# Hollywood's creativity problem and a (ranty) stroll through endless remakes...



## Mercurius (Dec 8, 2022)

Hollywood has a creativity problem, and one that is, I don't think it is too crazy to think, largely based on the financial bottom line. Regardless of whether or not this is a good thing or not, it is the reality of big business and, like all businesses, the goal is (always) making money, and that impacts creativity.

Of course the problem is that film is generally considered a form of art - like writing, painting, music, etc. But the vast majority (if not all) of Hollywood films are not "films made for their own sake." That is, for the love of film-making. Here we might find the difference between Hollywood and independent films which, regardless of their quality, tend to be made by people who love making films for their own sake -- at least at the beginning (which is also true of Hollywood directors...at the beginning).

In other words, the typical Hollywood big budget film is not the result of a garage band that started gigging and then made it to larger and larger stages. it is a "boy band" that was conceived of and constructed by corporate suits.

The creativity problem is illustrated by the reality of the re-make (in whatever variation, including re-boots and homages). More and more films seem like copies of copies of copies. Cynically we can call this a "cash-grab," though in some cases it may be borne out of a more noble intention; maybe, for instance, a director thought, "I really loved that film when I was growing up and would love to re-envision it." Or we can see how two Millenials wanted to embody the nostalgia they felt for a time they never lived through, and created the fresh-at-first _Stranger Things _(which, while still remaining good, has diminished over the seasons).

There's also an obvious socio-political element that is evinced in many cases (e.g. Walt Disney's obsession with regendering...hey Walt, here's an idea: why not create a _new _character? Oh, and one that is _interesting and nuanced, _and not just amazing at everything?). I'll leave that topic largely untouched, not only because it treads into touchy areas but is ultimately secondary to the economic causative factor. But I mention it, because it also impacts creativity by missing--or rather, not taking up--the opportunity to create and depict, for instance, new female leads that were conceived organically and holistically as female, rather than as a "re-envisioning" of a previous male character. Meaning, we get more Reys than Ripleys.

The creative problem is basically synonymous with the Law of Diminishing Returns. Or, more viscerally, trying to squeeze just a little more (and more and more) juice out of an orange. As if there aren't other fruits in the basket...

So we have....

*Star Wars...*The prequel trilogy displayed moments of beautiful visual imagination, but was marred to the point of ruination by poor casting and George Lucas's over-fascination with technology (meaning, he ironically became Vaderized). And then we have what is, more or less, the Abrams trilogy. Perhaps more than any other person in film-making, Abrams essentializes "Hollywood remake culture." And to compound it further, Disney+ has churned out a string of shows of varying quality. 

*Star Trek...*This is interesting, because, at first, Gene Roddenberry did the impossible: after a magical first cast, he assembled a second great cast (TNG). How did he do that? Well, he didn't try to copy the first...he imagined new characters, new dynamics. He didn't say, "Let's do a female Kirk." Now of course ST peaked with _The Wrath of Khan, _but it maintained a pretty high plateau after that, even if the course has generally followed the inevitability of diminishing returns. There have been, at least, a few later peaks (e.g. Strange New Worlds). But the overall diminishment is rather stark, perhaps best exemplified by the destruction of the Federation in _Discovery _(but I'm sure Michael Sue will fix everything), or what I've heard (but not watched) of _Picard. _It is almost as if the showrunners of those two series _wanted _to destroy Roddenberry's Star Trek, replacing flawed-but-noble utopia with edgy-but-soulless dystopia.

In both of the cases above, Hollywood depends upon the cash-cow of name brand recognition, and leaves countless great story worlds untouched. Rather than another Star Trek series, why not explore Alastair Reynolds' _Revelation Space _or NK Jemisin's Broken Earth?

*LotR...*We start with a surprisingly good film trilogy that endeared itself to even many of the most diehard Tolkienistas. But then Peter Jackson--again, presumably economically "inspired"--created a way-too-long CGI extravaganza follow-up trilogy. But then we have _Rings of Power,_ which essentially colonized Tolkien's ideas and remade them into a distorted simulacrum, recognizable only by surface similarities like names and the occasionally swirly set-piece, but inferior to Jackson's original trilogy in nearly every way, and bordering on mockery of Tolkien himself.

But we need more Tolkien on film, right?! Why not Moorcock's Elric or Le Guin's Earthsea?

*Game of Thrones...*In a way, this series ruined all of us for fantasy on the screen: it upped the quality level by several degrees from most of what we'd seen before. _House of the Dragon _is good, but the problem is that it doesn't include the very best of what made GoT great: It lacks the endless supply of great and multi-dimensional characters, there's absolutely no humor, and it is grim to the point of why bother? But it is well-made and overall pretty good.

*Willow...*haven't seen it, have little interest in it, though will probably give it a shot at some point. But the original film is a great example of how our adult sense of nostalgia overrates childhood favorites. I liked the film, even enjoyed a re-watch a few years ago, but it is really only a cut above most of the 80s fantasy films. But Madmartigan _was _great (with the emphasis on past-tense).

I mean, there can't be any other good big epic fantasy worlds to depict in a series, nothing like Steven Erikson's _Malazan Book of the Fallen _or Brandon Sanderson's _Stormlight Archive..._

*Ghostbusters...*The problem started back in the 80s, with the forgettable sequel with that guy from _Dragonslayer _as the villain. But then we had the terrible 2016 film, which perhaps started the tendency of Hollywood to blame its lack of creativity on Ists and Isms of whatever suits the contexts, as if the _many_ who didn't like it are all synonymous with the _few_ who are legitimately trollish. Afterlife was better, but still rather forgettable. In a way it was _The Force Awakens _of the Ghostbusters universe: It revisited the greatest hits, but didn't add anything new or evocative and felt like less than the sum of its parts (wait, was JJ Abrams involved?!). More than any film that I can think of, _Ghostbusters _embodies the idea that some things are better as one-offs and rarities, be it making fondue or riding a roller-coaster as an adult.

*Indiana Jones...*_Raiders _remains the best, imo, but the original trilogy was all good, even the markedly inferior _Temple of Doom. _To be honest, I enjoyed _Crystal Skulls, _but it was clearly a huge step down. But now we have...._Dial of Destiny? _I mean, it _could _be good, but all things (e.g. the trailer) point to yet another creatively-deprived disaster and mockery of a formerly great franchise. I can't wait until we get 2030's _Indiana Jones 6: Indy Goes to Space, _in which a CGI-version of Harrison Ford - brought back through cloning tech - travels to Mars in a Bezos-built space wiener.

*James Bond...*it remains to be seen which direction the franchise takes, but we can hope that A) Bond will be back, as a dude, _and _B) We get to see more of the strong female characters--even their own feature film--from the last one, especially Ana de Armas. In other words, this is a great opportunity to display that depicting strong female leads doesn't require regendering a male character. _Just make a new character and story, for Q's sake! _It is possible to be inclusive _and _honoring of tradition. 

And finally, the *MCU. *This was so fresh and fun, and had a well-conceived arc (the "Infinity Saga") from _Iron Man _in 2008 to _Avengers: End Game _in 2019. Sure, there were some forgettable films in there, and some of us were experiencing MCU Fatigue by the end, but it was a great ride, carried especially by Robert Downey Jr and Chris Evans. But now we have the so-called "Multiverse Saga" as the follow-up, aka "Let's plug every gap we can conceive of, but without the epic meta-story, and with a focus on all the less interesting characters." As one article put it, the focus became on quantity over quality, with the films supplemented by a barrage of tv shows, because _more is more, right? _It remains to be seen whether the upcoming Phase 5 will build up steam for the culminating Phase 6.

In truth, there's another missed opportunity here. Rather than just squeeze out whatever juice can be find from the secondary cast of Infinity Saga, why not do a soft reboot of Marvel with mutants front and center, and then tie it together with "MCU classic" via Secret Wars?

The very best fantasy and science fiction of the last decade or so have been fresh, new stories. Films such as _Arrival, Interstellar, Annihilation,_ _Ex Machina, _and even the weirdly good _Raised By Wolves _all told new stories, all created new worlds, at least on film. Sure, there were classic elements, but they weren't trying to ride on the coat-tails of anything that came before. And of course we can look to the first film, or in some cases, early films, of each of the above franchises, and find something fresh. So there are new ideas being offered.  But in recent years, the remake and reboot has far outweighed--and obfuscated--anything new that comes out.

Now I get it: Sturgeon's Law ("95% of everything is crap") applies. Not to mention, everyone has their own preferences, and I'm sure some reading this will disagree with a lot of what I say above, whether because they think _Star Trek Discovery_ is edgy and cool, or everything Walt Disney excretes is golden. But it still saddens me: Both because of the "tainting" of great, original ideas that are probably best left as one-offs (e.g. Ghostbusters) or kept in the fault of film mythology (e.g. Indiana Jones), and because of the missed opportunities to create and depict actual strange *new* worlds, as well as new characters and archetypes of humanity that aren't just remaking, reskinning, and idealizing what came before.

There is a vast wealth of books and comics and other stories waiting to be put to film. There are many great characters of every race, color, gender, age, and demographic, that would be wonderful to see depicted as their own, holistic and original creations. Yet again and again, Hollywood takes the obviously financially incentivized and too-easy route: just remake, reboot, re-hash, as if the viewing audience isn't hungry for anything else but more of the same: just show up to our film, eat your popcorn, and watch a film that has the creative nutritional content of, well, popcorn. 

I'd like to think that this will eventually back-fire, that the audience will say, "Enough is enough, we want more creative and original offerings." But I'm not so sure, and am of two minds. I do hear plenty of folks who share variations of my view, yet at the same time, the endless churning out and regurgitation continues unabated...


----------



## Tonguez (Dec 8, 2022)

You need to have some sympathy for the Hollywood machine and realise that Movies arent art, they are product and the business needs to keep pumping things through to ensure that talent and crews get paid.
Unlike Theatre where a single run can be staged for  years, Cinema is structured for relatively short runs, before a new product is demanded by viewers. Thats especially so now that the trip to the big screen has been stamped out by streaming, and COVID.

people forget that Cinema is only 100 years old, and while the early years were artist creating something new, the reality is that it has now reached the mature-saturation stage of its product life cycle. The easiest way to keep talent and crews employed and profits rolling is to create long term franchises (Star Wars, Marvel) or to reduce risk by remaking a known quantity that will get some nostalgia value on top of its own ‘merits’.

taking risks on new stuff isnt always viable or lucrative but there is room for indy work provided the big businesses keep the industry operating so the crews can get paid


----------



## Undrave (Dec 8, 2022)

Mercurius said:


> *Ghostbusters...*The problem started back in the 80s, with the forgettable sequel with that guy from _Dragonslayer _as the villain. But then we had the terrible 2016 film, which perhaps started the tendency of Hollywood to blame its lack of creativity on Ists and Isms of whatever suits the contexts, as if the _many_ who didn't like it are all synonymous with the _few_ who are legitimately trollish. Afterlife was better, but still rather forgettable. In a way it was _The Force Awakens _of the Ghostbusters universe: It revisited the greatest hits, but didn't add anything new or evocative and felt like less than the sum of its parts (wait, was JJ Abrams involved?!). More than any film that I can think of, _Ghostbusters _embodies the idea that some things are better as one-offs and rarities, be it making fondue or riding a roller-coaster as an adult.



As you say, problems began in the 80s. I think the two biggest issues with Ghostbusters is that 1) the creative team failed to understand what had managed to capture childrens’ imagination in the franchise, something the crew behind The Real Ghostbusters cartoon were much more adept at, and 2) they wasted time waiting on Bill Murray because of issue 1).

Kids who got into Ghostbusters didn’t get in because of Bill Murray and Dan Akroyd’s comedic chops or the take down of satanic panic trops. They got hooked by this premise of ordinary people using technology and research to strike back against a frightening world that you don’t normally understand. Watch the Boogeyman episode of The Real Ghostbusters and you’ll understand the appeal to a kid. Heck, THAT should have been the plot of a sequel movie! Not whatever the heck Ghostbusters II was. People created their own Ghostbusters chapter because _busting makes me feel good_, not because they loved middle aged comedians! 

The 2016 movie was built on this mistaken framework as well, deciding to throw four comedian together and expecting magic to ignite again, but without giving the world the same sort of straight faced seriousness of the original. They could have easily built the movie around another Ghostbuster franchise in another city, but they were too obsessed with reproducing the signifiers of the original without understanding the signification.

Kids might have been disappointed in a Ghostbusters sequel without Bill Murray, but if it had been built properly they probably would have overlooked it and still enjoy the movie. It might have been popular enough to entice Murray back. We were robbed of more Egon because Murray’s kind of a dick and just left Akroyd hanging for all the 90s.


Mercurius said:


> And finally, the *MCU. *This was so fresh and fun, and had a well-conceived arc (the "Infinity Saga") from _Iron Man _in 2008 to _Avengers: End Game _in 2019.



Most of that was through the application of clever retcons. 


Tonguez said:


> You need to have some sympathy for the Hollywood machine and realise that Movies arent art, they are product and the business needs to keep pumping things through to ensure that talent and crews get paid.
> Unlike Theatre where a single run can be staged for  years, Cinema is structure for relatively short runs, before a new product is demanded by viewers. Thats especially so now that the trip to the big screen has been stamped out by streaming, and COVID.
> 
> people forget that Cinema is only 100 years old, and while the early years were artist create something new, the reality is that it has now reached the mature-saturation stage of its life cycle. The easiest way to keep talent and crews employed and profits rolling is to create long term franchises (Star Wars, Marvel) or to reduce risk by remaking a know quantity that will get some nostalgia value on top of its own ‘merits’.
> ...



