Hollywood is running out of ideas. [DEBATE]

[Shadow Blade]

[SIZE=4][COLOR=SlateGray][FONT=Chiller]I turned off the stupid movie.....

The name of it was "The last of the Mohicans". Such a dumb film in my perspective. The only reason as to why I forced myself to watch it was because there were no other movie in the house. All of our movies I have already watched.

Even when I go to Blockbuster there are usually movies that are based on novels or sequences to the original movie (Ex. Terminator) that was out about a good 2-3 years before making the 2nd or 3rd film to it. Even in the theaters.

I guess that what I'm trying to say is that, Where the heck is the creativity in film making today? Shoot! Did movie producers lose their sense of creativity, that they have to base their films on books or make sequals?

In this thread you can agree or disagree, with some reasons.[/FONT][/COLOR][/SIZE]

[Maully]

Uor opinons on Last of the Mohincans certainly differ, that's for sure. Daniel Day Lewis is one of the most talented screen actors EVER, in my opinion, of course.

As for originality in Hollywood, dearie, that's been running thin for YEARS. I will not even lie, remakes is all their churning out. It makes me so angry that no one knows it half the time. Guess what...Guess Who is a remake of a serious and important. It makes me bored, and sometimes frustrated, but I have no ideas to make a movie out of, so I cannot fix it except to not see their horrible movies.

Now, to address making movies from books, I see nothing wrong with this, I often cast characters in the books I read in my head. It's fun. I bet that a lot of the movies made that have novels listed in the credits are books many people have never heard of or read. To be inspired shouldn't be limited to one medium. If you write a good book, why limit that to a nonvisual experience?

[ChibiHorsewoman]

[quote name='Molleta']Now, to address making movies from books, I see nothing wrong with this, I often cast characters in the books I read in my head. It's fun. I bet that a lot of the movies made that have novels listed in the credits are books many people have never heard of or read. To be inspired shouldn't be limited to one medium. If you write a good book, why limit that to a nonvisual experience?[/quote]

[color=darkviolet]While I don't see a problem with making movies from books (Pearl Harbor was definately a smash) sometimes they don't stay true to the author.

Take Ella Enchanted (please!) the book was wonderful- a Newberry Honor book from 1997. However the movie was so far from the book if it weren't for the names of the characters and that Ella was cursed I wouldn't have thought it based on the same story.

I think what Hollywood needs now is movies with fat people in them. Enough with the scrawny people who always triumph!

That's all[/color]

[eleanor]

[color=darkslateblue] I think Hollywood is sort of in a slump right now. The number of movie-goers per year in the US is decreasing and such. I actually don't think it's that people running out of ideas, but more that people in are more interested in making more money and concentrated to getting out mainstream stuff rather than really original things. I mean, the sheer number of remakes that have been coming out has astounded me. But perhaps after this period, more new stuff will come out. :)

As for book to movie transitions...

I love both literature and film. It makes me angry that some people just use books to make ****** movies that are a sad attempt to use a good story to make some money, but if a director is really inspired by a book, I'm all for it. I love film in the fact that it can make things more emotional, because of the actual visuals of the acting and etc., so I enjoy it sometimes. The third Harry Potter movie was good, and I think the fourth one coming out this year is going to be great as well. Needless to say, LotR was a great book to movie transition. Peter Jackson really loved and knew the books and what he was doing, which turned into an amazing result.

I'm excited to watch the film version of [b]Everything is Illuminated[/b], being that it's one of my favorite books (and I thought if made right it would make a very good movie). Also, [b]Brokeback Mountain[/b] is coming out this winter, and it has already won an award in a Venice film festival. [/color]

[Delta]

[COLOR=#757458][SIZE=1]The influx of new ways of making a film (or whatever it is you wanna call it) has given directors and all those Hollywood guys a bigger playground. It's now a matter of who's got the best special effects, the most wicked stunts, and the most capital. And to secure blockbuster status,the story would have to be a tried and tested plot, kinda like the ones found in bestsellers and/or older movies that clicked.

