>>51703089you're delusional if you think most big-name writers, directors, etc. used to lived real lives before going on to their media jobs. most just graduated harvard/yale/whatever and immediately got to writing (usually by leveraging connections they made in college or through family), just like they do now.
i agree a lot of media does feel much worse than before, but i'm not totally sure why. a big part of it might just be survivorship bias. there was a load of shit on TV in the 80s and 90s (and well before), but no one remembers it because it was shit -- we only really remember the well-crafted stuff, and as a result, we end up comparing the bulk of modern TV, movies, etc. from today with the best examples of that same media from decades past
in the case of pre-existing franchises specifically, though, it does feel like a lot of these are just far more poorly made. maybe because investors aren't willing to give a load of money to some crank like george lucas today, while they would in the past. today, if you're making a half-billion dollar movie, you're going to need a colossal committee to """ensure""" its profitability, and as a result, these remakes/reboots/soft reboots/etc. all feel far more "soulless" and phoned in than their earlier counterparts.
