CAA: Christian Anime Alliance

I am a big visual arts fan, especially when it comes to movies, tv shows, and comics. So I really need to rant about this.

What the heck is going on in America? Creativity seems to have died and now all there is left is rehashing stuff the was made when creativity is still alive. As I look at what is going to be coming out in the next few years I just see remakes of movies, video games, or comics, in some cases I actually see remakes of remakes. Its like movie makers don't have a creative bone in there body. Right now James Cameron is my favorite director, not just because he's a great director, but he has not done one single remake. I really hope our generation follows in his footsteps.

No, but while Avatar is a really great movie, (visually stunning in my opinion) The Plot was not original at all. Haha!

Unfortunately, what we are looking at is a down economy and what better way to soup up the movie industry than to pan to the fans and newcomers.

Why are these movies and franchises popular? Because there are fans that want to see their favorite things on the big screen...

I'm not saying its awesome that we have a ton of remake and stuff, but making movies is a big risk...and people are scared to make even riskier movies...

Agreed, Kitsune. I loved Avatar, but the story/plot was so predictable. it was like Ferngully meets Pocahontas. It just annoyed me in the end, but like Tim Burton...I really wish he'd go back to original things. I love originality, but I can understand what you mean, Jackal. *shrugs* I wouldn't say we've lost all originality, I like to think some ideas can be just as unique as the creator.

Ecclesiastes 1:8-9

All things are wearisome,
more than one can say.
The eye never has enough of seeing,
nor the ear its fill of hearing.

What has been will be again,
what has been done will be done again;
there is nothing new under the sun.

thejackal221 (post: 1387023) wrote:I am a big visual arts fan, especially when it comes to movies, tv shows, and comics. So I really need to rant about this.

What the heck is going on in America? Creativity seems to have died and now all there is left is rehashing stuff the was made when creativity is still alive. As I look at what is going to be coming out in the next few years I just see remakes of movies, video games, or comics, in some cases I actually see remakes of remakes. Its like movie makers don't have a creative bone in there body. Right now James Cameron is my favorite director, not just because he's a great director, but he has not done one single remake. I really hope our generation follows in his footsteps.

Ellipsis.

No, creativity is not dead. Creativity is very much alive and thriving. I know that if you aren't a film geek, it's really easy to think that there are no creative, imaginative, and original movies coming out of America, but it simply isn't true. Let's take a look at a few fully original films in 2009:

Avatar
District 9
Moon
The Hurt Locker
A Serious Man
Inglorious Basterds
Bad Lieutenant
Goodbye Solo

This is, of course, discounting the creativity it takes to make a movie out of existing source material. I compiled this list off the top of my head, so there are certain to be plenty more out there. (and there are.)

The reason that the less original/creative (again, discounting how much creativity goes into adapting something to film) get all the attention is because we, the consumer, vote with our money. Our money-votes overwhelmingly support familiar materials and stories more than original ones.

I could make similar arguments for comics and video games. (Then there is television, which is pretty incredible right now.)


On a sidenote, James Cameron directed True Lies, which is a remake of the French film La Totale !

I agree, it's frustrating. Every time they announce a new remake, I groan. But the fact is, this is nothing new to Hollywood:

Shop Around the Corner (1940) remade as In the Good Old Summertime (1949) Remade as You've Got Mail (1998)

The Philadelphia Story (1940) remade as High Society (1956)

The Narrow Margin (1952) remade as Narrow Margin (1990)

The Bourne Identity (1988) was remade The Bourne Identity (2002)

And most of these stories started out as books or plays. When something sells once, Hollywood sees it as a wise move to dust it off a few years later, update it for a new generation and resell it. Hollywood studios are like book publishers; they've never really existed for the sake of creativity, they exist to make money, and they choose their investments very carefully. Naturally, they're always looking for the 'hot new idea', but those are often risks. Their bread and butter consists of the tried and true.
But it think the reason the remake trend has become of glaringly noticeable is because it's become easier to make movies and there are far more people doing it now. The media field is saturated, pop culture is rampant. I wonder if it will hit critical mass like the housing market and suddenly cause a lot of studios to implode because the audience just isn't there anymore. Maybe it's already happening, thus more and more dependance on remakes.

Regarding Cameron's, early work is fairly original, like The Abyss and The Terminator. But lately he's fallen into the same rut as Spielberg, Lucas and most other big directors. They bet on a sure thing. Avatar's plot and one-dimensional villains were far too tired for me and left me yawning. But if you're young and have never seen Dances With Wolves, it probably seemed much more original to you. It annoys me because I've seen most of the originals (and believe they are mostly superior), but it is the way of Hollywood.

thejackal221 (post: 1387023) wrote:Right now James Cameron is my favorite director, not just because he's a great director, but he has not done one single remake.

I liked Avatar better when it was called Dance With Wolves.

Man, if creativity is dead in the US, then Shutter Island must not have been very creative.

Where I like Avatar, it wasn't original at all. There is a lot of stuff in Avatar that I have seen in other movies and in anime movies as well.

