Other Pop culture becoming an oligopoly.

[Bebe]

Maybe, maybe not. But the main thing here is, with all the music available to us, it's still being absolutely dominated by a small collection of artists to a degree that it hasn't done before. And again, we're just talking about music here, but this is across all of pop culture. Which leads to the question: why?

Not sure I got a good answer, really.

I'll give two thoughts on the "why?" question.

The first is that I think human psychology is at least somewhat predictable, especially if we're talking about large groups or mass markets. I think the entertainment industry has become better at predicting what will appeal to mass audiences, and thus been able to streamline their offering. Like a macro version of a car manufacturer that sells 40 models realizing that they only need to sell 8. The process of what becomes popular is less organic/emergent today than it was previously, because our ability to predict what humans will find appealing has increased.

The second is that this sort of consolidation seems to happen with almost everything in nature. I don't have much more explanation for this thought. When I read the OP, I was immediately reminded of small rock clusters in space eventually combining into planets. I'm not sure whether this is relevant or whether I smoke too much weed.

 

[BusbyMalone]

We definitely need more data to draw more accurate conclusions! But see I'm not sure its only been just now. The further back in history that you go music, movies, the arts become less accessible to the average person. Therefore its easier for the "taste"/"quality" of the time to be decided by a smaller group of people or those who have a keen interest in it. When you open that up to a larger audience then their tastes will have to be catered for as well. And for the average person who has no interest in the deeper meaning of a story or the cinematic complexity of a cinematographer, they will gravitate to the easier to digest "pop" version. Its similar to how I'm in IT, if a friend asks me for a laptop, I can give a breakdown about how laptop A is so complex and bleeding edge etc, but in reality my friend has no interest in that and just wants a nice looking laptop that can play games. Which is the same as playing your friend a song with a complex composition or complex lyrics and them going yeah I get artistically thats great...but im just looking for a song to dance to when I'm drunk.

Right, but you seem to be talking more about the subjective quality of it all, whereas I (and the data) am talking more about the lack of variance and diversity compared to years ago. I'm not so much making the argument that movies, books, tv, etc, were subjectively better years ago, but more that it was more varied and diverse. Less reliant on sequels, prequels, and spin-offs, etc.

It's more about how homogenous it has all become, as opposed to the actual subjective quality of it. You can obviously think that mainstream movies and music is shit if you want, but I'm interested in how consolidated it's all become.

As I mentioned in a comment above, a lot of it is probably opportunity costs. There's so much content, picking the safer option (which doesn't necessarily mean the worst option) is the way to go for most people due to the fact that there's only so much time in the day. Doesn't explain all of it though.

 

[BusbyMalone]

I'll give two thoughts on the "why?" question.

The first is that I think human psychology is at least somewhat predictable, especially if we're talking about large groups or mass markets. I think the entertainment industry has become better at predicting what will appeal to mass audiences, and thus been able to streamline their offering. Like a macro version of a car manufacturer that sells 40 models realizing that they only need to sell 8. The process of what becomes popular is less organic/emergent today than it was previously, because our ability to predict what humans will find appealing has increased.

The second is that this sort of consolidation seems to happen with almost everything in nature. I don't have much more explanation for this thought. When I read the OP, I was immediately reminded of small rock clusters in space eventually combining into planets. I'm not sure whether this is relevant or whether I smoke too much weed.

And would you say that was true during the 90s and early '00s before the Internet and streaming really took off? Because these trends were happening back then, too. Obviously, the internet accelerated it, but it was happening before that.

And I like the rock cluster metaphor. Always got time for some farrr out thinking, man.

 

[Vidyoyo]

There's a story I like about how Starbucks over roast their beans so that it basically tastes the same no matter where you go, across the whole world.

I think the same is true of pop culture - that people like to go with what they know and trust old experiences over new experiences that could be disappointing and different. It's human instinct to want a 'known' as doing/watching/listening to different things requires a set of thought processes we might not have the time/energy/interest in dedicating ourselves to.

I also think digital technology is partly to blame as the more advanced products/services have got, the more we crave the convenience, thus empowering marketing and algorithms.

Good thread btw.

