I fear that's the FUTURE.
Who pays to see movies in theaters, and pays to see the same movie more than once? Where is the big money? The fat market is teenagers, it's in explosions and uber-animation, and Megan Fox (BIG-name draws). And that costs BIG bucks. The middle-range of well-written, well-produced and well-directed, creative, fresh-idea films is dying out (already has died out?), and will leave consumers with two extremes when it comes to movie choices: a few outlandishly expensive blockbusters and a vast sea of shoe-string-budget indie productions forever consigned to meager DVD sales and begging for a few scraps from On-Demand providers.
I'm not very optimistic about the future.
-C
With all due respect, I'm afraid I don't share the same doom-and-gloom outlook. Conversely, I think we have reason to be optimistic.
First, let me state that I know a lot of people are being hurt by the slump in DVD sales, and for them, the future does not look so bright. I don't think that means there will be a dearth of quality cinema, however.
The idea of Hollywood catering to teens first is nothing new -- they've been doing it ever since "Star Wars". Furthermore, the advent of the multiplex has made it possible for Hollywood to turn a solid profit on a movie, not by making a quality product, but by getting big-name stars and blanketing us with advertising. But it's not like this just happened last week. It's been this way for three decades, and last time I checked, quality movies are still being made (and seen in theaters). Sure, we have to wade through all the mindless crap, but good cinema is still out there.
The reason I think we should feel optimistic is because of the ever-shrinking digital divide.
20 years ago, a movie like "District 9" would've never happened. First of all, the original short couldn't have been made, so Blomkamp would've never had the opportunity to get the attention of Peter Jackson. And secondly, even if somehow Blomkamp were able to get Jackson't attention, they wouldn't have been able to produce the feature on as such a (comparitively) small budget as they did.
But if you really wanna talk shoestring budget, let's look at the prospect of a first-time filmmaker trying to break into the industry, with no real budget. In the days of film, you've got your occasional go-getter like Kevin Smith and Robert Rodriquez, who are able to scrape every penny together to purchase just enough film stock to make their dream a reality. But that is one major hurdle to clear -- being able to afford film stock. Well now that hurdle has been permanently removed. Without the huge burden of having to purchase film stock, I predict the coming decades will see a major influx of new and talented storytellers.
The big guys, making movies for teens, will continue to dominate the market, as they have for a long time now. But that doesn't mean the little guy will vanish. Besides, not all blockbusters are crap. To name a few, from this year, I personally think "The Social Network", "Scott Pilgrim vs. the World", "Shutter Island", "Inception", "Toy Story 3", and "The Town" are all pretty darned good.
