The magic of cinema is the power to transport the viewer to another time and place.  We can sit back in our seats at a local cinema or lounge in front of the TV in our living room and have the world around us slip away once we settle in and let the movie grab a hold of us.  To audiences, the movies are alive.  A lot of work goes into pulling off that magic trick, whether it be the effectiveness of the production and costume design or the authenticity of the actor’s performance.  But, if there is one aspect of film-making that sometimes goes unheralded, it’s the effectiveness of the setting itself.  Yes, a lot of artificiality is involved in staging a scene in a particular place, especially when shooting entirely indoors on a manufactured set.  But, there are quite a few movies that use the natural world for the setting of their movies, and just as much consideration goes into finding the right location for a film as it does finding the right actor for a role.  There are many movies where the setting plays a crucial role in the story, and in many cases, is often a character unto itself.  It may not be an active player, but you will often find movies where the setting is either a threat to our main characters, a safe haven, or a place of endearment that is valued by many.  A place can also have it’s own personality, based on the collective characteristics of it’s inhabitants.  But, when the importance of location is not taken into consideration, it can often reflect poorly on the identity of it’s own story.  Over the years, we’ve seen many amazing locations presented in movies, but not enough has been said about the work that goes into making those same locations an integral part of a movie’s success.

Producing a film often starts with the process of location scouting.  Often supervised by the directing team itself, finding the right locations for a movie is important for finding the vision for a story-line.  It’s one thing for the filmmaker to have an idea in their mind of what their setting will look like and how the story will progress within it, but it’s another thing to actually see it in person.  Blocking a shot takes on different challenges when done in the real world.  A director must deal with details and obstacles that normally wouldn’t occur on a controlled set, and this often leads to some interesting directorial choices.  Sometimes, a story can even drastically change in the development process when a location is found that presents a whole bunch of new possibilities to the filmmakers.  And it’s largely a part of the way that a location lends itself cinematicly in different ways.  It can either be the embodiment of one particular place in your story, or can act as nowhere in particular but serve your needs.  Sometimes you want a setting that looks unlike anything you’ve ever seen, but can also have that chameleon like ability to be any number of places.  It’s all to the discretion of the filmmakers.  Because of the importance of a location’s impact on a story, they often have to be more carefully chosen than the actors that inhabit it.  And, as we’ve seen in many important and monumental films, locations and setting often make these movies stand out and retain their own identity.

Some filmmakers choose to use their movies not just to tell the story of their characters, but of the specific places themselves.  Most of the time, they are love letters to a filmmaker’s hometown or place of origin; most often a major city or a cultural region.  Directors do this intentionally for the most part, but sometimes it just comes as part of the filmmaker’s own style.  New York City is often presented as a crucial part of many film narratives; probably more so than any other place in the world.  One particular filmmaker, Woody Allen, created an identity as a director by using the Big Apple in so many of his early films, identifying himself with New York while at the same time presenting an loving image of the city through his own cinematic eye.  Films like Annie Hall (1977), Hannah and Her Sisters (1986), and Bullets Over Broadway (1994) probably wouldn’t have the same impact if they weren’t set within Woody Allen’s own idealized version of New York, which is often as quirky and unpredictable as the man himself.  His Manhattan (1979) in particular is almost the very definition of a love letter to a single location.  But, as much as celebrates the city through it’s wondrous aspects, there are other filmmakers that celebrate  New York in less glamorous ways.  Spike Lee presented New York as a grittier place in his 1989 masterpiece Do the Right Thing, which depicted the racial tensions that undercut much of the daily life in the city between law enforcement and the poorer black neighborhoods.  Though far from the idealized New York of Woody Allen’s movies, Spike Lee’s NYC is no less a potent character in his movies, and Lee celebrates the vibrancy of the people who inhabit it, and likewise celebrates the indomitable spirit of the city’s often forgotten poor.  It shows how much a single place can carry so much character in a movie, even through different kinds of perspectives.

