Showing posts with label Where Have All The Ideas Gone?. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Where Have All The Ideas Gone?. Show all posts

Tuesday, February 16, 2010

Where Have All The Ideas Gone?, part 4

For the past few entries, we've noticed the escalation in convolutedness (though convolutocity sounds so much better) as to where Hollywood's inspiration comes from. From prequels to reboots to video games, it seems that Hollywood is having a hard time coming up with original ideas—and when the original ideas do come up, they usually leave a lot to be desired.

case in point
But what about the times when having an idea from a source just isn't enough? When those times roll around—all too often, I might add—it makes for some interesting scenarios.

The Producers
The year is 1968. The man is a relatively unknown writer by the name of Melvin Kaminsky. The movie is The Producers, a comedy about two men who try (unsuccessfully) to make a Broadway flop so they can rake in extra cash. The movie garnered plenty of controversy and plenty of money; it also catapulted Melvin Kaminsky into the limelight as a household name: Mel Brooks.

Springtime for Hitler and Germany...
33 years later, a musical was released on Broadway titled The Producers, and was a comedy about two men who try (unsuccessfully) to make a Broadway flop so they can rake in extra cash. The play won a dozen Tony awards and eventually had a US and European tour. Four years after that, a movie was released called The Producers. As you might have guessed, it was a comedy about two men who try (unsuccessfully) to make a Broadway flop so they can rake in extra cash.

In case you didn't catch it, we have the original film (The Producers). We then have a musical inspired by the original (The Producers). We then have a movie based off the musical inspired by the original (The Producers).

Confused yet?
Halloween
In 1979, John Carpenter released a film; as I recall, it was a horror film. The film was called Halloween and involved a deranged homicidal maniac named Michael Myers* running around, murdering young babysitters. The original film did so well that it spawned a sequel (and, later, about 50 other -quels), appropriately called Halloween II.

*No, not this Michael Myers.
In 2007, somebody decided that giving Rob Zombie reign over another movie would be a good idea, and the viewing public was given Halloween, a remake of the original. Though the film did nowhere near as well as the original, a sequel was greenlit. Two years later, we were given a sequel, appropriately called Halloween II.

For those keeping score, we have Halloween, an original film. We then have Halloween II, a sequel to the original. We then have Halloween, a remake of the original. And lastly, we have Halloween II, a sequel to the remake of the original, which has nothing in common with the other Halloween II.

How about now?
Nine
In 1963, an Italian director by the name of Federico Fellini wrote and directed a semi-autobiographical film called Otto e Mezzo, known better by its English title: 8 1/2. The film was a huge success and served as an inspiration for numerous works, including a 1974 play called Six Passionate Women, written by Mario Fratti. Fratti then adapted his own work into English, which was first shown in 1998.

Too many numbers... what is this, LOST?
Meanwhile, in 1973 work began on a play inspired by Fellini's 8 1/2. The producers of the play originally hired Fratti to write the play—which he did, mostly by adapting his own Six Passionate Women—but later decided to go with another writer. This play was released in 1982 as Nine. 27 years later, a film adaptation of the play was released in theaters, also under the title Nine.

So we have a movie (Nine) based off a play (Nine), which was itself partially inspired by another play (Six Passionate Women) and by another film (8 1/2).

Sewiouswy, Stwong Bad...
Die Hard 2
The story of Die Hard 2: Die Harder begins back in 1966 with a man named Roderick Thorp. That year, Thorp wrote a book called The Detective about a renegade cop who plays by his own rules. The Detective was later adapted into a 1986 film of the same name starring Frank Sinatra. 13 years later, Thorp wrote a sequel called Nothing Lasts Forever about the same renegade cop playing by the same rules. Nothing Lasts Forever was later adapted into a film called Die Hard starring Bruce Willis, released in 1988.

Which makes these guys the same character...
Die Hard did so well in the box office that a sequel was immediately greenlit. As Thorp hadn't written a threequel, the studio scrambled for ideas. They eventually came across a book written by Walter Wager with the name of 58 Minutes, which was written in 1987. 58 Minutes dealt largely with a renegade cop playing by his own rules. As this matched the model, a pair of screenwriters were instantly tasked with an adaptation, and in 1990, Die Hard 2 was released.

This one might be a bit tricky to keep orderly. We have a movie (Die Hard 2) based on a book (58 Minutes) acting as a sequel to another movie (Die Hard) based on another book (Nothing Lasts Forever), which itself was a sequel to another book (The Detective), which incidentally was adapted into a separate film (The Detective).

