Spin-offs are often among the most popular shows on television. However, they’re just as often laughed about and ridiculed to complete failure. What makes a spin-off popular and what makes others fail?
What Makes A Spin-Off Successful?
A good spin-off series should focus on a lovable character from the original series that everyone recognizes. It should then use a similar style of humor that attracts the same audience, but which creates its own identity.
Think of “Daria” from the late-90s MTV era. Originally a character on “Beavis And Butt Head,” “Daria” appealed to the same audience by focusing on an interesting character and using a similar sarcastic sense of humor to appeal to her original fans.
Another successful spin-off, “The Facts Of Life,” used the character of Mrs. G from “Different Strokes” to create a family-oriented comedy that could occasionally be serious. It also focused on a cast of likable characters that impacted society in a heavy way during the 80s.
When Are Spin-Offs A Failure?
There are multiple reasons that a spin-off fails. Take a look at “Joani Loves Chachi” for an example of a show that really over estimated the appeal of two characters. Most “Happy Days” fans didn’t care much for these two, and the show bombed.
“Joey” is another infamous failure that focused on the limited antics of “Friends” character Joey to support a whole series. It bombed and bombed quickly.
Sometimes, shows wait too long to do a spin-off. “The Brady Brides” was a decade-too-late spin-off that tried to take the cheesy humor that made “The Brady Bunch” popular and make it more adult. The results were a disaster.
Another common mistake is to twist the premise of the original show in directions that don’t really make a whole lot of sense.
Two of the most infamous of these was “The Golden Palace,” a spin-off of “The Golden Girls” and “Baywatch: Nights,” a “Baywatch” spin-off.
The first pulled three of the original four cast into a strange “running a hotel” plot that ruined the chemistry of the original show. The second was a bizarre crime drama that tried to make the featherweight “Baywatch” more serious. It was awful.
The world of spin-offs is sometimes very unpredictable. Shows that seem like a sure thing may fail, while weird long-shots actually succeed. The biggest lesson to take away from this is that success comes by simply creating a great show, one that appeals to a large number of people.
From unsung heroes to adventurous tales of espionage and intrigue, five films portent to cause a stir over the next month as they’re released. Beyond being some of the year’s most anticipated films, Oliver Stone, Clint Eastwood and Tim Burton will all be offering directorial expertise; while Ben Affleck and Tom Cruise headline several taught action thrillers that aren’t afraid to tackle politics.
Fall Movie #5: Snowden
It has been a while since Oliver Stone jumped into the director’s chair and brought us a feature film that made an impact. 2006 saw World Trade Center sweep the nation. Ten years later, Oliver Stone’s Snowden is set to open the eyes of an entirely new generation. The film is based around true events. It’s a biographical thriller steeped in politics and based on Luke Harding’s The Snowden Files and Anatoly Kucherena’s The Time of the Octopus. Joseph Gorden-Levitt of Inception fame stars as the eponymous Edward Snowden. He is joined by Zachary Quinto, Tom Wilkinson, Scott Eastwood, Timothy Olyphant, and Nicolas Cage. The plot centers around Edward Snowden leaking classified information to The Guardian in June of 2013. The information came from the National Security Agency, and the firestorm this unleashed would have international consequences; ultimately forcing Snowden to seek asylum in Russia, where he remains to this day. This film is set to open people’s eyes and shed new light on a controversial topic; it’s must-see viewing for the fall season.
Fall Movie #4: Sully
Sully is another hotly-anticipated biographical drama, this time directed and produced by Clint Eastwood. The film concerns US Flight 1549, but is more specifically centered around Chesley “Sully” Sullenberger. It is based on his autobiography. Tom Hanks leads an exceptional cast that includes Aaron Eckhart, Anna Gunn, and Jerry Ferrara. This film hits theaters Friday, September 9th, 2016. The basic plot follows an incident where a flock of Canadian Geese intercepted Flight 1549 only three minutes after takeoff, crippling both of the plane’s engines. Sully was forced to land in the Hudson. The man managed to land Flight 1549 and save everybody. But after the successful landing, Sully’s life was overrun with a bevy of journalists and investigative personnel, pulling his personal life before a national microscope which ultimately threatened his reputation. Eastwood’s involvement in the film has many people excited, and initial screenings have done quite well.
