WICKED FILMMAKING. 2024’s Wicked, despite it’s large visual issues, recycled storytelling and lack of intelligence, was a smash-hit and earned itself a Oscars Best Picture nomination. (Fair Use: Universal Pictures, edited by Thomas Chen)

“They don’t make them like they used to” is a phrase constantly said by dads and grandpas around the globe. It is often dismissed as an opinion fueled by nostalgia, but they might actually be right.

The current cinema scene is a watered-down, unintelligent void of money-grabbing lazy films. It feels as if blockbusters have replaced all sense of pride and ambition with a need to play it safe so any viewer with deep pockets isn’t offended. Twenty empty and pathetic films nullified of aspiration are released for every creative and beautifully crafted film. The current state of cinema is weak and struggling, and there are a few common problems behind it.

The first is the aforementioned lack of intelligence. Truly great films can be interpreted and enjoyed on multiple levels. Take “2001: A Space Odyssey,” for example. The film is widely recognized as one of the greatest films of all time. It’s an entertaining and riveting space drama that flies by. But simultaneously, it delivers some heavy and deep themes about creativity, discovery, evolution, innovation, and humanity. It’s a masterpiece. At the time, “2001” pushed the boundaries of what a film could be, visually and conceptually, and still grossed nearly 400 million dollars (adjusted for inflation). It offers these themes in nuanced and original ways, which is rarely seen in today’s blockbusters.

Now look at “Deadpool & Wolverine,” the second highest-grossing film of 2024. It brings nothing original or new and relies on cameos and previous franchise installments to get people in the door. It’s pathetic. The core of cinema is based on portraying powerful ideas in a fresh, easily accessible way, but modern films have stayed away from this cinematic philosophy. Of course, there are exceptions. “Dune Part Two,” “Oppenheimer,” and “Barbie” are among the highest-grossing films of the past two years and successfully deliver essential themes.

The second issue is the visuals of contemporary film. We are in the ugliest period cinema has seen, and it’s not particularly close. The two leading causes are the unnecessary need to make films look realistic and a massive overreliance on CGI. One of the most apparent displays of these issues is the differences between “Gladiator” (2000) and its legacy sequel, “Gladiator II” (2024). “Gladiator” is a gorgeous film. It uses practical effects and miniatures to make the ancient Roman setting look incredibly real. It uses beautiful blue-wash lighting in numerous scenes, making it a feast for the eyes while retaining realism. “Gladiator II,” on the other hand, does all of these things wrong. It includes multiple hideous CGI animals and uses CGI instead of miniatures for its wide-shot scenes. And where “Gladiator” uses gorgeous lighting, “Gladiator II” is an ugly mess of yellow oversaturation. It tries to use this effect to make it look “real,” but it just forces the viewer to stare at an unattractive, bland movie theater screen. “Wicked” (2024) is another example of a recent film that struggles visually. “The Wizard of Oz” (1938) is an incredible visual masterpiece, with colors that pop and beautiful sets, but “Wicked is bland and pales in comparison, despite being released 86 years later.

The third and most crucial issue is that producers value money over the artistic value of movies. Movies are art. They are beautiful, powerful, and essential. Filmmakers who have things to say should have platforms available to be heard. Countless brilliant and moving independent films from around the world never see the light of day because large studios are more focused on releasing pitiful cash grabs like “Red One,” “Alien: Romulus,” and “Ghostbusters: Frozen Empire.” These films are making millions of dollars and taking away opportunities from high-quality films with incredible intellectual themes. Take Angela Patton’s and Natalie Rae’s film “Daughters,” for example. “Daughters” premiered at the Minneapolis-St Paul International Film Festival and tells a moving story of daughters visiting their fathers in jail. “Daughters” hasn’t gotten a single non-festival screening, making it virtually impossible for the general public to see it. This is where the movie industry is failing, and it doesn’t look to be getting better anytime soon. Movies need to be considered an art form and less of a business, and quality should be prioritized in the films being released into the mainstream.