Author Topic: Proposition: Star Wars could not be made in today's mainstream movie industry.  (Read 8375 times)

bolddeceiver

  • Matross
  • ****
  • Posts: 226
  • Plunging like stones from a slingshot on mars...
Note that this argument is somewhat in a fetal stage -- feel free to poke any parts that seem soft and unprotected.  Because, you know, that's what you should always do when you see a fetus.  I'm going to drop that metaphor right now.

Anyways, I'm pretty sure Star Wars could never be made today.

The tendancy towards adaptations, whether of books, comics, TV shows, video games, toys, or board games, transcends genre, as do endless sequels and remakes of existing films.  But nowhere is the chokehold so complete as in SF.  I've been wracking my brain to think of the last successful, wide-release SF film that was not an adaptation or a sequel, and here's what I've noticed:

It's been a while.  The last I can think of that doesn't fall into two broad categories of exception, which I discuss below, would be The Matrix* (itself twice over the victim of the unnecessary sequel).

The first exception is in children's film.  Maybe it's because kids haven't had time to grow nostalgic for something they watched/played with as a kid, but we do see occasional originality here.  I still argue that Wall*E is one of the best original SF film of the 2000s.

The other exception are the films that, if they were books, would be called "literary SF" -- Eternal Sunshine of the spotless mind immediately come to mind.  Although even that category has its share of adaptations, though they tend less towards video games and more towards foreign films (Abre los Ojos, anyone?)

Both of the above categories include some great films, don't get me wrong.  But I don't see there being much room for the original SF adventure film.  I doubt that this just means that nobody's writing them.  Hollywood's become addicted to the guaranteed opening-night asses that an existing fanbase will put in the seats.  It hurts to wonder how many people have sat down and pitched what could have been the next A New Hope and been turned away in favor of the next Transformers 2.


* Feel free to mention any others I didn't think of...

::EDIT:: Crap, three seconds after hitting post I remembered Cloverfield.  Oh well, I still hold it's much tougher for an original script to break through these days.
« Last Edit: August 06, 2009, 02:31:05 AM by bolddeceiver »



Heradel

  • Bill Peters, EP Assistant
  • Hipparch
  • ******
  • Posts: 2938
  • Part-Time Psychopomp.
JJ Abrams was a much bigger property when Cloverfield was made than Lucas was when he made Star Wars. The big difference is now that there's not that same ground to break — I'd argue the modern day parallel to Star Wars is more World of Warcraft than anything on the screen, though I guess Avatar might fit the bill when it gets released.

I Twitter. I also occasionally blog on the Escape Pod blog, which if you're here you shouldn't have much trouble finding.


wakela

  • Hipparch
  • ******
  • Posts: 779
    • Mr. Wake
You got your 28 Days/Weeks Later, Idiocracy, Children of Men, The Island... but cheated.

By its very nature, an untested idea is a risky investment for a film producer.  And the effects required for SF movies make them even riskier.  But wasn't this true at the time of Star Wars, too?  IIRC from a documentary, Star Wars was only just barely made. 

Though looking through the movies made in the 70s page from that wikipedia link, it does appear that there were more original stories being filmed at the time. 



bolddeceiver

  • Matross
  • ****
  • Posts: 226
  • Plunging like stones from a slingshot on mars...
I won't quibble too much, but I'd call 28-days more horror than SF (even with the disease angle, it was, at the base of it, a zombie film).  Idiocracy I think requires a refinement of my original argument; ammend the "literary" category to "crossover" -- stories with a SFnal premise, but in the sensibility of a conventional drama, SF, etc.  In fact, that might unify the exceptions, as things like Wall*E, Titan AE, or Treasure Planet could potentially be called "SF/Children's crossover..."



stePH

  • Actually has enough cowbell.
  • Hipparch
  • ******
  • Posts: 3906
  • Cool story, bro!
    • Thetatr0n on SoundCloud
You got your 28 Days/Weeks Later, Idiocracy, Children of Men, The Island... but cheated.


Children of Men is adapted from a novel.

"Nerdcore is like playing Halo while getting a blow-job from Hello Kitty."
-- some guy interviewed in Nerdcore Rising


DKT

  • Friendly Neighborhood
  • Hipparch
  • ******
  • Posts: 4980
  • PodCastle is my Co-Pilot
    • Psalms & Hymns & Spiritual Noir
Just to clarify, does the film have to be both successful and an adventure film and original material?

