Unhinged imagination in modern cinema

[-JKR-]

I'll make it short and sweet... and simple:

Is it just me, or is there a lack of filmmakers in this generation who've got their own, unique 'brand' of unhinged imagination like Tim Burton, Guillermo Del Toro, Terry Gilliam, Michel Gondry and others have?

It appears to me that there's a certain lack of pure imagination in today's cinema.

 

[redhawk23]

Depends on what you mean by "this generation". Just think about how old some of those filmmakers were by the time you heard of them.

 

[-JKR-]

I was 3 or 4 years old when Tim Burton's whacky imagination enterted my life. He was about 35 years old at that time.

By 'this generation' I mean any director who's made his big screen debut in the last decade.

 

[Breogan]

I'll make it short and sweet... and simple:

Is it just me, or is there a lack of filmmakers in this generation who've got their own, unique 'brand' of unhinged imagination like Tim Burton, Guillermo Del Toro, Terry Gilliam, Michel Gondry and others have?

It appears to me that there's a certain lack of pure imagination in today's cinema.

Tim Burton drew from everything from German Expressionism, Gothic Horror, B-Scifi, Edward Gorey to Addams Family and more that were known and popular, taken and used in a new way, but he didn't start from anywhere "pure", but referenced heavily what came before.
As do others you list.
It's great you admire them, as do I, but that you want to draw some line of birth of "pure imagination" as if it began there? May just show it's you who has to small a frame of reference.
Or maybe better define what you mean by "pure imagination".

FYI, love the creators you list, because I recognize and love the things they heavily borrowed from.

 

[BlueLanternKal]

Spanish Cinema. Not as ostentatious as Burton, but a lot of the Spanish directors of this generation are cut from the same cloth.

 

[OutOfBoose]

I believe nobody wants to pay for unhinged imagination these days. Gritty and grounded rule the cinema.

 

[-JKR-]

Tim Burton drew from everything from German Expressionism, Gothic Horror, B-Scifi, Edward Gorey to Addams Family and more that were known and popular, taken and used in a new way, but he didn't start from anywhere "pure", but referenced heavily what came before.
As do others you list.
It's great you admire them, as do I, but that you want to draw some line of birth of "pure imagination" as if it began there? May just show it's you who has to small a frame of reference.
Or maybe better define what you mean by "pure imagination".

FYI, love the creators you list, because I recognize and love the things they heavily borrowed from.

And even when being heavily inspired by past things, it's still his personal, unique way of mixing all that up which ends up on the big screen.

And I did not speak about BIRTH of pure imagination. I was talking about it disappearing from movies nowadays, in favor of more... 'sterile' (for lack of a better world) movies.

Spanish Cinema. Not as ostentatious as Burton, but a lot of the Spanish directors of this generation are cut from the same cloth.

Any names?

 

[Darepool]

Not particularly a huge fan of any of the guys you mentioned, this whole argument sounds like something I heard my first year of film school, then you quickly realize that not everyone can make films that way, or even wants to. To each their own. I like the idea of ambition as a filmmaker, but that doesn't necessarily translate into an obvious aesthetic style. The best filmmaker in my opinion is the great Almodovar, since you asked for a Spanish great. He is a true example of style and substance. I'd say he's unmatched in richness of emotion.

 

[I Am The Knight]

I'll make it short and sweet... and simple:

Is it just me, or is there a lack of filmmakers in this generation who've got their own, unique 'brand' of unhinged imagination like Tim Burton, Guillermo Del Toro, Terry Gilliam, Michel Gondry and others have?

It appears to me that there's a certain lack of pure imagination in today's cinema.

Films are more fantastical than ever, but everything wants to be Star Wars too. Do you mean maybe there is a lack of "auteurs" in mainstream cinema?

 

[Darepool]

Even the idea of an "auteur" in mainstream cinema is a slippery slope. Would a true auteur work in mainstream film? By who's definition is an auteur, or to what degree. There have been exceptions, but for the most part they work outside the mainstream.

 

[dude stannis]

It appears to me that there's a certain lack of pure imagination in today's cinema.

There's been a massive push against it. It's more important for stuff to be Cinemasins/Honest Trailers/RLM-proof than it is to engage your right hemisphere these days.

Milius' Conan, Excalibur, Ridley's Legend, it would all be shat on massively around these parts if they where released today.

 

[Darepool]

Probably. People are too cynical today.

 

[Da-Scribe]

This feels like painting with a broad brush. What defines pure or unhinged imagination? If the examples you mentioned are anything to go by, that feels to me like a relatively narrow way of viewing creativity.

 

[redhawk23]

Even the idea of an "auteur" in mainstream cinema is a slippery slope. Would a true auteur work in mainstream film? By who's definition is an auteur, or to what degree. There have been exceptions, but for the most part they work outside the mainstream.

The thing to remember about atehr theory was that it was created to examine the influence of specific directors within the Hollywood machine of the mid 20th century. The kind of directors being examined had a great amount in common with those now working in assembly lines like Marvel and actually had even less freedom.

A lot of the last generation of directors, now hitting their 40s and 50s got their start in Music videos and excelled because of a strong visual eye. People like Gondry, Finger, and Spike Jones and even Snyder.

Directors now tend to hit it big with little indie dramas and then immediately get up jumped to the big leagues. Collin Trevorrow, Marc Webb, Edwards, Trank. Hard to say what exactly is being rewarded their, perhaps an attempt by the studios is get some cred for hiring someone who can work with actors. Edwards comes from an effects background and showed that he could work with a nothing budget... O ly to be handed massive films with tons of moving parts.

