Could Hollywood use some fresh ideas?

[Grootster]

This is something that I've thought about a lot recently, and a discussion on the Indiana Jones 5 thread made me decide to start a new thread about it, since I couldn't find an existing one.

So I'm sure a lot of you have noticed that most of what comes out these days (at least in terms of big blockbuster-type movies) are reboots. Now, I'm by no means anti-reboot, the idea of remaking films has been around pretty much since the beginning of Hollywood. That much being said, I do question whether or not it's healthy that almost everything that comes out is recycled from something existing. This not only goes for reboots, but also for sequels and adaptions.

For instance, we're getting a fifth Indiana Jones film in a few years. Indiana Jones is an over thirty-year old franchise that worked because of a very specific premise and time-period. Even if #5 is a decent film, you can't continue with Indy as an elderly man in the 1960s and have the story keep the same charm as it did in Raiders. The other option is to reboot with a different actor, but then you've lost the man that defines the character. Aside from that, I'm not even sure some of the stuff in the 80s Indy films would go over well in a modern movie. To me it seems like it would be best to leave Indy in the past and simply come up with a new explorer character for modern audiences to enjoy.

On top of that, many reboots are based on relatively...ahem...silly (and shallow) stories like Ninja Turtles or Transformers, which are thirty-year-old properties that essentially served the purpose of entertaining young children on Saturday mornings and selling toys. We've gotten two live-action Ninja Turtle movie series and ten years of Transformers films that take themselves way too seriously. I'm not trying to offend anyone who likes or grew up with either of these properties (heck, I'm a big fan of the retro Transformers stuff myself), but I do find myself wondering whether or not it's necessary to continue getting movies every few years based on franchisees like this.

A lot of stories were written to reflect the sensibilities and ideals of the time it was written, not decades later. I'm not saying there aren't timeless stories that can continue to be told (for instance Star Wars, Star Trek), and I'm not saying there can't be good updates and re-imaginings to stories (2016's Jungle Book, Spider-man: Homecoming), but do you think Hollywood could stand to introduce some new stories instead of just recycling the same ones?

Edit:

I sort of wish I didn't add the poll, it was more of an afterthought and it implies that I'm only discussing reboots, whereas I'm really discussing anything based on an existing franchise or idea. Just be aware that what's in the poll is only a part of what I'm talking about.

 

[DarthSkywalker]

Did something keep you from seeing Dunkirk, Wonder Woman or Baby Driver? It never has been an either or situation.

And since when did successful blockbusters not produce sequels and when did adaptations become a problem?

 

[Grootster]

Did something keep you from seeing Dunkirk, Wonder Woman or Baby Driver? It never has been an either or situation.

And since when did successful blockbusters not produce sequels and when did adaptations become a problem?

Actually I've never seen any of those, but Dunkirk is a historical film which is based on an existing story with existing characters (so not really a creative original idea), Wonder Woman is an adaption of an existing property (which still falls under my point of recycling stories), and Baby Driver...I can't speak either way for because I know nothing about it. Even if you consider Dunkirk and Baby Driver original ideas, they're still a strong minority in comparison to the many other movies that are based on an existing franchise.

 

[DarthSkywalker]

Ah, so you don't go see the original ideas and the complain that there aren't any. Makes sense.

 

[Grootster]

Ah, so you don't go see the original ideas and the complain that there aren't any. Makes sense.

Two of those three aren't fresh ideas, and the other (Baby Driver) I saw zero promotion for, and still have no clue what it is. Aside from that as I've said before I'm not really into R-rated stuff, although I do admit that there are a lot of R-rated horror and crime type stuff that isn't based on something existing, (although those genres don't interest me). Still, they exist, so I suppose I have to give Hollywood points for those.

 

[Steyin]

I agree, we need fresh blood; at least we need the GA to actually go and see the more "original/fresh" stuff. It exists, but the GA doesn't really care I feel unless one film starts picking up steam from good WoM.

 

[2kt09]

Two of those three aren't fresh ideas, and the other (Baby Driver) I saw zero promotion for, and still have no clue what it is. Aside from that as I've said before I'm not really into R-rated stuff, although I do admit that there are a lot of R-rated horror and crime type stuff that isn't based on something existing, (although those genres don't interest me). Still, they exist, so I suppose I have to give Hollywood points for those.

All or nothing!
Those are rarely blockbusters, btw, just like how the number of movies/year (indies and otherwise) keep growing with time. Fresh ideas in that tentpole vein will come about when those are no longer merchandise-driven. That's not happening because there's global market demand for pre-existing brands even if one might perceive that as an unwavering supply to not provide innovation due to being quick, easy, and proven profit no matter what (under-performances & even bombs mean restructuring, tighter productions, lower risks). Plus, these directors and writers who did do "fresh ideas" at some point will just end up on this assembly line of market tested commercialization. t:

Oh and...Transformers don't take itself seriously. The various cartoon reboots do to an extent, but the movies thus far know exactly what they're selling.

