Cliché: Something overused and lacking any originality. According to some, the word itself is an onamonapia, which is a collection of letters used to create a word simulating a sound. Comic books famously utilize this technique. For example, the word "BLAM" is used to create the sound of an explosion or gunfire. In the case of the word cliché, it was taken from the printing press, as it repeated the same sound when printing the daily newspapers. In the case of Hollywood, it is often used to describe tropes, story beats, character types, and other such narrative devices utilized with no evolution or effort. Some of the more famous clichés include a car not starting while the villain is closing in, not calling the police while a psycho killer attempts to invade the domicile, and my absolute least favorite, the black character who only exists to die first. These and many others have been used in Hollywood films ever since the early days. While some can be fun and contribute to the enjoyment of the film, most of them are just so overdone that they lose their charm.
Over the years, I have watched and observed many kinds of movies. I have studied them, learned from them, and in doing so, come to a few conclusions about the Hollywood system. Chief among them is that Hollywood itself is clinically insane. Why? Because despite the vast majority of the less-than-interesting clichés proving themselves time and time again to be unentertaining and destained by both audiences and critics, Hollywood can't take the hint and is one of the many reasons I want to make movies for a living outside of the Hollywood system. Because, at the very least, I can learn from my mistakes and make an effort not to repeat them.
Recently I spent some time contemplating the clichés that Hollywood has repeated the most and has continued to annoy me to no end. To list all of them would result in a much more extended essay than I am prepared to write, so I have narrowed my list down to the magical number, 3. So, without further ado, I present to you my list of Hollywood's top 3 clichés or bad habits.
3: The bland "Super Special" chosen one audience proxy pretending to be the protagonist.
"High School Sucks" The Movie
This particular cliché tends to be in movies aimed at teenagers usually adapted from a young adult novel. Movies like The Hunger Games, Divergent, Harry Potter, Percy Jackson: The Lightning Thief, and I am Number Four all suffer from this horrendously overused cliché. The idea is to have a primary character function as a vessel for the audience to insert themselves — creating the impression that this movie was made just for them, which is more annoying when you consider that this kind of character is also super-duper-uber special and is the greatest living thing ever to walk the Earth. You can't see this, but I am facepalming right now.
The problem with this cliché is that it robs the audience of any real investment in the story. Traditionally, the protagonist (the main character) is someone with whom you can sympathize. A person with struggles, conflicts, and a personality that you can relate to. What ultimately makes them relatable, and what drives the story (not the plot) is their flaws and how they overcome them. A prime example is Cobb (Leonardo DiCaprio) from the Christopher Nolan masterpiece Inception, a man with personal demons regarding his past mistakes who must now confront them to achieve his goal of returning home to his children. That is something any human being, especially parents, can understand and relate to and is a perfect driving force for a story.
With the "Super Special" audience proxy, there is no relatable investment. Most of the time, this kind of character is blank and has no real personality. They're just there to be dragged from plot point to plot point with no real sense of agency. What makes this kind of character so appalling to me personally, aside from lacking any relatable personality, is that it's not challenging. It gives the impression that the writers and producers of these kinds of movies believe that the intended audience, mostly teenagers, are so stupid and gullible that they can't handle nor deserve a real story. Not only is that mindset lazy, but it's also insulting to both teens and adults alike.
This cliché is lazy, uninspired, and only exists to keep talentless hack writers employed. Sure, this cliché sadly works and has allowed most of the films that have utilized it to rake in tons of money, but it comes at the belittlement and disrespect of the audience. We watch movies to escape the real world, and we accomplish that by being presented with a relatable protagonist. Yes, it requires real talent, skill, and effort to write a good protagonist, as well as any character in a story, but if you're not willing to put in the work, then why are you writing screenplays in the first place?
2: Placing fantastical characters in the real modern world.
Guilty Pleasure (Don't judge me)
This particular cliché is one that Hollywood refuses to let die. Although part of their business model is trying something once and never trying it again if it fails, this is the one thing that seems to remain constant. Every few years there is a movie adapted from a fantastical source material only to find that the characters have been removed from their unique setting and shoehorned into the real modern world. As I have shown in the image above, a prime example of this cliché is the 1987 adaptation of Masters of the Universe. While I do still enjoy this movie in my strange way, I cannot deny how much of a lousy adaptation of the source material it is. Masters of the Universe takes place in a magical world known as Eternia populated by Sorcerors, magnificent beasts, and alien technology, not unlike that found in any given Star Wars film. Yet, despite having a variable gold mine of creative possibilities at their disposal, the makers of the movie decided to shove these characters into then modern-day California where they spent the majority of the film partaking in unfunny fish-out-of-water shenanigans in between action scenes that don't last as long as they should. Guilty pleasure? Yes. Good movie? Far from it.