 

[Ibi Dreams]

I think that it's a self perpetuating thing at this point. With the proliferation of these kinds of movies/music/games etc, it must be likely that creators (outside of producers and marketers and advertisers) are also playing to the crowd. I'm sure that some aspiring musicians have changed their style to fit what is popular and mainstream because they want to be successful. It may happen less with films because these big productions are offered rather than done on spec, but even so you have to imagine that writers/designers of any kind of media are not necessarily doing what they really want, but working in a way that can bring them success (i.e working within the proven mould).

 

[Bebe]

And would you say that was true during the 90s and early '00s before the Internet and streaming really took off? Because these trends were happening back then, too. Obviously, the internet accelerated it, but it was happening before that.

And I like the rock cluster metaphor. Always got time for some farrr out thinking, man.

I would, but I'd think that the rise of internet streaming and the digitization of everything leads to more data to make predictions from (as well as a larger mass audience, unlimited by geography or anything else), and the result is a sharper increase in consolidation.

 

[BusbyMalone]

It’s just capitalism. The need for expanding profits leads to monopolies and also brings about advances in technology that cheapen production(Which makes the need for profits more difficult and thus the cycle continues at a more intense pace)

This happens over enough time and it will lead to what we have today, which is giant corporations having to rent IP’s out to its subscription base and take very low investment risks(Non stop sequels and franchises)as it’s the way to get any worth while return back.

Right, but in order to make that work, you need a receptive audience. And that's the crux of all this. Studios are doing it because it's making money, but we all know that. The point here is, why are people now, and over the past two decades, so receptive to this. This yearning for the past and the "safe" option. Blockbusters have always been a thing, huge musical artists have always been a thing, etc, but not to this degree. It's a huge shift.

 

[BusbyMalone]

I think that it's a self perpetuating thing at this point. With the proliferation of these kinds of movies/music/games etc, it must be likely that creators (outside of producers and marketers and advertisers) are also playing to the crowd. I'm sure that some aspiring musicians have changed their style to fit what is popular and mainstream because they want to be successful. It may happen less with films because these big productions are offered rather than done on spec, but even so you have to imagine that writers/designers of any kind of media are not necessarily doing what they really want, but working in a way that can bring them success (i.e working within the proven mould).

That's all true but doesn't really get at the most interesting aspect of this, and that's the question: why are people SO receptive to all this. People, it appears, are more open to experiencing the same thing over and over again.

 

[CassiusClaymore]

That's all true but doesn't really get at the most interesting aspect of this, and that's the question: why are people SO receptive to all this. People, it appears, are more open to experiencing the same thing over and over again.

Because people by and large seek comfort in things they know rather than the unfamiliar. Also the world seems to be getting exponentially dumber so why watch/listen/read something that requires concentration and effort when you know what you're getting with something familiar and easily consumable.

Oh I see @Vidyoyo has basically said the same thing but better.

 

[BusbyMalone]

Because people by and large seek comfort in things they know rather than the unfamiliar. Also the world seems to be getting exponentially dumber so why watch/listen/read something that requires concentration and effort when you know what you're getting with something familiar and easily consumable.

Oh I see @Vidyoyo has basically said the same thing but better.

Oh, I know that, we all do that to a certain extent. But I don't think that really covers it, to be honest. Why now over the last two decades or so is the question. I suppose you could look at the political and broader cultural landscape and draw some conclusions from that. Are people getting dumber? Not sure. If you spend any sort of time on social media you could come to that conclusion, but social media does warp your perception of the "real" world.

But there has to be something in the cultural landscape that would explain just why people are so enamored by the past and the safe option to a degree that they weren't before. I just find it super intriguing, personally.

 

[CassiusClaymore]

Oh, I know that, we all do that to a certain extent. But I don't think that really covers it, to be honest. Why now over the last two decades or so is the question. I suppose you could look at the political and broader cultural landscape and draw some conclusions from that. Are people getting dumber? Not sure. If you spend any sort of time on social media you could come to that conclusion, but social media does warp your perception of the "real" world.

But there has to be something in the cultural landscape that would explain just why people are so enamored by the past and the safe option to a degree that they weren't before. I just find it super intriguing, personally.

I mean yes they are according to pretty much every scientific study.

 

[Andy_Cole]

I feel TV Shows is actually one place where originality is there. There’s so many cool new shows coming out all the time with interesting concepts. Yes there’s a million police/ detective shows too. But seems the originality has been pumped into TV rather than cinema.

