I believe the level of impact a film has on a person is measured not by how many times you watch it or what you take from it, but how you are subconsciously influenced after watching it. As time moves forward, the opportunity to experience this in the same way is fading. Cinema is an art form slowly losing its purpose because of an imbalance in representations, lack of originality and cognitive interaction, film studios hunger for money, and the swarm of streaming services.
Money melts cinema
Walt Disney once said “We don’t make movies to make money. We make money to make more movies.” I love his perspective, although I don’t think the film industry has quite taken that approach.
I think many of us are forgetting why movies are even made. Film studios frequently seem to be sacrificing story for viewership and sales, so Hollywood films are increasingly made with less complexity and are often not as unique as what an independent film might be. In doing this, movies can become less meaningful. Assistant Professor Darren Blakeborough from the School of Culture, Media, and Society shared his insight on this.
“The smaller films, the independent films, that’s where you can work outside of [the mainstream] system. You can take chances, you can experiment … but for the most part, Hollywood in a major way doesn’t do that just because it’s the logic of capitalism. [Producers] need the most people possible to watch this, and so [they] tend to make it a little less complex. It’s entertainment. ‘I want to turn off my brain and watch a spectacle, and not have to think.’”
Just look at how many sequels and spinoffs released in 2025 alone –– over 40. I’ll admit I was all for some of these releases, like Jurassic World: Rebirth I Know What You Did Last Summer Black Phone 2 and Wake Up Dead Man: A Knives Out Mystery — but is it really necessary?
This year Marvel is releasing a new Spider-man film, Spiderman: Brand New Day (2026), even though there’s 10 Spider-man films collectively already. Not to mention the second WandaVision spinoff supposedly releasing this year, VisionQuest (2026-). I’ve watched WandaVision (2021) –– the ending was complete and there’s no need for more. I also thought the original Frozen (2013) movie was really satisfying as a single film, and yet Disney’s making a third film — Frozen 3 (2027). An Aladdin (2019) spinoff from the perspective of Prince Anders is also reportedly being made. When will it end?
Sometimes it’s better to just let a good film live alone, because after a while, sequels start to feel monotonous and repetitive. Films feed too much off the other, having a lack of originality. The movie becomes formulaic, requiring very little energy, commitment, and investment to watch. As a result, they don’t stand out and don’t give us anything fresh to think about or take with us, which in my opinion, is not what cinema should be — cinema needs to stay interesting and relevant for people.
Originality is key
Taking it from a filmmaker’s perspective, Professor in Graphic Design and Art Direction, filmmaker Matej Balaz suggests that it comes down to how often filmmakers actually step outside the box and write original screenplays rather than just making adaptations. Balaz used Bugonia (2025) as an example, but there’s so many more, from Twilight (2008), and Wuthering Heights (2026), to Colleen Hoover movies like It Ends With Us (2024), Regretting You (2025), and Verity (2026). Although there are some fantastic adaptations out there that I love and am happy they brought to life, it’s become a habit to pick from a story that we already know and bring it to life — which Balaz suggests is a way for filmmakers to prioritize and boost their reputation.
“There’s not enough risk-taking anymore … It’s become an industry of nostalgia … The status of [being] a filmmaker is now bigger than trying to make films.”
Balaz believes movies’ layers are being more simplified, resulting in the story having little detail, claiming this has evolved from a laziness within the filmmaking process.
“Back in the day … you did everything for the image. You did everything because film is a subliminal medium … [Making a film] is like trying to date your audience. You’re making sure that the candles are just right, that the music is just right … you’re making sure that everything matches … Nobody really puts that much effort [or] energy into things [anymore].”
The approach to making a film must have authenticity and the passion to build a connection between an audience and a story. Sometimes that means being less comfortable and more innovative, maybe even unconventional or weird. Not having that approach affects how viewers see it and therefore how they feel about it. It all leads to one conclusion that Balaz makes clear.
“There’s no risk, there’s no reward.”
Less attention means less retention
Speaking of reward, I get a tear in my heart everytime I walk out of the movie theatre and no one says a word about the movie afterwards. Everyone just moves on, and it’s like the movie didn’t matter. The lack of discourse can be frustrating because unpacking a film creates a secondary bonding experience which makes me want to see more movies. It’s fun to share the emotion, thoughts, and theories about the story, and it’s part of why movies should always be important to us.
