Originality is Overrated
This year, the summer movie season is off to a slow start. How slow? So slow there’s talk of rethinking the sequel-heavy approach Hollywood has famously embraced (though not everyone is buying the story). Of course, slump or no slump, it seems like we go through this every summer. As sure as the mercury in the thermometer rises, movie critics and fans take to the internet and decry the number of sequels playing at the multiplex. One man last week took it upon himself to launch a protest against remakes and reboots. Audiences, it would seem, are sick to death of rehashed stories and endless reiterations of the same characters/situations.
Except they’re not. Nor have they been, nor will they ever be.
“Together we can demand original stories,” says the angry demonstrator. I very much doubt it. The truth is, originality is overrated. Show me a moviegoer who publicly longs for “original” pictures in theaters and I’ll show you a copy of The Empire Strikes Back or his or her DVD collection.
“Creativity is the subtle theft of another’s ideas.” –Jim Oblak
From the early days of motion pictures, filmmakers have relied on existing material to propel the medium forward. When they weren’t filming sneezes or locomotives, they would stage productions of established plays for the camera. Books were likewise adapted for the screen, and not always with permission. Nosferatu (1922) is a celebrated horror classic from the silent film era, but it was so similar to Bram Stoker’s Dracula that his estate successfully sued for damages. While this bankrupted the filmmakers it in no way detracts from Nosferatu’s artistic merits.
Now we have films based on anything and everything: toys from the 1980s, comic books, Disneyland rides, video games, even trading cards. If any intellectual property can be the basis for a movie, why not movies based on other movies? That’s all a remake or a reboot really is, a new film based on previously released material. Even “shot-for-shot” remakes aren’t literal repeats of the original work; Gus Van Sant’s Psycho (1998) made several departures from the 1960 film, not the least of which was the use of color.
Even if a screenplay is considered to be “original,” the screenwriter is almost certainly drawing inspiration from other media, including (but not limited to) characters, setting, themes, even dialogue. Quentin Tarantino’s entire body of work is steeped in movie culture. His first feature, Reservoir Dogs (1992) closely mirrors the plot of City on Fire (1987) and his other films have been presented as elaborate tributes to past genres.
Sequels are a little harder to defend from an artistic standpoint, especially as their numbers increase. When I was a child in the 1980s the endless train of slasher movie sequels was a joke. Now it seems like every hit movie has two more installments waiting in the wings. Spider-Man 3’s 2007 release date was announced before Spider-Man 2 (2004) was even in theaters. Sequels have become expected; they are the rule rather than the exception.
That doesn’t mean sequels are always doomed to be pale imitations of the previous picture. Sometimes a second movie allows for certain storytelling freedoms (or straight-up budget increases) that make the first film look like a rough draft. Science-fiction and comic book movies are particularly good candidates for improvement in a second installment: Superman II (1980), The Empire Strikes Back (1980), Star Trek II (1982), Aliens (1986), Evil Dead II (1987), Terminator 2 (1991), X2 (2003), Spider-Man 2 (2004) and The Dark Knight (2008) are all well-regarded or even more celebrated than the films they followed.
Even if sequels are a grab for cash, that’s not necessarily a bad thing. Show business is a business (you can tell because “business” is right there in the name) and for every billion-dollar tentpole picture that a studio releases, dozens of smaller, riskier pictures get made. Regardless of what you thought of Avatar (2009) its success means continued employment for thousands of people.
Speaking of jobs, sequels can serve as proving grounds for up-and-coming directors in Hollywood. Aliens (1986) was James Cameron’s first studio picture. Alien 3 (1992) was David Fincher’s first feature-length production. Blade 2 (2002) was Guillermo del Toro’s first hit.
While it’s understandable for disgruntled moviegoers to wave their fists in the air and declare sequels, remakes and reboots as lazy, recursive filmmaking, it’s an empty argument. Every idea comes from somewhere, after all, and ideas do not include expiration dates. You cannot predict what another director, writer or actor might bring to a familiar property.
