Here's an answer to why there is no originality in Hollywood...

[wm cheng]

I read a lot about all the complaints of remake this or lack of imagination in today's films, well here's a good article about why this is the case (and I see this all the time from an insiders perspective).

http://collider.com/cloud-atlas-editorial/205989/

[Hoptimus]

Yeah I see that. Cloud Atlas does look interesting!

[bigkid24]

The reason there is no originality in Hollywood is because studios aren't making as much in home entertainment sales to help make up for a lackluster box office performance so Hollywood sees it as a sign that they need to make most if not all of their money in the theaters. And they think the best way to get people into theaters is using properties that people already know and love whether it be from a comic book, sequel, or remake.

I have barely seen marketing on Cloud Atlas but WB did a great job marketing The Matrix and when i saw that in theaters I had no idea what the premise was. That was refreshing because most marketing campaigns give everything away nowadays. So I'm assuming there's a lot more to Cloud Atlas than I'm seeing from the marketing and from what the guy says in the article. I certainly didn't know that non-Koreans were playing Koreans.

Edited October 25, 2012 by bigkid24

[PetarB]

Yeah, I read that article a couple of days ago.

Don't worry, I'm all over Cloud Atlas (read the book years ago). I do hope it does well - but this is the last book I imagined a movie would be made about!

[EXO]

Awesome thread!

I'm not really that interested with Cloud Atlas but I've always supported original content in movies, but most of the good original content entertainment is on TV now. I'll be supporting by going to see Pacific Rim, multiple times if it's good.

To me though, here's the biggest problem with the entertainment business that I previously posted here:

Chronicle sequel? Or remake?

Landis even went as far as to compare his plight with his son Max Landis, who is currently working on several gestating projects after his hit superhero flick “Chronicle” earlier this year. One of those project is “Chronicle 2” for Fox, which Landis says, “He wrote a sequel, and it’s amazing, and the studio read it and said, ‘We want ‘Chronicle’ again!’ And he said, ‘No, this is the sequel, it’s the evolution, and they said ‘No, we want that movie again!’ So it’s difficult, we’re dealing with a difficult business.’

Difficult and clueless.

It's all these number crunchers and pencil pushers in charge that have no creative bone in their body. They just see formulas and gimmicks. The formula is simple... great stories made by great storytellers make great movies.

[wm cheng]

I'm not vouching for the script, but Pacific Rim will look f@#king amazing - its my best work ever!! and hey, its not a remake.

[PetarB]

Pics or it didn't happen.

Only kidding. I agree to many NDAs every year myself...

[Ghost Train]

Originality is not needed in movies. Films are now meant to be "nice background noise" that people listen to while they tap and swipe away on their tablets and smartphones, while they tweet to the world that they are sitting at a theater watching a movie.

[EXO]

Originality is not needed in movies. Films are now meant to be "nice background noise" that people listen to while they tap and swipe away on their tablets and smartphones, while they tweet to the world that they are sitting at a theater watching a movie.

I just +1 that in the middle of Argo!

[Mr March]

Hollywood's current business model is simply a natural progression of where it was headed since the late 1970s: the big ticket, mass market, lowest common denominator product. Hollywood is simply selling the broadest appeal product in film format. It works for them, so why stop?

Honestly, why complain when the market for alternatives is so vibrant? In fact, it's never been better! As Hollywood has turned it's back on story, other industries, other countries and in fact whole mediums have stepped up to fill the void. There's a reason critics label the 2000s a "New Golden Age" of television. Writing talent has fled Hollywood for Television and the results are spectacular! The Wire, Breaking Bad, The Sopranos, Rome, Justified, Boardwalk Empire, Game of Thrones...there are in fact so many high quality, smartly written television shows I've not been able to maintain pace. And the budget for these shows are huge, some at more than $50-60 million per season.

And film? As irony would have it, film is having a good year. A great year in fact. If you're not going to the theatre right now, you are missing one of THE BEST years for film in perhaps a decade. Almost every time I've left the theatre this year I feel like I've seen one of the best films in years. Chronicle, The Raid, The Avengers, Sleepless Night, Dredd, Looper, Seven Psychopaths...we're lucky to get 2-3 great films a year and here in 2012 we've already tripled that. And there's still Cloud Atlas, Skyfall, and others coming down the pipe. Don't put all your eggs in the basket of Cloud Atlas; simply go to see any of a dozen or more films this year that are well worth your time and money.

[Penguin]

Good article as an encouragement for people to see Cloud Atlas, but I gotta wonder: why is this a mystery to anyone? Or have I just been around corporations too long, and most people aren't aware that corporations are entirely risk-averse? I mean, with few exceptions, jumping after the safe money is pretty much what being a corporation is all about. Shareholders don't like risk, they like profit.

[BeyondTheGrave]

Good article as an encouragement for people to see Cloud Atlas, but I gotta wonder: why is this a mystery to anyone? Or have I just been around corporations too long, and most people aren't aware that corporations are entirely risk-averse? I mean, with few exceptions, jumping after the safe money is pretty much what being a corporation is all about. Shareholders don't like risk, they like profit.

No people don't understand you can't have your cake and eat it too. An example of this would be the xmen films. Most fans want the story to be an exact re-telling of the books. with top tier SFX, Acting &writing. But by getting all three the budget becomes huge and becomes a film that alienates the general audience ( the people have more money the the niche crowd), and can possibly be a failure (see green lantern).

...The formula is simple... great stories made by great storytellers make great movies.

Avatar had a poor story. Made by a good story teller. Which resulted in a mediocre movie. imo

edit:

Also the general audience is stupid.

