Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit
I live in Atlanta ("y'allywood"), a formerly big LA film outsourcing location. They shot much of Marvel and Netflix stuff here pre-2023. The unit below me has been rented to Winona Ryder and Dave Bautista.

Beyond that, my hobby is film and I know tons of people in the industry. I've made indie films with them.

All the jobs have gone to Europe. It's simply cheaper to film there now. Amazon and Netflix built infrastructure and taught local crews how during the pandemic content wars.

Looking at my Gen Z wife, all the eyeballs have gone to TikTok.

There's the answer.

That’s really good insight! The graph only includes US employment. To see global employment instead would be enlightening.
yes and also movies have gotten worse (more poorly written)
They haven't really, it just seems like it, and for that you can blame better distribution.

When I was growing up movies were watched in cinemas. It was a big event and we saw maybe 5 a year.

Over time more start appearing on TV, but those tended to be a bit older, but also cherry picked the good ones. (I don't live in the US).

PayTV didn't appear until mid 80s. They had more movies, but again tended to cherry pick. VHS meant we recorded the ones we wanted to see. All these things together meant we tended to watch "good" movies.

Hollywood of course were making lots and lots of movies we never saw, or had and way to see. The bad stuff simply didn't have a channel to the world.

The arrival of Video Stores changed that. Suddenly the mediocre (and worse) had an outlet. And trust me, there was plenty of rubbish in there. But there was still a cost to distribute.

Today, distribution cost is zero. If Netflix commission a movie it'll get onto Netflix. Regardless of the result. Some really good stuff, most mediocre, lots of real rubbish.

Repeat for Amazon, Disney, Hulu, et al.

Overall movies haven't gotten worse. Objectively production values are higher. But your access to mediocre and bad movies has increased.

Judging past output though introduces survivor bias, which in turn makes comparison to today misleading.

No way. It is not sampling bias. Big budget movies have gotten worse script wise compared to the 90s and 00s.

The scene workers have gotten better though. And there are a lot of good movies being made still, but not by the mainstream industry that used to really deliver.

If that was the only reason I could name a dozen watchable movies from the last decade, but I can't. I can name a dozen good movies from 1984:

1. Beverly Hills Cop

2. Ghostbusters

3. The Terminator

4. Gremlins

5. A Nightmare on Elm Street

6. Police Academy

7. Dune

8. Repo Man

9. The NeverEnding Story

10. Karate Kid

11. Romancing the Stone

12. Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom

Or pretty much any year from the 1980s and 1990s.

I love all those movies because they are from my generation, but how many of those would be considered good with today's audiences?
Well, my kids like old movies, they just didn't had a chance to watch them. We are rewatching old stuff like Alien, Terminator, etc. and they are surprised how good those movies are. Last night we watched movie "Kiss Me, Stupid" 1964, kids loved it.
Good movies are just good movies. Recently I've been watching titles from the 1920s and those are a lot of fun, too.

At some point we lost good writing in favor of silly jokes and narrative in favor of spectacle.

I believe this first sentence to be true, but I'm skeptical about the last sentence.

For a while in the oughts I taught a film history class, though, and even 2 decades ago the kiddos thought anything in black and white, much less with no sound or with subtitles, was literally unwatchable. I'm okay with the idea that the students' tastes in media are legitimate, though I have my own tastes and think they are differently-informed.

And further, I dunno if "silly jokes and narrative in favor of spectacle" are new. Think Keystone Cops and Busby Berkley.

I like Battleship Potemptkin and Citizen Kane as much as the next person, but that's not all of what was popular.

Paring the thousands of films from the 80s down to a list of 10 does a lot of work to make that looks like it was better, when in fact I was in middle school and I could literally go see a movie for 75c. I remember some really bad ones, and I am certain I've forgotten a lot of bad ones.

I also have problems making a list of good films from the last decade, but I think that's because I got burnt out and stopped watching long-form video mediums when I left my PhD program. I am not sure I have seen 10 long form narrative works in the last 5 years.

> I like Battleship Potemptkin and Citizen Kane as much as the next person, but that's not all of what was popular.

Funnily enough, those happen to be two movies I didn't enjoy beyond their historic relevance.

I'm not saying that spectacle and one-liners are bad - movies like that are included in my list for 1984. It is when you substitute good writing with funny lines and have spectacle instead of a compelling narrative that I see a problem.

The whole culture has gotten worse. The bright young talents of gen Z just aren't showing up in any medium.

...No wait, to be fair, they're very good at influencing. They can influence like no previous generation ever could.

People don't usually re-run the bad stuff from years ago.
How much vfx is being done by AI video editing software/ massive gpu clusters over previous locally employed vfx studio artists? Maybe I’m thinking about this wrong but isn’t the compute/AI vfx models now reducing the amount of humans needed to edit things like Marvel character’s special effects scenes, etc?
VFX has already been outsourced for over a decade. Look at the film credits and you'll see lots of Eastern European and Asian studios.
These are far more plausible explanations. AI can no doubt bring certain efficiencies, but for the most part consumers seem to be squarely rejecting primarily AI-generated creative output.
It's crazy how California and the LA area local governments killed their "golden goose" by driving out the film industry. I guess progressives can't stop themselves from doing that, but it's always sad to see.
They didn't kill the golden goose. Other places implemented tax benefits to encourage film making. That is why so much filming is done in Canada, New Zealand, and various Central European nations. If anything, the golden goose flew away. As a counterpoint: What do you think California and LA area local gov'ts should have done differently?
Not keep adding to the taxes, expenses, and red tape? Work to address the outrageous cost of living in CA that indirectly drives expenses for labor? It's a million and one policies that all contribute to how running a labor heavy business in CA is increasingly challenging (bearing in mind that those factors matter less to a software shop or Apple).

As I mentioned elsewhere in the thread, CA's labor-pool's own hostility to the film industry (via strikes) also played a big role. They gave the studios the finger, then are surprised that the studios took their ball and went elsewhere.

For those unaware, TV and film unions in Los Angeles are incredibly powerful. As a result, people who work in TV and film jobs are paid far above median wages in Los Angeles. Also, I doubt that overseas staff working on TV and film sets are paid the same level as Los Angeles. If anything, LA studios are repeating the same story that we saw in the 1990s and 2000s with US manufacturing: Move it somewhere else where wages are very low, e.g., China or Mexico.

Also, I see this anti-union sentiment a lot on HackerNews: Whenever unions strike, there is near universal rejection as a strategy. The anti-union sentiment on HN is tiring, especially from the US and UK. Those big strikes in Los Angeles resulted in large pay increases and/or expansion of territory (better payouts for streaming, etc.) for those union members. In short, it worked.

"It worked" for those in the union, for a bit, but the article itself shows 30% declines since 2022. If you're still working under the new, even-more-lavish contracts, I'm sure you're happy. If you're in that 30% now working as a barista or DoorDash driver, did the union work for you?

It's akin to the auto worker's unions, but without the same degree of government backstopping for the industry. The auto workers unions are an anchor around the necks of the auto industry, while government bailout dollars are a lifejacket - it's clear California (and more broadly the US) doesn't see the same need to subsidize the unions in TV and film.

I’m not a fan of many progressive causes, but this is absolutely more an issue with globalization and easy ability to move jobs overseas to cheaper areas.
Absolutely, along with the rise in popularity in unscripted and nonprofessional content due to non-AI technologies drastically lowering the cost floor for production and distribution. AI will no doubt contribute to these trends, but I suspect its impact will be more evolutionary than revolutionary.