It’s another thing altogether to take a location and make it someplace that exists nowhere else in the world in a believable way. What I’m talking about is recreating a place from a work of fiction by using real locations in different areas and stitching them together to create the illusion that it’s all one place.  This is a trick that’s been used in Hollywood for many years, but has grown in complexity as film-making tools have improved.  Through the magic of editing, you can make real world settings become anywhere you want it to be. This is often used to great effect in comic book movies, where New York City has on more than one occasion played the role of Metropolis in the Superman franchise.   It helps to give extraordinary stories like those a more grounded reality, which in turn helps to transport the viewer more effectively into these fictional worlds.  One of the filmmakers who has done this to spectacular effect is Christopher Nolan, who is renowned for his insistence on real world authenticity in his epic scale movies.  He showed his expertise with this effect when he chose real world locations for his Dark Knight trilogy.  Sometimes his choices of location were pretty obvious to pin down (Downtown Chicago acting as Downtown Gotham City in The Dark Knight’s spectacular chase scene), but there were other scenes that displayed quite a bit of ingenuity to make the fictional Gotham feel real.  In The Dark Knight Rises (2012) Nolan managed to combine three different cities into one chase scene and make the audience feel like they were authentically taking a tour of a real Gotham City.  It was when Batman chases the villainous Bane on motorcycles, with the on-location shooting starting on Wall Street in New York, heading through the underground tunnels of Chicago, before ultimately ending up in Downtown Los Angeles.  That’s a spectacular use of multiple locations to make a fictional one feel as real as possible, and as a result, it gives it a more authentic impact to the story.

But this kind of technique isn’t just limited to giving a fictional place authenticity; it can also allow for a filmmaker to create any world they want, no matter how otherworldly, and still make it feel real.  Inspiration can often come from the natural world in this sense, as the camera can transport the viewer anywhere, but with the story filling the context, and not the location.  Natural wonders across our planet, especially obscure ones, often play the part of different worlds, and these are locations that are given special consideration during the scouting phase.  In the fantasy and science fiction realms, a location has even more influence with the shaping of a story than anything else, so the better you can present it on film, the better.  This is a case where locations must have that trans-formative effect to look unlike anything we’ve ever seen, but still come off as believable, and this often leads to some very complex planning on the filmmakers part.  Peter Jackson managed to this spectacularly well with his Lord of the Rings and Hobbit trilogies, where he found the ideal locations to make J.R.R. Tolkein’s Middle Earth come to life through the natural beauty of his own native New Zealand.  New Zealand was a mostly untapped source for location shooting before these movies came out, but with Peter Jackson’s vision, he managed to showcase it in a spectacular way, while at the same time authentically visualizing the wonders of Tolkein’s world in there as well.  It’s much better to see the Fellowship of the Ring climbing real mountains than recreating it on a stage with visual effects.  As a result, a natural looking Middle Earth became just as much a part of that movie series’ success as anything else, and that same devotion to detail is influencing many more movie projects today, not to mention boosting New Zealand’s tourism industry significantly.

But, it’s not just the expanse nor the many layers of a location that helps to make it a significant factor in a story.  Sometimes a single iconic look to a place can drive the story along as well.  Some movies can even be identified by a single iconic structure or a scene that utilizes the most unbelievable of settings.  The Bradbury Building, for example, is a real place in Los Angeles known for it’s amazing interior ironwork within it’s atrium.  The location has been used in many movies, but none more memorably so than in Ridley Scott’s Blade Runner (1982), where it served as the location for the climatic showdown in that dystopian futuristic classic.  It’s a great example of using an iconic location in a nontraditional way, and as a result, giving it a whole other identity in the story than it’s own real purpose in reality.  But, no other filmmaker made use of iconic locations in his movies better than Alfred Hitchcock.  Locations have always played a crucial role in his stories, even during his early years in Britain when he used the Scottish Moors so effectively in The 39 Steps (1935).  After coming to America, Hitchcock became enamored with the many different types of iconic Americana in our society and all of his later movies would highlight much of these in both spectacular and sometimes even subversive ways.  Some of them are pretty spectacular, like Kim Novak’s attempted suicide by the Golden Gate bridge in Vertigo (1958), or the thrilling chase across Mount Rushmore in North by Northwest (1959).  But, Hitchcock would also make minor locations take on identities of their own; including the most frightening roadside motel ever in 1960’s Psycho.  As often the case with these movies, it’s the singular location that stands out, and more often than not, it defines the movie as a whole.  In the case of Psycho, it’s the Gothic mansion that’s becomes the selling point of the movie, and not the actors, which tells you a lot about the power that an iconic location can have on it’s audience.

