Interesting that the gap is with lower budget movies. It goes along with my gut feeling that mid budget movies are disappearing (I have no data to back that up), and it's as if the studios have optimized movie making into two types:
#1 The big budget crowd pleasing blockbusters. A few flop, but generally audiences like them and they don't do anything critics can complain about too much.
#2 Highly targeted low budget movies. There are small but consistent audiences with endless appetites for horror, action/thriller, etc films even at lower budgets. This seems to be where the biggest disconnect is, the genre fans highly rate their genre films even if it's direct to streaming fluff, while the critics see them as flawed, and broader audiences just don't watch them.
What killed the mid-budget movie was the rise of "peak TV" -- the B-list actors that defined mid-budget movies can land a meaty TV role that pays them well on a consistent basis. We're also seeing more and more A-list talent move to anthology or event series, where you can make a deep dive over 8/10/13 episodes instead of a 120-minute film.
Sometimes, I'd prefer some sort of limited series more than a movie. 'Maniac' was enjoyable for me because it had time to let things go slowly, despite taking course over what was probably 1 week in-universe.
I may also be different from the usual audience, in that I try to avoid binging anything. Hour-long episodes are great for my WFH lunch break, and to pad some time in the evenings if I so desire, but I prefer to commit to watching a movie if I know I have the time.
Molly's Game was a nice and long movie, but at over 2 hours long, I feel like it could have had potential at being a miniseries. But also, maybe not? Who knows how much meaningful material was left on the chopping block.
> Sometimes, I'd prefer some sort of limited series more than a movie. 'Maniac' was enjoyable for me because it had time to let things go slowly, despite taking course over what was probably 1 week in-universe.
Maniac is an excellent example. If it were a film, much of it would be cut down, and the movie likely would have had a singular focus on Jonah Hill's Owen character. The show, in having more time to breathe, realized relatively early on (by episode 3 or 4) that Emma Stone's Annie character had a far more compelling story to tell, and shifted its focus accordingly.
Matt Damon talks and laments about this. What killed the mid-budget movie was the collapse of DVD sales. Without DVD sales, there is no extended "second bite" that allows word of mouth to build up. So, instead, your marketing is $30-$50 million and you need to make that back.
Getting a second bite is also responsible for the recycled pablum with China pandering--if you say something that the Chinese government deems unacceptable you lose your shot at that market.
As for "episodic", I suspect that's less a "deep dive" and more ADHD background watching on a phone. "Encanto" was an absolute poster child for this--"HEY! LOOK UP NOW! HEEEEEEEEY!" "Okay, volume back down. You can go back to your text messaging for a while." "HEY! LOOK UP AGAIN! TIME TO PAY ATTENTION! HEEEEEEY!" ad nauseam.
#1 The big budget crowd pleasing blockbusters. A few flop, but generally audiences like them and they don't do anything critics can complain about too much.
#2 Highly targeted low budget movies. There are small but consistent audiences with endless appetites for horror, action/thriller, etc films even at lower budgets. This seems to be where the biggest disconnect is, the genre fans highly rate their genre films even if it's direct to streaming fluff, while the critics see them as flawed, and broader audiences just don't watch them.