I think movies have gotten too expensive. Everything has to be a billion dollar expense that needs to make back twice that much... mid-budget movies is where a lot of cult classics were made. 

Also, audience need to be willing to watch movies with bad CGI again.


----------



## Ryujin (Dec 8, 2022)

When a production company buys into a property, they want something that has some legs. Preferably something that has a built-in fan base. Properties like that aren't generally cheap, so they need to squeeze that lemon as hard as they can to get all the juice out of it. As a result you get an unending string of sequels, or at least a string that only ends when the well has truly run dry. They won't generally spend $100M on some unknown. These days "small movies" and "independent film" seem to start with  budget of maybe $10M. The days of the sub-$5M movie are pretty much gone and returns on such films are negligible, compared to the blockbusters. Of course there's a lot of untested and novel material out there. There will continue to be because, above all, Hollywood is an economic engine and producers demand a return on their investments, while simultaneously forcing control of the end product.

What the world needs now is Bili The Axe.


----------



## ART! (Dec 8, 2022)

Barabara Broccoli has said in no uncertain terms that Bond will be remain a man. 

Setting aside judgements about particular movies, series of movies, tv series, etc., my only-half-joking rule of thumb would be "only remake bad movies". 

But honestly, the OP isn't talking about remakes as such, but rather the continuous returning to the same well. Remakes are always dicey propositions, and returning to the same well requires new takes and fresh eyes - except a lot of people don't like the new takes and fresh visions. But that's art for you - and yes, we are talking about art. Just because it's commercial doesn't mean it's not art. Of course, anyone can like or not like any given work or artist's ouvre - but that doesn't mean it's "bad art".


----------



## Aeson (Dec 8, 2022)

This is why we see Robin Hood and King Arthur movies over and over again. They're public domain. Production companies don't have to pay for the rights. Also in some cases like Spiderman, if the property isn't used the rights revert back to the original owners. That's why they reboot Spiderman so often Sony wants to keep the rights because it's a money maker. They make these remakes so the orginal idea stuff can get made. The money makers prop up the money losers. If that orginal idea makes money also then that's even better. 

I want more Star Wars, Star Trek, and LotR. I want more in those worlds. I want them to go deeper and expand the worlds. Ghostbusters doesn't need a lot of expanding, but it's fun watching ghosts get busted and have a few laughs while it's happening. 

I'm not a big fan of gender or race swapping either. I really don't like the changes to actual historical figures. I would prefer they go with new characters and new stories also.


----------



## Ryujin (Dec 8, 2022)

And of course, as we all know...


----------



## Undrave (Dec 8, 2022)

Ryujin said:


> And of course, as we all know...



Ironically, they weren't able to merchandise Spaceballs...


----------



## Snarf Zagyg (Dec 8, 2022)

So I am looking at the complaint, and the list, and ... I mean ...

*I love this franchise. I want more of it! Just like the good stuff that they made. But better! And the same! And original! But different!*

Which I get- we all like the things we like (I am a huge fan of many of those IP franchises!). But ... there _are a lot of very good things out there._

I just watched _Crimes of the Future _(Hulu). That's Cronenberg's latest. It was certainly original, and real return to form for him, hearkening back to his 90s work. I even made it a double feature with his son's movie, _Possessor._

Or _Drive My Car_ (HBO Max). So good.

Or if you're into cars ... well, there's _Titane_. That was something else. Definitely original, probably not going to be a franchise. 

If _Titane _is too much, then why not relax into _The French Dispatch_?

I could keep going on, but you get the idea. There is so very much good stuff out there. More, I think, than at any other time. You just have to choose to watch things that aren't the usual "Monetizing IP" choices. IMO.


----------



## ART! (Dec 8, 2022)

It can also be worth following the work of people your age, who maybe grew up on the same stuff you did, and see what they're creating.


----------



## Yora (Dec 8, 2022)

The 80s were a time of many great and original movies. The 90s still had a couple that became classics.
And somewhere in the early 2000s that just stopped. Occasionally you get a good film that is impactful and memorable, but those are one-off flukes. Not part of any pattern.


----------



## Cadence (Dec 8, 2022)

I always forget what movie adaptation # the 1939 Wizard of Oz was.  Fifth apparently.  (Not counting adaptations of other Oz stuff).









						How many Oz movies are there, anyway?
					

After I posted my April Icons announcement (Dorothy Gale week) along with my March viewing list, a few people expressed surprise to me that there are so many movies based on L. Frank Baum’s O…




					reeltoreelmovies.com


----------



## trappedslider (Dec 8, 2022)

Snarf Zagyg said:


> So I am looking at the complaint, and the list, and ... I mean ...
> 
> *I love this franchise. I want more of it! Just like the good stuff that they made. But better! And the same! And original! But different!*



you know it's funny, my brother complains about Hollywood not coming out with new stuff but instead just doing remakes, I point out a new film that isn't a remark/reboot and he shrugs his shoulders. He'll also complain about sequels but will happily see the next Halloween movie. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 

So, it's more "Hollywood isn't making movies that interest me"

also :


----------



## ART! (Dec 8, 2022)

Related thing I just learned: of the 15 biggest Oscar-winners of all time, only 2 are not adaptations: _Titanic_ and _Ghandi_.


----------



## Snarf Zagyg (Dec 8, 2022)

trappedslider said:


> you know it's funny, my brother complains about Hollywood not coming out with new stuff but instead just doing remakes, I point out a new film that isn't a remark/reboot and he shrugs his shoulders. He'll also complain about sequels but will happily see the next Halloween movie. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
> 
> So, it's more "Hollywood isn't making movies that interest me"
> 
> also :




Well, in fairness, I think that there is some truth to what @Mercurius is talking about. It's the "brand extension" issue that we see so often today. Just look at the Supermarket- more often than not, we don't see new products, we see old products in new forms (like the ~3,495 different types of Oreos). 

Since the advent of the blockbuster era (Jaws on), we've seen a general move toward the blockbuster/franchise/IP (and now "shared universe") model. A lot of Hollywood types complain that movies today are either "Tentpole/Franchise," "Horror," or low budget- there's no longer any room for the middle class ... the crowd-pleasing, mid-budget comedies, rom-coms, and even dramas that used to be a staple at the theater.

_That said, _I still think that we are seeing a lot more quality (and quantity) than ever before- it's just everywhere (theaters and streaming) and coming from multiple sources (not just Hollywood, but foreign films) and you have to seek it out. But it is there.


----------



## Ryujin (Dec 8, 2022)

Snarf Zagyg said:


> Well, in fairness, I think that there is some truth to what @Mercurius is talking about. It's the "brand extension" issue that we see so often today. Just look at the Supermarket- more often than not, we don't see new products, we see old products in new forms (like the ~3,495 different types of Oreos).
> 
> Since the advent of the blockbuster era (Jaws on), we've seen a general move toward the blockbuster/franchise/IP (and now "shared universe") model. A lot of Hollywood types complain that movies today are either "Tentpole/Franchise," "Horror," or low budget- there's no longer any room for the middle class ... the crowd-pleasing, mid-budget comedies, rom-coms, and even dramas that used to be a staple at the theater.
> 
> _That said, _I still think that we are seeing a lot more quality (and quantity) than ever before- it's just everywhere (theaters and streaming) and coming from multiple sources (not just Hollywood, but foreign films) and you have to seek it out. But it is there.



I think that "horror" generally also fits in with "low budget", where the budget is something south of $20M. Hell, at some point in the next few years I'll have a producer credit on IMDB to go with my few "special thanks" entries, if Covid is every truly over. _THAT_ is low budget  

 Maybe it could best be said that rather than not making anything new, Hollywood is reluctant to throw big money at new ideas. Hollywood tends to be risk averse. As someone previously said, that's Indie Film's thing. As a result while we're bombarded with adverts for the latest Space Samurai blockbuster, we don't hear about the psychological thriller that only cost a piddly little $50M.


----------



## Umbran (Dec 8, 2022)

Mercurius said:


> Hollywood has a creativity problem, and one that is, I don't think it is too crazy to think, largely based on the financial bottom line. Regardless of whether or not this is a good thing or not, it is the reality of big business and, like all businesses, the goal is (always) making money, and that impacts creativity.
> 
> Of course the problem is that film is generally considered a form of art - like writing, painting, music, etc. But...




But, you seem to treat film as somehow different from the other forms, when it isn't.  Most fiction books are built to formulae, because formulae sells.  You note boy bands yourself - music is driven by what sells.  Art?  For those of us who don't frequent museums, art is also commercial.

If the creativity thing is an issue of being tied to the money, the root problem is that we, the consumers, _are not willing to pay for that creativity_.  If we stopped paying for tickets to the sequels and spin offs, they'd stop making them.


----------



## Aeson (Dec 8, 2022)

Who's to say that the next remake is what inspires the next great filmmaker? Star Wars wasn't wholly original. How many filmmakers cited it as inspiration?


----------



## Snarf Zagyg (Dec 8, 2022)

Aeson said:


> Who's to say that the next remake is what inspires the next great filmmaker? Star Wars wasn't wholly original. How many filmmakers cited it as inspiration?




_Star Wars was an original work of unqualified genius. _
-Akira Kurosawa, admiringly.


----------



## Mercurius (Dec 8, 2022)

Tonguez said:


> You need to have some sympathy for the Hollywood machine and realise that Movies arent art, they are product and the business needs to keep pumping things through to ensure that talent and crews get paid.
> Unlike Theatre where a single run can be staged for  years, Cinema is structured for relatively short runs, before a new product is demanded by viewers. Thats especially so now that the trip to the big screen has been stamped out by streaming, and COVID.
> 
> people forget that Cinema is only 100 years old, and while the early years were artist creating something new, the reality is that it has now reached the mature-saturation stage of its product life cycle. The easiest way to keep talent and crews employed and profits rolling is to create long term franchises (Star Wars, Marvel) or to reduce risk by remaking a known quantity that will get some nostalgia value on top of its own ‘merits’.
> ...



Yeah, I understand the economic realities of it...doesn't mean I have to like it, though 

But I _do _think movies are art - or on the "artistic scale." Like other media, it runs the gamut from highly commercial (the Hollywood "product" that you say) to very artistic, even spiritual/mystical. My issue is that Hollywood focuses 99.9% on the commercial product side of things, when (some) people actually yearn for something deeper.


----------



## Ryujin (Dec 8, 2022)

Snarf Zagyg said:


> _Star Wars was an original work of unqualified genius. _
> -Akira Kurosawa, admiringly.



Oh, the many times that a friend has turned to me to ask, "OK, which Kurosawa film did THIS one rip off?"


----------



## Mercurius (Dec 8, 2022)

Undrave said:


> As you say, problems began in the 80s. I think the two biggest issues with Ghostbusters is that 1) the creative team failed to understand what had managed to capture childrens’ imagination in the franchise, something the crew behind The Real Ghostbusters cartoon were much more adept at, and 2) they wasted time waiting on Bill Murray because of issue 1).
> 
> Kids who got into Ghostbusters didn’t get in because of Bill Murray and Dan Akroyd’s comedic chops or the take down of satanic panic trops. They got hooked by this premise of ordinary people using technology and research to strike back against a frightening world that you don’t normally understand. Watch the Boogeyman episode of The Real Ghostbusters and you’ll understand the appeal to a kid. Heck, THAT should have been the plot of a sequel movie! Not whatever the heck Ghostbusters II was. People created their own Ghostbusters chapter because _busting makes me feel good_, not because they loved middle aged comedians!
> 
> ...




Nice outline of some of the deeper elements. For me the key phrase is "expecting magic to ignite again." That's related to my beef...trying to copy the magic of other films. True "movie magic" is rarely contrive...it just happens, when you focus on making a good, and generally original, story.



Undrave said:


> Most of that was through the application of clever retcons.




Yes, understood. Actually, the Infinity Saga (phases 1-3) is somewhat like a good D&D campaign. It started episodic with small adventures (individual movies and heroes) that weren't related to each other, and then meta-elements were gradually introduced and woven together.


----------



## Older Beholder (Dec 8, 2022)

In the past year (actually all but a couple of these was in the last 6 months and I’m sure I’m forgetting a couple of films in there) I’ve been to the cinema and seen:

Nope
The Northman
3 thousand years of longing
Everything everywhere all at once
Bodies bodies bodies
Fire of love
Elvis
You won‘t be alone
The Velvet Queen
The Woman King

Still plenty of great original films being made
There‘s also been some great remake/reboots with things like Dune and Bladerunner 2049


----------



## Mercurius (Dec 8, 2022)

Snarf Zagyg said:


> So I am looking at the complaint, and the list, and ... I mean ...
> 
> *I love this franchise. I want more of it! Just like the good stuff that they made. But better! And the same! And original! But different!*
> 
> ...



I hear you and really, like "brows" of all kinds (high, low, and in-between).

You can also revisit or expand a franchise, and do so creatively. I think TNG is a good example of that. My concern is relying on old tropes, wink-nods to old stuff, and not focusing on story and character first, but overly relying on "This is a Star Wars film, so we assume people will like it."

I've been meaning to check out the latest Cronenberg.


----------



## Mercurius (Dec 8, 2022)

Yora said:


> The 80s were a time of many great and original movies. The 90s still had a couple that became classics.
> And somewhere in the early 2000s that just stopped. Occasionally you get a good film that is impactful and memorable, but those are one-off flukes. Not part of any pattern.



I tend to agree, though I would say that film-making peaked in the 70s. Actually, part of its decline was because of films like Star Wars and Jaws that upped the "wow-bang" factor, and movies relied upon that more and more. 

But yeah, a big drop-off in the 2000s...but as I said, and others have said, still really good stuff being made.