Though a lot of movies take into consideration the importance of a location, a movie can also run the risk of feeling too disjointed from one as well.  Filmmakers sometimes do not see the importance of a location when they are working on a much smaller scale, but they run the risk of limiting their storytelling options that way.  A setting can reveal many different things about the characters, sometimes in unexpected and unplanned ways.  It’s a part of piecing together the character’s life outside of the narrative; revealing to us how they live day to day within their larger world.  Showing that a character lives in the city may hint at a more cosmopolitan side to their personality, or if they come from the country, perhaps they have a more laid back and simple outlook on life.  If your character is from Genericsburg U.S.A., then it’s more likely that they will have no defining characteristics to them at all.  In the movies, a character is defined by their surroundings more than anything else, and that’s why a setting is often the most important supporting factor in their story.  Authenticity is also a huge factor, especially when audiences can tell when a movie is accurately reflecting a real location or not.  One of the worst examples I’ve ever seen of using a location in a movie was in the film Battle Los Angeles (2011).  Speaking as someone who lives and works in LA, I can tell you that this particular film in no shape or form looks and feels like it’s in the real city of LA.  And that’s because not a single frame of it was shot there.  The whole thing was filmed in Louisiana, with sets constructed to look like streets in Los Angeles and nearby Santa Monica.  Unfortunately, it robs the film of it’s character by feeling so fabricated.  As a result, it’s a generic action flick that will tell you nothing about the city of LA, showing the downside of not treating your location with the respect it deserves.  You want an authentic portrait of the city of Los Angeles, watch some of Michael Mann’s films like Heat (1996) or Collateral (2004).

It may not be apparent from the first time you watch a movie, but the setting of the story plays perhaps the most crucial role in it’s overall effectiveness.  And it can be through specific intention on the filmmaker’s part, wishing to highlight a specific place, or by finding a setting that perfectly supports the action and characters that exist with it.  It is the silent supporting player in a movie’s plot and can surprisingly be the thing that most movies hinge their success on.  Any filmmaker who values the process of capturing a sense of reality in their movie will tell you how much they appreciate the variety of cinematic choices they can have when they find an ideal location.  If the location is interesting enough, anywhere you point your camera will reveal new things for the audience, helping to enrich their experience.  When I was working on sets back in film school, I often enjoyed the location shoots much more than the ones in a studio.  A real, authentic location just has a lot more variety, even when it isn’t meant to represent no particular place.  One of my favorite location shoots was on a film set called Four Aces, located out in the Mojave Desert, about a 2 1/2 hour drive from Hollywood.  It’s been used for films like Identity (2002) and Kill Bill Vol. 1 (2003), plus a dozen other music videos and commercials, as well as the student movie that I crewed on.  What struck me is how this fabricated set made to look like a gas station with an attached diner and motel out in the middle of nowhere could be so many different things, and yet almost always stand out with it’s own identity no matter what movie project it was in.  That’s the power of having a great location in a film.  Locations are sometimes the most important supporting character a movie can have, and they become so without saying a single word of dialogue.

One of the most valuable things to have in the film industry is a unique voice.  Whether it’s through the lens of a camera or with the mastery of the written word, being able to distinguish yourself among all the other artists in film is something that everyone aspires to.  Many try, but few actually can achieve the status of true originality.  Oftentimes, in order to make a living in the film industry, some filmmakers will sacrifice originality and adopt a standardized style that gets them work more readily.  Other artists will toil for years to create something that appeals to their senses, and possibly alienate their audiences with too much artistic self-indulgence.  But, there comes a time when some artists are struck with inspiration and create something unexpected that helps to propel them to the next level, which itself can also have it’s own consequences.  This particular career trajectory happened to Indian-American filmmaker M. Night Shyamalan.  Shyamalan, perhaps more than any other filmmaker in recent memory, has had one of the most tumultuous careers in film.  At one time a struggling wannabe filmmaker, Shyamalan managed to break out with an unexpected hit called The Sixth Sense (1999), which then led to high demand for his next projects.  The Sixth Sense‘s unbelievable success was both a blessing and a curse for the director over time, because even though it propelled his career and made him a household name overnight, it also laid unrealistic expectations on him as well, something which has plagued him ever since and ultimately turned Shyamalan’s career into something of a cautionary tale.

