Tuesday, 23 February 2010 11:41 am

(no subject)

deckardcanine: (Default)
[personal profile] deckardcanine
Yesterday I saw an online article claim "further proof" that Hollywood is out of ideas. I've seen claims like this for more than a decade now. So why do I see reasonably fresh tales (recognizing that there's nothing new under the sun) come to life on the silver screen every year, and not primarily in foreign films and indies?

Granted, a Stretch Armstrong movie is what you might expect if they did "run out of ideas," tho a more accurate fulfillment would be nothing but faithful remakes. But to me, all it really says is that they're not as picky with their ideas as we'd like them to be. And hey, surprises happen. I'd never have guessed that Iron Man would be much fun, even from the previews, which is why I'm not letting the schlocky IM2 preview color my expectations.

The real red flags are the adaptations of things that are hard to imagine with a remotely decent plot. The rumored View-Master movie development comes to mind. For a past example, there's It's Pat!, based on a one-note SNL routine that could barely sustain two sketches.
Date: Tuesday, 23 February 2010 05:36 pm (UTC)

From: [identity profile] nefaria.livejournal.com
The dreck gets rather heavily pushed. A lot of Hollywood execs think that relatively original stories won't sell no matter how the well the advertising is managed, but a movie based on something old can do well if the advertising piques the audience's nostalgia or curiosity.
Date: Tuesday, 23 February 2010 08:21 pm (UTC)

From: [identity profile] sleepyjohn00.livejournal.com
There are hundreds of indie films that prove that there are ideas. What Hollywood lacks are people with money AND guts. The money goes to the 'sure-thing' movies, which are sure things because they are repeats of something that was a success somewhere.
Date: Tuesday, 23 February 2010 09:42 pm (UTC)

From: [identity profile] deckardcanine.livejournal.com
Not a problem for Pixar.
Date: Tuesday, 23 February 2010 10:10 pm (UTC)

From: [identity profile] sleepyjohn00.livejournal.com
Which is in Emeryville, not Hollywood. ;)
Date: Thursday, 25 February 2010 03:09 am (UTC)

From: [identity profile] thatcatgirl.livejournal.com
I think Pixar is helped by their kind of movie, however much it costs to make, costing a lot less than a traditional animated film, so they didn't have to have as much money (they may have it now, I dunno).
Date: Thursday, 25 February 2010 03:06 am (UTC)

From: [identity profile] thatcatgirl.livejournal.com
*giggle* A Stretch Armstrong movie? Did Stretch Armstrong even have a story? Even something in little booklets with the toy? That's... odd.

The concept of a viewmaster movie really doesn't make any sense.
Date: Thursday, 25 February 2010 03:36 pm (UTC)

From: [identity profile] deckardcanine.livejournal.com
Did Stretch Armstrong even have a story?

Well, the '90s ads I saw hinted at stories. Extremely hackneyed superhero stories, but at least there's something to work with.

The concept of a viewmaster movie really doesn't make any sense.

That's for sure. It's like making a movie about... a movie projector. Sayyyy, maybe it'll have a Ringu vibe.

Profile

deckardcanine: (Default)
Stephen Gilberg

February 2026

S M T W T F S
1 234567
891011121314
15161718192021
22232425262728

Style Credit

Expand Cut Tags

No cut tags
Page generated Wednesday, 4 February 2026 02:00 am
Powered by Dreamwidth Studios