----------



## Mercurius (Dec 8, 2022)

trappedslider said:


> you know it's funny, my brother complains about Hollywood not coming out with new stuff but instead just doing remakes, I point out a new film that isn't a remark/reboot and he shrugs his shoulders. He'll also complain about sequels but will happily see the next Halloween movie. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
> 
> So, it's more "Hollywood isn't making movies that interest me"
> 
> also :



To be blunt, this is a too-easy rebuttal: as if any criticism always comes down to "But that's just your opinion, man." I mean certainly...different strokes for different folks, and all that. But there is such a thing as quality - and whether the _substance _of a critique holds water.


----------



## Mercurius (Dec 8, 2022)

Umbran said:


> But, you seem to treat film as somehow different from the other forms, when it isn't.  Most fiction books are built to formulae, because formulae sells.  You note boy bands yourself - music is driven by what sells.  Art?  For those of us who don't frequent museums, art is also commercial.
> 
> If the creativity thing is an issue of being tied to the money, the root problem is that we, the consumers, _are not willing to pay for that creativity_.  If we stopped paying for tickets to the sequels and spin offs, they'd stop making them.



Yeah, I know: we vote with our dollar, and we get what we pay for. But it goes both ways, and is a vicious cycle between Hollywood and viewers.

And of course, following Sturgeon's Law, "quality"--whether inter-subjective or entirely subjective--is a bit of a pyramid, and we're going to get more "crap" than "high art" or rather, films we absolutely love. Meaning, we don't have 1,000 favorite movies and 10 movies we hate - it is always the reverse in some form or fashion, with fewer and fewer numbers the more we like something.

But it is...a phenomena. I recognize why it exists, which you succinctly summarized, but it doesn't mean I have to like it...or, at least, not want better and more original stuff.

I mean, to put it more simply, I'd rather see a new science fiction world explored than yet another re-hash of SW or ST. I gave a couple examples above. I understand why they go back to the same stuff, again and again, but I just see it as a shame.


----------



## Mercurius (Dec 8, 2022)

Aeson said:


> Who's to say that the next remake is what inspires the next great filmmaker? Star Wars wasn't wholly original. How many filmmakers cited it as inspiration?



_Originality _is a funny word, because it is too often confused with novelty, imo. If that is true, then a movie about polka-dotted squids that wear Converse shows that live in the clouds is inherently more "original" than a very well-made retelling of Arthurian legends, when the former is just silly and absurd, and the latter can--if done well (e.g. _Excalibur_)--explore mythic archetypes, the history of consciousness, and the Grail story -- all core to the human experience.

But I see _original -- _at least in terms of art -- as having more to do with the idea of _origins..._the origins of consciousness, of myth and archetypes - the well of inspiration. So an original work is something that draws directly from that well, as an authentic telling...not something that uses novel ideas. Or to put it another way, originality is addressing core, existential questions, but in a way that is unique to the artist or film-maker.


----------



## Umbran (Dec 8, 2022)

Mercurius said:


> I mean, to put it more simply, I'd rather see a new science fiction world explored than yet another re-hash of SW or ST.




Yeah, but never mind that some of the latest Trek, while referencing the franchise, has still been among the most original in the franchise...


----------



## Snarf Zagyg (Dec 8, 2022)

Mercurius said:


> Yeah, I know: we vote with our dollar, and we get what we pay for. But it goes both ways, and is a vicious cycle between Hollywood and viewers.


----------



## Mercurius (Dec 8, 2022)

Umbran said:


> Yeah, but never mind that some of the latest Trek, while referencing the franchise, has still been among the most original in the franchise...



Well again, it depends upon what you mean by "original." See my post above.


----------



## Art Waring (Dec 8, 2022)

Mercurius said:


> Hollywood has a creativity problem, and one that is, I don't think it is too crazy to think, largely based on the financial bottom line



The Writers Strike of 2007-2008 was a significant event in hollywood. Writers went on a unified strike, putting the entire industry on hold. If you look at 2008-2009, you will see different writing credits than before (although the strike did eventually end in favor of the writers). Daniel Craig had to write the script for the 2008 bond film because their writer went on strike, and he discussed it in interviews saying it was a very difficult process and the film may have suffered as a result. After that its hard to find films taking many risks in the industry.

The 90's was the end of risk-taking in the film industry. You saw films like Dark City, Seven, Pi, Cube, Natural Born Killers, Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas, Twelve Monkeys, Pulp Fiction, The Crow, Gattaca, Delicatessen, The City of Lost Children, and so on. It was a completely different landscape in terms of creativity compared to today.

Blade Runner was seen as a disaster upon its release, and had frequent problems during production, its almost a miracle it was made at all. And yet, it changed the entire dominant aesthetic and gave birth to the visual influences now prevalent in the cyberpunk genre. Films like that don't exist today because companies won't gamble on new ideas. Instead of getting Neuromancer or Snow Crash we get Blade Runner 2049 dash 2.0.

-> Unfortunately it boils down to risk and returns on investment. They are in the business of making money as the first priority, so they will take the safe bet every time (remakes ect) rather than take a risk on an unknown quantity.



Mercurius said:


> I mean, there can't be any other good big epic fantasy worlds to depict in a series



I doubt we will ever get to see it, but Roger Zelazny's Amber Chronicles would be right up at the top of that list.


----------



## Benjamin Olson (Dec 8, 2022)

Hollywood has been a sequel and remake factory for a solid century now, and from its earliest days it wanted to throw money at movies based on already established books and plays. Aside from risk aversion there is a certain jealousy of all those other industries that get to just design a product and sell minor iterations of it year-in-year-out for decades on end, while movie studios need to make a series of high stakes bets every year.

Now I would say that production and marketing budgets have gone more towards bankable franchises in recent years, and that Hollywood has embraced the long belated revival-sequel like never before in recent years, but ultimately the money has historically almost always gone to things that were bankable franchises, involved bankable stars, or rode some bankable trend. What we have is a moment when there aren't a lot of stars whom people will go out to the movies to see, and the most prominent bankable trend is itself nostalgic retreads.


----------



## Mercurius (Dec 8, 2022)

Art Waring said:


> The Writers Strike of 2007-2008 was a significant event in hollywood. Writers went on a unified strike, putting the entire industry on hold. If you look at 2008-2009, you will see different writing credits than before (although the strike did eventually end in favor of the writers). Daniel Craig had to write the script for the 2008 bond film because their writer went on strike, and he discussed it in interviews saying it was a very difficult process and the film may have suffered as a result. After that its hard to find films taking many risks in the industry.
> 
> The 90's was the end of risk-taking in the film industry. You saw films like Dark City, Seven, Pi, Cube, Natural Born Killers, Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas, Twelve Monkeys, Pulp Fiction, The Crow, Gattaca, Delicatessen, The City of Lost Children, and so on. It was a completely different landscape in terms of creativity compared to today.
> 
> ...



Yes, well said. I didn't know that about Craig...I guess you're talking about Quantum of Solace? (I still have no idea what that title means...lol).

Some really great films in the 90s. I do think some good stuff has some after, but it is few and far between. But the ones I mentioned in my OP - Arrival, Ex Machina, etc - all fit in with your list. 


Art Waring said:


> I doubt we will ever get to see it, but Roger Zelazny's Amber Chronicles would be right up at the top of that list.




It is kind of weird that we haven't...it is such an obvious choice (though not my personal favorite Zelazny novel(s)...that would probably be Lord of Light).


----------



## Ryujin (Dec 8, 2022)

Mercurius said:


> Yes, well said. I didn't know that about Craig...I guess you're talking about Quantum of Solace? (I still have no idea what that title means...lol).



"Quantum of Solace" because "A Bit of a Kip" wasn't high brow enough


----------



## Mercurius (Dec 8, 2022)

Benjamin Olson said:


> Hollywood has been a sequel and remake factory for a solid century now, and from its earliest days it wanted to throw money at movies based on already established books and plays. Aside from risk aversion there is a certain jealousy of all those other industries that get to just design a product and sell minor iterations of it year-in-year-out for decades on end, while movie studios need to make a series of high stakes bets every year.
> 
> Now I would say that production and marketing budgets have gone more towards bankable franchises in recent years, and that Hollywood has embraced the long belated revival-sequel like never before in recent years, but ultimately the money has historically almost always gone to things that were bankable franchises, involved bankable stars, or rode some bankable trend. What we have is a moment when there aren't a lot of stars whom people will go out to the movies to see, and the most prominent bankable trend is itself nostalgic retreads.



Yeah, I hear you. Hindsight is also an element, too, as we tend to remember the good stuff, not as much the bad. For every classic rock album we remember from the 60s-70s, there are a dozen bad ones that no one but a small few listen to.

But I still think there are fewer "future classics" being made. And certainly, we can look at the Oscar nominations and see a marked decline in the last 10-20 years.


----------



## payn (Dec 8, 2022)

For me, the future classics are happening on the small screen. I'm also entirely ok with that. YMMV.


----------



## Art Waring (Dec 8, 2022)

Mercurius said:


> It is kind of weird that we haven't...it is such an obvious choice (though not my personal favorite Zelazny novel(s)...that would probably be Lord of Light).



My favorite is actually Jack of Shadows, short and sharp. But most people I know prefer Lord of Light.



Mercurius said:


> Some really great films in the 90s. I do think some good stuff has some after, but it is few and far between. But the ones I mentioned in my OP - Arrival, Ex Machina, etc - all fit in with your list.



For sure. Some gems do come out every now and then. Minority Report could be another one to add to the list, but I think that's a 2002 film. Ironically, another PKD adaptation (bless PKD, without PKD= no Bladerunner).


----------



## Mercurius (Dec 8, 2022)

payn said:


> For me, the future classics are happening on the small screen. I'm also entirely ok with that. YMMV.



Yeah, I agree. The Sopranos led to a revolution of tv...now there's almost too much good stuff to watch.


----------



## Mercurius (Dec 8, 2022)

Art Waring said:


> My favorite is actually Jack of Shadows, short and sharp. But most people I know prefer Lord of Light.



I've had Jack of Shadows on my to-read list for years.


Art Waring said:


> For sure. Some gems do come out every now and then. Minority Report could be another one to add to the list, but I think that's a 2002 film. Ironically, another PKD adaptation (bless PKD, without PKD= no Bladerunner).



Yep. Not sure that Valis or Ubik would make a great film, though .

On a side note, if I'm honest, I find Bladerunner a bit overrated...I see it most successful as a mood piece, and thus very impactful aesthetically. But from a purely movie-watching point of view, I actually liked the sequel more, even if it goes against the grain of what I said in the OP.


----------



## Art Waring (Dec 8, 2022)

Mercurius said:


> I've had Jack of Shadows on my to-read list for years.
> 
> Yep. Not sure that Valis or Ubik would make a great film, though .
> 
> On a side note, if I'm honest, I find Bladerunner a bit overrated...I see it most successful as a mood piece, and thus very impactful aesthetically. But from a purely movie-watching point of view, I actually liked the sequel more, even if it goes against the grain of what I said in the OP.



Well that's cool too. I liked some parts of the film (mostly the landscapes and visuals), but I found the opposite to be the case for me. Its likely that I have a preference for analog films, as I find new films are often lacking in elements which I appreciate. I actually like grit, grime, and scratches on film, and other imperfections that are often overlooked today.


----------



## Benjamin Olson (Dec 8, 2022)

Art Waring said:


> Unfortunately it boils down to risk and returns on investment. They are in the business of making money as the first priority, so they will take the safe bet every time (remakes ect) rather than take a risk on an unknown quantity.



I would add to that that even if a studio executive is feeling up to taking some risk, the conglomerate that owns the studio doesn't want to tell their shareholders that they are dropping big budgets on something that does not have an established name or franchise attached but that, trust us, is very creative.

I think if there has actually been a shift to less creative or original filmmaking it is almost certainly mostly a function of the decades long process of all studios becoming subsidiaries of massive conglomerates reaching its full fruition.


----------



## Mercurius (Dec 8, 2022)

Art Waring said:


> Well that's cool too. I liked some parts of the film (mostly the landscapes and visuals), but I found the opposite to be the case for me. Its likely that I have a preference for analog films, as I find new films are often lacking in elements which I appreciate. I actually like grit, grime, and scratches on film, and other imperfections that are often overlooked today.



Definitely me too - it is analogous to the "vinyl effect" in music. 

In a similar sense, my all-time favorite on-screen dragon is the one from _Dragonslayer..._it just feels more organic than CGI ones.


----------



## Art Waring (Dec 8, 2022)

Benjamin Olson said:


> I would add to that that even if a studio executive is feeling up to taking some risk, the conglomerate that owns the studio doesn't want to tell their shareholders that they are dropping big budgets on something that does not have an established name or franchise attached but that, trust us, is very creative.
> 
> I think if there has actually been a shift to less creative or original filmmaking it is almost certainly mostly a function of the decades long process of all studios becoming subsidiaries of massive conglomerates reaching its full fruition.



Its raining, in corporate heaven. All the coffers are-a-singin...


----------



## aco175 (Dec 8, 2022)

I recently seen a movie star talking about this and saying the main problem has been streaming services becoming mainstream.  A movie used to be able to count on aftermarket sales of DVD to boost the ticket sales 6 months after the movie came out.  There is none of that now and studios are taking a more cautious take on making things.  

On the other side, streaming services are making things that are filling these gaps.  Willow would have never been made into a part 2 movie, but can be made as a series.


----------



## trappedslider (Dec 9, 2022)

While sci-fi hasn't been filled with "originality" the Romcom genre has been putting out some original stuff on the big screen both hits and misses.


