Why Do Modern Movies Feel So Forgettable? What Happened to the Magic of Cinema?

I've recently found myself with rather more time on my hands than I would normally like.

An unexpected illness has put me out of action for a while, which means plenty of opportunities to sit down, put my feet up and watch a few films.

You would think that would be a film collector's dream.

With several streaming services available, hundreds of films to choose from and more new releases appearing every week, I should be spoiled for choice.

And yet, something rather strange keeps happening.

I browse through the latest films, find something that looks reasonably interesting, press play and, ten or fifteen minutes later, find myself reaching for the remote again.

Off it goes.

Not because I've suddenly lost interest in films. Far from it.

More often than not, I'll end up watching something from the late 1980s, 1990s, 2000s or even the early to mid-2010s. Films I've already seen several times and, in some cases, practically know by heart.

And I'll enjoy every minute of them.

That has got me thinking.

Why do so many modern films feel so forgettable, and why do the older ones keep drawing me back?

A film collector watches television surrounded by DVDs, contrasting the warm atmosphere and practical filmmaking of classic cinema with modern Hollywood's CGI, remakes, sequels and artificial intelligence.

When Films Had Atmosphere, Not Just Expensive Pictures

One of the biggest differences I've noticed is how modern films actually look.

I'm not suggesting that film technology hasn't improved. Modern cameras, digital effects and production equipment are capable of producing extraordinary images.

But extraordinary image quality doesn't necessarily mean an extraordinary-looking film.

Older films often had a particular atmosphere that seems increasingly difficult to find.

The lighting was different. The colours were different. Even the darkness felt different.

Think about the smoky interiors, shadowy streets and practical lighting used in so many films from the 1980s and 1990s.

There was texture to those scenes.

Modern LED lighting offers filmmakers enormous flexibility and control, but I sometimes wonder whether that convenience has contributed to a more uniform appearance.

Of course, LEDs aren't entirely to blame. Digital cameras, colour grading, production design and the choices made by cinematographers all influence the finished picture.

Nevertheless, I regularly find myself watching modern productions that look far too clean, polished or artificially lit.

Everything is visible, everything is carefully arranged and everything looks expensive.

Yet somehow, the atmosphere is missing.

There is a difference between making a scene look technically perfect and making it feel real.

Where Have All the Extras Gone?

This is another complaint I've had for quite some time.

Watch a good older film with a busy street, a crowded market, a packed nightclub or a bustling railway station.

There is often something happening everywhere.

People are walking, talking, arguing, shopping, drinking or generally getting on with their lives.

Most of them have absolutely nothing to do with the central story.

And that is precisely the point.

They make the world feel alive.

Now compare that with some modern productions, where background activity can feel strangely limited.

You might have a beautifully dressed set, excellent camera work and two highly paid actors having a conversation.

But behind them?

Very little.

Sometimes it feels as though everyone who wasn't essential to the scene was sent home to save a few euro.

I know that large productions still employ plenty of background performers and that computer-generated crowds have their place.

But there is something about real people occupying real spaces that is difficult to reproduce.

They make mistakes. They move unpredictably. They create little moments that the camera may barely notice but that contribute to the overall atmosphere.

A film shouldn't feel as though the entire world stops functioning whenever the leading actor starts speaking.

Background action isn't just decoration. It is part of the storytelling.

Have We Run Out of Original Ideas?

Apparently, Hollywood has reached a point where almost everything needs to be a sequel, prequel, remake, reboot, spin-off or reimagining.

And if none of those options works, somebody will probably suggest another cinematic universe.

I understand the commercial thinking behind it.

Established franchises have recognisable names, existing audiences and a greater chance of attracting attention.

A studio investing hundreds of millions of dollars understandably wants to reduce its financial risks.

But there comes a point where familiarity becomes exhaustion.

How many times can the same characters be resurrected, the same stories retold and the same franchises restarted before audiences begin losing interest?

I'm not against sequels.

Some of my favourite films are sequels, and there are franchises I've followed for decades.

But the best sequels usually have something worthwhile to add.

They expand the story, develop the characters or take the audience somewhere unexpected.

A sequel shouldn't exist simply because the studio still owns the rights.

And remaking a film that was perfectly good the first time around doesn't automatically make it better.

Sometimes I wonder whether the industry has become so concerned with avoiding financial risks that it has forgotten how to take creative ones.

There are undoubtedly original and excellent films still being made.