M. Night Shyamalan can be either considered a unique visionary, or a pretentious hack, depending on who you talk to.  But, there is one thing for certain and that’s the fact that his career has taken a tumble over the years.  He did follow up The Sixth Sense with another critical hit called Unbreakable (2000) and a box office smash called Signs (2002), showing that he’s more than just a one hit wonder.  But, all the movies he’s made since then have either been panned by critics or have flopped at the box office, or both.  And the strange thing is that most of the reasons why people say they hate his movies is because of the director himself.  It has become a bizarre reversal of fortune for Shyamalan.  At one time, his career was so hot that putting his name above the title proved to be a mark of quality.  Now, film studios are actively hiding his involvement in film projects, so as to not incur the wrath of hostile audiences.  But, why has Shyamalan’s brand dropped down so much?  Audiences hold his movies up to so much scrutiny, more than any other active director, and it doesn’t have anything to do with the man himself.  As a person, Shyamalan seems like a nice guy with nothing in the way of negative baggage.  So, why the hate?  Simply put, his rise and fall as a director more or less has to do with the way we value the quality of storytelling, and how much effort a filmmaker puts into his own work.  In the case of M. Night Shyamalan, we experienced the arrival of a unique voice in Hollywood who unfortunately couldn’t shake off the shadow of his own metoric rise.  By sticking to the formula for success that he pioneered, Shaymalan became a parody of himself.

When you look at the career of M. Night Shyamalan, the one thing that instantly defines the whole of it is the term, “plot twists.”  Shyamalan proved to be the master of pulling the rug out from under his audiences and presenting them with completely unexpected plot swerves that no one saw coming.  In fact, if one were to compile a list of the greatest plot twists in movie history, I’m sure you’ll find two of his there.  The first one, and really the one big thing that put Shyamalan on the map, was the big twist at the end of The Sixth Sense.  I won’t spoil it here (though honestly who doesn’t already know it by now?), but it hit audiences so hard that it caused a word of mouth campaign that boosted it’s box office numbers, just based on the notion that everyone had to see it to experience it fresh to get the true impact.  The twist took on a legendary life of it’s own and people were anxious to see if Shyamalan could one up himself the next time around.  What he made next proved that he indeed had more tricks up his sleeve, but in a wholly unexpected way.  Moving from ghost stories to superhero origins, Shyamalan crafted an equally compelling film called Unbreakable, re-teaming himself with Sixth Sense star Bruce Willis.  Unbreakable didn’t have quite the box office success that Sixth Sense did, but it was well received by audiences who saw it, including myself (I named it my favorite film of 2000, and I still stand by the pick).  But, what was remarkable about Unbreakable was that Shyamalan managed to work in another unexpected plot twist, one that even rivaled his last one.  The twist would soon became a Shyamalan trademark and it would continue to become an expected part of his later film projects, including his follow ups Signs and The Village (2004).

But, when your career trademark becomes something that is supposed to be unexpected, it begins to rob some of it’s power once it stops being a surprise.  This is largely what caused a downturn in Shyamalan’s latter career.  His style no longer had the power to surprise.  When he was just starting to make a name for himself, he could blind side his audiences with his twists, because they were far better hidden in less familiar style.  Now, after seeing Sixth Sense and Unbreakable, people anticipated the twists, which made it harder for Shyamalan to be creative with them.  As a result, his twist endings became more confounded and pretentious over time, loosing their intended impact and leaving the audience underwhelmed as a result.  A perfect example of how poorly his trademark twists were handled can be seen in The Village.  The premise of the movie is intriguing; an isolated turn-of-the-century village is attacked every  night by cloaked monsters, and the only thing that saves it’s residents is strict adherence to traditional customs and complicated rituals meant to ward off the intruders.  The movie, at times, has some chilling tension, as well as some good performances from actors like Joaquin Phoenix and Bryce Dallas Howard.  But, all the momentum of the story is undermined once the truth behind the monsters is revealed.  Spoilers, they’re not real.  Not only that, but the big twist at the end (that all of this was really set in modern times) is telegraphed way in advance by some of the ways the adult characters speak to one another.  Overall, The Village  proved that M. Night Shyamalan’s formula wasn’t infallible, and that by forcing it into a story that would’ve been better served without it, the twist ended up becoming a negative rather than a positive.

