Quote from: jhkim on May 06, 2024, 03:34:07 PMGoing back further, Shakespeare was far from original - most of his works were remakes of prior plots.

Tell me you know nothing about Shakespeare and his literary impact without telling me you no nothing about Shakespeare and his literary impact...

Quote from: HappyDaze on May 06, 2024, 06:23:07 AMIf you've become so jaded (or, as you put it, "old enough to see") that everything looks like crap to you, then some of the problem is that you will never be satisfied with anything aimed at newer audiences.

I don't think a romantic comedy starring two people in their 40s based on a TV show from the early 80s is really meant for a "newer audience". Unless by "newer" you mean "over 50".

Quote from: jhkim on May 06, 2024, 03:34:07 PMIn general, I think originality is overrated and execution underrated. In classic Hollywood, there were 44 Charlie Chan movies and 36 Abbot & Costello movies. Roy Rogers starred in over a hundred singing cowboy movies. Going back further, Shakespeare was far from original - most of his works were remakes of prior plots.

These were the days before television and DVDs so movie series took that role. However, even those extreme examples prove a point. Charlie Chan was in 44 movies during a period of 20 years (1929-1949). Abbott & Costello were in movies for 16 years (1940-1956). But today we have franchises making new content that are 40 or 50 years old, or even longer with Star Trek being 58.

So even compared to the extremes of the past, we have entered an entirely new era of exploiting IP far beyond anything that came before.

Quote from: hedgehobbit on May 06, 2024, 08:41:16 PMSo even compared to the extremes of the past, we have entered an entirely new era of exploiting IP far beyond anything that came before.

I don't think "exploiting" is necessarily the right term.

Quote from: hedgehobbit on May 06, 2024, 08:41:16 PM

Quote from: jhkim on May 06, 2024, 03:34:07 PMIn general, I think originality is overrated and execution underrated. In classic Hollywood, there were 44 Charlie Chan movies and 36 Abbot & Costello movies. Roy Rogers starred in over a hundred singing cowboy movies. Going back further, Shakespeare was far from original - most of his works were remakes of prior plots.

These were the days before television and DVDs so movie series took that roll. However, even those extreme examples prove a point. Charlie Chan was in 44 movies during a period of 20 years (1929-1949). Abbott & Costello were in movies for 16 years (1940-1956). But today we have franchises making new content that are 40 or 50 years old, or even longer with Star Trek being 58.

So even compared to the extremes of the past, we have entered an entirely new era of exploiting IP far beyond anything that came before.

I agree that they are milking IP for more decades now, but that's not a measure of originality of the studios. Obviously in the 1940s, feature film franchises couldn't have been going for 40 or 50 years, because feature films hadn't been around for that long. Also, the length of copyright has been extended, which has enabled keeping IP for longer.

In the classic era, there were still 40+ year franchises, they just weren't purely in film by necessity. The Wizard of Oz was published in 1900 - and had over a dozen stage and film adaptations before the 1939 MGM musical film. Similarly, Peter Pan was published in 1904 and again frequented stage and radio long before the 1953 Disney animated film. Fu Manchu was published first in 1913 with popular adapations in the 1930s through 1960s. Sherlock Holmes started in 1887 and has had hundreds of adaptations continuously into the 21st century.

Movie studios have had their ups and downs and different phases, but there's always been tons of exploitation and formulaic productions. Even in films that weren't technically a series could be highly formulaic. I love Fred Astaire musicals and Errol Flynn swashbuckling, say, but most of them don't get any points for originality. The current spate of superhero movies since 2008 is annoying, but it's quite parallel to the dominance of westerns for many decades. Looking back, people tend to only watch the most lauded films of each era - but every decade also had lots of forgettable and formulaic drek.

Quote from: jhkim on May 06, 2024, 09:38:44 PMThe current spate of superhero movies since 2008 is annoying, but it's quite parallel to the dominance of westerns for many decades.

One very notable difference is that the vast majority of current Superhero movies come from one studio and one IP. Marvel/Disney. With DC/Warner Bros being a very distant second.

There was at least a little more breadth in the genere of westerns made in the 50's.

Quote from: Ratman_tf on May 07, 2024, 09:26:18 AM

Quote from: jhkim on May 06, 2024, 09:38:44 PMThe current spate of superhero movies since 2008 is annoying, but it's quite parallel to the dominance of westerns for many decades.

One very notable difference is that the vast majority of current Superhero movies come from one studio and one IP. Marvel/Disney. With DC/Warner Bros being a very distant second.

There was at least a little more breadth in the genere of westerns made in the 50's.

Don't forget that a genre being popular is one thing, and the complaint was that they're producing almost nothing but reboots, sequels, prequels, re-imaginings of older IP.

Following the market has always happened, but at least we got different Private Eyes, procedural police stories, etc.

Procedurals: NCIS, CSI, Dr House, Dexter
Sci-Fi: Star Trek, Galactica, Stargate, Star Wars

Sure, we did get some near copies but those were usually from smaller studios, Turkey, etc.