Idk if economics was the right flair but I don’t know how it’s economically feasible for big studios to lose money on a lot of films with huge budgets and to make them so bad.
In: Economics
Higher budget and streamlined processes for visual effects
Visual effects made a lot of epic/fantasy/sci fi and action visuals possible, but also required a lot of planning around filming and post production. This and more money involved in general meant people wanted higher yield films and naturally lower risk. People are a lot more careful with budgets of hundreds of millions or more than budgets of low tens of millions
Because of this, a lot of stuff is very very pre planned, because waste of time when you’re paying larger crews is much more costly. Things become less adaptable so there’s less stuff that can be changed. Smaller productions generally had more comfort being more free form and sometimes getting actors back after the primary filming phase for reshooting.
The larger amounts of money also put more pressure on the films being higher profit, meaning they want a film that is suitable for larger audiences, especially if it can be an international audience. This way they needs more basic, and more universal appeals, and be more adverse to potentially being offensive/politically incorrect in a much larger market
As the industry blew up, there just became a more standardized pipeline for how to make films; the producers of these general don’t know all the studios involved in great detail; so the more standardized every studio is the more business they will appeal to. This is more scalable but less creative
An Avengers movie has a lot of planning and a lot of effort go into how things are shot to save time for visual effects (which is a lot of effort even if things go well). A film like Joker gets to be a lot more creative in the process of shooting to see what feels better.
Latest Answers