Hollywood, baby

[Ungod]

Yea, these are the thoughts that don't let me sleep in peace, but...i watched a film yesterday and was left with one question: how much of Hollywood is American and how much Japanese? I just have to know, because it seems they've copied the Japanese for over half a century, since the conquering of Japan, and I've arriving at that conclusion only now. This is how grand is the deception.

When I first saw some impressionist paintings, I thought 'da F is this?'. Made no sense. Then it was explained with big words and I believed it. Then, much later, I heard they've been seeing Japanese art (when the country was opening in the 19th century) and wanted to copy that or something. And they did an awful job, but hey! Europe's got a new artistic current. Close that door!

No biggie, it's just paintings. But then comes Star Wars (haven't seen any movie, btw). Huge hit, fans everywhere, even I know of Darth Vader and 'Luke, I am your father'. To later see Kakushi toride no san akunin, make no connection whatsoever (because change the background to space meteors), but read how the plot is the same. Even that creepy Yoda who's putting verbs at the end of the sentence is copying the Japanese language. I acknowledge the fact I got duped. Lucas brothers, what geniuses! At stealing, I guess. Next thing I'll hear is how Matrix trilogy was made in China (first).

But it's ok, because look! Kurosawa was reading Shakespeare when he made Ran or Kumonosu Jo, so it's ok. He's no innocent chick. Ok, what about Clint Eastwood? Makes Gran Torino, who looks a bit too much like Ikiru (1962!). Well, since it's Kurosawa again, let's just drop it, right? Clint simply arrived later at the party, but that's how showbusiness is, time is aging films like wine.

What about Kill Bill? I swear I didn't get anything when watching that. Nothing. I don't even like Uma Thurman (with that name, that face). Ok, I'm being mean here, but what the F was that supposed to be? To later see there's this manga written in the 80's (or 70's, who cares) that served as inspiration for this film. Why you couldn't make that connection, you ask? Well, because the 'Muricans cut key plot paragraphs. I know why now (making a baby in prison to avenge you; kinda disturbing), but to think I wondered for years why some people aren't fired...

But is that all? Nope, same manga creator writes a little story called 'lone wolf and cub' that some guy sees. Somewhere in USA. Once again, let's dumb down the Japanese content, because God forbid you see people cut on screen with a katana. Aaaand...replace it with futuristic robots and a samurai lost in time. It worked for the Lucas Brothers, why not here? The result is a cartoon called Samurai Jack. Because Jack is a great name for a samurai. No snickering in the back, please.

Seriously, I know there are original films made now and then. I've seen a few, but overall, it seems like the writers in USA are suffering from atrocious writer's block. Atrocious and lengthy, since they can rarely come up with something original. It may be better to copy the Japanese than vilify the native Americans in cheap westerns, but is it, really? Impressionism, Kill Bill? Kill me now...

I hope the Japanese become dull, very dull, and make nothing of interest anymore, so that Hollywood starts using those brains, if any are left. In the meantime, any film you know that has been plagia...I mean, used as inspiration for the wonderful, brilliant, genius American script writers? (it can be a copyrighted work that's not necessarily Japanese)

P.S. I now get it why they gave Kurosawa an Oscar award. 

 

[Mallos]

No, I am your father. Samurai jack is the best action cartoon and if you disagree I will put you in time-out.

You'd be surprised how much plagiarism goes on in China, not just America, but when it comes down to it almost everything nowadays is copied from something else. Or I like to think of it rather as inspired by. Think about all of our history since the invention of language or writing and how many people we have alive today, it is hard to come up with something original at this point. As long as the content isn't the same I don't think choosing a style similar to an existing thing is anything bad.

At some point I begin to notice all the stuff here in MD that seemingly comes from other places.

Edited April 19, 2021 by Mallos

[Pipstickz]

5 hours ago, Ungod said:

Seriously, I know there are original films made now and then. I've seen a few, but overall, it seems like the writers in USA are suffering from atrocious writer's block. Atrocious and lengthy, since they can rarely come up with something original.

This we can agree on, it all seems to be sequels, remakes, and spinoffs nowadays. Very little original content coming from the traditional media power centres.