Fall Movie #3: The Accountant
Ben Affleck stars in this action thriller, alongside J.K. Simmons, Jeffrey Tambor, and John Lithgow. This film is not a biography, but instead follows a man with a talent for numbers who becomes a CPA–well, that’s what the public story is, anyway. Really, Affleck’s character is using this as a cover for his work as a forensic accountant among a number of dangerous criminal organizations. This leads to Affleck’s character taking on a robotics company that designs state-of-the-art technology solutions to be one of his clients. As the truth is revealed, bodies start piling up, and the stakes jump into the millions of dollars. Set to be a taught bit of action-filled escapism, The Accountant is a film that looks as though it will leave many ready for a second viewing.
Fall Movie #2: Jack Reacher: Never Go Back
The second film of the Jack Reacher Franchise, Jack Reacher: Never Go Back brings Tom Cruise back to his iconic role as the ever-resourceful Reacher. The movie is an action thriller, and shooting began in October of 2015. It takes place four years after the narrative of the first movie. Reacher is returning to his old military HQ, when he’s accused of a murder sixteen years old. What he discovers is that subterfuge intrigue stretched much more extensively than he had ever supposed. Action and mystery combine with a character whose previous novelizations have already become nationally renown.
Fall Movie #1: Miss Peregrine’s Home For Peculiar Children
Tim Burton returns this Fall with a movie based on a young adult novel that was author Ransom Riggs’ debut publication. The core of this film follows a new resident of Miss Peregrine’s household, a character named Jacob Portman. The film is a dark fantasy, and that is emphasized in the way Miss Peregrine commissions Jacob to act in reference to the other children of the house. He must protect them from Wights and Hollowgasts, evil creatures of human shape, but with nothing human about them. They are led by a mysterious antagonist known only as Mr. Barron. The film stars Eva Green, Asa Butterfield, Chris O’Dowd, Terence Stamp, Samuel L. Jackson as Mr. Barron, and Dame Judi Dench. Released by 20th century fox, the movie is two hours and seven minutes in length.
Movies Whose Anticipation Is Deserved
Oliver Stone, Tim Burton and Clint Eastwood are bringing some exceptional tales to the silver screen this autumn. Meanwhile Ben Affleck and Tom Cruise star in their own action-packed adventure vehicles. By all accounts, this year’s pre-winter season is going to be one to remember. From true stories to dark fantasy, taught drama, and intense action/adventure, there’s something for everyone in the next month. This year’s releases are filled with originality and intrigue, and may be remembered as classics tomorrow.
This could go either way. If you are asking by theater and Hollywood stand points if the movie would be successful, more than likely it will be due to the fact that comic book characters and comic books period are becoming very popular among pop culture. However, that doesn’t mean that the movie will be successful to fans of the original comic and fans of Dr. Strange.
To start with there have been many comic book movies made, especially by Marvel in the last couple of years, that have had outstanding box office reviews and sold out seats. This is due to a couple of factors of comic books coming back in style with pop culture and the direct need to fit in, and to the fact of original die-hard fans wanting to see the movie. This only shows that the movie can pack seats, making the movie a success by box office and Hollywood stand points, but not necessarily audience or personal standpoints.
To determine that you have to look at a few more factors. what is your main reason for wanting to see the movie? If you are going to see the movie because you are an avid Dr. Strange fan and want every detail to be perfect, recent experience with Hollywood films shows that it won’t be successful because Hollywood is going to change certain things based on either time management of the movie or to make it more intense or attention grabbing for a more general audience. If your intentions are for enjoying a comic favorite, but you know some things are not going to be right or exact, studies suggest it would still be a success given Marvel’s success rates in the last few years with movies.
With the pop culture aspects and the fact that comic movies are now trending the general audience more than likely is going to find this movie to be a hit.