So you see, Hollywood just shifted its focus to the technical aspects of films. Perhaps when there is stagnation in moviemaking technology, Hollywood will once again come up with original stories.[/SIZE][/COLOR]

[Leofski]

I don't think its entirely fair to target this especially at hollywood. I assume most people here are are anime fans. How much anime isn't based on a manga, book or legend? How much anime is popular due to the fights or because of "hot" characters? Even Miyazaki's latest film is based on a novel.

The same serialization can also be seen in literature. How many sucessful authors don't return to the characters that gave them their hits?

Your criticism is valid, but to level it at Hollywood alone is unreasonable. Its present in all aspects of entertainment, and we as consumers are just as much to blame. When you go to the cinema do you opt for "great little indy film" or "Big Franchise III" starring "Megastar"? I know which one I normally watch, and until I change that I can't make a serious complaint against Film makers. Film distrubutors whopbut great releases in one cinema for one week, but not the film makers.

[Manic Webb]

While most movies coming out of Hollywood appear to be nothing but remakes and sequels, I don't blame producers and writers. I blame the studio executives who greenlight these remakes, and ignore 90% of all original scripts that come to them. Studios want "the sure thing," and that appears to mean making a movie that has a pre-existing fanbase. Novels, comic books, older movies, and classic TV shows already have legions of fans; getting them into the threatre is going to be easier than challenging audiences to try something new.

[Sara]

[color=#6699cc]If you're interested in getting to see some original films, I strongly recommend looking into your "great little indy film" scene. I'd imagine most largish cities have art film venues, and even if you don't live in a big city, you could certainly make a day (or a weekend) of it and head out.

If you're looking for something different, you can also look into foreign film. There are certainly "Hollywood" films made elsewhere as well, but there are some pretty darn awesome movies out there, as well.[/color]

[Shadow Blade]

[SIZE=4][COLOR=SlateGray][FONT=Chiller]Hmmm.......

Several interesting replys.

However I do agree Lunox the most.

[quote name='Lunox']I love both literature and film. It makes me angry that some people just use books to make ****** movies that are a sad attempt to use a good story to make some money, but if a director is really inspired by a book, I'm all for it. I love film in the fact that it can make things more emotional, because of the actual visuals of the acting and etc., so I enjoy it sometimes. The third Harry Potter movie was good, and I think the fourth one coming out this year is going to be great as well. Needless to say, LotR was a great book to movie transition. Peter Jackson really loved and knew the books and what he was doing, which turned into an amazing result.[/quote]

I guess that all I'm trying to say is if any of you guys are really into books, and a majority of books that are now major motion pictures have a really messed up ending then I'm sure you would understand. For an example the Lord of the Rings Triology was a major break in the movie making industries, however they made the elves too stuck up and made Frodo look like a weak little soft-footed idiot.[/FONT][/COLOR][/SIZE]

[Gavin]

[quote name='Manic Webb']While most movies coming out of Hollywood appear to be nothing but remakes and sequels, I don't blame producers and writers. I blame the studio executives who greenlight these remakes, and ignore 90% of all original scripts that come to them. Studios want "the sure thing," and that appears to mean making a movie that has a pre-existing fanbase. Novels, comic books, older movies, and classic TV shows already have legions of fans; getting them into the theatre is going to be easier than challenging audiences to try something new.[/quote]

[SIZE=1]Manic has pretty much summed up my thoughts on the subject, it's down the studio executives on what scripts become movies and they're far more interested in the potential financial rewards for another Terminator movie, than producing a "new" film that might attract only a limited audience who will really appreciate it. As Manic said, it is far easier to attract people who are fans of the genre/franchise than to get people to see a movie that is based purely off some author/scriptwriter's own unknown work.

I don't necessarily blame the studio execs, they're only trying to look out for the well bring of the studio but always going for sure-fire remakes, sequels, prequels and movie-versions is only going to be able to go on for so long. It's simply not possible to continue to remake and rehash every popular movie/book/TV series in order to make new movies. Some films do well for being remade every few decades, others don't and there's no point in flogging a dead horse by adding in say Brad Pitt, and claiming it's excellent.