Another factor that also alienated Shyamalan from his audience was his insistence on showing off his style in every movie.  When Shyamalan was unknown, his flashy style was more effective, because it helped him stand out.  People saw the clever use of color symbolism in Sixth Sense and the cold, washed out cinematography of Unbreakable as bold choices made by a man who knew exactly how cinema should work.  But, those two movies were perfectly suited for the Shyamalan style.  Once the director moved out of his comfort zone into other genres, his style became more distracting as it was forced into movies where it wasn’t needed.  The Lady in the Water (2006) should have been an uplifting fantasy tale, but it ended up getting bogged down by Shyamalan’s deliberate pacing.  The Happening (2008) takes itself way too seriously with it’s ludicrous premise, and ends up being unintentionally hilarious for it’s ineptness.  And these were two movies that should have been interesting experiments for him, and he chose to neither take advantage of the opportunities nor challenge himself.  Shyamalan’s major fault was his inability to adapt his style over time.  Many directors take on a variety of projects in different genres, but they make the jumps more effectively when they conform to what is best for the project, rather than forcing their own style into places where it shouldn’t be.  That’s how Steven Spielberg can be the director of both E.T. The Extra-Terrestrial (1982) and Schindler’s List (1993), and Martin Scorsese can be the director of both Goodfellas (1990) and Hugo (2011).  It’s the secret to longevity in the business; challenging yourself with variety rather than staying in your comfort zone.

But, at the same time, M. Night Shyamalan had to deal with the cost of fame, and the unrealistic expectations that were laid out in front of him.  As a result, those of us who considered ourselves fans of Shyamalan are also to blame for his downfall.  We expected far too much of the man, and unfairly blamed him for not meeting our demands.  There is a peculiar thing in our collective culture where we like to build up icons only to take them down later if they show us even the slightest hint of impurity.  Shyamalan certainly has his faults as a filmmaker, but he at least earned the spotlight that would soon put everything he made under harsher scrutiny.  For him, the rise in public image was too fast and too overwhelming, and it’s probably due to the fact that Hollywood was all too eager to crown a fresh new face in the business.  Newsweek Magazine prematurely declared Shyamalan “the next Spielberg,” which was a little unfair for a director who had only had just a couple movies to his name at that point.  Though, truth be told, Shyamalan did buy into some of the hype himself by creating a brand to distinguish his works from everyone else.  Not only did he put his name above the title for a while, but he injected himself into all his movies as well.  And this was more than just Hitchcockian cameos.  In The Lady in the Water, there is a writer character who is prophisized to one day change the world with his work, so naturally Shyamalan cast himself as the character.  Not very subtle there M. Night.  Still, he’s not alone as a fallen idol in Hollywood.  Whether you’re Orson Welles or Michael Cimino, Hollywood seems to enjoy tearing down their wunderkinds whenever they fly too close to the sun; perhaps as a way to curb unchecked ambition.  But, even though Shyamalan contributed to his own fall from grace, the pedestal on which he stood shouldn’t have been so high to begin with.

In addition to the unfair expectations, there were also the unfortunate circumstances of M. Night Shyamalan becoming involved in projects that were never a good fit for him from the start.  As a way to keep himself working as his own ambitious projects failed, Shyamalan took on directing duties in projects developed from outside sources.  This included the big budget adaptation The Last Airbender (2010), which was based on the popular Avatar animated series on Nickelodeon, as well as the Will Smith sci-fi vehicle called After Earth (2013).  Both films were slammed by critics and audiences, and a lot of the blame was laid at Shyamalan’s feet, which I find to be a little unfair.  For one thing, adapting Avatar: The Last Airbender into a two hour movie was doomed from the start.  I’ve never seen the series, so after watching the movie, I didn’t have the visceral hatred for it that other people did.  It’s certainly flawed, but only in a storytelling standpoint, which I account to the adaptation, as well as to some very poor casting choices.  But, what I do admire in the movie is seeing Shyamalan branch out and try new things.  The Last Airbender is the least Shyamalan-esque movie that he has made, and it’s interesting to see him work with bigger scale and scope.  But, then again, if the purpose was to adapt the series correctly, then I can understand the view of this being a massive failure.  But, was it Shyamalan’s fault, or Nickelodeon’s for believing that he was right for the material?  With regards to After Earth, I lay more blame on Will Smith than on Shyamalan, because he was clearly the driving force behind the movie; using it as a platform to spotlight his less talented son Jaden Smith.  Sadly, Shyamalan was just along for the ride and it ended up dropping his stock even more, even though his mark on the movie was minimal.  It just shows that circumstance also was a part of the director’s downward spiral, and that disappoints aren’t always of the artists own doing.