Maybe Cinema now is for the blockbusters. Whereas original movies and TV Shows are for watching at home.

 

[BusbyMalone]

I mean yes they are according to pretty much every scientific study.

You're talking about the IQ drop in a lot of countries around the world? I've read a little on this. Yeah, Ok, although the reasoning behind this is not really known, and while IQ obviously has its merits, it's not the be-all and end-all. There are other forms of intelligence that an IQ test doesn't necessarily take into account, and the relevance of such a test is still a debated thing as far as I'm aware. There's also an argument that there's been a switch in the education system over the last decade (or two) that doesn't necessarily favour the sort of questions you would get on an IQ test.

Personally, I think intelligence is a difficult thing to fully quantify. But yeah, obviously there could be something in it. Although I would be reticent to say that people are objectively dumber now because of this. But there's something in the broader cultural landscape I think, for sure.

 

[BusbyMalone]

I feel TV Shows is actually one place where originality is there. There’s so many cool new shows coming out all the time with interesting concepts. Yes there’s a million police/ detective shows too. But seems the originality has been pumped into TV rather than cinema.

Maybe Cinema now is for the blockbusters. Whereas original movies and TV Shows are for watching at home.

Oh, there's definitely quality stuff still being produced all across the board. The issue is (if you believe there is one), is that the variance has shrunk.

 

[amolbhatia50k]

In a lot of these fields, the mainstream has gotten worse whereas the indie scene has risen rapidly. Music and gaming are both absolutely brilliant when it comes to stuff that's outside of the big studios/labels. Although music has taken a huge nosedive when it comes to the quality of the mainstream. Then again I'm biased towards musical genre's of the past.

 

[amolbhatia50k]

I feel TV Shows is actually one place where originality is there. There’s so many cool new shows coming out all the time with interesting concepts. Yes there’s a million police/ detective shows too. But seems the originality has been pumped into TV rather than cinema.

Maybe Cinema now is for the blockbusters. Whereas original movies and TV Shows are for watching at home.

That's a good point.

 

[sullydnl]

In a lot of these fields, the mainstream has gotten worse whereas the indie scene has risen rapidly. Music and gaming are both absolutely brilliant when it comes to stuff that's outside of the big studios/labels. Although music has taken a huge nosedive when it comes to the quality of the mainstream. Then again I'm biased towards musical genre's of the past.

This chart is interesting in that regard:

It would seem to suggest there has been a significant increase in the amount of indie films theatrically released per year, it just isn't where cinema-goers are opting to spend their money.

Though the caveat is that something being "theatrically released" doesn't tell you how widely distributed it was or how much practical opportunity audiences actually had to see it in a cinema.

 

[BusbyMalone]

This chart is interesting in that regard:

It would seem to suggest there has been a significant increase in the amount of indie films theatrically released per year, it just isn't where cinema-goers are opting to spend their money.

Though the caveat is that something being "theatrically released" doesn't tell you how widely distributed it was or how much practical opportunity audiences actually had to see it in a cinema.

Yeah, that's the thing here. It's not that the more unique experiences aren't there, it's just that there's a lack of variance at the very top and it's become homogenized to a degree that it hasn't done before. And this is due to an audience that's seemingly happy with accepting the same thing over again.

IF this trend continues, then the more unique experiences will be squeezed out even more.

 

[Andy_Cole]

Yeah, that's the thing here. It's not that the more unique experiences aren't there, it's just that there's a lack of variance at the very top and it's become homogenized to a degree that it hasn't done before. And this is due to an audience that's seemingly happy with accepting the same thing over again.

IF this trend continues, then the more unique experiences will be squeezed out even more.

Well the issue is streaming services literally telling you what to watch based on your likes. My Netflix is so different to my wife’s account. There’s so much on there but I’m only drawn to their recommendations.

 

[caid]

Well the issue is streaming services literally telling you what to watch based on your likes. My Netflix is so different to my wife’s account. There’s so much on there but I’m only drawn to their recommendations.

I keep a clean account on most of them things. I'll scroll through it to see whats there and then watch it on my own account. Dont really need it for anything other than netflix to be honest as most of the others dont have enough content for stuff to get hidden in the mix.