----------



## MGibster (Dec 9, 2022)

Snarf Zagyg said:


> _Star Wars was an original work of unqualified genius. _



I kept hearing how Lucas ripped off Kurosawa's _Hidden Fortress _so often I actually believed it.  Then I actually saw _Hidden Fortress _and realized such criticism was overblown.  Okay, there are some similarities, you can make a valid case that Kurosawa influenced Lucas, but Star Wars wasn't a rip off.


----------



## Mallus (Dec 9, 2022)

As a child I watched the Abbott and Costello movies. All 36 of them…


----------



## Tonguez (Dec 9, 2022)

Mallus said:


> As a child I watched the Abbott and Costello movies. All 36 of them…



Damn, you old


----------



## Mallus (Dec 9, 2022)

Tonguez said:


> Damn, you old



I meant on TV. In the 70s. Damn, that still makes me old, doesn’t it?


----------



## Ryujin (Dec 9, 2022)

Mallus said:


> I meant on TV. In the 70s. Damn, that still makes me old, doesn’t it?



Naw, you're a kid. I watched the original runs of both "Wild, Wild West" and ST:TOS on TV


----------



## Umbran (Dec 9, 2022)

Mercurius said:


> But I see _original -- _at least in terms of art -- as having more to do with the idea of _origins..._the origins of consciousness, of myth and archetypes - the well of inspiration.




That is a very particular and peculiar definition of the term.

You can't really expect Hollywood to address your desires when they are highly idiosyncratic, you know.

"Make it original!"
"No, not like that!"


----------



## Mercurius (Dec 9, 2022)

Umbran said:


> That is a very particular and peculiar definition of the term.
> 
> You can't really expect Hollywood to address your desires when they are highly idiosyncratic, you know.
> 
> ...




OK


----------



## Undrave (Dec 9, 2022)

Mercurius said:


> Nice outline of some of the deeper elements. For me the key phrase is "expecting magic to ignite again." That's related to my beef...trying to copy the magic of other films. True "movie magic" is rarely contrive...it just happens, when you focus on making a good, and generally original, story.



I feel like Hollywood doesn't GET the appeal of its own franchises and tend to tunnel in on specific names or even actors. 

You gotta have an Enterprise in Star Trek, you gotta have Bill Murray in Ghostbusters, you gotta have a Skywalker in Star Wars, Bumblebee is the main character in Transformers, Dumbledore hijacks the Fantastic Beasts franchise etc... They never try to dig to the core elements that hooked audience that could work again if they dared to explore the world of a franchise beyond their tunnel.


----------



## payn (Dec 9, 2022)

Undrave said:


> I feel like Hollywood doesn't GET the appeal of its own franchises and tend to tunnel in on specific names or even actors.



Im with you...


Undrave said:


> You gotta have an Enterprise in Star Trek, you gotta have Bill Murray in Ghostbusters, you gotta have a Skywalker in Star Wars, Bumblebee is the main character in Transformers, Dumbledore hijacks the Fantastic Beasts franchise etc... They never try to dig to the core elements that hooked audience that could work again if they dared to explore the world of a franchise beyond their tunnel.



Until this. I loved me some Deep Space Nine, Afterlife was fine, Rogue One was great, Dinobot wars was a fantastic cartoon. You got me on the Dumbledore stuff I dont know what that is (im ok with that too).

I dont think a singular element and/or character is key to these. There is more than a iconic figure to the best franchises, IMO. I get what you are saying though about getting the appeal. The above items, minus the iconic must haves, still hit the mark.


----------



## Undrave (Dec 9, 2022)

payn said:


> Until this. I loved me some Deep Space Nine, Afterlife was fine, Rogue One was great, Dinobot wars was a fantastic cartoon. You got me on the Dumbledore stuff I dont know what that is (im ok with that too).
> 
> I dont think a singular element and/or character is key to these. There is more than a iconic figure to the best franchises, IMO. I get what you are saying though about getting the appeal. The above items, minus the iconic must haves, still hit the mark.



Hmm? I was naming examples of things Hollywood tunnel on.

Deep Space Nine would never have been made if Star Trek was only movies. And while people seem to like the new Star Trek shows, they decided to go to the Kirk (-ish) era for their new shows?


----------



## payn (Dec 9, 2022)

Undrave said:


> Hmm? I was naming examples of things Hollywood tunnel on.
> 
> Deep Space Nine would never have been made if Star Trek was only movies. And while people seem to like the new Star Trek shows, they decided to go to the Kirk (-ish) era for their new shows?



Oh, my bad I thought you were saying those iconic things are required to _get_ the material.


----------



## Snarf Zagyg (Dec 9, 2022)

payn said:


> Oh, my bad I thought you were saying those iconic things are required to _get_ the material.




The only thing that is _required_ for a good movie is, of course, Nic Cage.


----------



## payn (Dec 9, 2022)

Snarf Zagyg said:


> The only thing that is _required_ for a good movie is, of course, Nic Cage.


----------



## Ryujin (Dec 9, 2022)

payn said:


>



I told you to put the bunny down.


----------



## billd91 (Dec 9, 2022)

Undrave said:


> Deep Space Nine would never have been made if Star Trek was only movies. And while people seem to like the new Star Trek shows, they decided to go to the Kirk (-ish) era for their new shows?



Only for non-animated shows and then only sorta. Lower Decks is TNG/DS9 timeframe. Prodigy is post Voyager. Picard is post Voyager. Discovery started in pre-Kirk era but is now far future after season 2. Strange New Worlds is the one really going all in on the Kirk-ish era and with the heaviest TOS feel.


----------



## Undrave (Dec 9, 2022)

billd91 said:


> Only for non-animated shows and then only sorta. Lower Decks is TNG/DS9 timeframe. Prodigy is post Voyager. Picard is post Voyager. Discovery started in pre-Kirk era but is now far future after season 2. Strange New Worlds is the one really going all in on the Kirk-ish era and with the heaviest TOS feel.



I forgot about Picard, but that relies on a specific named character. And yeah Discovery went to the future but it sure started in the Kirk adjacent era.


----------



## Art Waring (Dec 9, 2022)

Snarf Zagyg said:


> The only thing that is _required_ for a good movie is, of course, Nic Cage.



I guess you've never seen Vampires Kiss...


----------



## Snarf Zagyg (Dec 9, 2022)

Art Waring said:


> I guess you've never seen Vampires Kiss...




Not only have I seen every single movie by Nic Cage, I believe that his oeuvre should be required teaching at all levels of school.


----------



## Art Waring (Dec 9, 2022)

Snarf Zagyg said:


> Not only have I seen every single movie by Nic Cage, I believe that his oeuvre should be required teaching at all levels of school.



So what would the curriculum look like exactly?


----------



## Xamnam (Dec 9, 2022)




----------



## Snarf Zagyg (Dec 9, 2022)

Art Waring said:


> So what would the curriculum look like exactly?




It would look .... _awesome_.

(It would be roughly separated into the following categories)

*Cage 101- Introduction to Awesome.*
A course concentrating on "popular" Cage movies, starting with his action output in the 90s and continuing on to the National Treasure series, with some occasional pieces pulled from his lengthy popular career such as City of Angels and Moonstruck,

*Cage 201- Nic Cage is Bob Denver on Acid Playing the Accordion.*
A further examination of Nic Cage as auteur, examining his numerous critcally acclaimed method roles, from the 80s (Vampire's Kiss) to the 90s (Leaving Las Vegas) to the '00s (Adaptation) to now (Mandy, Pig). 

*Cage 301- We Released Ourselves On Our Own Recognizance.*
Next, we look at the many films that Nic Cage has graced us with that we love- from _Raising Arizona _ to _Lord of War _to _The Weather Man._

*Cage 401- MAXIMUM CAGE.*
Finally, we look at the films that define a man, a generation .... a CIVILIZATION. Advanced studies and a seminar level course. Films such as _The Wicker Man_,_ Bad Lieutenant: Port of Call New Orleans, Drive Angry, Captain Corelli's Mandolin, The Unbearable Weight of Massive Talent_, _Face/Off, and Deadfall. _

*Graduate Studies in Paychecks and Cameos*
Whether it's "Hey, is that Nicolas Coppola?" (_Fast Times at Ridgemont High_?) or "Did you really need that paycheck that bad?" (_Left Behind_) some graduate-level studies will complete the study of the GREATEST ARTIST OF OUR, OR ANY generation.


----------



## Art Waring (Dec 9, 2022)

Snarf Zagyg said:


> It would look .... _awesome_.
> 
> (It would be roughly separated into the following categories)
> 
> ...



I do like your class titles, i do indeed.


----------



## Older Beholder (Dec 10, 2022)

No mention of Spider-Man or Batman so far even though they’re the most re-booted franchises in recent memory? Maybe because in both the latest instalments were actually pretty good movies?


----------



## Ryujin (Dec 10, 2022)

Older Beholder said:


> No mention of Spider-Man or Batman so far even though they’re the most re-booted franchises in recent memory? Maybe because in both the latest instalments were actually pretty good movies?



At least in the latest Batman the pearls didn't have to hit the alley.


----------



## trappedslider (Dec 10, 2022)

Highbrow Films Aimed at Winning Oscars Are Losing Audiences
					

A year ago, Hollywood watched in despair as Oscar-oriented films like “Licorice Pizza” and “Nightmare Alley” flatlined at the box office. The day seemed to have finally arrived when prestige films were no longer viable in theaters and streaming had forever altered cinema. But studios held out...




					www.yahoo.com


----------



## Benjamin Olson (Dec 10, 2022)

Snarf Zagyg said:


> It would look .... _awesome_.
> 
> (It would be roughly separated into the following categories)
> 
> ...



I'm pretty sure _The Unbearable Weight of Massive Talent_ started life as a graduate thesis in a Cage Studies program.


----------



## Benjamin Olson (Dec 10, 2022)

Undrave said:


> I feel like Hollywood doesn't GET the appeal of its own franchises and tend to tunnel in on specific names or even actors.
> 
> You gotta have an Enterprise in Star Trek, you gotta have Bill Murray in Ghostbusters, you gotta have a Skywalker in Star Wars, Bumblebee is the main character in Transformers, Dumbledore hijacks the Fantastic Beasts franchise etc... They never try to dig to the core elements that hooked audience that could work again if they dared to explore the world of a franchise beyond their tunnel.



I mean, trying to sell people in 1987 on a "next generation" of _Star Trek_ without Kirk, Spock, and McCoy was hard enough even giving the ship the same name, basically everyone would prefer a _Ghostbusters_ movie with Bill Murray than one without, and of the three non-animated _Transformers _movies I've attempted to watch the Bumblebee spinoff was the only one I didn't regret wasting my time on. Star Wars became a dynastic saga from the moment Luke's parentage was revealed (given the veneer of Campbellian monomyth Lucas was going for, and that it set up Anakin's journey as the probable narrative for any prequels that might someday get made to complete this oddly numbered series), and I would further argue that it is the panoply of Star Wars media without Skywalkers following less directly related plots that marks any that do have Skywalkers as part of the "main narrative" of the franchise. The issue with the _Fantastic Beasts_ movies, it seems to me, is not shoehorning in Dumbledore _per se_, but rather that Rawling generally seems to have lost interest in the characters she established in the first of those movies, and in anything charming or whimsical, and just wants to make Wizarding World political thrillers which nobody else wants.

Which is not to say that I don't agree with the basic premise that people doing revivals, remakes, and sequels often don't understand what really made the things work. I'd just add that some of the not-as-vital-as-they-seem things you point to have legitimate value in drawing audiences and convincing them that this is an integral sequel or whatever to bother seeing, that going back to the roots of why the original thing worked is fraught with perils because fans views of what the franchise should be have ossified over the course of time while their actual tastes and the tastes of the public at large may have shifted, and that sometimes the best thing is just to do something new with a franchise and throwing in Bill Murray or whatever may be the thing that gives you cover to do that, or that tacking on Bumblebee may be what secures funding and justifies Transformers branding for a perfectly fine, fundamentally unrelated movie about a girl and her space robot.

None of that, is of course, a defense of the _Fantastic Beasts_ sequels, which are just the most fundamentally misguided and baffling thing I've seen the original creator of a major franchise do with it. I watch one of those and leave it feeling a little bad about having ever complained about any _Star Wars_ movie.


----------



## Henadic Theologian (Dec 16, 2022)

Hollywood stopped making medium sized movies and focused on Blockbusters of varying sizes. Because of the high costs Hollywood is reluctant to take risks, even with ideas from proven successful creators like Oliver Stone, so they tap into remakes or failing that option, successful IPs they already own the rights too.


----------



## Zardnaar (Dec 16, 2022)

Henadic Theologian said:


> Hollywood stopped making medium sized movies and focused on Blockbusters of varying sizes. Because of the high costs Hollywood is reluctant to take risks, even with ideas from proven successful creators like Oliver Stone, so they tap into remakes or failing that option, successful IPs they already own the rights too.




 This a lot of those hit 80's movies adjusted for inflation are around 50-80 million to make.


----------



## Hussar (Dec 28, 2022)

Yora said:


> The 80s were a time of many great and original movies. The 90s still had a couple that became classics.
> And somewhere in the early 2000s that just stopped. Occasionally you get a good film that is impactful and memorable, but those are one-off flukes. Not part of any pattern.



Wow?  Really?

The 80's were filled with massive amounts of utterly forgettable drek.  The rise of the "one man army action movie" - Stallone, Swartzenegger, that crowd.  The rise of the "Direct to Video" movie genre.  There were no more classics in the 80's than in any other decade.


