Do we no longer reward originality in film? And by reward, I mean money.

[terry78]

This somewhat of a branch of that Cameron thread discussing too many superhero flicks in existence. We say Hollywood doesn't take risks and provide original properties chances to excel in the mainstream, but do we as the audience enable them in that sense when we dish out hundreds of millions for adaptations and remakes? The only genres that really have original screenplays anymore are animated movies and maybe a couple horror flicks on occasion, but they've started to fall victim. Obviously Fox wants to turn Avatar into a pop culture thing a la Cameron's other stuff, but as of now no one knows anything about the universe, it's not established among the masses until they go see the movie, etc. I think people gripe about originality being a lost art, but still pay out the ass when a movie is made about a previous property.

 

[MadVillainy]

"I think people gripe about originality being a lost art, but still pay out the ass when a movie is made about a previous property."

Hundred percent co sign

People who complain that Hollywood has lost originality when most of the films considered the best ever are based off another work. I dont care if a film is a reboot, sequel, prequel, remake, reimagining, adaption as long as its good

 

[dark_b]

its very hard.its one thing to talk about making an original franchise and spend millions of dollars without any fans. and its 100% different to make it.

because an original franchise will have zero fans. right? so basicly the whole movie could be a gamble.

 

[terry78]

They took more risks back in the 80s I guess with things like Ghostbusters, Goonies, and what not. Those stories all probably took bits and pieces from other classic tales and what not, but they came off as original.

 

[:eek:]

I think a lot of people (especially parents who bring their kids to various family-friendly movies) prefer to spend their money on "safe" movies (sequels and other movies based on established properties) because you more or less know exactly what you will get. Movie tickets are expensive and there are so many movies released every weekend, so no wonder really if people hesitates about spending money on something new they feel uncertain about

 

[dark_b]

They took more risks back in the 80s I guess with things like Ghostbusters, Goonies, and what not. Those stories all probably took bits and pieces from other classic tales and what not, but they came off as original.

but in context. in the 80's did they spend like today 100 or 200 millions money on a movie?

 

[Laderlappen]

People cant make up their mind. They say there is no originality in hollywood, but all they want are sequels and remakes.

 

[bullets]

If the movie is a hit they still want to make money from it. It's unaviodable now because almost every film has an open ending.

 

[Antonello Blueberry]

I've been trying to sell my movie project recently and I've been told that, being an expensive movie, it has zero possibility of ending on the screen as:
1) it's not based on a existing property;
2) it does not feature teens, vampires and werewolves;

I replied that the characters in the movie are better known worldwide than any character in 99% of the books on the market and that my movie is "very loosely inspired" by a very successful franchise. Probably the longest standing franchise of movie history.
Moreover there's a best selling video game that uses basically the same concept of my movie. (I've been working on this thing for more than 5 years, just to clarify things).
It's still too "original" for agents and prodcos.

 

[MadVillainy]

I've been trying to sell my movie project recently and I've been told that, being an expensive movie, it has zero possibility of ending on the screen as:
1) it's not based on a existing property;
2) it does not feature teens, vampires and werewolves;

I replied that the characters in the movie are better known worldwide than any character in 99% of the books on the market and that my movie is "very loosely inspired" by a very successful franchise. Probably the longest standing franchise of movie history.
Moreover there's a best selling video game that uses basically the same concept of my movie. (I've been working on this thing for more than 5 years, just to clarify things).
It's still too "original" for agents and prodcos.

Sucks for you, but good for me because one of the things I am writing is a werewolf story

OT: Could you tell me more about your story because Im interested in it. And how did you go about trying to get it made

 

[Deaths Head II]

People vote with their wallets and most of the time they vote for sequels, remakes, or adaptations.

 

[Anubis]

Actually, your average movie fan doesn't want originality. They never ask for such things. Not in music, not in Television, and not in movies.