I'll be the first to admit that as a Star Wars/Star Trek fan I'll always go and see the new movies when the first come out in the cinema and it's people like me that keep getting sequels, prequels and remakes to these films made. Well unless of course you're George Lucas and then you can do it because you want to, and you can release new edition Star Wars DVDs with a bunch of changes that make fan of the original versions cry out in pain. Sebastian Shaw is the original Anakin and he should have been kept as the Force Ghost regardless of Lucas' personal preferences, but I digress from my original point.

Simply put, the studios want more money, if that means making Terminator 50 then that's what they'll do. [/SIZE]

[eleanor]

[QUOTE=Shadow Blade][SIZE=4][COLOR=SlateGray][FONT=Chiller]Hmmm.......

Several interesting replys.

However I do agree Lunox the most.



I guess that all I'm trying to say is if any of you guys are really into books, and a majority of books that are now major motion pictures have a really messed up ending then I'm sure you would understand. For an example the Lord of the Rings Triology was a major break in the movie making industries, however they made the elves too stuck up and made Frodo look like a weak little soft-footed idiot.[/FONT][/COLOR][/SIZE][/QUOTE]

[color=darkslateblue] This is all personal opinion, you can't really blame anyone for what you just described about the elves and Frodo. First of all, if audiences really have read LotR, they should understand the immense power of the ring, and actually realize how amazingly strong Frodo is. It's not like Peter Jackson skimmed through the LotR once, and randomly decided to take a huge risk and make it into a movie trilogy. I daresay he probably has read and studied into the LotR trilogy more than anyone here, and I took a three week course on the freaking topic.

I really despise canon-freaks who immediately label book-to-movie transitions as worthless if the director doesn't so everything according to the book. If they really appreciated the literary aspect of it, they should realize that film and literature are two different things, and that the director has an artistic liscense to change stuff. The best thing I liked about the third Harry Potter book was the background history on the Mauraders, but I wasn't exactly bitching after I had seen the movie. There were tons of other things that were great about that movie, and some of them weren't even in the book to begin with.

I mean, seriously, there are some people complaining about the color of Hermione's dress in the fourth movie. It's ridiculous.

So anyways. Novels. Film. Two different things. [/color]

[James]

[font=franklin gothic medium]I agree completely with Manic on this question. The problem is not so much with the actual creators, it's with the studio executives who are often too frightened to make an investment in something new.

But it's unfortunate because the value of creating a new film franchise can really be invaluable. I mean, where would Warner Bros./Silver Pictures be if they hadn't taken a chance on The Matrix, which turned out to be one of the most influential films of the last fifteen years?

And there are quite a few films that have earned a cult status after their initial release (ie: films such as Donnie Darko). Of course, that film made no money at the box office, but I'd imagine that it's made up for that in DVD sales globally.

But this happens with any industry - video games are no different. Big publishers never want to take risks. And it can be frustrating for those of us who are wanting to try something that we haven't seen previously.[/font]

[Brasil]

The talk about the book-to-film adaptations amuses me, I think, because I get the gist that some people here dislike book-to-movie adaptations, because they feel it's detractory for Hollywood?

Pity that nobody apparently read Molly's post. CHW quoted one paragraph of it, but that wasn't even the strongest point. Molly mentioned how Hollywood has been running dry of fresh ideas for a long time now...and that's pretty much entirely true.

Throughout the history of cinema, there have always been book-to-film adaptations, quasi-remakes, sequels, genre pieces, etc. I can go back to the 1920s and point to a wide variety of adaptations of popular novels, some of which were unauthorized adaptations, like Murnau's Nosferatu.

The Bram Stoker estate [i]hated[/i] Murnau for adapting Dracula without their consent, and they did pursue legal action, or at least threaten legal action if Murnau didn't bend over for them.

In the end, guess who made out better. You know it. Murnau did. All he did was change the names of the characters, change the location of the story from Transylvania to Bremmen, Germany, and gave Count Dracula a new name: Count Orlok.

Interestingly enough, what Murnau did is the same thing we see happening in Hollywood today--to an extent. Murnau altered his film so he could avoid the Stoker estate financially castrating him, basically, so he wouldn't be sued for plagiarism.

