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

[payn]

It's almost as if some people find movies being enjoyable to watch an indicator of them being quality entertainment. How bizarre.

Oh...Oh... no be careful we do not want to start that quality is whatever you like argument again. Please...

 

[Guest 7034872]

1. America is predominantly a nation of people who no longer read books.
2. Weak readers are incompetent writers.

So from where are Hollywood's scripts to come?

That's the problem I've seen, anyway: skilled actors are right there and ready to go, as are cinematographers, set designers, and directors. But if there's no one around who knows how to tell a proper story (or at least those who do cannot get an audience with the media powers that be because their skills and ideas are not en vogue), then the resulting movie will stink. And if stinky movies still consistently make money and if most producers in town are of the cynical opinion that the general public is too stupid to want anything better anyway, then there'll be a lot of stinky movies. Throw in a few morally impatient ideologues who take offense at any story that does not pander to their political sentiments, and you've got a good picture of Hollywood today.

 

[Mercurius]

Not only have I seen every single movie by Nic Cage, I believe that his oeuvre should be required teaching at all levels of school.

I require a Snarf's Guide to Nic Cage post, including the Absolutely Correct and Only Way to Rank All Nic Cage movies (and I mean all of them).

On a serious note, I thought Pig was really good.

 

[MadPuppy]

Nice thread as an avid Sci-fi and Fantasy movie watcher I have some opinions.....

1. the preponderance of big save the world story lines is tired and uninteresting anymore
What I mean here is that fantasy in particular is usually save the world from big bad evil guy trying to bring about the end or darkness reign...yawn! better stories are smaller stories. character driven and set to non world changing events. (I actually enjoyed the 13th warrior which wouldn't change the world if they lost, just that corner of the world.) I think Ladyhawk hit the mark as did Dragon Slayer.

2. a need for cross-genre stories
Here I suggest movies that combine genera's. Drama-Fantasy, horror and sci-fi (Event horizon, Aliens) are much more interesting. would love to see a Horror-Fantasy movie that is a ghost story, non-earth changing but set in a small town.) A fantasy-buddy movie could be fun.... think low level in D&D terms....

Just a couple thoughts I suppose but my personal opinion.

 

[payn]

Nice thread as an avid Sci-fi and Fantasy movie watcher I have some opinions.....

1. the preponderance of big save the world story lines is tired and uninteresting anymore
What I mean here is that fantasy in particular is usually save the world from big bad evil guy trying to bring about the end or darkness reign...yawn! better stories are smaller stories. character driven and set to non world changing events. (I actually enjoyed the 13th warrior which wouldn't change the world if they lost, just that corner of the world.) I think Ladyhawk hit the mark as did Dragon Slayer.

2. a need for cross-genre stories
Here I suggest movies that combine genera's. Drama-Fantasy, horror and sci-fi (Event horizon, Aliens) are much more interesting. would love to see a Horror-Fantasy movie that is a ghost story, non-earth changing but set in a small town.) A fantasy-buddy movie could be fun.... think low level in D&D terms....

Just a couple thoughts I suppose but my personal opinion.

I really good note. Fantasy seems to have been shoehorned into the world saving implications of its stories. Be nicer to see some smaller slice of life stories in the genre.

 

[Ryujin]

Nice thread as an avid Sci-fi and Fantasy movie watcher I have some opinions.....

1. the preponderance of big save the world story lines is tired and uninteresting anymore
What I mean here is that fantasy in particular is usually save the world from big bad evil guy trying to bring about the end or darkness reign...yawn! better stories are smaller stories. character driven and set to non world changing events. (I actually enjoyed the 13th warrior which wouldn't change the world if they lost, just that corner of the world.) I think Ladyhawk hit the mark as did Dragon Slayer.

2. a need for cross-genre stories
Here I suggest movies that combine genera's. Drama-Fantasy, horror and sci-fi (Event horizon, Aliens) are much more interesting. would love to see a Horror-Fantasy movie that is a ghost story, non-earth changing but set in a small town.) A fantasy-buddy movie could be fun.... think low level in D&D terms....

