For those who think entertainment of previous days was better than now, here are two pieces of evidence for your argument.

The first is from film director William Friedkin, who said, says London’s Daily Mail:

Exorcist director William Friedkin has launched a withering attack on today’s flood of superhero and sci-fi movies, accusing them of lacking any substance and ruining cinema.

‘Films used to be rooted in gravity,’ the acclaimed 79-year-old said as he attended the Champs-Elysees Film Festival in Paris.

‘They were about real people doing real things.’

Today, he says ‘cinema is all about Batman, Superman, Iron Man, Avengers, Hunger Games in America: all kinds of stuff that I have no interest in seeing at all.’

That race by studios to appeal to the broadest audience possible is why his own movies fell out of favour after his peak in the 1970s, he admitted.

‘That is when my films went like that – out of the frame,’ said Friedkin, whose films The Exorcist and French Connection both won Oscars.

Friedkin says he saw the change happen in 1977 when he made what he considered his best movie – the largely ignored Sorcerer about four men transporting a cargo of nitroglycerin in South America – only to see it eclipsed by the huge hit of that year: Star Wars.

Now Friedkin reckons ‘the best work’ for directors is on television, on U.S. cable and video-on-demand services that produce quality series such as True Detective and House of Cards.

The shift to those outlets, he said, is the ‘new zeitgeist’.

‘You develop character at a greater length and the story is more complex and deeper than cinema,’ the director said.

‘Many of the fine filmmakers of today are going to long-form TV. It is the most welcoming place to work for a director today.’

Friedkin is looking to ride that wave, working on a script for the HBO cable network about Mae West, the American sex symbol and entertainer counted as one of Hollywood’s biggest ever stars.

He has spoken to Bette Midler about playing the part.

He is also looking at turning another of his big films, To Live and Die in LA, into a TV series, with different characters and plot.

If his past work serves as inspiration for what he’s doing today, it’s in no small part due to the fact that he has long been fascinated by the timeless theme of good versus evil.

‘Most of my films are about the thin line between good and evil that exists in everyone,’ he said.

‘I believe that within all of us, there is a good side and a dark side. And it’s a constant struggle to have your good side triumph over the dark side.

‘And sometimes people don’t and lose control of themselves.’

Although his NYC-cop-in-France movie The French Connection and the demon-possession drama The Exorcist made him a star director at the time, his later films never scaled such heights.

But Friedkin resisted going back and doing the sequels to his masterpieces, saying it would have been purely about the money.

‘I am not interested’ in making movies just for the pay-cheque, Friedkin said. ‘I have to love the film, the story, the characters.’

His Exorcist movie ‘was enough,’ he said. ‘There were four sequels to The Exorcist and I’ve seen none of them, nor do I want to or intend to.’

Likewise, with 1971’s The French Connection, which starred Gene Hackman and won five Oscars, there was ‘nothing more that could be said’.

That demurral didn’t stop the production of a 1975 sequel, also with Hackman and directed by John Frankenheimer, who notably made the original The Manchurian Candidate.

I had not realized (which means I didn’t bother to look) that Friedkin wasn’t involved in any of the Exorcist sequels, or of the second French Connection movie. That should have been his clue that the studios are more interested in making money than “films rooted in gravity.”

I wonder if Friedkin realizes the irony of turning his movie “To Live and Die in L.A.” …

… into a TV series, which makes him guilty of what Hollywood is accused of — lack of new ideas. And “good versus evil” as a story only goes back to the Book of Genesis.

I have seen “Sorcerer” …

… but “Gone with the Wind” would have been swamped by “Star Wars,” which is only the most watched science fiction movie of all time, because it’s got a great story accessible to non-sci-fi fans. You’d think Friedkin would appreciate the latter part.

I stopped watching the “Batman” movies around George Clooney. (Or was it Val Kilmer? I forgot.) I enjoyed the “Iron Man” movies, but have watched none of the other superhero flicks. (Particularly “The Green Hornet,” which committed the sin of not taking its source material at all sincerely or seriously.) To say that Hollywood lacks originality isn’t an original observation, which doesn’t mean it’s incorrect.

