The Theme Drought

[Jaoman]

"A CONTROLLING IDEA may be expressed in a single sentence describing how and why life undergoes change from one condition of existence at the beginning to another at the end."

The above segment is taken out of STORY, an acclaimed screenwriting book by Robert McKee. This seems to be a standard thought in Hollywood. I've observed it in several other notable screenwriter and writing books, and yet again in conversation with many aspiring scribes. Oddly, however, the part most prominently remembered extends no further than “A CONTROLLING IDEA may be expressed in a single sentence..." And so, with this, somewhat shortened, hypothesis, the citadel of modern story media goes into action.

We, surely most of us, are fond of philosophers. We ought to know that a thorough idea cannot be expressed in a single sentence. Not only that, we have ample examples of this rule contradicted. Nearly every classic can be put into this category. Shakespeare, Shaw, London - I can keep naming names 'till my fingers go slack - all exhibit complex "multi-sentence" thematic content in their works. Yet, taken as a whole, North American cinema seems incapable of rising to this standard. The Waking Life, What the Bleep Do We Know, or other films popular for their philosophical contributions fair poorly when judged from the story perspective - a problem which cannot be said for the masters.

Are our screenwriters too lazy to think? Or is there another symptom for this drought of storytellers/philosophers?

[dpaterso]

J, I don't quite see your point or how what McKee is saying translates to a drought of themes or ideas; feel free to elaborate.

The requirement for a high concept idea for a film being expressed in a single sentence logline is a fairly standard method of testing whether it's high concept. And it probably isn't too much to ask, given that thousands of spec queries are floating around out there every single day, and the people reading them haven't got the time or inclination to read any more than the logline... unless you pull them in with your great idea and make them read more.

I'm not particularly wanting an argument. I just don't know what prompted you to post what you posted. Maybe a bell in my head will ring later.

-Derek
Derek's Web Page - stories, screenplays, novels, insanity. (http://hometown.aol.co.uk/DPaterson57/scripts.htm)

[Jaoman]

I'm referring to this phenomenon as a reflection of the state I see in modern cinema. Emerging writers, completely ignorant of the outs and ends of storytelling, read this advice, see that it corresponds to what's around them, and never notice that there is, in fact, a much higher standard out there until they're set in their ways. That is a false education. And if you compare the thematic content in a North American movie with, say, Japanese Anime - to take a modern example - you'll find, as I've found, that the intellectual thought coming out of Anime is WAY outside the range of anything here. I’m postulating that this conception is to blame for it. I'm asking whether anyone agrees or if someone can see another reason.

[zagoraz]

No one is saying writers have to limit themselves and their expression in any way. But when it comes to screenwriting, there is a structure there that doesn't lend itself easily to page after page of philosophy. Not for the broke screenwriter that has any dreams of seeing his work on the big screen anyway. You mentioned 'Waking Life.' Great film. But your average screenwriter isn't Richard Linklater, who funded his first film 'Slacker' with every cent he could scrape together and then got lucky when it propelled him into the big time. Now he can make any film he wants. So yeah, in 1991 your plotless movie about weirdos on the streets of Austin Texas might've caught on (as it did for him). But times have changed. With digital video everyone with a computer and an idea thinks they are going to make the next Napoleon Dynamite. The market is so flooded with crap, it's almost not worth the fight to get your work seen, no matter how original or good it is. And that's just talking about indie filmmakers who put their own money where their mouth is. Let's talk about screenwriters who have no aspirations in making their own film, they just want to get their script optioned or sold or God forbid actually made. Their genius screenplay filled with insighting and maybe actually clever philosophy. Page after page of it. It's all well and good, but Nic Cage's agent prefers the script about the monkey and the stripper who go on the run with the escaped convict who just wants to avenge the death of his wife at the hands of the KGB. I guess all I'm saying is don't censor or limit yourself. And by all means, stick to your guns and don't write what will sell just to conform to the system. Just don't complain when your script ends up in the trash heap while Nic Cage is in pre-production with a monkey trainer.

[Joe Calabrese]

There are over 200 million paying customers in the US. Average ticket price today is 10 dollars. That equals = 2 billion. Most films make under 100 million.

That means on average less than 5 percent of the US population sees any one film in the theatre.

My point is that those people who do see films dictate what they want to see. Monkeys chasing spies appeal to urban teen to mid 20's group and philosophical films that make you question your existence is made for another group, who sadly doesn't have the buying power.

So instead of blaming the filmmakers and writers, blame American audiences. They don't want to see the same things you do. For the most part they thought "What the Bleep Do We Know" was crap and would rather see Dukes of Hazzard.

So, write what you want, try and change the world, but also keep in mind that the world, for the most part, doesn't want to be changed and if you want to make it in this business you must conform to the established structure that audiences expect and demand. Sure, throw them a little curve ball once and a while but they are paying for it, so give them what they want.

[WritingFool]

Are we crying over spilt milk here, because no one wants your story or to represent you or are you angry at yourself for not being able to come up with the next big blockbuster. I find it funny, when people complain about no truly great films anymore, especially in a writing forum. If you dont like whats out there, DO SOMETHING ABOUT IT.

Supply and demand. Basic economics.
Another thing that strikes me funny, is when people, screenwriters, fail to grasp the concept of what mainstream movie making truly is all about. Then they make comments about 'selling out', as if making a movie to attract viewers on a widescale is a bad thing.