Independence Day comes to mind, although that predates the Matrix, as does Gilliam's 12 Monkeys (which was GREAT, but I don't know if it's the kind of thing you're looking for). I haven't seen Will Smith's Hancock, because I heard it was so-so (at best) but it made money. Steven Spielberg's A.I. (Although you could get very picky and say that was an adaptation of an unmade Stanley Kubrick film, but I digress.) I'm not sure how successful Luc Besson's The Fifth Element was, but it was pretty and fun. Danny Boyle's Sunshine, which had a very frustrating third act, was very close to being greatness.

I suspsect District 9 will do better business than it cost to get made and from the buzz it generated at ComicCon, my money would be on it. (Especially with Peter Jackson pimping it as much as he is.)

I imagine Gamer (from the guys who made the Crank movies) will make loads of money.

James Cameron's Avatar should do alright.

Now, all those movies are in the future and I might be incredibly optimistic. I read a few years ago in the LA Times that of all the movies released by major studios in the past year (I think it was the year Ray came out) less than 10 were original scripts, and 4-5 of those were bio-pics. So I don't think it's just SF, it's Hollywood in general. (Which is why independent films tend to dominate the Best Original Screenplay category.)

That said, with people like Cameron and Jackson at work doing cool original stuff (or helping to do it), I'm hopeful that other people like Guillermo Del Toro, JJ Abrams, Danny Boyle, Steven Spielberg will get excited about shiny things again and give them a shot. Hell, maybe even George Lucas will go back to what he's really good at and help produce someone else's film.


bolddeceiver

  • Matross
  • ****
  • Posts: 226
  • Plunging like stones from a slingshot on mars...

I suspsect District 9 will do better business than it cost to get made and from the buzz it generated at ComicCon, my money would be on it. (Especially with Peter Jackson pimping it as much as he is.)

Funny you mention that, my sister reminded me about District 9 last night when I emailed her to discuss this.  I think that's an example of where a fluke can go right -- Blomkamp had been engaged to direct another videogame-adaptation (the Halo movie), and when that deal went tits-up, Jackson felt bad enough to let him adapt his earlier short film Alive in Joburg into a feature-length film.  I have very high hopes.

And that kind of lucky circumstance may just be what we need to hold out for until audiences get tired of being fed recycled crap and rebel (or can just make a point of living in large enough cities to be able to catch limited-release films like Moon and Primer).



DKT

  • Friendly Neighborhood
  • Hipparch
  • ******
  • Posts: 4980
  • PodCastle is my Co-Pilot
    • Psalms & Hymns & Spiritual Noir
Well, I think the recycled crap will always be among us. When Transformers 2 is pulling in $300 million or so, why wouldn't studios want to make 5 more of them? But I'm optimistic that in the future, there will be some kind of alternative.

I meant to say this in the original post, but I think the problems of getting something original made on the bigscreen is why I'm coming to love TV more and more. With shows like LOST, Supernatural, whatever Joss Whedon or JJ Abrams are doing, I feel like things are trying, even if I'm not huge on Dollhouse or Fringe.

Although, I guess adaptations are creeping up on TV as well. BSG was a remake, and out of the two new shows I'm looking forward to trying in the fall, one is a remake (V) and the other is an adaptation (Flash Forward).


bolddeceiver

  • Matross
  • ****
  • Posts: 226
  • Plunging like stones from a slingshot on mars...

I meant to say this in the original post, but I think the problems of getting something original made on the bigscreen is why I'm coming to love TV more and more. With shows like LOST, Supernatural, whatever Joss Whedon or JJ Abrams are doing, I feel like things are trying, even if I'm not huge on Dollhouse or Fringe.


Very good point.  Maybe film isn't where that kind of innovation in visual storytelling is taking place at the moment.



wakela

  • Hipparch
  • ******
  • Posts: 779
    • Mr. Wake

I meant to say this in the original post, but I think the problems of getting something original made on the bigscreen is why I'm coming to love TV more and more. With shows like LOST, Supernatural, whatever Joss Whedon or JJ Abrams are doing, I feel like things are trying, even if I'm not huge on Dollhouse or Fringe.


Very good point.  Maybe film isn't where that kind of innovation in visual storytelling is taking place at the moment.

I had read somewhere the difference in strategies between network TV and cable.  The goal of a commercial-supported show like Seinfeld or Friends is to get as many people watching as possible.  So these shows tend to not be too risky or break new ground.  Movies target an audience a little more narrowly, but they still want as many people to watch as possible.  On the other hand, if you like Sex and the City enough to keep paying for HBO, they couldn't give a wet crap if you like The Sopranos.  So the for-pay cable channels can do more narrowly-targeted, edgy stuff, and as a result (IMHO) come up with much more interesting programming.  In fact it's in their interest not to repeat successful formulas.  Why would you need two shows about modern vampires?  The fans won't be paying twice as much. 