Here’s an interesting exercise: The top grossing movies from 1971 …

1. “Fiddler on the Roof,” $75.6 million.
2. “The French Connection,” $51.7 million.
3. “Diamonds Are Forever,” $43.8 million.
4. “Dirty Harry,” $36 million.
5. “Billy Jack,” $32.5 million.
6. “Summer of ’42,” $32.1 million.
7. “The Last Picture Show,” $29.1 million.
8. “Carnal Knowledge,” $28.6 million
9. “A Clockwork Orange,” $26.6 million.
10. “Bedknobs and Broomsticks,” $17.9 million.

… and 1973 …

1. “The Sting,” $156 million.
2. “The Exorcist,” $128 million.
3. “American Graffiti,” $96.3 million.
4. “Papillon,” $53.2 million.
5. “The Way We Were,” $45 million.
6. “Magnum Force,” $39.8 million.
7. “Last Tango in Paris,” $36.1 million.
8. “Live and Let Die,” $35.4 million.
9. “Robin Hood,” $32.1 million.
10. “Paper Moon,” $30.9 million.

One wonders how Friedkin felt about getting beaten out for the number-one movie in box office twice, or about competing for ticket sales with two James Bond movies, two Dirty Harry movies, two Disney movies, and three X-rated movies. As for 1977 (hint: “Sorcerer” isn’t on it):

1. “Star Wars,” $307.3 million.
2. “Smokey and the Bandit,” $126.7 million.
3. “Close Encounters of the Third Kind,” $116.4 million.
4. “The Goodbye Girl,” $102 million.
5. “Saturday Night Fever,” $94.2 million.
6. “Oh, God!”, $51.1 million.
7. “A Bridge Too Far,” $50.8 million.
8. “The Deep,” $47.4 million.
9. “The Spy Who Loved Me,” $46.8 million.
10. “Annie Hall,” $38.3 million.

Those three years’ top 10 lists are an eclectic mix (1977 alone features two science fiction flicks, four comedies, a World War II movie, a movie written to capitalize on the popularity of “Jaws,” the apotheosis of disco and James Bond again), certainly more so than the 2014 top 10 …

1. “Transformers: Age of Extinction,” $1.1 billion.
2. “The Hobbit: The Battle of the Five Armies,” $955.1 million.
3. “Guardians of the Galaxy,” $774.2 million
4. “Maleficent,” $758.4 million.
5. “The Hunger Games: Mockingjay Part 1,” $752.1 million.
6. “X-Men: Days of Future Past,” $748.1 million.
7. “Captain America: The Winter Soldier,” $714.8 million.
8. “The Amazing Spider-Man 2,” $709 million.
9. “Dawn of the Planet of the Apes,” $708.8 million.
10. “Interstellar,” $672.7 million.

… but Friedkin may have been lucky to be in Hollywood during a more creative era than before or since, though note the presence of the seventh and eighth James Bond movies on those ’70s lists. (Notice also that every film on the 2014 top gross list is either a sequel, a remake, inspired by a previous film [“Maleficient” is a takeoff on “Sleeping Beauty”] or based on comic-book characters; in some cases more than one category fits. “Interstellar” is the only original story on that list.) I doubt Hollywood was less money-obsessed then than now, though Hollywood may be more averse to risk as the result of the studios now being owned by publicly traded companies.

Friedkin’s statement about long-form TV being able to tell more complex stories is not exactly a revelation either, though it is a relatively recent development given the growth of pay-cable channels where whatever can be shown in a theater can be revealed on the small screen too — bad language, sexy bits, gory violence, etc. Still, a movie runs two hours. A 12-part hour-long series runs 12 hours, which, last time I checked, is more than two hours. Science fiction fans can look at the difference between the seven seasons of “Star Trek: The Next Generation” and the three “Next Generation” movies as evidence.

Friedkin also forgets the waxing and waning of moviegoers’ wish to escape from the realities of their lives. By 1977, an increasing number of Americans were grasping that things weren’t very good, after Watergate, the losing end of Vietnam, and inflation. “Star Wars” and “Saturday Night Fever” gave people an opportunity to escape, in air conditioned comfort, for a couple of hours. Things are different in 2015, but certainly not better, and most likely worse and getting worse. Why do you suppose “The Wizard of Oz” was so popular just before World War II was ready to break out?

