• trevor (he/they)
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    41
    ·
    2 days ago

    Come and get your recycled franchise, nostalgia-bait slop! We can’t be fucked to pay any creative talent to write stories about anything new or interesting, so here are some of your favorite characters’ zombies that we acquired being dangled in front of you.


    I’m about y’all, but I’m really looking forward to Barbie 9 and Beetlejuice Beetlejuice Beetlejuice Beetlejuice Beetlejuice Beetlejuice Beetlejuice Beetlejuice Beetlejuice Beetlejuice Beetlejuice Beetlejuice Beetlejuice Beetlejuice Beetlejuice Beetlejuice!

    • Galapagon@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      2 days ago

      I agree with your sentiment, but the studies show people will go see what’s familiar, even if it doesn’t end up being very good. It’s a safer bet for studios

      • trevor (he/they)
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        9
        ·
        2 days ago

        Absolutely, and that’s the problem. Studios optimize for low-risk because art is just an investment vehicle for them, which is directly at-odds with what art actually should be: creative expression.

        • snooggums@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          2 days ago

          Yeah, being a for profit business guarantees they won’t be about creative expression that doesn’t have a monetary incentive in the short term or long term.

          Even the examples of a studio financing a movie because someone in power wants it to exist despite knowing it won’t make bank have an underlying expectation that other projects the director will work on (or has in the past) generate more revenue than is lost on that project.

      • barneypiccolo@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        2 days ago

        And everybody knows that going for the safe bet is the sure-fire formula for a classic that will return profits to the studio for decades.

    • Steve@communick.news
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      2 days ago

      There are no new stories. Haven’t been for millennia.
      Stop asking for re-skinned old stories.

      • snooggums@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        2 days ago

        There is a difference between recycling an existing story by re-imagining it and throwing out generic slop with a nostalgia filter. The Terminator and Halloween are the same story if you ignore the details. Indiana Jones was an homage to the old adventure serials.

        Having the same overall structure can make something the same story at the surface level, but how it is implemented is what makes it fresh and original. Nostalgia bait is not putting the effort into making something new and fun, but instead focusing on how they can cram member berries in so people can remember the better movie as a distraction from the slop they are watching.

        Not all movies with nostalgia moments are nostalgia bait either. Good sequels exist too.

        • Steve@communick.news
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          2 days ago

          Exactly true. But celebrating a new coat of paint, instead of cleaning the old paint, is kind of silly. That’s my point.