2008 Woodie Awards
Film-makers are scraping the bottom of the barrel
David Mikalowsky
Issue date: 4/24/03 Section: Opinions
The film industry's creative juices have apparently been put on hold. It seems that almost every movie is either a sequel, or a movie that is based off of a comic book (or both). The days of innovative films reaching the public are almost gone. Some of the many sequels and comic movies that are either here or on their way include "X-Men 2," "The Matrix" sequels, "Tomb Raider 2," "Terminator 3," "Charlie's Angels 2," "The Lord of the Rings" movies, "The Hulk," "The Punisher, "and the list goes on!
That rather lengthy list of flicks includes some movies and sequels that will actually be good; however, that doesn't spare them from the pile of uncreative Hollywood "masterpieces." (I would like to mention straight out that I don't think the Matrix sequels fall into the category of uncreative films. If not solely based on the fact that they were written by unknowns who had the movies all in mind from the first day of filming on the first flick.) Pretty much all of these movies, though, fall solidly into the category of uncreative.
As much as I want to praise 20th Century Fox for marketing a well made X-Men movie, I have to criticize the fact that the movie was, basically, already made. The comic had been around since September of 1963. The ideas and plot elements that existed in the movie where almost entirely borrowed from an existing source, a flourishing, money-making source at that. X-Men, the comic, is probably the most popular comic in print today (it's among Spiderman and probably Spawn in public popularity). Not to mention the cartoon show of the early 90s.
Another group of movies was based on popular books. "The Lord of the Rings" (LOTR) films and the Hannibal series come to mind. The LOTR books were the impetus for, basically, the entire genre of fantasy in America and Europe. I think a movie is a good idea. However, that doesn't make it original. The themes from those books have existed for decades, the only point of originality goes to the ones that thought "hey, let's do a fantasy movie."
That rather lengthy list of flicks includes some movies and sequels that will actually be good; however, that doesn't spare them from the pile of uncreative Hollywood "masterpieces." (I would like to mention straight out that I don't think the Matrix sequels fall into the category of uncreative films. If not solely based on the fact that they were written by unknowns who had the movies all in mind from the first day of filming on the first flick.) Pretty much all of these movies, though, fall solidly into the category of uncreative.
As much as I want to praise 20th Century Fox for marketing a well made X-Men movie, I have to criticize the fact that the movie was, basically, already made. The comic had been around since September of 1963. The ideas and plot elements that existed in the movie where almost entirely borrowed from an existing source, a flourishing, money-making source at that. X-Men, the comic, is probably the most popular comic in print today (it's among Spiderman and probably Spawn in public popularity). Not to mention the cartoon show of the early 90s.
Another group of movies was based on popular books. "The Lord of the Rings" (LOTR) films and the Hannibal series come to mind. The LOTR books were the impetus for, basically, the entire genre of fantasy in America and Europe. I think a movie is a good idea. However, that doesn't make it original. The themes from those books have existed for decades, the only point of originality goes to the ones that thought "hey, let's do a fantasy movie."