Its about making money.
If youre in it for the art, best link up with some indie prod. co. and make something worthwhile, that might not have the draw that Willy Wonka has, but at least youll be striving for your own personal satisfaction.
Chances are, unless you have an exceptional way of conveying it, a story on philosophy isnt going to make the studio execs believe you can make them the return on their investment they are looking for. And thats what its all about. He who has the gold, makes the movies. He who has the story who needs the gold, must dazzle those that have the gold. No way around that.

So theres your crossroads. For Love, or for Money.
Either way, you still have to do the work, and come up with a great story!
So get to work!

[preyer]

i, for one, will sell out tomorrow for the right price and as long as i'm not asked to write a pro-neo-nazi bit of propaganda with jane fonda in it. soft core porn? hey, count me in.

why are philosophical movies not embraced by the american audience? because they're usually pretty damn boring. what themes are falling by the wayside, anyway? i mean, specifically, what great life-changing movies are they making in japan that they're not here? i think japan is a tremendously much more thematic society: it's part of their culture. does it take a genius to pick a theme? hardly. and i dare say it's probably easier for them because it's almost innate in their culture.

since we're america with a different history, people and culture than japan, obviously our thematic sources are going to be different, or at least expressed differently. does japanese movies use more themes? maybe. i posit, though, that that's what those audiences expect and were it not for that mind-set they'd not make their entertainment that way.

we're fond of philosophers? we are? you must mean us writers, because it's been a while since plato was on the NYT bestsellers list, lol. if anything, the average person is fond of *arguing* their philosophy in america. not so much embracing someone else's who may even have a point. no one wants a constant critical analysis of their own thought-processes, logic and belief systems from a movie that they can't argue back to, know what i mean?

themes are where you find them. there could be great themes in the worst horror movie if you care to look hard enough. and try as i might, i have problems finding themes in a typical pokemon and sailor moon episode. then again, i find 'philosophical contributions' almost a contradiction in terms. i don't want to be preached to, it's as simple as that, nor am i interested in a theme, idea or conversation that goes unresolved because a filmmaker is afraid to make his philosophical point by the end.

simply put by greater men than myself, people don't go to movies to watch themes. i don't blame american audiences for watching 'the dukes of hazzard.' it may be a greatly entertaining movie for all i know. what, that doesn't have themes you can derive out of it? sure it does. maybe not shakespeare, but haven't we already plundered that guy enough as it is?

smelling a college course somewhere somewhere in the back of this question, i wonder if people would recognize how great shakespeare is if they weren't told that all their lives, heh heh.

is the mainstream lazy? no, but they're mainstream for a reason, to rake in cash hand over fist for providing entertainment. that's the key here, philosophy isn't all that entertaining usually. can i help it if you can't find the themes in 'cold mountain' or 'million dollar baby'? maybe if they made a japanese version you'd see them better, eh? lol.

a thorough idea can't be expressed in one sentence? 'star-crossed lovers from feuding families defy them with tragic results.' something like that. that's all h'wood is asking for, no? i don't know how many themes there are in 'romeo and juliet,' but nor could i encompass every single theme in 'legally blonde' in one sentence, either (though i'm sure that would be easier). anyway, a character's philosophy is shown by their actions, not talked through for an hour. i could almost argue that never-ending dialogue *about* things is poor storytelling/philosophy. that's why no one respects philosophers, all they do is talk and b!tch and complain about how things should be while rambo gets it done, baby. indeed, maybe that's not the way it should be, but we're an action-oriented society: we don't talk it to death, we do and we learn from that (hopefully).

...two musicians sitting at a crossroads in 1930's alabama waits for the devil when here comes the cast of dragonball z.... man, how could that *not* will the oscar for best picture? (btw, watched 'steamboy' last night... wow, what a waste of time that was. i think it had the longest finale of all time, all the while the little girl who abuses her pet and wants to win the unjustified war against london has an epiphany as deep as wallpaper that changes her instantly into a person who gets absolutely no come-uppance whatsoever. ten years in the making, folks.... buy your copy now. i keep giving japanese cinema every chance to impress me and continually find myself falling asleep mid-way through. maybe that crane in the pond in the backyard is supposed to tell me something. i doesn't. i think i'd rather watch a poorly lit video of a formal japanese tea service than this stuff that has absolutely no meaning to my american mind. and *we're* lazy storytellers? well, at least we *tell* a story, or try to. i think that's worth something, at least, right?)

seems part of the question is whether a generally *comprehensive* SET of themes can be expressed in a single sentence. depends on how long your sentence is, i reckon.

the other part seems to revolve around there being a lack of thematic quality in north american movies, to which i say there's not. 'the dukes of hazzard,' while a piece of fluff, actually has strong thematic elements. does it have to wrapped in endless dialogue? of course not. at the same time, there's a philosophical drought in our movies. to that i say you have to understand the philosophy of a man holding a six-shooter to see any messages therein.

[Jaoman]

Alright, this reply may get a little disorganized, as I've got it in my mind to address the issues raised in order of importance, from least to greatest.

Are we crying over spilt milk here, because no one wants your story or to represent you or are you angry at yourself for not being able to come up with the next big blockbuster. I find it funny, when people complain about no truly great films anymore, especially in a writing forum. If you dont like whats out there, DO SOMETHING ABOUT IT.