So, is Shyamalan forever doomed to be a shadow of his former self.  It’s entirely left up to him.  What I have seen in recent years from Shyamalan is a drive to reinvent himself as a filmmaker and try new things.  Sadly, those new things have failed him, but not without effort on his part.  What I do like is the fact that he’s abandoning the things in his career that were clearly holding him down, like the trademarks that had lost their effectiveness and the self-indulgent directing choices as well.  Also, he’s injecting himself less and less into his own movies; fewer cameos and no name above the title anymore.  But, can he make it work?  Well, this week marks the premiere of his new film, The Visit, which is his return to the suspense thriller genre after a long absence.  Already, he is receiving far more favorable reviews from critics for this one (it currently has a fresh rating on Rottentomatoes.com) which is something that he hasn’t achieved in over a decade.  And probably the reason for this is because it’s a smaller budgeted, more intimate story; relying on far less hype and instead it just allows M. Night Shyamalan to craft something closer to his own interests.  The Visit appears to be a perfect recharge for the director; free of the Shyamalan brand and able to just stand on it’s own merits.  And if that’s what Shyamalan needs to regain his status as a respectable filmmaker once again, then it will be just the right thing for him.  Overall, the rise and fall of M. Night Shyamalan is a Hollywood caution tale, showing us the risks of becoming too big too fast, and also showing how we can fall victim to too much hype and/or our own lack of restraint.  M. Night Shyamalan learned all of this the hard way and only now is he starting to alter the course of his career in the right direction.  Who knows?  Perhaps the greatest twist Shyamalan has ever made is the one that may yet decide which way his remaining career will go.

Check your local theater listings and see if you can spot any movie on there that sounds wholly original and unlike anything you’ve ever seen before.  That’s becoming a rarer sight nowadays.  Sure, you’ll see something at your local art house cinema that’s certainly different and groundbreaking, but independent cinema runs by a different and less risky set of standards than the big studios.  Hollywood seems caught in an endless loop of recycling everything that has worked in the past.  Sometimes it has worked out to feed upon an audiences’ sense of nostalgia; just look how well it worked for Jurassic World (2015) this year.  But for every sequel, remake and reboot that does hit it’s mark, there are a hundred or more that don’t.  A lot of factors can play into that; either Hollywood is just cashing in on a name brand and nothing else, or an experimental re-imagining goes horribly wrong and stains a franchise, or the product being remade just doesn’t have any relevance left to ever be taken seriously again.  And yet, with all the failed attempts to capitalize on old ideas, Hollywood is still very eager to invest in them anyway.  All this has led many to speculate whether Hollywood has truly, unequivocally run out of ideas.  While this complaint has been made for years about Hollywood, even through some really trans-formative and ground-breaking periods, it actually feels more and more like the case.  We are now in a period where Hollywood has become, for better or worse, “nostalgia” crazy, with remakes and reboots being favored for production over new and bold ideas.  As a result, Hollywood is able to capitalize on the reliability of a built in audience, while at the same time stalling any chance that their yearly products will ever have any impact outside of their era.

One thing that Hollywood is missing out on right now is the chance to make movies that can define an era and redefine the rules of cinema.  Every decade or so, we’ve seen trends and cultural movements reflected back in the movies made within the same time period.  This has helped every decade feel unique, whether it is the classiness of the 50’s, the psychedelia of the 60’s, the grittiness of the 70’s, the excess of the 80’s, or the digital revolution of the 90’s.  But, with the advent of the internet age in the 2000’s, and the increased accessibility to media from all eras, entertainment suddenly has become less grounded within it’s own era, and instead began to focus more on the nostalgia of past trends.  With online social networking becoming an increasing reliable way to gauge the likes and dislikes of an audience, Hollywood picked up on the fact that nostalgia played a significant part in determining what people choose to watch in the theater or on TV.  As a result, long dormant franchises suddenly were revitalized in order to capitalize on audiences’ awareness and their long held attachments to them.  Sometimes a revitalized franchise is welcome, especially if there is new territory waiting to be uncovered in it’s cinematic world (Star Wars Episode 7, being a prime example).  But, when Hollywood decides to capitalize on a brand name without exploring new ground, it ends up being rejected by fans of the old while loosing any chance of gaining any new audiences.  This has unfortunately happened to too many beloved franchise and singular films that have succumbed to the “reboot” bug in Hollywood, and this over reliance on nostalgia has unfortunately made the last decade or so become a characterless era in film-making.