Just a couple thoughts I suppose but my personal opinion.

I don't mind a "save the world" storyline as the culmination of a movie series but yes, everything being world ending stakes can get tired.

On the other hand I think that the streaming series "The Umbrella Academy" explicitly had fun with that concept, over the course of 4 seasons.

 

[Hussar]

It's almost as if some people find movies being enjoyable to watch an indicator of them being quality entertainment. How bizarre.

It's far closer to the tendency people have to conflate their personal preferences with quality. "I like it, therefore it's good."

Not a trekkie and I think TNG is kinda meh and DS9 is best trek.

It's not just 80's action flicks it's the comedies, fantasy, things like goonies etc.

Again, DS9 couldn't have existed under Roddenberry. He never would have allowed it.

Of course there are great 80's movies. The Princess Bride is my all time favorite movie that I've watched and rewatched a thousand times. But, that doesn't mean that the 80's were full of great movies and had more great movies than you get today. Which is the point I was responding to. The 80's is, just like any other time, chock a block with terrible movies. Sturgeon's Law always applies.

I mean, if we're comparing TV - I'll stand up The Expanse against anything produced for TV in the SF genre. Most movies too.

 

[Mercurius]

It's far closer to the tendency people have to conflate their personal preferences with quality. "I like it, therefore it's good."

The corollary--which I find to be at least as common, if not more so--is, "I like it, therefore it can't be bad, and all criticisms are nutty and/or haterism."

Nothing wrong with liking things that aren't deemed of high quality, but quality is a real thing - it probably just needs to be contextualized and defined (that is, what do you mean by "quality" in this context? In what way is something bad?). But recognizing the subjective element, and that "what I like doesn't automatically equate with "good quality," doesn't negate the reality of quality.

EDIT: added bold.

 

[billd91]

The corollary--which I find to be at least as common, if not more so--is, "I like it, therefore it can't be bad, and all criticisms are nutty and/or haterism."

Nothing wrong with liking things that are deemed of high quality, but quality is a real thing - it probably just needs to be contextualized and defined (that is, what do you mean by "quality" in this context? In what way is something bad?). But recognizing the subjective element, and that "what I like doesn't automatically equate with "good quality," doesn't negate the reality of quality.

I think the contextualization is more then probably necessary - it's essential. It might be one thing to measure how well the camera's stayed in focus (if intended to be in focus) - that's objective and little affected by the point of view of the observer/critic. But even various aspects that might indicate quality - sophisticated characters, believable behavior, effective use of scenery, interesting dialogue - all depend on subjective interpretation and filtering anyway because whether or not something "works" for the observer is inherently subjective.

 

[Ryujin]

I think the contextualization is more then probably necessary - it's essential. It might be one thing to measure how well the camera's stayed in focus (if intended to be in focus) - that's objective and little affected by the point of view of the observer/critic. But even various aspects that might indicate quality - sophisticated characters, believable behavior, effective use of scenery, interesting dialogue - all depend on subjective interpretation and filtering anyway because whether or not something "works" for the observer is inherently subjective.

Right. And what is considered "objectively" good, in art, is merely the consensus between people who have a podium from which to speak, still making it subjective.

 

[Mercurius]

I think the contextualization is more then probably necessary - it's essential. It might be one thing to measure how well the camera's stayed in focus (if intended to be in focus) - that's objective and little affected by the point of view of the observer/critic. But even various aspects that might indicate quality - sophisticated characters, believable behavior, effective use of scenery, interesting dialogue - all depend on subjective interpretation and filtering anyway because whether or not something "works" for the observer is inherently subjective.