Actually, I'm crying as a member of the audience because I find myself surrounded by very inadiquate entertainment. As a writer, I know exactly what I'm going to do about it; however, as a member of the viewing public, I'm asking you, as the next generation of writers, what are you going to do about it.

Supply and demand. Basic economics.
Another thing that strikes me funny, is when people, screenwriters, fail to grasp the concept of what mainstream movie making truly is all about. Then they make comments about 'selling out', as if making a movie to attract viewers on a widescale is a bad thing.

Pardon? Who said anything about selling out? But lets be serious...

Its about making money.
If youre in it for the art, best link up with some indie prod. co. and make something worthwhile, that might not have the draw that Willy Wonka has, but at least youll be striving for your own personal satisfaction.
Chances are, unless you have an exceptional way of conveying it, a story on philosophy isnt going to make the studio execs believe you can make them the return on their investment they are looking for. And thats what its all about. He who has the gold, makes the movies. He who has the story who needs the gold, must dazzle those that have the gold. No way around that.

This is a poor argument. Why must you even make the distinction? "If art, then no monkey. If money, no art." Its absolute ********. The studio execs aren't really as shallow as you make them out to be. If you give them a superior product, they'll be all over you, artistic as it may be, with lots of money. And ultimately all business is about a superior product.

But let me clarify, before I go on to address the rest of what I find relevant. It seems to me that I'm running into a misunderstanding of the "philosophic story" in at least several replies. The inference seems to be something like The Waking Life, or another long dialogue. But observe please, I criticized the Waking Life exactly accordingly. I found it shallow and unconvincing, because - and this is the golden because - it was weak on story. What I have in mind is something more along the lines of Jurassic Park. Great movie. And there's no way in hell anyone is going to boil it down to one sentence. Oh, you can say some tagline, like "life finds a way," but that doesn't cover it. The movie is about, among other things, science and its progress, man in his relation to nature, and really that very artistic over economic divide I found so odorous in the last paragraph. All this is done in dialogue, within the context of the story. For that matter, many of Spielberg’s films fit this criterion: anyone remember Shindler's List? Ironically, Spielberg, for all the art, doesn't seem to have developed any allergy for money.

So, why isn’t there more like that around? Why are we stuck with Dukes of Hazzard instead? I suppose someone can pipe up something about Spielberg having lots of money or being an “unrivaled genius,” but really they’re both cop outs from the issue. Spielberg made his money and I don’t believe in unrivaled genius. I think it is another symptom. Which brings my back to my opening post…

There are over 200 million paying customers in the US. Average ticket price today is 10 dollars. That equals = 2 billion. Most films make under 100 million.

That means on average less than 5 percent of the US population sees any one film in the theatre.

My point is that those people who do see films dictate what they want to see. Monkeys chasing spies appeal to urban teen to mid 20's group and philosophical films that make you question your existence is made for another group, who sadly doesn't have the buying power.

So instead of blaming the filmmakers and writers, blame American audiences.

No good either. The intellectual has buying power precisely because he’s intellectual enough to’ve made it. However, as long as we keep feeding the same old crap, he’s isn’t going to bother, and we’ll be left with the old 5 percent. No, we blame ourselves, if anyone. Throwing it to the audiences is a move of cheap resignation.

No one is saying writers have to limit themselves and their expression in any way. But when it comes to screenwriting, there is a structure there that doesn't lend itself easily to page after page of philosophy. Not for the broke screenwriter that has any dreams of seeing his work on the big screen anyway. You mentioned 'Waking Life.' Great film. But your average screenwriter isn't Richard Linklater, who funded his first film 'Slacker' with every cent he could scrape together and then got lucky when it propelled him into the big time. Now he can make any film he wants. So yeah, in 1991 your plotless movie about weirdos on the streets of Austin Texas might've caught on (as it did for him). But times have changed. With digital video everyone with a computer and an idea thinks they are going to make the next Napoleon Dynamite. The market is so flooded with crap, it's almost not worth the fight to get your work seen, no matter how original or good it is. And that's just talking about indie filmmakers who put their own money where their mouth is.

I think I’ve answered your comment about structure already. As for the loaded market, there is a point to be made for the uphill but it’s a minor one at best. Smart movies do good. They win awards and get around by word of mouth. I’m not saying that it’s a given, but on the whole that’s how economies function.

Let's talk about screenwriters who have no aspirations in making their own film, they just want to get their script optioned or sold or God forbid actually made. Their genius screenplay filled with insighting and maybe actually clever philosophy. Page after page of it. It's all well and good, but Nic Cage's agent prefers the script about the monkey and the stripper who go on the run with the escaped convict who just wants to avenge the death of his wife at the hands of the KGB. I guess all I'm saying is don't censor or limit yourself. And by all means, stick to your guns and don't write what will sell just to conform to the system. Just don't complain when your script ends up in the trash heap while Nic Cage is in pre-production with a monkey trainer.

I think this is the best summation of the evasion floating around in this thread. Being stuck in “The Industry” has a certain validity to it, but no sane writer, or any movie maker, who can make a movie on the same level as Jurassic Park is going to work on the monkey stripper. Nic Cage is a professional actor, he wants the good roles with power and meaning to them. He’s not an idiot, if you show him something meaningful, he’s going to pounce.

