Has Originality died in Hollywood?

[Dac]

Hi all, I'm currently doing research for my University dissertation in Animation. Although the course itself is in animation, for our written dissertation were encouraged to explore a wider range of media, so I have chosen to base my essay on Originality in Mainstream cinema, with a focus on the recent deluge of remakes and adaptations to come out of Hollywood.

I ask here because I need a lot of research to back up my work, and asking public opinion on the subject will be a massive help for me.

So, basically im here to ask the following questions: Do YOU think that Originality has Died in mainstream cinema? Why do you think its taken a backseat to remakes and adaptations? And is there still money to be made by original films?

Of course, I have my own opinions and assumptions on the above questions, but getting other opinions whether they are in agreement or disagreement will help me take this essay to the next level.

Thank you all in advance

-Dave

 

[Pingfah]

I think sometimes the only thing taken in these remakes is the name and the basic outline. That it is a remake does not necessarily mean it is an unoriginal film.

Although often they are, granted. But I can think of numerous fantastic remakes, and also numerous great original concepts from the last 10 years.

Also worth bearing in mind that cinema has relied VERY heavily on literature through the years, and many films people think of being "original cinema" took their basic concept, or complete story from works that already existed. Film is a visual medium, and often the story is only half, well, the story.

 

[JustAFriend]

Movie studios have made remakes and stolen ideas since Edison first opened his production studios a century ago.

....it's just that now they'll spend $200million per remake and the total number of movies per year has gone way down. Still a lot of suckage out there though...

 

[OmahaStar]

For the most part, yes. It is dead. Every once in awhile, we'll get something truly original (District 9, and 9 this year for example), but those are few and far between. The studios run Hollywood, that's nothing new. The people who run the studios are much more comfortable green lighting a sequel or a remake of a known money maker. That's why we've had so many Titanic movies; that's why we have six or seven Saw movies. As long as people continue to spend money to watch remakes/sequels, the studio execs have no reason to stop. It's a pretty sad cycle.

And realistically, why would a studio exec hand over two hundred million dollars for an unknown idea when they can hand over the same amount for yet another remake, which is all but guaranteed to turn a profit?

Also, when they DO come up with something, the other studios tend to rip it off very quickly to cash in on the same idea.

 

[Kegg]

So, basically im here to ask the following questions: Do YOU think that Originality has Died in mainstream cinema? Why do you think its taken a backseat to remakes and adaptations? And is there still money to be made by original films?

There are a ton of assumptions in those questions I wouldn't agree with. The first is that there was an originality that is now dead, and the second is that only now are we seeing a backseat to remakes and adaptions.

Heck, just have a look at the three movies which won the most Oscars:

Ben-Hur, Titanic, and Return of the King.

One of those movies is both an adaption of a novel and a direct remake, and that movie is of course Ben-Hur, the oldest of the three.

Titanic has been argued as some as being inspired by earlier Titanic films, and there is technically an animated ROTK, but they're not as clear an inspiration as the original Ben-Hur picture was on the 1950s film - William Wyler, the director of the latter, actually worked on the former.

What about iconic Hollywood movies, like Wizard of Oz (remake and based on a book), Gone With The Wind (based on a book)?

And 'original' more often than not means something that just is an evocation of cliches but isn't directly based on an earlier concept.

Ahem.

What I do think has changed - since the 1970s, anyway - is the evolution of tentpole franchises and the popularity of making epic film trilogies. Not that they didn't exist prior to this, but having a film saga that can reliably bring in cash with its sequels is now a preferred model, when there was a time that sequels were expected to make less money than the original.

But no, as far as originality and invention goes I don't think Hollywood has changed much. And certainly in the OP's preferred field - animation - Hollywood's been doing the best it has, well, ever, with Pixar. That's just IMHO, naturally.

 

[Velocity]

It's bad enough when they "remake" other movies a lot but now they are basing movies on tv shows and tv shows on commercials.
Not many producers want to spend their money on unproven ideas. Everyone wants a sure thing. If it was my money I might feel the same.

I read books more than I go to movies or watch tv. They don't make many movies or tv shows that I want to invest time or money in.

 

[Nerys Myk]

It's bad enough when they "remake" other movies a lot but now they are basing movies on tv shows and tv shows on commercials.
Not many producers want to spend their money on unproven ideas. Everyone wants a sure thing. If it was my money I might feel the same.

I read books more than I go to movies or watch tv. They don't make many movies or tv shows that I want to invest time or money in.

And how is that different than basing movies on plays,books, comic strips or Radio shows?

 

[Christopher]

It's a totally false complaint -- and a very unoriginal one -- that Hollywood is any less original today than it ever has been. It's called the Recency Illusion; we assume that the patterns of the present didn't exist in the past, but usually they did. There's also the fact that only the best or most memorable movies remain known decades later, so we aren't aware of all the more ordinary movies that were around in the past.

