Hollywood out of ideas? (1 Viewer)

[rich_d]

Chuck has a point. There are few major new story ideas just taking bits of this and bits of that and carving something different out of it.

The more important thing is not to get down about that reality but that the real issue is how well the story is told. How well is it crafted and acted.

If you see a ton of films like critics do it is hard to get excited about films that only truly inspire those that haven't been around the block a few times.

It's like the Elton John song:

I can see by your eyes you must be lying
When you think I don't have a clue
Baby your crazy, if you think that you can fool me
Because I've seen that movie too

 

[Glenn Overholt]

I have an even older quote Rich, from an early Rolling Stones title (It's) The Singer, Not the Song.

Glenn

 

[Manus]

" Hollywood out of ideas? "

Most definitely. Hence , the headlong rush into new digital formats (even at the expense of their own customers civil rights ) aimed at re-selling old product under the guise of 'higher quality' in order to boost the diminishing profits of poor current product.
The current fascination with PG-13ing absolutely every movie thats made , regardless of subject matter ( eg.AvP formerly 2 R-rated franchises) and general dumbing down done in the belief that the audience isnt smart enough (eg.Kingdom of Heaven with and without the 'boy' ).
Region Coding !*&^%£$$$ Where would Lucas (!) , Coppolla and Scorcese be without Hitchcock,Kurosawa ,Truffaut and others ? Film schools must be region-free , so why cant the rest of us ?

" Story,
Story,
and Story....

I'm ignoring the latest digi-war and indulging in classic story films from around the world and the Fox Film Noir , Studio Classics and Warners boxsets ( John Ford,Hitchcock, Film Noir,Controversial Classics) from Hollywood's glory days.

In 50 years time, when people want to look back at us and see how it was at the turn of the century , what will they face ? Hitch ? AvP ? the editing masterclass that was Kingdom of Heaven ( without the boy

God, its enough to make you squirm ( lie about your age ! )

~M~

 

[Rakesh.S]

I watched a Russian horror flick called "Night Watch" yesterday. The movie itself was terrific and had a TON of special effects. I checked the budget and it was 4.2 million, according to IMDB.

This same movie, with a bunch of egotistical hollywood actors would've probably cost close to $100 mill.

Is Spielberg a billionaire yet? He gets a ridiculous amount of $$$ for every movie he's involved with, producing or directing. IMDB was listing his salary for Jurassic Park to be $250 million.

Hollyweird is just spiraling out of control.

 

[Brent M]

Um, he's a billionaire about 3 times over. Forbes had his net worth at somewhere between $3-4 billion if I remember correctly. He and Lucas are the two richest guys in Hollywood by far.

 

[JediFonger]

isn't cruise rich as well?

 

[Lew Crippen]

Just curious guys, but what does this have to do with running out of ideas?

Or not

 

[David James]

Out of ideas?

Why bother coming up with new ideas when you can just put out movies like King Kong and Superman again and watch people flock to see them.

Prop Adam Sandler (or other SNL alum) up in front of a camera and watch 'em show up.

As long as they make enough money from rehashing the old ideas, you won't see new ideas at the level you might expect.

You want new ideas, don't go to see Superman

 

[Colin Jacobson]

That's not salary - that's his total take after his share of the profit. Ain't no director - or anyone - being paid $250 million in SALARY!

 

[Jerome Grate]

Hollywood out of ideas?, yup, remakes and sequels then remakes with a twist that allows the producers to call it their own... oh yeah, I'm tired of it.

 

[Nick-R]

Who cares if they recycle ideas, as long as they make a good film. Most of the themes used for riveting fictional stories have been used up. Do I care if they make a new con/heist film and call it The Sting 2, Ocean's 13, or something new? Not really. Just do it well.

Honestly, if the film is really well made, I prefer remakes and sequels. If I get to revisit the characters I know I enjoy, all the better.

The fact that Hollywood is running out of ideas really shouldn't be an excuse for making crappy movies.

 

[JediFonger]

they've been recycling since the golden age of cinema. remember Dr. Jekyl+Hyde. there's a 30's version that is a remake of a 20s version. been there, done that. focus should be, whether it's good or not. and imho, both versions are very well done =). ah the golden age...

 

[Tim B]

The concept of summer blockbusters has not changed since the 1970's. Typically, you have a chosen one or hero who needs to fight evil or injustice in order to save the world or galaxy. I have accepted the fact that Hollywood has run out of ideas. For every 10 horrible remakes, we still get a Batman Begins which is much better then the Tim Burton version.