 

[Dirty Schwein]

With movies specifically, it's not hard to see how this has happened.

Studios want money and what's safer? To try promote a new and original I.P? Or to release a sequel to a movie that did gangbusters previously?

Then got have your most commoner cinema goer... They don't want to spend time going through all the synopses... It's easier to grab a bag of popcorn and just watch Spider-Man, which they know will be of a certain quality rather than risk watching Everything, Everywhere because like... What is it? Is it good? What if it's shit? Nah feck it... Spiderman!

The big movies are released by the big studios and they have the financial muscle to promote it everywhere and then all your colleagues are watching it so you'll go watch it so you can all talk about that moment when Thanos snapped his finger...

Indie movies though at least have streaming, which is better than nothing. And to be honest, the big spectacles are probably better experienced in the cinema whereas a niche indie is just as fun in an intimate setting like your home...

But yeah as long as people keep paying to watch MCU, Fast & Furious, Fantastic Beasts etc .. Hollywood will keep churning them out...

At least there are many left field options available to us, just gotta know how to find them.

 

[BusbyMalone]

Well the issue is streaming services literally telling you what to watch based on your likes. My Netflix is so different to my wife’s account. There’s so much on there but I’m only drawn to their recommendations.

Sure, but that's only part of the problem because this trend started before streaming services really took off. It no doubt sped things up but doesn't necessarily explain this phenomenon. Also, there was data back in 2019 that said that streaming only accounted for 14% of television viewing in 2019. Obviously, it's grown from there, but the point is, it isn't just streaming that's causing this.

 

[BusbyMalone]

With movies specifically, it's not hard to see how this has happened.

Studios want money and what's safer? To try promote a new and original I.P? Or to release a sequel to a movie that did gangbusters previously?

Then got have your most commoner cinema goer... They don't want to spend time going through all the synopses... It's easier to grab a bag of popcorn and just watch Spider-Man, which they know will be of a certain quality rather than risk watching Everything, Everywhere because like... What is it? Is it good? What if it's shit? Nah feck it... Spiderman!

The big movies are released by the big studios and they have the financial muscle to promote it everywhere and then all your colleagues are watching it so you'll go watch it so you can all talk about that moment when Thanos snapped his finger...

Indie movies though at least have streaming, which is better than nothing. And to be honest, the big spectacles are probably better experienced in the cinema whereas a niche indie is just as fun in an intimate setting like your home...

But yeah as long as people keep paying to watch MCU, Fast & Furious, Fantastic Beasts etc .. Hollywood will keep churning them out...

At least there are many left field options available to us, just gotta know how to find them.

Yeah, it's easy to understand it from the studio's perspective. That answers the question of why they do it, but you need a receptive and willing audience.

I mean, you did allude to it in the next paragraph and is something I said earlier in the thread about the opportunity cost. There is so much content out there that you're more likely to choose something you know you'll probably like because you watched the previous 15 films, or whatever, so you pick that one because there's only so much time in the day for you to waste.

I do think that explains some of it, to be fair. Although not all, because there wasn't always this amount of content out there, and this trend was going on then.

 

[Zen]

All the while.... TV has more variety than ever, I think.

90's and early 00's it was heavy laugh track sitcoms and police procedurals. Well from an American point of view, but a lot of this.

 

[UnrelatedPsuedo]

@BusbyMalone - Your thread prompted me to experiment. I have a Spotify family account and had two users left.

Started a brand new account and only liked music from artists I like with less than 50,000 plays.

Mental. Nothing but new things suggested.

 

[Vidyoyo]

All the while.... TV has more variety than ever, I think.

90's and early 00's it was heavy laugh track sitcoms and police procedurals. Well from an American point of view, but a lot of this.

This is probably true but I miss that easy, simple TV. Every show feels like it's designed to be a long-running saga and it's hard to dip in and out like you could in the 90s/early 00s.

I can still pop on an old episode of Murder She Wrote and be like yeah this my jam.

 

[BusbyMalone]

@BusbyMalone - Your thread prompted me to experiment. I have a Spotify family account and had two users left.

Started a brand new account and only liked music from artists I like with less than 50,000 plays.

Mental. Nothing but new things suggested.