Hollywood has always been about remakes and adaptations. It goes back to the very beginning. We think that remakes are common today, but we have nothing on the silent era. Look up a title like The Wizard of Oz or A Christmas Carol on IMDb and you'll find something like six or eight silent-film adaptations within the course of 20 years.

There's also the pervasive myth that originality is a function of the source material for your story. It really isn't. There are tons of stories that have new titles and new character names but are just regurgitating plotlines and character conventions and story tropes that have been done a million times before. And conversely, there are adaptations that are wildly creative and fresh and daring. Originality isn't about where you got your story, it's about where you take it.

 

[UssGlenn]

What you need to do is pick 4 or 5 years spaced out across the last 100 years and analyze every Hollywood movie from each of those years for the source of the story. Then you can have hard percentages to talk about in your paper. Settle once and for all if there are more remakes and adaptations now or not.

 

[chrisspringob]

I think remakes and adaptations were always as common as they are now. Sequels on the other hand, I think they've become more common, at least among big blockbusters. Here's a list of the ten highest grossing sequels of all time *adjusted for inflation*:

1) Empire Strikes Back
2) Return of the Jedi
3) The Phantom Menace
4) Thunderball
5) The Dark Knight
6) Shrek 2
7) Pirates of the Caribbean 2
8) Return of the King
9) Spider-Man 2
10) Revenge of the Sith

7 of these 10 movies have been released since 1999. Whereas *zero* of the top 10 nonsequels (adjusted for inflation) have come out since 1999.

Heck, assuming that Avatar grosses less than $400 million, this will be the *7th year in a row* that the top grossing movie of the year will be a sequel. Whereas from 1992-2002, that only happened once (Phantom Menace in 1999). Sequels seem to have taken control of the box office in a way that they never really had before.

 

[Kegg]

I think remakes and adaptations were always as common as they are now. Sequels on the other hand, I think they've become more common, at least among big blockbusters.

Chrisspringob is right on the money here. If you want to speak about an interesting trend in Hollywood film, the rise to prominence of sequels and the evolution of tentpole franchises is a more interesting one. The expectation that any successful summer action-adventure blockbuster will have one and even very often two (or more) sequels is something that can be fairly said to have proliferated as of late. It's nothing new, of course - Bond might chip in there - but it does appear to be more widespread these days.

 

[Nowhere Man]

I think there is originality in Hollywod, but very little of it. I do have to agree that it's always been that way and some originals slip through. I think that you can find originality in comedies like the hangover or Monty python, but the most original stories in my opinion come from historical or bio pic like the doors or the patriot. Either way it's studio execs who have control, not writers or producers who might have that original idea. I mean the biggest rip off I've ever seen is the new James Cameron movie Avatar, which we all know was originaly Dances with Smurfs

 

[Gaith]

No offense, hombre, but while I'd be interested in seeing cold hard numbers for the prevalence of remakes, adaptations and spinoffs made by Tinseltown, I find your proposed dissertation as described to be severely flawed. You say you'll be doing research, but your bias is clear as day.

First, you say that sequels can't be original. Now, a movie like Made of Honor is, for copyright reasons, not an adaptation of My Best Friend's Wedding. But does that make it any more original than the Bourne sequels, which use almost none of the first movie's cast apart from Matt Damon?

And a hundred other issues besides:

most original stories in my opinion come from historical or bio pic like the doors or the patriot.

You mean the most original story a writer can come up with is to take stuff that actually happened (i.e., he didn't come up with it himself) and adapt it?

So yeah, Dac, you could count the number of intertextual films (a far more accurate and neutral word than "non-original", imo) and see what the trends are. Personally, I don't much see the point in going to university to learn to count, but then, I didn't do a dissertation, so what do I know?

 

[Nowhere Man]

No offense, hombre, but while I'd be interested in seeing cold hard numbers for the prevalence of remakes, adaptations and spinoffs made by Tinseltown, I find your proposed dissertation as described to be severely flawed. You say you'll be doing research, but your bias is clear as day.

First, you say that sequels can't be original. Now, a movie like Made of Honor is, for copyright reasons, not an adaptation of My Best Friend's Wedding. But does that make it any more original than the Bourne sequels, which use almost none of the first movie's cast apart from Matt Damon?

And a hundred other issues besides:

most original stories in my opinion come from historical or bio pic like the doors or the patriot.

You mean the most original story a writer can come up with is to take stuff that actually happened (i.e., he didn't come up with it himself) and adapt it?

So yeah, Dac, you could count the number of intertextual films (a far more accurate and neutral word than "non-original", imo) and see what the trends are. Personally, I don't much see the point in going to university to learn to count, but then, I didn't do a dissertation, so what do I know?

