Has Hollywood lost its creativity?

[The Wingnut]

Hollywood has indeed run out of talent and imagination...and is admitting this, although not outright, by going back to titles, plots and characters that are recognized for talent, originality and inspiration.

Some of the landmark periods of film were the late '30s, the late '40s through the early '50s, and the late '60s through to the early '70s. There are the eras from which the remakes are being pulled. Other eras are being pulled from for inspiration , as someone pointed out, because of recognition and possibly a nostalgia of more recent vintage.

Your run of the mill actor is, admittedly, very flat and drab. Deliver line, face emotion, move through steps. Few are believable, those that are still don't inspire because of the writing. Greed motivates producers to pick lousy crews and directors. Box office sales are the bottom line, and if a person has their name on a lucrative title, they're sure to get jobs over those who might be far more talented.

Personally, I'd like to shoot some casting diretors out there. I'd like to line them right up next to a long list of producers and directors, too. Anyone involved with Pearl Harbor needs to be deep sixed, and FAST. Jerry Bruckheimer would do well to stand a bit to close to another massive avgas fireball on the set of whatever film he's shooting. Whoever stuck pompous jack@$$ Alec Baldwin in the role of humble, respected Jimmy Doolittle should be dropped from the bomb bay of a B-25 in a very large expanse of water.

I'm not an actor, myself. I got lucky with my screen time. People keep asking me when I'm going to get famous, and I tell them it'll happen when the sun supernovas, hopefully to spare the world of another lousy 'actor' with no formal training. There are many, many real actors out there with proper training and real talent who deserve a far better chance than I've had. I've seen some TERRIBLE choices just in six months of cable program filming at the rate of roughly one per month(conversely, I saw some great stuff, as well)...I think people don't realize what they're doing when they make these choices, they're just doing their job. Modern film / tv production is strictly profit driven, however, and that is probably the primary cause of what we consider all that's wrong with today's Hollywood. Money is a bigger draw than a love for the art, and this is why we're seeing far more original , fresh, and soulful productions coming out of actors, directors, and companies that aren't part of the big industrial machine.

Now, to temper all of this, truly good remakes of classic movies can come of of big-name companies, actors, and directors...the LOVE of the art has to be there. I've got two movies in mind, A Guy Named Joe and Always. This is the same movie with a different backdrop, and both work beautifully, produced more than forty years apart. In this case, Richard Dreyfuss and Steven Spielberg shared a love for a A Guy Named Joe and wanted to do it right...they didn't put Always together to make money, they put it together to make a good movie...and it WORKED.

What's wrong with Hollywood? No more love for the art, just love of money.

...love of money is the root of all evil...or in this case, bad film.

 

[HaraldTheSwede]

I don't buy the idea (no pun intended) that the love of money is the reason we see crappy movies today. Why should the people in charge today love more money than those that were in charge before?

The numbers are bigger now. More is at stake. This might make people less willing to take risks. But I can't see how the love of money should've changed.

I do believe there were many many more movies made in the past than there is now. I read in one article in Film Noir Reader that one year in the 40s, might've been 46, statistically every american went and saw one movie in the theaters every second week. Now that's a lot of movie goers. If more movies are made, there are bound to be more good ones. And at least during the 40s there were many poverty row movies made. Then the climate changed for various reasons.

More movie goers and movies also meant many more cinemas, more places to show off beat movies. Plus B movies were double billed with A movies. People got to see these low budget movies. Movies usually made in a week or two.

That said there does seem to be a serious lack of talent in blockbuster movies. But every now and again they make independent movies, and often they end up showing a different side of themselves. Showing that they actually can act.

So why can't modern actors and actresses act in blockbusters? This is the question that has been nagging me for a long time.

 

[Vladimir Berkov]

I think the problem is not the money but the changes in society and the movie business in the last 50 years. There are still many excellent movies being made, but I think the most annoying trend is that of the "blockbusters" which seem to usually be of sub-par quality.

Part of the problem is that movies no longer have a large segment of the entertainment industry. In 1940 there was no practical way to watch movies at home, TV had not yet taken off and the internet and video games did not exist. Today's movies have to compete with all sorts of other things for the entertainment dollar, in a market which is both substantially larger and substantially more diverse than it was in 1940. Thus an arms race of sorts has developed in which movies are being produced with the intention of appealing to the widest possible demographic and snagging the most lucrative product tie-ins and DVD sales. This system obviously is not going to value niche pictures or quirky movies which might alienate certain audiences. There is no place on the side of a Burger King soda cup for Woody Allen. Nobody is going to buy toys that tie into "The Killing Fields."