To conclude, overall this movie could be a real success due to the fact that the cast has some of the best caste actors available. You have Rachel McAdams, who was in Sherlock Holmes, Benedict Timothy Carlton, who was in Sherlock, and Scott Adkins, who was in X-Men. With this caste that have already been in successful hit movies, its highly likely to be a hit. If you are one to want correctness in a Hollywood film this movie being produced by Hollywood, and how they do movies is it won’t be successful to you because there will be things added and things missing to better the movie for a broader audience. In any case, there will packed seats which will make this movie popular by box office stand points. I hope I answered the question as well as gave you some personal thoughts to consider but this question really depends on the audience and what they want.
Regardless of their success or failure, reboots seem to have become the default approach by film studios for half a decade, if not longer. This article intends to look at the “How?”, the “Why?”, and the future of reboots in cinema. To clarify, there are several different ways that films can be considered a reboot:
The film retells the same story, possibly with changes to vocabulary, ethnicity and technologies, to adapt it from the source material to the new film’s vision.
The film ignores some elements from the source material but retains defining characteristics of that material.
The film keeps its name for brand recognition purposes but is otherwise a completely different product than what came before.
How Film Reboots Have Fared
When one looks at the top 10 domestically grossing films from the last five years, Disney’s live action “Cinderella” placed 9th in 2015, their live action take on Sleeping Beauty, “Maleficent,” placed 8th in 2014 and “Oz: The Great and Powerful” placed 10th in 2013. While Sony’s “The Amazing Spider-Man” placed 7th in 2012, no reboot placed within the top 10 of 2011.
When you expand that same list to the top 100 films and look for the poorest performing reboots, Warner Brothers’ “Arthur” took 96th place in 2011, “The Three Stooges” placed 77th in 2012, Screen Gems’ “Carrie” placed 83rd in 2013, Universal’s “Dracula Untold” did relatively well for itself as the 57th highest grossing film of 2014 and “Hitman: Agent 47” landed at 97th place.
While all of these figures sound wonderful on paper, the take-away from this information is that the most successful reboots seem to be attached to brands and IPs that have a wide-reaching audience; Spider-Man is one of the most well-known superheroes in Western culture, Disney is a media juggernaut and “The Wizard of Oz” is also an American institution of fiction. Conversely, the other mentioned films consist of horror icons, both classic and cult, comedies and the second adaptation of a video game.
Why Film Reboots Have Become So Prevalent
The most basic explanation for why reboots have filled so many spots on the box office marquee is that it is easier to market a known quantity than marketing something that is completely original to the movie-going public. Among the top 100 grossing films of 2015, 41 were reboots, sequels, or adaptations of existing media, with “Inside Out” as the sole original property among the top 10 films of 2015.
Will This Trend of Film Reboots Continue?
As of writing this article, there are more than 100 films coming down the pipe in one form or another that would qualify as a reboot. Going through as many letters of the alphabet as possible, this list of film reboots includes:
A live-action take on “Akira.”
“Blue Thunder” reworked to be about drones instead of a helicopter.
Cinema classic “Das Boot.”
“Escape from New York.”
A live action version of “Ghost in the Shell” featuring actress Scarlett Johansson.
Stephen King’s “It.”
“The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen.”
“Masters of the Universe.”
“Time Cop,” likely without Jean-Claude van Damme.
“Zorro Reborn,” which is rumored to be a post-apocalyptic re-imagining.
Even with just these titles, it seems quite obvious that reboots will be in the theater for some time.
Would it be hard for you to imagine Stan Lee delivering a package to Wayne Manor on the big screen? Stan Lee’s comments at Fan Expo 2016 have left a lot of people wondering just how strange it might be to see a Stan Lee cameo in a DC movie. After all, the 93-year-old icon is famous for his cameo roles in Marvel comic movies. However, it’s no secret that there’s been quite a bit of rivalry between the two comic giants, and some die-hard fans on both sides may take offense to a Marvel legend appearing in a DC flick. It’s left many more wondering what could come of such a seemingly small friendly gesture.
What exactly could it mean if DC were to take Stan Lee up on his offer? Other than the aforementioned potential drama between fandoms, I think it would turn out to be something wonderful. If Stan Lee were to be offered or take a cameo role in a DC movie, I think that the option for crossover movies would open up. After all, Marvel and DC have worked together in the past, and with great success.
