I stumbled upon this article by the New York Times. It’s behind a paywall, so don’t bother with the link if you don’t have a subscription. It discusses the recent trend of Hollywood movies bombing heavily, despite having plenty of “stars.”

Things like streaming, Marvel fatigue, the lingering shockwaves of Covid, and even inflation are often cited as reasons why modern movies underperform at the box office. Some people even argue that “wokism,” which they claim injects every story with a political agenda, is to blame.

Recent entries on the list of box-office failures include:

1. After the Hunt
2. Bugonia
3. The Smashing Machine
4. One Battle After Another
5. Ballerina
6. Snow White

I’ve already shared my opinion on why Amsterdam flopped a couple of years ago, despite having a massive all-star cast.

But I want to add one reason for current movie failures that I’ve never seen anyone mention: globalism.

Globalism has shifted the market from culturally isolated to multicultural. As a result, companies now design their products for a global audience. The problem is: if you try to make something for everyone, you end up targeting the lowest common denominator — which usually leads to a product that feels low-quality or generic to everyone.

In the world of movies, that looks like this: Imagine a film made for young men — primarily Western men — in the 1980s. You’re probably thinking about car chases, explosions, an action thriller starring Arnold Schwarzenegger, directed by James Cameron, John McTiernan, or Richard Donner. Maybe Mel Gibson shows up in the final act to save the day.

Now imagine a 1990s movie made for women — Western women, younger, maybe married or engaged. You’re likely picturing Meg Ryan in a Nora Ephron film. She falls in love with Tom Hanks, and every few scenes there’s a harmless little joke to ease the tension.

Filmmakers in the past knew exactly which demographic they were targeting. That’s why those movies worked — not just at the box office, but artistically as well.

But today’s filmmakers have decided they want to make movies for everyone. It’s like making a rom-com and casting Arnold Schwarzenegger as the lead. Or making an ’80s-style action flick and casting Charlize Theron or Ana de Armas as the hero (both of which literally happened).

And that’s still not enough for a global audience. “Representation” has to be included, no matter what. We need a gay character, a trans character, someone who’s Muslim, the Asian guy has to be the action star, and of course we need an Indian comedic side character. Where’s the mixed-race couple that shows how tolerant we are? And naturally, the one group it’s acceptable to offend — white heterosexual males — has to be the villain.

The result is a Frankenstein movie designed to please all demographics and cultures while being terrified to take any risks.

By trying to pander to everyone, Hollywood is getting almost no one into theaters anymore.

The only way to fix this — and bring people back to theaters — is to make highly targeted niche films again. Instead of producing a $100 million blockbuster for everyone (that no one watches), make ten $10 million niche films. You’ll attract ten different target demographics, and at the very least you’ll recoup your investment. Every now and then, one of those smaller films will go viral — your $10 million investment becomes a $100 million success.

That’s how Hollywood used to operate. And I don’t see any good reason why they couldn’t return to that business model.