I would agree with you to an extent, and even a group of experienced and skilled film-makers are going to vary on what they like and don't like. But I do think there are two factors that tend to get written off, or at least diminished, in such conversations: One is actual skill and craftsmanship (of film-making, acting, musicianship, etc), which tends to be over-emphasized by snobbish types. There is a bit of a backlash against this, perhaps due to understandable anti-snobbishness, but also what could be described as the "punk mentality." Punk music was, among other things, a rejection and reaction to the excesses of prog rock, which tended to get lost in skill-over-soulfulness.

The second aspect is one that is much harder to quantify or even discuss, and has to do with what could be called depth of subjectivity; this isn't necessarily an in vogue take in an artistic context dominated by postmodern thinking, but not all subjects view art (or whatever) from similar psychological depth and aesthetic development. It isn't the same thing as skill, but has more to do with soulfulness, heart (not to be confused with sentimentality), or even some kind of transcendent element.

Or to put that another way, there are different intersecting planes. The focus of most discussions tends to be on the "horizontal" aspect (X) - which basically boils down to the diversity of subjective tastes, of which there are no wrong choices, just different opinions, tastes, flavors, etc. But there is also a "vertical" aspect (Y), which has to do with development and depth, with the "z-plane" of skill, craftsmanship, etc (or you can swap Z and Y, if you prefer). Too often "Y" is reduced to the former, so everything becomes of equal quality - or even, "quality" becomes meaningless. Or, at best, skill (Z) is recognized, but seen as the purview of snobbishness, so secondary to "what I like" (X).

In my way of looking at things, these three planes are interacting, but distinct - and shouldn't be reduced to the other, but often are. Mostly, discussions focus on X (subjectivity) and Z (skill), with Y (soul/depth) being entirely written off, or as a variation on X. Postmodernism, in other words!

 

[Umbran]

1. America is predominantly a nation of people who no longer read books.
2. Weak readers are incompetent writers.

So from where are Hollywood's scripts to come?

I am not impressed by those assertions.

A Gallup poll earlier this year found that, in 2021, the average American read a dozen books. Only about 17% read no books at all. About 44% read 6 books or more. 17% read 11 books or more. And, that 17% reads much more, to bring the average up that high.

There's about 332 million people in the US. That upper end gives us 56 million people from which we might draw scriptwriters.

So, that logic you give fails in the face of data.

That's the problem I've seen, anyway...

So, with respect, I don't know that the issue is on the scriptwriter's end. Because the scriptwriter is hardly the only person involved in writing the script.

I was reading an excerpt from an interview with David Goyer just a couple of days ago, in which he related a couple of memorable pieces of executive feedback on scripts.

He did a script for a Doctor Strange movie a while back. It never got made, but why becomes apparent when you know that one bit of script feedback he got was for there to be less magic in the film.

On Man of Steel, he was told not to have Superman use the pod he landed in to destroy General Zod's ship. When asked why, the executive replied words to the effect, "Well, if the pod is destroyed, how can he get ever back to Krypton?" (Yes, the first half hour of the film concerns the destruction of Krypton).

So, maybe not so much blame on the scriptwriter, hm?

 

[Ryujin]

I am not impressed by those assertions.

A Gallup poll earlier this year found that, in 2021, the average American read a dozen books. Only about 17% read no books at all. About 44% read 6 books or more. 17% read 11 books or more. And, that 17% reads much more, to bring the average up that high.

There's about 332 million people in the US. That upper end gives us 56 million people from which we might draw scriptwriters.

So, that logic you give fails in the face of data.



So, with respect, I don't know that the issue is on the scriptwriter's end. Because the scriptwriter is hardly the only person involved in writing the script.

I was reading an excerpt from an interview with David Goyer just a couple of days ago, in which he related a couple of memorable pieces of executive feedback on scripts.

He did a script for a Doctor Strange movie a while back. It never got made, but why becomes apparent when you know that one bit of script feedback he got was for there to be less magic in the film.

On Man of Steel, he was told not to have Superman use the pod he landed in to destroy General Zod's ship. When asked why, the executive replied words to the effect, "Well, if the pod is destroyed, how can he get ever back to Krypton?" (Yes, the first half hour of the film concerns the destruction of Krypton).