If DC came out with a movie that featured a Stan Lee cameo and it opened up the option for crossover movies, both companies would undoubtedly enjoy huge financial gains. Fans from both sides would flock to see a crossover movie which would fuel sales on both sides, as well open up a new market for officially licensed DC/Marvel crossover merchandise. Fans just can’t get enough of DC/Marvel crossovers, and a crossover movie is something that we’ve been clamoring after for years.
The potential for financial and fandom glory wouldn’t have to end with just movies, either. More crossover comics and games would be the natural way to move forward after a successful crossover movie.
To think that an entire crossover franchise could start with a simple cameo from Stan Lee might seem far-fetched, but it’s something that fans from both sides have wanted for decades now. What better way to test the market than to have a true, real life Marvel legend appear in a DC movie? (And as he quipped at the Expo, DC could use him.)
So would it be strange to see Stan Lee in a DC movie? Maybe for some. But for others, I think it would just seem right. He has become such an iconic figure not just for Marvel, but also comics in general that I can’t see him being too out of place in the DC universe. It could also open up such a great opportunity for both companies to please fans and cash in on a market that so many desperately want to see open up.
Chances are that if you were a “’90s kid”, you caught an episode or two of The Mighty Morphin Power Rangers. Chances are also pretty good that you watched more than one episode because let’s face it, it was a pretty cool show. There was plenty of action, a little bit of romance between the teens, and a whole lot of super villains that never seemed to get their way. Twenty-two years after the final episode of the original series, Lionsgate has set out to release a third Power Ranger movie next year. This new information has adults and kids alike squealing with absolute delight, and reminiscing about the shows, fashion, and questionable taste of the ’90s.
Perhaps the best thing about this upcoming film is that Bryan Cranston is set to play Zordon, a mentor to the Rangers. The younger crowd may recognize Cranston from his more recent part in Godzilla, and many others will surely know him from his five season stint in the cult favorite television show Breaking Bad. He has an extensive acting career spanning decades, and has won multiple awards for his work. In fact, Cranston actually voiced a few villains in series, and the writers were quite fond of him. So fond, that they named one of the Rangers after him (Billy Cranston for curious minds).
Elizabeth Banks, another well known actress, is set to play Rita Repulsa, one of the Power Ranger’s mortal enemies. Though the character has lost her signature horns and full, flowing costume, we are sure that Banks will make the character her own. Although the film will not feature appearances by any of the original Rangers, these two amazing veteran actors will surely make up for it. The campy, cheesy quality of the show is what kept viewers coming back for more, a few A list actors putting their spin on these beloved faces may take it in a fun, new direction.
The original show may not have been on for very many seasons, but it still left a lasting impression on quite a few people from the Y and Z generations. Boys loved the action and karate-like moves, and girls loved seeing strong females take charge and kick some bad guy butt. Witnessing it transformed for the big screen over twenty years later will bring back feelings of the decade, from your love snap bracelets to Lisa Frank trapper keepers, and your disdain for curfews and wearing socks with sandals.
This new take on an old classic may or may not be a cinematic masterpiece, but it’ll definitely bring back nostalgia from the ’90s. Maybe it’ll bring you back to Saturday mornings, watching the old boob tube with a tasty snack by your side, or how crazy Justin Timberlake looked with that blond, curly hair while he was ‘Nsync’s frontman. So slap on some overalls and jellies, maybe a backwards cap and grab a front row seat to the newest installment of an old favorite.
A Movie Can Be Re-Defined By Its Cast
By now, you’ve probably seen a few movies that have changed considerably from script to screen. Many times this is due to an actor or actress’ influence, such as the southern drawl and the unforgettable bunny incorporated into Con Air by Nicolas Cage. Perhaps the originally male protagonist in Salt being altered to accommodate the lovely Angelina Jolie slipped under your radar; the equally articulate espionage expert Edwin Salt (originally to be played by Tom Cruise) became Evelyn Salt to shoe-in Jolie as the lead. There seems to be a trend here: scripts are like clay, and the extremely famous are like the modern day Donatellos, waltzing in and pressing the malleable material into what they see fit.