It really comes down to education. Do we have the vision and the know-how to raise the bar of quality? And what’s keeping it low? To the former, obviously not. As for the latter, I’ve presented one theory. Another, in the form of an attitude, “It’s all the industry,” I’ve tried to answer - but it certainly requires a far bigger answer than anything I can type up before breakfast. Let’s leave it for thoughts for now. I can smell pancakes.

[Joe Calabrese]

Based on everything you said, I can pretty much say with confidence that you are like so many unproduced writers who want to change the world and have an "idea" of how the industry and movie goers work.

It's not about art, not about serious products and the industry is more shallow than you can imagine.

Sorry, it's hasn't been about those ideas since the studio head system changed to corporate mentality about 25 years ago. The industry is run strictly from a financial POV and those who greenlight films use standard models because they are "standard." As I said before, change only will happen slowly when proven to be marketable.

Good luck, but from my 20 plus years of observations in the industry, those types of writers with their head in the clouds almost never go anywhere.

[Jaoman]

A very acute observation, Joe. You've pegged me. So, feel free to refute my evidence. Go into your local rental store and browse the selection of Oscar winners. What I see in mine are edgy ideas and hardcore scenes. If so, then the impulse for high level content is out there and spending big funds. Correct me if I'm wrong.

[preyer]

'And ultimately all business is about a superior product.' ~ obviously you're not a wal*mart shopper.

yeah, JC, but he had a purdy argument. either i'm too stupid to care about philosophy or i think philosophy is mostly a bunch of crap.

'Being stuck in “The Industry” has a certain validity to it, but no sane writer, or any movie maker, who can make a movie on the same level as Jurassic Park is going to work on the monkey stripper.' ~ well, this takes all of three seconds to dispell. jamie foxx went from 'ray' to 'stealth.' wasn't brandon frazier on top of his game when he made 'monkey bone'? how much did will smith make for 'wild, wild west,' then recently the ho-hum 'i, robot'? how many examples have to be listed? what you're almost suggesting is bringing in tons of talent and throwing excessive wads of cash at it will make it a better movie than it deserves to be. as evidence by this probably going to be the third straight year when box office revenue is down, eh?

i think writers can get too caught up in themes. thematically, 'star wars' and 'willow' are pretty close. but, which one would you want to watch? if i understand you right, what you're saying is what's keeping the quality low in america is a lack of philosophy and/or themes? and that it's not the audiences fault (as if we shouldn't be faulted for being given apparently what we ask for)?

'Nic Cage is a professional actor, he wants the good roles with power and meaning to them. He’s not an idiot, if you show him something meaningful, he’s going to pounce.' ~ ideally. at the same time, throw enough money at someone and they'll consider it. look at tom cruise. he certainly doesn't need the money. but, nor does he need to make another 'mission impossible.' realistically, what do you think is winning out here, a big payday or artistic principle? do you think it's sane to forego a $10m pay check to do someone's art house flick? nic cage... meaningful... 'the rock'... 'con-air'... 'national treasure'... preyer snickers. let's get real, actors strike while the iron's hot for the most part. (you could argue tom hanks only does quality roles, like the overrated 'saving private ryan' and 'the ladykillers,' but when was the last time he did an indie flick for scale because he loved the script so much?)

'Smart movies do good. They win awards and get around by word of mouth. I’m not saying that it’s a given, but on the whole that’s how economies function.' uhm.... guess it depends on your definition of smart here and 'do good.' that's a pretty vague statement. anyone who believes 'quality automatically equals money' is loopy. for the consumer it's about getting what you believe to be the best value for you dollar. for the producer or manufacturer it's about giving you what you'll pay for something for the least cost to them, and since quality ain't cheap, you're only getting what you pay for. i'll give you an example: you know the only real difference between a GM truck and a GMC truck is, besides several thousand dollars, a few trim pieces and a different badge? it's the perception that GMCs are better made. people actually think this. truth is they roll off the exact same production line (they're built here in dayton about three miles down the road) and become one or the other at the last stages of slapping stuff together. it's difficult for someone to project their perception of quality on subjective things like movies, b/c what's smart to you may bore me to tears, or what i laugh out loud at you might think is stupid.

hey, i love movies that raises questions and makes me think. i think there's about enough of that. what i want is better storytelling, and that's got nothing to do with the theme. i can you from point A to B a dozen different ways. what i'm frustrated with is only being taken down a single path time and again to the point where i don't even need to see 80% of the movie after the trailer. i'm also sick to death of remakes, re-imaginings, and 'based on a better story that we ripped-off and called it the same for name recognition.'

'Ironically, Spielberg, for all the art, doesn't seem to have developed any allergy for money.' ~ good line, like it. i'll steal it later. SS makes commercially viable movies, though. for art's sake, when was the last time he made a movie for less than a zillion dollars starring the best actors in h'wood? you want a smart, philosophically meaningful movie of his then look no further than 'minority report.' it cost over a $100m, made about $132m domestic (somewhere around $350m worldwide, but that's not the point). domestically, not really that successful bottom-lined.

that's really to answer 'So, why isn’t there more like that around?' a $100m movie is a huge gamble no matter who's at the helm. it took spielberg, cruise, tons of f/x and the best of the best to make it the way it was, which without any of that would have tanked big-time. it posed some interesting questions but was otherwise fairly rote in a lot of ways. why do we get the 'dukes'? because it's SUMMER and that's what people want. you know, fun? you don't roll your prestige movies out against 'revenge of the sith' and expect not to get clobbered.

yeah, i'm the guy bringing up SS's money. i say he made his money by giving us what we want to watch or at least thinks we want. i understand 'war of the worlds' was pretty awful, though. probably not enough themes. anyway, why are you so quick to dismiss his money? in a roundabout way, don't you insinuate that more money equates to better quality? in theory, yes, in practice, not necessarily. maybe the only difference between SS and the guy who directs sesame street is all that money preventing him from telling a great story with A-list actors that'll be a mega-blockbuster. (well, money and a great book for a basis.)