----------



## Zardnaar (Dec 28, 2022)

Hussar said:


> Wow?  Really?
> 
> The 80's were filled with massive amounts of utterly forgettable drek.  The rise of the "one man army action movie" - Stallone, Swartzenegger, that crowd.  The rise of the "Direct to Video" movie genre.  There were no more classics in the 80's than in any other decade.




 Probably more hits across multiple genres though. 

 Reasonably cheap movies that made decent bank adjusted for inflation. 

 And those Stallone and Arnie movies were popular. 

 Quality wise better than now except special effects. Better than the 90's as well imho.


----------



## Hussar (Dec 28, 2022)

Zardnaar said:


> Probably more hits across multiple genres though.
> 
> Reasonably cheap movies that made decent bank adjusted for inflation.
> 
> ...




Seriously?

Your definition of good is somewhat different from mine if you put 80’s action movies in the “good” column and “better than now”. 

Fun? Sure. I loves me some cheesy action flicks. But good? Nah. 

It’s funny that people mentioned Roddenberry when talking about TNG. TNG didn’t take off until after they sidelined Roddenberry. All those classic Star Trek memories from TNG? Yeah almost none of those came when Roddenberry was at the helm. Never minding ds9.


----------



## Benjamin Olson (Dec 28, 2022)

Hussar said:


> Your definition of good is somewhat different from mine if you put 80’s action movies in the “good” column and “better than now”.
> 
> Fun? Sure. I loves me some cheesy action flicks. But good? Nah.



It's almost as if some people find movies being enjoyable to watch an indicator of them being quality entertainment. How bizarre.


----------



## Zardnaar (Dec 28, 2022)

Hussar said:


> Seriously?
> 
> Your definition of good is somewhat different from mine if you put 80’s action movies in the “good” column and “better than now”.
> 
> ...




 Not a trekkie and I think TNG is kinda meh and DS9 is best trek. 

 It's not just 80's action flicks it's the comedies, fantasy, things like goonies etc.


----------



## payn (Dec 28, 2022)

Benjamin Olson said:


> It's almost as if some people find movies being enjoyable to watch an indicator of them being quality entertainment. How bizarre.



Oh...Oh... no be careful we do not want to start that quality is whatever you like argument again. Please...


----------



## South by Southwest (Dec 28, 2022)

America is predominantly a nation of people who no longer read books.
Weak readers are incompetent writers.
So from where are Hollywood's scripts to come?

That's the problem I've seen, anyway: skilled actors are right there and ready to go, as are cinematographers, set designers, and directors. But if there's no one around who knows how to tell a proper story (or at least those who do cannot get an audience with the media powers that be because their skills and ideas are not _en vogue_), then the resulting movie will stink. And if stinky movies still consistently make money and if most producers in town are of the cynical opinion that the general public is too stupid to want anything better anyway, then there'll be a lot of stinky movies. Throw in a few morally impatient ideologues who take offense at any story that does not pander to their political sentiments, and you've got a good picture of Hollywood today.


----------



## Mercurius (Dec 28, 2022)

Snarf Zagyg said:


> Not only have I seen every single movie by Nic Cage, I believe that his oeuvre should be required teaching at all levels of school.



I require a Snarf's Guide to Nic Cage post, including the Absolutely Correct and Only Way to Rank All Nic Cage movies (and I mean all of them).

On a serious note, I thought _Pig _was really good.


----------



## MadPuppy (Dec 28, 2022)

Nice thread as an avid Sci-fi and Fantasy movie watcher I have some opinions..... 

1. the preponderance of big save the world story lines is tired and uninteresting anymore
_What I mean here is that fantasy in particular is usually save the world from big bad evil guy trying to bring about the end or darkness reign...yawn! better stories are smaller stories. character driven and set to non world changing events. (I actually enjoyed the 13th warrior which wouldn't change the world if they lost, just that corner of the world.) I think Ladyhawk hit the mark as did Dragon Slayer._

2. a need for cross-genre stories
_Here I suggest movies that combine genera's. Drama-Fantasy, horror and sci-fi (Event horizon, Aliens) are much more interesting. would love to see a Horror-Fantasy movie that is a ghost story, non-earth changing but set in a small town.) A fantasy-buddy movie could be fun.... think low level in D&D terms...._

Just a couple thoughts I suppose but my personal opinion.


----------



## payn (Dec 28, 2022)

MadPuppy said:


> Nice thread as an avid Sci-fi and Fantasy movie watcher I have some opinions.....
> 
> 1. the preponderance of big save the world story lines is tired and uninteresting anymore
> _What I mean here is that fantasy in particular is usually save the world from big bad evil guy trying to bring about the end or darkness reign...yawn! better stories are smaller stories. character driven and set to non world changing events. (I actually enjoyed the 13th warrior which wouldn't change the world if they lost, just that corner of the world.) I think Ladyhawk hit the mark as did Dragon Slayer._
> ...



I really good note. Fantasy seems to have been shoehorned into the world saving implications of its stories. Be nicer to see some smaller slice of life stories in the genre.


----------



## Ryujin (Dec 28, 2022)

MadPuppy said:


> Nice thread as an avid Sci-fi and Fantasy movie watcher I have some opinions.....
> 
> 1. the preponderance of big save the world story lines is tired and uninteresting anymore
> _What I mean here is that fantasy in particular is usually save the world from big bad evil guy trying to bring about the end or darkness reign...yawn! better stories are smaller stories. character driven and set to non world changing events. (I actually enjoyed the 13th warrior which wouldn't change the world if they lost, just that corner of the world.) I think Ladyhawk hit the mark as did Dragon Slayer._
> ...



I don't mind a "save the world" storyline as the culmination of a movie _series_ but yes, everything being world ending stakes can get tired.

On the other hand I think that the streaming series "The Umbrella Academy" explicitly had fun with that concept, over the course of 4 seasons.


----------



## Hussar (Dec 29, 2022)

Benjamin Olson said:


> It's almost as if some people find movies being enjoyable to watch an indicator of them being quality entertainment. How bizarre.



It's far closer to the tendency people have to conflate their personal preferences with quality.  "I like it, therefore it's good." 



Zardnaar said:


> Not a trekkie and I think TNG is kinda meh and DS9 is best trek.
> 
> It's not just 80's action flicks it's the comedies, fantasy, things like goonies etc.



Again, DS9 couldn't have existed under Roddenberry.  He never would have allowed it.

Of course there are great 80's movies.  The Princess Bride is my all time favorite movie that I've watched and rewatched a thousand times.  But, that doesn't mean that the 80's were full of great movies and had more great movies than you get today.  Which is the point I was responding to.  The 80's is, just like any other time, chock a block with terrible movies.  Sturgeon's Law always applies.

I mean, if we're comparing TV - I'll stand up The Expanse against anything produced for TV in the SF genre.  Most movies too.


----------



## Mercurius (Dec 29, 2022)

Hussar said:


> It's far closer to the tendency people have to conflate their personal preferences with quality.  "I like it, therefore it's good."



The corollary--which I find to be at least as common, if not more so--is, "I like it, therefore it can't be bad, and all criticisms are nutty and/or haterism."

Nothing wrong with liking things that are*n't* deemed of high quality, but quality is a real thing - it probably just needs to be contextualized and defined (that is, what do you mean by "quality" in this context? In what way is something bad?). But recognizing the subjective element, and that "what I like doesn't automatically equate with "good quality," doesn't negate the reality of quality.

EDIT: added *bold.*


----------



## billd91 (Dec 29, 2022)

Mercurius said:


> The corollary--which I find to be at least as common, if not more so--is, "I like it, therefore it can't be bad, and all criticisms are nutty and/or haterism."
> 
> Nothing wrong with liking things that are deemed of high quality, but quality is a real thing - it probably just needs to be contextualized and defined (that is, what do you mean by "quality" in this context? In what way is something bad?). But recognizing the subjective element, and that "what I like doesn't automatically equate with "good quality," doesn't negate the reality of quality.



I think the contextualization is more then probably necessary - it's essential. It might be one thing to measure how well the camera's stayed in focus (if intended to be in focus) - that's objective and little affected by the point of view of the observer/critic. But even various aspects that might indicate quality - sophisticated characters, believable behavior, effective use of scenery, interesting dialogue - all depend on subjective interpretation and filtering anyway because whether or not something "works" for the observer is inherently subjective.


----------



## Ryujin (Dec 29, 2022)

billd91 said:


> I think the contextualization is more then probably necessary - it's essential. It might be one thing to measure how well the camera's stayed in focus (if intended to be in focus) - that's objective and little affected by the point of view of the observer/critic. But even various aspects that might indicate quality - sophisticated characters, believable behavior, effective use of scenery, interesting dialogue - all depend on subjective interpretation and filtering anyway because whether or not something "works" for the observer is inherently subjective.



Right. And what is considered "objectively" good, in art, is merely the consensus between people who have a podium from which to speak, still making it subjective.


----------



## Mercurius (Dec 29, 2022)

billd91 said:


> I think the contextualization is more then probably necessary - it's essential. It might be one thing to measure how well the camera's stayed in focus (if intended to be in focus) - that's objective and little affected by the point of view of the observer/critic. But even various aspects that might indicate quality - sophisticated characters, believable behavior, effective use of scenery, interesting dialogue - all depend on subjective interpretation and filtering anyway because whether or not something "works" for the observer is inherently subjective.



I would agree with you to an extent, and even a group of experienced and skilled film-makers are going to vary on what they like and don't like. But I do think there are two factors that tend to get written off, or at least diminished, in such conversations: One is actual skill and craftsmanship (of film-making, acting, musicianship, etc), which tends to be _over-_emphasized by snobbish types. There is a bit of a backlash against this, perhaps due to understandable anti-snobbishness, but also what could be described as the "punk mentality." Punk music was, among other things, a rejection and reaction to the excesses of prog rock, which tended to get lost in skill-over-soulfulness.

The second aspect is one that is much harder to quantify or even discuss, and has to do with what could be called _depth of_ _subjectivity_; this isn't necessarily an in vogue take in an artistic context dominated by postmodern thinking, but not all subjects view art (or whatever) from similar psychological depth and aesthetic development. It isn't the same thing as skill, but has more to do with soulfulness, heart (not to be confused with sentimentality), or even some kind of transcendent element.

Or to put that another way, there are different intersecting planes. The focus of most discussions tends to be on the "horizontal" aspect (X) - which basically boils down to the diversity of subjective tastes, of which there are no wrong choices, just different opinions, tastes, flavors, etc. But there is also a "vertical" aspect (Y), which has to do with development and depth, with the "z-plane" of skill, craftsmanship, etc (or you can swap Z and Y, if you prefer). Too often "Y" is reduced to the former, so everything becomes of equal quality - or even, "quality" becomes meaningless. Or, at best, skill (Z) is recognized, but seen as the purview of snobbishness, so secondary to "what I like" (X). 

In my way of looking at things, these three planes are interacting, but distinct - and shouldn't be reduced to the other, but often are. Mostly, discussions focus on X (subjectivity) and Z (skill), with Y (soul/depth) being entirely written off, or as a variation on X. Postmodernism, in other words!


----------



## Umbran (Dec 29, 2022)

South by Southwest said:


> America is predominantly a nation of people who no longer read books.
> Weak readers are incompetent writers.
> So from where are Hollywood's scripts to come?




I am not impressed by those assertions.

A Gallup poll earlier this year found that, in 2021, the average American read a dozen books. Only about 17% read no books at all.  About 44% read 6 books or more.  17% read 11 books or more.  And, that 17% reads _much more_, to bring the average up that high.

There's about 332 million people in the US.  That upper end gives us _56 million_ people from which we might draw scriptwriters.  

So, that logic you give fails in the face of data.



South by Southwest said:


> That's the problem I've seen, anyway...




So, with respect, I don't know that the issue is on the scriptwriter's end.  Because the scriptwriter is hardly the only person involved in writing the script.

I was reading an excerpt from an interview with David Goyer just a couple of days ago, in which he related a couple of memorable pieces of executive feedback on scripts.

He did a script for a Doctor Strange movie a while back.  It never got made, but why becomes apparent when you know that one bit of script feedback he got was for there to be _less magic_ in the film.

On _Man of Steel_, he was told not to have Superman use the pod he landed in to destroy General Zod's ship.  When asked why, the executive replied words to the effect, "Well, if the pod is destroyed, how can he get ever back to Krypton?"  (Yes, the first half hour of the film concerns the destruction of Krypton).

So, maybe not so much blame on the scriptwriter, hm?


----------



## Ryujin (Dec 29, 2022)

Umbran said:


> I am not impressed by those assertions.
> 
> A Gallup poll earlier this year found that, in 2021, the average American read a dozen books. Only about 17% read no books at all.  About 44% read 6 books or more.  17% read 11 books or more.  And, that 17% reads _much more_, to bring the average up that high.
> 
> ...



Producers: The group that is at once both reviled, and needed in order to produce large budget films.


----------



## Older Beholder (Dec 29, 2022)

It’s funny when a thread about endless sequels and remakes starts to take on a ‘movies were better in the 80’s‘ vibe. Personally I think of the 80’s as the beginning of the ‘just double everything’ sequel mentality.

I’ve never been too bothered by blockbusters, if you watch a lot of Arthouse film seeing the occasional superhero or popcorn flick is usually a nice change.

I saw The Banshees of Inisherin yesterday, amazing film, and there’s still a bunch of stuff I want to get to over the holidays, I might even try and see Avatar 2 and Puss in Boots if I get the time.