Sometimes, It Just Happens Naturally
When an unanticipated performer joins the cast, sometimes things just tend to bend around them so that they can enjoy the usual spotlight that follows. Any action movie you throw Bruce Willis into is likely to feel at least a little Die Hard-esque. Likewise, if we cast Vin Diesel in a light-hearted family movie (The Pacifier, anyone?) we can expect that the already action including script will become at least a tad more action packed. A-list celebrities have a tendency to carry a persona with them throughout their filmography, so it makes sense that the characteristics of that persona would undoubtedly shine through in a similar-natural role.
They’ve Been There, They’ve Done That
Many times an actor or actress will approach the director and/or screenwriters with an idea that, from their experience, seemingly fits the scheme of the story. In these scenarios, it makes sense that a writer would at least entertain their suggestion, and in many cases it ends up being a welcome addition to the film. Sometimes though actors just wing it. For instance, the famous “Here’s Johhny!” line from Stephen King’s The Shining. Ironically, this phrase which gave plenty of 80’s children (and adults) the heebie jeebies was hearkened to the introduction given to the harmless Johhny Carson by Ed McMahon. This proves that some stars’ spur of the moment ideas can be not only comedic (or terrifying) but also legendary.
Sometimes things are cut short or altered due to something horrible, with varying degrees of results. Take a look at the Paul Walker situation, for example, a brilliant young man who’d been part of the Fast and Furious since the jump lost his life during the final part of filming for one of the franchise’s movies,and a last minute decision was made to use the ending sequence of the film as a tribute to him, using his brother as a stand-in (with some killer post-production editing) to give fans one final look at the amazing front-man of the series. Another prime example is Heath Ledger’s post Dark Knight death resulting in the film he was currently working on, Mr. Magorium’s Wonder Emporium, needing some creative efforts to be finished. Due to the scope of the story, the remaining scenes were of an imaginative sort, meaning contributions by Johnny Depp, Colin Farrel, and Jude Law were worked in rather flawlessly considering the situation at hand. On a less tragic note, who could forget the iconic scene from Raiders Of The Lost Ark, in which a food poisoned Harrison Ford and a conundrum facing Spielberg came to an agreement which led to Indy simply drawing his trust revolver and gunning down his foe rather than participating in a flashy whip versus sword duel.
Stars Can Change Everything
Obviously, stars can have a profound impact on a movie’s script, sometimes altering or throwing out pieces entirely to fit their needs. It’s amazing to take a look at how many blockbuster movies changed course during production to account for either the circumstances or requests of a movie star. Truthfully though, so many of the iconic scenes which we’ll never forget were fostered by this process of creative license, and many of the movies we love would be completely different if it weren’t for these changes.
Many movie stars pride themselves on being talented for one simple reason: Their success will be directly related to their talents. But many times their success will also depend on the movies they decided to star in, and their social behavior. However, many actors who had appeared in more than their share of unsuccessful movies, or had some troubles in their lives, were able to make huge comebacks.
Here’s a list of the top 5 well-known movie stars who were able to resurrect their careers despite their shortcomings:
In the year 1950, when Brando was filming The Men, he became known as the actor who knew how to bring realism to the screen. From here on, Brando appeared in several movies. But despite many Academy Award nominations for his performances, Brando’s fame began to disappear in the 1960s.
The problem was that none of the movies he appeared during the 1960s were major hits. As the years went by, Brando became less known to the public. However, when he accepted to play the role of Vito Corleone in The Godfather, Brando was able to turned his acting career around. And on March 24, 1972, with the released of The Godfather, Brando re-established himself as an actor and was able to land more important roles, such as Superman.
Whether he’s starring in musical romantic comedy films or in romantic cowboy movies, John Travolta takes on each of his roles with such dedication. It doesn’t come to a surprise that when his fans think of him, they think of Danny Zuko and his romance with Sandy, not as an ignorant or arrogant actor. But rumor has it that Travolta turned down important lead roles in the 80s because he thought he could do better.
John didn’t do any better after turning down the lead role of An Officer and a Gentleman. After he finished shooting Urban Legend in 1989, his acting career declined. Also, financial failures kept him away from his acting career.