“I love a movie that makes me laugh so hard it hurts, or that makes me sob-cry in a theatre with people around me … [because] it was crafted in such a way that I haven’t felt like that for so long,” said Blakeborough.
Along with this, watching movies has increasingly become more of a task for some rather than a way to experience something memorable. It can be difficult to get emotional gratification from them now, nevermind the opportunity to learn something new, or witness something phenomenal that impacts viewers in a positive way.
Balaz confronted the harsh reality of people’s attention span, explaining that this often clashes with how and if people truly involve themselves in a movie.
“How many films have you actually seen where you didn’t look at your phone in between? You actually stopped it when you went to the bathroom? … How can [we] expect the cinema to live when watchers don’t even give it the proper attention?”
A generational problem is that our attention spans are also getting shorter everyday. Focusing on an hour and a half long movie can be quite a difficult job, for young people especially — which could explain why reflecting on a movie after watching it is less common. Many movie-goers are not truly giving the film their undivided attention because their minds are naturally in many places at once — a sad reality, since the movies are supposed to be where we can escape reality and live in a world where we don’t have to be overwhelmed. Balaz shares a piece of advice on what we can do to challenge this.
“If you want to save [cinema], watch it.”
Serving trends over story
The presence of social media is a problem in and of itself. I can think of so many movies that received a high level of viewership and popularity just because it either fit or sparked a trend in pop culture. Balaz explained that the online performance and marketability of a film often matters more to studios than the movie’s actual quality.
“We’re creating a system where every film has to have a little pinch of salt, little pinch of smile, little pinch of laugh, a little pinch of romance, [and] unless it gets 99 per cent on Rotten Tomatoes, [or] the moment that film gets below 70 per cent, most people won’t even watch it. We’re not independent filmmakers and independent watchers anymore. We’re just part of the waterfall of mainstream cinema. Everybody just consumes what we’re all saying.”
Take Challengers (2024) for instance; a movie that propelled the world into tenniscore. The movie was released and everyone started playing tennis and wearing skirts and sneakers. Many people today have major FOMO (Fear of Missing Out) and only watch the movie to follow the trend, rather than because they appreciate the sport or value the storyline. It represents the glamourization of a movie rather than the actual culture of the sport that people should care about. We’re still supporting cinema, but we’re also feeding the side of cinema that’s encouraging an artificial experience — meaning we’ll just keep watching movies without actually connecting to them in the way we should.
Is innovation breaking the cinematic experience?
Movies cannot be as impactful or successful without quality communication. Blakeborough discussed the translation of film from the screen to viewers, explaining that even screen-size can impact our experience and how we understand the film we’re watching.
“I have students all the time that watch everything on their phones. I’m like, ‘so you’ve never really seen a movie then.’ Because what you’re seeing there isn’t what you’re going to see [in the theatre] … There’s things in some movies that you need to see as part of the narrative that you can’t see when it’s on a small screen.”
We’ve seen a significant evolution of projector and sound systems quality in the 21st century, going from grainy displays to the 4k magic. As Blakeborough explained, this innovation has made a difference in how we see movies because we can watch them at home with better quality.
“It’s a completely different experience. We can replicate a movie theatre in our home a lot easier now, with projectors or even just big screen TVs and amazing sound systems.”
However, Blakeborough also believes that, because technology is so innovative and constantly improving, it’s also allowed us to neglect the ways we socially engage with cinema.
“Even if you’ve got [those innovations], you’re still missing out on that communal aspect of it –– watching it with other people. I love going to films and seeing … how other people react to it, and to see what works. Film is amazing. It tells us so much about ourselves and each other that we should watch it together.”
The communication of good cinema comes, in part, from the initial outlet you are watching it from, and the environment we’re in. Nowadays, we can have an at-home setup if we have the appropriate funds and space to do so, and even if we have an 82-inch plasma screen in our living room that gives us a similar quality to the theatre, it is not the same. Blakeborough emphasizes that going to the theatre to watch a movie is truly a one-of-a-kind experience.
“There’s still something about going to [the] movie theatre … it’s a ritual, [and] has meant a lot traditionally, and it’s sad to me that we’re going away from that … When I was a teenager, [I wanted] to go to a show and [sit] in the dark and eat popcorn, watch a movie … it was such a meaningful rite of passage. I don’t know if that exists in the same way now, because everyone has a movie theatre in their pocket.”