Where Shutter Island was base off a book, but it and District 9 and The Hurt Locker were very creative.

I go as far and say that I feel that Shutter Island was more creative then Avatar.

[font="Book Antiqua"]
[color="Red"]Col. Roy Mustang
[/color][/font]

Honestly, I'd say it takes just as much creativity to make a movie adaptation of a book, or even a remake of an older movie (see The Fall; do NOT see Psycho XD), as it does to make a movie with an original story idea. For instance, Wes Anderson didn't write the story of The Fantastic Mr. Fox, but there was still an enormous creative process that went into making the visuals for that book-to-movie adaptation (as it does with any book-to-movie adaptation), and all of it involves a large amount of creativity from everyone on staff. And some of my favorite movies were adapted from books: Big Fish, The Prestige, The LOTR Trilogy, The Princess Bride, Paprika, The Wizard of Oz...book-to-movie adaptations will never get old, as long as the right director is at the wheel. XD

That said, I would say that even story-wise, creativity is far from dead in the US. I mean, just take a look at Pixar--the last two movies they released (Wall-E and Up) were both original stories, and were stunning both visually and in regards to their stories. As far as remakes are concerned, I don't have a problem with them as long as they're done well and with respect to the original (and as long as they aren't the ONLY movies being released). Creativity doesn't just apply to the writing of the story, and if a story is good enough, people are going to want to hear it more than once, and more than likely, they'll want to hear it told in more than one way. Granted, some movies just shouldn't be remade (again, see Psycho and The Wizard of Oz). XD

Fish and Chips (post: 1387041) wrote:I liked Avatar better when it was called Dance With Wolves.

...or Pocahontas.

While there are some newer creative films out there, I think that, for a little while at least, the ratio of remakes to original/creative projects will stay relativity the same. It seems like Hollywood is pretty happy with the box office money from stuff like Transformers, so I don't see an oncoming big shake-up in terms of the kinds of things being produced.

I think the mantra these days is: go to the movies to be entertained, go to the television to be intellectually stimulated.

There are a lot more innovative/interesting American TV shows than films at the moment IMO (again, not that there aren't good creative flicks, just that the ratio is heavier on the TV side). Late last year, Bill Simmons claimed that, "The best movies of the decade are TV shows." I am in complete agreement.

HBO usually has some good material. Right now, "The Pacific" and "How to Make It in America" are stand-outs. Also, ABC's "Lost" and AMC's "Mad Men" are simply amazing. Those two series are better than anything I've seen at the theater in years.

Esoteric (post: 1387038) wrote:
The Bourne Identity (1988) was remade The Bourne Identity (2002)

I don't think the 2002 film was made to be a remake of the 1988, but they just wanted a whole fresh trilogy of the novels. (The 1988 adaptation was only a TV miniseries.)

There is always creativity anywhere in the world, even the US, but the problem with many of the big business behind the entertainment industry (Hollywood studios, media conglomerates, record companies, etc.) is that they don't trust new, different stuff and would rather rely on "safe bets", which is maybe reasonable considering that the average movie costs about $100 000 000 these days (not that I'm defending that). Because these hype-machines have incredible marketing power behind it the more creative, off beat things get lost in the shuffle, sometimes for a long time, and that is why it may seem, on the surface, that creativity has been lost. If you dig deep

And, though I am very much an admirer of James Cameron, I have to admit that originality is not his strong suit (though he does have a knack for taking somebody else's idea and running to it in interesting directions). TERMINATOR's overall plot was taken from two separate episodes of the The Outer Limits, written by sci-fi author Harlan Ellison. Avatar, a movie I enjoyed, borrowed from several different classic science fiction works (its easy to find a list on-line) on top of "Dances with Wolves" (the Pocahontas angle is a classic 'jungle picture' trope and not that bad, really!). His movie ALIENS (a favourite of mine) was actually a sequel to somebody else's property but expanded much upon the idea so much that many consider Ridley Scot's classic ALIEN to be too slow (though comparing the two is like comparing apples and oranges). As for a remake, his movie TRUE LIES was actually a remake of a French comedy movie that no one really remembers because everybody consider Cameron's version to be better. He even wrote and produced a remake of Andrei Tarkovsky's* Russian space-epic SOLARIS, though there it was directed by Steven Soderbergh and starred George Clooney. Although SOLARIS was based on a novel by Stanislaw Lem, his version mirrored the original film version more, much to the chagrin of the author who hated both version. Cameron's most orginal work was, overall, The Abyss.

* Tarkovsky, who dispised 'commercial cinema', actually thought The Terminator was a very good movie.

DOn't worry about it. Unless they decide that someone needs to remake Citizen Kane.

The answer to your problem? Look outside America.
But really creativity isn't dead in the arts, you just have to look harder. As for Avatar, I don't think that should be held up as a trophy of creativity, unless you're referring to the visuals. What a dull, mediocre movie.

First of all, question for the thread's creator. When you say remakes, do you mean story wise or art style wise? I only ask because you mention you are a fan of visual arts.

