

I went through the lists. In 1985, of the top 10 movies, you had two direct sequels, two adaptations, leaving six original movies. In 2025, of the top 10 movies, you had two direct sequels, two remakes, three franchises (maybe sequels?), one that is a part II (so sequel?, also an adaptation), one adaptation and it seems one original movie. My, how times have changed.

[jrowen]

See my other comment on this, but I'm talking about the top of the form, the movies that have and/or will stand the test of time and be considered notable for some reason. Not the average of all movies made in a given year.

[olivierestsage]

Whenever someone says online that something's declining (Hollywood movies, video games, UX experiences in desktop environments, etc.), I see a variation on this argument: "actually the options are even better today, they're just buried" (often accompanied by: "you were just younger then and everything was new and that's why you liked it").

Sometimes, cultural decline actually does happen, usually eventually followed by some kind of renaissance. Anyone who has studied the cinema, literature, etc. of a certain country in the past knows that there are "hot" periods and "cool" ones. When we see this phenomenon in the past, it doesn't tend to trigger the same defensive reaction, I guess because it doesn't feel as personal.

[rdtsc]

> Is this true, or you just can’t discover them anymore because everything else competes for your attention?

There is an element of that perhaps: from the past we already have a great number of movies. The more time passes the more great movies will accumulate, so newer movies will be judges compared to that whole set.

However, at the same thinking how many times I was exciting about a movie and how much I liked it. There are lot of fewer of them in the recent times.

> Arguably in the last decade more great content in both movies and TV shows produced than ever,

I could see the quantity but not the quality. Netflix produced a lot of shows and movies, Hollywood did, but I don't think as many good ones in there as say in the decades of 1990-2000 or 2000-2010. Tastes of course are subjective, you may just like newer movies they make that's fine, too.