Theatre vs. streaming
Theatres are struggling to compete with streaming services as they become increasingly popular due not only to accessibility, but also profitability.
Streaming is a giant consuming the theatre experience, and it starts with the competition between subscription prices versus theatre prices. Amazon Prime Video charges their viewers $9.99 a month for a subscription, and their student membership is $4.99 a month. Plus, you automatically get Prime Video included in your regular Prime membership. As of Jan. 28, 2026, Disney+ made changes to their subscription plans and pricing, charging $15.99 a month without ads and $8.99 per month with ads.
For theatre prices, a general admission ticket at Cineplex is usually between $12-18, but I’ve noticed that it depends on the class of theatre you’re sitting in (Regular, IMAX, AVX, D-BOX, or VIP). For example, tickets for Peaky Blinders: The Immortal Man (2026) — released on Mar. 6 — were $17.75 for a regular theatre showing without any special qualities, totalling $18.64 with tax. Even minus the $1.50 online fee, it’s still a $17.14 ticket –– still more expensive than paying for a Prime Video or Disney+ subscription that lasts an entire month. That’s one movie at the theatre for the price of an entire catalog of old and new films accessible through streaming — and that doesn’t even include movie snacks, which can easily be another $20.
Theatres have been hit even harder since film studios decided to start battling the online beasts by producing their movies and releasing them directly to streaming companies at the same time they are released in theatres. Streaming services have the upper hand in our society. It doesn’t help that major film studios are swallowing other studios making an already huge streaming platform even more dominant, like Paramount, who recently merged with SkyDance before also acquiring WarnerBros. Paramount offered $31 a share which brings WarnerBros’ value to $77 billion — and WarnerBros itself includes HBO Max as just another big streaming service.
“It’s going to be just more and more streaming and again, not wanting people to go and see movies elsewhere,” Blakeborough says.
Doing so makes it feel like film studios are encouraging the death of cinema, rather than working to counteract it and keep the traditional cinema experience relevant. However, some specific filmmakers out there do actively work to save the places where the true theatre experience originates. Blakeborough used the Rio Theatre as an example, which was set to be torn down, but it was ultimately saved by filmmakers like Osgood Perkins, director of Longlegs (2024), and Kevin Smith, director of Clerks (1994).
“These guys all stood up and put their money where their mouth was, and these places are still going to be around showing different experimental movies because they believe in them. And there is a small group of people that want that, but now we have to prove it by supporting it.”
There is one thing that theatres don’t have which can make streaming services arguably more frustrating: an algorithm. Blakeborough explained that services like Netflix have ways of catching their viewers in an endless cycle of consistently having access to movies that attract them based on their watch history, which means many of them are the same. That also deters consumers from finding content outside their personalized algorithms.
“If you decide three or four times in a row … ‘I want something fun and light,’ you’re only going to get fed fun and light, and you’re not even going to have the option to watch the other stuff. So unless you know what you want to watch, and you can go do a name search to find it, it’s not going to hand it to you.”
Theatres not having an algorithm means we see movies in a variety of genres, rather than getting stuck in these cycles.
The future of cinema is in our hands
It’s hard to see the future for cinema as bright rather than bleak, but Blakeborough gives me hope that the future generations of filmmaking are promising as he tells of the high school students he’s met who have produced student films as part of their enrollment in a film program.
“Every year [I’m] just like ‘Okay, we’re gonna be okay.’ These kids are twisted … they’re taking chances, and they’re getting inspiration from this and using a piece of this [and] trying to change it and make it their own, and it’s amazing. So those are the moments when I always think film is going to be okay.”
If there’s anything I want to leave with you as someone who truly believes that movies can change our lives, it’s to ask you to imagine life without movies. Without that communal experience. Without stories that we can see and hear and feel. I can’t imagine it, and I don’t want to. I implore you to leave your phone at home (or at least shut it down), go to the theatre with family or friends, and watch a movie. Talk about it afterwards, share your thoughts, ask questions, and search for the answer. Invest in them all the way because they are not just something to occupy our time, but something to transform us by propelling the world with hope, strength, wonder, and purpose.
Veronica is a Staff Writer at The Cascade. She loves to travel and explore new places, no matter how big or small. She is in her second year at UFV, pursuing the study of Creative
Writing.