Hollywood Enters Oscars Weekend in Existential Crisis

Original Article ↗ Hacker News Discussion ↗

Hollywood’s steep drop in cinema attendance and the Oscars’ waning relevance are prompting questions about whether the traditional studio system is in structural decline rather than a temporary slump. Commenters point to expensive, risk‑averse, franchise‑driven output, perceived ideological preaching, and rapidly improving home viewing as reasons audiences skip theaters, while YouTube, TikTok and video games capture more of people’s time. Some see hope in indie films, foreign cinema, and new tools that lower production costs, but many argue the U.S. industry has been slow to adapt its economics and creative risk-taking to this new attention landscape.

Oscars and “Hollywood crisis”

  • Many see the Oscars as emblematic of the problem: self‑congratulatory, corporate, and artistically conservative.
  • Some prefer festival juries (Cannes, Sundance) as better artistic barometers.
  • Others argue this is cyclical; similar complaints have existed since at least the 1980s.

Economics, pricing, and business model

  • Strong frustration with theatrical costs: $15–25 tickets in many US cities, $80+ for a couple with snacks; cheaper in Europe and smaller US markets.
  • Theaters rely heavily on concessions; most ticket revenue goes to studios, especially early in runs.
  • Streaming underprices theatrical: people delay or skip cinema when they know it will appear “free” on a subscription soon.
  • Missing “middle” market of rentals and mid-budget films is widely lamented.
  • Some note Hollywood’s offshoring and tax incentives abroad; others blame overreliance on mega‑budget franchises.

Content quality, “slop,” and AI

  • Many think mainstream output is formulaic: endless sequels, superhero franchises, DEI/HR‑like messaging, and “AI slop” aesthetics even before real AI.
  • Counterpoint: survivorship bias—older eras also had tons of trash; we just remember the classics.
  • Some fear AI will flood the market with even more low‑effort work; others hope new tools will re‑democratize filmmaking.

Cultural relevance and competition for attention

  • Several argue movies, especially American ones, are losing cultural centrality to:
    • Short‑form video (YouTube, TikTok, Instagram)
    • Video games (viewed as a much larger, more dynamic industry)
    • High‑end TV/streaming series
  • Others say cinema will persist, just as a niche art form (like jazz) rather than a mass “event.”

Global and indie alternatives

  • Many commenters now watch mostly:
    • Older films (classics, repertory screenings)
    • Foreign cinema (Korea, Japan, India, Europe, Brazil, China)
    • Indie/arthouse and A24‑style work
  • Publicly funded national film institutes in other countries are highlighted as enabling high‑quality non‑Hollywood films.

The theatrical experience

  • Split views:
    • Pro: big screen, shared reactions, focused attention, special formats (IMAX, 4DX) still feel magical.
    • Con: loud ads and trailers, disruptive audiences, phones, mediocre projection/sound, and home setups that rival or surpass theaters.

Politics and propaganda

  • Some feel newer films are too didactic or “preachy.”
  • Others note Hollywood has always had strong political and military propaganda elements; what’s new is which messages feel intolerable to which viewers.