And ultimately...Nosferatu is better for it. It gives it its own flavor and feel, because it's so radically different from anything else in the so-called "vampire genre." And it's been immensely more influential, both in that particular genre and in general.

Its genre influence can be noted when films like Blade II give their villain vampires a very Count Orlok-ish look, with bald heads, leathery and pale skin, pointy ears, rat teeth, long spidery fingers. You get the idea. There's no doubt in my mind the creators of Blade II had Max Schrek's Count Orlok in the back of their head when producing that movie.

And as much as I hate the Blade series, because it's just utterly uninspired garbage, I smile when I see the villains, because it's a little nod to a landmark horror film, and a nod that I'm positive 99% of the audience will never, ever notice.

Nosferatu's influence on filmmaking in general somewhat echoes what the German Expressionist movement did, as Murnau certainly used many of the German Expressionist techniques with camerawork, placement, lighting, etc. I mean, these guys (Murnau, Fritz Lang, Robert Wiene--Cabinet of Dr. Caligari) could have brought Hollywood to its knees because they were doing things with the camera, set, lighting, etc., that was entirely new to Hollywood at the time.

It's rumored that Hollywood execs and filmmakers feared for their jobs after seeing Fritz Lang's Metropolis...and with good reason. Even just watching one of the non-remastered prints on a larger screen will drop your jaw, because there are something like 6 or 7 layers of action in a few of the wide-angle establishing shots of the high-rise buildings and skyscrapers of Metropolis. There are biplanes, there are elevated trains, cars on the freeway, and actual live actors walking on the sidewalk in the foreground.

And this was during a time when computers were a fantasy seen only in movies. Metropolis (and really, most of the German Expressionist movement) was the best thing to happen to the filmmaking industry, because it started showing people what could be done within the limited confines of the present day technologies.

Hell, for all intents and purposes...Lang and others destroyed those limited confines, because within those limited confines, they figured out how to really use those limitations and create immense worlds.

They were, in the purest sense of the phrase, masters of illusion, and their influence is seen today, though mostly in science fiction. One takes a look at Ridley Scott's Blade Runner to see a shinier and grungier version of Lang's Metropolis. It's quite remarkable. Even Star Wars owes portions of itself to Lang, Murnau, etc., I think.

And I think that's the key difference between Murnau, Lang, etc., and the lame adaptations and remakes today. Murnau and Lang were filmmakers on both an aesthetic and technical level. They knew how to reach the audience in new, fresh, and innovative ways, and knew how to use filmmaking techniques to achieve that response, just like Star Wars uses the camera in the flight sequences to give the illusion of "Holy crap I'm flying."

There was a documentary about James Bond Gadgets the other night on the History channel (maybe Discovery channel, not sure) and one of the "Bond Team" was absolutely giddy when he was describing this optical illusion they stumbled across when filming on the acrobatic stunt sequences with this trick jet for...Octopussy, I think it was.

Basically, because this little jet was so fast, so versatile, and so maneuverable, there was one point where the camera followed it over (and down) a very steep cliff, and there was this sense of "Oh, **** I feel like I'm really falling." They cut that one shot because of it.

When the director isn't talented, or the material is absolute trash, we get things like Guess Who, which is just stupid pet tricks, rather than hitting on any of the major themes of the original.

You watch Guess Who's Coming To Dinner and you're moved by it, because it focuses on character development, on Spencer Tracy and Katharine Hepburn learning that social progressivism still has a ways to go. The film would never focus on Ashton Kutcher dressed in a skimpy lingerie, wanting it doggystyle.

And I suppose that's the biggest problem today. Not enough good dialogue, too many stupid pet tricks. I'd go as far as to say most films today are just stupid pet tricks.

Perhaps audiences [i]are[/i] just getting dumber, because seeing the schlock that does well, the stupid comedies like Guess Who that have no redeeming qualities whatsoever, and then seeing films from Christopher Guest like A Mighty Wind, Waiting For Guffman, and then This Is Spinal Tap almost get tossed to the wayside? Yeah, something isn't right there.