Though, considering you are a fan of visual arts, Jackal, your post on creativity lacking in movies is a bit confusing to me. Visual art is not the only element in movies. They involve story and character development as well. Without these, they would not be movies, they would be works of art (and it could be argued they are not even that, but rather shiny graphics that people have poured tons of money into, i.e. "eye candy").

Concerning the creativity of all the elements in movies, yes, there are remakes, but there is also newer ideas (that have been mentioned in this thread already). Concerning just the visual aspect of movies, Avatar (for example) was indeed "creative" visually but it wasn't anything overly exciting (besides how shiny it looked, but that comes from Cameron having money; he didn't make the art look that pretty himself, he paid people to make it that pretty).
Though, I would consider something like claymation (or variations of it), like "Wallace and Gromit", visually creative (for its day and even now) even though it's not all shiny and pretty.

goldenspines (post: 1387098) wrote:Though, considering you are a fan of visual arts, Jackal, your post on creativity lacking in movies is a bit confusing to me. Visual art is not the only element in movies. They involve story and character development as well. Without these, they would not be movies, they would be works of art (and it could be argued they are not even that, but rather shiny graphics that people have poured tons of money into, i.e. "eye candy").

Are you saying that movies cannot be art? If so, then this paragraph makes me very sad, because you have never seen an art film.

Cognitive Gear (post: 1387120) wrote:Are you saying that movies cannot be art? If so, then this paragraph makes me very sad, because you have never seen an art film.

I didn't say that movies cannot be art (or didn't mean that anyways). On the contrary, I think a very well constructed movie (good plot, characters, etc.) that flows beautifully together is art. But a movie can't be art based on pretty graphics alone. It needs more in it than just that. That's what I meant. o.o

Ya I was a little harsh with some of the things I said earlier (*voice inside head "a little?"), I was just getting heated due to the fact that all I have heard about is remakes lately and it kind of irritated me. Now I understand the whole thing about using names everyone has heard about, but I would like to see something that adds to the story instead of the same thing I read, played, or saw. A great example of this is Tomb Raider. It keep the feel of the games yet told a story that wasn't told in the games. Not only that but it didn't contradict the games by not telling us when in the time line it was based. Now There are some remakes that might be interesting that I am surprised to see, but that's for another thread.

I don't know much about films, don't read a lot of comics, and am not an avid gamer compared with most of you. On top of this, I don't live in the US, so perhaps this is why I don't think creativity is dead in America.

I do realise a lot of plot devices, character archetypes, etc. may have been used and re-used dozens and dozens of times.

I believe it's hard not to repeat some aspect of an idea as humanity has been thinking of stories years (and many, many years) ago.

For example, I know that there are heaps of Superman-type characters in terms of powers and abilities - Captain Marvel, Mr Majestic, Apollos from The Authority, Supreme, Sentry, etc.

Whilst there is repetition, there are also differences, so it doesn't bother me too much. I find myself enjoying stories in general, even if some of the concepts are re-hashed.

goldenspines (post: 1387121) wrote:I didn't say that movies cannot be art (or didn't mean that anyways). On the contrary, I think a very well constructed movie (good plot, characters, etc.) that flows beautifully together is art. But a movie can't be art based on pretty graphics alone. It needs more in it than just that. That's what I meant. o.o

*nods* Yes, there are lots of movies that aren't flashy but definitely art. Citizen Kane viewed through the lens of today isn't as flashy as it was back then. But it's still as timeless as ever.

I believe every decade churns out crap. It's just that more people are making things than ever before. Hence more crap.

A recent interview of actor John Ratzenberger ,who played Cliff on Cheers, on a local radio show in Wash. DC said most of todays writers for TV and movies don't read books because most of what they use to inspire them is what they see on TV, movies or the internet. Jack Diamond the radio host said that there has been other actors who have been interviewed on the show have said the samething. I guess they are saying that reading of books is important and seems to be fading away with todays youth. When you read that book stores are preparing to close because people are not buying books.

Yeah, don't be thinking every movie that got churned out was awesome in years past-- past decades had PLENTY of crap. We just don't remember the crappy ones because they faded away, while the good ones lived on. XD

Also, the movie industry (and other entertainment industries as well) is definitely playing it safe due to the economy. After all, their primary concern is not to make works of art, but to stay in business, and you stay in business by making a profit. I don't like it, but what can I do besides vote with my dollars?

As for me, originality doesn't matter so much as execution. You can tell the same old story in a different way and it becomes fresh again.

Regarding books, I think the market is too flooded. I don't know about anyone else, but I have a hell of a time finding a book to read because there are SO MANY, and because a lot of them just aren't any good or don't appeal to me.

Why has no one mentioned or watched the Box? That movie was incredible and it didn't conform to stereotypes. It was unconventional.

Fish and Chips (post: 1387041) wrote:I liked Avatar better when it was called Dance With Wolves.

Peanut (post: 1387048) wrote:...or Pocahontas.

You stole my thunder. XD