What if a movie studio charged you $100 per year and then let you see all their movies for free? 

Would Firefly or Arrested Development have died young if they had been on Showtime? 



Sgarre1

  • Editor
  • *****
  • Posts: 1214
  • "Let There Be Fright!"
The subject line is a little ironic, because some believe that its the fault of STAR WARS back then that a movie like STAR WARS couldn't get made nowadays - STAR WARS (and, admittedly, Spielberg) having ushered in the return of the large scale, crowd' pleasin', "effects over character" (although that used to be "production values over character" as in musicals or war movies), "entertainment over concept", blockbuster movie approach after things had cooled down and gotten interesting/artsy/personal during most of the 70's.



Bdoomed

  • Pseudopod Tiger
  • Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 5891
  • Mmm. Tiger.
all the unoriginal bullshit crowd pleaser movies just make the occasional "real" movie that much better.  District 9 looks absolutely insane, Cloverfield was awesome, umm not SF but Inglorious Basterds made me squeal with joy when I saw Tarantino's name AND Brad Pitt in the same movie...

as for whether or not star wars could be made today?... It's a tough one seeing as how most sf or sf-like movies are most likely somewhat influenced by star wars... but if star wars would be made today i think it would be more like episode I, II, and III.  More flashy CGI, less plot, less character development, more explosions, etc.  It wouldn't have the same feel to it... just like ep I II and III...
it was the same thing with The Crystal Skull... more CGI, less Indiana Jones-like fun.  just didnt feel the same.
Without CGI they had to focus more on plot to keep people interested rather than in something that just looks really really cool.  District 9 could turn out the same way, tho i have a good feeling about it.

by the way... i saw primer... i need to see it again, it's definitely one of those movies that makes more sense the more times you see it.  i liked it a lot.

I'd like to hear my options, so I could weigh them, what do you say?
Five pounds?  Six pounds? Seven pounds?


DKT

  • Friendly Neighborhood
  • Hipparch
  • ******
  • Posts: 4980
  • PodCastle is my Co-Pilot
    • Psalms & Hymns & Spiritual Noir
The funny thing about Episodes I - III and Crystal Skull is that there was probably zero studio interference (definitely zero for the prequels, not sure about Crystal Skull). And yet, they lack all the personality and charm that we loved the originals for.

I'm not sure how much say the studio had in Raiders of the Lost Ark, but I'm pretty sure they had a bare minimum say in Star Wars, except maybe in the casting of Alec Guinness.


Russell Nash

  • Guest
You made the argument that studios will keep doing this until people stop going to the movies.  Well, people aren't going to the movies now.  the only reason why the receipts have looked ok over the last decade has been the ticket price increases.  People are complaining about the quality of the movies and (biggie for me) the quality of the projection.  The studio execs just sit on their asses and say it's all because of downloading. 



Heradel

  • Bill Peters, EP Assistant
  • Hipparch
  • ******
  • Posts: 2938
  • Part-Time Psychopomp.

I Twitter. I also occasionally blog on the Escape Pod blog, which if you're here you shouldn't have much trouble finding.


bolddeceiver

  • Matross
  • ****
  • Posts: 226
  • Plunging like stones from a slingshot on mars...
One thing I wonder -- I've heard a lot of people say something along these lines -- "Ugh, they're making another Transformers movie?  Wasn't the first bad enough?  I mean, I'll probably go see it anyways, but...."

If all those people didn't go see Transformers 2 or G.I. Joe or Resident Evil 23 or whatever, just because they're there, would Hollywood keep making them?



wakela

  • Hipparch
  • ******
  • Posts: 779
    • Mr. Wake
How many of our parents LOVE Star Wars?  I think the fact that we were young an impressionable when it came out is a major factor of why we have such affection for it.  Wasn't there about the same amount of plot and character development in the first three as there was in the last three?  Don't nearly all franchises get more dissappointing as they go on?  Personally, I don't find the third Indiana Jones movie any dumber than Temple of Doom or Last Crusade.



stePH

  • Actually has enough cowbell.
  • Hipparch
  • ******
  • Posts: 3906
  • Cool story, bro!
    • Thetatr0n on SoundCloud
How many of our parents LOVE Star Wars?  I think the fact that we were young an impressionable when it came out is a major factor of why we have such affection for it.  Wasn't there about the same amount of plot and character development in the first three as there was in the last three?  Don't nearly all franchises get more dissappointing as they go on?  Personally, I don't find the third Indiana Jones movie any dumber than Temple of Doom or Last Crusade.

Last Crusade was the third Indiana Jones movie.