On the topic as a whole, I tend to think this is just the way artistic ideas and influences work. Nobody is just creating in a void. If due credit is given (often it's not, I understand) I don't necessarily see the harm. Which country will make American movies, but better?

[Ungod]

Disagree with both. 

The fact that samurai Jack is the best action cartoon just shows you how pathetic the industry is. Don't get me wrong, but can't we make action productions that are not based on manga written 30 years ago? As for plagiarism in other countries, I'll make my point in a jiffy.

My problem with Hollywood copying the Japanese is the fact that they're dooming you to be forever 12 (mentally). Let's take Mononoke (series). In it, this guy is roaming the land, killing these evils that are born from human emotions. To do that, he has to determine the form, the origin, the facts, and the whole show is kinda like a detective film, or problem-solving task, whatever, watch the show. The point of it is, where there is this great evil, you have to look at all the aspects, and when you've weighted everything, then you can cut at the root of the problem. The various tasks are not that important, the plot is interesting, but overarching is this idea of problem solving. We've got an issue, let's see how to fix the issue.

Here comes a lazy script-writer from Hollywood. Wow, they've got monsters in here. Cool! And this badass guy cuts them with the sword. Cool! And then everybody's happy, there's a damsel crying at the end, they probably did naughty stuff after the show (which means that no, we keep it PG on the cutting, but yes, we insert erotic stuff into the film. Then we call the Japanese kinky for showing breasts). And he takes the plot, disguises it and turns it into a light vs dark thing, Luke, I am your father. Used to be light attribute, now I'm dark. That's it. Day vs night, light vs dark, god vs satan, whatever. What, is that not enough? You're looking for some hidden meaning? Stop trying to think this much! It's just entertainment.

I mean, whatever they copy, it's always light vs dark and the hero vanquishes evil, happy ending, go home, 12 year-old audience. How did the monster appear? Who knows, it's an ancient evil that cannot be defeated and keeps appearing every 2 years for a movie. What are the motivations of the hero? Who knows, he likes getting the girl, probably. Let's also accessorize him with a talking sword - it's there in the Jap version, and it looks cool. Is there something else behind this whole thing, like maybe some moral, some idea? Nope, we don't want to stress your (few) neurons, you won't be able to sleep tonight, thinking that maybe when we've got issues, we're supposed to do some thinking and we're supposed to cut at the root of the problem with determination. It's just entertainment; you want education, you go elsewhere (maybe school, maybe).

And then they wonder the Japanese anime conquers the world. How could it NOT do that when scrap budget production has more depth than a Hollywood blockbuster with millions of dollars budget? And, well, that blockbuster would've had the depth if the hadn't cut it when copying the plot, but whatever. Besides, it's a blockbuster because of the advertising machine which brought people into the cinema after they've heard about this film 30 times a day, each day of the week, and they gave in. Also, there's nothing else to watch, since you don't speak other languages. You could go watch an Ozu or Tarkovsky, but...

And of course nowadays you get a lot of crappy animations, because it did conquer the world and it's more and more of a business. How did it happen, though? Well, they made stuff that had some meaning beyond light vs dark.

Can we get a beige vs grey, perhaps? I know this is how artistic ideas and influences work, but there's a difference between copying (badly) something and taking inside a concept, thinking hard about it and delivering something good at the end of the process. What, we've got no social issues around us? No human condition thoughts to ponder? But you see, it's much easier to copy something than to look around yourself, see what the people around you feel, think, to sympathize with them...After all, that is work, and we prefer stealing.

That's why Hollywood sucks. It's lazy, as I said. And if you don't want to hit a wall at the mental age of 12 and find yourself scared when night comes ('cuz dark vs light, it's dark now, Darth Vader is coming), well...you don't watch these crappy movies.

Why, why watch any Hollywood movie made since the 70's that is half (or much less) of what you'd get if you watched the original film? And my issues is primarily this: if the ratio of original vs copies is 7:3, like it may be, that means I get to watch 7 bad movies that are killing my brains for 3 passable ones ('cuz original does not necessarily mean good). Also, when a studio is known for remaking loads of films (without giving any attribution...or maybe after 50 years, when the income has dried out), how much trust do I put in it? Trust to make an original, that is.

