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

[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.