'If you give them a superior product, they'll be all over you, artistic as it may be, with lots of money.' ~ i used to work for delphi. want to know the definition of a 'perfect part.' it's one the customer buys and doesn't send back. as far as h'wood is concerned, i'm sure, 'superior' means one that makes money. it's my understanding they make the artier pictures at a possible loss (not because they can afford to, but there accounting ways around things) for the oscars. they don't do it because they're compelled to and figure that for every ten cheesy '2 fast, 2 furious's they make they have to make another 'the piano', as if for every ten times they screw their secretary they have to make love to their wife, they make 'em for a reason/s. i wonder if high-class pimps do business much differently.

'But let me clarify, before I go on to address the rest of what I find relevant. It seems to me that I'm running into a misunderstanding of the "philosophic story" in at least several replies. The inference seems to be something like The Waking Life, or another long dialogue.' ~ i love this piece. it starts off with a minour flaw (what you *think* is relevant ain't the whole picture sometimes, and by addressing only those point convenient for you does not necessarily create a meaningful dialogue, and we're all about being meaningful here, aren't we?), then suggesting it's our fault for misunderstanding the gist because we 'infered' wrong (i.e. 'infered' by using the only examples given and having no reason to believe we should toss 'jurassic park' in there, too). this is actually a rather brilliant bit. almost propagana-ish. wonderful. :) just the right amount of distortion and force, but the 'what i find relevant' part distinguishes, or betrays it, either way, for what it is.

so, 'jurassic park' succeeded so brilliantly because a master was steering that big-buck beast, it had a philosophic and thematic base and it was just smart? you forgot to mention a great score, because most great movies have great theme songs. (i left out big name actors, because that's not always a pre-requisite, it just tends to help.) so, if you do all that, you'll be doing art, our fellow countrymen and the world at large a great service and should be guaranteed success (didn't make 'the patriot' a great movie, though)? is that it? i think you even implied a budget wasn't an issue, so just philosophy, theme and smartitude is what you're wanting? oh, and a great story. somewhere in there i assume you want to be entertained, as 'JP' was hugely fun to watch.

i'm getting cornfuddled here. what do you want in a good movie precisely?

sorry if i've rambled, i'm prone to that and i'm just really tired. :)

[Joe Calabrese]

Go into your local rental store and browse the selection of Oscar winners. What I see in mine are edgy ideas and hardcore scenes. If so, then the impulse for high level content is out there and spending big funds. Correct me if I'm wrong.Titanic, The Aviator, Chicago, Lord of the Rings? Edgy? Hardcore? What are you smoking?

You first talk about films with deep philosophical meaning like "What the Bleep..." one minute and then Oscar films the next? Not only am I confused, I think you are too.

[Jaoman]

'And ultimately all business is about a superior product.' ~ obviously you're not a wal*mart shopper.

That's fair. Well, let me rephrase that. If a superior product can be had at the same price, then that product will win out over the inferior product at the same price. I think we're economically correct now.

yeah, JC, but he had a purdy argument. either i'm too stupid to care about philosophy or i think philosophy is mostly a bunch of crap.

Obviously, though you're not the only opinion of consequence. But don't worry, we'll still have the sex scene and the car chase scene just for you. ;)Anyways, why are you trying to provoke me? If you don't like philosophy, say it's not for everyone. I'll agree with you. However, calling another person's values "a bunch of crap" is pretty damn wasteful.

what you're almost suggesting is bringing in tons of talent and throwing excessive wads of cash at it will make it a better movie than it deserves to be. as evidence by this probably going to be the third straight year when box office revenue is down, eh?

I didn't suggest any such thing. If anything, the opposite - that tons of talent and tons of cash still flop if the script sucks.

i think writers can get too caught up in themes. thematically, 'star wars' and 'willow' are pretty close. but, which one would you want to watch? if i understand you right, what you're saying is what's keeping the quality low in america is a lack of philosophy and/or themes? and that it's not the audiences fault (as if we shouldn't be faulted for being given apparently what we ask for)?

Well, I'm not so arrogant as to heap all the problems of the industry on the absence of strong thematic content, but I do say it's a leading participant. As for the audience, well, how much choice is it given? I haven't seen any ballets at the movie theatres.

I might also point out that dumb movies are gone the next year; whereas, smart keep making money with every generation. Financially speaking, its not a bad investment (if, and a big if it is, one can produce that kind of lasting quality). If money is all you care about, it balances out.

