Anonymous
8/19/2025, 12:00:17 AM No.213801017
why are movies so expensive to make, but look and sound worse than ever? is it really a money laundering front?
Replies:
Thread 213801017 - /tv/ [Archived: 134 hours ago]
Anonymous
8/19/2025, 12:01:35 AM No.213801048
Anonymous
8/19/2025, 12:16:48 AM No.213801400
>>213801017 (OP)
its not really money laundering but the endgame of nepotism is taking as much money as you can from outside sources and paying your friends the biggest salaries you can get away with while those people do as little and as low quality work as possible
i think it kinda boils down to the american film industry being concentrated so heavily in that hollywood area. no one has really been able to outcompete them so the downsides of nepotism haven't caught up to them. i guess they are now sort of losing ground but it's still ways away from the party being fully over
its not really money laundering but the endgame of nepotism is taking as much money as you can from outside sources and paying your friends the biggest salaries you can get away with while those people do as little and as low quality work as possible
i think it kinda boils down to the american film industry being concentrated so heavily in that hollywood area. no one has really been able to outcompete them so the downsides of nepotism haven't caught up to them. i guess they are now sort of losing ground but it's still ways away from the party being fully over
Replies:
Anonymous
8/19/2025, 12:52:27 AM No.213802421
>>213801046
Who is this Jewish-American princess?
Who is this Jewish-American princess?
Anonymous
8/19/2025, 1:08:08 AM No.213802834
>>213801017 (OP)
Competency crisis. I can't really think of a technical reason. The shot on digital thing isn't it, because we have seen a lot of digital stuff look great under the right hands.
Competency crisis. I can't really think of a technical reason. The shot on digital thing isn't it, because we have seen a lot of digital stuff look great under the right hands.
Anonymous
8/19/2025, 1:13:21 AM No.213802961
>>213801400
>no one has really been able to outcompete them
You can outcompete them, you can make a film that's better and more engaging than any of the hollywood schlock. It's that they have a monopoly on the media and can fabricate public opinion so if you aren't in with them your movie doesn't get seen and when it does get seen, the movie-going public already has formed a negative opinion of it, because they've been told to. A lot of hollywood movies these days are objectively bad. The shooting, editing, script, costumes and sets are all low quality but it doesn't matter because most people follow the herd. They are told that the movie is good by the press, they believe that it is good. False consensus is what drives all aspects of entertainment these days and art suffers for it. The entertainment press is an apparatus of the entertainment industry and if you don't kiss the ring and engage in the ingrained nepotism, your higher quality movie is going to get sidelined because you didn't pay the tribute to the existing hollywood royalty.
There are splinter factions though, like after the writers strike of '07 a lot of the writers moved to television series rather than hollywood movies. That's when all the tv shows started becoming insanely good for a brief period. Also, In the early 2000's free webseries on youtube were becoming more popular than television because the writing was better than anything hollywood could produce, but shortly after the google takeover of youtube they were all pushed out of existence by "the algorithm".
It's not necessarily about making a better product, it's about kissing the ring. If you kiss the ring of the monopoly man he's going to tell his subjects to watch your movie and all his cronies get a paycheck. If you didn't do that, you're lucky if he doesn't do a smear campaign to punish you for your insolence.
There was a time when hollywood was about making the best product, that time is long since past. It's about owning the media.
>no one has really been able to outcompete them
You can outcompete them, you can make a film that's better and more engaging than any of the hollywood schlock. It's that they have a monopoly on the media and can fabricate public opinion so if you aren't in with them your movie doesn't get seen and when it does get seen, the movie-going public already has formed a negative opinion of it, because they've been told to. A lot of hollywood movies these days are objectively bad. The shooting, editing, script, costumes and sets are all low quality but it doesn't matter because most people follow the herd. They are told that the movie is good by the press, they believe that it is good. False consensus is what drives all aspects of entertainment these days and art suffers for it. The entertainment press is an apparatus of the entertainment industry and if you don't kiss the ring and engage in the ingrained nepotism, your higher quality movie is going to get sidelined because you didn't pay the tribute to the existing hollywood royalty.
There are splinter factions though, like after the writers strike of '07 a lot of the writers moved to television series rather than hollywood movies. That's when all the tv shows started becoming insanely good for a brief period. Also, In the early 2000's free webseries on youtube were becoming more popular than television because the writing was better than anything hollywood could produce, but shortly after the google takeover of youtube they were all pushed out of existence by "the algorithm".
It's not necessarily about making a better product, it's about kissing the ring. If you kiss the ring of the monopoly man he's going to tell his subjects to watch your movie and all his cronies get a paycheck. If you didn't do that, you're lucky if he doesn't do a smear campaign to punish you for your insolence.
There was a time when hollywood was about making the best product, that time is long since past. It's about owning the media.