I don't have that kind of time. I'm already getting bored of films altogether, imagine how I feel about that crappy american ''powerhouse'' that lost the creative power when I wasn't even born.

 

[lashtal]

I appreciate this topic and I agree with most of the arguments.

I think the problem is not "copying", it's the so-called KISS attitude (keep it simple and stupid) which is spreading not only in arts, but literally in every field and corner. Have you followed a political debate lately?

Pip has a point when he writes "Nobody is just creating in a void".

I was about to write a page long post, but then a quote by T.S. Eliot came to mind.

“Immature poets imitate; mature poets steal; bad poets deface what they take, and good poets make it into something better, or at least something different.”

I think it's all here.

[Pipstickz]

Personally I only watch movies or TV series if someone I know and trust their taste has a personal passion for it, and even then sometimes I'll pass on it if I'm not in the mood or something. I was lucky to see a lot of independent theatre at a young age, so got tired of pop culture rather quickly by comparison. By that same token I can usually find a nugget of an interesting idea in most things, even if it's just shallow churned out hollywood nonsense.

Spoiler

Eye of the beholder?

 

[Ungod]

42 minutes ago, Pipstickz said:

By that same token I can usually find a nugget of an interesting idea in most things, even if it's just shallow churned out hollywood nonsense.

same here.

you can get a revelation in the dumbest of places or talking to the dumbest of people. 

read a book on Greek culture written for kids, got three revelations just by thinking about it. BUT! what a frickin' pain

also, at some point, if you value yourself, you will limit contact with idiots

[Mallos]

While I agree with the points you make I think it is not exactly the problem of Hollywood copying that contributes to the "KISS attitude (keep it simple and stupid)" homogeneity that we are seeing. For example with the superhero films aka Marvel/DC, they may be very high budget films with robust source material but in a lot of cases the source material is not even followed and you end up with the problem on canonical material vs non-canon. Even in these films with esteemed writers/directors they can seem one dimensional often with that dimension being the bad guy vs good guy, making it feel like they are all the same movie in some cases. Star wars episode 7 seemed like an entire re-skin and condensing of episodes 4-6 and the star wars series has a huge lore behind it that has never made it to film, yet they chose to rehash the earlier movies.

The main problem is not so much that they choose to make these movies in this format, it is rather that this is what continues to get the views for them and consequently the money. People like a name brand to have, something they know is reliable and will continue to give them quality. It is just that the quality in this case is expensive budget and not so much amazing scripts. Furthermore it is hard for people to even find newer better things when these constant big hitters get in the way with their advertising campaigns, often all you hear about is more of their movies.

I've been thinking about two movies in particular lately that may be good for this topic:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Source_Code
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Snowpiercer

Source Code has that detective work theme with no identifiable bad guy, and Snowpiercer is about a climate-destroyed planet with an attempted social upheaval. Whether they are so one dimensional is debatable but mostly I question if anyone else has heard of or watched these movies? I know I had not found them until looking through a huge list of movies, I don't think they were as popular as most of the hollywood high budget films though I still find them to have been good.

[Ungod]

Rehash for money, copy plots for money, either way it's 'not sweating for money'. Also, if I don't care about the Star wars franchise, i won't be giving them any money. They're mooching off their long-life host.

And why do people want a rehash, anyway? It's like trying to chase back that feeling you had soo long ago - you'll never have that again. Try something new, don't delve deeper into the nostalgic past.

Haven't seen any of those two, they sound interesting, but not my cup of tea.

[Pipstickz]

6 hours ago, Mallos said:

Furthermore it is hard for people to even find newer better things when these constant big hitters get in the way with their advertising campaigns, often all you hear about is more of their movies.

 

6 hours ago, Ungod said:

Rehash for money, copy plots for money, either way it's 'not sweating for money'.

A big part of the issue seems to be the profit motive as you've both mentioned, which can causally be traced back to the corporate structure underlying the creation of most big budget movies. As I understand it CEOs have fiduciary duty (the legal duty of a fiduciary to act in the best interests of the beneficiary) to the company they work for, and can in some cases be held personally liable if they fail that duty. Thus their personal greed or protection of their own assets is used like a compass to point the corporation in the most profitable direction.