'Nic Cage is a professional actor, he wants the good roles with power and meaning to them. He’s not an idiot, if you show him something meaningful, he’s going to pounce.' ~ ideally. at the same time, throw enough money at someone and they'll consider it. look at tom cruise. he certainly doesn't need the money. but, nor does he need to make another 'mission impossible.' realistically, what do you think is winning out here, a big payday or artistic principle? do you think it's sane to forego a $10m pay check to do someone's art house flick? nic cage... meaningful... 'the rock'... 'con-air'... 'national treasure'... preyer snickers. let's get real, actors strike while the iron's hot for the most part. (you could argue tom hanks only does quality roles, like the overrated 'saving private ryan' and 'the ladykillers,' but when was the last time he did an indie flick for scale because he loved the script so much?)

This doesn't even seem to be related to anything I've said. Actors do different role to keep from getting stereotyped. Its an occupational hazards. But what of it? Though, you made an excellent point. Actors go where the money is. If you put money on the head, actors will go there.

'Smart movies do good. They win awards and get around by word of mouth. I’m not saying that it’s a given, but on the whole that’s how economies function.' uhm.... guess it depends on your definition of smart here and 'do good.' that's a pretty vague statement. anyone who believes 'quality automatically equals money' is loopy. for the consumer it's about getting what you believe to be the best value for you dollar. for the producer or manufacturer it's about giving you what you'll pay for something for the least cost to them, and since quality ain't cheap, you're only getting what you pay for. i'll : you knowgive you an example the only real difference between a GM truck and a GMC truck is, besides several thousand dollars, a few trim pieces and a different badge? it's the perception that GMCs are better made. people actually think this. truth is they roll off the exact same production line (they're built here in dayton about three miles down the road) and become one or the other at the last stages of slapping stuff together. it's difficult for someone to project their perception of quality on subjective things like movies, b/c what's smart to you may bore me to tears, or what i laugh out loud at you might think is stupid.

Let me reject the first point in this paragraph, and it's something that I've been feeling all over your post. Quality depends on money, but it's not a direct relationship of any sort. You need money, in the case of the movie industry, to get the damn thing made well. There, that's where it ends. But to get the damn thing made well, you first need to have it. And even the best director and the best actors couldn't make a blockbuster out of a bad script, short of rewriting it. Money does not write a script nor make human talent. Money is only useful to gather those components together. The real stars of quality are cheap as daylight.

As for subjectivity, you can relax. I'm not advocating that we take away your precious Dukes. All I want is something I can enjoy also. And I've reason to think I'm not the only one that may enjoy smarter pictures. You said something about my praise of Shakespeare coming as a result of conditioning in your last post. Well, that doesn't scan. Nobody was conditioned for Shakespeare in the 1590s, yet he did well. Accident that he still does so? Despite all the new generations, so ready to rebel? I think not. That being so because my admiration for him is directly tied to reading Hamlet on my own time and finding it immensely enjoyable. You also put down Steamboy - fine, it's your opinion. But Steamboy was in the theatres. It's enjoyed world wide. Japanese Anime has developed a large following in North America. You may not like it, but somewhere out there there's a consumer base who, like me, see something that they cannot get at home. Something to ponder about, no?

hey, i love movies that raises questions and makes me think. i think there's about enough of that. what i want is better storytelling, and that's got nothing to do with the theme. i can you from point A to B a dozen different ways. what i'm frustrated with is only being taken down a single path time and again to the point where i don't even need to see 80% of the movie after the trailer. i'm also sick to death of remakes, re-imaginings, and 'based on a better story that we ripped-off and called it the same for name recognition.'

Okay, this is just funny. In one breath, you disclaim my campaign to add more content to the media and in the next lament over the lack of content therein. :ROFL:

'Ironically, Spielberg, for all the art, doesn't seem to have developed any allergy for money.' ~ good line, like it. i'll steal it later. SS makes commercially viable movies, though. for art's sake, when was the last time he made a movie for less than a zillion dollars starring the best actors in h'wood? you want a smart, philosophically meaningful movie of his then look no further than 'minority report.' it cost over a $100m, made about $132m domestic (somewhere around $350m worldwide, but that's not the point).

That is the point. It paid its dues (even domestically). And again, you talk as if there's some kind of direct relationship between art and money. There isn't. Get over it.

that's really to answer 'So, why isn’t there more like that around?' a $100m movie is a huge gamble no matter who's at the helm. it took spielberg, cruise, tons of f/x and the best of the best to make it the way it was, which without any of that would have tanked big-time. it posed some interesting questions but was otherwise fairly rote in a lot of ways. why do we get the 'dukes'? because it's SUMMER and that's what people want. you know, fun? you don't roll your prestige movies out against 'revenge of the sith' and expect not to get clobbered.

If I remember correctly, Revenge of the Sith didn't do all that well. Anyway, my point was not why there's isn't more Jurassic Parks in the area, but scripts sharing the quality.

yeah, i'm the guy bringing up SS's money. i say he made his money by giving us what we want to watch or at least thinks we want.

There we have it. You've just stepped in it. Here's a guy both with thematic and artistic content, yet he still makes movies that are fun to watch. Could the shocking truth be...true? Is it even remotely possible that artistic content isn't poisonous to enjoyment? My God! It'd change the world!!!!! :eek:

'If you give them a superior product, they'll be all over you, artistic as it may be, with lots of money.' ~ i used to work for delphi. want to know the definition of a 'perfect part.' it's one the customer buys and doesn't send back. as far as h'wood is concerned, i'm sure, 'superior' means one that makes money. it's my understanding they make the artier pictures at a possible loss (not because they can afford to, but there accounting ways around things) for the oscars. they don't do it because they're compelled to and figure that for every ten cheesy '2 fast, 2 furious's they make they have to make another 'the piano', as if for every ten times they screw their secretary they have to make love to their wife, they make 'em for a reason/s. i wonder if high-class pimps do business much differently.