As you might have suspected, there is a big reason why this cliché is the most repeated in Hollywood, money. Producing big fantasy films can get expensive because there's a lot that needs to be made to bring a fantastical world to life in a live action movie (elaborate sets, detailed costumes, functional props, and so on). These days it's not as challenging to pull off with the advent of CGI and the abundance of handsome looking accessories found almost anywhere. Just go to etsy.com, and I guarantee you will find what you need. Not to mention, there have been so many smaller production companies that have created convincing fantastical worlds in movies using nothing but junk and recycled material. James Cameron started as a set builder/decorator, and he constructed real looking spaceship interior out of McDonalds's Happy Meal boxes. (No, really, I'm not kidding).
So, when it comes to big budget Hollywood productions, you would think it's no longer a colossal undertaking, right? Well, for Hollywood at least, it's not just about the money. It's also about being out-of-touch. Hollywood executives have proven time and time again that they, quite frankly, don't know their ass from a hole in the ground. They seem to operate under many outdated impressions about people. The most prominent being that audiences could not accept anything that isn't ultra realistic. They know that many fantastical properties like Masters of the Universe are beloved and have a large fan base. So they do what they can to make a movie based on that property while spending as little money as possible and having no faith in what makes that property accessible in the first place.
If you want to make a film based on a popular franchise, but you have so little faith in the concepts and ideas presented therein, what is really the point in making that movie in the first place other than cashing in on a trend? If you want to make money with a film based on a fantastical setting, then build it. Don't give the intended audience a fraction of what they want. If your movie is creative enough, accurate enough to the source material, and provides an experience not often seen in a film, then you will make more money and reign in more success than you otherwise might have. Hollywood is a business, yes, but it is also a creative business. As such, there is always an element of risk. If you're too afraid to take the jump, then don't even bother.
1: The "In-Name-Only" movie.
Isaac Asimov deserves an apology!
This is, admittedly, not really a cliché, but an ill-advised business practice. Thankfully, it is not employed as much as the previous two clichés, but when it is, it grinds my gears in the worst possible way. Not necessarily because it's so blatantly inaccurate to the source material, but because there is no justifiable reason for it. The only reason Hollywood continues to utilize this cliché is marketing purposes. Putting out an easily recognizable brand and/or name to increase potential ticket sales. In other words, straight up lying.
The "In Name Only" movie is when a studio has a film to release, but because Hollywood is now only driven by name recognition, they will put the name of whatever famous property they happen to have the rights to on the film they want to sell, in an attempt to ensure a profit. Consider the movie mentioned above, I, Robot, as it claims to be based on the book by Isaac Asimov. Just one small problem...it's not. Like, not at all! The film in question and the book it claims to be based on are so different from each other that the studio behind the movie deserves to be charged with fraud and false advertising.
The book by the late Isaac Asimov is a collection of short stories all based on a potential future where robots and humans have found a kind of harmony with each other, showcasing the possible good that robots can provide for humanity as a whole. While each story is different, yet some are interconnected, none of them are about robots rising up to take over the world. Mostly because the three laws of robotics, as listed in the book, make such an event impossible. Not to mention, Isaac Asimov himself was sick and tired of reading countless science fiction stories about evil robots rising up and destroying humanity, that he set about to write something different entirely to try and balance the narrative landscape. Now, compare that to the movie bearing the title of the book, which is, in a nutshell, Terminator meets Robocop with a dash of George Orwell's 1984 for good measure. None of which blend well at all! If this movie is based on any of Isaac Asimov's novels, I have no idea which one, because it is not based on I, Robot. The only reason the film even bears the title is because of how recognizable and beloved it is among science fiction fans, who then became bitter and aggravated upon seeing this monstrosity.
Lying to the audience about what your movie is about is a guaranteed way to lose future ticket sales. If you want to make a film based on a beloved property, then do so. Don't just slap the name onto whatever generic script you have lying around to artificially up ticket prices. Actions like these are a big part of the many reasons Hollywood is dying. Rather than putting any genuine effort into their products, they just keep repeating themselves expecting different results each and every time never learning the harsh truth. All they have to do is be at least mildly creative, and maybe things will start to look up. Until then, we'll just have to weed our way through the sea of uninspired nonsense to find the genuinely good stuff. Quality is out there if you know where to look for it.
Ladies & gentlemen, I am TheNorm, thank you all for reading.
No comments:
Post a Comment