Why aren't there more Western movies

[Mike Blakesley]

Being here in Montana, one of the frequent questions I get is "When's the next Western coming?" Since 99% of what we play is mainstream movies, I usually have to say there aren't any in the pipeline, but lately I've gotten to wondering: With the mega-success of "Yellowstone" and spinoffs thereof, why aren't there more Westerns? And is that going to change?

[Frank Angel]

It's because the fickle public's tastes change and sometimes radically and in the blink of an eye. Same reason we don't have musicals any more, even tho films like LA LA , BOHEMIAN RHAPSODY and ROCKET MAN did fairly well, the days of the big musicals of the 60s that Hollywood seemed to churn out three and four a year with the public flocking to them in droves... then, seemingly for no apparent reason at all, are gone. And the public turned on them with a vengeance. (I exclude all the Disney/Pixar animated features (FROZEN, et al) that are kind of like musical, but not quite). The big Hollywood "blockbuster" musicals became fodder of disdain and ridicule, especially by the younger generations. Hollywood may be run by crass bean counters, but they are no dummies. They see a trend and they won't put money behind any genre that is going south.

You could ask the same of why there are no longer any of those gawd-awful TV variety shows that for the longest time were on every freakin network every weekend. One minute the public was eating them up like they were crack-laced BonBons...the next they were gone forever. Someone once said, there's no accounting for taste or the lack of it, but rich is the man who can tell which is which.

[Mike Blakesley]

Yes but you're overlooking the fact that "Yellowstone" is the biggest thing on TV right now. I'm kind of surprised they haven't announced a Yellowstone spinoff movie.

Maybe they're thinking it's a one-off trend.

[Jim Cassedy]

Why aren't there more Westerns?

> Ask Alec Baldwin. . .

[John Eickhof]

consider history...just look back through the years, the success of films varied from film companies...ie; Columbia was the king of westerns, UA was on top with drama and suspense, Warners was the police/ gangster kings, MGM had the musicals Paramount had comedies and mysteries, Universal was science fiction and comedies and Disney was the family king, and indies like AIP were the off beat films and drive-in fodder unfortunately they are now rolled up into three companies...so guess what...subject matter catering to the few with the most money...plus, how many kids today play 'cowboys and indians ' ? or kids dancing around in tap shoes ? etc, trends are changing as usual...life goes on , unfortunately!

[Martin McCaffery]

I have an editorial clip somewhere from a movie trade magazine in the 19 teens that declares westerns are dead because the motion picture industry has run out of ideas.

Maybe the author is finally right.

[Marcel Birgelen]

What I find funny is that way back in art class, they explained that a "western" is a much broader genre than just cowboy films or films "set in the West of the U.S.", but that most modern "hero" movies were essentially westerns. So, according to that qualification, a movie like "Die Hard" would clearly be a "western". I've never heard the same explanation ever since, but it stuck with me.

The "western" genre is an interesting one, especially since quite a few of the highest rated westerns in history are spaghetti westerns. There also were entire sub-genres, I still fondly remember the Italian produced Bud Spencer and Terrence Hill western comedy films of the 1970s, which were much more popular in Germany than anywhere else.

One of the problems with "western" movies nowadays is that they aren't cheap to produce, especially if you want to be somewhat historically accurate. Also, they seemingly lack popularity in the Asian market and that's a big no-no for any big budget production nowadays. Last but not least: Ticking all the right boxes on the "inclusivity checklist" can be quite hard with a movie set in a time when "inclusivity" wasn't really a thing in anyone's dictionary.

[Steve Guttag]

I, personally, have never been fond of "westerns." There are some that I like though I often like the star, like James Stewart so I watched it based on their star power, I guess. I'm not a fan of jazz music either, so there is no accounting for taste, I guess.

There seems to be a mild taste for westerns with the public. Some of the Quentin Tarantino films have been westerns (or what I would call westerns, like the H8teful Eight and Django). The last of the bankable western stars, Clint Eastwood, is getting up there and it has been decades since The Unforgiven has come out (I saw that one and liked it).

Normally, westerns shouldn't be too pricey, as movies go. Not too many effects though how gun fire will happen now will be less practical. I believe there are teams in new contracts for no live rounds on set. I'd think one could take a chance on western as a cheap movie to make (depending on the star).

[Marcel Birgelen]

Normally, westerns shouldn't be too pricey, as movies go. Not too many effects though how gun fire will happen now will be less practical. I believe there are teams in new contracts for no live rounds on set. I'd think one could take a chance on western as a cheap movie to make (depending on the star).

The Italians had figured out how to mass-produce Westerns on the cheap, but they had a whole industry built around it. Most of that is long gone. Stuff that makes a western more expensive than a movie in a more contemporary setting:
- Many scenes of a western need to be shot on location or otherwise you, again, need VFX to insert the backgrop after the facts.
- You may need lots specific sets and setpieces, which aren't cheap.
- You may need need costumes and make-up, not just for your main cast, but for your your extras as well.
- There used to be a big Western section on most studio backlots, but they since have been greatly diminished. Some of the former "Western Towns" that have been used to shoot movie scenes have since vanished, some have been turned into an attraction or have become part of a theme park.