What I hope is that eventually the growth in other entertainment sectors is going to force moviemakers to start making movies which target a certain demographic rather than trying to mass-market to everybody.

 

[Feraud]

What I hope is that eventually the growth in other entertainment sectors is going to force moviemakers to start making movies which target a certain demographic rather than trying to mass-market to everybody.

Good points made. I think movie makers are already targeting specific demographics. That demographic is probably as much as "everyone" as they possibly can. This has to have a larger net revenue than other demographics such as 'white men 18-45', 'date movies', 'womens films', 'black movies', etc. These films with the same old explosions, storyline, and characterizations long ago began to bore me.
Sadly the film industry is about making money. Entertainment and art follows.

 

[Lincsong]

worthlesswithoutpics

 

[Bruce Wayne]

My Mother told me something once that a told to her: Betweent the Bible, ancient Greek mythology, & Viking lore, there is no original story left.

 

[jamespowers]

The answer to the thread question is simply YES!
It never had any in the first place. They were making remakes of remakes in the Golden Era. What do you think they are left with now. Clash of the Titans anyone? :eusa_doh:

 

[xwray]

I think Jackson's Lord of the Rings Trilogy and Cameron's Avatar were pretty creative (I wish Jackson woud do a remake of Dune using Avatar technology) but I do agree they seem to be running out of original ideas

 

[Yeps]

The answer to the thread question is simply YES!
It never had any in the first place. They were making remakes of remakes in the Golden Era. What do you think they are left with now. Clash of the Titans anyone? :eusa_doh:

Just because there are bad big blockbusters does not mean that hollywood has lost its creativity. The Fall, which came out in 2006, is a great example of a fantastic movie which has come out recently which is neither a remake nor a sequel.

 

[Bruce Wayne]

I think Jackson's Lord of the Rings Trilogy and Cameron's Avatar were pretty creative (I wish Jackson woud do a remake of Dune using Avatar technology) but I do agree they seem to be running out of original ideas

Every time someone mentions Avatar, I can't help but think of this:

 

[jamespowers]

Just because there are bad big blockbusters does not mean that hollywood has lost its creativity. The Fall, which came out in 2006, is a great example of a fantastic movie which has come out recently which is neither a remake nor a sequel.

You point to a movie made four years ago as proof of creativity?
Set in LA but shot in South Africa where people drive on the wrong side of the road. Steering wheels on the right hand side of the cars in LA? Pretty creative.

 

[Yeps]

You point to a movie made four years ago as proof of creativity?
Set in LA but shot in South Africa where people drive on the wrong side of the road. Steering wheels on the right hand side of the cars in LA? Pretty creative.

My point was that good movies are still being made. Sure it is not 1939, but people still do make good, original movies. I just pointed at The Fall, because it is one of my favorite movies ever made, including old ones. Although it is true that the better movies tend to come from smaller sources lately.

edit: Also, missing some details and lack of creativity are separate. I will give you the steering wheels, but the movie was brilliantly written, with compelling characters, beautiful cinematography, and good music (okay, the music was by Beethoven, but I really like Beethoven.)

 

[jamespowers]

My point was that good movies are still being made. Sure it is not 1939, but people still do make good, original movies. I just pointed at The Fall, because it is one of my favorite movies ever made, including old ones. Although it is true that the better movies tend to come from smaller sources lately.

edit: Also, missing some details and lack of creativity are separate. I will give you the steering wheels, but the movie was brilliantly written, with compelling characters, beautiful cinematography, and good music (okay, the music was by Beethoven, but I really like Beethoven.)

Point being that the movie was not exactly a blockbuster that they advertised all over the place. It was an Un-Hollywood movie to say the least. That was a small source movie.
My point was that, since inception, Hollywood has never been creative. It was always formulaic and an adaptation of a book, screen play or some other source that was successful before.
How many Robin Hoods have we seen in Hollywood since the beginning? Hundreds! They are now even on TV but I give it another few years and another Robin Hood will be out soon. Then there will the comicbook hero of the month/year.
Hollywood is not the center of creativity when it comes to movies. It is simply a place that creates movies where we suspend disbelief for a few hours. Its entertainment--that is all. [huh]

 

[Yeps]

Point being that the movie was not exactly a blockbuster that they advertised all over the place. It was an Un-Hollywood movie to say the least. That was a small source movie.
My point was that, since inception, Hollywood has never been creative. It was always formulaic and an adaptation of a book, screen play or some other source that was successful before.

I have to call you on this: how is a screenplay a different source? Maybe you meant to say stage play.