The biggest problem (as I see it) is the way Hollywood milks the franchise until they have completely killed them. Superman 4, Jurassic Park 3, Batman & Robin.... The list goes on and on.

Now Speilberg & Lucas want to make Indiana Jones 4 with Harrison Ford. This is a perfect example of the movie industry gone horribly wrong. And that is nothing compared to the X-Men movies being discussed. There are rumors of a Wolverine Prequel. And a Magneto Prequel. And a few other smaller character spin-offs.

If they can't think of original ideas... no big deal. They just need to make quality films as remakes (Batman Begins as example). However, once a film series has done well, they have to know when to stop. This is when movie goers start to get a negative feeling from the film industry.

-----------

EDIT: In a perfect world, the studio's would sit down and plan for the long term. If they want to make a Superman Series, then work out a rough draft of a story arc that lasts a set number of movies. Once the series is over, consider that the definitive Superman Saga of this generation. This doesn't mean they won't remake the series in 20 years. All it means is that they aren't going to have spin-offs or added movies just to make an extra dollar and kill the series. Financially and creatively, this method makes the most sense.

 

[JediFonger]

i don't agree with batman begins =). it's as bad as your other ones on the list. why? no surprises. that's why i think prequels suck. we already KNOW what th hell's gonna happen. i don't need a surprise to make a film good, but my goodness, all of the suspense is gone. you know bruce wayne+batman will live no mattered how threatened he is by anyone else.

batman TAS had a better version of "rash du ghul" (ray-sh). heh heh heh.

 

[Andy Sheets]

For the most part, they're already doing this. That's why Superman Returns is cast with 20-somethings instead of 30-somethings: They want actors young enough to do 2 or 3 sequels if not more, assuming the standard three years between sequels.

Lord of the Rings has made simultaneous sequel shooting seem viable for doing sequels, so they did Pirates of the Caribbean 2 and 3 together.

The X-Men producers have been talking about Wolverine and other character spin-offs since the first movie came out (Thank God they seem to have abandoned the notion of a Storm movie). Universal's been trying the same thing with no success - they had huge franchises all planned out for The Mummy/Scorpion King, Van Helsing, and Riddick and none of them worked out because they didn't get the FIRST movie right.

 

[Michael:M]

I'd slightly disagree with this. I still think the first Mummy movie (1999) is a great action-adventure popcorn flick. A very good mix of thrills, humor, F/X and decent plotting. It's not perfect, and it's not without some holes, but I think it holds up very well. The cool creature effects not withstanding, one of the best things about the movie is Brendan Fraser's performance and the writing for his character; I love the rough edges present, as shown when he throws Beni overboard with no hesitation.

The second one had some cool set pieces (the resurrection sequence was very well done) but horrible plotting, the dialogue took a definite turn south, and the effects weren't as good. While it was successful financially, it left a sour taste in many mouths, including the actors.

I think that Universal could do a third Mummy movie, and even let Sommers direct: just get someone else to write it. The Mummy (1999) seems to be an anomaly for his writing, wherein it worked and felt fun and respectful of the genres, rather than a lame ripoff.

VH and Scorpion King were just awful. VH effectively made a franchise impossible because of said stinkage and doing away with all the main monsters in one movie. SK made the same mistake that the second Conan film did: trying to squeeze an R-rated movie into PG-13 pants. As with VH, it suffered from awful plotting and writing, and slavishly followed plot cliches that were old two days after the first silent film debuted.

 

[Rakesh.S]

For the billionth time, Batman Begins was not a prequel..it was a franchise reboot.

Riddick was awesome in my opinion and Universal should've released the director's cut to theaters. I also thought Pitch Black was incredible, but it was a low budget flick that wasn't meant to be a blockbuster.

Van Helsing stunk...The Mummy stunk. It was boring as hell, but the special effects were good. All style, no substance.

 

[Michael:M]

I don't know that I'd call Riddick "awesome" but I definitely think it's underrated. There was a thread about it recently over at CHUD, and someone said something along the lines of "Riddick had its flaws, but at least it reached to be something big, different, and interesting." I agree. I'm disappointed that we will likely not see the rest of the planned trilogy, as I loved the production design, the depth and complexity of the world(s) Twohy created, and am quite willing to overlook flaws when the movie is telling a story that's engaging, interesting, and fun to experience.