Friedkin also may not realize that his inability to do what he wants with films may be his own fault. (I was going to point out the big egos of Hollywood types, but that would be redundant and obvious.) IMDB.com reports that Friedkin originally wanted Steve McQueen for the title role in “Sorcerer,” but McQueen wanted his then-wife, Ali McGraw, in the movie. Friedkin refused, so McQueen refused, and as a result so did Marcello Mastroianni and Lino Ventura. IMDB adds that the film originally had a budget of $15 million, which ballooned to $21 million, and then grossed only $9 million. That’s not an “Ishtar”-scale disaster, but add to that his nickname of “Hurricane Billy” from his on-set temper, and Friedkin’s probably lucky he’s gotten to direct anything more creative than Heinz ketchup commercials. I’m not sure how Friedkin can call “Sorcerer” “one of my only films I can watch because it came out almost exactly as I intended” when that statement was false starting with casting.

On a related note (get it?), Consequence of Sound reports:

No one would ever dare to compare the writing prowess of artists like Macklemore, Nicki Minaj, and Katy Perry to Chaucer and Ginsberg, but a new study from Andrew Powell-Morse reveals just how dumbed down the lyrics are for songs currently dominating the Billboard charts.

Powell-Morse analyzed the reading levels for 225 songs that spent three or more weeks atop Billboard’s Pop, Country, Rock, and Hip-Hop song charts.

Whereas chart-toppers in 2005 read between a third and fourth grade level, a decade later that average is declining, and fast. In 2014, the reading level of a Billboard No. 1 single averaged between a second and third grade reading level, with the bar trending downward in five of the last 10 years.

Of the four genres analyzed, country music came out with the highest average reading level (3.3), followed by pop (2.9), rock ‘n’ roll (2.9), and R&B/hip-hop (2.6).

At an individual level, the data is even more fascinating. The average reading level of Eminem is a grade-and-a-half higher than Beyoncé, while Nickelback (!) tops Foo Fighters by nearly a number letter grade. In the world of pop music, superstars like Mariah Carey and Adele rank a full number grade higher than the likes of Lady Gaga and Ke$ha.

Of all 225 songs analyzed in the studio, the highest-scoring rock song was Red Hot Chili Peppers’ “Dani California” with a reading level of 5.5. Meanwhile, Three Days Grace’s “The Good Life” is the “dumbest” with a reading level of 0.8.

It’s amusing to me that the supposed music of rednecks and other hicks ranks higher in reading complexity than any other genre of popular music. (Country music tells stories, and generally that statement doesn’t apply to the other genres.) Of course, I am in a line of work where we are supposed to write to an eighth-grade reading level. (In my business magazine days, according to our Microsoft Word software, the stories I wrote were generally to a 12th-grade reading level.) And this assumes that people actually listen to the words, which often are a bit unintelligible. (See “Louie Louie.”)

One of the philosophies of The Presteblog is that in the world of entertainment, there is no tie between popularity, or lack thereof, and quality, or lack thereof. Unless something is hideously bad (the “Spock’s Brain” episode of the original “Star Trek”), most people remember the good stuff and forget the ordinary and mediocre movies, TV shows, songs, etc. The other thing possibly at work here is the tie between how difficult something is to do and how good it is. Computers can recreate any instrument, and even fix problems (for instance, bad pitch or thinness) in someone’s voice. (Which explains Britney Spears’ ability to have a singing career.) The state of special effects is such that an actor can stand in front of a green screen that can depict anywhere. Story? Who needs a story? Just blow some stuff up.

When it takes work, the author takes more pride in his or her work. When you have limits, resource or otherwise (the old film Production Code and Television Code, which admittedly no one misses), you have to become creative. (Robert Rodriguez’s film career started with a $7,000 movie, “El Mariachi,” which he financed by selling his blood plasma.) Creativity by computer and the risk aversion of the film studios and record labels (the logical result of their being owned by publicly traded companies) gives you the state of entertainment today, such as it is.