On the topic of decent original American movies, I recently watched Magnolia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnolia_(film)) for the second time, and I think it's particularly fitting for our discussion here as it has themes of the personal and inner workings behind the film industry in Hollywood, though more on the dramatic emotional side than what we discuss here. It's a long one though.

[Fyrd Argentus]

You can't get a book published these days, no matter how good, unless you're already known on the national stage - corrupt politician, whistle blower, axe murderer, etc.  The publishers want to see their money turn around in a ridiculously short time - like a week or two from when it hits the stands.  I imagine selling a movie concept is similar - you have to pack the theatre on the opening night based on the buzz, and not risk anything on the quality of the movie ie. long term sustainability.  Hence, offering a rehash of a known plot will get people in the seats, and their job is done.

[Ungod]

That's very true, the way these things operate is revolving around money only, and that's why things will change only when people like me and you will say 'we want some good stuff, we're not gonna pay a cent anymore for crap. i can do crap myself, tyvm'.

the way is boycott and i'm doing it already (i'm also spreading hate, so i'm doing a little more). i don't think too big to fail businesses should exist, i think often you have to burn the grass to get better produce next year

burn hollywood? nah, let it freefall

[Jubaris]

In regards to Hollywood, I think it got a bit weaker with all of these streaming services. I mean, Netflix is spending money on shows left and right, which brings money to new antipattern stuff, now is the best chance to break Hollywood's domination. 

When it comes to Japanese influence, I think it's a crime not to mention The Power Rangers!

But seriously, like others said, you always take inspiration from somewhere. In case of movies, a bunch of them were copied, some from Japan, some from other countries (a lot of European movies, anywhere where you can find quality material that couldn't reach global peak because of language/low budget production). 

It's hard to be original too, even when you try there's a good chance somebody told something similar. There were so many movies made, there were so many stories told, and most of them revolve around some archetypes. 

[Jubaris]

Even when you look at 'the original', there's a good chance it's a retelling as well. 

I mean look at The Bible/Christianity. Revolutionary religion that swallowed a big chunk of the known world, but its concepts were all already present in other religions. 

It's how stuff always worked, as Newton said we are dwarves standing on the shoulders of giants, or standing on the shoulders of dwarves which are standing on the shoulders of other dwarves... (pardon my poor rephrasing, maybe Newton said it somehow differently) 

[Ungod]

9 hours ago, Jubaris said:

It's hard to be original too, even when you try there's a good chance somebody told something similar

Some would say it's impossible, but it's not so much about being original as it's about not being a 90% copy (the 10% left is simply you trying to disguise stuff). It's like you're given an assignment in biology class, you take a paper from some site, modify it a bit and read it to the entire class. Nobody's asking you to be original, how could you, you're effin 15 and your interests lie elsewhere...but what you're doing is moonshining.

9 hours ago, Jubaris said:

I mean look at The Bible/Christianity. Revolutionary religion that swallowed a big chunk of the known world, but its concepts were all already present in other religions. 

Yes, the Bible was written under Buddhist influence, or rather, the Bible is a retelling of Buddhism, mixed with the local creeds. But the thing is, the folks who wrote both testaments did it to empower themselves. They weren't paid to come up with good entertainment, they were seeking to replace the old priests.

9 hours ago, Jubaris said:

But seriously, like others said, you always take inspiration from somewhere.

Inspiration is one thing, moonshining is another. Thing is, you either have intellectual property, or you don't. You either have 'we copy from them, they copy from us' or you have 'the Chinese stole OUR intellectual property, they're a bunch of liars and thieves'. Oh, but when Hollywood steals from others? Nah, that's ok. 

Oh, it's just arts, it's fine. No, it isn't. Arts and culture stay at the basis of a state's allure. Like the nectar of flowers, culture can attract a number of youth to a state, where they'll be exploited for little money, thus ensuring a constant supply of energetic and bright workforce. Just like city lights attract so many peasants to the big city, where all their dreams will be fulfilled. This is why you have intellectual property and this is why artists are paid and are struggling to come up with something good etc. 