I guess what I mean is yes the story is not original, like The Doors, but the story is not the same old story told over and over i.e. Star Wars begats Lord Of the rings, which begats The Matrix ect... With The Patriot, it's based on the Swamp Fox, but not entirely , so the writer takes real events and then creates a story from those events. Look at the Young Guns movies or Tomestone, those movies take a real event and adds dialoge that is original. I mean with charachters like Batman and Superman , they will alway's have to be redone.

 

[Nerys Myk]

I think remakes and adaptations were always as common as they are now. Sequels on the other hand, I think they've become more common, at least among big blockbusters.

Chrisspringob is right on the money here. If you want to speak about an interesting trend in Hollywood film, the rise to prominence of sequels and the evolution of tentpole franchises is a more interesting one. The expectation that any successful summer action-adventure blockbuster will have one and even very often two (or more) sequels is something that can be fairly said to have proliferated as of late. It's nothing new, of course - Bond might chip in there - but it does appear to be more widespread these days.

Seem to me that in the "Golden Age" of films sequels were a common part of a studios business. Some were just films featuring the same stars (Marx Brothers, Laurel and Hard, Abbott and Costello) others with popular characters (the Universal Monsters, Tarzan, Blondie, Andy Hardy). Later there were the Planet of the Apes films and Airport. Not sure if these film would be "tentpoles" in the modern sense.

 

[suarezguy]

I'm a little unsure what you mean by mainstream. The cost of filmmaking has probably increased so much, and social issue-prestige films tend to underperform, so there's more and more separation into all-access blockbusters and less-released prestige films.

Why do you think its taken a backseat to remakes and adaptations?

They're the ones that make the most money as they have a built-in audience and the news/entertainment media understandably talks about and promotes them more in order to get the fans to first read the magazine/watch the show doing the promotion.

is there still money to be made by original films?

Absent adaptations, you have to be a big name to attract attention-Pixar's Up, the stars of The Break-Up and American Gangster. Little Miss Sunshine was original and successful without really big names but came from a small budget.

 

[chrisspringob]

I think remakes and adaptations were always as common as they are now. Sequels on the other hand, I think they've become more common, at least among big blockbusters.

Chrisspringob is right on the money here. If you want to speak about an interesting trend in Hollywood film, the rise to prominence of sequels and the evolution of tentpole franchises is a more interesting one. The expectation that any successful summer action-adventure blockbuster will have one and even very often two (or more) sequels is something that can be fairly said to have proliferated as of late. It's nothing new, of course - Bond might chip in there - but it does appear to be more widespread these days.

Seem to me that in the "Golden Age" of films sequels were a common part of a studios business. Some were just films featuring the same stars (Marx Brothers, Laurel and Hard, Abbott and Costello) others with popular characters (the Universal Monsters, Tarzan, Blondie, Andy Hardy). Later there were the Planet of the Apes films and Airport. Not sure if these film would be "tentpoles" in the modern sense.

I'm not as familiar with the golden age of films. But compared to the 70s, 80s, and 90s, yes, I think sequels are more common in the 00s. Nowadays, every single reasonably successful movie has a sequel greenlit (yes, they're already working on Paul Blart 2). There is no longer such a thing as "a movie that doesn't really need a sequel". If E.T. were released today, I can guarantee that Universal would already be moving ahead with a sequel, with or without Spielberg.

And it seems to be more common now for planning on sequels to begin even before a movie is released, and for it to be assumed that the sequel to any reasonably well received movie will make more $ than the original. Yes, some of that kind of thing has always been around. But I don't think it used to be as prevalent as it is now.

 

[Kelso]

As others have pointed out, remaking a previous work is not an indicator of quality or originality. For example, when John Huston's The Maltese Falcon was released in 1941, it was the third adaptation of that Dashiell Hammett's novel within a decade. It is currently remembered as a cinematic classic.


As for the idea of a modern rise in sequels... well... William Powell and Myrna Loy got six Thin Man films, Mickey Rooney's Andy Hardy had 16, Basil Rathbone starred in 14 Sherlock Holmes films, and how many Hopalong Cassidy films were there? Something like 60? (someone correct me if these numbers are off, it's 5am )

Anyway, those 4 examples are off the top of my head. I'm sure someone could provide a more complete list.

 

[The Laughing Vulcan]

Creativity only comes before awards season.

When it's summertime and the aim is to get bums on seats, dollars in tills, then it becomes movie making by committee and focus groups. It's about making a movie that follows a rhythm and hits key notes in an emotionally manipulative symphony. A film has to follow cadences and moods, set patterns that guarantee audience attention. Regardless of content, story or directorial style, all those summer bloickbusters roll into one. So Star Trek feels like Indiana Jones feels like Terminator Salvation.

Studios want set run times, they want a PG-13 rating, they want merchandising. They certainly don't want me to watch the shit they pump out.

 

[John Picard]

The oldest storyline in the history of man is the Hero's Quest; therefore, not much of anything has been "original" over the last 4,000 years.