 

[Fallen Angel]

I agree with DS. You can't complain there isn't more original-ish movies if you're not going to see them and later complaining why there isn't more original/ none sequel/blockbuster type movies.

 

[NealKenneth]

Well Grooster, unfortunately you've got people taking their grievances from other threads into this one...but it is very obvious that you have a point here and they probably would have agreed if it wasn't you posting. This is the deepest trench of reboot material theatres have ever seen.

Yes, of course it would be cool to see more original properties.

 

[Grootster]

I agree, we need fresh blood; at least we need the GA to actually go and see the more "original/fresh" stuff. It exists, but the GA doesn't really care I feel unless one film starts picking up steam from good WoM.

That's a good point.

I actually feel like more people would go see new stuff if it were givin the same budget and promoted the same as something with name recognition like Star Wars or the Avengers. The Guardians of the Galaxy movies have become one of the biggest pop-culture phenomenon in recent times. Now technically GOTG is based on an existing property so it's not fully original, but I highly doubt it's success came from name recognition.

I agree with DS. You can't complain there isn't more original-ish movies if you're not going to see them and later complaining why there isn't more original/ none sequel/blockbuster type movies.

I don't think it's a requirement to go see an original movie that doesn't interest me just because I support the idea of more original movies. I want new ideas in all genres of film. According to a Google search, Baby driver is a crime film. I have nothing against the genre of crime films (some are quite interesting even), but crime thrillers are generally not a genre I'm interested in or the type of film I pay to go see in the theater. Dunkirk is a historical film (I still maintain that it doesn't count as an original idea), and historical films generally don't interest me at all. When was the last time we got a non-franchise-based space opera? How about an original superhero film, or a fantasy film? I want new ideas, but I don't really feel the duty to go see a film just because it's original.

 

[Fallen Angel]

So Grootster give me the genres or sub genres you're interested in?

 

[Grootster]

Well Grooster, unfortunately you've got people taking their grievances from other threads into this one...but it is very obvious that you have a point here and they probably would have agreed if it wasn't you posting. This is the deepest trench of reboot material theatres have ever seen.

Yes, of course it would be cool to see more original properties.

Yep, lol.

And I agree that this is the deepest trench of reboots yet. What's funny is that articles are also saying that this is one of the worst years for Box-Office in a long time. I believe last year was also considered a poor box office year, and last year was reboots galore also. I can't help but wonder if audiences are finally getting a bit tired of seeing the same stuff recycled.

 

[Grootster]

So Grootster give me the genres or sub genres you're interested in?

What I mentioned above are my main ones. I generally enjoy most sci-fi to some extent, I will admit that there are more original ideas in the realm of hard/realistic sci-fi (such as Ex-Machina and Interstellar).

 

[Mysteryman]

There should be a third option.
No, they don't need new ideas, they just need to make BETTER MOVIES!

 

[jmc]

I think the issue is the lack of promoting new ideas and concepts. Look at Dunkirk, it's a war film that was marketed as an event movie. To me the real problem is the lack of desire in hyping these type of movies because they don't have much in the way of merchandise to sell.

 

[2kt09]

When was the last time we got a non-franchise-based space opera? How about an original superhero film, or a fantasy film? I want new ideas, but I don't really feel the duty to go see a film just because it's original.

That I can think of?
Jupiter Ascending
American Hero
Dave Made a Maze

 

[Darepool]

Not tired enough to where the top 5 movies (domestic and WW) are either reboots, sequels, remakes or pre-existing/established brands. But sure, more originals wouldn't hurt assuming people go see them. Studios are basically banks that want a ROI. The cost of going to the cinema is as expensive as ever, which probably has as much to do with lower overall box office as the lack of original fare, so studios will obviously go with known quantities over the unknown.

Saying you want more original content is one thing, but unless you back it up and support the little guy nothing will change. I went to see Ingrid Goes West, Wind River and the Glass Castle the last month without considering the genre. I heard good things so went to see them. Happy to report I liked all of them and am doing my part.

 

[redhawk23]

The blockbuster landscape is a lot of straight white dudes remaking the work of 1980s straight white dudes.

Allow a greater range of people to tell the stories they are interested in telling and there will be more fresh ideas and perspectives available.


There's not really too much an economic drive to so yet but more originality would be allowed if budgets could be brought back down some. If you look at some of the most iconic films of the 1980s, the films that are being legacy sequaled or rebooted now, many of them were not mega-budgeted even for the time.

The original robocop was made for a budget of $13 million, which is about $28 million in 2017 dollars.

The 2014 Robocop had a reported budget of at $100 million dollars.

A 9 figure budget usually requires some kind brand name to ensure the investors that they're probably going to at least get their money back.

At 100 million you get RobootCop, at 30 you get to make Baby Driver.