 

[Heretic]

The vast majority of people don't want originality. That's why they can watch the same exact romantic comedy plot (even with the same stars) over and over again, year after year. If you give them a different tone, or a twist to what they are comfortable with, then you are going to leave them with an odd feeling, because they are too stupid (or too trained) to consume something challenging. You'll get a lot of "that movie was stupid...I didnt get it" regardless of the fact that those two statements contradict each other.

Even the target audience tends to ignore any new take on a genre. So many people love zombies...yet the vast majority wont bother to watch Deadgirl. Comic book fans love superheroes, but wont even support indie superhero comics, let alone a movie based on one.

 

[Figs]

"I think people gripe about originality being a lost art, but still pay out the ass when a movie is made about a previous property."

Hundred percent co sign

People who complain that Hollywood has lost originality when most of the films considered the best ever are based off another work. I dont care if a film is a reboot, sequel, prequel, remake, reimagining, adaption as long as its good

This.

I don't mind reboots, sequels or prequels at all. When it comes to remakes and reimaginings it depends on what they are remaking. Some movies I don't mind, especially if the original wasn't that good to begin with.

In some cases I'll make exceptions when it comes to remakes of films that I really like or love. Clash of the Titans and Nightmare on Elm Street are good examples. I grew up watching CotT and like it more than the original NoES but this new version looks pretty damn cool, so I'll definitely be checking it out.

 

[Sentinel X]

I've been trying to sell my movie project recently and I've been told that, being an expensive movie, it has zero possibility of ending on the screen as:
1) it's not based on a existing property;
2) it does not feature teens, vampires and werewolves;

I replied that the characters in the movie are better known worldwide than any character in 99% of the books on the market and that my movie is "very loosely inspired" by a very successful franchise. Probably the longest standing franchise of movie history.
Moreover there's a best selling video game that uses basically the same concept of my movie. (I've been working on this thing for more than 5 years, just to clarify things).
It's still too "original" for agents and prodcos.

Wow..thats just terrible. If I was in charge of a studio I'd be searching for originality. Its rare these days.

Its pretty hard to do a completely original film though. Somewhere, there will be influence from other films or storylines.

 

[Hound55]

I disagree, I think people WANT originality. Its just that studios don't want to take th risk of makin big-budget films which bust.

They're in the business of making money. Its why money gets sunk into crap seuals. Because people will go see them based on interest gained by the original work (particularly kids and "family" movies).

The problem is that this is a circular issue and will lead to people only wanting to watch regurgitated garbage (which already has happened to some extent and will continue to the longer this goes on).

If an original concept gets enough hype people wil generally give it a shot, the problem is these people will also give a ****e second or third movie in a series a shot because they put their trust behind something they liked the first time (which studios too often exploit).

 

[A&W]

It is kind of ironic that people pick Avatar to gripe about originality. The overwhelming majority of movies that are released have about 1/10 the originality that is in avatar.

It's not a remake, sequel, or an adaption. Hell it's got a brand new language, brand new culture, brand new complex and connected eco system, and so many brand new ideas.

Look at the way they rode the animals by connecting that thingamabob. when has that ever been used? when have we ever had a movie about futuristic humans going to another planet to force native extra terrestrials to evacuate their native land? Instead of going the easy predictable route with overpopulation or we need a new planet to live on because we destroyed our own, Cameron went for something new, while connecting to today's problems by making it about mining for an energy source. It's something we can all understand because of our relations with the middle east being corrupted by oil. He made it even more interesting by making their atmosphere toxic to humans.

Cameron could have copied dances with wolves and just sent a human with a human body to learn the ways of the Navi. But he instead made the atmosphere toxic to humans, so the main character needed a Navi body to accomplish the task. He added emotional depth to the character by making him paralyzed from the waist down. It made his experience in his avatar body even more emotional, because the character went from a helpless criple to a powerful man who can jump higher and run faster than any human could ever hope to.

How is that flying right over people's heads when they say it lacks depth?

 

[I SEE SPIDEY]

^Get over the fact that some just didn't love the movie.

To answer the question, I don't think that people were ever that high on originality. Even in the 40's and 50's everything was based on a book.

 

[A&W]

^Get over the fact that some just didn't love the movie.