I loved Anchorman, I loved 40-Year-Old-Virgin. I cried when I saw Dodgeball (Annie can attest to that!) as Rip Torn was throwing wrenches around. But at least with those, there was something to laugh at. Ashton Kutcher in lingerie is not something to laugh at.

So...yeah. That's my (abridged) take on things.

EDIT: A few more notables.

When discussing film adaptations, Alfred Hitchcock really deserves some props. He loved doing adaptations of novels. The one adaptation that I remember best is Sabotage, which was an adaptation of Joseph Conrad's The Secret Agent (which, incidentally, is pretty damn good. The book's around here somewhere, I think.). Sabotage has a very pulpy feel to it, because that's the subject matter. But even with the lame story, Hitchcock made it work. He's a master because of his skill with film.

He was one director who plotted out the entire film in his head and on storyboards long before they even began rehearsing. It's really unbelievable sometimes, especially watching the crop duster sequence in North By Northwest in storyboards, then watching the actual footage. Every single shot, every single frame...it's all mapped out in excruciating detail on the storyboards.

And you can see that attention to detail (some have called it obsessive-compulsive) in his earliest work, including Sabotage. The lighting is done just right to accentuate (or sometimes, straight-up focus on) someone's eyes.

He cuts films perfectly to establish tension, even though the tension is really hokey, like Sabotage's final sequence with the boy, Stevie, petting a cute puppy on a city bus, while we cut back and forth between him and the puppy and the bomb hidden in Stevie's bag, ticking down in single digits. Hitchcock knows what he's doing there, and you can tell, because he milks Stevie and the puppy for all they're worth before blowing up the bus.

Even his first few films--the silent ones--like The Lodger have an incredible attention to camera placement and the effect a certain placement has. His film canon is solid gold. Rope, Rear Window, Psycho, Vertigo, Notorious (my personal fave)...the list goes on.

Psycho is interesting, actually, because the remake failed miserably. I think it failed for a few different reasons.

One, Hitchcock is the master. He made Psycho what it was, even though the performances were fantastic (Anthony Perkins [i]was[/i] Norman Bates).

That movie was totally Hitchcock's, and you can tell. His strange fascination with staircases pops up in Psycho. We all know what scene that is. The POV shots, the claustrophobic close-ups...everything about that film was Hitchcock, and no other director could have done it. Shot-for-shot remakes of Hitchcock films are doomed, because if he [i]made[/i] a shot, no other director will be able to duplicate that.

Two, I think that's one fundamental not enough modern filmmakers are realizing. Remakes...they don't work. We saw what happened with Dukes Of Hazzard. Starsky and Hutch did well because of the Frat Pack. Things like Bad News Bears and The Longest Yard are wholly unnecessary. I couldn't even imagine that those remakes are making enough to justify them, given that they would be on the charts for only a few weeks and than vanish.

So on one hand, I do think audiences are getting dumber, But I also think too many filmmakers are just getting lazy. The Island? Yeah.

[nika2999]

I agree, Hollywood only seems to do remakes or only make up movies off the same concept or plot. I think there in a creative slump, and it doesn't look like it plans to let up any time soon.

[densuke]

[quote name='Shadow Blade']Where the heck is the creativity in film making today?[/quote]Well, in South Korea for sure. South Korea's film industry is young and fresh and loaded with talented filmmakers.

Try and rent [b]Swiri[/b] (or Shiri) for starters. I had a nice conversation just today with someone at work who was very impressed with Swiri's depth of character and storytelling. "It's not the kind of thing you can just jump into halfway through" said my colleague, which I take to mean that American movies can be viewed in little bits and pieces or just kind of fast-forwarded through because there is no effort put into the story. Or you already read the damn comic book...

As for American film? Just boycott the whole damn mess. The only alternative is to reinforce what the Hollywood money men already know - "You'll never go broke underestimating the American public."

Booklovers will never find their concerns or favorite books mirrored in cinema because it is an anti-literary medium. Until home media got big moviemakers only ever had one shot at getting the story across -- and movies still have to be made as if this were true. Movies can only hint at the [i]inner life of their characters[/i] while books can be packed with pages and pages of almost nothing else.