You can't have both. Also, inspiration should be something you receive when walking through your neighbourhood, not walking the digital plains of a country far away. Why? Because you're selling your product to the people around you, so you'd better know them, what they want, what their problems are etc. Sure, knowing stuff beyond your neighbourhood is useful, is inspiring, but pay attention to what surrounds you as well. 

I just can't agree with what Hollywood is doing, when what it's doing is taking an entire script, changing some elements so as to not look suspicious and come forth with an 'original production from the legendary director X'. How can I?

(btw, i set myself in a special way when commenting on this topic, I really don't care about Hollywood, for me it's a dead thing, just like cable TV; thank F I got wind of pirated sites for films, else I would've been doomed to develop a brain tumor)

[Jubaris]

You're right, there's a big difference.

Though I'm not convinced the blatant copying you mention is that all-encompassing and mainstream, some of the specific pieces you mentioned seemed more inspired by rather than copied (samurai jack for instance), but maybe I'm wrong. 

 

Just to clarify, I'm not defending Hollywood, I just like try to add more perspectives to the table: so what if we have copied movies? If we are not aware of the original, in our perspective we are seeing something new? 

If people weren't seeing them as new they wouldn't watch and such movies wouldn't bring money and Hollywood wouldn't shoot them. So it's not a waste, as long as it's a copy of a good movie

The important thing at the end of the day, if you enjoyed a copy-movie, is not to idealize people behind it, but that should be the case with anything,people are never perfect, geniuses that are wonderful human beings etc, there's always some uncanny detail lying somewhere. 

I liked Samurai Jack, I don't necessarily think it's the most brillitant piece made by unbelievably creative and original people

[Ungod]

39 minutes ago, Jubaris said:

So it's not a waste, as long as it's a copy of a good movie

well, yea, but the way they do it, as I wrote earlier (and gave examples) is cut out key stuff (because otherwise it'd be obvious) and you get a soulless, 4kids film

 

46 minutes ago, Jubaris said:

people are never perfect, geniuses that are wonderful human beings etc

and this is why Hollywood advertising strikes a nerve: 'legendary director' 'critically acclaimed feature' 'unparalleled skills' 'world class actor'

they're masters of BS, but since everyone is bs-ing, it should be ok, no? but put world class BS on top of 90% copy-paste and you get....me ranting

[Pipstickz]

16 hours ago, Ungod said:

but what you're doing is moonshining

 

16 hours ago, Ungod said:

Inspiration is one thing, moonshining is another.

Can you give your definition of moonshining as you used it here? I'm not familiar with the term other than to refer to alcohol.

[Ungod]

7 hours ago, Pipstickz said:

 

Can you give your definition of moonshining as you used it here? I'm not familiar with the term other than to refer to alcohol.

ya, that one, but with a slightly twisted meaning, maybe. 'Moonshining', as term, was invented during Prohibition era, if i'm not mistaken, and it refers to the illegal production and sale of alcohol. These guys do something similar - take someone's work, disguise it, and then sell it. 

[Ungod]

2 hours ago, Clair de Lune said:

Also I object to the term moonshining due to having MD copyrighted my name, pick something else

I'll consider that...one of the disadvantage of copyrights is tons more lawsuits.

2 hours ago, Clair de Lune said:

I agree most Hollywood films are just popcorn fodder anyway, so I try not to get too stressed over it.

You say that now (or we say that now), but when you're 10, those movies influence. How much that influence lasts, well...if nothing much changes in your life, those influences will stick to you for decades. Just like your 10 year old classmate's explanation for a concept (don't laugh, i've seen someone in his fifties explaining a concept by saying 'this is what my classmate told me, and i think it's correct'). What you hear, what you see, influences even if it's digital.

 

2 hours ago, Clair de Lune said:

Dissecting it into what it reminds me of just destroys the experience, so I move on to another film and hope for the best.

Ok, now that's something I can't do. I mean, sure, we all tried that, but at some point, after n films that suck, there's rage coloring your eyes. It may pay to be patient, but you lose it sometimes, oh yes, you do.

