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

Ryujin · Dec 9, 2022

Mallus said:
I meant on TV. In the 70s. Damn, that still makes me old, doesn’t it?

Naw, you're a kid. I watched the original runs of both "Wild, Wild West" and ST:TOS on TV

Umbran · Dec 9, 2022

Mercurius said:
But I see original -- at least in terms of art -- as having more to do with the idea of origins...the origins of consciousness, of myth and archetypes - the well of inspiration.

That is a very particular and peculiar definition of the term.

You can't really expect Hollywood to address your desires when they are highly idiosyncratic, you know.

"Make it original!"
"No, not like that!"

Mercurius · Dec 9, 2022

Umbran said:
That is a very particular and peculiar definition of the term.

You can't really expect Hollywood to address your desires when they are highly idiosyncratic, you know.

"Make it original!"
"No, not like that!"

OK

Undrave · Dec 9, 2022

Mercurius said:
Nice outline of some of the deeper elements. For me the key phrase is "expecting magic to ignite again." That's related to my beef...trying to copy the magic of other films. True "movie magic" is rarely contrive...it just happens, when you focus on making a good, and generally original, story.

I feel like Hollywood doesn't GET the appeal of its own franchises and tend to tunnel in on specific names or even actors.

You gotta have an Enterprise in Star Trek, you gotta have Bill Murray in Ghostbusters, you gotta have a Skywalker in Star Wars, Bumblebee is the main character in Transformers, Dumbledore hijacks the Fantastic Beasts franchise etc... They never try to dig to the core elements that hooked audience that could work again if they dared to explore the world of a franchise beyond their tunnel.

payn · Dec 9, 2022

Undrave said:
I feel like Hollywood doesn't GET the appeal of its own franchises and tend to tunnel in on specific names or even actors.

Im with you...

Undrave said:
You gotta have an Enterprise in Star Trek, you gotta have Bill Murray in Ghostbusters, you gotta have a Skywalker in Star Wars, Bumblebee is the main character in Transformers, Dumbledore hijacks the Fantastic Beasts franchise etc... They never try to dig to the core elements that hooked audience that could work again if they dared to explore the world of a franchise beyond their tunnel.

Until this. I loved me some Deep Space Nine, Afterlife was fine, Rogue One was great, Dinobot wars was a fantastic cartoon. You got me on the Dumbledore stuff I dont know what that is (im ok with that too).

I dont think a singular element and/or character is key to these. There is more than a iconic figure to the best franchises, IMO. I get what you are saying though about getting the appeal. The above items, minus the iconic must haves, still hit the mark.

Undrave · Dec 9, 2022

payn said:
Until this. I loved me some Deep Space Nine, Afterlife was fine, Rogue One was great, Dinobot wars was a fantastic cartoon. You got me on the Dumbledore stuff I dont know what that is (im ok with that too).

I dont think a singular element and/or character is key to these. There is more than a iconic figure to the best franchises, IMO. I get what you are saying though about getting the appeal. The above items, minus the iconic must haves, still hit the mark.

Hmm? I was naming examples of things Hollywood tunnel on.

Deep Space Nine would never have been made if Star Trek was only movies. And while people seem to like the new Star Trek shows, they decided to go to the Kirk (-ish) era for their new shows?

payn · Dec 9, 2022

Undrave said:
Hmm? I was naming examples of things Hollywood tunnel on.

Deep Space Nine would never have been made if Star Trek was only movies. And while people seem to like the new Star Trek shows, they decided to go to the Kirk (-ish) era for their new shows?

Oh, my bad I thought you were saying those iconic things are required to get the material.