There's a particularly annoying point I keep hearing when I discuss big blockbusters with people, and any time someone says this it drives me up the wall; I may get business cards with this site's link and QR code printed on in future, so that if some says this to me again, I can just so them this answer rather than waste my breath again. That point is "Hollywood has run out of original ideas". Now at first glance, it's easy to see how one can get such an impression, with the sheer number of sequels, remakes, adaptations, tie-ins and reimaginings on the release slate. However, this suggests this trend is something new, when really all through movie history films have been based on other things before; think how many big films were originally based on books that their popularity has completely eclipsed (Die Hard, The Godfather, Jaws...).
Overall though the phrase is incredibly inaccurate; Hollywood and the world of movie making has plenty of new ideas, and there are huge numbers of film-makers, writers and scripts chock-full of originality awaiting their moment! The issue isn't a lack of originality, the boils down to the hard truth of movies a lot of us generally ignore; big movies are made to make money! As such, it's all a question of business risk (this is where my twin talents of film geek and accountant come in handy!); a new concept, heading into uncharted waters is always going to be inherently more risky than using an existing Intellectual Property that already has that brand credibility behind it. If it's based on an existing thing, then people who are interested in that thing are likely to see it, therefore there will be some guaranteed return. Since it's corporations that run studios now, the sad fact is that as good as your original script may be, the project that has existing license is a far better prospect for the balance sheet, no matter what a critic may make of it.
There is though one exception to that; if that new original project has the talent behind it that can be banked on instead. If the makers have been successful enough beforehand, their names can be the thing that can be marketed the hell out of to get bums in cinema seats. It's how Christopher Nolan, after making for Warner Bros. good DC comics movies, got the 100 million or so needed to tell a conceptual heist thriller with Inception. It's also why last summer's big surprise was Seth McFarlane's jump from animation to live action; it didn't have a franchise behind the film, but those words "from the Creator of Family Guy" and hearing Peter Griffin's voice come out of a teddy bear brought the audience in...
There are drawbacks to this though; note how much movie poster artwork now consists entirely of the star standing in front of a 'shopped background as the sole selling point. Then, of course, there's the matter of After Earth. M. Night Shymalan's career hasn't exactly been in the best of shapes since he got more creative control on his films. The Last Airbender wasn't quite a flop, but it barely made it's budget back, and the whole thing killed the chances of forming a full franchise from it (plus it was just a terrible adaptation!). However, in technical terms he still has quite a bit of clout, and that clout is combined with that of Will Smith, who despite a bit of a hiatus for a while, is still a big name in his own right. From a story by Smith, specifically one to really promote his son Jaden, they together concocted After Earth. Again, it's an original IP created and marketed through sheer star power. How does it work out? Well...
OK, now in fairness I haven't seen the film so can't judge myself. But I must admit there are a lot of bad warning signs. For starters, the really overcomplicated sounding backstory, and I must admit there seems to be a lot of ego at work in the fact that in the word of this movie, Woll Smoth's character isn't just Mr. Awesome now, he's from a ludicrously long line of ridiculously high profile people who're always the centre of everything important that happens anywhere. Plus the trailers have a lot of "so what" to them, especially considering some really dumb things mentioned in the narration (so everything's evolved to kill humans on a planet where there haven't been humans for generations? How does that work?), so I doubt they inspired huge interest either.
However the film actually goes though, the thing that worries me about the poor box-office for the film, is the fact that, not for the first time, a big budget new IP would have crashed on take-off; how will the studios react to this, and what will they learn? Well, apart from maybe "never return one of Shymalan's calls ever again", what worries me is that being stung in this way may get the studios to crawl even further back into their comfort zones, and look upon new ideas with even more fear and trepidation before. I said earlier that originality is risky, well an original movie of this scale failing would be a big reminder to them of just how risky. If it is a flop on the scale that Variety indicates, what does that mean for other big new ideas looking for backing? Not good things, I can tell you.
As such, I'm not really going to ask you to sit through an M. Night Shymalan film to reconcile this (I mean Christ, did you see The Happening?). Instead, let's send the message to Hollywood that we want new ideas, done by people who seem to actually have a clue what they're doing. There is one other big blockbuster this summer that's an original property...
No idea if it's really going to be that good, but it looks a lot more entertaining than After Earth does (Holy Shit, did he just hit that thing with a boat?) and Guillermo Del Toro has a far better track record. Plain and simple, if originality is to be fully kept alive, we have to support it where it will do the most good. Pacific Rim is one of the last, best hopes for that this summer (well, this and Elysium when it comes out!), so we've got to make this count! Everyone, buy the tickets, and take that ride!
Oh, and also, if this does well, it could mean At The Mountains of Madness is more likely! C'mon!
No comments:
Post a Comment