Some books are much less concerned with thoughts and subtle emotions and are easy to screen more or less intact but those books are not booklovers' books...

[Brasil]

[quote name='densuke]Movies can only hint at the [i]inner life of their characters[/i'] while books can be packed with pages and pages of almost nothing else.[/quote]Not true at all. The Graduate. Taxi Driver. Hitchcock's Vertigo. Christopher Guest's entire film canon. Guess Who's Coming To Dinner. For the adaptations in that list (Graduate, Guess Who's Coming To Dinner), you can read the novel (or play) and then watch the film and you'll get just as deep a characterization in the film.

I've read The Graduate about 7 or 8 times in the past two years, and the film is one I watch at least once a year. I guarantee you that in many places, the film actually opens up more into Ben's thoughts than the book does, and his characterization is a hell of a lot stronger in the film.

I challenge you to find a novel about a similar setting that has more character depth and exploration than Taxi Driver. It's one of those films that knows whose perspective is the most important and then roots the audience in that perspective the entire time...so much so that by the end of the film, you're thinking like Travis Bickle.

Or The Deer Hunter, even. You're going to feel very filthy after watching it. There's a reason for that.

[densuke]

Taxi Driver cheated by using soliloquies. Even there the language is very flat. It's great for hard-boiled stuff but it doesn't compare to a novel by someone like Kenzaburo Oe.

Claiming that certain movies do a great job with certain books is too easy. Once you've experienced both you're tainted by knowledge of both.

[Brasil]

[quote name='densuke']Taxi Driver cheated by using soliloquies. Even there the language is very flat. It's great for hard-boiled stuff but it doesn't compare to a novel by someone like Kenzaburo Oe.[/quote] What absolute rubbish. It's not only the dialogue that creates the effect in Taxi Driver; to even suggest that the film succeeds (rather, cheats) only through using dialogue demonstrates a complete lack of understanding of cinematic technique.

I don't know how one can say the film cheated at all when the camera is with Travis the entire film. In earlier drafts, there were scenes the audience saw long before Travis did. It's no coincidence those scenes aren't in the final cut of the film.

Seriously, man. You want to tell me Taxi Driver cheated, cut corners or whatever? You had better consider everything in the film. As it stands now, you aren't.

[quote]Claiming that certain movies do a great job with certain books is too easy. Once you've experienced both you're tainted by knowledge of both.[/QUOTE] And making blanket statements that movies don't do characters and their inner thoughts justice isn't too easy? Come on. I've read a fair share of novels in my day that had absolutely dreadful characterization, so don't be so quick to tout novels as the ultimate tool for insights or window into a character. They aren't.

And I find it incredibly ironic that you're talking to me about "once you experience both you're tainted," etc. Anyone here who knows me at all is laughing right now as they read that, I think, and there's a reason for that, as well, I assure you.

[quote]which I take to mean that American movies can be viewed in little bits and pieces or just kind of fast-forwarded through because there is no effort put into the story. Or you already read the damn comic book...[/quote] :rolleyes: Just get out of here with that garbage.

And what kind of reply is that, anyway? (Your most recent reply) I mean, seriously. At least defend what you say with more than two sentences. With the short, terse nature of your post and the extreme void of information and elaboration...I'm inclined to think you have nothing at all. It's the same type of broad, generalized answer that a Lit student tries to bull**** with when they don't have a correct response on an exam.

[Guest Warmaster]

I think there's enough fresh ideas every now and then. I'm not sure if there ever was a "golden age" when every idea was brand new and original and intriguing.

People still go see movies (records are broken almost every year, for "biggest opening weekend" or something else), and DVD sales are quite big. I'm sure that if it were otherwise, then execs would take new approaches. But for now, we have many superhero movies and random sci-fi movies because those films make money. Lots and lots of money. If it ain't broke, don't fix it.

If you are in need of originality that you feel isn't there, check out the local library or DVD section at Best Buy. I'm sure you'll find something interesting.