Indeed, just last week the internet was set ablaze by a mysterious new Mortal Kombat short. It turned out to be an unlicensed pitch to Warner Bros to revitalize the franchise. They have yet to officially respond, but the reaction online has been overwhelmingly positive. I would have never thought anyone could get me interested in a new Mortal Kombat film after the abysmal Mortal Kombat Annihilation (1997) but that teaser surprised me.
Demanding “original” stories is a shortsighted (at best) or an ignorant (at worst) worldview. Not only is “original” a nebulous term, creatively-speaking, there’s no correlation between originality and quality just as there’s no definitive link between revisiting past ideas and shoddiness. I’ve done my share of eye-rolling at the licensing deals Hollywood makes. I cannot imagine how Asteroids, Monopoly or Les Grossman can be the basis for entertaining films. Then again, I rolled my eyes at Pirates of the Caribbean: Curse of the Black Pearl (2003) and that turned out to be a hoot.
But those sequels? They were awful.
Comments (16)
“Aliens (1986) was James Cameron’s first studio picture.”
Say what you want about Orion Pictures, but they were still a movie studio when they released James Cameron’s The Terminator in 1984.
Posted by Dave on June 16th, 2010Originality is a relative term in film. By your standards, nothing is original. But compare Avatar to sequels and reboots, and Avatar seems like the most original idea ever.
Posted by Mike on June 16th, 2010Avatar wishes it was as original as sequels and reboots.
I agree, originality IS overrated. However, I think what most people mean when they say they want more originality is that they want something GOOD. Something that works, has interesting characters, is fun, etc. I mean, that’s the real problem of this summer, most of this year’s offerings have sucked. As the article points out, any movie can be good, be it sequel, reboot, or based on an amusement park ride. There just haven’t been many (or any) this summer.
Posted by Nate on June 16th, 2010Daniel. I agree with you wholeheartedly. But you lost me at your last line. What sequels were awful? Sort of undercuts the intent of your article too.
Theoretically, sequels should be more interesting films, because they allow filmmakers to tell stories without having to spend time to introduce characters. Maybe people want more character-based stories than plot-based stories? Maybe people want more “original” plots?
Goodness, like originality, is relative as well. If we were to judge goodness by box-office, more people who visit Film Junk should appreciate the Twilight films more.
If “people” really did want “originality,” independent cinema would have a higher profile.
Posted by Reed Farrington on June 16th, 2010Great article. The whole anti-remake/sequel/reboot/whatever movement is a farce perpetuated by silly fanboys who are too caught up in trying to pump up their self worth by spewing their poorly formed ideas out onto the internet.
Posted by Ben on June 16th, 2010Nosferatu WAS an adaptation of Dracula. Murnau couldn’t get the rights to it though and changed the names of the characters. Some original prints had the Stoker character names in it.
Posted by TheAllKnowingGod on June 16th, 2010>>**The truth is, originality is overrated. Show me a moviegoer who publicly longs for “original” pictures in theaters and I’ll show you a copy of The Empire Strikes Back or his or her DVD collection.**
Well the masses (especially the Americans) are stupid people who only enjoy movies like Twilight, Avatar, Clash of the Titans and Transformers.
How can you say that originality is overrated? You mean THE NEED for original stories among the masses (idiots who are not really movie fans), right?
>>**here’s no correlation between originality and quality just as there’s no definitive link between revisiting past ideas and shoddiness.**
Yes it is! About 90% of all remakes or sequels suck. And why do they suck? Because they are based on the income of money and not the quality of the product. That’s Hollywood in a nutshell.
Posted by gayot on June 17th, 2010Nice article and so very true. The argument for “more originality” is the bastion of the simpletons. If you were to show them a film that was truly original the brain would probably flex to say such a film was pretentious or avant-garde.
Posted by Juan Costrada on June 17th, 2010Originality is overrated? Fast-forward 50 years when we’re subjected to The Avengers #57 or the Avatar remakes and try to say with a straight face you’re happy.
