The 80s and 90s produced some of the most iconic and beloved movies of all time on a consistent basis. Nowadays, movies just tend to get forgotten after a few months if they're lucky.

Seriously, when were the last BIG movies that changed culture? LotR trilogy? Dark Knight? Stuff over a decade ago?

>>212098831 (OP)
name ONE good movie made in the 90s.

Stop noticing

>>212098876
Uhhhhh the Spongebob movie

>>212098831 (OP)
Well, of course you can't make anything new iconic when all the stuff has already been done

>Biggest movie of all time

>No one can describe the plot of it
>No one can name a single character from it
>No one parodies or references it

>>Sequel manages to be even bigger

>>No one can describe the plot of it
>>No one can name a single character from it
>>No one parodies or references it

>>>Third movie is in the works

lol people still believe in dinosaurs?

>>212098831 (OP)
>Seriously, when were the last BIG movies that changed culture?

Avengers End Game I guess. I'd already given up on cape shit by then and still haven't watched it; but it had a cultural impact and I see it still being referenced.

I have never seen capeshit before

>>212098831 (OP)
Nowadays smartphones and TikTok exist.

That being said, pic rel is huge and has cultural relevance.
>inb4 capeshit
Yes, capeshit is huge too.

>>212099351
>>212099283
You're retarded

Market research to make the most consumerable movie possible has turned them into trash that no one really likes or remembers.

>>212098831 (OP)
movies are just not the thing any more. minecraft is 100x more important to kids than any movie that will come out. Film is not coming back to primary status in the interactive media and participatory internet age, they're a legacy medium, move on.

>>212098831 (OP)
The internet is a dividing force. It divides attention, people, culture, etc.

Right now everything is very divided. What you'd call mainstream media has more or less blatantly turned against its host culture during the last decade and while it's not as bad as many say, distrust prevails. So where do you look to get your recommendations if press and critics, as well as the people making the movies are your perceived enemies? Many have tapped out and even if those many are only the fringes, there remains the fact that we live in digital world now with social media, smartphones and video games, meaning there's always enough to keep you busy anyway, whether you're a normie or a sperg.

>>212099427
Touch grass.

>>212099450
From the perspective of generations Z and A, yes. But they're not the group that spends the most money on entertainment, not by far. The proof is that movies "made for the modern audience" have been flop after flop after flop, while some movies that also appeal to the traditional audience have been successes. Don't cater to the zoomers and alphas, Hollywood! They won't pay you anyway.

>>212100420
>"made for the modern audience"
I hate the sort of verbiage you mouth breathing grandpas throw around.

>>212100482
Yeah, well, you're not paying audience anyway, so what you say doesn't count.

>>212100535
>give me my slop!
>and don't you dare offend my libertarian sensibilities or I swear I will spend my capeshit budget on lung cancer sticks!

>>212100580
Go play with your retard device and watch Tiktok for a couple of hours. It's more suitable to your level of intellect.

>>212100620
So true. If only all of us could be educated enough to comprehend Schwarzenegger and Eastwood flicks.

>>212099450
>>212099548
These two are correct. Going to the movie theater is going to become a novelty like vinyl records in the future. Some people will say "Well, watching a movie on streaming is still a movie!" No it's not. A movie is shot on 35mm celluloid film and projected on film in a theater. That's already become a rarity. The golden age wasn't 80's and 90's though. That's when everything started going downhill. The 40's and 50's were the golden age.

>>212098942
This.

>>212098942
>I plug my ears and ignore all the fans of it
>therefore it has no fans and no one remembers it haha!

>>212102651
>All the fans of it.
There are basically none except for a select few faggots here. Literal indie games get more attention on /v/, this is one of the biggest movies of all time and nobody gives a fuck about them. I saw them, and I don't give a fuck about them. They're cripplingly fucking boring libshit. First one is humanity bad save the injuns, second one is humanity bad save the whales.

>>212100872
>Projected on film in a theater.
I genuinely don't care about this Tarantino level faggotry. It's like saying "you didn't read a book, you read it on your e-reader and not paper!" Nigger, I read all the same words you did. I saw the exact same movie you did, and was not distracted by faggy shit like the "grain structure" or the "soft glow of the projector" or whatever bullshit people say. Looks great on my properly calibrated 90-inch TV.

>>212098942
Wut, the plot is not even complicated

>>212098831 (OP)
Too many options now. Video games especially. Less of a talent pool due to dei as well. It's not a big deal. Radio had it's day, movies had theirs.

>>212100872
>>212100872
Your assessment of what makes a movie is wrong and theaters aren't going away either. Will the number of big time blockbuster movies be reduced? Probably. And that's perfectly fine.

>>212102839
If you saw a movie projected on film, you might change your mind. For me it was seeing Carlito's Way projected on film at the Music Box Theater in Chicago. That's when I noticed that film has a texture to it that's awe-inspiring.

the last real game changing iconic everybody knows type film was the matrix

just for the redpill/bluepill stuff alone

Gladiator

>>212099351
no idea what movie that is

Chicken Jockey!!!

>>212100872
you're a fucking retard

>>212103104
How so?

>>212102966
I grew up in the era of film, and I've seen some very good 70mm projections, including Hateful 8. The picture is indeed absolutely beautiful. But I think it's a novelty, and that digital filmmaking is just as valid when used right. There's no wonder it's dying, unless you live in a "Movie City" you'd be hard-pressed to find a theater with an actual film projector.

>>212102966
Digital is unironically better and you can not begin to fathom the potential AI powered process acceleration brings. Boyle shooting 28 Years with IPhone cameras is a nice leap and indicative of how kino things could be.

