In principle, it is done in almost everything that is good. Take something like Lord of the Rings as Tolkien wrote it, that as with any other story has an agenda or topic that the author wanted to tell, the problem is that a lot of these studios simply can't accept the original work or believe they can improve on it or spice it up or whatever and honestly in 90% of the cases it only makes it worse.
I agree.
And I mean Tolkien is certainly one of those creators I was talking about. His underlying message of the good in humanity, creating strong bonds across even prejudices and the strength of friendship seem rather organic in the books and films because they are messages that he believes in. I mean the original Trilogy is more or less based on Tolkien’s time in Trench warfare during WWI right. So the lessons he took from that just came though in an organic manner.
Studios recreating that? Ehh not so much
If they want to tell such a story lets say about gender inequality, then write or find a story where that is the main topic. Its like when PJ in the Hobbit had to add a romance story between an elf and a dwarf. It is not needed in that story, and it served absolutely no purpose except taking away time from the rest and made the movie worse.
Yeah I agree that PJ just went all over the place in his adapting of the Hobbit. Ironically enough that’s what sometimes happens when creators are given too much free reign. There is a balance, as with all things
But I kind of disagree that they can’t do a message about gender equality in a Tolkien project and do it organically. Much of the underlying message in the original trilogy is about overcoming prejudices and how such divides can lead to our collective destruction. The whole “United we stand, divided we fall” thing
It would be more of a deconstruction of the structures that are in Tolkien’s world admittedly (much of them based on our own medieval structures from history.)
Still I think it can be done and still feel organic. Just be one hell of a balancing act.
See I’m the type who thinks art can and should be explored beyond their original bounds. Meaning differing interpretations don’t necessarily have to be bound to the original limits of the original. But I do think it should be done respectfully. Even if it’s done to criticise something.
And indeed criticisms can form their own art as well. Like The Golden Compass book series was literally and purposefully an anti Chronicles of Narnia series. Like that was their entire point to their existence in the first place, not even kidding. Somewhat ironically they butchered the film adaptation because the studio wanted to recreate the success Disney had had with their own Narnia adaptions. So they just made a quick cash grab by making it “Narnia but a little bit darker.” Completely not understanding why the work was so popular to begin with.
(Incidentally C S Lewis and Tolkien were real life friends who admired each other’s work. So that’s a fun little coincidence.)
You sometimes get the impression that when they make a movie they have a checklist with 100 points and then they just start adding stuff until all the checkboxes have been marked.
I think they absolutely are if I’m honest lol
I believe they call it “marketing.”
The sign of a good product (movie, game or tv show) for me is if the creators are able to make me forget their little checklists. Or deliver their message in an engaging way that makes me either accept and digest it or even question it, but healthily. You know?
Like I think Miyazaki is a good example. His movies are rife with messages about respecting nature and even cautionary tales of man’s hubris. You could even argue he sometimes deconstructs his own culture’s ideals at times (Grave of the Fireflies.)
But these messages all feel organic in his films because they are his honest beliefs. So his ends up making good products that just so happen to contain these messages.
Authenticity goes a long way in art.
Compare that with all those 90s environmental movies like Fern Gully or whatever. Good messages with good intentions, sure. But the films had to sell you the idea of the environment being important and for us to maybe watch how much we interfere in it first and foremost.
So you end up feeling manipulated and like you said, you could practically see the checklist the studio heads were ticking off throughout the film
(For the record I do have a lot of nostalgic love for Fern Gully but it is absolutely not an authentically good film about the importance of the rainforest. Let’s be real lol.)
I think people are angry (rightfully so) at the capitalist manipulation and interference in art. I do think some of that anger is directed in the wrong direction at times though.
It is ultimately growing pains but I think there’s still some diamonds in the rough, so to speak
