Why spend money on a film with new IP and ideas that you're not sure will be popular when the data science team has already worked with marketing to figure out exactly what movie will sell well?
Good luck finding your movie with compelling and thought provoking writing in the big pile of movies produced by comittee to show up above yours in discovery algorithms.
You want a thought-provoking Bourne-style action thriller with hints of Jane Austen and a bollywood dance sequence? How about a Matrix sequel that lives up to the first one, but ends just the way you like it? Just ask.
Or how about the movie Clue with the three endings except an infinite sequence of "or maybe it happened this way" sequences. I mean how else are we going to get a sequence where Darth Vader and Tim Curry reenact the "No I am your father" scene while Martin Mull dies in the background due to a heart attack.
You could conceivably write a script and feed it into a machine and have a decent 1080p rendition of the movie with consistent characters and voice acting which you could use to better pitch your movie idea to people, or get to watch a movie you created between you and your friends even if no one else ever gets to see it.
The current trend of remaking movies as 10 hour miniseries (and then making more and more seasons) is Not Great. Whereas I could be fascinated by a quirky-but-compelling original movie, I'm less attracted to 10+ hours of hyper-polished content. Sometimes I've watched a series and thought 'that was good, but it could have been a better movie.'
In the future, kids will be making their own Star Wars movies from home. All kinds of people from all kinds of backgrounds will make novel films that would ordinarily never be made, such as "Steampunk Vampires of Venus", starring John Wayne, a young Betty White, and Samuel L. Jackson. This is absolutely the future.
I'm working on building this. I'm sure lots of others are too.
We're in a situation where the very best algorithms (like the one used by Netflix), doing exactly what they're designed to do, create inequality and the vacuous economy of influencers we have today. Look at Steam or any other marketplace: they're all the same, with 1% of the players getting 99% of the prizes. In a very real way, the only winning move is not to play.
I would suggest that this tendency of capitalism (economic evolution) is unstoppable, and that it must be attacked from a different angle. If we don't want to inevitably end up in late-stage capitalism that looks like neofeudalism, then there has to be some form of redistribution or people spend the entirety of their lives running the rat race to make rent. Traditionally that was high taxes on the winners, but UBI would probably work better. Unfortunately, the very same people who win are the ones most resistant to any notion of a level playing field or social safety net.
So I feel like there may be no solution coming. We're probably looking at long slow decline for the next 15 years or so until AI reaches a level where economics don't really make sense anymore, since economic systems by definition control the distribution of resources under scarcity. Without scarcity, they're pointless. And we moved into the age of artificial scarcity sometime after WWII, probably in the late 1960s, but certainly no later than 1990 with the fall of the USSR and the rise of straw man enemies like terrorism, using divisive politics as the primary means of controlling the population. Noam Chomsky saw this coming before most of us were born.
In other words, when anyone can wish for anything by turning sentences into 3D-printed manifestations of their dreams, then artificial scarcity quickly loses its luster. Because the systems of control around dependency no longer work. Then a new fear-based enemy comes along to fill the void, probably aliens. I wish I was joking.
Though I must admit that if I didn't have friends holding my hand through the minefield of modern cinema, I would also just stick to books.