This year, in particular, has been flooded with remakes, reboots, and sequels.  In fact, the three highest grossing movies of the year are from already established franchises (Jurassic World, Avengers: Age of Ultron, and Furious 7).  But, sequels have the advantage of continuing an on-going story, which makes their presence far more expected.  But, even with these successful films, I don’t think anyone would consider them ground-breaking either, especially when compared to their predecessors.  Of all the big studio tentpoles released this summer, only one could be considered an original idea (Inside Out).  In most cases, animated films seem to be the only venue open to new ideas in Hollywood, and even here we find an increasing trend of sequel-itis.  Overall, the danger of relying too heavily on established brands is that it creates a less diverse output.  That’s why if you are only in the business of marketing around a singular intellectual property, you will also be subjected to the pitfalls of that same property once it’s relevance has run out.  Hollywood needs to continually replenish itself with new ideas in order to keep audiences interested long term, but sadly new ideas in Hollywood can be viewed as not worth the risk.  That’s why we see more original ideas develop in the independent market, because Hollywood would rather work with what they know than what they don’t know.  And thus, if you’re filmmaker with a vision, you’d better find an investor outside of the studio system, because Hollywood is looking for more Transformers and less Ex Machina‘s.

Very little of this reliance on nostalgia has actually helped Hollywood either.  Most of the time, audiences whole-heartedly reject remakes.  I think that there’s a misconception in Hollywood that remaking a past film and updating it to our time period is going to make it relevant once again.  But, as is almost always the case, updating a beloved classic will strip away part of it’s original charm.  A dated film has it’s own kind of entertainment value, ad the reason we love some of these movies is because they are so steeped in their time period.  A perfect example of this is the 1990 Paul Verhoeven sci-fi classic Total Recall.  Despite being set in the future, Recall is an undeniably late-80’s early-90’s film based on the styles of the era and the limitations of the visual effects.  And you know what; it’s what audiences embrace about the movie.  In fact, Total Recall has aged quite well over the years as an entertaining time capsule of it’s era while simultaneously looking absurdly out of date.  The reputation of the movie remained strong over the years, leading it’s distributor (Sony/ Columbia/ Tristar) to believe that there was potential in the name itself that could be exploited with our improved technology and revised visions of the future.  Thus, we got the 2012 remake starring Colin Farrell in the place of Arnold Schwarzenegger.  The remake sticks more closely to the source novel by Philip K. Dick and features the latest in CGI visual effects, but you know what it lacked; entertainment value.  Gone was the goofy charm of Verhoeven’s original in favor of a sluggish, more serious tone that completely drains it’s story of any charm whatsoever.  As is with the case of many pointless remakes, newer doesn’t always mean better, and some classic movies are better left untouched, even if they look cheesy and dated.

But remakes are one thing when they can be easily dismissed and forgotten about in favor of the original.  Reboots on the other hand can run the more dangerous road of ruining the legacy of a beloved franchise.  Now, if done well, some reboots are welcome.  The recent resurgence of Planet of the Apes for example has proved to be successful, because it honors the roots of where it began while at the same time doing something new and different with the franchise.  But, there are other examples where Hollywood tries to squeeze every last ounce out of a series that should have been laid to rest years ago with a pointless reboot, meant to restart a new chapter that doesn’t need to be explored.  A perfect example of this is the recently released Vacation (2015).  The Vacation series started off with the 1983 original from National Lampoon, starring Chevy Chase and Beverly D’Angelo, which followed the Griswold family on a road trip across America to a popular California amusement park named Wally World, complete with hilarious mishaps along the way.  An excellent stand alone comedy on it’s own, National Lampoon’s Vacation spawned 3 sequels; one a genuine classic (Christmas Vacation) and two that were bland and forgettable (European Vacation and Vegas Vacation).  Now, long after the series has run out of steam, the Vacation franchise is being rebooted as a starring vehicle with Ed Helms, here in the role of Griswold son, Rusty.  While 2/3 of the Vacation sequels were not very good, they at least tried to take the series in different directions.  This reboot on the other hand just rehashes the plot of the original, minus the originality and the charm.  I just know that this reboot will fail, because you can’t replace the brilliant writing of John Hughes and the peerless direction of Harold Ramis with gross out humor we’ve seen a million times before.  But, Hollywood seems to still believe that name recognition is worthy enough of investment, and that’s why they want reboots to take hold and extend franchise out longer than they need to.  I really hope that this doesn’t happen with this Vacation reboot, because a Christmas Vacation remake would absolutely destroy me.

