Have movie makers run out of new ideas?
#1
Thread Starter
Cool New Member
Joined: Dec 2008
Posts: 35
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Have movie makers run out of new ideas?
So many movies these days seem to be remakes of older films they don't even wait that long before remaking movies these days but now their quick to remake movies from only a few years back such as the hitcher.
Then theres the numerous sequels.
And even movies that don't declare a direct linkage to other movies tend to concern storylines of a fairly similar themes and scenarios to some other movie (clone movies in other words)
So have movie makers run out of new ideas.
And what is the most original movie with new ideas and new concepts that you have seen of recent years.
Then theres the numerous sequels.
And even movies that don't declare a direct linkage to other movies tend to concern storylines of a fairly similar themes and scenarios to some other movie (clone movies in other words)
So have movie makers run out of new ideas.
And what is the most original movie with new ideas and new concepts that you have seen of recent years.
#3
Thread Starter
Cool New Member
Joined: Dec 2008
Posts: 35
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
#4
DVD Talk Legend
#6
DVD Talk Hall of Fame
Joined: Jan 2000
Posts: 7,936
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From: Somewhere out there... YES THERE!!!
#7
DVD Talk Hall of Fame
Joined: Jan 2000
Posts: 7,936
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From: Somewhere out there... YES THERE!!!
Didn't say you were wrong for asking, or that it was against any rules, just that the question seems at least to me more along the lines of a dead, and beaten horse by now :P
And the answer to your question. Yes, they ran out of ideas years ago.
#8
DVD Talk Hero
Pan's Labyrinth seemed original to me. Perhaps you've just seen too may fairy tales with Nazis.
#9
Suspended
Joined: Mar 2007
Posts: 2,659
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yea, this topic does get posted all the time. We covered this in my film history class at NYU.
Here were the main point.
-During the 70s corporations like Coke started by film studios. They saw movies more as products than an artistic medium.
-The rise of the blockbuster
-Advertisers control a vast amount fo the content in movies because they don't want to be associated with movies deemed "too controversial" movies generally must have a happy ending. No one wants to see a movie with a sad ending it wouldn't make them want to buy their products.
-Studios usually do whats already done before, over and over because those ideas have a proven track record. (e.g. black guy/white guy buddy comedy, fish out of water situations, etc.)
-Studios are more concerned with getting a big star attached to a movie than what the movie is really about. (Will Smith could play Superman if he really wanted to)
-The rise of the music video director to fim.
Then Hollywood goes through phases (e.g. teen comedy, horror, CGI, superhero, I think we're in the video game/toy adaptation phase now with GI Joe, Transformers.)
Bottom line Hollywood is really about money not artsitic integrity for the most part so expect to see the same things recycled for a while.
Side Note: I know there are the exceptions of what are considered presitige fils which are usually released at the end of the year. These films ae made for very little but the whole purpose of them is to get good PR for the studio. The studios with the best PR become the ones the bigger stars are attracted to working with for the next year.
Prb my fave class ever.
Here were the main point.
-During the 70s corporations like Coke started by film studios. They saw movies more as products than an artistic medium.
-The rise of the blockbuster
-Advertisers control a vast amount fo the content in movies because they don't want to be associated with movies deemed "too controversial" movies generally must have a happy ending. No one wants to see a movie with a sad ending it wouldn't make them want to buy their products.
-Studios usually do whats already done before, over and over because those ideas have a proven track record. (e.g. black guy/white guy buddy comedy, fish out of water situations, etc.)
-Studios are more concerned with getting a big star attached to a movie than what the movie is really about. (Will Smith could play Superman if he really wanted to)
-The rise of the music video director to fim.
Then Hollywood goes through phases (e.g. teen comedy, horror, CGI, superhero, I think we're in the video game/toy adaptation phase now with GI Joe, Transformers.)
Bottom line Hollywood is really about money not artsitic integrity for the most part so expect to see the same things recycled for a while.
Side Note: I know there are the exceptions of what are considered presitige fils which are usually released at the end of the year. These films ae made for very little but the whole purpose of them is to get good PR for the studio. The studios with the best PR become the ones the bigger stars are attracted to working with for the next year.
