Hello! It's Pollzano!

Films reflect the time period in which they were made.

Our most popular films right now are all reboots, sequels, and reused IPs.

On one hand, you could make the case that our generation is being deprived of its place on cultural timeline, because (as far as the mainstream goes) all we're being given is rehashed ideas from other time periods. Seems rather boring to analyze.

But on the other hand, I think future film historians will find that this era is culturally fascinating. Not because of the "nostalgia bait" itself, but because it represents the emergence of independent cinema and streaming.

When TV was invented, people could watch filmed media at home. You no longer had to go to a theatre just to watch cartoons or comedies.

So the studios responded with a wave of epics in the 1950s. They said "Okay, you can get Dick Van Dyke at home, but you can't get Ben-Hur." Television couldn't compete with the budget, big name stars, or visual tech that film studios could offer. They were financially incentivized to blow your socks off with visuals and big name stars.

But with the emergence of streaming and independent film, that's no longer the case. A-listers are happy to take TV roles, and TV offers Hollywood-level visuals. You don't need to mess with the theatre system at all. It's easier than ever to make good-looking movies and share them with the masses with no major studio backing.

So what's the one thing that studios still have going for them? What's the one thing that Disney can give you that an independent filmmaker can't? Yoda. The Little Mermaid. Iron Man. Fucking brands. That's all they have, so that's all they sell.