We've already established that intelligence is not the bane of enjoyment. However, it does add an extra level of content, gives the film longer income potential, and bring in an audience that typically goes elsewhere. It's just possible that there's a case to be made here.

'But let me clarify, before I go on to address the rest of what I find relevant. It seems to me that I'm running into a misunderstanding of the "philosophic story" in at least several replies. The inference seems to be something like The Waking Life, or another long dialogue.' ~ i love this piece. it starts off with a minour flaw (what you *think* is relevant ain't the whole picture sometimes, and by addressing only those point convenient for you does not necessarily create a meaningful dialogue, and we're all about being meaningful here, aren't we?), then suggesting it's our fault for misunderstanding the gist because we 'infered' wrong (i.e. 'infered' by using the only examples given and having no reason to believe we should toss 'jurassic park' in there, too). this is actually a rather brilliant bit. almost propagana-ish. wonderful. just the right amount of distortion and force, but the 'what i find relevant' part distinguishes, or betrays it, either way, for what it is.

Um...it's my reply...why shouldn't I reply to what I find relevant? I would think that was a given, even had I not said it.

'jurassic park' succeeded so brilliantly because a master was steering that big-buck beast, it had a philosophic and thematic base and it was just smart? you forgot to mention a great score, because most great movies have great theme songs. (i left out big name actors, because that's not always a pre-requisite, it just tends to help.) so, if you do all that, you'll be doing art, our fellow countrymen and the world at large a great service and should be guaranteed success (didn't make 'the patriot' a great movie, though)? is that it? i think you even implied a budget wasn't an issue, so just philosophy, theme and smartitude is what you're wanting? oh, and a great story. somewhere in there i assume you want to be entertained, as 'JP' was hugely fun to watch.

I think I miss your point. Do I want good actors and a great score too? Of course. Why am I required to sacrifice theme for it, though?

Titanic, The Aviator, Chicago, Lord of the Rings? Edgy? Hardcore? What are you smoking?

Whatever it is that's smoked when one watches Amadeus and the English Patient.

You first talk about films with deep philosophical meaning like "What the Bleep..." one minute and then Oscar films the next? Not only am I confused, I think you are too.

I'm boggled as to why you'd think the two are incompatible. Which is regardless, because my example was intended to display unique composition.

[Joe Calabrese]

Whatever it is that's smoked when one watches Amadeus and the English Patient. So, it's not Oscar films you want to see more of, just films like those you referred to, who just happened to win a few Oscars.

Now your being clear. Both were great films and for everyone of those great films made, there are tons of films made for a wider audience and to make more money.

There is a need for a variety of films to cater to a variety of people and of course it will always be proportionate. For every one Amadeus, there will always be a hundred Dukes of Hazard because the market dictates that ratio. Even if every Mensa member demanded films be made for them, you would only see one because there are far more teens than eggheads, far more war mongers than peaceniks, far more "I wanna laugh" people than "I want to be educated" viewers.

Filmmakers make what the market demands and in direct proportion to that demand.

You are entitle to your opinion and it is admirable that you want to create works that you enjoy and feel have meaning. But be realistic and if you want to succeed you will need to take the good with the bad. I'm sure every writer here has an Oscar script in them, but the reality is that very few sell in comparison to a Romcom or horror or other marketable pieces.

Anthony Minghell who wrote English Patient, also wrote Cold Mountain and the Talented Mr. Ripley, both not as deep as EP but they paid the bills.

[WritingFool]

For some reason I love to hear when Joe smacks down someone who runs at the mouth. Its entertaining, because it takes alot to get hiw there. Luckily he's only had to hose me down once or twice.

Hey Mr Joaman, if you have the recipe for an outstanding movie, great. We will all be very happy and proud of you, because thats what many writers want. When something with a profound message meets something marketable, and translates to huge dollars.

You defintely have a lot to say, and Im wondering if youre script is going to be longer than mine still is. But time will tell us all if you have grasped the art of storytelling. Anyone can say this and that about the great ideas they have. Everyone starts with an idea, but the true knack comes down to not only how do we show our vision to everyone, but how do we sell that vision for everyone to see.

So congradulations on making step one--visualizing a pursue-able concept worth writing.
Im grinning cause I know youre going to have SO MUCH FUN achieving step 2 -- a worthy 80 to 120 pages. But good luck on proving us all wrong about you, or you're being right, whatever way you care to look at it.

[preyer]

nope, don't mean to provoke anyone. that's not generally my style. i was just tired and my reply obviously came off more forceful than i aim to be.

'I might also point out that dumb movies are gone the next year; whereas, smart keep making money with every generation.' ~ i'm not sure what examples you've got to prove this even 51% true, but between DVD sales, rentals, and syndication, i don't think a smart movie has any advantage over dumb ones, eh? money isn't all i care about, but i'm not going to give the impression that i'm above it, either. making movies is an industry out for profit like any other. i won't be the only one impressed when h'wood starts making movies for charity, lol.