New things as in small bands and artists that you would otherwise not have heard of if you didn't conduct this experiment? Yeah, I can see that. I feel like the algorithm works well, and in fact, a little too well for me sometimes. My recommendations are all over the place and a bit of a mess because I have an eclectic taste in music. Ironically, I'm wanting less diversity from them sometimes!

 

[UnrelatedPsuedo]

New things as in small bands and artists that you would otherwise not have heard of if you didn't conduct this experiment? Yeah, I can see that. I feel like the algorithm works well, and in fact, a little too well for me sometimes. My recommendations are all over the place and a bit of a mess because I have an eclectic taste in music. Ironically, I'm wanting less diversity from them sometimes!

Exactly that. There’s a subreddit that pax_libertas posts to. Same name on Spotify I think. Eclectic and rare. I’ve followed a few of their playlists. I add things I like to my own playlist.

I added some of my favourites from That list to the ‘virgin’ account. Great results.

Edit: I134 on Spotify

 

[Zen]

This is probably true but I miss that easy, simple TV. Every show feels like it's designed to be a long-running saga and it's hard to dip in and out like you could in the 90s/early 00s.

I can still pop on an old episode of Murder She Wrote and be like yeah this my jam.

I kind of agree, growing up and coming back from school to watch Colombo mid-episode... no issue, easy to catch up with what was going on, and then bam 'one more thing' ... and dinner.

 

[Cheimoon]

That's all true but doesn't really get at the most interesting aspect of this, and that's the question: why are people SO receptive to all this. People, it appears, are more open to experiencing the same thing over and over again.

I think the causality is the other way round actually: film and game studios have gotten better at understanding audience preference and so can play into them better. Plus, sequels, spin-offs, etc. have a guaranteed audience (to some extent) of people that like the previous installment and will be curious about the next product.

Also, budgets for top films and games have gone up enormously (because of competition between films and games), meaning that productions carry more financial risk, and hence have a greater need to be a guaranteed success - which then leads back to the previous paragraph.

I'm talking only about films and games here, but I suppose tv shows fit the mold as well, given the costs involved in creating episodes of blockbuster series. I know nothing about books though, and I think the mechanisms are different for music, if only because it's consumed very differently.

(Yes, 'consumed', cause this is the pure business side of these industries.)

 

[Dirty Schwein]

Yeah, it's easy to understand it from the studio's perspective. That answers the question of why they do it, but you need a receptive and willing audience.

I mean, you did allude to it in the next paragraph and is something I said earlier in the thread about the opportunity cost. There is so much content out there that you're more likely to choose something you know you'll probably like because you watched the previous 15 films, or whatever, so you pick that one because there's only so much time in the day for you to waste.

I do think that explains some of it, to be fair. Although not all, because there wasn't always this amount of content out there, and this trend was going on then.

I don't think the amount of content is solely responsible...

Back in the day, there was less content and less ways to watch a movie so going cinema for example was probably a huge treat... So when people went, they probs wanted to watch something that's the "event" movie out at that time. Something familiar. Something with a guaranteed set of qualities.

 

[BusbyMalone]

I think the causality is the other way round actually: film and game studios have gotten better at understanding audience preference and so can play into them better. Plus, sequels, spin-offs, etc. have a guaranteed audience (to some extent) of people that like the previous installment and will be curious about the next product.

Also, budgets for top films and games have gone up enormously (because of competition between films and games), meaning that productions carry more financial risk, and hence have a greater need to be a guaranteed success - which then leads back to the previous paragraph.

I'm talking only about films and games here, but I suppose tv shows fit the mold as well, given the costs involved in creating episodes of blockbuster series. I know nothing about books though, and I think the mechanisms are different for music, if only because it's consumed very differently.

(Yes, 'consumed', cause this is the pure business side of these industries.)

I get that, and there's no doubt that studios are getting better at understanding what people are watching, but it doesn't really answer the question of why people are so willing to watch, listen, and read the same thing (or similar thing) over and over again to a degree which they never did before. The entities that are producing the content are merely capitalizing on this.

And as you say, we're focusing on movies and games here, but this is across the pop culture board. There's clearly a lack of variance and diversity at the very top of book sales, music sales, movies, video games, etc. So while Netflix, Amazon, and Disney+ can mine your data and feed you the same stuff based on your past likes, it was trending this way before those services really took off. Which comes back to the fact, that they were already catering to a willing audience.