"Nerdcore is like playing Halo while getting a blow-job from Hello Kitty."
-- some guy interviewed in Nerdcore Rising


Bdoomed

  • Pseudopod Tiger
  • Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 5891
  • Mmm. Tiger.
How many of our parents LOVE Star Wars?  I think the fact that we were young an impressionable when it came out is a major factor of why we have such affection for it.  Wasn't there about the same amount of plot and character development in the first three as there was in the last three?  Don't nearly all franchises get more dissappointing as they go on?  Personally, I don't find the third Indiana Jones movie any dumber than Temple of Doom or Last Crusade.

what are you talking about?
first of all, I saw only a small bit of The Empire Strikes Back when I was little, and then nothing till Episode 1 came out, when I was still young enough to enjoy all the effects.  A little before Episode 3 came out I went and saw all of them, long past the age of "young and impressionable".  I love them.
second, same amount of plot and character development does not apply.  Its not the amount, per se, its the quality.  I am not at all attached to the Obi Wan and Anakin of the first three star wars movies, however Luke is friggin awesome and Obi Wan dying was terrible and so was the death of Yoda... and... come on... Han Solo.... Han friggin Solo.
And as for Indiana Jones...
The first and the third were the best, IMHO, meaning the franchise did not get worse with age... well until they made the newest one... but that's because movies all suck these days.
and yes Last Crusade was the third movie :D

I'd like to hear my options, so I could weigh them, what do you say?
Five pounds?  Six pounds? Seven pounds?


wakela

  • Hipparch
  • ******
  • Posts: 779
    • Mr. Wake
How many of our parents LOVE Star Wars?  I think the fact that we were young an impressionable when it came out is a major factor of why we have such affection for it.  Wasn't there about the same amount of plot and character development in the first three as there was in the last three?  Don't nearly all franchises get more dissappointing as they go on?  Personally, I don't find the third Indiana Jones movie any dumber than Temple of Doom or Last Crusade.

Last Crusade was the third Indiana Jones movie.
Thanks. I stand corrected.



wakela

  • Hipparch
  • ******
  • Posts: 779
    • Mr. Wake
OK, Bdoomed.  I was thinking of "character development" as characters developing as the story progresses, and I think you are thinking of it in terms of the writer developing a character.  I agree that the characters of Eps 4,5 and 6 are more likeable than anyone in 1,2, and 3.

Yours was basically the response I was looking for.  You're the control group.  I wasn't attacking the earlier movies, I was just questioning why we like them so much.  It's possible a new Star Warsy movie will be made, and in 30 years our kids will be talking about how great it was, when we'll all being saying "It was pretty good, I guess."  As was pointed out earlier, maybe it will be a video game instead of a movie. 



Planish

  • Hipparch
  • ******
  • Posts: 772
  • Fun will now commence.
    • northernelectric.ca
I saw Star Wars (IV) the first time it was released, when I was in my mid-20s. The thing that struck me about it then was not so much what went on up on the screen, but in the audience. It was the first time in many years that I watched a movie where the audience cheered and booed. When Han Solo came back and shot up Vader tie fighter, they went nuts.

I've never seen that happen since. You'll hear a movie audience laugh, scream, go "awwww!, or go "eugh!", but rarely cheering and booing. Odd, because people do that at hockey games and such.

I feed The Pod.
("planish" rhymes with "vanish")


lowky

  • Hipparch
  • ******
  • Posts: 2717
  • from http://lovecraftismissing.com/?page_id=3142
I saw Star Wars (IV) the first time it was released, when I was in my mid-20s. The thing that struck me about it then was not so much what went on up on the screen, but in the audience. It was the first time in many years that I watched a movie where the audience cheered and booed. When Han Solo came back and shot up Vader tie fighter, they went nuts.

I've never seen that happen since. You'll hear a movie audience laugh, scream, go "awwww!, or go "eugh!", but rarely cheering and booing. Odd, because people do that at hockey games and such.

I was 7 so don't remember that happening when i saw it.  Do remember it happening in Rocky IV when Rocky fought Drago.  The crowd cheering and shouting USA over and over again.


Swamp

  • Hipparch
  • ******
  • Posts: 2230
    • Journey Into... podcast
When Han Solo came back and shot up Vader tie fighter, they went nuts.

Oh come on man!  You should have given us a Spoiler warning.  Now you've ruined the ending for me.  I might as well take the movie out of my Netflix queue

Facehuggers don't have heads!

Come with me and Journey Into... another fun podcast


Swamp

  • Hipparch
  • ******
  • Posts: 2230
    • Journey Into... podcast
I still argue that Wall*E is one of the best original SF film of the 2000s.

I concur.

Facehuggers don't have heads!

Come with me and Journey Into... another fun podcast