'Let me reject the first point in this paragraph, and it's something that I've been feeling all over your post. Quality depends on money, but it's not a direct relationship of any sort. You need money, in the case of the movie industry, to get the damn thing made well. There, that's where it ends. But to get the damn thing made well, you first need to have it. And even the best director and the best actors couldn't make a blockbuster out of a bad script, short of rewriting it. Money does not write a script nor make human talent. Money is only useful to gather those components together. The real stars of quality are cheap as daylight. ~ this is where you lose me. indeed, i did feel you were equating one thing with another erroneously. i also feel you've contradicted yourself when you say no amount of money or talent will turn a bad movie into a money-maker and still be dumbfounded (or at least annoyed) at the success of 'dukes,' which you seem less than impressed with. true, most really bad movies with high production costs will fail... after an $80m opening weekend. i also get the idea you're equating 'good' with 'smart' ('smart' being the pathway to 'philosophic'). i'm quite sure most of us here have our DVD libraries stocked with our fair share of admittedly 'bad' movies and guilty pleasures, from 'tomb raider' to 'the mummy.' nowhere is 'smart' and 'entertaining' joined at the hip. :)

'As for subjectivity, you can relax. I'm not advocating that we take away your precious Dukes. All I want is something I can enjoy also. And I've reason to think I'm not the only one that may enjoy smarter pictures. You said something about my praise of Shakespeare coming as a result of conditioning in your last post. Well, that doesn't scan. Nobody was conditioned for Shakespeare in the 1590s, yet he did well. Accident that he still does so? Despite all the new generations, so ready to rebel? I think not. That being so because my admiration for him is directly tied to reading Hamlet on my own time and finding it immensely enjoyable. You also put down Steamboy - fine, it's your opinion. But Steamboy was in the theatres. It's enjoyed world wide. Japanese Anime has developed a large following in North America. You may not like it, but somewhere out there there's a consumer base who, like me, see something that they cannot get at home. Something to ponder about, no?' ~ hey, if it's entertaining, you betcha i'll watch it. i watched 'the rundown' again tonight, enjoyed it plenty. also liked 'the devil's advocate', which is probably more geared for you (assuming it's possible to not cringe at kanoe reeves horrible accent). you forget that shakespeare, or edward de vere or whoever wrote those plays, lapsed into nothingness for what, a hundred and fifty-years or so before being rediscovered? in his own time, he wasn't the genius he is now. he did well? i thought he died penniless, if indeed he ever existed. that's besides the point, though. anime has a following, true dat, no denying that fact. personally, i fail to find the attraction in poorly animated, apparently meaningless fluff. some will argue there's all sorts of wonderful depth once you consider the symbolism and themes and characters. i'd like to know where they're hiding it, that's all. okay, some is better than others, and some 'adult swim' can be watchable if there's nothing else to do. to faun all over it like some people do i think is unjustified. it's subjective though, and that's just my opinion.

'Okay, this is just funny. In one breath, you disclaim my campaign to add more content to the media and in the next lament over the lack of content therein.' ~ not at all. i'm the first to say most movies are formulaic. the japanese make their movies every bit as formulaic as we do, just their model is different. i just question your conclusion that what american cinema is missing is a philosophic basis and that you're putting more effort into foreign movies than our own. here you're either misunderstanding me or trying to my words around: i never said more content-- that's your statement-- i said better stories. i don't think any amount of thematic quality or smartness would have saved 'daredevil' from being the turgid piece of crap it is, *but* a better story could have made it worthwhile to watch. in fact, i said there's enough 'smart' movies already, so i'm failing to see where you're coming from.

'If I remember correctly, Revenge of the Sith didn't do all that well.' ~ if i remember correctly, the last time i saw a list it was number seven on the all-time box office list domestically. i don't think 'minority report' was considered a success domestically after advertising, promotions, etc.. i don't remember where i heard this, if it's correct, or even if i'm getting it right, but for what it's worth (nothing), i heard a movie has to practically double its production costs to make money. studios don't all that money and talent into a movie just to turn a few million. domestically, i'm sure it fell far short of its projected earnings.

'There we have it. You've just stepped in it. Here's a guy both with thematic and artistic content, yet he still makes movies that are fun to watch. Could the shocking truth be...true? Is it even remotely possible that artistic content isn't poisonous to enjoyment? My God! It'd change the world!!!!!' ~ no one is arguing otherwise. you're arguing that that's the only way, it seems. that's why i'm debating your conclusions. by using on the best directors of all time, that's not really much of a support of your argument, unless that argument is only cinematic geniuses should direct movies. never let it be said that SS is bulletproof, either.

'We've already established that intelligence is not the bane of enjoyment. However, it does add an extra level of content, gives the film longer income potential, and bring in an audience that typically goes elsewhere. It's just possible that there's a case to be made here.' ~ by 'established,' i take that to mean what we all agree on, lol. years ago, a friend of mine owned a video store. i asked her what she rents the most of. of course porn was what paid the bills, but after that she said cheesy B-movies are her best rentals. those, i guess, must have been the smart cheesy B-movies? here you're equating intelligence level of a movie to its income potential and i have to ask where you've drawn that conclusion from to rely on it being a truism.

'I'm sure every writer here has an Oscar script in them,...' ~ i've got my share, lol.