Lack of Creativity in Hollywood's Muse

I’m becoming more and more disappointed in the sources from which we find story material for films.

I’ve recently become aware of these trailers advertising a movie coming out by the name of Battleship.  Yes, it is based off of the game many of us have played back in the day (or currently).  This is a game that technically has no story to it, but at the very least insinuates that you are playing as two nations fighting each other.  The film, facing the lack of an existing story, must create one and even goes so far as to establish a scenario where a naval military is going against extra-terrestrial! 

How does a story like this come about?  Did a writer come up with an idea for a story about the Navy fighting aliens and perhaps have a movie executive decide “Hey, let’s take this story and slap the ‘Battleship’ brand name on it to attract attention!”?  Probably not, it was more likely the case that someone wanted a movie of Battleship to be made, and tried to find someone to “come up” with a story to fit the scenario.

Making movies based on toys that have no pre-established story is not new.  I enjoy the recent Transformers films as simple action movies that you see once in the theatres and then move on.  But one of the reasons those films work at all is that they do have a sort of pre-existing mythos established in cartoons and comics; granted, the films’ stories are still not that great.

Now I go on the Internet only to find that even more story-less toy lines are in the works for film adaptations.  Hasbro, the owners of the Transformers, Battleship, and G.I. Joe toy lines, are now “working with writers on moviesbased on Stretch Armstrong, Risk, Clue, Monopoly, Ouija, Micronauts andCandyland”. 

What’s next, should they have Michael Bay direct a My Little Pony adaptation?

I can only hope that films based on these toys and games are treated as well as the film based on Clue back in 1985.  Despite it’s mixed reviews, the film was funny, and actually seemed as though the writers cared about making a good, well-written story.

Oh, did I forget to mention Real Steele, which seems based on “Rock 'Em Sock 'Em Robots”?  Waaah, no; blah blah blah, Hugh Jackman, whine, moan.  Actually, I’ll be forgiving that one on account that it’s not actually using the franchise name so, at the very least, is not explicitly banking on the fame of the toy.  I also have not seen the film and cannot provide commentary.

Read more »

Film Series: a New Trend in How Hollywood Makes Sequels

In the film industry, it’s no longer new that we’ve been relying on sequels and remakes to provide a certain financial security in the films to be released. 

Lately, however, I’ve been more fascinated with the occasional practice wherein a set of several films is created to tell a longer story.  In a typical sequel situation, a move is created as a standalone story and later, depending on the success of that film, a sequel may be made as a way to bank on the success of the original film. 

In a film “series” scenario, which may include the Lord of the Rings trilogy or the Harry Potter series, the first film is created with the expectation and, perhaps, reliance on the fact that later films will come out to finish the story that the original film left untold. 

The sequel situation is more financially dependable because it banks on an already successful film.  In a series, the first film is banking on the possible success of a second film; by creating the first film with a cliffhanger or incomplete story, you are betting that future films will be made to tie up loose ends.  If this does not happen, then what story has been told so far will be considered incomplete and potentially not worth buying in the future.

Examples of films would first include the Lord of the Rings trilogy.  Just watching the first movie on it’s own will not be a complete experience.  If it weren’t successful enough to complete the series, then it would remain forever to be an incomplete film.  Even if all episodes of the series were shot at once to save time, it’s still a lot more investment than would be needed to invest in a single film. 

The Potter series played it safe in the beginning; the first film may be viewed as a single story on it’s own.  Later chapters have left more room and expectation for plot points to be resolved in the future.  Having kept this up for eight films is a huge investment.

Now there are the films based on Marvel Comics that lead up to the upcoming Avengers film.  In this unique situation, several films are created as seemingly unrelated storylines and, later on, are connected into one film that brings all of the characters together.  In each of the Marvel films (Iron Man, Thor, Incredible Hulk) there is a story element near the end of each film that makes you expect that there is more story ahead; this hints toward the future Avengers film.  This creates a commitment to make a future film in order to follow-through on that expectation, another risky investment.

I personally enjoy these film series, if not always for the stories themselves but also for the fact that someone found it worth investing in not just one expensive film, but also several at once.

Read more »