At lower budgets you can play around with new ideas or R-rated material. We've seen a slight return to that the last few years but its generally recognized that that type of film making is really only available on Television.

 

[jmc]

Not tired enough to where the top 5 movies (domestic and WW) are either reboots, sequels, remakes or pre-existing/established brands. But sure, more originals wouldn't hurt assuming people go see them. Studios are basically banks that want a ROI. The cost of going to the cinema is as expensive as ever, which probably has as much to do with lower overall box office as the lack of original fare, so studios will obviously go with known quantities over the unknown.

Saying you want more original content is one thing, but unless you back it up and support the little guy nothing will change. I went to see Ingrid Goes West, Wind River and the Glass Castle the last month without considering the genre. I heard good things so went to see them. Happy to report I liked all of them and am doing my part.

It's a lack of promotion that's the issue. I've heard good things about some of those films but I only ever knew of their existence a few weeks ago. Even a casual film goer knows at the very least Star Wars is coming out in December. It's a ridiculous cycle that has a very easy fix - allocate or divert money in the yearly budget to market smaller budgeted movies on a bigger scale. Not every film has to be made out to be Dunkirk, but there's no reason some of these smaller films can't be made to be a bigger event. Promote them better and more people will turn up. Studios can't expect audiences to watch new ideas if they're not putting in the time, effort and money to market said ideas.

 

[Darepool]

That's true, but again, ticket prices are the most expensive at a time when fewer people then ever are going to the cinema. A lot of that stuff could be done on TV/cable now and streaming /home release is only going to become the norm moving forward. People are much more selective now because of ticket prices, so just like the studios, they are playing it safe in what they go and see. At least with a big budget spectacle they'll be guaranteed 'spectacle' if nothing else...The middle class is being eliminated, so it's not surprising what's happening when the industry is pricing itself out of the market and there are other options (with much more bang for the buck) available.

 

[Darepool]

It's a lack of promotion that's the issue. I've heard good things about some of those films but I only ever knew of their existence a few weeks ago. Even a casual film goer knows at the very least Star Wars is coming out in December. It's a ridiculous cycle that has a very easy fix - allocate or divert money in the yearly budget to market smaller budgeted movies on a bigger scale. Not every film has to be made out to be Dunkirk, but there's no reason some of these smaller films can't be made to be a bigger event. Promote them better and more people will turn up. Studios can't expect audiences to watch new ideas if they're not putting in the time, effort and money to market said ideas.

This is true, but I know plenty of people who designate the pricey theater experience to 'spectacle films' and wait for the rest to come digitally or on streaming platforms. Much of the issue has to do with being more selective due to greater cost and more alternative options available..

 

[jmc]

That's true, but again, ticket prices are the most expensive at a time when fewer people then ever are going to the cinema. A lot of that stuff could be done on TV/cable now and streaming /home release is only going to become the norm moving forward. Peopl; are much more selective now because of ticket prices, so just like the studios, they are playing it safe in what they go and see. At least with a big budget spectacle, they'll be guaranteed spectacle if nothing else...The middle class is being eliminated, so it's not surprising what's happening when the industry is pricing itself out of the market and there are other options (with much more bang for the buck) available.

If you want new ideas and concepts to catch on you have to push them. You're not going to get anywhere by waving the white flag to streaming.

 

[Darepool]

If you want new ideas and concepts to catch on you have to push them. You're not going to get anywhere by waving the white flag to streaming.

Sure, I agree completely, but again let's remember what these studios are, basically glorified banks who invest in content to make money and sell agendas. They're already losing a ton of consumers every year and if not for the expansion of foreign markets the situation would be even more extreme. They need to keep making as much money as possible to keep the investors happy, which is why chasing IP's has become more valuable then creating original content. I'm not saying I agree with it, but at the end of the day Hollywood is just another business trying to stay afloat in the technological landscape..

It will be interesting to see how this evolves, we are just at the tipping point of the digital revolution, which has made creative content much more affordable and democratic then ever. The Hollywood model is becoming obsolete in a lot of ways and the good news is many of these artistic voices being lost in the wilderness will have more options at their disposal going forward. They can bypass the Hollywood suits (and model) all together. So many of these newer platforms are just screaming for content and will even moreso going forward, so there's a start. As long as people can see it and you have the chance to build an audience then OK, it doesn't have to be in a conventional theater. And let's be honest, the theater experience is not what it used to be, including the fact that people seem to be less socialized then ever in a public forum. At least in my experience.

 

[:eek:]

Original ideas has never been a huge part of Hollywood. You can go back all the way to the 20's or 30's and you will find that many of the biggest movies were based on books or inspired by true events. Although there was a period in the 80's when Hollywood managed to create a lot of popular franchises on their own. But I doubt that will happen anytime soon again as long as they still make money out of superheros, Star Wars, live action remakes of animated movies and so on.

 

[Neno_Kos]

they could. but they realize they dont need you. thats why remakes, reboots, presequels, preprequels, etc.