In the 90s, Travolta managed to appear in movies such as Who’s Talking, Look Who’s Talking Too, and Look Who’s Talking Now. Although the public was still interested in him, Travolta still needed a good role.
In 1994, he was able to resurrect his acting career after he landed the role of Vincent Vega in Quentin Tarantino’s hit Pulp Fiction. The role of Vincent earned him an Academy Award nomination, and many job offers after that.
It seems that turning down lead roles is a common habit among many actors in Hollywood, but Mickey Rourke is the worst offender. Rourke turned down many lead roles because he thought that he could do better as a boxer, or because he thought that many movie directors will always wait for him. He even went as far as turning down a job offer from Tarantino.
In 1994, when he finally decided to give up his career as a boxer, the actor spent the rest of the 90s appearing in several movies. Unfortunately, some of the roles he played were not leading roles. Although his acting career didn’t decline much in the 90s, in 2005, he made a huge comeback in Hollywood by accepting to appear in the movie Sin City. Since then, Rourke has appeared in successful films such as The Wrestler, Iron Man 2, and The Expendables.
This list wouldn’t be complete without him. Downey is the perfect example of an actor who had a great career start but decided that partying and doing drugs was more important than appearing in movies.
Downey was arrested numerous times on drug-related charges and for possession of an unloaded gun. Fortunately, after five years of substance abuse, arrests, rehab, and relapse, the actor was able to beat his drug addiction problems. He made a comeback in the 2000s and appeared in the film Gothika. After Gothika, it became a bit of a slow time again for Robert, that is, until films such as Sherlock Holmes and of course the Iron Man franchise, propelled him back in the spotlight once and for all.
If starring as Dracula in a series of horror films didn’t earn Lee great reviews, as an actor he would be in big trouble. However, Lee’s troubles didn’t begin until he appeared in a Disney movie.
In 1978, Lee was severely criticized for appearing in the Disney film Return from Witch Mountain. Movie critics didn’t think that appearing in Disney films was the right move for Lee. However, by accepting to play the role of Saruman in The Lord of the Rings film trilogy (2001–2003) and The Hobbit film trilogy (2012–2014), Lee was able to shut down the critics and became known as the famous actor who had appeared in several cult movies.
After reading this short list, we hope that you’ve come to the conclusion that being an actor isn’t an easy job. They’ve to be willing to tolerate and deal with criticism. And just because many of them decided to turn down famous movie roles, it didn’t necessarily mean that their careers were over.
When you’re comparing the works of Steven Spielberg and Alfred Hitchcock, everyone wants to know who’s the better director and why. There are a lot of film buffs out there, and they’ve seen all of their work on movies and TV. This, of course, isn’t a simple question to answer, but if it were simple, it wouldn’t be worth asking. Both have made many film fans happy with their contributions to the film world and have made classics that have been watched over and over again. They’ve been analyzed in film classes and heated debates have been had about who really is better.
If I was forced to pick someone and I had to pick someone, I’d go with Steven Spielberg, and the reason is because he has made, in my view, more diverse films than Alfred Hitchcock. Hitchcock was known as the master of suspense and for the most part, a good majority of his films were suspenseful and he was the master of it. No one did it any better. He knew how to keep his audience interested in the story and he always kept you guessing all the way until the end.
People are still discussing Psycho and the shower scene. Films like Rope and Strangers on a Train are shown in film classes across the country. As far as his style and the way he made his films, very few, if any, could compare to him and the work that he did in the film community. However, very rarely, if ever, did he go away from that style and working in suspense films. He had his niche and he did it very well and no one did it any better arguably. However, he never dabbled in other genres of films. He earned the name “The Master of Suspense” for a reason.
Spielberg, on the other hand, he could do a little bit of everything. He could make you cry with films like E.T. and he could show you the horror of war in Saving Private Ryan. In fact, it wasn’t that long ago that he directed Lincoln and tackled the subject of one of the most famous presidents of all time. When it comes to film projects, there is not anything he can not do. That’s not to say that Hitchcock couldn’t have done other types of films if he tried, but there didn’t seem to be a whole lot of interest in trying on his part. He was comfortable in his genre and stuck with it.