 

[BusbyMalone]

I don't think the amount of content is solely responsible...

Back in the day, there was less content and less ways to watch a movie so going cinema for example was probably a huge treat... So when people went, they probs wanted to watch something that's the "event" movie out at that time. Something familiar. Something with a guaranteed set of qualities.

Well, people are still doing that, only the event movie now is typically the 15th installment in a particular franchise. And as for the familiar and guaranteed comment, the data would suggest that the opposite is happening. The safe and guaranteed option is what people are opting for now, as opposed to back in the day.

And just to put a caveat in here, blockbusters have been a thing way before the 21st century kicked into gear. As have sequels. But it's the sheer amount of them now, and how many of them just absolutely dominate in order to create this homogeneity, is the "issue".

 

[Cheimoon]

I get that, and there's no doubt that studios are getting better at understanding what people are watching, but it doesn't really answer the question of why people are so willing to watch, listen, and read the same thing (or similar thing) over and over again to a degree which they never did before. The entities that are producing the content are merely capitalizing on this.

And as you say, we're focusing on movies and games here, but this is across the pop culture board. There's clearly a lack of variance and diversity at the very top of book sales, music sales, movies, video games, etc. So while Netflix, Amazon, and Disney+ can mine your data and feed you the same stuff based on your past likes, it was trending this way before those services really took off. Which comes back to the fact, that they were already catering to a willing audience.

I agree, this has nothing to do with streaming services.

Maybe that's been discussed already, but where's the evidence that people didn't want to get more of the same thing before? I'm thinking that has always been the case, but that the movie and game industry only really started exploiting that relatively recently.

 

[BusbyMalone]

I agree, this has nothing to do with streaming services.

Maybe that's been discussed already, but where's the evidence that people didn't want to get more of the same thing before? I'm thinking that has always been the case, but that the movie and game industry only really started exploiting that relatively recently.

Could be a possibility. One of the theories was, that studios may have simply found out that once people fall in love with these cinematic universes, sequels, and spin-offs of the same thing, they want to spend a lot of time in them.

The data we do have suggests (a lot of it posted in the OP) that the general audience back then was more receptive to newer things. There was more variance at the top of the charts. Original movies just aren't popular anymore* (and again, it isn't just movies that are affected here) which may come back to what I said in my first paragraph, or it may be something else. There's no doubt that audiences are hungry for things that are "safe" and familiar, as well as media that harkens back to the past (remakes, reboots).

* Until the year 2000, about 25% of top-grossing movies were prequels, sequels, spinoffs, remakes, reboots, or cinematic universe expansions. Since 2010, it’s been over 50% every year. In recent years, it’s been close to 100%.

 

[Dr. StrangeHate]

Games are the worst medium in this regard, I don't even know which Battlefield or call of duty we are on.
Microtransactions have further completely ruined them. Rockstar simply stopped making games once they discovered them. Don't even get me started on the abomination that is FIFA franchise.

 

[Chairman Steve]

I have no idea how COD is still going to this day and I’m someone who played the very first one almost 20 years ago now. Every 12-18 months a new ‘game’ comes out even though it’s the same game with different textures and slight graphical upgrades.

COD should have just been a trilogy of games if we’re going for legacy and prestige. Past, present and future warfare, which would be COD1 for Past, COD4 for Present and Advanced Warfare for Future.

 

[Cheimoon]

Could be a possibility. One of the theories was, that studios may have simply found out that once people fall in love with these cinematic universes, sequels, and spin-offs of the same thing, they want to spend a lot of time in them.

The data we do have suggests (a lot of it posted in the OP) that the general audience back then was more receptive to newer things. There was more variance at the top of the charts. Original movies just aren't popular anymore* (and again, it isn't just movies that are affected here) which may come back to what I said in my first paragraph, or it may be something else. There's no doubt that audiences are hungry for things that are "safe" and familiar, as well as media that harkens back to the past (remakes, reboots).

* Until the year 2000, about 25% of top-grossing movies were prequels, sequels, spinoffs, remakes, reboots, or cinematic universe expansions. Since 2010, it’s been over 50% every year. In recent years, it’s been close to 100%.

