The Movie Thread Reloaded

[Eirikrautha]

Going back further, Shakespeare was far from original - most of his works were remakes of prior plots.

Tell me you know nothing about Shakespeare and his literary impact without telling me you no nothing about Shakespeare and his literary impact...

[hedgehobbit]

If you've become so jaded (or, as you put it, "old enough to see") that everything looks like crap to you, then some of the problem is that you will never be satisfied with anything aimed at newer audiences.

I don't think a romantic comedy starring two people in their 40s based on a TV show from the early 80s is really meant for a "newer audience". Unless by "newer" you mean "over 50".

[hedgehobbit]

In general, I think originality is overrated and execution underrated. In classic Hollywood, there were 44 Charlie Chan movies and 36 Abbot & Costello movies. Roy Rogers starred in over a hundred singing cowboy movies. Going back further, Shakespeare was far from original - most of his works were remakes of prior plots.

These were the days before television and DVDs so movie series took that role. However, even those extreme examples prove a point. Charlie Chan was in 44 movies during a period of 20 years (1929-1949). Abbott & Costello were in movies for 16 years (1940-1956). But today we have franchises making new content that are 40 or 50 years old, or even longer with Star Trek being 58.

So even compared to the extremes of the past, we have entered an entirely new era of exploiting IP far beyond anything that came before.

[HappyDaze]

So even compared to the extremes of the past, we have entered an entirely new era of exploiting IP far beyond anything that came before.

I don't think "exploiting" is necessarily the right term.

[jhkim]

In general, I think originality is overrated and execution underrated. In classic Hollywood, there were 44 Charlie Chan movies and 36 Abbot & Costello movies. Roy Rogers starred in over a hundred singing cowboy movies. Going back further, Shakespeare was far from original - most of his works were remakes of prior plots.

These were the days before television and DVDs so movie series took that roll. However, even those extreme examples prove a point. Charlie Chan was in 44 movies during a period of 20 years (1929-1949). Abbott & Costello were in movies for 16 years (1940-1956). But today we have franchises making new content that are 40 or 50 years old, or even longer with Star Trek being 58.

So even compared to the extremes of the past, we have entered an entirely new era of exploiting IP far beyond anything that came before.

I agree that they are milking IP for more decades now, but that's not a measure of originality of the studios. Obviously in the 1940s, feature film franchises couldn't have been going for 40 or 50 years, because feature films hadn't been around for that long. Also, the length of copyright has been extended, which has enabled keeping IP for longer.

In the classic era, there were still 40+ year franchises, they just weren't purely in film by necessity. The Wizard of Oz was published in 1900 - and had over a dozen stage and film adaptations before the 1939 MGM musical film. Similarly, Peter Pan was published in 1904 and again frequented stage and radio long before the 1953 Disney animated film. Fu Manchu was published first in 1913 with popular adapations in the 1930s through 1960s. Sherlock Holmes started in 1887 and has had hundreds of adaptations continuously into the 21st century.

Movie studios have had their ups and downs and different phases, but there's always been tons of exploitation and formulaic productions. Even in films that weren't technically a series could be highly formulaic. I love Fred Astaire musicals and Errol Flynn swashbuckling, say, but most of them don't get any points for originality. The current spate of superhero movies since 2008 is annoying, but it's quite parallel to the dominance of westerns for many decades. Looking back, people tend to only watch the most lauded films of each era - but every decade also had lots of forgettable and formulaic drek.

[Ratman_tf]

The current spate of superhero movies since 2008 is annoying, but it's quite parallel to the dominance of westerns for many decades.

One very notable difference is that the vast majority of current Superhero movies come from one studio and one IP. Marvel/Disney. With DC/Warner Bros being a very distant second.

There was at least a little more breadth in the genere of westerns made in the 50's.

[GeekyBugle]

The current spate of superhero movies since 2008 is annoying, but it's quite parallel to the dominance of westerns for many decades.

One very notable difference is that the vast majority of current Superhero movies come from one studio and one IP. Marvel/Disney. With DC/Warner Bros being a very distant second.