The truly great, great directors never get satisfied and they never get comfortable. They’re always looking for ways to expand their resume and try their hand in something that might be a little scary for them and might be a little foreign to them, but they know it’s only going to make them a better director and a better person. While I know we’re speaking in terms of their directorial abilities, it’s hard to ignore everything that went on behind the scenes with Hitchcock.
There was a film released that showed him working on Psycho and there have been numerous stories about the man being difficult and hard to please. He would even oftentimes hit on some of his actresses. He might have been a very talented director and there is no denying that, but as a person, he didn’t always live up to those same standards. In the end, that counts for something. With Steven Spielberg, it is rare that you ever hear a bad word spoken about the man. People love working with him and they love what he brings out of them as a director. He’s just as good of a person as he is a director.
The big thing that must be taken into consideration is the fact that Spielberg is not done. Sadly, Hitchcock is not with us anymore, so his film work is done. He’ll, sadly, never direct another movie again. The possibilities for Spielberg in the future are, quite frankly, endless. He already has a few projects in the works that are getting people talking and have them very, very excited. He hasn’t lost that zest for making films and it does not appear to be going anyway any time in the near future.
Again, this is a battle of the titans, and it can be argued for days on end, but thanks to the diversity of Spielberg’s films, how he handles his actors and his personality, and the fact that he has more to give to the film world, I give the victory to Spielberg. It wasn’t an easy choice to make, but I’m fairly confident in my decision. However, Hitchcock will always be a legend and no one can take that away from him.
Hollywood has lost touch with the common man. The standard of beauty and success portrayed are not the societal norm. Today’s television shows and movies are generally unrelatable and most Hollywood professionals don’t understand the struggles of life for the majority of society.
Nowhere is that more obvious than looking at the course of history of the reality show. Originally, a reality show was just that…Reality or at least a much closer version of reality than we see in shows today. Survivor brought a naked Richard hatch into our living rooms, with every wrinkle and flabby part exposed. Real world had us cheering for Pedro and booing at Puck. Our love for Pedro brought homosexuality and living with HIV to the forefront, and initiated social change. All of these characters had reality in common. True Reality that every human could relate to. These shows were edited, certainly, but although shown in their best light, these were all real people living their lives.
Over time Hollywood has put their own spin on “reality,” creating scripted and otherwise altered realities on their shows. It is difficult to find a character on a reality show that couldn’t also work as a model or isn’t some kind of a social “freak”. Our curiosity of those different than ourselves has created a whole world of reality shows spotlighting the outliers of society. While entertaining to some, these shows are hardly relatable and are just the equivalent of a modern freak show.
It is also hard for the average joe to relate to the level of wealth portrayed on these shows. These are not people that are dealing with everyday issues. The rent is always paid in their world of “reality”. Financial problems are the number one thing keeping Americans up at night, however shows rarely show the audience the reality of financial struggles or the effects of those struggles. Even in shows that portray the “average” family, there never seems to be much talk of finances. Gone are the days of Roseanne and Dan figuring out how to make it all work and taking second jobs. Now, if you want to hear about financial stuggles you will have to tune in to Breaking Bad, because the conception is that only the fringes of society have financial struggles.
The level of notoriety that can be achieved in Hollywood quickly affects those working in the industry. Writers, producers, actors, and other Hollywood professionals lose touch with the realities of everyday life as they achieve success in the industry. Fame means something different now than it did in the days before the internet and being world famous is much more attainable than ever before. Many people have been unknown to all but their friends and families one day, to suddenly become an internet sensation the next day. The fast rise to fame gives people an unrealistic outlook on life. If they are unable to relate to the common man, they will not be able to create relatable characters or portray them onscreen.
Hollywood has lost touch with viewers for many reasons. The constant push for reality to fit the Hollywood mold has made most shows and movies unrelatable to viewers. Most Hollywood insiders are so out of touch with “normal” people that their view of society is skewed. It is hard to portray reality when you have no idea what the common reality is. If Hollywood wants to get the attention of viewers they are going to have to give them more than superheroes and love stories.