The thing with copies is like this: you get the Saga of the Volsungs, and you get Nibelungenring, and you get Lord of the rings. Now, Tolkien changes the meaning. He's delving into psychology (maybe he read too much Jung and Freud), making the ring a symbol for uncontrollable passion. The original story was simply saying greed is wrong; Tolkien is saying 'yea, we know it's wrong, but we can't help it'. Whatever. But Tolkien did think about it, and because he did, he's influenced half a century with his rendition/rehash/copy/insert-synonym-here.

Here's a Hollywood script-writer: ''I saw this awesome Japanese film yesterday, so cool! I'd like to write something like that and give the world something amazing. But, wait, I don't have 10 years like Tolkien to write a script. Gotta pay the bills. Besides, Tolkien's audience was made up of readers, in a slower time, my audience is viewers in a faster life pace. Also, accounting for cultural differences, many things in there won't make sense for my Western audience. Not to mention we can't show all the gore stuff they put in...''

That writer...may even have been inspired fo' real. What do you get from him/her, though? You tell me. Sure, not everyone can be Tolkien, but if you're ordering pizza, you don't want a half-baked, expired meat on top, dripping tomato sauce, spoilt cheese, smelly oversize pizza, with the crooked smile of a waiter who's missing half his teeth.

And after a number of such pizzas, you don't hope anymore. You change restaurant.

[Pipstickz]

13 hours ago, Ungod said:

I'll consider that...one of the disadvantage of copyrights is tons more lawsuits.

I hope I won't ignite a burning controversy in saying this, but personally I oppose copyrights as they exist today, or at least my understanding of them. Of course I think an artist should give due credit if they're consciously "borrowing" ideas (or even and especially if they did it subconsciously and only realize it later), but I don't think any human, much less a corporation, has the right to own an idea as that's not how ideas work in my view. Just as you explained about your acquaintance,

13 hours ago, Ungod said:

(don't laugh, i've seen someone in his fifties explaining a concept by saying 'this is what my classmate told me, and i think it's correct')

when you hear an idea and you agree with it internally, it becomes/can become constituted as a part of your mindset. So in my ideal world, any copyright law should take that into account, which I don't think the current system does.

[Ungod]

7 hours ago, Pipstickz said:

I hope I won't ignite a burning controversy in saying this, but personally I oppose copyrights as they exist today

not with me, no. what i'm interested in is everyone being on the same page i.e. we either have them, with all that entails, or we don't, and don't cry if your idea is 'stolen'

7 hours ago, Pipstickz said:

when you hear an idea and you agree with it internally, it becomes/can become constituted as a part of your mindset

there's also the situation of which idea you became enamored with first, there's also the situation of an idea being repeated so many times you *have to* believe it (or you go the antisocial route and life becomes a mess) etc

this is why TV does have an influence, denying that has dangeours consequences (obviously, not only TV has an impact, but what i'm saying is you can become a moron because of watching TV - it really can happen)

7 hours ago, Pipstickz said:

So in my ideal world, any copyright law should take that into account, which I don't think the current system does

copyright laws exist because, as i've said, culture is a way to attract workforce. nobody really likes them or wants them, it's a pain to define them, so the current system is the best we can come up with confronted with something we'd rather forget about 

[Pipstickz]

5 hours ago, Ungod said:

this is why TV does have an influence, denying that has dangeours consequences (obviously, not only TV has an impact, but what i'm saying is you can become a moron because of watching TV - it really can happen)

Definitely agreed, it seems to me that most TV is a way to "program" certain social behaviours by simulating those social interactions on the screen and in your mind as you watch

5 hours ago, Ungod said:

copyright laws exist because, as i've said, culture is a way to attract workforce.

This is an interesting perspective and one I never considered until you posted it earlier, thanks for sharing

5 hours ago, Ungod said:

there's also the situation of an idea being repeated so many times you *have to* believe it (or you go the antisocial route and life becomes a mess)

In this situation I still tend to stay stubborn so far, and yeah in some ways my life is a mess, but in others it seems to me more rich and deep than the lives of some people around me. Could always be an illusion my mind is creating for me, though!