Yeah, I saw those charts, but then the question is: how common were high-profile sequels etc. back then? In other words, were those types of movies not hits because people didn't got to them, or because they simply weren't available like they are now? Cause my impression is that there used to be much fewer big-budget sequels etc; they were more often cheap knock-offs.

For example, Jerry Bruckheimer was producing a string of smash hit blockbusters in the 90s, with The Rock, Con Air, Armageddon, and more. The speed at which those were released and the overall similarity in tone/style of those films is quite comparable to what Marvel is doing now; but those films were all stand-alones. If Bruckheimer would instead have overseen a Bruckiverse where these films all tie together with recurring characters, maybe he would have had an even bigger audience; but that wasn't done yet in those days.

 

[Vidyoyo]

I get that, and there's no doubt that studios are getting better at understanding what people are watching, but it doesn't really answer the question of why people are so willing to watch, listen, and read the same thing (or similar thing) over and over again to a degree which they never did before. The entities that are producing the content are merely capitalizing on this.

And as you say, we're focusing on movies and games here, but this is across the pop culture board. There's clearly a lack of variance and diversity at the very top of book sales, music sales, movies, video games, etc. So while Netflix, Amazon, and Disney+ can mine your data and feed you the same stuff based on your past likes, it was trending this way before those services really took off. Which comes back to the fact, that they were already catering to a willing audience.

It feels to me like commonality is a big part of the appeal (and subsequently something I often feel the exact opposite feeling to).

I didn't understand this really until I dated a girl who liked Marvel movies and once sat round a table with her friends while they were talking about it. I couldn't imagine there was much to talk about but they sure were prattling on.

It's the exact same situation with TV. Most people watch TV because it's fun to talk about it with people - look at this place for example. There's a big difference in quality for sure but the motivation is the same.

All this is of course magnified by some trillions in the always-on, ever-connected digital age.

Edit - I'm basically describing the Network Effect - https://www.investopedia.com/terms/n/network-effect.asp

Yeah, I saw those charts, but then the question is: how common were high-profile sequels etc. back then? In other words, were those types of movies not hits because people didn't got to them, or because they simply weren't available like they are now? Cause my impression is that there used to be much fewer big-budget sequels etc; they were more often cheap knock-offs.

For example, Jerry Bruckheimer was producing a string of smash hit blockbusters in the 90s, with The Rock, Con Air, Armageddon, and more. The speed at which those were released and the overall similarity in tone/style of those films is quite comparable to what Marvel is doing now; but those films were all stand-alones. If Bruckheimer would instead have overseen a Bruckiverse where these films all tie together with recurring characters, maybe he would have had an even bigger audience; but that wasn't done yet in those days.

That's a good parallel. A lot of them were quite fun in spite of their obvious shiteness

 

[BusbyMalone]

Yeah, I saw those charts, but then the question is: how common were high-profile sequels etc. back then? In other words, were those types of movies not hits because people didn't got to them, or because they simply weren't available like they are now? Cause my impression is that there used to be much fewer big-budget sequels etc; they were more often cheap knock-offs.

For example, Jerry Bruckheimer was producing a string of smash hit blockbusters in the 90s, with The Rock, Con Air, Armageddon, and more. The speed at which those were released and the overall similarity in tone/style of those films is quite comparable to what Marvel is doing now; but those films were all stand-alones. If Bruckheimer would instead have overseen a Bruckiverse where these films all tie together with recurring characters, maybe he would have had an even bigger audience; but that wasn't done yet in those days.

Well, there were some high-profile sequels back then, if "back then" we mean the 90s and 80s. Terminator 2, The Lost World: Jurassic Park, Toy Story 2, and Star Wars: Phantom Menace were the sequels that made up the top 15 highest grossing of the 90s. The 80s actually had a lot of high-profile sequels: Aliens, The Empire Strikes Back, Mad Max 2, Back To The Future Part 2, Beverly Hills Cop 2, Superman 2, and a few more. They just weren't making the massive amounts of money that today's sequels, prequels, etc., are making.

Terminator 2 and The Lost World didn't crack the top ten grossing of the '90s, and Toy Story 2 was tenth.

Also, just to reiterate, we're focusing on movies here, but this is across the board.