There was at least a little more breadth in the genere of westerns made in the 50's.

Don't forget that a genre being popular is one thing, and the complaint was that they're producing almost nothing but reboots, sequels, prequels, re-imaginings of older IP.

Following the market has always happened, but at least we got different Private Eyes, procedural police stories, etc.

Procedurals: NCIS, CSI, Dr House, Dexter
Sci-Fi: Star Trek, Galactica, Stargate, Star Wars

Sure, we did get some near copies but those were usually from smaller studios, Turkey, etc.

[ForgottenF]

Thinking about it, the reason I've disconnected from most of the mainstream American entertainment industry is less about originality, and more about aesthetics.

I'll agree with JHKim that execution can, and often does, trump originality. But more importantly, the fact that something is using an existing IP doesn't mean it's entirely unoriginal. The 1999 The Mummy, which happens to be being rereleased to theaters this year, is one of my favorite films. Technically, it's a remake of the 1932 film, which I also really like, but the two are almost not similar at all.

My bigger problem with the recent products of both Hollywood and AAA videogaming is that everything is just so flat and ugly now. I'm not sure whether the culprit is the drive towards photorealism or the woke tendency to hate the concept of aesthetics, but (with a very few exceptions) nothing has any kind of style or glamour to it anymore.  The Marvel films are probably the obvious example, as they just get uglier and uglier over time, but you could also look at the insane aesthetic downgrade between Peter Jackson's Lord of the Rings films from 20 years ago and the Amazon show last year, despite the advancements in technology and comparable budget. The James Bond films were the standard-bearer for Hollywood style and glamour for decades, and then they let their aesthetics decay to the point where the Kingsman movies were able to come along and snatch their crown, and The list goes on and on.

[hedgehobbit]

So even compared to the extremes of the past, we have entered an entirely new era of exploiting IP far beyond anything that came before.

I don't think "exploiting" is necessarily the right term.

Maybe I should use the term that Bob Iger used in his recent earning call and talk about "an entirely new era of mining IP"

I do find it odd that the people who defend these mega corporations care more about the IP being mined for content than the people actually running the corporations. My motto has recently become "If they don't care about it, I don't care about it."

https://nypost.com/2024/05/07/entertainment/bob-iger-mining-comment-reveals-all-you-need-to-know-about-sorry-state-of-disney/

[HappyDaze]

So even compared to the extremes of the past, we have entered an entirely new era of exploiting IP far beyond anything that came before.

I don't think "exploiting" is necessarily the right term.

Maybe I should use the term that Bob Iger used in his recent earning call and talk about "an entirely new era of mining IP"

I do find it odd that the people who defend these mega corporations care more about the IP being mined for content than the people actually running the corporations. My motto has recently become "If they don't care about it, I don't care about it."

https://nypost.com/2024/05/07/entertainment/bob-iger-mining-comment-reveals-all-you-need-to-know-about-sorry-state-of-disney/

Mining is certainly a better term, as one definition of it reads, "delve into (an abundant source) to extract something of value, especially information or skill." With both Marvel and Star Wars, there are abundant sources to dig through, even though I can't necessarily say that I've favored all the bits they've chosen to extract and put on screen (big and small).

However, mining would imply that the source is limited, and that what is built upon the extracted material is not itself added back into the source (which is very much how I persoanlly like to view SW 7-9...), so perhaps it's not the best term either.

[Omega]

The current spate of superhero movies since 2008 is annoying, but it's quite parallel to the dominance of westerns for many decades.

One very notable difference is that the vast majority of current Superhero movies come from one studio and one IP. Marvel/Disney. With DC/Warner Bros being a very distant second.

There was at least a little more breadth in the genere of westerns made in the 50's.

Theres alot of superhero stuff thats not from Disney. It just tends to get lost in the shuffle. The Boys, which I detest, Invincible which is barely mediocre, bunches of foreign ones out there.

Kinds of similar to the spate in the 90s. There were loads of superhero TV shows.Couple of non DC or Marvel movies. Meteor Man, Darkman, Dollman, shows like Nightman and Mantis, More of you looked overseas.

