Has Hollywood Ran Out Of Ideas....

**alohabear** · January 12th, 2006, 08:14 AM

....or just gotten lazy? I ask this question to ALL the HT movie fans out there.
This thread came into being when I heard that they are thinking of "remaking" the classic Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid. With all the terrible movies coming out based on classic(and non-classic) TV shows, Comicbooks, Broadway Plays, and Crappy sequels, It seems to me that a good movie is a rare thing.

I bet Entertainment Weekly's predition that "the DaVinci Code " will be 2006's BIG Blockbuster will come true, because of the hype and it original storyline based on a great book.

Maybe EW said it best with this statement:

And in an effort to draw Americans back to the movies after 2005's record plunge, theater owners will be offering every moviegoer a free baby penguin with the purchase of a large combo snack.

Let Hollywood just take thier time to make good movies again.

**Kilinahe** · January 12th, 2006, 09:06 AM

Unfortunately, I think as long as people mindlessly spend money on stupid lousy movies like "The Dukes of Hazzard" and the upcoming Chips movie, they're gonna make 'em. Any slump in ticket sales is because the DVD's come out just weeks after a movie closes, it seems. Who's going to go see a boring sequel when the DVD will be on the shelf in a month?

Still, people are eating up the substandard product with a spoon. That "Hoodwinked" thing is coming out this weekend and I think people will go to that in droves. Why? It's the only family-type movie out right now. Guaranteed, it's not any better than anything out there, but it's going to get butts in seats because people want to bring their kids to a movie.

**Lalalinder** · January 12th, 2006, 09:36 AM

Yes, they have run out of ideas. That's why I like foreign and indie films so much.

I go to the movies less and less anymore, although this year was ok. I loved Good Night And Good Luck, Munich, and Walk The Line very much.

**scrivener** · January 12th, 2006, 11:16 AM

Originally Posted by Kilinahe

...stupid lousy movies like "The Dukes of Hazzard" and the upcoming Chips movie...

Ooooh. They're making a CHiPs movie? I am so there.

I have a few comments about this -- Hollywood, not CHiPs.

First, there is no "record slump." As Richard Roeper points out:

Yes, there was an overall decline in theatrical ticket sales from 2004 to 2005. For the first time since 1990, the total domestic box office take was down.

But that also means the box office had gone UP each year since 1990. If you're a baseball player and you get a hit in 14 straight games, and then you go hitless in game 15, are you in a "slump" or did you just cool off a bit? The box office would have to decline for at least another two years running before we could legitimately call it a slump.

Roeper goes on to say that if you subtract the 370 millions bucks Mel Gibson's The Passion of the Christ made in 2004 (a sensible thing to do, since that film brought into theathers tens of thousands of people who normally don't go to movies) and Michael Moore's Farenheit 9/11 (ditto), the decline is only three to four percent.

Slump or no slump, though, this thread is about Hollywood's seemingly having run out of ideas, but the truth is that Hollywood has had exactly one idea since its establishment as the movie capitol of the world: money. The studio system is designed to lure as many people into theater seats as possible; when you try to appeal to EVERYONE, you generally make crap. This is true of art, food, music, and television, too.

There are people in Hollywood who are trying to make interesting, unique films, but when you come up with something nobody's ever seen before, studios balk because they don't know yet if it will bring people to the box office.

For the longest time, the Weinsteins bucked that trend, championing movies of clear vision, of specific ambition, and of no commercial credibility whatsoever; this resulted not only in success in theaters, but in critical acclaim as well. A partial list of films released by Miramax between 1994 and 2001:

Jay and Silent Bob Strike Back (2001)
Captain Corelli's Mandolin (2001)
Chocolat (2000)
The Talented Mr. Ripley (1999)
The Cider House Rules (1999)
Music of the Heart (1999)
Mansfield Park (1999)
Shakespeare in Love (1998)
54 (1998)
Velvet Goldmine (1998)
Jackie Brown (1997)
Scream 2 (1997)
Good Will Hunting (1997)
The Wings of the Dove (1997)
Everyone Says I Love You (1996)
The English Patient (1996)
Emma (1996)
Faithful (1996)
Jane Eyre (1996)
From Dusk Till Dawn (1996)
Four Rooms (1995)
Cry, the Beloved Country (1995)
Mighty Aphrodite (1995)
Smoke (1995)
The Englishman Who Went Up a Hill But Came Down a Mountain (1995)
Kids (1995)
Things to Do in Denver When You're Dead (1995)
Unzipped (1995)
Prêt-à-Porter (1994)
Bullets Over Broadway (1994)
Muriel's Wedding (1994)
The Crow (1994)
Pulp Fiction (1994)
Clerks. (1994)

I haven't seen all of these, and therefore can't vouch for the entire list, but I know enough about what I've listed here to make my point: Within the Hollywood system, it's possible to put out (economically and critically) successful films. These films, while not all winners, are interesting and different. Many of them were nominated for Academy Awards; even more of them inspired other films released by the big studios. Several of them are among my thirty favorite films of all time.

So the ideas are clearly still out there. What Hollywood has lost is not creativity; what it has lost is guts.

**Miulang** · January 12th, 2006, 12:21 PM

I believe it was Shakespeare who said there are really only 7 major plots, and every other story is a variation of a major theme. Frankly, I think he was right: most current Hollywood tales are either sequels or remakes of earlier versions. The last movie I saw was the indie "Good Night and Good Luck". I think the indie films are where it's at in US filmmaking.

I also enjoy foreign movies and documentaries for the same reason. If it's going to be a variation on a theme, at least it's a different variation on a theme!

Miulang

**mel** · January 12th, 2006, 10:25 PM

Movie making is a business and as Scriv has pointed out, it is all about money. Period.

For every great artistic or blockbuster movie Hollywood puts out, there has to be dozens of "crappy" movies such as "Dukes of Hazzard" that are cheaply made, lure in millions of young viewers and money to help keep a studio profitable so that they have the guts and perhaps foresight to take a gamble on something new and artistic.

Way back in 1973 or 74, there was this studio that was threading on near bankruptcy. This guy came in and tossed his idea of doing a comic-book like space opera movie to them. They took the gamble and George Lucas made "Star Wars" which at the time was something artistic that no one else had made or seen. This was after some of the other major studios had turned Lucas down flat. This studio took a gamble and it paid off.

**MadAzza** · January 12th, 2006, 10:42 PM

Originally Posted by Miulang

I believe it was Shakespeare who said there are really only 7 major plots …

Oh yeah, well, Eskimos have 93 words for snow!

Um ... it's the fever talking. Yeah, that's it ... the fever!

**alohabear** · January 13th, 2006, 06:36 AM

Originally Posted by scrivener

So the ideas are clearly still out there. What Hollywood has lost is not creativity; what it has lost is guts.

2005's big money maker was Star Wars EP3. I guess with the price of movies...more people(like me) wait for DVD's. You need a lot of guts, Peter Jackson is the only one with it. Look at his work , not a bad one in the bunch( even Bad Taste was good). Another man with guts is Quinten Tarantino, his movies are always good.

**Menehune Man** · January 18th, 2006, 10:06 PM

I don't think that Hollywood has run out of ideas, just using the wrong ones to portray or aren't being creative enough. The technology is there to create almost anything. A good movie starts with an enthralling story and more Indie movies have that.