[rimbo789]

Influential? Yes. Was that influence for the betterment of humanity? I’m not sure. Beyond the slop many of the classics were deeply racist and built on immoral exploitation. Yes all those artists did great work but they did it in terrible conditions for where near enough pay.

Take apocalypse now: a great piece of art. Was it worth the pain and suffering of its production? Absolutely not.

[Yokohiii]

Terrible historical practices/immoral productions shouldn't the reason alone for such dismissal. Every industry had it's fair share of terrible things. Sometimes, we learn to do better. There are also enough ongoing things to be worried about.

Hollywood should implode and hopefully the art form will resurrect for the better. But for me the primary reason is that they don't live up to what they are supposed to do. Creating good art.

[rimbo789]

Hollywood was never about making art. It was about making money. That some good art came out of it was an accident of the process.

Do I want movies to survive? Sure. But Hollywood as a thing was about vacuuming up every penny it could and that I do not grieve.

[Yokohiii]

The greed is the same for all players and industries. I don't see why hollywood's situation is different. They just failed to adapt to new conditions.

I agree that the good stuff is just a result of shotgunning, for every great movie, there are 100 that are forgettable. But we have the habit of concentrating power in one place, so I have no clue how it could be otherwise. Sure youtube is an alternative with myriad of independent creators, but it produced totally different outcomes.

[mrguyorama]

In Capitalism, Capital holders are in charge of what gets resources.

If you want to make something non-trivial, you need investment from a capital holder. Even Indie movies spend tons of effort on funding and investment and trying to have cashflow to make something happen.

The death of hollywood does not change this reality, it simply changes which capital holders you must seek patronage from.

Hollywood was sex pests and morons sure, but so are the rest of the Capital holders we have. Big movies will still be beholden to the rich, because the rich are who have capital.

The shape of the system hasn't changed, only the names of the people at the top.

[simianwords]

> I’m not sure. Beyond the slop many of the classics were deeply racist and built on immoral exploitation. Yes all those artists did great work but they did it in terrible conditions for where near enough pay.

This is so naive, I can't even begin to tell you how wrong you are. Hollywood is the first window into the western way of life for many third worlders. And if you knew how the third world really is, they are much more racist, much more primitive than the West.

In reality, Hollywood opens up people into western culture - openness, rationality and so on.

[throwaway91827]

Just trying to understand your point here- so non-westerners are primitive and irrational, unlike the West, led by Donald Trump, champion of rational, elevated discourse?

[boca_honey]

He's right. Moral self-righteousness aside, Hollywood was a window for many of us in "developing countries" to a better world. Yeah, it was an idealized version of reality, but that's how many of us discovered science, athleticism or sexual freedom, for example.

[throwaway91827]

I don't disagree that you got a window into American values, I just don't agree that proximity to American values is the same as civilization versus primitivism.

[simianwords]

yes that's my point. Trump is an aberration.