So, maybe not so much blame on the scriptwriter, hm?

Producers: The group that is at once both reviled, and needed in order to produce large budget films.

 

[Older Beholder]

It’s funny when a thread about endless sequels and remakes starts to take on a ‘movies were better in the 80’s‘ vibe. Personally I think of the 80’s as the beginning of the ‘just double everything’ sequel mentality.

I’ve never been too bothered by blockbusters, if you watch a lot of Arthouse film seeing the occasional superhero or popcorn flick is usually a nice change.

I saw The Banshees of Inisherin yesterday, amazing film, and there’s still a bunch of stuff I want to get to over the holidays, I might even try and see Avatar 2 and Puss in Boots if I get the time.

 

[Zardnaar]

It’s funny when a thread about endless sequels and remakes starts to take on a ‘movies were better in the 80’s‘ vibe. Personally I think of the 80’s as the beginning of the ‘just double everything’ sequel mentality.

I’ve never been too bothered by blockbusters, if you watch a lot of Arthouse film seeing the occasional superhero or popcorn flick is usually a nice change.

I saw The Banshees of Inisherin yesterday, amazing film, and there’s still a bunch of stuff I want to get to over the holidays, I might even try and see Avatar 2 and Puss in Boots if I get the time.

Heh saw that movie get referenced a day or two ago in random YouTube video.

 

[Zardnaar]

I am not impressed by those assertions.

A Gallup poll earlier this year found that, in 2021, the average American read a dozen books. Only about 17% read no books at all. About 44% read 6 books or more. 17% read 11 books or more. And, that 17% reads much more, to bring the average up that high.

There's about 332 million people in the US. That upper end gives us 56 million people from which we might draw scriptwriters.

So, that logic you give fails in the face of data.



So, with respect, I don't know that the issue is on the scriptwriter's end. Because the scriptwriter is hardly the only person involved in writing the script.

I was reading an excerpt from an interview with David Goyer just a couple of days ago, in which he related a couple of memorable pieces of executive feedback on scripts.

He did a script for a Doctor Strange movie a while back. It never got made, but why becomes apparent when you know that one bit of script feedback he got was for there to be less magic in the film.

On Man of Steel, he was told not to have Superman use the pod he landed in to destroy General Zod's ship. When asked why, the executive replied words to the effect, "Well, if the pod is destroyed, how can he get ever back to Krypton?" (Yes, the first half hour of the film concerns the destruction of Krypton).

So, maybe not so much blame on the scriptwriter, hm?

What's happening imho is you've got big blockbuster movies a lot which are more spectacle than substance. And indie films which sod all have seen so no one's gonna get it if you reference it. Pretty much superhero movies and everything else.

80's movies a lot were kinda cheap $10-25 million or so and hit movies made a 100-400 million.

So there was more variety across genres that people have actually seen.

Anyway might watch Knives Out or ET Extra Terrestrial later. Watched a few 80's movies recently to see if it's nostalgia or something else.

 

[Ryujin]

What's happening imho is you've got big blockbuster movies a lot which are more spectacle than substance. And indie films which sod all have seen so no one's gonna get it if you reference it. Pretty much superhero movies and everything else.

80's movies a lot were kinda cheap $10-25 million or so and hit movies made a 100-400 million.

So there was more variety across genres that people have actually seen.

Anyway might watch Knives Out or ET Extra Terrestrial later. Watched a few 80's movies recently to see if it's nostalgia or something else.

"Glass Onion: A Knives Out Mystery" is worth the watch for Daniel Craig's Louisiana accent, alone.

 

[Zardnaar]

"Glass Onion: A Knives Out Mystery" is worth the watch for Daniel Craig's Louisiana accent, alone.

That the new one?

 

[Ryujin]

That the new one?

Yup, just came out a few days ago.

 

[Umbran]

Producers: The group that is at once both reviled, and needed in order to produce large budget films.

He didn't name names, but the wording implied to me "studio executive" rather than producers.