Hollywood Faces Criticism as Blockbusters Grow Visually Darker

24 November 2025

Mia Goth and Oscar Isaac in Frankenstein. Photograph: Ken Woroner/Netflix

In a recent film-culture analysis for The Guardian, the writer points to a striking shift in mainstream Hollywood popularity: blockbuster films are growing systematically darker not just in tone, but literally in colour, lighting and palette. The essay argues that the trend is not merely aesthetic but symbolic of a broader exhaustion of spectacle, an erosion of the visual richness once expected of big-screen entertainment.

The article frames the shift through headline examples such as the sequel Wicked: For Good, widely criticised for its dim lighting and muddy visuals. Viewers and critics alike noted how scenes that once promised fantasy, magic and technicolour now seemed shrouded in shadow and ambiguity. The complaint is not just about brightness rather it suggests a visual language that feels drained, as though the industry has traded in vivid imagery for mood-iness and ambiguity.

Historically, Hollywood blockbusters have rivalled music videos in their use of vivid colour, saturated lighting and transcendent visual environments. The appeal was partly immersive: audiences expected to lose themselves in heightened worlds constructed through bold design. The shift away from that aesthetic raises questions about what blockbuster cinema now promises. Is it about spectacle or emotion? Delight or discomfort? The article contends that by steering toward “colourless” tones the industry may be signalling a retreat from spectacle.

Several explanations for this phenomenon are offered. First, the pursuit of photorealism especially in franchises heavy on CGI often eliminates colour drama in favour of muted tones. The drive to “realism” means that golden hour lighting or neon compositions are replaced with flat, cooler palettes. Second, rising production costs push cinematographers to rely on less exotic lighting and fewer visual flourishes. The essay suggests that when budget constraints increase, visual daring can shrink in tandem. Third, streaming era economics have conditioned filmmakers to design for small screens rather than theatrical spectacle, so the need for heroic, vibrant visuals is diminished.

But the stylistic regression matters culturally. When major films choose greys, browns and desaturated moods, they affect how stories are told. A fight in a hero-movie filmed with flat lighting carries less visual lift than one cut between luminous colours and high-contrast backdrops. Critics quoted in the piece argue this results in less memorable moments, and that this subtle change may help explain why blockbuster tickets are slipping in favour of “event” cinema or indie daring rather than formulaic tent-pole releases.

For directors and cinematographers the article recounts that many are aware of the shift and lament its implications. Some point to the economic contraction of cinemas, suggesting that when fewer viewers seek out theatrical spectacle, studios respond with less spectacle. Others blame algorithm-driven tastes: when films are discovered on mobile-sized devices, less difference in the picture might be deemed acceptable. Regardless, the result is a visual flattening of genre cinema.

What does this mean for audiences, film fans and filmmakers? The writer suggests three key implications. One: the loss of colour reduces the “wow” factor of big-screen releases, increasing the importance of story, performance and novelty over visual shock. Two: the shift might create an inadvertent opening for filmmakers who do still prioritise bold visuals those who embrace colour may stand out even more. Three: it signals a cultural moment in which movies may rely less on spectacle and more on minimalism, mood and subtlety traits formerly associated with art cinema rather than blockbuster fare.

As the piece concludes, the writer notes that colour or the conscious decision to deprive a film of colour acts almost as a political statement now. A blockbuster that appears drained of visual life may reflect broader cultural anxieties: climate change, global uncertainty, the fatigue of spectacle. In this sense, the aesthetic shift is less about cinematography and more about ideology. The article ends by urging audiences to pay attention not just to narrative but to visual design as an indicator of how entertainment is evolving.