In an era where Casablanca and noir defined cinematic artistry, the Golden Hollywood Era set the stage for profound storytelling. As time marched on, the adrenaline-fuelled 70s and 80s brought thrilling blockbusters, star-studded casts, and sci-fi classics like Alien and Predator. Today, the industry faces seismic shifts driven by technology, streaming platforms, and changing audience dynamics. Independent and award-winning filmmaker Peter Zerzan sheds light on these changes in an exclusive interview.

Q: Peter, what do you see as the defining difference between the Hollywood of the past and today’s industry?
Peter Zerzan: Hollywood’s past had an aura of discovery. In the 80s, it wasn’t unheard of for a fresh graduate like Shane Black to sell a script for $250,000. Quentin Tarantino rose from a video store clerk to a household name with Pulp Fiction. Back then, films relied heavily on star power—actors like John Travolta, Bruce Willis, and Mel Gibson. A recognizable name often guaranteed success, which in turn created even more stars.

Now, the landscape has changed. Filmmakers face higher production costs, intense competition, and the dominance of intellectual property (IP) franchises. A $5 million indie production has been replaced by $200 million Marvel blockbusters, and many directors struggle to adapt to this scale.

Q: Technology has been a double-edged sword for filmmakers. What are your thoughts on its impact?
Peter Zerzan: Technology has revolutionized the way films are made. It’s faster and cheaper to create stunning visuals with CGI, and distribution is streamlined. But this same technology overwhelms filmmakers. With streaming services dominating the market, theatrical releases have become less important. It’s hard for smaller productions to shine when they’re competing for attention in an oversaturated digital space.

 

Q: How has the role of film critics evolved in this new era?
Peter Zerzan: Film criticism has shifted dramatically. In the past, critics were print journalists with editorial oversight. Now, criticism thrives on platforms like YouTube, Reddit, and Letterboxd. Mike Stoklasa’s 2009 Phantom Menace review on YouTube marked a turning point, showing that anyone with a camera and an opinion could influence public perception.

Today’s critics often build their careers online, using platforms like Patreon to generate income. Many are aspiring filmmakers themselves, weaving narrative storytelling into their reviews. It’s a far cry from traditional journalism, but it resonates with audiences because of its sincerity, even if factual accuracy sometimes takes a backseat.

Q: What’s your take on the younger generation of critics and filmmakers?
Peter Zerzan: Surprisingly, many online critics are in their 30s and 40s, not Gen Z. They remember the pre-IP era and aspire to emulate their favorite 80s and 90s icons. However, studios are hesitant to take risks on fresh voices, preferring to invest in established franchises.

 

Q: What’s the solution to navigating these challenges in filmmaking?
Peter Zerzan: Balance is key. While we shouldn’t resist technology, we must also preserve the values of traditional filmmaking. Not every film needs to be a blockbuster hit. There’s value in smaller, more personal stories. We need to step away from the mindset that only massive IP-driven projects matter.

 

Q: Any final thoughts on where the industry is headed?
Peter Zerzan: This is the age of sincerity. What matters most isn’t flawless technique or deep insights but genuinely held opinions and storytelling that connects with audiences. The film industry has always been about adapting, and those who can balance innovation with authenticity will thrive.

 

As Hollywood continues to evolve, voices like Peter Zerzan’s remind us of the importance of adaptation and staying grounded in storytelling. The industry’s future may be uncertain, but its potential remains boundless.