Comment by btbuildem
3 months ago
The article doesn't cover the most relevant part (and a huge contributing factor, imo): that most media products at that scale are simply investment vehicles. The first and often the only thing you hear about some blockbuster movie is how much money it made at the box office. Studio execs evaluate potential projects primarily by their potential to generate a return.
No surprise this leads to reruns and repeats, as everything slowly turns into multicoloured sludge. Investors look back at Super Movie VIII, and fund Super Movie IX because they can be reasonably confident in making a 100% profit. [1]
To be so immensely popular, these products have cater to the lowest common denominator. They're optimized for sellability, not quality. The "stars" come and go as their arcs play out, but the studios behind them remain a constant. The most successful ones make stock market insider-trading politicians look like children in a sandbox. They just pump out the sausage, sell it at a 100% mark up, and we gobble it up because it's pre-chewed and an easy distraction from the daily struggles.
This doesn't explain why this has started happening in the last 40 years for media types that have existed for far longer than that. Even movies have been around for long enough to build up a large catalogue and for investors to catch on, so why didn't we start seeing a rise in remakes and sequels until recently?
When did the US get off the gold standard, early 70's?
Maybe the infinite supply of money has something to do with these changes.