And another classic example of how cinema has evolved! Is it just me or do producers/directors and writers trust their audiences less than they used to? Seems that a lot more exposition goes into movies these days.

It's a reflection of the fact that Hollywood studios are no longer making movies for the American market first and then using that momentum to sell it over seas. Movies today are made for the international market first and the American market is just another piece of the pie. The idea is to keep it totally simplistic so anybody could enjoy the film in any language. Studio's are making really expensive silent films when it comes right down to it. It's frustrating to watch it happen and there is no turning back for Hollywood as an industry. I recently had a high concept script passed on by Fox because it was offensive to Communist China. The Chinese box office is more important than free speech. Consider that the remake of RED DAWN was shelved because it involved China invading California to collect on the debt. So MGM had to spend an additional 30 million to digitally change the bad guys to North Koreans. Now it will be released. This is the Hollywood of today and this is why all the remakes are lousy.

Trennon0, I think Michael has pretty much hit the nail on the head. Hollywood has always been keenly aware of the 'lowest common denominator' when it comes to movies, wanting to maximize profits by widening the audience as much as possible. So if they have to dumb down a project in order to ensure basically everybody will be able to get it, that is their default approach. Filmmakers can and do resist this, and some with pull manage to pull it off from time to time. But the bread and butter movies Hwood puts out, mainstream popcorn fare, you tend to see lots of what many of us would consider to be unnecessary exposition. The fact that about 70% of movie revenues are generated internationally, a figure that will continue to grow, only exacerbates the issue / problem. If you've been tracking the Definitive Spec Script Sales List series, you will see a stark example of that influence. Every year that we've surveyed thus far -- from 1991-1997 [today's post] -- the #1 selling genre was comedy. It basically was that way up to 2010. For the last few years, comedy was replaced by action and thriller. Why? because they tend to be more visual, less reliant on dialogue. Moreover what Americans think is funny does not necessarily translate to what someone in Brazil or China finds humorous, so the conventional wisdom is that comedies don't 'travel' well overseas. Meanwhile a stalker with a knife or a planet blowing up pretty translates the same everywhere in the globe. Which speaks to Michael's point about Hollywood making "expensive silent movies." So perhaps that development, and the resulting cut in dialogue, will also translate into less exposition. We live in strange and wondrous times...

I don't like American remakes of foreign films because it strips the culture from the original story to make it marketable. In reverse, I don't think Americans should strip our culture from films to make them marketable. For one, I deny the premise that the American culture makes a film less profitable. Take this from Kazakhstan-born, Roger Corman prodigy, Abraham Lincoln: Vampire Hunter director Timur Bekmambetov -- ...he fears American movies "are losing their voice." "Hollywood films destroyed the Soviet Union in the '80s," he said. "The whole revolution -- perestroika -- happened because of American movies, I feel. When the first VHS players appeared, everyone had one in their house and could copy and distribute movies. People thought, 'Oh my God, there is a great life somewhere else.'" Anyway -- I'm with you Michael McGruther.

That is very interesting, Saint716! And thank you very much for that link. Do you think that negative portrayals of Americans and the American way of life in our movies in the past decade is unintentional? I do not because it NEVER adds to the script in any way. (Unless you're making a farcical comedy) Let me give you a great example. The Bourne Supremacy. The brow beating of American institutions is loud and clear in that picture yet hidden right in plain sight. If you go back and watch it you will notice that the FBI, CIA, etc are all bumbling idiots that cannot do anything right, right down to handling their weapons. While the European police and agents are smooth, efficient and quite capable. Small stuff with a big impact on one's perception of life "over there" It's the exact opposite of movies that helped bring down the Soviet Union. As a writer I totally get that positions of governmental power are the most likely to be abused and that is why we see lots of bad guys in those roles - but this was different. This was incompetence to make the claim of incompetence against a sitting president in an election year. It's embedded propaganda that only serves Hollywood because it communicates to the international audience that America is a big incompetent joke and YOU have the best way of life in your country so keep watching our movies please. Hollywood always creates the market before selling it something. In the case of 2004 and 2008 they were selling much more than movies and let''s just leave it at that.

A writer can never remove their beliefs from what they write, it's how they think. Not about a single subject but about the world. Pretending that writers can be impartial observers undermines the properties of good writing. Having something to say, making character decisions, themes, stories -- every part of writing is a choice which ultimately comes from a perspective. I think the goal should always be to entertain. If that isn't your ultimate interest, if you won't do what's right for the story because pushing your theme is more important -- you should make a documentary. To answer your question: It is never an unintentional.