Hollywood's creativity problem and a (ranty) stroll through endless remakes...

[Yora]

The 80s were a time of many great and original movies. The 90s still had a couple that became classics.
And somewhere in the early 2000s that just stopped. Occasionally you get a good film that is impactful and memorable, but those are one-off flukes. Not part of any pattern.

 

[Cadence]

I always forget what movie adaptation # the 1939 Wizard of Oz was. Fifth apparently. (Not counting adaptations of other Oz stuff).

How many Oz movies are there, anyway?

After I posted my April Icons announcement (Dorothy Gale week) along with my March viewing list, a few people expressed surprise to me that there are so many movies based on L. Frank Baum’s O…

reeltoreelmovies.com

 

[trappedslider]

So I am looking at the complaint, and the list, and ... I mean ...

I love this franchise. I want more of it! Just like the good stuff that they made. But better! And the same! And original! But different!

you know it's funny, my brother complains about Hollywood not coming out with new stuff but instead just doing remakes, I point out a new film that isn't a remark/reboot and he shrugs his shoulders. He'll also complain about sequels but will happily see the next Halloween movie. ¯\(ツ)/¯

So, it's more "Hollywood isn't making movies that interest me"

also :

 

[ART!]

Related thing I just learned: of the 15 biggest Oscar-winners of all time, only 2 are not adaptations: Titanic and Ghandi.

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

you know it's funny, my brother complains about Hollywood not coming out with new stuff but instead just doing remakes, I point out a new film that isn't a remark/reboot and he shrugs his shoulders. He'll also complain about sequels but will happily see the next Halloween movie. ¯\(ツ)/¯

So, it's more "Hollywood isn't making movies that interest me"

also :

Well, in fairness, I think that there is some truth to what @Mercurius is talking about. It's the "brand extension" issue that we see so often today. Just look at the Supermarket- more often than not, we don't see new products, we see old products in new forms (like the ~3,495 different types of Oreos).

Since the advent of the blockbuster era (Jaws on), we've seen a general move toward the blockbuster/franchise/IP (and now "shared universe") model. A lot of Hollywood types complain that movies today are either "Tentpole/Franchise," "Horror," or low budget- there's no longer any room for the middle class ... the crowd-pleasing, mid-budget comedies, rom-coms, and even dramas that used to be a staple at the theater.

That said, I still think that we are seeing a lot more quality (and quantity) than ever before- it's just everywhere (theaters and streaming) and coming from multiple sources (not just Hollywood, but foreign films) and you have to seek it out. But it is there.

 

[Ryujin]

Well, in fairness, I think that there is some truth to what @Mercurius is talking about. It's the "brand extension" issue that we see so often today. Just look at the Supermarket- more often than not, we don't see new products, we see old products in new forms (like the ~3,495 different types of Oreos).

Since the advent of the blockbuster era (Jaws on), we've seen a general move toward the blockbuster/franchise/IP (and now "shared universe") model. A lot of Hollywood types complain that movies today are either "Tentpole/Franchise," "Horror," or low budget- there's no longer any room for the middle class ... the crowd-pleasing, mid-budget comedies, rom-coms, and even dramas that used to be a staple at the theater.

That said, I still think that we are seeing a lot more quality (and quantity) than ever before- it's just everywhere (theaters and streaming) and coming from multiple sources (not just Hollywood, but foreign films) and you have to seek it out. But it is there.

I think that "horror" generally also fits in with "low budget", where the budget is something south of $20M. Hell, at some point in the next few years I'll have a producer credit on IMDB to go with my few "special thanks" entries, if Covid is every truly over. THAT is low budget

Maybe it could best be said that rather than not making anything new, Hollywood is reluctant to throw big money at new ideas. Hollywood tends to be risk averse. As someone previously said, that's Indie Film's thing. As a result while we're bombarded with adverts for the latest Space Samurai blockbuster, we don't hear about the psychological thriller that only cost a piddly little $50M.

 

[Umbran]

Hollywood has a creativity problem, and one that is, I don't think it is too crazy to think, largely based on the financial bottom line. Regardless of whether or not this is a good thing or not, it is the reality of big business and, like all businesses, the goal is (always) making money, and that impacts creativity.

Of course the problem is that film is generally considered a form of art - like writing, painting, music, etc. But...

But, you seem to treat film as somehow different from the other forms, when it isn't. Most fiction books are built to formulae, because formulae sells. You note boy bands yourself - music is driven by what sells. Art? For those of us who don't frequent museums, art is also commercial.

If the creativity thing is an issue of being tied to the money, the root problem is that we, the consumers, are not willing to pay for that creativity. If we stopped paying for tickets to the sequels and spin offs, they'd stop making them.

 

[Aeson]

Who's to say that the next remake is what inspires the next great filmmaker? Star Wars wasn't wholly original. How many filmmakers cited it as inspiration?

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

Who's to say that the next remake is what inspires the next great filmmaker? Star Wars wasn't wholly original. How many filmmakers cited it as inspiration?

Star Wars was an original work of unqualified genius.
-Akira Kurosawa, admiringly.

 

[Mercurius]

You need to have some sympathy for the Hollywood machine and realise that Movies arent art, they are product and the business needs to keep pumping things through to ensure that talent and crews get paid.
Unlike Theatre where a single run can be staged for years, Cinema is structured for relatively short runs, before a new product is demanded by viewers. Thats especially so now that the trip to the big screen has been stamped out by streaming, and COVID.

people forget that Cinema is only 100 years old, and while the early years were artist creating something new, the reality is that it has now reached the mature-saturation stage of its product life cycle. The easiest way to keep talent and crews employed and profits rolling is to create long term franchises (Star Wars, Marvel) or to reduce risk by remaking a known quantity that will get some nostalgia value on top of its own ‘merits’.

taking risks on new stuff isnt always viable or lucrative but there is room for indy work provided the big businesses keep the industry operating so the crews can get paid

Yeah, I understand the economic realities of it...doesn't mean I have to like it, though

But I do think movies are art - or on the "artistic scale." Like other media, it runs the gamut from highly commercial (the Hollywood "product" that you say) to very artistic, even spiritual/mystical. My issue is that Hollywood focuses 99.9% on the commercial product side of things, when (some) people actually yearn for something deeper.