Over the last couple of years, we have entered a new era of filmmaking. Studios only make safe bets, some of which pay off (The Force Awakens, Mad Max, Star Trek), but many of them bomb (Baywatch, Ghostbusters and King Arthur). Is this due to the death of creativity in these fields? Is looking for the safe bet, sticking to a formula and attaching people with no care for the source material, responsible for abysmal sales?
Remakes have become a common since Hollywood may have trouble coming up with original concepts. – BMartin437 years ago
I would compare/contrast mainstream Hollywood and Indie films. You often find new and creative ideas in the indie movies because the monetary risk isn't as high and the success of those can often shape what risks Hollywood will take – BreannaWaldrop7 years ago
I think this is actually a misleading question as the film titles listed are all Hollywood productions. No, creativity is not dead within the film industry, we just need to broaden our horizon and acknowledge that original and creative films are being made outside of Hollywood, both within American independent cinema and in many countries around the world. Hollywood makes product and product must sell, hence the remakes and reboots, ostensibly made to introduce a younger, upcoming generation to an old popular story or series, because all that really matters to the Hollywood executives is how the latest product performs over the next financial quarter, therefore risks are rarely taken. My taste in films is admittedly biased as I prefer European and Oriental films (although I also have Russian, Polish, Iranian, Turkish and Indian films in my collection, to list just a few) so I tend to ignore the latest mega-hyped Hollywood blockbuster because I find independent film making and 'World' cinema far more rewarding in terms of its style, content and storytelling. True creativity doesn't have a price tag attached and Hollywood has long forgotten this point. – Amyus7 years ago
Creativity is not dead! Hollywood blockbusters are just one type of film industry - many, highly committed productions with sensitive features, rich scripts and unique actors show again and again how diverse the film industry can be. – Guinevere4 years ago
Recently, there have been more and more movies aiming to tell more racially diverse stories, many of which have been historical events omitted or ignored in the past due to discrimination, for example 12 Years A Slave (2013). However, many films are still criticised for 'whitewashing', the term for casting white actors in historically non-white character roles, with African Americans, Native Americans, and Asians experiencing this the most. The argument most commonly used for this is that the actors are 'better qualified for the role', however the truth behind this is often that directors often choose actors of similar backgrounds. Recent shows and movies that have come under backlash for their casting include the new Power Rangers film, the Death Note adaption, and Ghost In The Shell (2017). There are certainly far less Latino, Asian, or African American actors than there are Caucasian, but is there really so few that none are good enough for these POC roles?
Intermingling of cultures has ALWAYS existed. But, how about making movies about diverse people in those time periods? At that point, diverse groups of people existed in the world but their histories are ignored by many in the West. The latest Tarzan reboot actually had a storyline rooted in history called George Washington Williams who did travel to the Free Congo to protest slavery in that region. A very intelligent weaving of history and fiction. I think the problem is when Hollywood rewrites history to a very Western view which detracts from revealing that we all have so much more in common than we think we do. – Munjeera7 years ago
I think the question starts with who is making the movies; who is crafting the stories?
We need more POC/minorities/women producing/directing movies. – tamarakot7 years ago
Waiting on the release of Blade Runner's sequel, and perhaps Han Solo prequel film (if this topic doesn't become cyber dust first), but I'd be taking a look at the treatment of Han Solo, Indiana Jones, and Rick Deckard in their much-later sequels; how Hollywood treats them differently and the same from their original movies, how Hollywood addresses age and new generations, and general significance conveyed by the classic series' choices.
With the release of Mad Max: Fury Road (2015), Ghostbusters (2016), Alien: Covenant (2017) and Blade Runner: 2049 (2017) to name a few examples, are we seeing a revival of 80's nostalgia in film? Perhaps it is merely Hollywood cashing in on established titles?