----------



## Zardnaar (Dec 30, 2022)

Older Beholder said:


> It’s funny when a thread about endless sequels and remakes starts to take on a ‘movies were better in the 80’s‘ vibe. Personally I think of the 80’s as the beginning of the ‘just double everything’ sequel mentality.
> 
> I’ve never been too bothered by blockbusters, if you watch a lot of Arthouse film seeing the occasional superhero or popcorn flick is usually a nice change.
> 
> I saw The Banshees of Inisherin yesterday, amazing film, and there’s still a bunch of stuff I want to get to over the holidays, I might even try and see Avatar 2 and Puss in Boots if I get the time.




 Heh saw that movie get referenced a day or two ago in random YouTube video.


----------



## Zardnaar (Dec 30, 2022)

Umbran said:


> I am not impressed by those assertions.
> 
> A Gallup poll earlier this year found that, in 2021, the average American read a dozen books. Only about 17% read no books at all.  About 44% read 6 books or more.  17% read 11 books or more.  And, that 17% reads _much more_, to bring the average up that high.
> 
> ...




 What's happening imho is you've got big blockbuster movies a lot which are more spectacle than substance. And indie films which sod all have seen so no one's gonna get it if you reference it. Pretty much superhero movies and everything else. 

 80's movies a lot were kinda cheap $10-25 million or so and hit movies made a 100-400 million. 

 So there was more variety across genres that people have actually seen. 

  Anyway might watch Knives Out or ET Extra Terrestrial later. Watched a few 80's movies recently to see if it's nostalgia or something else.


----------



## Ryujin (Dec 30, 2022)

Zardnaar said:


> What's happening imho is you've got big blockbuster movies a lot which are more spectacle than substance. And indie films which sod all have seen so no one's gonna get it if you reference it. Pretty much superhero movies and everything else.
> 
> 80's movies a lot were kinda cheap $10-25 million or so and hit movies made a 100-400 million.
> 
> ...



"Glass Onion: A Knives Out Mystery" is worth the watch for Daniel Craig's Louisiana accent, alone.


----------



## Zardnaar (Dec 30, 2022)

Ryujin said:


> "Glass Onion: A Knives Out Mystery" is worth the watch for Daniel Craig's Louisiana accent, alone.



 That the new one?


----------



## Ryujin (Dec 30, 2022)

Zardnaar said:


> That the new one?



Yup, just came out a few days ago.


----------



## Umbran (Dec 30, 2022)

Ryujin said:


> Producers: The group that is at once both reviled, and needed in order to produce large budget films.




He didn't name names, but the wording implied to me "studio executive" rather than producers.


----------



## Umbran (Dec 30, 2022)

Zardnaar said:


> What's happening imho is you've got big blockbuster movies a lot which are more spectacle than substance.




Well, what you have is _audiences flocking to_ big blockbuster movies.  The studio execs wouldn't push them if they didn't tend to generate revenue.



Zardnaar said:


> Anyway might watch Knives Out or ET Extra Terrestrial later.




_Knives Out_ is excellent, imho.  I'm planning to see _Glass Onion_ tomorrow.


----------



## Zardnaar (Dec 30, 2022)

Umbran said:


> Well, what you have is _audiences flocking to_ big blockbuster movies.  The studio execs wouldn't push them if they didn't tend to generate revenue.
> 
> 
> 
> _Knives Out_ is excellent, imho.  I'm planning to see _Glass Onion_ tomorrow.




 Yeah I have beenblockbuster movies o watch it for a while and it turned up on our freeview along all of Red Dwarf.

 The dynamics have changed since 80's with tentpole blockbusters. Hollywood will go where the money is.


----------



## trappedslider (Dec 30, 2022)

I'm reminded of this interaction from The West Wing (Aaron Sorkin)

"It’s not that Larry Posner’s movies have gratuitous sex and gratuitous violence. It’s that they suck. They’re terrible. But people go to see them because they have gratuitous sex and gratuitous violence. Now, if we could just get people to stop going to see crappy movies, Posner would stop making them. I promise you."

(simply change out the fictional Larry Posner for an RL director that you don't like)


----------



## Ryujin (Dec 30, 2022)

Umbran said:


> He didn't name names, but the wording implied to me "studio executive" rather than producers.



Given that it's usually producers who use the leverage of their financial backing to change scripts, it's my go-to reaction.


----------



## Mind of tempest (Dec 30, 2022)

Umbran said:


> Well, what you have is _audiences flocking to_ big blockbuster movies.  The studio execs wouldn't push them if they didn't tend to generate revenue.
> 
> 
> 
> _Knives Out_ is excellent, imho.  I'm planning to see _Glass Onion_ tomorrow.





Ryujin said:


> Given that it's usually producers who use the leverage of their financial backing to change scripts, it's my go-to reaction.



so it is the endless business problem of the people who sell the product not having the faintest idea of what it is they are making, a disconnected leadership class the bane of well most nations in history.


----------



## Umbran (Dec 30, 2022)

Mind of tempest said:


> so it is the endless business problem of the people who sell the product not having the faintest idea of what it is they are making




"Too many cooks spoil the broth," is older than our endless business problems.



Mind of tempest said:


> a disconnected leadership class the bane of well most nations in history.




Don't make this about human governance/politics, please and thanks.


----------



## Mind of tempest (Dec 30, 2022)

Umbran said:


> "Too many cooks spoil the broth," is older than our endless business problems.
> 
> 
> 
> Don't make this about human governance/politics, please and thanks.



I meant it is more a universal problem of leadership in an organisation that end disconnected from things slowly making things fail.

to many cooks has the problem of no clear direction and no obvious vision, with one clear goal you can have many cook a banquet and it all still works together.


----------



## Ryujin (Dec 30, 2022)

John Peters. Thanagarian Snare Beast. Peak producer interference.


----------



## Mind of tempest (Dec 30, 2022)

Ryujin said:


> John Peters. Thanagarian Snare Beast. Peak producer interference.



what?


----------



## Ryujin (Dec 30, 2022)

Mind of tempest said:


> what?



From the documentary "The Death of Superman Lives: What Happened" by John Schnepp. I was one of the many backers for the project. It follows the debacle that was supposed to be a Superman film, directed by Tim Burton, starring Nicholas Cage, written by Kevin Smith. John Peters was a producer for the project. Peters is most famous for being a hairdresser and, subsequently, boyfriend of Barbara Streisand. Kevin Smith often talks about his meeting with Peters in which he demanded that the script include a battle between Superman and a giant spider, because spiders are "the fiercest predators in thge insect kingdom." He didn't get his spider in "Superman Lives", so he made sure that he got it in "Wild, Wild West." You can find the full documentary on Youtube and it's fascinating.

(Watch out - NSF Language)


----------



## Mind of tempest (Dec 30, 2022)

Ryujin said:


> From the documentary "The Death of Superman Lives: What Happened" by John Schnepp. I was one of the many backers for the project. It follows the debacle that was supposed to be a Superman film, directed by Tim Burton, starring Nicholas Cage, written by Kevin Smith. John Peters was a producer for the project. Peters is most famous for being a hairdresser and, subsequently, boyfriend of Barbara Streisand. Kevin Smith often talks about his meeting with Peters in which he demanded that the script include a battle between Superman and a giant spider, because spiders are "the fiercest predators in thge insect kingdom." He didn't get his spider in "Superman Lives", so he made sure that he got it in "Wild, Wild West." You can find the full documentary on Youtube and it's fascinating.
> 
> (Watch out - NSF Language)



why did he not just seek to make a giant spider monster movie?


----------



## Ryujin (Dec 30, 2022)

Mind of tempest said:


> why did he not just seek to make a giant spider monster movie?



Because he had a "vision"?


----------



## Mind of tempest (Dec 30, 2022)

Ryujin said:


> Because he had a "vision"?



his vision is giant spider monster he had options on how to carry it out.


----------



## Ryujin (Dec 30, 2022)

Mind of tempest said:


> his vision is giant spider monster he had options on how to carry it out.



But he also had the Superman property. Check out the videos


----------



## Mannahnin (Dec 30, 2022)

I remember watching that Kevin Smith story on cable in An Evening With Kevin Smith when it came out.  Classic.


----------



## Hussar (Dec 31, 2022)

To be fair, the giant spider in Wild Wild West was freaking fantastic.  So, it's not all bad.


----------



## payn (Dec 31, 2022)

Hussar said:


> To be fair, the giant spider in Wild Wild West was freaking fantastic.  So, it's not all bad.



You remember that?


----------



## Hussar (Dec 31, 2022)

payn said:


> You remember that?



Remember what?  The giant mechanical steampunk spider that was a huge part of the plot of the movie?

It was freaking fantastic.  What wasn't to like?


----------



## Deset Gled (Dec 31, 2022)

payn said:


> You remember that?




I remember that, but "fantastic" it's not a word I would use to describe any part of Wild Wild West.  By my memory, that movie was the one that decided Will Smith wasn't going to be my family's 4th of July tradition anymore.


----------



## Ryujin (Dec 31, 2022)

Deset Gled said:


> I remember that, but "fantastic" it's not a word I would use to describe any part of Wild Wild West.  By my memory, that movie was the one that decided Will Smith wasn't going to be my family's 4th of July tradition anymore.



It's one  of the movies that solidified my hate of remakes, of my childhood favourites.


----------



## payn (Dec 31, 2022)

Hussar said:


> Remember what?  The giant mechanical steampunk spider that was a huge part of the plot of the movie?
> 
> It was freaking fantastic.  What wasn't to like?



Oh, I'm not saying I disliked it. I'm just surprised anyone can recall details of that movie.


----------



## JEB (Dec 31, 2022)

payn said:


> Oh, I'm not saying I disliked it. I'm just surprised anyone can recall details of that movie.



I enjoyed the movie back in the 1990s, but the Honest Trailer pointed out some, er, issues the film had that I missed as a teenager...

(The giant mechanical spider wasn't one of them, though.)


----------



## Hussar (Dec 31, 2022)

Again, I really enjoyed the movie.  Granted, I'm too young to have seen the original shows - or, if I did I certainly wasn't old enough to remember them.  I do vaguely remember catching one or two on some channel or other - the joke was, "He's a hulk"  "Yeah, it's incredible"  or something like that.  But, yeah, totally not part of my viewing growing up.

I liked Wild Wild West.  Really fun.


----------



## trappedslider (Dec 31, 2022)

It was a high point for steampunk entertainment *in the mainstream *before Sky Captain and the World of Tomorrow.


----------



## billd91 (Dec 31, 2022)

trappedslider said:


> It was a high point for steampunk entertainment *in the mainstream *before Sky Captain and the World of Tomorrow.



But with a 16% on the Tomatometer and 28% from the viewers, it wasn’t a very high point.


----------



## trappedslider (Dec 31, 2022)

billd91 said:


> But with a 16% on the Tomatometer and 28% from the viewers, it wasn’t a very high point.



Would it have been better to say it put steampunk in the mind of the main stream which is what I was aiming for lol


----------



## payn (Dec 31, 2022)




----------



## Ryujin (Dec 31, 2022)

trappedslider said:


> It was a high point for steampunk entertainment *in the mainstream *before Sky Captain and the World of Tomorrow.



I really enjoyed "Sky Captain", but frequently wonder if the constant sepia gave anyone else a headache like it did me, when i saw it in a theatre?


----------



## MGibster (Dec 31, 2022)

Hussar said:


> Again, I really enjoyed the movie. Granted, I'm too young to have seen the original shows - or, if I did I certainly wasn't old enough to remember them. I do vaguely remember catching one or two on some channel or other - the joke was, "He's a hulk" "Yeah, it's incredible" or something like that. But, yeah, totally not part of my viewing growing up.



I wasn't even born when it originally aired, but it was frequently on reruns during the mid 1980s.  It was a series I loved quite a bit and I'm pretty sure it influenced Deadlands.  Dr. Miguelito Loveless was the only reoccuring villain I can remember from the show and he was played by Michael Dunn.  Dunn was a little person, and you might remember him from the Star Trek episode "Plato's Stepchildren," the famous episode where Kirk kisses Uhura.  Anyway, the movie was disappointing on so many levels, Will Smith wasn't right for the part (he just couldn't compare to Robert Conrad), the mechanical spider was a bit much, and Loveless was probably the biggest disappointment of them all.


----------



## Ryujin (Dec 31, 2022)

MGibster said:


> I wasn't even born when it originally aired, but it was frequently on reruns during the mid 1980s.  It was a series I loved quite a bit and I'm pretty sure it influenced Deadlands.  Dr. Miguelito Loveless was the only reoccuring villain I can remember from the show and he was played by Michael Dunn.  Dunn was a little person, and you might remember him from the Star Trek episode "Plato's Stepchildren," the famous episode where Kirk kisses Uhura.  Anyway, the movie was disappointing on so many levels, Will Smith wasn't right for the part (he just couldn't compare to Robert Conrad), the mechanical spider was a bit much, and Loveless was probably the biggest disappointment of them all.



The TV show was one of the few things that my parents would allow me to stay up late to watch, during its original run. That, and later Star Trek. I don't think that I've seen it anywhere in reruns for 40+ years now, but looks like full episodes are on Youtube.


----------



## bloodtide (Jan 1, 2023)

I think the problem goes deeper then everything is little more then a copy of a copy of another copy.

It starts to get deep when any content creator or producer can't not but think of popular things that came before as soon as they hear of something.  You even think of a sci fi space movie, people think of Star Wars, for example.  

Now this is not all bad on the surface, and making a nod or homage or tribute to something.  The problem starts when the past content is so overwhelming that they can't even dream not redoing the old content.  But it gets worse when they can't even see that it is happening.  

And this effects everyone the content must go through, not just the writer.  Anyone in the whole system might have the power to change something or force something.  This might be the worst, as no matter what is created, by the time they get to the end product someone has forced the change back to the past content.