Prb my fave class ever.
#10
Thread Starter
Cool New Member
Joined: Dec 2008
Posts: 35
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
so doesn't that make it a little different from the average topics on this issue or is that also usually included in the question too?
toy story was quite original I guess?
#12
Thread Starter
Cool New Member
Joined: Dec 2008
Posts: 35
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yea, this topic does get posted all the time. We covered this in my film history class at NYU.
Here were the main point.
-During the 70s corporations like Coke started by film studios. They saw movies more as products than an artistic medium.
-The rise of the blockbuster
-Advertisers control a vast amount fo the content in movies because they don't want to be associated with movies deemed "too controversial" movies generally must have a happy ending. No one wants to see a movie with a sad ending it wouldn't make them want to buy their products.
-Studios usually do whats already done before, over and over because those ideas have a proven track record. (e.g. black guy/white guy buddy comedy, fish out of water situations, etc.)
-Studios are more concerned with getting a big star attached to a movie than what the movie is really about. (Will Smith could play Superman if he really wanted to)
-The rise of the music video director to fim.
Then Hollywood goes through phases (e.g. teen comedy, horror, CGI, superhero, I think we're in the video game/toy adaptation phase now with GI Joe, Transformers.)
Bottom line Hollywood is really about money not artsitic integrity for the most part so expect to see the same things recycled for a while.
Side Note: I know there are the exceptions of what are considered presitige fils which are usually released at the end of the year. These films ae made for very little but the whole purpose of them is to get good PR for the studio. The studios with the best PR become the ones the bigger stars are attracted to working with for the next year.
Prb my fave class ever.
Here were the main point.
-During the 70s corporations like Coke started by film studios. They saw movies more as products than an artistic medium.
-The rise of the blockbuster
-Advertisers control a vast amount fo the content in movies because they don't want to be associated with movies deemed "too controversial" movies generally must have a happy ending. No one wants to see a movie with a sad ending it wouldn't make them want to buy their products.
-Studios usually do whats already done before, over and over because those ideas have a proven track record. (e.g. black guy/white guy buddy comedy, fish out of water situations, etc.)
-Studios are more concerned with getting a big star attached to a movie than what the movie is really about. (Will Smith could play Superman if he really wanted to)
-The rise of the music video director to fim.
Then Hollywood goes through phases (e.g. teen comedy, horror, CGI, superhero, I think we're in the video game/toy adaptation phase now with GI Joe, Transformers.)
Bottom line Hollywood is really about money not artsitic integrity for the most part so expect to see the same things recycled for a while.
Side Note: I know there are the exceptions of what are considered presitige fils which are usually released at the end of the year. These films ae made for very little but the whole purpose of them is to get good PR for the studio. The studios with the best PR become the ones the bigger stars are attracted to working with for the next year.
Prb my fave class ever.
similar formulas have been common for a while now but directly remaking fairly recent movies such as the hitcher superman Assault on precint 13 and escape from New York seems a relativly more recent thing.
is part of it also to with with modern audiences being less demanding and discerning?
Last edited by Usainuk; 12-14-08 at 11:54 AM.
#13
DVD Talk Hero
Ronnie, I'd also say that if you need $100 million to make a movie, you're going to need to find investors willing to front you the money. Investors aren't going to write checks that big unless they're expecting a good rate of return. They could put the same money in T-bills if they only wanted zero interest. So there is always pressure to make a 'safe' movie that will make a guaranteed profit. What could be safer than yet another Batman movie?
#14
Member
If we're talking about mainstream movies, sure, there's not a whole lot of originality. As much as it's popular to blame studios for this trend, they're only following the formula that has proved to be profitable. If people stop attending these movies, that's when they'll stop making them.
As far as originality goes, I really liked Marc Forester's Stay from a few years ago. I don't think movies usually present new ideas and concepts, but are able to present ideas and concepts in new ways.
As far as originality goes, I really liked Marc Forester's Stay from a few years ago. I don't think movies usually present new ideas and concepts, but are able to present ideas and concepts in new ways.




