Romanticizing Capitalism

Capitalism and artistic value are often opposed.

But, no matter how different they are, intersections ought to be created.

If so, will they still contradict each other’s values? Or act as soulmates?

It is no surprise that art and capitalism are opposed to each other. Art sells the genuine feeling, whereas capitalism aims for a direct monetary value. Still, despite their significant contradiction, most sectors manage to avoid this issue. But one exception exists: the film industry, a prime intersection of both fields.

Film, serving as a highly-demanded product made by creativity and art, encompasses the paradox. Soon, it met its fate, becoming a place where genuineness meets soullessness for profit. However, the film industry found a simple solution. They just needed to find the right balance that would fulfill both sides of the conflict. Then, the film industry was no longer a place of paradox. It was a place of well-praised engulfment on both sides.

The ‘right balance’ follows a simple strategy, or ‘formula’ for movies, which often earned good profits. This involves novel integration of common story fragments, which results in familiar yet intriguing storylines, with a fraction of novelty. Still, these ‘formulas’ required artistic values, such as truthfulness. Every story should be genuine and truthful to the creators. The audience wouldn’t be able to engage deeply with characters if the creators themselves were not sincere, no matter how fictional and ‘fake’ it may be; the importance is whether these non-existent worlds may come to life for a few hours. These are indeed demanding works for every major film studio. Still, they managed to produce movies with the right balance. But now, these values are demolished as the ‘formulas’ outweigh the sincerity. And this shift can best be observed through its resulting productions.

In 2015, the highest-grossing list of films constituted a mixture of sequels and novel films, from the new Star Wars franchise to Inside Out. But, in 2024, the top 10 highest-grossing films were all sequels or adaptations of well-known properties. This may range from musical adaptations like Wicked, or simple sequels like Inside Out 2. The change is now clear—recycling the “success” for greater profit. However, interestingly, the effect of the cause acts adversely to the cause itself—the ‘formulas’ are harming overall revenues. The main cause? Decreased merit toward cinema, where the pandemic and the rise of OTT caused a robust acceleration of this perception toward cinema.

Before the pandemic, the concept of streaming services, or OTTs, was fairly new. It co-existed with theatres, but never invaded the theatre’s place. This trend may have changed, as the increasing population became attuned to OTT services. But it was the pandemic that escalated this change. People couldn’t access cinemas legally anymore. Audiences started to seek alternatives, which became OTT. These services reshaped patterns of viewership—the ability to skip certain scenes and freedom of location when viewing. And once the habit of viewing changed, it became hard to undo. So, even after the pandemic, this caused a drop in audiences of over 30%, with a decrease in profits from $42 billion in 2019 to about $32 billion in 2024.

Another reason that contributed to theatre avoidance patterns was risk aversion. Required to pay approximately $10–$12 for individual movies, the cinema became a weak competitor to OTT, with no additional fees necessary for new series or movies. While original stories are the most watched series on Netflix, such as Squid Game, Stranger Things, or Adolescence, that no longer holds true in cinema. Compared to the famous franchise sequel, Inside Out 2, which was released in June 2024 and gained $1.7 billion, Elio, an original film released in June 2025, gained only $130 million. Besides, these movies were often released within months on each affiliated OTT platform, such as Disney+ or HBO Max, further decreasing the need for theatres.

Adding to previous caution toward cinema, the global economic downturn fosters hesitation toward spending on tickets. While even during the previous economic downturn, the movie industry survived, its charm is no longer the same currency as before. Rather, a large population prefers other entertainment such as gaming or social gatherings. The pattern of risk aversion toward newly tested ideas became entrenched. These reasons lead to one conclusion: the key issue is “value for money.”

Increasing this “value” was quite simple—grabbing the audience’s attention as much as possible. And the simplest method was building stories centered on already tested ideas, or the production of sequels or remakes. These strategies, focusing on selling nostalgia, can be successful within certain limitations and might even be a pragmatic strategy to regain financial profit in the short term. The revenues for each of these sequels were often over $500 million globally, even when critical acclaim was lukewarm. How much it will increase in the long term remains to be seen.

Potentially seen as the savior of the industry, this trend has its ending—audience fatigue, and ultimately, financial decline. As shown by live remakes of Disney movies, engagement and anticipation dropped sharply soon after, as movies became predictable. The only way for the long term is the creation of new art, or, in other words, the restoration of the balance.

As these emotional values are an essential component of films, these genuine feelings, as part of the formula, cause the audience to divert from the emotional storylines the film posits. No one is going to love fake. It is impossible to draw genuine feelings with fakeness. Genuine feelings don't occur with simple words. Even behaviors, music, or the simplest exchange could induce it. Still, with the formula, only the exchange of dialogue covers all. Their balance of reality and idealism is off, and now these ‘emotions’ are purely capitalized. Now, capitalism has put on its mask of romanticization.