I am from the 80s and this topic is scaring me. Movies today are waaaaay better. – Munjeera7 years ago
I often complain about how Hollywood are struggling to come up with original content, not forgetting that Child's Play and Beetlejuice (both 1988 films) will have new sequels released this year. It was a decade of great films, though, and I wouldn't be entirely opposed to an 80s Renaissance. – nikkileelucas7 years ago
How does the latest Wonder Woman film portray World War I and the physical/emotional effects it had on the soldiers and/or civilians. Also worth exploring is Diana Prince's/Wonder Woman's character development as she struggles to hold onto her ideals amid the horrors of the trenches, mustard gas, and the moral ambiguity of humanity.
This is an awesome topic! I saw wonder woman yesterday and found the use of the WWI setting very intriguing. It is a crucial aspect of the film and Wonder Woman's emotional and moral growth/development. – Sean Gadus7 years ago
This is a good topic, but its two instead one. Maybe make it a little bit more specific: choose character development or World WarI, as these are both very different topics. Maybe be could fuse it by saying how struggles such as war develops strong character as in Wonder Woman. – birdienumnum177 years ago
I like these ideas, although I tend to agree that the stronger topic here would be Diana's character development, especially as she is such a mix of innocence and power. I think it could also be interesting to explore her empowerment and how that is juxtaposed with the suffragette era briefly alluded to in the film. – HoldenSheppard7 years ago
I like this topic! One thing to consider might be how Wonder Woman views the causes of World War I. – Ben Hufbauer7 years ago
As long as there has been film, there have been adaptations of novels translated to the screen. The debate has always raged when it came to these adaptations about whether the film "holds up" to the novel in comparison, either by transferring it faithfully to the screen or doing enough different to merit individual worth. The debate has always favored the novel over the film adaptation, but why exactly is that the case? Is it because the original has final authority over the material? How do people interact and absorb stories differently through these medium? What are some examples of film adaptations surpassing their novel counterparts?
'Surpassing' is subjective, I'd come up with a standard definition for that. I personally like the penultimate question best, but no edit required; it's simply a very open-ended prompt. – m-cubed8 years ago
My favorite example of this debate is James Ellroy's L.A. Confidential vs. the 1997 film. The two versions share common threads but are distinctly different. I would also look at novels adapted by their writers like Perks of Being A Wallflower and the Godfather, where the authors had a hand in the film versions. – SeanGadus8 years ago
Personally I don't think that it's wholly fair to compare a film to the book it was based off of. If an adaptation is worthwhile, then it should stand alone without requiring reference to the text on which it's based. That said, I think it's somewhat bizarre that films are often adapted from books in a way that's meant to be a 'faithful' representation. Can you imagine if someone tried to do the opposite, and turn a movie into a book? I'm all for mediums inspiring each other, and there are plenty of great film adaptations of movies, but I think ultimately a 1:1 translation of art to a new medium is impossible, which may account for why most film adaptations are so awful. – woollyb8 years ago
I don't personally think we could have an answer for this. As a book leaves the reader to view the world however he pleases most of the people who prefer the novel adaptations are offering a subjective opinion. Reaching an objective stance on this is going to be tricky as results always vary. – TheUbiquitousAnomaly8 years ago
A lot of the classic examples of films considered to have surpassed the novel are often films that most viewers aren't even aware was originally based upon a novel to begin with thus allowing the viewers to see the movie on its own merits first. Whereas novels that were mainstream popular prior to film releases are rarely considered to measure up. – Bookaddict277 years ago
Books are the soul to another universe. And movies takes you to that universe. For me after reading he HP series and watching the film, it's a little disappointing but I keep wanting to watch the movie over and over again, because it kinda transports me into a universe which I can visually see. Some movies like Sherlock Holmes, in which I have not read any books on, makea me want to write a hold of the novel to read them, and not the movie adaptation but he original novel. Hence, I can't say for sure if we have a true answer! – Zuccy7 years ago
Books require more attention to detail and more concentration. It had *more* in it. However, I believe that some books are better as movies - such as 'The Martian', as it is written as a documentary on film. – essie7 years ago
Recently several popular anime shows have been remade into live-action versions, e.g. Death Note (in several versions), Itazura-na-Kiss, Dragon Ball Z, etc… Many have been either unsuccessful and disappointing to fans (the example that comes to mind is the Avatar the Last Airbender!) or, more recently, have engaged in the unfortunate cultural appropriation of characters aka "whitewashing". What is behind the apparent difficulty of successfully remaking these fantastic stories into live-action form – is it the difference in mediums? Is it idiosyncratic to the directors/creators? Is it pure coincidence that no examples of a successful adaptation in popular cinema/television come to mind, or is this a systematic trend?
