Advancement in Special Effects
- Hear me out on this one. On the surface, the idea of computer-generated effects is great; moviemakers can finally realize the fantastic, wonderous, foreign and mysterious worlds that they have imagined in their minds during the filmmaking process. In practice, however, this is often far from the truth. For every creative director who uses special effects to genuinely enhance and expand his/her storytelling opportunities (James Cameron's Avatar comes to mind, as does Peter Jackson in The Lord of the Rings), there are an equal amount of Michael Bay's who are content to shovel out a sub-par screenplay and plot hoping to sell the movie on the basis of its visuals alone. Worse still, are those directors who at one time understood the value of plot, but who have since sold out to the beauty of computer-generated effects. George Lucas comes to mind in this instance with the new Star Wars movies which, while good, paled in comparison to the original trilogy in many respects. Think about it; would the original Star Trek series have been as good and stood up as well as it did if it relied on special effects? No...these old writers had to rely on the strengths of their plots, and the fact that TOS is still eminently watchable is a testament to the success of that approach.
Recycled Plots
- Its said that there are only about 6 plots in the world of storytelling, from which all stories are derived. Nowhere is this more apparent than in the world of filmmaking. Granted, a certain amount of repetition is a good thing, since there are certain plots we all love; the hero's epic struggle against an indominable enemy, a tortured soul finding redemption and/or true love, etc. Even given this, however, the amount of repetition in the modern movie industry is ridiculous! I work in a store that, among many other types of products, sells movies, and it is often unreal to open a shipment each month, only to find that month's releases of the "epic war movie", "suspenseful thriller", "spyfi action drama", or "big-budget-plot-lacking-cg-laden-scifi-movie-with-attractive-actors", among others. I get it hollywood, these movies sell, but would it kill you to try something original? On that note...
Remakes, Sequelitis and the End of the World (oh my!)
- Yes, I do feel that these deserve their own category aside from the Recycled Plots heading, because they're THAT destructive. Collectively, these seem to be the biggest cash-cows in the movie industry. Of all of them, sequelitis seems to be the worst, since it represents a rut that filmmakers get into at the behest of the studios. After all, why create something totally original, when the audience is already familiar with a certain world/characters already, making a sequel easier to execute? Granted, there are times when sequels outdo their originals; The Dark Knight comes to mind, as does The Empire Strikes Back, among others, but far too often the subsequent movies pale in comparison to the original. In comparison to this, remakes don't seem as bad, given that they're offering a fresh take on a classic story. Surely, we all loved Chris Nolan's Batman movies, J. J. Abrams' new Star Trek movie, and Ronald D. Moore's reimagining of the classic Battlestar Galactica series for a new generation. The problem isn't with the quality of these movies, but rather with Hollywood's overreliance on it as a way to make movies. In a sense, the industry is admitting its own defeat; by remaking great movies and TV series from the past, they're acknowledging the superiority of the movies of the past and their own inability to create new, compelling intellectual properties. Movie studios don't care though, as long as the cash is flowing.
- This one here is going to be such a large rant that I felt it deserved its own little dot. The End of the World. How many movies have you seen in the last few years that have dealt with the end of everything as we know it? I'm guessing the answer is a decent few. This one also combines other tropes I've mentioned in this blog too; often, the plots are recycled and rehashed, and usually rely on a spectacularly gigantic special effects budget to make it big. End of the world? Check. American government anticipated it and has a plan in place? Check. Likeable main characters, probably in a broken relationship which their struggles in the movie usually heals? Check. Ridiculous amount of special-effect-laden trials that impede the heroes' progress as they fight to survive? Check. Attractive cast that survives and lives to procreate and continue the human race? Checkmate. Granted, there can and most definitely are original takes on this concept, but on the whole, Hollywood relies too much on this, and the most humourous fact is how ridiculous these movies will look if the end does not, in fact, come. Consider 2012, the new blockbuster special-effects-showcase-with-a-subpar-plot-attached. Everyone loves it now, but it's going to look awefully silly if the world doesn't end in two years, won't it? I'll save the whole 2012 craze for a future blog post, but suffice to say the end of the world is WAY overdone.
To conclude, these are a few of my biggest sources of irritation in filmmaking these days. They aren't limited to movies either-alot of games and books also fall victim to these oft-reused cliches. The problem is, Hollywood has become complacent, content to merely rehash old, tired concepts and rely on CG for a quick buck rather than putting in the time and effort to craft something truly original. Hopefully, this changes at some point, but considering how many people are perfectly happy watching the drivel Hollywood pumps out these days, it is unlikely. It's a shame really, considering most of the movies which have become the basis for this state of stagnation were original and risky at the time they came out yet have gone on to be classics. In the 1970s, George Lucas funded the creation of a little movie called Star Wars all on his own, and struggled against industry big-wigs who told him it would never succeed. Here's hoping someone else comes along and learns from his example.
I agree with your analysis on the Hollywood Movie Making industry, especially the "End of the World" genre that we see all to often in the 20th Century (lets see: War of the Worlds, 2012, Fallout 3 [video game], and more). However, I do have a few things to propose.
ReplyDeletePerhaps many Hollywood screenwriters and directors are rehashing the old favorites (Psycho comes to mind) because most of the stories have already written themselves out. Consider this: The Oxford English Dictionary has over 171,000 words, but only a finite way to put them together in a screenplay. While that number may be huge, it is still a FINITE number. In layman's terms, screenwriters are running out of ideas and are remaking old favorites and falling back on tried-and-true genres.
I see more and more films that are "based on the novel by:" which further emphasizes this. Recent films include My Sister's Keeper, Time Traveller's Wife, Flashforward (television series), Lord of the Rings, and many more (albeit some books are perfect for the silver screen compared to others). But in the end, it all comes down to the future. As of right now, that future is 3D. How long before films turn out to be nothing but hollow plots used for the 3D effects? And what will replace 3D afterwards? Hollowgraphics? Interactive movies? Its near-impossible to determine.
In the end, it all comes down to one thing: Creativity. Or, more specifically, Hollywood's seemingly lack of Creativity. Every year, there will be a few gems to bless our hollowed movie hearts, but until we, as a public movie audience, wise up to the fact that Hollywood is feeding us nothing but dog food visuals, they will keep spoon-feeding us this garbage, albeit visually enhanced CG animated garbage with a 24 million dollar budget.