In case you haven't noticed, 2010 is turning out to be one of the worst years for movies. Ever. The theater has become packed with both sequels and remakes of our favorite movies, and a heavy emphasis has been put on 3D. While this may sound like a terrific idea, both moviemakers and movie-goers are suffering, and I've been asking myself why for a while now. This is what I've concluded.
First off, why is it that so many movies this year have been sequels, remakes, or based off of familiar books or TV shows? The biggest reason: Movie-makers. Don't be fooled about producers' desire to creat "movie magic". These folks want to cash in. Most writers are too scared (or too stupid) to attempt to create something that hasn't been proven successful in some form of media already. To them, it's not a question of "What movie can we make that people will like?" It's a question of "What do people like that we can make into a movie?" But why should they do otherwise? Very rarely do we say a sequel is better than the original, but we see the movie anyways in hopes that it will be. Producers cash in on our desire to see where a story goes, even if it's in the wrong direction.
The second reason for the recent lapse in originality is something more sinister: the economy. As of this writing, it's Summertime, the season when studios release their biggest blockbusters in an attempt to make the most of people on vacation. Yet some films based on founded successes (Robin Hood, Prince of Persia: The Sands of Time, The A-Team) are still underperforming at the box office, losing out due to audiences who are unsure of the movie's quality and opting instead for the safer waters of sequels and remakes (Iron Man 2, Sex and the City 2, Karate Kid). This certainly doesn't sit well with moviemakers, because if the movie can't succeed where it matters to them most, what's the point in trying new things?
Easily the most frustrating part of movies this year is Hollywood's gluttony for 3D. If we are truly living in the age of 3D, something has to be done to prevent it's corruption of movies. The fact of the matter is that 3D is giving both moviemakers and movie-goers the wrong impression of a movie's quality. Some movies (Alice in Wonderland, Clash of the Titans) have received either mixed or unfavorable reviews with critics, but have been smash hits at the box office for one reason: they're in 3D, which is more expensive, more immersive (supposedly) and something new for people to check out. Because the focus shifts to making a movie more eye-popping, its overall value suffers. It's all in the pursuit of cashing in on the world's current Avatar craze (more on that movie in a moment). How to Train Your Dragon and Toy Story 3 are great examples of how a 3D movie can be successful at the box office without losing its wit and heart. If anything, a movie should be conceived as a two-dimensional film first and then equipped with 3D.
So what can be done about the staleness of today's movies? The best advice anyone can give is just take a chance. The best example of the proverbial "shot in the dark" is 2009's District 9. It starred first-time actor Sharlto Copley and unknown director Neill Blomkamp. It was based only on a short film which Copley and Blomkamp created, and it's only claim-to-fame was that Lord of the Rings director Peter Jackson produced it. By today's moviemaking standards, it shouldn't have worked. Yet the film grossed over 200 million dollars worldwide (six times its budget of $30 million), garnered praise from critics, and was nominated for a Best Picture Academy Award. District 9 proved that an orignial story and a lot of effort can outshine a sequel starring well-known actors battling transforming robots while speaking dialogue seemingly written by a 10 year-old.
Now, the final question: what about Avatar? The biggest movie of all time was filmed for 3D and had a plot as old and familiar as stories go. What people seem to forget is the exhausting amount of work that director James Cameron put into the look and feel of the world he created. He had to imagine an entire planet, its biology, and its backstory. Coupled with special effects never seen before, Avatar should be commended for its ambition, if not for its story. If anything, the movie showed us that moviemakers don't have to reinvent the wheel to make a great movie. They just have to put the time and effort in to not just grab the bar, but to raise it.
Wow, I'm out of breath. OK, please comment and subscribe for more.
You are correct sir. But I don't blame writers for wanting to write things people will go to. Especially during this time in the economy, making what people want is the only thing that will keep you afloat. And the people are just as guilty as the writers here, in my opinion. They don't WANT original things. They like them when they happen, but people want sequels. It's why existing IP's in video games sell much more money, and it's why sequels are paid more attention.
ReplyDeleteAs for Avatar, a movie is a movie. It's good or it isn't. Avatar, while being a good movie, is praised for it's technical achievements, and that's all it will be for me. Yes, James Cameron spent tons of time to put work into the "lore", if you will. But when people go to the theatre or sit at home and watch the movie, how many are paying attention to that? Most people unfortunately just don't care about the deeper meanings and the universe. It's a shame, but it's something that happens.