Using examples from my own memory, I feel it is both medium and a disconnect between directors and fan-base that can result in a failed remake. Often times, it is the animation style that aids in both delivery and overall success. Also, sometimes directors/creators can miscalculate what aspects of a show are responsible for its success. For example, a show that gains popularity for its wit and character development can be poorly mistranslated so that the action aspect of the show overpowers other components. – BreannaWaldrop8 years ago
With every year comes a new award season and while there are always surprise contenders (Moonlight [2016], Room [2015], Slumdog Millionaire [2008]), there are always films that everyone views as being made purely to receive awards and acclaim.
The recent commentary surrounding La La Land (2016) as being awarded purely because Hollywood like a film about itself; any number of period dramas (The Kings Speech [2010, The Artist [2011]) as well as films that don't do too well at the box office but receive multiple Academy Award nominations.
Is there anything wrong with this? Is the 'Oscar Bait' a valid category of film? Is it a genre?
This could definitely be an interesting topic to discuss. You could look at the common features of movies such as La La Land and how these turn a movie from something made for the public to something made for the awards. Are there certain themes, genres (drama, action, comedy), and/or plot lines that are used in 'Oscar Bait' movies? – SophIsticated8 years ago
It is definitely and interesting topic to discuss. Particularly the point about Hollywood loving a film about itself and acting in general. The success of The Artist, Birdam and La La Land at the oscars is a great example as they are all vastly different movies but all have that one Hollywood aspect in common. – AbbeyThorpe8 years ago
Very interesting topic for discussion. It's undeniable that oscar baiting is prevalent in the production, timing and distribution of films nowadays but I wouldn't go so far as to call it a genre or category but more a by-product of studio's self-importance. The only thing more farcical than films pandering to Hollywood was the worldwide outrage surrounding DiCaprio's (deserved and overdue) Oscar win. – danieljubb8 years ago
I think this topic could definitely use some exploring. I think for the most part, a good film has a set formula to execute and achieve in order to snatch that Oscar and it's almost entirely undeniable to say that some movies don't set out with those awards in mind. However, I think even though these movies don't always appeal to the public it doesn't necessarily take away from their beauty or brilliance. This is for sure an interesting discussion and eludes to that greater issue of Hollywood simply patting themselves on the back or actuality creating art for the sake of art (and not an award). – JulieCMillay8 years ago
Sophie Vannan, My colleagues above are kind in saying that the topic is interesting, but I'd go so far as to say that not only is it interesting, it IS absolutely real. You need only look at the difference between critical accolades/Oscar wins and box-office earnings to see that there is a gulf of difference between what folks in the Academy like and what the public likes. Take this into consideration. The following is a list of the movies that have won the Oscar for best picture in the last four years: 2016: Moonlight
2015: Spotlight
2014: Birdman
2013: 12 Years a Slave These movies were given the award by the people who made the movies. Now, let's see which movies would've won if the award was given by the people who watch the movies (I'm basing these "winners" on box-office returns; I got these figures from thenumbers.com): 2016: Rogue One: A Star Wars Story
2015: Star Wars Episode VII: The Force Awakens
2014: American Sniper
2013: The Hunger Games: Catching Fire As I said, there's a huge difference as to why the movies that people most care about are the ones that so often get overlooked during award season. I think that, in large part, this is due to Oscar baiting. Perhaps the best way to proceed would be to see 1. what kind of "bait" do modern directors use and 2. why doesn't the public care about it given it's obvious divergence from critical opinion. Thanks for your time,
August – August Merz7 years ago