You won't need blockbuster kind of money to produce a good western, but they seem to be out-of-reach for most indy productions.

[Randy Stankey]

The problem with Westerns is that they were essentially a form of revisionist history, depicting a sanitized view of the Old West that didn't really exist. Movies depicted characters played by John Wayne and Clint Eastwood, whitewashed and packaged for public consumption. Themes of Rugged Individualism and Manifest Destiny just don't play well with audiences, today. Political correctness has taken over our culture.

Imagine trying to make a John Wayne movie today! Half the cowboys would have to be Blacks who were former slaves, seeking their fortune on the Frontiers. Indians would no longer by the villains but, instead, victims of White oppression and women would ride along with the men instead of staying home, keeping house.

A line like, "It ain't supposed to be easy to sneak up on an Indian." [Spoken by Josey Wales] would never fly, these days!

If Mel Brooks was going to produce a remake of 'Blazing Saddles' it would have to be a spoof of a spoof, redoing all the jokes of the original movie in modern, politically correct language.

Wait a sec!... That might actually be funny!

[John Eickhof]

Randy, it all sounds like 'authentic frontier gibberish' to me! I guess the 'escapeism' factor of the movies has shifted...nyuk nyuk nyuk

[Mark Gulbrandsen]

Being here in Montana, one of the frequent questions I get is "When's the next Western coming?" Since 99% of what we play is mainstream movies, I usually have to say there aren't any in the pipeline, but lately I've gotten to wondering: With the mega-success of "Yellowstone" and spinoffs thereof, why aren't there more Westerns? And is that going to change?

Yes, there IS one Western in the pipeline, but not sure if your customers will want to see it or not... It's called "Rust" and it's the movie in which the Cinematographer was accidentally shot. Weather recently blaming the mishap on the Arms person in charge, who apparently was on drugs during the shoot, will make any difference in attendance remains to be seen.\

P.S., It only has a 7 million dollar budget, so not sure how it will look. Just have to wait for the reviews...

[Mike Blakesley]

I doubt Rust will get a theatrical run. With that kind of budget, what did they shoot it with, iPhones?

[Mark Gulbrandsen]

Exactly, not sure if that was a typo, or if that's for real... Has to be a typo. It costs more than that just to do the sound mix!

[Bobby Henderson]

For the past 40 years or more "Western" genre movies have had only sporadic levels of success. One movie will be a modest hit or draw critical acclaim, a few others try to cash in on that success and then the fad dies out for several years or more before the cycle repeats itself again.

I can't think of any Westerns made during my lifetime that have had "blockbuster" levels of box office success. Dances With Wolves and Unforgiven both won Best Picture and Best Director Oscars, but they weren't the top hits of 1990 or 1992. The Good, The Bad and The Ugly is a genuinely great film and absolutely iconic of the genre. But I think the movie has built much of its following from being shown repeatedly on TV and cable for more than 50 years.

Today it's harder to get studios to back a project for theatrical release that isn't a special effects driven epic. It has to be something that can be marketed globally. The studios are pushing so many kinds of stories, particularly ones aimed at grown-ups, to the streaming and premium cable platforms.

Yellowstone has already peaked. Paramount has already been milking the idea for all it's worth. If someone was going to make a western for theaters as a means of cashing in on that popularity they should have been making the movie years ago. If someone has a genuinely good idea for a new Western genre project the chances are strong it will be confined to TV as a mini series rather than a 2 hour theatrical release. The global cinema industry would need to go through a serious down-turn to get Hollywood to change its current "strategy" for theatrical projects. I think the general public has serious fatigue over too many streaming platforms. I've never watched Yellowstone because I already have too many streaming subscriptions (Netflix, Prime Video & HBO). I'm not adding any more. If anything I'm going to cancel one or more of the 3 services I currently have.

In a healthy movie distribution environment it would be possible for Western genre movies to succeed. They don't have to be revisionist history fables either. There is a lot of early American history that hasn't been put on screen. For instance, I think the story of Quanah Parker, the most well-known chief of the Comanche tribe, would do well as a movie (but probably better as a longer form mini-series). His mother was white and his father was Comanche; Cynthia Ann Parker was "rescued" from the Comanches when Quanah was 11 years old. The story inspired the John Ford classic "The Searchers."

If a studio was going to make a new Western they wouldn't shoot it on a back lot in Southern California. A great deal of movie and TV production migrated to New Mexico. Other states, such as Oklahoma, are trying to woo studios into shooting projects in their regions. "Digital back lot" techniques have been a big help to all sorts of movie and TV genre projects.