How Hollywood Lost Its Prestige

An industry in decline - but is it terminal?

Image: Los Angeles as seen from behind the iconic Hollywood sign

I don’t know about you, but I haven’t been excited about a movie release in a long time. I used to love movies, but now I treat new releases with a nonchalant shrug. The realisation that Hollywood doesn’t excite me any more has left me sad, and I would go so far to say that it has left me lonelier. I made so many relationships, both in person and online, with people whom I primarily discussed movies and TV shows with.

I have also been to LA, and I remember the warmth of the sun on my skin, even in winter. I remember wanting so badly to be one of the beautiful, important people. Despite still being keenly interested in the arts, I can’t help but feel that Tinseltown has lost some of her shimmer. I’ve thought a lot about why that it.

The Decline of Storytelling

There were three major turning points where Hollywood lost its way, even though it didn’t seem like it at any of those times. Those three points were the ever ballooning Marvel Cinematic Universe (MCU) and studio’s persistent commitment to ‘more-of-the-same’ franchises, the Disney live-action remakes and the constant deconstruction of fairy tale and stock character tropes, and the death of the sub-$100m movie.

The Marvel Cinematic Universe may have seemed like a good idea at its inception, and the box office receipts certainly reflected that it was, but now that this new generation of superhero movie is almost twenty years old, it has become extremely stale and ballooned out of control. Not only have all these movies started to blend together aesthetically and thematically, but they’re making greater and greater demands on their audience. I feel like I can’t commit to seeing these movies any more because I’m obligated to see them all or the newer ones won’t make sense.

Phase One of the MCU consists of six movies over four years. Phase Three consists of eleven movies over three years. Phase Four consists of seven movies over seventeen months. I gave up on this franchise years ago because I simply didn’t have the time or emotional energy to commit to watching so many of the same type of movie and follow a story that looks to have no end in sight. I am beyond bored with them.

But Marvel isn’t the only franchise that has grown old, both figuratively and literally, Hollywood now favours franchises rather than original storytelling, and it has become tiresome. Sequel after sequel, prequel, then a spin-off following a different character - enough! Have mercy! My kingdom for an original, stand-alone movie!

I remember just rocking up to the cinema, buying a ticket, and watching a movie. Now I have to google the movie I want to see, check if it’s in a franchise, try to remember what happened in the first one, decide to whether I want to commit to seeing how many of these there are going to be, discerning whether it’s a shameless cash grab or not, all before I’ve even got to cinema. Right now, my local cinema is showing a Marvel movie, a Disney live-action remake, and a movie based on a video game franchise. Le sigh…

No conversation about tedious remakes and spinoffs would be complete without discussing the hideous and boring Disney live-action remakes. ‘Maleficent’ (2014) started this trend though, in my mind, this doesn’t really count because it’s an entirely different movie to ‘Sleeping Beauty’ (1959). Apparently, the idea to begin making more and more live-action remakes started with the box office (but not critical) success of Tim Burton’s ‘Alice in Wonderland’ (2010), though again, it must be noted that this movie is not a scene-by-scene retelling of the 1951 Disney version. The same goes for the live-action ‘Cinderella’ (2015), which was a well-made film thanks to Kenneth Branaugh’s unique lens, shameless commitment to beauty, the spirit of the original movie, as well as the spirit of the fairy tale source material. This movie works because it has its own charm.

Once that proved a hit, the floodgates opened and Disney, for some reason, decided to remake all its old movies without any of their original charm. This has ultimately been a sad turn of events for a studio once known as a pioneer of innovation, filmmaking technology, and superlative original storytelling. Why Disney feels the need to ‘correct’ its own art is the topic of another article, but I think there’s a cautionary tale about too much deconstruction here.

With the success of ‘Frozen’ (2013), which famously contains a surprise twist, Disney decided to abandon romantic subplots. The only problem is ‘Frozen’ (2013) still conforms to the Disney Renaissance formula, even though the love-interest didn’t turn out to be the prince. There is still a love-interest, and he and the protagonist are very much together at the end of the movie, even if their romance isn’t the emotional focal point of the story.

Disney remaking all its old movies, seemingly in an attempt to silence every bad-faith critique, effectively deconstructs them. The message it sends to its audience is: “We think this is bad now. Romance is cheesy, and it would be better if female characters were girl bosses, not princess. They shouldn’t need no man to save them, and you are wrong to still like those old movies.” Which is a stunning thing to say about one’s own legacy and one’s own fans. When you deconstruct your own canon, you undo your own world and character building, and you change how the audience feels about the resolution of your previous movies. Too much deconstruction undos the relationship a studio has with its fans - just ask how the Star Wars guys are getting on right now… 

Also, some of them were just absurd. Did we really need a movie about a woman who skins puppies for fashion? I don’t think ‘Cruella’ (2021) is that bad a movie, but is it what audiences wanted or needed? I don’t think so.

Furthermore, the deconstruction of Disney tropes had already been done prior to the live-action remakes, and done artfully, in the first Shrek movie, through satire and comedy. It is better when deconstruction is done by a rival lampooning their competitor, rather than Disney weakening its own brand and insulting its own fans. Though, interestingly, it must also be noted that even though ‘Shrek’ (2000) was a send-up of the Disney Renaissance period films, it still conformed to the Disney Renaissance formula. At its heart, Shrek is still a wholesome, romantic comedy musical, just like the Disney Renaissance films.