A movie based on a book being a sequel to a movie based on a book which was a sequel to a book? Don't let's be silly!
And if you think the cycle of idea-theft is only a thing of the past, allow me to show you what we have to look forward to in the next few years:

The Warriors (2010) — A movie based on a movie based on a book based on a Greek tale.
The Little Shop of Horror (2011) — A movie based on a movie based on a play based on a movie.
Wicked (2012) — A movie based on a musical based on a novel based on a novel.

After discussing the various places Hollywood gets (read: steals/regurgitates) its ideas from, I personally am all the more grateful for those few-and-far-between times when an original movie does come out. But what is to be done with the Hollywood executives who can't seem to get any new ideas into their heads? I have just one thing to say to them. And yes, to follow their example, I'm going to steal it: cut it out.

Thanks, Uncle Joey.

Thursday, February 11, 2010

Where Have All The Ideas Gone?, part 3

Over the past week, we've discussed Hollywood's general apathy towards original ideas, and how they like to take existing films and basically rip them to shreds. Today, I would like to point out some of the other mediums—other than history, news, and other "true stories"—that have been hurt due to this philosophy. (As with previous installments, the purpose of this post is not to say that every movie taken from another medium is bad. Just most of them.) Among other things there have been (bad) movies based on...

...books...


...poems...

...television shows...

...plays...

...video games...

...comic books...

...board games...

...toys...

...amusement park rides...

...holidays...

...and even social networking sites.

Though this list is by no means extensive or exhaustive, I think we can all agree that if there is something/anything out there, there has been/will be a movie based on it.

You know it's only a matter of time...
But wrapping it up Tuesday: when it gets REALLY bad...

Tuesday, February 9, 2010

Where Have All The Ideas Gone?, part 2

Last Thursday, I proposed the idea that perhaps Hollywood needs to be a bit more original when coming up with ideas for movies. Today, I will explore further why that is the case.

The Remake
Remakes are often started by the following conversation:

  Studio Executive 1: "You know, _______ did extraordinarily well at the box office."
  Studio Executive 2: "Then what are we waiting for? Let's greenlight _______ 2!"
  Studio Executive 1: "_______ 2? But [the main character [or bad guy] died/ there is no more conflict/ the world has been saved]!
  Studio Executive 2: "Hmmm... Well, let's get a new actor in there and tell the story again!"

The concept behind a remake is pretty cut-and-dry. They are often used on movies that are old (that they want to introduce to a new audience), low-budget (that they want to make with more money), or good (that they want to completely mess up). Oft-times they will change the name of the film slightly, in an attempt to either admit that what they're doing is wrong, or to trick people into seeing a film with a name that will strike a eerily-familiar cord with viewers.

I'm betting it's the latter.
Remakes are usually made to be a flash-in-the-pan; that is, make a lot of money the first few opening weekends, then be quickly forgotten. Gone is any caring for the original or any hopes to make an actually good film, and present are the hopes of making truckloads of cash before word gets out that it's not a good movie.

I mean, come on!
  Most grievous offenses—
Psycho, Alfie, The Pink Panther, The Italian Job
  Ones I'm glad they haven't made... yet—
Once Upon a Time in the West, To Kill a Mockingbird, It Happened One Night

This summer, Peter and Ellie's lives will change in one night.
The Reboot
The reboot is a fairly new invention, emerging in the past decade or so. The idea behind a reboot stems in its terminology: to take something already in existence and restart it.

Because calling it a "ctrl + alt + del" wasn't as catchy.
By doing this, studios have the freedom of choosing new actors, settings, storylines, themes, and pretty much anything else they want for their movies, but also have the luxury of the populace already knowing the gist of and liking the series. A reboot differs from a remake in that remakes often stick to original ideas that are just revamped, whereas a reboot is a complete mulligan of an entire series. In a reboot, all bets are off regarding anything from previous installments (usually referred to as the "canon"). For an example, take the following conversation:

  Studio Executive 1: "You know, _______ did extraordinarily well at the box office."
  Studio Executive 2: "Then what are we waiting for? Let's greenlight _______ 2!"
  Studio Executive 1: "_______ 2? But [the main character [or bad guy] died/ there is no more conflict/ the world has been saved]!
  Studio Executive 2: "Hmmm... Well, let's get a new actor in there and tell the story again! But this time, we'll make it edgy!"