[Omega]

Pinned down a copy of Pinocchio in Outer Space after 50 odd years.

Always thought it was a Japanese animation. But its a US+Belgian production.

Its as trippy as I remembered it. Probably would make a good Spelljammer adventure. Rampaging space whale, mysterious martian experiments, giant monsters and ancient ruins.

[yosemitemike]

Theres alot of superhero stuff thats not from Disney. It just tends to get lost in the shuffle. The Boys, which I detest, Invincible which is barely mediocre, bunches of foreign ones out there.

Kinds of similar to the spate in the 90s. There were loads of superhero TV shows.Couple of non DC or Marvel movies. Meteor Man, Darkman, Dollman, shows like Nightman and Mantis, More of you looked overseas.

There's also all of the DC TV series which are mostly complete rubbish.  I have been afraid to watch Stargirl since I actually like that character.

[Ratman_tf]

The current spate of superhero movies since 2008 is annoying, but it's quite parallel to the dominance of westerns for many decades.

One very notable difference is that the vast majority of current Superhero movies come from one studio and one IP. Marvel/Disney. With DC/Warner Bros being a very distant second.

There was at least a little more breadth in the genere of westerns made in the 50's.

Theres alot of superhero stuff thats not from Disney. It just tends to get lost in the shuffle. The Boys, which I detest, Invincible which is barely mediocre, bunches of foreign ones out there.

Kinds of similar to the spate in the 90s. There were loads of superhero TV shows.Couple of non DC or Marvel movies. Meteor Man, Darkman, Dollman, shows like Nightman and Mantis, More of you looked overseas.

I never understood classifying Darkman as a superhero movie. It's like saying Evil Dead 2 is a superhero movie. Kinda, sorta, maybe if you squint and broaden the definitions to their maximum.

[ralfy]

https://www.theguardian.com/film/2013/jun/13/steven-spielberg-george-lucas-film-industry

The implication is that studios are focusing on superhero movies and similar (e.g., fantasy or sci-fi, whether action, adventure, horror, comedy, or even romance; examples include Barbie and the latest Mario Bros. movie because large amounts of money are at stake and they are focusing on international audiences, including those who speak other languages or have varied cultures. That means the ff.

Focus on fantasy or sci-fi, with lots of CGI and special effects, and at least two hours long, in order to make the movie look expensive and thus worth watching in the theater, including even on IMAX or similar. Given high ticket prices plus parking, lunch or dinner out, and snacks, the trip better be worthwhile.

Use formulae that worked in the past. That way, the chances of making mistakes may decrease. Examples including another chase scene and Bartertown, as seen in Fury Road, another visit to a rock and protagonists who look like Ripley and have names like "Tennessee" (alluding to "Dallas"), as seen in the Alien prequels, another orphan on a desert planet vs. another Death Star, as seen in the Star Wars sequels, and so on.

This also helps in increasing production time. Given the amounts of money to be invested or paid for in terms of licensing, etc., one has to milk the franchise for all its got. It's like going for one season to another in TV shows until they either end in a great way or are run to the ground. That means making as many movies as possible.

If possible, go for the PG sweet spot. Many of those expected to watch the movies are relatively young, so by focusing on that rating, the younger ones can tag along and the older ones won't think that they're watching a show for kids.

Make sure that the story can be understood by people of different language backgrounds and cultures. At least half of the audience will come from outside English-speaking countries, so make sure that they're targeted. It also helps when co-producers include foreign companies.

What about cheaper-looking movies? They can be shown during the dump months, but keep in mind they can also be very lucrative. For example, check out the Paranormal franchise. In any case, whatever art films one envisions might be funded through profits from the tent-pole flicks.

Keep in mind merchandising, spin-offs, etc., but don't use additional revenues from those to compensate for box office receipts (which are likely halved as theater owners, distributors, etc., want their cuts); investors want their returns ASAP, and will likely greenlight sequels, prequels, reboots, rehashes, reimaginations, etc., based one success in theaters.

Finally, note streaming, where several of these conditions may change.