>>212102966

>>212102966
I'm old and the only period where film really mattered was in the 2000s because a lot of digital technology still looked very rough. It started getting noticably better around 2007.

>>212103178
Then why does CGI look worse now than ever…

>>212103178
But 2007 was right before the Marvel Cinematic Universe came out and turned movies into digital TV.

>>212098942
The Avatar movies are tech demos that people pay to see on an enormous screen. The plot and characters are extremely generic and derivative. The worldbuilding is a ripoff of every magical forest setting. That’s why there’s been no attempt at an expanded universe. There’s no substance to draw from.

>>212103216
It doesn't. What looks like shit is capeslop that goes through an utterly wasteful production process of practically making multiple movies and then stitching the eventual release together from those, based on test audience feedback and algorithm bullshit.

>>212098831 (OP)
>Seriously, when were the last BIG movies that changed culture?
barbie
minecraft

>>212103254
>That’s why there’s been no attempt at an expanded universe.
That's not true. The game they made at Ubisoft had a meticulous lore building and integrating it into the cinematic universe process.

>>212103216
Same reason all films do, everything is cheap and shoddy now. A problem that does reinforce your position though was that film language/literacy plus cultural relevance was peaking in the 1990s at the same time that photochemical photography peaked. So you had the most (relative money) in the hands of the most capable people working with the best technology in a perfect storm. There is no reason for a lot of digital to look as bad as it does now, but a lot of it comes down to movies decreasing in relevance and less capable people working in the medium. Robert Richardson, one of the best DPs ever, talked about being fired from World War Z because a producer forced him to scrap all his careful work and just "shoot it flat" so test audiences could determine the best look for the film.

>>212103073
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2HSKZhb3J_M

>>212103231
Yeah, that didn't help. But it was also the first year we got a digital film comparable to film with Zodiac.

>>212102938
Radio has become podcasts and movies won't go away anytime soon.

>>212103715
But people will only watch movies on streaming, which isn't the real art form.

>>212103340
>Ubisoft game.
Who cares. They put in a ton of effort making the world of Pandora, but the thing is, nobody cares about the world of Pandora. They spent so much money putting it in Disney World, too. For something with its financial sway, it really doesn't have the rabid paypig fanbase of something like Star Wars. Star Wars fans would pay $10,000 to lick she shit skids off Mark Hamill's old man undies. You really don't see that with Avatar fans, they're more fans of James Cameron because Cameron used to be good.

>>212103755
No. There's something to the big screen, the theater experience. Chicken Jockey, an unsavory but adequate enough recent example, proves as much.

>>212103178
It really didn't. The CGI was from late 90s and early 2000s is pretty good, and it remained good up until the early 2010s, when everything went to shit, due to a lack of talent and an overreliance on it.

>>212103288
Barbie was big on the moment but no echo
Minecraft would just never be as deep as say LOTR or whatever

>>212103952
Bit of an unfair comparison, no? Even with something more prestigious like Dune, the material is only that good.

You're right about Barbie, but the same holds true for most summer blockbusters.

>>212103759
Avatar is first and foremost family entertainment. An immersive adventure movie that's more of a technical marvel than elaborate theatre play (which is what most other movies are). For that reason it inspires less identification with the characters and delivers a different type of catharsis. The lack of human actors on screen contributes to this too.

>>212098942
it's weird this one. the biggest franchise that makes billions and has no cultural impact. even minecraft had a bigger cultural impact and that's already being memory holed.

like some other anons mentioned it's probably not movies per se it's this weird culture we're transitioning into. and it's only going to get weirder. soon you'll think the 2020s were relatively normal.

>>212104248
> native worshipping movies
> natives are giant perfect humans that assassinate regular humans
> humans are evil demons
Family entertainment?

>>212098831 (OP)
Here is an excerpt from one of the novels that movie is based on where the author describes exactly what you're talking about.

>>212104453
We live in an indie pod culture. No longer are we defined by watching the game at the bar and talking about the show at the watercooler.
Now we basically have so many options you're the weird one if you're watching the NBC Sitcom, the CBS Procedural or the Broody Cable Show. Now you're an idiot if the only music you listen to is Billboard Chart Rap and Rock or Bubblegum Pop.
We all have our own thing we've developed and a group of yes men friends and a group of surface level nobodies.
I think Zohran's nomination in New York is the perfect example of that, the indie-spirit has become so deep into our culture that the best way to run a political campaign is functionally the same as selling an indie movie.
He's at some point going to ask the city council to greenlight his bill.

>>212105272
why didn't spielberg include this?

>>212105458

It makes Malcolm sound like a chud.

>>212103349
The issue of talent (not exclusively in entertainment but certainly in entertainment) is an overall odd one. Feels like the philosophy used to be "hire the best people and you'll have the best company" but over the past decade or so the philosophy has moved to "hire people who are just competent enough to fulfill your vision"
It's all part of the separation of culture into "just do it yourself" and "Bureaucrat Bot who uses legalese in casual conversation" with fewer and fewer in-between jobs.
I've seen it from both angles and I've seen it evolve over the past decade and a half.
I had a boss who once told me "One time an employee said 'you just want to replace us all with robots', and I said 'of course that's true'" because ultimately that's what people want as employees. Not some creative genius ready to give their own opinion, some meticulous robot ready to commit to your vision.

>>212106002
Well, DEI is part of that. But also audiences. WHY let someone like Richardson do a good job on a film when you know audiences are happy to pay for lazy shit like Marvel films? If he wants do his fancy photography he can do it on his Tarantino gigs. If audiences are cool with slop, managers will feed them slop. Less effort, same money.

>>212106002
The great jeetening of society. Just enough to complete the job, not bad enough to lose you a customer.