How many Robin Hoods have we seen in Hollywood since the beginning? Hundreds! They are now even on TV but I give it another few years and another Robin Hood will be out soon. Then there will the comicbook hero of the month/year.
Hollywood is not the center of creativity when it comes to movies. It is simply a place that creates movies where we suspend disbelief for a few hours. Its entertainment--that is all. [huh]

Gladiator Men in Tights (my name for the new Robin Hood movie with Russel Crow) comes out in May.

Good to see that someone else agrees with me on the going to movies to be entertained. It makes me think of my complaint with Avatar. So the plot was unoriginal, who cares? It is actually a good story, just given a slightly different treatment. My problem was that they did not give me good characters and dialogue so I could not really escape into the movie, not to mention James Horner [diatribe against James Horner, John Williams and Hans Zimmer censored].

 

[jamespowers]

I have to call you on this: how is a screenplay a different source? Maybe you meant to say stage play.



Gladiator Men in Tights (my name for the new Robin Hood movie with Russel Crow) comes out in May.

Good to see that someone else agrees with me on the going to movies to be entertained. It makes me think of my complaint with Avatar. So the plot was unoriginal, who cares? It is actually a good story, just given a slightly different treatment. My problem was that they did not give me good characters and dialogue so I could not really escape into the movie, not to mention James Horner [diatribe against James Horner, John Williams and Hans Zimmer censored].

Yes, I meant stage play. :eusa_doh:
I don't understand how movies can be anything other than entertainment. You certainly can't count on them to deliver history correctly or even do a movie that resembles a book. I am still waiting for the real Dracula to show up without all the romance and stupidity involved. He was a monster---not a tuxedo wearing seducer. :eusa_doh:
Once in a while I actually get to see glimpses of the real Frankenstein.
Movies are escapism but if they are made based loosely on previous incarnations then your mind can't help saying: "What! The book didn't mention that!"
Then again, The Maltese Falcon was a movie that they bet would not be remembered 5 years after it was off the screen. Sometimes they make something decent without even realizing it. I wonder if Bogart ever collected on that bet? Five dollars that long ago was quite a bit of money---include interest and we are talking real money.

 

[Atinkerer]

Charge money to let people look at their reflection in a shallow saucer?

I don't think Hollywood has to be creative anymore. Just have some sparkle and flash to catch the eye, and some high volume anything so the ear won't go wanting.

No character development is needed as long as ; 1) The characters on screen are in the same age range as the viewers. 2) The characters are the same ethnically as the viewers - or at least ethnically ambiguous. 3) And the characters are shallow stereotypes that parrot stereotypical opinions because it's safer and easier to go with the herd then it is to think, just like the viewers.

Of course, now that 3D is becoming popular, the viewers will just have to go see everything that comes out in 3D, otherwise someone might think they're hermits with no social life. I'm sure they'll have to remake all the great movie classics as 3D productions. I just can't wait to see Gone With The Wind 3D, and Casablanca 3D! Oh wow!

Tony

 

[Lincsong]

I think the creativity is gone because there is no "story" in the stories. What movie makes the viewer stop and "think" about the what was just viewed? The only movie that I've seen recently that comes close is Gran Torino.

 

[Atomic Age]

I must say that much of what is being made in Hollywood today is pretty crappy, but having said that, I think there still some good movies being made. I thought The Dark Knight was a very good film in spite of being a summer block buster. One of my favorite movies of the last 5 or 6 years is Zodiac. Very well made movie with fantastic performances by its very talented cast.

I recently watched Moon. Though not a Hollywood movie, none the less it was a good film. Hollywoodland, made just a few years ago is an excellent film.

I think however that part of the problem, is that most of the really good writers have gone into television where there is a little more emphasis on story telling.

Doug

 

[Feraud]

It seems the better films are the less hyped ones.
You can bet anthing being sold as The #1 film in America, A Must-See, blah, blah is probably going to stink. There are always exceptions to the rule but you know what I mean..

Atomic Age posted some great examples above.

It doesn't hurt to look outside of Hollywood and America to see some great films.

 

[Lady Day]

Critical acclaim does not a money maker make.

That use to not really be the case. Things have gotten lazier. Many, MANY more branches of films in other markets, music, toys, books, video games, instead of solely (or mostly solely) the film for films sake.

Why? Built in demographics. Kids who read the book will go (and drag their parents) to see the film version no matter how bad it may be. Thats the key. If its bad, they have only wasted a few hours and a few dollars. Who cares if you dont see it again. The market (turning to 3D) is betting on that. Hence the 3 times the price of 2D tickets. So, nearly guaranteed profits will be made rather than risky ventures.

Its kinda smart actually.


LD