The Day The Movies Died

I mean no distrespect to anyone that agrees with this argument. However, I think this is nothing more than grumpy-old-man syndrome.

First of all, let me refute the claim that sequels are necessarily a bad thing. Quite a few sequels are better than the original. This article mentioned Dark Knight. It forgot to mention how freaking awesome it is! If we want to use a more recent example, I'd point you to Toy Story 3. A sequel isn't, by definition, a bad idea. Some times they're exactly what we needed.

My main point, however, is to ask the following question -- if Hollywood has supposedly run out of good ideas, how is it possible that there are so many terrific movies every year? Some of them are indie, but some of them are Hollywood studio productions.

I will concede that there are probably a greater number of crappy movies being made. There are a greater number of movies being made, overrall, and a lot of them are crass commercialistic money-making-schemes, in which the art comes a distant-second to the top priority of profitability. So, we have to wade through a higher percentage of crap to get to the good ones. I don't care.

Thirdly, it's not really fair for the author to use Summertime as their only measuring stick for this article. Ever since Star Wars, Summertime has been the money-making time for studios, and that tends to be when they put out their predictable teen-driven cash-cows. The author of the article conveniently left out the rest of the year in their analysis of the industry.

And finally, one of the authors' main premises is just plain false. The author pre-supposes that this Summer will not have an Inception. How the heck do they know that?

Super 8 JJ Abrams is doing a loving homage to the Spielbergian adventures of the 80's, with Spielberg producing? That is a good idea.
 
I'd go as far to say that "Movie-going" isn't what it used to be for me personally. I'd prefer the small cinemas, which as we all know, are slowly dissapearing.

Many of these articles make the rounds, and it's an opinion that is not unique or original and is more-or-less fueled by the authors taste, one of which doesn't necessarily reflect any fact or overall landside of the quality. It's a lot of "What if" and guesswork on their part, judgements based on a dry period of "Epics".

Perhaps they're right, who's to know?

But i would not present an arguement based on alot of their "Facts". The everchanging taste and preference of millions can never be a "Fact".
 
I do find it hard to argue against the fact that there are very few original new stories being told by Hollywood.
 
I'd suggest to say truly original new stories are far fewer than you would think. Narratives and stories give and take, they are forever intertwined and inspired by past and present, so i would say that "Originality" is a loose term, far too loose to drive a debate for the apparant down-fall of Story-telling, and eventually Cinema.

The question would arise of when exactly is the time that the present day of Cinemas "Originality" is being compared to? And if so, can it be proven that what was percieved as orignal, was absolute to its definition, and in greater numbers than the present day?

What is original to one person, may not be to the next. Lifestyle, intelligence etc...

I just happen to disagree with the article. Like i said, it often arises, and alike its rather flurrying attendance, creates discussion both for and against.
 
Last edited:
I don't feel that a lack of "original" stories is really the issue, as opposed to HOW stories are told. I recently watched "Mad Mad Mad Mad World" for the first time in ages, and looking back at it-the story, "Guy reveals stash of money, everyone goes looking for it" It's not an original story, what MADE that story was how it was told. A more recent example (granted taken from history) District 9-the basic story that it told (and history) in not "original" what IS original was using aliens as an analogy. For me it's telling the stories from different angles and viewpoints. The Dark Knight, as pointed out, is an excellent example. It's essentially a Heist Film, done before- but the way it was told, and the focus on Chaos and mankind's need for it, was that little extra punch with made the more enjoyable.
 
That's why we hang out here at Indietalk and share our experiences bringing new stories to life in different ways. Movies have never had as many venues as they have now.

There's room enough for everyone. Hollywood will always churn out films that are easily consumable by the average 4th grader. But there are countless other venues for different kinds of cinematic storytelling, and there always will be. There is a channel on AT&Ts U-verse called "Shorts" that only broadcasts short films. BBC, ITV and SKY networks in the UK consistently push the envelope of longer form storytelling. Cable TV is rife with niche networks (I saw an adaptation of Alice in Wonderland on SyFy a couple years ago that continues to haunt me, starring Kathy Bates as the Red Queen. Best version since Svankmeijer's.) And then there is the gigantic and growing festival circuit. My most meaningful moments in cinema in 2010 occurred watching movies in a bars and basements projected on bedsheets (and here, watching Gonzo's post-apocalypse movie that was oh-so-briefly available for viewing).

I forget which member, but someone on this board once shared a photo of his DVD shelf and it was entirely composed of indies that he had traded his films for. I love that photo.

There's room for experimental storytelling in the cinematic form...that's what this website celebrates! It's a bummer we can't all make millions doing it, but as my acting teacher once told me "if you're just here to be famous, don't bother...just do what John Wayne Bobbitt did."
 
Last edited:
Instag8r said:
I do find it hard to argue against the fact that there are very few original new stories being told by Hollywood.
Click to expand...

I don't find it difficult to make that argument at all. Not all of these are Hollywood productions, but many of them are, and this list is only from two months of last year.

Blue Valentine
The Tourist
I Love You, Phillip Morris
Black Swan
Burlesque
Faster
Then Next Three Days
Unstoppable
Morning Glory
Mega Mind
Due Date
127 Hours
 
Cracker Funk said:
First of all, let me refute the claim that sequels are necessarily a bad thing. Quite a few sequels are better than the original. This article mentioned Dark Knight. It forgot to mention how freaking awesome it is! If we want to use a more recent example, I'd point you to Toy Story 3. A sequel isn't, by definition, a bad idea. Some times they're exactly what we needed.
Click to expand...

I don't have a problem with sequels, but it's the remakes and reboots that are getting ridiculous because they don't want to financially take a risk on a new idea. There are 28 new REMAKES on the books for the next 2 years. That's a depressing number.

Sequels can be good. Especially nowadays when they are pre-planned and have better continuity.

Cracker Funk said:
Ever since Star Wars, Summertime has been the money-making time for studios
Click to expand...

Technically, it was 1975 and JAWS that started the trend....STAR WARS A NEW HOPE was May 25th, 1977. Before this, summer was considered a dead time for box office revenues.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top