To answer the question, I don't think that people were ever that high on originality. Even in the 40's and 50's everything was based on a book.

Oh I was never under that fact. This isn't the kind of movie that every person could enjoy. Like my little sister or my grandfather. I don't think they would like it. and that's no fault or flaw of my sister or my grandfather. it just wouldn't appeal to them. The difference is they wouldn't go on the internet to spend time complaining about a movie they didn't like, and I doubt they would make such ridiculous criticisms about the movie.

I was criticizing the ridiculous criticism that many were saying about it. If they don't like it then that is fine. That's their loss, not mine. But if people go onto the internet to conversate with people and they make statements that some find ludricous than others are going to state why.

 

[jmc]

It's all a circle, studios won't produce original blockbusters for fear of them bombing, so they produce only remakes and things with a name already, the audience cries for something new yet goes and pays millions of dollars to see these remakes and sequels anyway, so why would studios want to take the gamble when we as consumers continue to pay for the very sequels, reboots etc we claim to not want?

It's everyone's fault in the end, I'm at fault, you're at fault, the studios are at fault, we've all fallen into this rut of a circle and no-one seems to know how to get out of it. Someone brought up the 80's and yes it was a time when a lot more original blockbusters and franchises we're given the green light, but even adjusted for inflation the films were still cheaper than what they are today, CGI is a culprit, the man and computing power required millions of dollars, the advertising has increased 10 fold, it all adds up.

The question is what can be done? Short of everyone boycotting any future reboots, remakes, things with name recognition etc and picketing the streets in Hollywood, not much, the status quo will remain. This is a situation where perhaps it's time Hollywood put on a bit of a spending freeze, takes a seat back and realizes it doesn't need to spend that much money on films. Perhaps then when that realization sets in, we may start getting something new and original.

 

[Hound55]

It's all a circle, studios won't produce original blockbusters for fear of them bombing, so they produce only remakes and things with a name already, the audience cries for something new yet goes and pays millions of dollars to see these remakes and sequels anyway, so why would studios want to take the gamble when we as consumers continue to pay for the very sequels, reboots etc we claim to not want?

It's everyone's fault in the end, I'm at fault, you're at fault, the studios are at fault, we've all fallen into this rut of a circle and no-one seems to know how to get out of it. Someone brought up the 80's and yes it was a time when a lot more original blockbusters and franchises we're given the green light, but even adjusted for inflation the films were still cheaper than what they are today, CGI is a culprit, the man and computing power required millions of dollars, the advertising has increased 10 fold, it all adds up.

The question is what can be done? Short of everyone boycotting any future reboots, remakes, things with name recognition etc and picketing the streets in Hollywood, not much, the status quo will remain. This is a situation where perhaps it's time Hollywood put on a bit of a spending freeze, takes a seat back and realizes it doesn't need to spend that much money on films. Perhaps then when that realization sets in, we may start getting something new and original.

Yup.

 

[Heretic]

For those of you wanting to make your own movies...why not just make a cheapo version of it...or film another idea that is within your budget?

I know so many people who say "my dream is to make a movie" yet I've never seen any of them pick up a camera and start filming.

Not trying to call names or whatever...just curious as to why the concept of being an indie film maker doesnt appeal to you.

 

[Nivek]

IMO when people do get a big budget, original idea, some detractors go out of their way to make connections to pre-existing properties to marginalize things for those looking forward to it, or those who enjoyed it. The whole Dances with Wolves thing show how that whole deal works.

And people saying "Hollywood shouldn't spend that much on movies", please. Give me a ****ing break...

 

[dark_b]

lets say if you live on this world for 30 years and if you read lets say 50 books and watched over 300 movies.

then how is it possible to now make an original script that is not connected to any of those books and movies? we humans are inspired by anything.

the only way to make a 100% orginial movie IMO is if you force yourself to make everything different. but by then i think you dont make anymore the movie you want to make. you just want to prove a point.

 

[Aesop Rocks]

District 9 did good at the box office, didn't it?

So did Paranormal Activity...