The trouble is that they often seem to struggle for attention beneath the enormous marketing campaigns surrounding familiar franchises.

Bigger Budgets Don't Always Mean Better Films

Some of the most memorable films ever made didn't need enormous budgets to tell their stories.

They needed strong scripts, believable characters, capable actors and directors who understood what they were trying to achieve.

Today's blockbuster budgets can be astonishing.

Yet spending more money doesn't necessarily produce a better result.

An expensive action sequence means very little if I don't care about the people involved.

A computer-generated battle involving thousands of soldiers can look spectacular, but if none of the characters matters to me, why should I care who wins?

I've watched films with relatively modest action scenes that created considerably more tension than productions involving entire cities being destroyed.

The difference is usually emotional investment.

If a film hasn't given me a reason to care about its characters, throwing another hundred million dollars at the screen isn't going to solve the problem.

And that brings me to something I find increasingly frustrating.

Where Are the Characters We Actually Care About?

When I think about films that have stayed with me, it is rarely because of their special effects.

It's the characters.

The people who struggle, sacrifice, make mistakes, suffer consequences and occasionally achieve something extraordinary.

They don't necessarily have to win.

In fact, some of the most powerful films I've ever watched have endings that are anything but happy.

What matters is the journey.

Think about films such as Gladiator, Braveheart, The Last of the Mohicans, Man on Fire or The Grey.

Very different films, but each gives the audience something to become emotionally invested in.

You understand what is at stake.

You feel the losses.

You care about the outcome.

I don't always get that feeling from modern films.

Too often, characters seem to exist merely to move the plot from one expensive sequence to the next.

There's no time to get to know them, no opportunity for the story to breathe and little reason to remember them once the credits roll.

Of course, poor characters and weak scripts have existed since cinema began.

The difference, at least for me, is how frequently I now find myself abandoning a film before the story has even properly started.

When Actors Become More Interested in Being Heard Than Being Watched

There's another issue that occasionally takes some of the enjoyment out of modern Hollywood.

The actors themselves.

I've always believed that actors are entitled to their opinions, just like everyone else.

They can support whatever causes, campaigns or political movements they choose.

But I don't particularly enjoy being lectured by wealthy celebrities who sometimes seem convinced that fame gives their opinions greater importance than those of the people buying cinema tickets.

I'm paying to watch someone act.

I'm not paying for political instruction.

And when certain performers become more famous for their public pronouncements than their performances, it can be difficult to separate the two.

I explored this subject in more detail in my other article, Why Hollywood Actors Can’t Stay Out of Politics (and How It’s Changing Their Careers).

It's a related gripe rather than the main reason I find some modern films disappointing.

After all, an irritating actor can still deliver a brilliant performance, and I wouldn't dismiss a genuinely good film simply because I disagree with someone's politics.

Nevertheless, I do sometimes wish a few of them would remember what made them famous in the first place.

Will Artificial Intelligence Eventually Replace Hollywood?

This is where things could become particularly interesting.

Artificial intelligence is already changing how images, voices, visual effects and moving pictures can be created.

And we're still at a relatively early stage.

Imagine a future where studios can generate convincing actors, enormous crowds, entire locations and elaborate action sequences without building sets or employing anywhere near as many people.

No expensive location shoots.

No enormous cast salaries.

No awkward negotiations with temperamental stars.

And perhaps, eventually, no human actors at all.

I wouldn't be surprised if someone in a Hollywood boardroom is already dreaming about the money that could be saved.

Now, I have to admit that the thought of a few particularly outspoken celebrities discovering they're no longer indispensable does raise a slightly wicked smile.

Perhaps an AI actor would at least know when to keep its mouth shut.

But joking aside, I find the wider implications rather depressing.

Actors aren't the only people who make films.

There are set builders, carpenters, electricians, lighting technicians, costume designers, makeup artists, background performers and countless other people working behind the scenes.

Entire careers depend on the industry.

Having spent years working as a carpenter myself, I have considerable respect for the people who physically build the worlds we see on screen.

The thought of all those skills being replaced by computer-generated imagery isn't particularly appealing.

And what happens to creativity when a studio can instruct a computer to manufacture almost everything?

Technology may eventually be able to reproduce the appearance of a great performance.

Whether it can reproduce the humanity behind one is another question entirely.

Perhaps the films of the future will look absolutely spectacular.

But will they make us feel anything?

Why I Keep Going Back to Older Films

I suppose it's possible that part of my preference for older films comes down to age and familiarity.