Bob writes some space adventure content, thinks of Star Wars of course, but then says does not want to do the "like WW2 in space".  It hardly matters as producer Dan is 100% fixed on "woo hoo it will be just like Star Wars, pew pew!", and as he controls the money, he gets the final say.  That writer could have made the most unique content ever....but it will never be seen.  

And this keeps happening over and over and over again.


----------



## Umbran (Jan 1, 2023)

Ryujin said:


> It's one  of the movies that solidified my hate of remakes, of my childhood favourites.




I had only ever seen a couple of episodes, so that while I was aware of the general form and themes, but I couldn't call it a favorite.  

I now recognize some of the show's issues, but they aren't, "They made a bad version of my favorite" kind of things.


----------



## MGibster (Jan 1, 2023)

bloodtide said:


> It starts to get deep when any content creator or producer can't not but think of popular things that came before as soon as they hear of something. You even think of a sci fi space movie, people think of Star Wars, for example.



I still remember John Travolta describing his upcoming Battlefield Earth movie as, "Like Star Wars, but cooler."  D&D is kind of like that too.  I hear the Palladium system started out as a house ruled version of AD&D, and pretty much every RPG is compared to D&D in some way.


----------



## Mind of tempest (Jan 1, 2023)

MGibster said:


> I still remember John Travolta describing his upcoming Battlefield Earth movie as, "Like Star Wars, but cooler."  D&D is kind of like that too.  I hear the Palladium system started out as a house ruled version of AD&D, and pretty much every RPG is compared to D&D in some way.



in D&d fairness, it was the first so comparing everything is compared.


----------



## MGibster (Jan 1, 2023)

Mind of tempest said:


> in D&d fairness, it was the first so comparing everything is compared.



That's not why we compare RPGs to D&D.  As with science fiction and Star Wars, we compare other games to D&D because it's a common frame of reference as almost every player is familiar with it.  Outside of gamers, D&D is often the _only _game they've even heard of.  It's not like Star Wars was the first science fiction movie, but Buck Rogers is a bit out of date for most people not having anything close to a major production since the early 1980s.


----------



## Mind of tempest (Jan 1, 2023)

MGibster said:


> That's not why we compare RPGs to D&D.  As with science fiction and Star Wars, we compare other games to D&D because it's a common frame of reference as almost every player is familiar with it.  Outside of gamers, D&D is often the _only _game they've even heard of.  It's not like Star Wars was the first science fiction movie, but Buck Rogers is a bit out of date for most people not having anything close to a major production since the early 1980s.



true but it is also the starting point from the base idea so it is like discussing modern fantasy and Tolkien kind of hard not to.


----------



## Bedrockgames (Jan 1, 2023)

Every once in a while something comes out of Hollywood or is recent that I quite love. Everything Everywhere All at Once was amazing, and I went in with somewhat lower expectations, because it seemed so heavy on the CGI in the previews (honestly some of the best use of CGI I have seen in years). Occasionally I come across something like this. But I also realized a few years ago that they kinds of movies being made were just not in my wheel house (lots of comic book inspired stuff for example), and being in my late forties, my tastes are old. So I mostly watch older films and older shows, with something new capturing my attention every so often (I like Cobra Kai for example, but that is clearly in part targeted at an audience my age----I saw Karate Kid in the theater when I must have been 8 or 9). 

One of the great things about the availability of stuff on prime is if you aren't into what is coming out right now, you can watch classic movies that still hold up.


----------



## Bedrockgames (Jan 1, 2023)

MGibster said:


> I still remember John Travolta describing his upcoming Battlefield Earth movie as, "Like Star Wars, but cooler."




I remember being trapped in the theater with that movie. Very few films are so bad they are painful to watch but that is up there with Dracula: Dead and Loving It (though I love Mel Brooks that one was pretty unwatchable).


----------



## bloodtide (Jan 2, 2023)

Now see there is nothing wrong with a "Frame of Reference" if some one needs that  : the problem is people getting stuck there.  But it seems people don't have the ability to let go.

Star Wars was a great movie...but everyone does not need to copy off it forever.  Tolkien wrote a good couple of books, but we don't need to copy them forever.

All Fantasy has to be Tolkien, all Space Adventure must be Star Wars, all heist stories must be "oceans" and so on.

That's the problem:  Someone writes a cop plot, and without a thought just adds the same things over and over as they are stuck in there head.  Plus everyone above that says "oh you have to add a new rookie cop and a old cop and" so on that is in EVERY other cop content.  

It's a big Rut.


----------



## Bedrockgames (Jan 2, 2023)

bloodtide said:


> That's the problem:  Someone writes a cop plot, and without a thought just adds the same things over and over as they are stuck in there head.  Plus everyone above that says "oh you have to add a new rookie cop and a old cop and" so on that is in EVERY other cop content.
> 
> It's a big Rut.




Genres tend to get stale over time and need to be revitalized or shelved for a bit before someone has a new approach. I think the best ones build on what came before while having a kind of conversation with the prior material. An example that always leaps to mind for me is Dirty Harry (which didn't exist in a vacuum and was breaking new ground when it came out) and Lethal Weapon (which owes a tremendous amount to Dirty Harry, even has a scene that is clearly an homage to it, but also added to the conversation within the genre).


----------



## Ryujin (Jan 2, 2023)

bloodtide said:


> Now see there is nothing wrong with a "Frame of Reference" if some one needs that  : the problem is people getting stuck there.  But it seems people don't have the ability to let go.
> 
> Star Wars was a great movie...but everyone does not need to copy off it forever.  Tolkien wrote a good couple of books, but we don't need to copy them forever.
> 
> ...



The presentation by streaming services doesn't really help with that, either. I was looking for something to watch, earlier today, and really wanted to watch something of a sort I wouldn't normally gravitate to. I quickly tired of all of the listings for movies that simply listed them as "X Meets Y." Dozens of them, in fact.


----------



## bloodtide (Jan 2, 2023)

Bedrockgames said:


> Genres tend to get stale over time and need to be revitalized or shelved for a bit before someone has a new approach. I think the best ones build on what came before while having a kind of conversation with the prior material. An example that always leaps to mind for me is Dirty Harry (which didn't exist in a vacuum and was breaking new ground when it came out) and Lethal Weapon (which owes a tremendous amount to Dirty Harry, even has a scene that is clearly an homage to it, but also added to the conversation within the genre).



The problem I see is that people can't let go.  It's fine to make a tribute or homage.....but when it's everything it's a bit much.

It's fine to make a cop movie and think "oh all them other cop movies were nice" and then just LEAVE all of that alone and make something new.  

It's already bad enough when they know and say "We are coping x".  It's a million times worse when they copy X subconsciously without knowing it as it's stuck in their brain.


----------



## Hussar (Jan 2, 2023)

All art is copying though. Nothing has been truly original in thousands of years. Good grief, the ancient Greeks complained about this thousands of years ago. 

It’s not like this is a new issue. 

With movies and other mass media, there’s the additional issue of how easy it is to consume vast amounts of genre fiction. 

In the 70’s, there was a very hard limit to how many fantasy movies you could see in a given year. No vcr’s, only a few channels on the tv and movie theatres. That was it. 

Now, every single movie/tv show is immediately viewable repeatedly world wide. It’s so over saturated. 

It makes formulaic plots really visible. 

It’s also why we’re seeing a real push towards non-English language movies. Korean dramas, Bollywood, that sort of stuff.


----------



## Umbran (Jan 2, 2023)

bloodtide said:


> Now see there is nothing wrong with a "Frame of Reference" if some one needs that  : the problem is people getting stuck there.  But it seems people don't have the ability to let go.




And other people get kind of cherry-picky...



bloodtide said:


> All Fantasy has to be Tolkien, all Space Adventure must be Star Wars, all heist stories must be "oceans" and so on.




Conan, Star Trek, Inception...
Maybe not all fantasy is Tolkien, not all Space Adventure is Star Wars, and not all Heist stories are Oceans. 



bloodtide said:


> Plus everyone above that says "oh you have to add a new rookie cop and a old cop and" so on that is in EVERY other cop content.




Have you considered that form has purpose and utility? 

Having that pairing makes exposition to the TV audience a lot easier.  An experienced cop can spend time explaining things to the inexperiencd one, so the _audience_ understands.  Between two experienced officers, that same discussion would be, "Joe, what, do you think I was born yesterday, that you need to explain it to me?"

Also, the mentor/apprentice dynamic a pretty natural one in human experience.  And that pairing allows easier introduction of different generational points of view.

And so on.  It is used a lot not just because it was done before - but because it also _works_.  That's a thing about cliches - they are what they are because there is actually something to them.


----------



## bloodtide (Jan 2, 2023)

Hussar said:


> All art is copying though. Nothing has been truly original in thousands of years. Good grief, the ancient Greeks complained about this thousands of years ago.
> 
> It’s not like this is a new issue.



But you can be aware of the ton of media AND then choose not to copy it.  You don't HAVE to say "wow, my space war will be just like Star Wars!"  You don't have to make a horror movie with 12 targets and one gets killed every 10 minutes with a jump scare.  And so on.




Hussar said:


> With movies and other mass media, there’s the additional issue of how easy it is to consume vast amounts of genre fiction.
> 
> In the 70’s, there was a very hard limit to how many fantasy movies you could see in a given year. No vcr’s, only a few channels on the tv and movie theatres. That was it.
> 
> ...



I was there.  Before 2000 getting a hold of lots of media was at least a chore...and a lot was near impossible.  Today, it's all too easy.

But still, just as you have seen all the media, does not mean you have to use it like a zombie.


----------



## Bedrockgames (Jan 2, 2023)

bloodtide said:


> The problem I see is that people can't let go.  It's fine to make a tribute or homage.....but when it's everything it's a bit much.
> 
> It's fine to make a cop movie and think "oh all them other cop movies were nice" and then just LEAVE all of that alone and make something new.
> 
> It's already bad enough when they know and say "We are coping x".  It's a million times worse when they copy X subconsciously without knowing it as it's stuck in their brain.




I do think there is a tendency to repeat what has been successful before and that can be a problem (even if the successful thing was good). But my feelings here are a bit mixed and I am going to think aloud to try to get to some kind of point. 

I personally don't have an issue with genre. Buddy cop movies are a genre. Like all genres the tropes can get stale (at least for a while). You need fresh eyes to revitalize genres, but you also need the genre elements that make them what they are. It is a very tricky balance. Also something can be tropey and cliche but still be well written and acted, so if the quality is there it can still be very entertaining. I watch a lot of kung fu and wuxia movies and you see that pattern frequently of revitalization of the genre because of a new idea or approach, followed by that becoming the way its done, then becoming old hat, and finally being replaced by a fresher take. I think to do that though you need a healthy media landscape. Also some genres don't last forever. When I was a kid westerns were pretty much going out and while there have been westerns since, they are no where near their heyday in terms of cultural impact and prevalence. Maybe buddy cop movies have a shorter shelf life. Also I do think while genres are fun and entertaining, the ideal situation is people aren't just redoing old genres but things are varied enough that new genres are emerging or wildly different approaches to existing genres can emerge. 

But I think for me a bigger issue is just the constant redoing of existing IP. What keeps me away from theaters these days is that I don't really connect with the style of film making or genres like supers, but most of all its the retreading of old franchises. I wouldn't mind more science fiction movies. I love science fiction, but I don't need to see more star wars films or shows. I'd be open to more space opera, but to your point I also would really like to see science fiction films that surprise me. Ex Machina genuinely surprised me when I saw it. I liked Star Trek, I liked the Next Generation, and I love Babylon 5. But I did not need 18 versions of star trek (Next Generation and original series were more than enough for me).


----------



## Hussar (Jan 2, 2023)

I’ll see your Star Trek and raise you an Expanse. 

Again we’re not really comparing apples to apples here. At the time when TNG and Bab 5 were being broadcast, there might have been three other SF shows on tv. Maybe. 

Now? There’s probably a couple of dozen new sf series starting just this year. 

Fantasy? What fantasy was there in tv in the 80’s? A handful of fantasy movies and that’s about it. Maybe one per year unless you include Disney. And most of the 80’s fantasy movies were spectacularly bad. 

Richard Moll in Dungeonmaster is one of my guilty favourites. I do love me crap movies.


----------



## Bedrockgames (Jan 2, 2023)

Hussar said:


> I’ll see your Star Trek and raise you an Expanse.




My point was that even in the 90s, I was bored with them overusing the Star Trek IP for additional shows like Deep Space Nine.


----------



## Bedrockgames (Jan 2, 2023)

Hussar said:


> Again we’re not really comparing apples to apples here. At the time when TNG and Bab 5 were being broadcast, there might have been three other SF shows on tv. Maybe.




I'm sure streaming changes the volume a lot. But I would be interested in the tally on this as some shows from the 90s might have been forgotten. Depending on how you define sci-fi, I remember there being shows like quantum leap, alien nation, the x-files, sliders, sea quest, farscape, deep space nine, voyager, etc. Plus you had shows like Highlander, Xena, etc (not science fiction but genres gamers often enjoy). And googling 'forgotten 90s sci-fi' brings up this list.


----------



## Hussar (Jan 2, 2023)

But now you’ve switched decades. Bab 5 and TNG are 80’s. 

In any case do you really think there were equal numbers of genre shows on in the 90’s compared to now? Seriously?


----------



## Bedrockgames (Jan 2, 2023)

Hussar said:


> But now you’ve switched decades. Bab 5 and TNG are 80’s.



pretty sure Babylon 5 didn’t air till mid 90s. True TNG started in the 80s but it aired well into the 90s


----------



## Bedrockgames (Jan 2, 2023)

Hussar said:


> In any case do you really think there were equal numbers of genre shows on in the 90’s compared to now? Seriously?