But, the primary reason why sequels, reboots and remakes continue to dominate the Hollywood landscape today is because of one simple fact; movies are expensive to make and established brands are more reliable investments.  Any studio can put it’s money behind a huge, epic scale production that’s based off of an original idea, but whether or not it makes them any money is determined solely by us, the audience.  Sometimes we forget that Hollywood is a profit based industry that must continually produce hits in order to survive and not a artfully driven enterprise; so, it’s not all that strange to see so many of them turn away from newer ideas.  Movies are million dollar investments, and the safest bet will usually be the best bet.  But, Hollywood’s reliance on safe bets must also have to contend with changing trends in the markets.  Sometimes, what proved to be a profitable franchise one year will suddenly be old news in the next.  Not only that but production turnaround is notoriously sluggish, especially on big tentpoles, so if audiences have lost interest in your film by the time it’s released, you’re completely out of luck.  Movie audiences have a much more diverse and evolving taste for movies than many might realize and those unpredictable swings in audience preference can have unexpected effects on the industry.   Disney capitalized on it’s audience’s sense of nostalgia when it turned one of their theme park rides into a profitable franchise with Pirates of the Caribbean (2003), but several sequels later, the novelty wore off and audiences were no longer interested in seeing theme park ride-inspired movies anymore, shown clearly with the box-office failure of the ambitious Tomorrowland (2015) this year.  And it’s the wearing off of novelty that really shows the negative effects of continually trying to recycle ideas over time.

What really worries me about Hollywood’s play-it-safe attitude and their absence of originality is that it’s making this millennial era we’re living in devoid of character.  Say what you will about how dated some of the movies made in the 60’s, 70’s and 80’s looked today; at least their time period helps to define them long after they were made.  When you look at movies like Back to the Future (1985), or Saturday Night Fever (1977), you can’t help but see the markings of their era in full display, and that’s what has helped them endure all these years later.  Today’s movies don’t reflect our contemporary society as much anymore, because it seems that many of them are trying too hard to avoid the stigma of becoming dated.  But, the unfortunate by product of this is that those movies will neither age well nor will they leave an impact on the era they exist in.  Honestly, the only movies that I can think of today that could actually be fondly remembered decades from now are the ones that touch upon contemporary issues or trends; like a movie that addresses the social ramifications of online networking or the advancements in LGBT rights here in America.  Sure, years from now, we may look at social and political movements of today as quaint and ridiculous compared to the issues of the future, but movies would provide a great cultural touchstone for what this era of time was like for us, as it has in so many decades before.  Rehashing old ideas just wipes away any defining cultural touchstone that we might have.  Of course, the other major way to bring originality back to Hollywood is to have producers willing to stick their necks out for something bold and new.  Every now and then we get a visionary director who manages to build up enough good will in the industry to make their dream projects a reality, with a budget substantial enough to make it work; like when Christopher Nolan was allowed to make Inception (2010) for Warner Brothers.  Hollywood needs to be in a groundbreaking mindset, much like how they were in the 70’s with the rise of New Hollywood.  But, of course, it involves taking risks and in that era too you needed to go through a couple of movies like Heaven’s Gate (1980) before an Apocalypse Now (1979) could emerge.

So, is Hollywood completely out of ideas.  If their current trend of appealing to audiences’ nostalgia continues, than it might actually be the case.  There are only so many ideas that can be done over and over again before audience grow bored with it, and new ideas are absolutely necessary to keep the business alive.  Unfortunately, studios aren’t looking towards long lasting impacts that their movies could hold; they just want to maximize what they already have because it’s the less risky option.  And sadly, the upcoming slate of movies in the near future looks more and more like everything we’ve seen before.  Superheros are less likely to be reborn so much as recast; franchises will continue to rehash the same plot points as opposed to extending off in a new direction; and beloved movies of the past will be given watered-down updates that remove all the charm that the originals had.  I am seriously dreading that Point Break remake, as I’m sure that many more of you are as well.  It’s really up to us, the audience, in the end to determine the direction of this trend in Hollywood.  Ideas are out there, they are just not getting championed highly enough to get the attention of the people at the top of the industry.  If audiences reject half-assed attempts to appeal to our sense of nostalgia by exploiting established brands, then the industry will start looking for other properties they can use to base movie productions around, and that may even lead some of them to take risks once in a while.  Sometimes it can result in failure at first, but even failures can turn into successes in the long run; look at Blade Runner (1982), or The Iron Giant (1999), or Fight Club (1999), all box office failures that are now considered masterpieces.  So, for your own survival Hollywood, you need to procure those rising visionary filmmakers, skim through that list of “black list” screenplays, and find the next great big idea that could extend your impact on the industry and leave a cultural impact for future generations to come.