Original stories are needed to feed active minds and while it’s true that many franchises are still very fertile ground for sequels, one needs to know when it has become barren. Who here thought a Terminator 4 movie was necessary? Or Let The Right One In: America? That film was fine the first time, is only a few years but people think it’s a good idea for an American remake because apparently, the average American audience wouldn’t bother unless it had American accents and in a Cineplex near them. And that’s not even a lone case. How about the Death At A Funeral remake? Or the apparent Old Boy one starring Will Smith?
There’s nothing wrong with good sequels but we need to be creating new stories as well. The last few years have done nothing but confirm my fears: Hollywood is creatively bankrupt. Sequels, adaptions and remakes are seemingly the bulk of released films.
Posted by Steve on June 17th, 2010@Ben
‘Anti-remake/sequel/reboot/whatever’ is the domain of fanboys? Isn’t a ‘fanboy’, by definition a person who has an irrational love or support for an established franchise? How can they pimp stories that don’t even exist yet.
Believe it or not, people demanding new stories have no agenda, other than wanting to be entertained by just that. The internet is anonymous, there’s nothing to gain ie ‘trying to pump up their self worth’. The fact is, if people continue seeing these garbage remakes or the umpteenth X-men spin-off, or Transformers 2, the studios will continue to make millions and have absolutely no intention of diversifying or doing new things. Especially when their current MO of rehashing the old is so, so profitable.
Posted by Steve on June 17th, 2010@Reed I think what he meant by that last line was that the sequel to Pirates were horrible.
Great article Daniel. While I don’t have a problem with sequels and remakes when they are deserved I do have a problem with overdoing it so that they fill the cinemas over original concepts.
Posted by Itchy-Finger on June 17th, 2010A quick glance at Rotten Tomatoes and their top 10 films of the week and I count 5 films that are direct sequels to previous films or are remakes.
This article calls for a remake
Posted by Werner on June 17th, 2010Dave, Orion Pictures distributed The Terminator but it was produced independently. Aliens, on the other hand, was a big-budget behemoth for Fox.
Posted by Daniel on June 17th, 2010“for every billion-dollar tentpole picture that a studio releases, dozens of smaller, riskier pictures get made.”
- this is false, truth is production slates have decreased year after year.
Careful big fellow, you threw “ignorant” in to the last part of your article but I believe you need to research a little deeper. There are several good books on the subject but I’ll give the quick down and dirty version:
- Late 1970s the blockbuster is born
- Wall Street takes notice
- Hollywood, made up of companies started by individuals and one business corporations, becomes part of the multi-media acquisition business climate
- Companies making cars and liquor now control studios that are line items on stock reports.
- These same companies look for ways to minimize risk, i.e., less and less “original” stories are greenlit (or supported by marketing) Favoring “branded entertainment” and sequel driven properties.
- Evidence of this trend is in the trade papers every few months, Miramax dieing, Disney slashing their movie production slate – then buying Marvel. Less and less acquisition dollars at Sundance. Reports of the decrease in adult dramas.
I take the approach of why can’t we have both, branded entertainment / sequels and “original” material, adult dramas.
You notice how anything original needs to be supported by an establish director in the advertising, or, actually directed by a totally safe person like Cameron?
I really don’t see how the Wachowskis Bros. could have got The Matrix greenlit in this climate, I really don’t.
Posted by rus in chicago on June 17th, 2010Originality to achieve in movies, is not an easy task these days. There are a lot, and I mean A LOT, of movies that were made and nearly everything has been done. And as said in the article, even when the plot is copied or inspired by other movies the outcome can be a great movie.
Posted by Jonathan on June 17th, 2010If the protester does not like remakes: Don’t watch ‘em. If he wants original plots: Write ‘em.
“If he wants original plots: Write ‘em.”
you people act like there isn’t original material in Hollywood right now?! There are thousands of scripts in “turn around” and 100s of directors, you really like, not getting stuff greenlit. The issue isn’t that there isn’t material – its the business/release model.
Posted by rus in chicago on June 17th, 2010Leave a Reply