Forum

Angles: Has catering to consumers destroyed the film industry?

With immediate access to so many sources of entertainment at once, “film junkies” and critics alike seem to be dwindling in numbers, drawn instead to media that’s instantly accessible — if often worse.

Movie theatres around the globe are struggling to stay in business as fewer and fewer people decide to dedicate their precious time to consuming media that isn’t the quickest and most convenient option. As viewer interest wanes, major film studios have had to choose whether to sacrifice their storylines or to maintain public interest.

No longer can movies be made with the sole purpose of telling a story; for films to be successful, one must take into account what the people want. Are viewers — more specifically, their wallets — controlling what we see on the big screen, and do corporations truly understand what we’re asking for?

Humanity has always striven to communicate through its stories. Now there is a chance that said stories are being diluted by popular demand. As the film industry changes dramatically, the only way for studios to maintain viewership is to cater to their audience.

Has this helped reshape movies into a story of our own? Or are they simply out of touch — only a mere attempt to mimic what the public has previously absorbed, and no longer wishes to maintain?

Madisyn Stogsdill, Forum Editor

Yes, it is a ticket to failure

Evan Whitehead is a sophomore English major.

Oftentimes, studios seem to find the most profitable path to success paved in endless sequels, spin-offs and reboots, leaving little room for original ideas.

Catering to the demands of consumers can lead studios to make decisions that are “safe” for profits, like casting only the most recognizable actors or avoiding more experimental genres in exchange for already-successful ones.

It was once easy for studios to listen to consumer demands. People could send letters in or submit reviews about what they did or didn’t like about the movie, and studios could adjust from there.

But, in the age of the Internet, individual voices can become much more drowned-out and harder to listen to when they are all overlapping at once.

There are simply too many people asking for too many different things.

With all these different wishes and requests to account for, studios often make decisions that appeal to the majority, catering to everybody, yet, at the same time, nobody.

The widespread popularity of extended cinematic universes — never-ending chains of sequels and spin-offs — is a direct result of this that we see today.

This strategy can feel like a studio throwing everything they can at a wall to see what sticks. Instead of emotionally-driven, one-off stories that people connect to on a personal level, studios pump out characters and storylines that are designed to never end.

The longer the cinematic universe continues, the more likely a collective fanbase is to latch on to a certain character or concept.

Marvel Studios, which popularized this idea, is the main culprit of this. Catering to consumer demands, they have shifted the course of their story multiple times — to the point where it feels like each new movie sets the whole franchise on a completely new trajectory.

The “Ant-Man” series is a good example of a strong concept for a movie going downhill as it gets more and more involved with widespread consumer demand.

The first movie told the grounded and relatable story of a father juggling his newly acquired abilities with trying to redeem himself after a prison sentence. People genuinely enjoyed this, and, of course, requested a sequel.

It went on to receive a second and third film each with increasingly more audience-requested casting, and more ties to the wider Marvel continuum, should fans want another spin-off.

Despite studios’ expectations, this began to lose favor with the wide majority they wanted to appeal to.

Audiences need to be coerced — almost tricked — into watching movies out of their comfort zones. “Sinners” (2025), which on the surface is a movie with a few beloved Hollywood stars led by an audience-acclaimed director, actually has a culturally rich and personal story, which allows its director to fully express his creativity and unique perspective without the need for sequels. Stories like this are what truly succeed.

Movie studios like Marvel seem convinced success comes with a strict formula that attempts to recreate things that have already been successful, but, in reality, true success comes by tapping into a wide spectrum of creativity that pushes audiences out of their comfort zones even if it is not what consumers are demanding.

No, movies are more personal

Xavier McKenzie is a freshman journalism and government double major.

Since the pandemic, streaming services and short-form content like TikToks and Instagram reels have grown in popularity. Many feel the movie business is struggling.

As content becomes more available at home, studios must listen to consumers’ increasing demands if they want to get people out of their homes and into theatres.

Studios recently have tried to combat at-home content by releasing sequels and remakes of well-known movies because they are nostalgic for many people.

Over time, people have noticed this trend and become extremely tired of it.

Though studios still make money off of these releases, people are growing fatigued of the endless barrage of sequels, as can be seen with the recent events at Marvel after the Infinity War Saga.

We are starting to see more and more of these sequels underperform. What people are wanting to see amongst this trend is a rise in independent films and ideas, as well as new takes on existing stories.

A recent example of this is 2025’s “Superman,” directed by James Gunn.

Many consumers did not like the serious direction that the DC universe was heading in with films like “Batman v. Superman: Dawn of Justice” (2016), and “Man of Steel” (2013), causing audiences to shrink.

Along came Gunn, director of the “Guardians of the Galaxy” films. He noticed that interest was being lost in DC’s darker films and instead released a comedic and lighthearted Superman movie, earning $354 million in the domestic box office compared to the $291 million earned by “Man of Steel.”

Studios make more money from listening to consumers and win awards by recognizing their desires. Audiences are beginning to want more representative stories involving people of color, women and those in the LGBTQ+ community.

The Academy Awards have been criticized for their lack of diversity in their winning films, and while they have not responded directly to these criticisms, changes have been made that affect the filmmaking process.

As of 2020, a film has to meet certain criteria to be nominated: It must have at least one lead played by a person from an underrepresented racial or ethnic group, a plot about a person or persons from one of these ethnic groups, or a certain percentage of cast and crew that represent marginalized communities.

This action ensures that stories involving people from historically underrepresented groups will be involved in the movie-making process.

Films about people in minority groups — such as movies like “American Fiction” (2023), which features a story directly centered around how Black stories are told, and “All of Us Strangers” (2023), about a gay man grappling with grief and his identity — not only guarantee that these stories will be told but give consumers the diversity they ask for.

When film studios cater to consumer needs, it allows the movie industry to stay afloat. More money is made due to more individuals being interested in stories that are just like theirs, being featured on the big screen. Not only is cinema being saved by this phenomenon, but more diversity is embraced within the world, amplifying voices that would otherwise lack a platform to be heard from.