I'm now in my fifties, and the films I grew up watching naturally occupy a special place in my memory.

There is undoubtedly an element of nostalgia involved.

I also recognise that we tend to remember the best films from previous decades while conveniently forgetting the countless terrible ones.

The 1980s and 1990s produced plenty of rubbish too.

I know that because I've watched some of it!

But I don't believe nostalgia explains everything.

There is something about the pacing, atmosphere, practical effects, characters and storytelling of many older films that continues to work remarkably well.

And I'm not limiting this to the films of my childhood.

Some of my favourites were released during the 2000s and early 2010s, long after I was old enough to view them without any childhood attachment.

These films earned their place in my collection because I enjoyed them.

Many have survived five, six or even ten repeat viewings.

That's a remarkable achievement when you think about it.

A film I already know inside out can still hold my attention for two hours, while a brand-new release sometimes struggles to keep me interested for ten minutes.

Surely that says something about the quality of the experience.

I've touched on this subject before in I Miss the Movies We Used to Get (And I’m Not Sure Where They’ve Gone), where I questioned what happened to the kinds of films I used to enjoy. The more modern releases I watch, the more I find myself returning to that same question.

Maybe the Problem Isn't Just Hollywood

I should probably acknowledge that my own viewing habits have changed too.

There was a time when sitting down to watch a film meant making a deliberate choice.

You rented it, bought it, recorded it from television or waited for it to appear on one of the available channels.

Once you started watching, you generally gave it a fair chance.

Today, streaming services place thousands of choices in front of us.

If something doesn't immediately grab our attention, another option is only a button press away.

That convenience may have made us less patient.

Perhaps I've become more demanding as a viewer.

Perhaps, having watched thousands of films over several decades, I've simply developed a lower tolerance for stories I've seen done better elsewhere.

I suspect there's some truth in all of those explanations.

But I also believe the film industry has changed in ways that don't always benefit the audience.

Bigger budgets, better equipment, more elaborate effects and endless streaming platforms haven't automatically produced more memorable cinema.

Sometimes they've simply produced more content.

And content isn't necessarily the same thing as a good film.

Final Thoughts – I Still Want to Be Surprised

I don't want this to sound as though I've given up on modern cinema.

I haven't.

There are still excellent films being made, talented actors delivering extraordinary performances and directors capable of producing something genuinely original.

I want to discover those films.

I want to sit down in front of the television, start watching something I've never seen before and become so engrossed that I completely forget about the time.

I want characters worth caring about, stories worth following and endings that stay with me long after the screen goes dark.

What I don't want is another two hours of expensive visual effects trying to disguise a story that should never have made it beyond the first draft.

For now, while I'm recovering and spending more time in front of the television than usual, I suspect my collection of older films will continue to get plenty of attention.

At least I know what I'm getting.

And perhaps that's the saddest part.

With more films available to watch than at any other point in history, I keep finding that the ones I most want to watch are the ones I've already seen.

Maybe Hollywood should ask itself why.

Thanks for Reading,

David

Want to Pick up some decent movies?

Affiliate links – I may earn a small commission if you buy, at no extra cost to you.

If you'd like to see my recommendations directly, go to my Amazon UK Storefront, where I group related recommendations together for easier browsing.

A small note: If you are buying from Amazon anyway, using one of my links is a simple way to support the blog without costing you anything extra. Even if you end up buying something different, I may still receive a small commission. Thanks for considering it.

💬 Have a thought on this? Please leave a comment below, I’d love to hear your take.

About the Author

I’m David Condon, a movie enthusiast from Tralee, Co. Kerry. I’ve been collecting DVDs and Blu-rays for years, and along the way my shelves have become a mix of favourites, hidden gems, and titles I occasionally decide to resell.

I’m not a professional critic, just someone who enjoys good films, well-made discs, and the odd rant about the quirks of collecting. This blog is where I share my thoughts, opinions, reviews, and experiences as a fan.

💬 Note from the Author
This blog is a hobby project where I write about DVDs, Blu-rays, and the ups and downs of being a collector. If you enjoyed this post, you might also like my other writing:

David Condon Finds – my lifestyle and review blog
David Condon Woodcraft – my main website focused on woodturning and handmade pieces

If you’d like to support the blog, you can do so through the Buy Me a Coffee button below. It helps keep this little side project alive — thank you!

Search This Blog

Phoenix DVD Blog