Speaking of romantic comedies, I must mention the death of the sub-$100m movie. Now, it’s not just romantic comedies that have been banished to the streaming wasteland, but there’s a certain type of movie that just isn’t made for cinematic release any more. Unfortunately, most of my most beloved romantic comedies fall into this category. There was once a time when instead of making one $200m movie per year, studios would make three or four $20-$80m movies over two years instead. And, my goodness, we did not know how good we had it!

This is largely down to studios focussing on the endless dumb and expensive aforementioned franchises and prequels, and sequels and other blergh. Romcoms were suddenly considered cheesy, old-fashioned and were often maligned by critics even though audiences loved them. This, in addition to the fact that studios can no longer count on VHS/DVD sales to compensate for any deficits in the box office, has made the romcom rarer and rarer. They go straight to streaming now, and the production value reflects that this is considered a less serious art form.

‘10 Things I Hate About You’ (1999) had a budget of $13m which, adjusted for inflation, is around $25m today, and I would take eight romcoms over any single $200m superhero movie any day of the week.

‘Never Been Kissed’ (1999) cost the equivalent of $50m today.

‘She’s All That’ (1999) cost the equivalent of $20m.

‘Notting Hill’ (1999) cost the equivalent of $80m.

We didn’t know how good we had it in 1999, that’s for sure…

‘How To Lose A Guy’ (2003) cost the equivalent of $87m.

‘Wimbledon’ (2004) cost the equivalent of $55m.

‘Pretty Woman’ (1990) cost the equivalent of $36m.

‘When Harry met Sally’ (1989) cost the equivalent of $44m.

Not every movie has to be a $200m spectacle. Producing more wholesome, well-written romantic comedies would be a welcome relief from the endless remakes, prequels, sequels, franchises. All they have to be are stand-alone movies which demand nothing from the audience except for them to have a good time. I have literally no idea what the young people watch on date night these days.

Hollywood has adapted badly to a media landscape that includes more and more alternative forms of visual entertainment, despite having the upper hand in terms of financing and legacy power. There’s no doubt that the streaming services have changed the landscape, but people will always want to be told excellent stories. Hollywood must recommit itself to original filmmaking and return to solid storytelling fundamentals.

Sure, make the big $200m movies, but Hollywood hurts itself when it fails to make simpler, cheaper original movies.

And another thing…

Pay Your Writers!

Good grief! The dearth of good writing is becoming increasingly palpable. Pay these people, train them, and invest in them. Seek new talent out. So much TV and cinematic output is churned out with writing that is okay, but not great. There’s been an under-valuation of good writers for far too long now.

The Rise of Nepotism

Audiences love the story of an unusually talented and beautiful unknown, breaking through to become one of the most famous and celebrated artists on the planet. Yet, it seems to happen less and less these days. The nepo baby phenomenon makes Hollywood look insular and boring. Seeing slightly different versions of the same faces is not just dull, but in times of economic hardship, it, rightly or wrongly, makes life seem even more unfair. The appearance that Hollywood is no longer a place where a poor unknown can make their American Dream come true has damaged its reputation more than it realises.

Yes, it’s true that connections can be still made, and even nepo babies need luck, talent, and a great look to have a long career. A generous dose of nepotism always has been and always will be a thing, but Hollywood can’t rest on its laurels and cast its movies only from the offspring of the wealthy with already famous last names. It must revive its ability to turn complete unknowns into stars. It must take risks on new talent. It leaves a bad taste in audience’s mouths when every face they see on screen is either related to someone already important or sleeping with someone already important.

Nepo babies are boring, and often lack talent. Make my day and pluck newbies out of drama school, instead.

The Usual Degeneracy

It’s long past time Hollywood did some overdue introspection regarding the Harvey Weinstein scandal. No one represented the Hollywood elite quite like Weinstein, and his downfall has cast an unsavoury shadow across the whole of the industry. It’s not that Harvey Weinstein was a violent rapist, it’s that so many knew Weinstein was a violent rapist and were willing to look the other way. The perception that the Hollywood rich and powerful were not subject to the same laws and social norms that restrain the rest of us, has made Tinseltown seem seedier than it was ever thought to be. It’s one thing to know it subconsciously, it’s another thing entirely to see your worst fears in the black of print. Weinstein’s actions were nightmare fuel and the scandal cast a long shadow on the whole industry, which it has yet to recover from.

Social media has changed the dynamic between the industry and the Press. Once upon a time, studios, Hollywood execs, and publicists could exert some control over reporters by denying them access if they consistently reported on the uglier side of the industry. This used to be enough to ensure a degree of self-censorship on the part of reporters, as being blackballed from the Hollywood club meant losing their livelihoods altogether. Reporters can now make their living unbeholden to the usual powers that be, thanks to being funded through their social media audiences.

Reporting on the more salacious aspects of a movie star’s personal lives is not only no longer career harikuri, but, instead, can bring a reporter money through their own audience. Hollywood must realise, on some level, they can’t cover up scandals the same way they once did. Hollywood has no choice but to vet its stars and its execs, and police the behaviour of its stars and execs, to higher standards it has historically been used to. The days of the casting couch have to come to an end, whether the industry realises this or not.

Deep down, I think we always knew that Hollywood was a town full of both outstanding talent, and outstanding degeneracy. We were, however, willing to overlook the degeneracy if Hollywood kept its end of the deal. We turned a blind eye so long as Hollywood keep turning out masterpieces, kept us entertained, and kept pushing the boundaries of filmmaking art to inspire and delight the masses. Now that Hollywood seems to have forgotten how, or has lost the will, to do just that, audiences are no longer willing to spend the coin on its output like they once were.

It brings me no joy that quality movies are not being pumped out at the rate they once were, but is Hollywood willing to do the introspection needed to restore its prestige?