The new literalism plaguing today’s movies

Phones, Attention, and “Second-Screen” Storytelling

• Many see hyper-literal dialogue and constant signposting as a response to distracted audiences watching while on their phones.
• Others invert the causality: people reach for their phones because the movies are shallow, overlong, and empty.
• Several cite streaming execs explicitly wanting shows to work as “background” content, requiring characters to spell out what’s happening.
• Some argue the issue is less “short attention span” and more impatience and different pacing norms vs. older, slower films.

Global Markets, Censorship, and Cost

• A recurring theory: blockbusters must now work for non‑native English speakers and pass foreign censors, pushing toward simple visuals, repeated flashbacks, and easily dubbed exposition.
• Huge budgets and reliance on international box office encourage lowest‑common‑denominator storytelling and easy moral clarity.

Is “New Literalism” Actually New?

• Several commenters say mainstream films have always telegraphed emotions and themes; the article cherry‑picks recent examples.
• Past hits like “Good Will Hunting” or “Titanic” were also obvious and heavily signposted, while subtler films existed in parallel.
• Others counter that today’s combination of on‑the‑nose dialogue, repetition, and “ruined punchlines” (“did you just say X?”) feels qualitatively worse.

Bad Writing, Not Just Literalism

• A strong thread: the real plague is weak, committee‑driven writing and executives who don’t care about scripts, not literalism as an aesthetic choice.
• Literal explanation can work (anime, some games, some experimental films) when used deliberately; the problem is when it’s there only to protect confused or hostile viewers.

Blockbusters vs. Indie and Foreign Films

• Several suggest that people wanting nuance already gravitate to indie, festival, and foreign films, which still embrace ambiguity and “show, don’t tell.”
• Examples cited as counter to “new literalism” include recent European and Asian films, as well as some high‑profile awards titles.
• Others are skeptical that arthouse output is fundamentally better; it may just be smaller‑scale and less market‑tested.

Audiences, Politics, and Message-First Cinema

• One line of argument: studios now fear misinterpretation (e.g., antiheroes idolized, satire co‑opted), so they hammer home a single, “safe” message.
• Another: writers themselves are increasingly explicit about using movies as vehicles for social or political statements, which pushes toward didactic, literal storytelling.
• Some point to franchises (superheroes, certain sequels) as emblematic: themes are spelled out, metaphors explained, and moral ambiguity avoided.

Theaters, Economics, and Changing Habits

• Ticket sales per capita peaked long before streaming; declines are tied to home tech improvements, piracy, rising prices, and COVID, not just film quality.
• Many now reserve theaters for “event” movies (IMAX, spectacle) and watch everything else at home, where rewinding and pausing reduce the need for spoon‑feeding.
• Others insist the cinema experience still offers unmatched engagement—when audiences aren’t distracted by phones and noise.

Reception of the Article

• Some find the “new literalism” frame insightful; others call it shallow, elitist, or indistinguishable from the perennial “movies were better before” complaint.
• Criticism that the piece leans on negative examples, offers few concrete positive counter‑examples, and blurs together very different films under one label.