• Galapagon
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    6
    ·
    3 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)@lemmy.blahaj.zone
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      9
      ·
      3 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
        3 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
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      3 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.