Edited October 29, 2012 by BeyondTheGrave

[EXO]

Avatar had a poor story. Made by a good story teller. Which resulted in a mediocre movie. imo

edit:

Also the general audience is stupid.

So the formula I stated still works.

I agree on the last part.

[myk]

Meh, I just think that everything in our world has pretty much been said and done already. Sure, every once in a while a mix of this and that might come up with something fresh but for the most part, we've been there, done that...

[renegadeleader1]

Meh, I just think that everything in our world has pretty much been said and done already. Sure, every once in a while a mix of this and that might come up with something fresh but for the most part, we've been there, done that...

This is true. Like I touched upon in the Prometheus thread plot wise there is almost no difference between it and King Kong.

Powerful guy finances a ship to sail to a mysterious place no one has ever been using an old cryptic map for his own special reason. Once there he discovers ancient ruins, doesn't find exactly what he's looking for, everything is hostile, and crew starts dying. Powerful man finds something else, tries to control it, and chaos ensues. Big beast obsessively chases main girl, ends up dead after getting distracted by other enemy. Main girl survives more or less all alone. The End.

[troyness]

either that , or we get dumbed down so much that everything is like new again

[Roy Focker]

No desire to see that movie. Just seems like a movie that they try to shove every star imaginable in.

[PetarB]

Meh, I just think that everything in our world has pretty much been said and done already. Sure, every once in a while a mix of this and that might come up with something fresh but for the most part, we've been there, done that...

I disagree. Perhaps Hollywood moviemaking formula has come to such an impasse, but there are other ways to make a narrative.

[EXO]

Well, good narrative has classical undertones. Just like music is made of the same 7 notes but has an infinitesimal amount of possible combinations to make good (or bad) music, stories will always have enough variables to make new good films. But you're always going to need the basic understanding of good story telling to reign in a complex or new idea. There's always going to be room for good original scripts just like there's always going to be room for adaptations or remakes as long as they give the (good) story tellers room to work. If people could wait 65 years for LOTR they could have waited another year for Iron Man 2. But the bean counters of Hollywood were afraid that the short attention span of movie goers are gonna lose interest so they rush properties into production.

[Penguin]

If people could wait 65 years for LOTR they could have waited another year for Iron Man 2. But the bean counters of Hollywood were afraid that the short attention span of movie goers are gonna lose interest so they rush properties into production.

I don't disagree that sequels are often rushed to their detriment, but that's not quite an accurate comparison. People waited 65 years for LOTR to go from book to movie, not sequel to sequel. To compare fairly, people waited 45 years for Iron Man to go from comic to film (not that anyone was really waiting, per se...), and sequel-wise LOTR got, like, 12 hours of film across 3 years.

It's amusing and occasioanlly disillusioning when you think about films that did take a long time between good original and good sequel... Alien to Aliens, for example... only to learn that, if the filmmakers had their way, the sequels would have been much closer, and only collisions of fate and circumstance led to the longer period.

All in all, none of this is new. I just watched the restored 1931 Dracula a couple weekends back (great cure for insomnia, that), and even that film ends with a setup for a sequel.

[EXO]

It's not really a comparison but a hyperbole of "if people can live without it..." cuz really we had that failed Ralph Bashki thing inbetween... lol.

[Ghost Train]

Well, reviews for Cloud Atlas are in... and they are mixed at best. There is definitely no groundbreaking material in this one.

[Mr March]

I watched the film this past weekend. It's definitely worth seeing, but it's not life altering. You'll have a good time and be rather amazed at how well it actually works. It's quite ambitious and succeeds more often than not even if it isn't the saviour of cinema

[areaseven]

Just watched this movie over the weekend. Definitely won't win any awards for originality, but its style of storytelling is very unique. Brilliant performances by everyone who participated in all six storylines, and also to Doona Bae (though her role in the 1849 story arc is a bit oddball). And Hugo Weaving as a Nurse Rached clone is priceless.

[Vepariga]

Its pretty easy to see really. Hollywood doesnt want to take big risks anymore so they settle with guaranteed money makers like popular books,re-makes and sequels/prequels of films with a big fanbase or audience appreciation. Granted some studios are abit more leniant and take the plunge like John Carter and Cloud Atlas. but its not as common as it was back in the 90's. I think film expenses being alot higher and the quest to keep trying to make something bigger and better is draining true story telling at its core. All flash and no substance.

It is sad though when you see a film that is fantastic,with decent effects but is overshadowed by some hollow but flashy blockbuster.

[sketchley]

It's hard to say that any one factor is causing the current movie making trends. All in all, it's probably a combination of alternate forms of media "distractions", a bad economic situation, and risk aversion are major factors, but not the only ones.

Granted some studios are abit more leniant and take the plunge like John Carter and Cloud Atlas. but its not as common as it was back in the 90's. I think film expenses being alot higher and the quest to keep trying to make something bigger and better is draining true story telling at its core. All flash and no substance.

I must be getting old... 'cuz I've heard this same lament about the movies of the '90's, too! (For some reason, Dante's Peak (1997) comes first to mind @.@).

Anyhow, yesterday, Goonies (1985) was on TV. Why can't they make, imaginative, engaging, story and character filled kids movies like that anymore?

[dizman]

Anyhow, yesterday, Goonies (1985) was on TV. Why can't they make, imaginative, engaging, story and character filled kids movies like that anymore?

Goonies would probably never get made today, a story about a bunch of kids and teens running away from home and getting assaulted by four creepy bandits would send modern parents into an uproar. I'm sure baby ruth would be replaced with mountain dew or doritos.

[BeyondTheGrave]

Anyhow, yesterday, Goonies (1985) was on TV. Why can't they make, imaginative, engaging, story and character filled kids movies like that anymore?

kids are stupid in this day and age.