 

[Darepool]

The thing to remember about atehr theory was that it was created to examine the influence of specific directors within the Hollywood machine of the mid 20th century. The kind of directors being examined had a great amount in common with those now working in assembly lines like Marvel and actually had even less freedom.

A lot of the last generation of directors, now hitting their 40s and 50s got their start in Music videos and excelled because of a strong visual eye. People like Gondry, Finger, and Spike Jones and even Snyder.

Directors now tend to hit it big with little indie dramas and then immediately get up jumped to the big leagues. Collin Trevorrow, Marc Webb, Edwards, Trank. Hard to say what exactly is being rewarded their, perhaps an attempt by the studios is get some cred for hiring someone who can work with actors. Edwards comes from an effects background and showed that he could work with a nothing budget... O ly to be handed massive films with tons of moving parts.

Yeah it was the New Wave Directors who gave the theory prominence, and it was the censorship of the times that forced these guys to be more creative and subversive within the system. Reading Cahier du Cinema was how I became a fan of Hawks and Ray for example. Nick Ray is top 5 all time for me.

 

[Lord]

Sure there are plenty of Directors with unhinged imagination. Look at the Daniels who did Swiss Army Man and Refn who did Neon Demon and Drive. Quentin Tarantino might take from other sources like Tim Burton, but he too is pretty darn creative. New filmmakers are constantly rising through creative films that get attention, a few years ago it was A Girl Walks Home at Night and this year at sundance it seems to be Raw.

Ryan Johnson who's directing Episode VIII might not have made films that are as over-the-top in their uniqueness, but both Brick and Looper were creative works. Hopefuly, his Star Wars entry will be just as creative.

 

[:eek:]

I've said it before. I don't think there are fewer original and unique movies or moviemakers today than any other period in Hollywood-history. It's just perhaps more difficult for these to get attention today with the market flooded by so many big budget spectacles.

 

[Da-Scribe]

I feel like Hollywood has been flooded with big budget spectacles since Westerns became a thing. To me, it's more that there are way more avenues for content now. It's not either your local cinema or the few channels you on TV. You can stream anything from anywhere and then those streaming services offer their own content as well. Movie theaters cater to different crowds. I can go to Burbank for my big spectacle movies or Los Feliz for my arthouse flicks.

There's still plenty on unique stuff out there, it's just in a much bigger pool of content now.

 

[-JKR-]

I feel like Hollywood has been flooded with big budget spectacles since Westerns became a thing. To me, it's more that there are way more avenues for content now. It's not either your local cinema or the few channels you on TV. You can stream anything from anywhere and then those streaming services offer their own content as well. Movie theaters cater to different crowds. I can go to Burbank for my big spectacle movies or Los Feliz for my arthouse flicks.

There's still plenty on unique stuff out there, it's just in a much bigger pool of content now.

But the sad part is that the quirkier stuff gets lost in the shuffle now, instead of reaching a wide audience.

It doesn't have the opportunity to breathe and to make something other than 'niche'.

 

[The Endless]

I don't think it's all to do with the film makers. I bet a lot of them do want to spread their wings a bit more.

It's the studio system and audiences that seem less receptive to more "out there" ideas.

TV or Netflix/Amazon etc are a better place for weirder, more transgressive and creative stories.

I still live in hope of a proper Sandman adaptation on HBO or Netflix. It just couldn't be done on film. No one is going to throw 150 million at something as trippy as that.

 

[Darepool]

On the plus side, access to unique/arthouse films or 'auteur' directors is easier then ever. You used to have to go from store to store or cinema to cinema 'hunting' for such things, now the access to these things is easy, and many of these films you can watch on Youtube. Perhaps that's the trade off at the moment in a much more fractured marketplace. If people have the appetite for different thing they'll be able to find them and usually do. The digital revolution hasn't really even begun yet, for all those (snobby?) film (celluloid only) lovers, the irony is that digital will actually afford more unique voices to be heard through various formats as we move forward. As less people are going to the cinema, it's certainly understandable why the old Hollywood business model is relying on more mainstream fare.

 

[-JKR-]

I don't think it's all to do with the film makers. I bet a lot of them do want to spread their wings a bit more.

It's the studio system and audiences that seem less receptive to more "out there" ideas.

TV or Netflix/Amazon etc are a better place for weirder, more transgressive and creative stories.

I still live in hope of a proper Sandman adaptation on HBO or Netflix. It just couldn't be done on film. No one is going to throw 150 million at something as trippy as that.

This.

I'd like studios and cinema to open up to quirkier stuff once again.

Studios have always pushed for commercial movies and we all know that, but there used to be more space for experimentation, and for filmmakers to try to make something a bit more personal and out there within the confines of the studio system.

Which is really rare now.

 

[The Endless]

A big problem is how expensive films seem to be. I look at some films and I'm like "that cost 150 million!?" or "did that need to cost 150 million?!"

Look at Suicide Squad. Why the hell did that cost 200 million? It's just insane. Scale it back, don't have SFX heavy characters or world ending threats.

 

[Octoberist]

I think the issue now is that there's been a lot of reboots, comic book adaptations, and remakes sometimes you can't stray away from the source martial TOO much.

And when there is a film that is original that's fantastical, sometimes, they're too scared to create fun and unique designs.

 

[Octoberist]

But even with my argument, there's an obsession with the 'functionality' of the designs, as opposite to making things look neat. That's why I haven an issue with the Bayformer designs, or even the Zords from the new Power Rangers (though the suits are fine).

We want clean but colorful design - something that can be iconic.

That's why video games tend to have great designs because they know the audience, and the people behind the scenes are all artists of some kind. While movies, the audience is WIDER, so there's more of a fear of rejection.