I didn’t say that. I just don’t know it’s the case for sure that there are more sci fi series now than the 90s. I said I would be interested in doing a tally to know the numbers for sure. If you look at the list of forgotten 90s science fiction, it is pretty striking how many there are no one talks about anymore. If you go to IMDB or the 90s science fiction series Wikipedia page, there are quite a few. If we are going to talk about numbers, actually getting some data would be useful. You may well be correct but there is no harm in verifying the assumption


----------



## Mannahnin (Jan 2, 2023)

Bedrockgames said:


> pretty sure Babylon 5 didn’t air till mid 90s. True TNG started in the 80s but it aired well into the 90s



Bablyon 5 did start in Jan 1994.  TNG is definitely an iconic 90s show despite running '87-'94.


----------



## Bedrockgames (Jan 2, 2023)

bloodtide said:


> But you can be aware of the ton of media AND then choose not to copy it.  You don't HAVE to say "wow, my space war will be just like Star Wars!"  You don't have to make a horror movie with 12 targets and one gets killed every 10 minutes with a jump scare.  And so on.




I don't have much of a problem with there being tons of star wars inspired media. Genres are going to exist. But I think what troubles me is it feels like our menu options are more limited when it comes to big releases. I love genre movies so I can't complain if a genre gets some traction (I do think there are better and worse ways to handle genre but some of what makes a genre a genre is repeating the elements that work). 

On horror movies I am probably in a similar place to you. I have to admit current horror often doesn't do it for me lately. I don't think it is necessarily an issue with the movies themselves, but I just grew up on slower building of pace, of being afraid of different things, etc. I don't mind jumpscares (Exorcist III has a great jump scare that stands out and stands the test of time IMO). But some of the techniques in current horror movies don't have as much of an effect on me. I just enjoy older horror movies more. 

I was following a conversation a couple of years ago about how a lot of people don't find the exorcist scary anymore, because newer movies are thought to be more immersive and edgy. But watching it again recently and re-reading the book recently my view is what made the movie scary was that was shot very matter of fact, so that you felt like you were in the waiting room at the doctor's when Regan was getting all those tests done, and by the time the supernatural elements kick in, you fully accept the reality of it because you have already accepted the reality of the medical tests (and the medical tests themselves are part of what make the movie so unnerving). Incidentally if you are bored with current horror movies and need viewing recommendations, I highly suggest doing the "Faith Trilogy", where you treat the Exorcist, The Ninth Configuration and the Exorcist III as a trilogy (just know that The Ninth Configuration is truly strange). 



bloodtide said:


> I was there.  Before 2000 getting a hold of lots of media was at least a chore...and a lot was near impossible.  Today, it's all too easy.
> 
> But still, just as you have seen all the media, does not mean you have to use it like a zombie.




It was harder for sure. In some ways the ease of viewing media today and the way shows are made for binge watching does sometimes make you feel like you've eaten too much chocolate cake. Whereas when you had to go to blockbuster, sun coast, or some obscure place that sold niche movies back in the day then bring home the video tape or DVD (sometimes even other formats), there was a physical difference in how the media was viewed (also I know I tended to form more of a mental memory with music and movies where I had a physical copy versus a digital one). I also remember rewatching movies more. Whereas now can be easy to blaze through them and barely remember. 

All that said though, the streaming landscape has changed a lot. It is much harder now for me to find the movies I want to watch on a streaming service than it was eight years ago. 

I have a pretty big DVD collection though and I will say that can start to have the same effect as streaming a bunch of stuff (I find though I have my favorites that I go back to regularly).


----------



## MGibster (Jan 2, 2023)

Hussar said:


> antasy? What fantasy was there in tv in the 80’s? A handful of fantasy movies and that’s about it. Maybe one per year unless you include Disney. And most of the 80’s fantasy movies were spectacularly bad.



Aside from cartoons, the only one that pops into my head immediately is the sitcom _The Charmings_, but a quick search also shows one called Wizards and Warriors from 1983.  So obviously you are incorrect and there were plenty of....okay, I'm being told by my wife that I'm just being a pedantic #%$, if anything,  I'm simply making your argument for you.  You're right, there wasn't a lot in the way of  fantasy television shows, but there were plenty of fantasy movies even if an awful lot of them went straight to video.  I will fully admit that not all of the movies came to mind immediately, but I saw them all.  I also tried to narrowly define fantasy, for exampel I didn't add The Ewok Adventure which is on some lists.  The 1980s were a great time for fantasy movies, but the 1990s was a good time for fantasy television.  At least in syndication with shows like Hercules and Xena.  

Willow
Excaliber
Legend
Dragonslayer
The Dark Crystal
Time Bandits 
Ladyhawke
Krull
Clash of the Titans
Red Sonja
Conan
Baron Munchausen
Beastmaster
The Black Cauldren
The Little Mermaid
The Neverending Story
Labyrinth 
The Last Unicorn
Hercules


----------



## Bedrockgames (Jan 2, 2023)

MGibster said:


> Aside from cartoons, the only one that pops into my head immediately is the sitcom _The Charmings_, but a quick search also shows one called Wizards and Warriors from 1983.  So obviously you are incorrect and there were plenty of....okay, I'm being told by my wife that I'm just being a pedantic #%$, if anything,  I'm simply making your argument for you.  You're right, there wasn't a lot in the way of  fantasy television shows, but there were plenty of fantasy movies even if an awful lot of them went straight to video.  I will fully admit that not all of the movies came to mind immediately, but I saw them all.  I also tried to narrowly define fantasy, for exampel I didn't add The Ewok Adventure which is on some lists.  The 1980s were a great time for fantasy movies, but the 1990s was a good time for fantasy television.  At least in syndication with shows like Hercules and Xena.
> 
> Willow
> Excaliber
> ...




Conan the Barbarian and the Destroyer as well (unfortunately also Red Sonja). Also Yor, Clash of the Titans, Deathstalker (terrible movies but there were a bunch of them), Fire and Ice, Princess Bride, etc. 

I have to say my favorites from that period were Excalibur (watched this so many times), Conan the Barbarian (definitely my number one pick), and Dragonslayer. 

This list is a little odd as it includes things like Ghostbusters (so clearly a very broad definition of fantasy but it is probably could as a place to start to see just how much fantasy we actually had in the 80s). I remember quite a number of straight to video: List of fantasy films of the 1980s - Wikipedia


----------



## bloodtide (Jan 2, 2023)

Bedrockgames said:


> Genres are going to exist.



The real problem is too many creators narrow a whole genre down to only a couple things.

When someone goes to write a movie about any topic, genre, setting or whatever you only get three basic choices:
1.Do real research and then use that real knowledge as a base to write your movie
2.Watch the other "popular" movies that fit, and use that as your base to write from.
3.Just 100% make things up from scratch.  

Now, each has good and bad parts: none are the "perfect" way to make a "perfect" movie.  Though doing research and making stuff up are both hard....and both can often still be hard for people that are already good at research and making things up.  Both can be next to impossible for even "good" writers.  And impossible for any others.  A "good" writer can take real facts, real fiction, and stuff they make up to create unique content.  Though it takes time and effort...and it's all too easy to let things slide.  And the copying of other movies makes things easy.  

Of course the not so good writer is already only doing "research" by watching the couple of popular movies and then just copying from them.


----------



## Ryujin (Jan 2, 2023)

bloodtide said:


> Of course the not so good writer is already only doing "research" by watching the couple of popular movies and then just copying from them.



I think that you just undercut the entire catalogue from "The Asylum" production company.


----------



## Zardnaar (Jan 3, 2023)

90's was reasonably good for sci Fi peak TNG, DS9 was good, Babylon 5, Stargate SG1 and Farscape that's just the food ones. Hell better than last decade there's been about 2-3 good shows (Expanse, Continuum maybe Orphan Black counts?). Sy Finchannelvwas actual sci fi. 

 80's had a comparative abundance of fantasy movies.


----------



## Gradine (Jan 3, 2023)

Mannahnin said:


> Bablyon 5 did start in Jan 1994.  TNG is definitely an iconic 90s show despite running '87-'94.



In fact we try not to talk about most of the parts of TNG from the 80's as much if we can help it.


----------



## Zardnaar (Jan 3, 2023)

Gradine said:


> In fact we try not to talk about most of the parts of TNG from the 80's as much if we can help.




 I never got the love for TNG. Tried watching it recently. Early on it's terrible and what's left is very hit and miss. 

 DS9 is a lot better imho we enjoyed that one. 

 Picard and Discovery aren't great either but early on they're better than TNG and Voyager. Mein gott they're bad. 

 Even by 90's standards.


----------



## Bedrockgames (Jan 3, 2023)

Gradine said:


> In fact we try not to talk about most of the parts of TNG from the 80's as much if we can help it.


----------



## Gradine (Jan 3, 2023)

I think we give later TNG more credit than it deserves because it gave us so many absolute bangers throughout the later seasons. _Darmok, Chain of Command, Inner Light. _Even earlier seasons had some bright spots like _Measure of a Man _and _The Defector._

Also I think we give later TNG more credit than it deserves because Patrick Stewart is never not giving 110% and that's damn entertaining to watch


----------



## Ryujin (Jan 3, 2023)

Gradine said:


> I think we give later TNG more credit than it deserves because it gave us so many absolute bangers throughout the later seasons. _Darmok, Chain of Command, Inner Light. _Even earlier seasons had some bright spots like _Measure of a Man _and _The Defector._
> 
> Also I think we give later TNG more credit than it deserves because Patrick Stewart is never not giving 110% and that's damn entertaining to watch



Funny thing about "Darmok" was, by the second reference, I was wondering why Picard was being so thick. "They speak in metaphor, dammit!!!"


----------



## Bedrockgames (Jan 4, 2023)

Zardnaar said:


> I never got the love for TNG. Tried watching it recently. Early on it's terrible and what's left is very hit and miss.




I really like TNG. Those first couple of seasons are a bit rough in parts but I still enjoyed those too (it did definitely get better though after that).


----------



## MGibster (Jan 4, 2023)

I think we can all agree that "Code of Honor" in 1987 was the high point of TNG.  



Gradine said:


> I think we give later TNG more credit than it deserves because it gave us so many absolute bangers throughout the later seasons. _Darmok, Chain of Command, Inner Light. _Even earlier seasons had some bright spots like _Measure of a Man _and _The Defector._
> 
> Also I think we give later TNG more credit than it deserves because Patrick Stewart is never not giving 110% and that's damn entertaining to watch



It looks to me like you're saying TNG is getting credit for being good because it was good.  I certainly won't argue there weren't plenty of stinkers even in later seasons.  The episode where Dr. Crusher bangs a ghost who had been previously banging her grandmother, "Sub Rosa," is from 1994 and is one of the worst episodes of the series.  But overall the series was pretty good and deserves many of the accolades it gets.


----------



## Mad_Jack (Jan 4, 2023)

I hear they're planning to reboot the Rambo movies with the new ones focused on the character of his niece from the last film and updated to better reflect modern warfare...

The first film is going to be titled_* Rando: First Date Part 1*_...


----------



## Gradine (Jan 4, 2023)

MGibster said:


> The episode where Dr. Crusher bangs a ghost who had been previously banging her grandmother




I think we can all agree that this was actually the best episode of television, ever.


----------



## MGibster (Jan 4, 2023)

Gradine said:


> I think we can all agree that this was actually the best episode of television, ever.



It's been more than 25 years since I watched an episode of TNG, I don't recognize that one.

Holy %#%#!  More time has passed between the last time I watched an episode of TNG than the gap between the end of TOS and the start of TNG.


----------



## Zardnaar (Jan 4, 2023)

MGibster said:


> It's been more than 25 years since I watched an episode of TNG, I don't recognize that one.
> 
> Holy %#%#!  More time has passed between the last time I watched an episode of TNG than the gap between the end of TOS and the start of TNG.




 I've been having similar thoughts about music lol. 

 Grunge was 30+ years ago.


----------



## Hussar (Jan 4, 2023)

I felt unbelievably old when Spotify played a remake of Brittany Spears' Hit Me Baby by Ed Sheeran and I realized that Hit Me Baby is more than 20 years old and wasn't even released in this century.  :erk:


----------



## Zardnaar (Jan 4, 2023)

Hussar said:


> I felt unbelievably old when Spotify played a remake of Brittany Spears' Hit Me Baby by Ed Sheeran and I realized that Hit Me Baby is more than 20 years old and wasn't even released in this century.  :erk:




 Listening to Baby one more time would be like listening to something from 1975 when she released it. 

 In 90's think the only 70"s music I listened to was a bit of Kiss and Van Halen debut.


----------



## Older Beholder (Jan 4, 2023)

So just looking back on some of the bigger Sequels and Remakes from this year:

*Top Gun Maverick*  - highly rated, critically acclaimed, smash hit (a movie that disproves the saying 'they don't make'm like they used to)

*Avatar 2: way of water *- highly rated, smash hit. Pushing the boundaries of special effects 

*Puss in Boots: the last wish* - a movie so much better than it has any right to be, interesting and dynamic animation, great writing.

*Glass Onion: knives out 2* - another well received, funny, well written sequel that improves on the original (for me)

*The Batman* - believe to be the best since the Nolan films, a stylish and gritty reboot.

Just a quick point about MCU films this year, all sequels, all by pretty original directors each with a unique style. Personally I thought Thor suffered from a director having too much of his own voice in the film. Which actually goes against the usual criticism that they're too formulaic.

Sure there were some bad remakes like the Fire Starter movie and some other stuff I've already forgotten, but 2022 was actually a pretty good year for sequels and remakes.


----------