When dealing with reboots, one often hears the word "gritty". This (I guess) stems from the frat-boy inspired philosophy that as long as you are redoing something, you might as well make it more hardcore this time around. While gritty reboots can work—making Batman dark and serious is one of the best moves the franchise ever made—it really makes me wonder at what point they will stop.

See how the man became the legend.
Reboots are usually not explained in the context of the movie itself. Why are we seeing James Bond acquiring his 007 title after 20 films of him already having it? Because we're starting over, that's why. In the most recent Star Trek installment, they actually did attempt to explain it—and did a rather nice job. (Granted, they had to use the "time warp" theory, which only works in something like Star Trek, but still.)

  Most grievous offenses—
Superman Returns, Hulk, Halloween
  Ones I'm glad they haven't made... yet—
Adventures in Babysitting, Song of the South, Spider-man 4

Oh, wait.
Coming up Thursday: when ideas are still copied, but not from movies...

Thursday, February 4, 2010

Where Have All The Ideas Gone?, part 1

Ideas are everywhere. They can come from something you see or hear or read. They can come from an experience in your life or a story from someone else's. And some of them are, as a memorable episode of Seinfeld taught us, simply "in the air". With that being the case, why in the world do the powers-that-be in Hollywood ignore the aforementioned sources and insist on rehashing ideas over and over again? Over the next few posts, allow me to explore a few of the ways in which Hollywood is being neither creative, original, creatively original, nor originally creative.

It's not "top of the muffin TO YOU!"
The Sequel
Now, I'm not talking a sequel that was meant to happen from the word go—in fact, when a sequel is planned from the beginning, it is oft-times better than the original (read: The Two Towers or The Empire Strikes Back). Sadly, though, most sequels come to be because the original made a lot of money, and some studio executives had the following conversation:

  Studio Executive 1: "You know, _______ did extraordinarily well at the box office."
  Studio Executive 2: "Then what are we waiting for? Let's greenlight _______ 2!"
The preceding conversation is then usually followed with the subsequent one:
  Studio Executive 1: "_______ 2? But [the main character [or bad guy] died/ there is no more conflict/ the world has been saved]!
  Studio Executive 2: [shrugs shoulders] "...meh."

And so it is that we are subjected to a barrage of horrible sequels, some of which have nothing to do with the original, some of which actually undo/write-off the events of the first film to make room for a second one, and some of which are created literally 20 or 30 years after the fact.

Now, that is not to say that all unplanned sequels are bad. The Dark Knight, Evil Dead 2, and Once Upon a Time in Mexico are all great. It is to say, however, that for every good sequel released, we are given half a dozen Saw iterations.

Saw VI? Really?
  Most grievous offenses—
Live Free or Die Hard, The Matrix Revolutions, Pirates of the Caribbean: At World's End, Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull
  Ones I'm glad they haven't made... yet—
Leon (the Professional) 2: Mathilda's Revenge, Armageddon 2: Armageddon, Groundhog Day 2: Back 2 Punxsutawney

This time, it's personal.
The Prequel
Much like the sequel, the prequel comes from a similar conversation between studio executives:

  Studio Executive 1: "You know, _______ did extraordinarily well at the box office."
  Studio Executive 2: "Then what are we waiting for? Let's greenlight _______ 2!"
  Studio Executive 1: "_______ 2? But [the main character [or bad guy] died/ there is no more conflict/ the world has been saved]!
  Studio Executive 2: [thinks for a moment] "Ok, then. Let's tell the story of what happened before."

And thus the prequel came to be. Now, again, there are exceptions to every rule—The Godfather II is half-prequel and it is incredible. But the risk that is run with prequels is that the story already has an ending point (i.e. the starting of the original film), so anything that happens in the prequel has to line up to the original. In other words, it's like reading the last chapter of a book first: it pretty much renders moot the rest of the story.

As hot as Hugh Jackman is, did we really need this?
  Most grievous offenses—
Star Wars: The New Trilogy (all of them), Tremors 4: The Legend Begins, The Scorpion King, Cube Zero
  Ones I'm glad they haven't made... yet—
Casablanca: The Early Years, Harry Potter: Dumbledor's Story, Fight Club: I Am Jack's Childhood

This summer, see how it all began.
Coming up Tuesday: What happens when old movies need a new spin?