The "originality problem", which has nothing to do with originality

After the apparently disappointing box office opening weekend for Tomorrowland, Variety posted an article "'Tomorrowland' exposes Hollywood's Originality Problem",which points to it as a shining example of why studios would rather make franchises than gamble on original movies. Nobody should be surprised to hear it's because franchises continue to make money, and Bret Lang, the article's writer, seems to suggest that viewers are less likely to see films based solely on the actors involved. And while he does mention that films like Inception, Gravity, and Interstellar have all been hits, he claims that today movies like Charlie and the Chocolate Factory, War of the Worlds, and Mr. and Mrs. Smith wouldn't get made, due to waning star power and the risks they carried.

Firstly, to nitpick, I have to point out that two of the three 2005 films he mentioned are only sort of original; with franchises reigning it's easy to call anything that's not a major part of the current cultural climate "original," but Charlie and the Chocolate Factory is based on an extremely well known children's book, and even War of the Worlds is an adaptation. I think we tend to complain too much about adaptations (particularly young adult fiction, but that's a different discussion); it's terrible and annoying until it's your favorite book or tv show. Johnny Depp and Tom Cruise also aren't the best examples of how star power is waning; in the last ten years Depp has become a caricature of himself along with Tim Burton, and Tom Cruise has lost almost all of his goodwill with fans from his erratic behavior (remember the couch jumping? denying all of psychiatry? That hadn't happened quite yet.) and Scientology ties. Both films also had household name directors; Burton's prior film was Big Fish, which at the time I remember hearing nothing but good things about, and Spielberg's last collaboration with Cruise, Minority Report, was also a hit.

But regardless, I still think "originality" isn't the problem; it's marketing. Lang does mention in his article that Tomorrowland's trailers were too vague to give people a reason to see it, and that's definitely something that needs to be examined further. You can't take a step without tripping over some hype for the latest Marvel movie or DC project or the Star Wars still of the day, so of course when people make decisions on what to see this weekend, those will be the first things they go to. On the other hand, there are "original" movies that don't have a fraction of the effort put into their marketing. Trailers are great, but for someone who doesn't see a lot of movies in theaters, commercials are incredibly important. I remember last year I found out about Edge of Tomorrow* from the trailer, but when the commercials started on tv, they told you nothing about the film besides Tom Cruise, desert, guns. When it underperformed, the studio recut the ads, not to show any context or try to sell anything about the story, but to rebeand it as Live, Die Repeat, which was originally the tagline. . Because when you want more people to see your film, the solution is to completely rename it. Personally, I knew people who would have loved Edge of Tomorrow, but never saw it in theaters because they had no idea it existed. John Wick came out later that year, and I only knew about it because of the internet; I never saw a single commercial for it, and "Keanu Reeves fights dudes" should not be particularly hard to sell.

Unfortunately this problem is far wider than summer and action films; remember how Selma got ignored in practically all the industry awards nominations? One of the reasons for that was that they didn't have enough in the marketing budget to send out screeners. It had a great release date, Christmas Day, but that was only in limited release, and it had way less incoming advertisment fanfare compared to what Birdman and Boyhood got. If the marketing can't compete with bigger films, of course the film isn't going to do as well. It seems like the studios expect their "original" films, when they do deign to make them, to sell themselves, and then they're disappointed when the box office revenue won't power the gravy train.



*I'm aware that Edge of Tomorrow is actually based off of a manga named All You Need Is Kill, but for this conversation it's "original" enough.

TriBeCa part 2 - narratives

I went much safer with narratives than I intended to; at this time only one of the films I saw doesn't have a distribution deal, and half of them have familiar actors involved (which probably has something to do with the first point). For the most part I avoided movies I could see pretty soon; Good Kill and Far From Men interested me but both have May release dates. Unfortunately, due to bad timing or just plain exhaustion there were a few I wanted to see and regret not doing so. Cronies and Lucifer came highly recommended; they were both featured on the festival website for cinematography and Latin American films (which Ives seen almost none of.) The Survivalist had its world premiere at TriBeCa, and it's always nice to see some speculative fiction, and I was looking forward to some oddball dark comedy in Applesauce and Mickey Rourke in Ashby. There's only so much one person can do though, so here's what i actually did see:

Further posts coming!

It's been about two weeks since my last post, and since I tend to disappear from this blog I wanted to explain why (because I actually have a reason this time). My laptop is in for repairs, so I've been running off my phone, library computers, and my eight year old dilapidated laptop with a terrible keyboard. Just applying to jobs has been a monumental pain in the ass, so part 2 of the Tribeca report is going slower than I would like.

The good news is that in the meantime I've seen three other films: Clouds of Sils Maria (fascinating, love Kristen Stewart), The D Train (missed opportunity, possibly kinda offensive???), and Ex Machina (I LOVE ROBOTS AND OSCAR ISAAC), and I plan to write a real post about at least one of them. Probably Clouds of Sils Maria, because there's a lot to unpack there both about being a woman in the entertainment industry and the art of acting itself.

I do have a letterboxd account that I update more regularly with small quips if you just have to know what I've been watching; I try to go into more detail here. Please do not judge me for watching John Wick three times in one month; I was going through a rough time and it's the perfect film to get rid of a bad mood.