4 ms·

In the 1980s, at least, nine of the top ten films were original. Four of those were sequels, but all in recently created franchises. Only one of the top ten was

In the 1980s, at least, nine of the top ten films were original. Four of those were sequels, but all in recently created franchises. Only one of the top ten was adapted from other media. Those original films were: ET, two Star Wars movies, three Indiana Jones movies, Ghostbusters, Beverly Hills Cop, and Back to the Future. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1980s_in_film https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1980s_in_film

WorldMaker 9y ago
ET was a bankable director's hobby project. The two Star Wars movies were still sequels, even if the franchise was new in the 70s. Star Wars wore many of its pulp Hollywood adventure series and World War 2 movie influences on its sleeve. The three Indiana Jones were two bankable directors' hobby project. In turn, they were heavily based on early Hollywood adventure serials and pulp adventure novels. Ghostbusters was bankable comedians' hobby project. Beverly Hills Cop was a "cheap" film in a bankable genre (cop film), that was easy to franchise if successful (which it was, and did). I won't directly harp on BTTF that much, but some combination of all the above applies to it, too. 5 of those 9 all directly involved Spielberg, in one capacity or another, which is another way for Hollywood to avoid risk by betting on the non-riskiest "risk taker" they can find. (Given Lucas' relationship with Spielberg, you can argue that Star Wars also benefited indirectly from Spielberg's "golden touch" in the 80s, bringing the count to 7 of 9.) But looking at the Top 10 isn't particularly fair in any decade. For every ET and Ghostbusters there were six of the seven Police Academy movies and seven James Bond films, for two easy 80s examples.
- leereeves 9y ago
  Are you arguing that bankability explains the originality? That's possible. Perhaps current directors and stars are less bankable? Or perhaps current bankable directors and stars are less original?
  - TheOtherHobbes 9y ago
    There's been a trend in all the mainstream entertainment divisions to avoid risks and maximise profitability. The result is bankable but bland and homogenised "content". There used to be indie scenes in music and movies that would kickstart the careers of the next wave of creators. Ironically, making the tools affordable and accessible has killed that next wave, because success depends as much on access to mainstream distribution and monetisation as it does on creation - and there's far less money available to distribute, promote, and monetise non-mainstream projects than there used to be. Not only is there no money in true indie originality now, there isn't even much chance of exposure.
  - WorldMaker 9y ago
    "Bankability" is a variable in the risk-reward equation, certainly. I think I was more trying to get a point across that most of those probably were perceived to be relatively "low risk" original or not. If you compare apples to apples you could probably find an equal number of relatively bankable directors/stars making mostly original stuff. Guillermo del Toro is a big one in my mind thinking about this decade; Paul Feig and Edgar Wright also come to mind as bankable directors. Between them you can probably point to plenty of original films that might stand toe to toe with ET or Ghostbusters. Don't forget to take off any rose-colored glasses when comparing of course; there's always that nostalgic factor when comparing one's childhood favorites to today's output. If there is a big difference between the Top 10 list in the 80s and the Top 10 list this decade so far might be that audiences rewarded the big experiments in ET and Ghostbusters a bit more fondly at the box office than any equivalents this decade, but mainstream favor is always the hardest part of that risk/reward equation for Hollywood. Not to mention on top of that you have the market shifts of bigger international audiences, smaller domestic theater audiences (shifting to home theater setups), etc. How do you even compare Okja, for instance? (That one is a bankability "hire", too, in that the director proved himself in adaptation and foreign market work.) One of the most original films in the last decade, and who knows what its equivalent box office numbers might be except maybe some formula of a Netflix accountant somewhere?
    - deleted 9y ago
      [deleted]
- emodendroket 9y ago
  Beverly Hills Cop was pioneering, though. I can't think of any action-comedy buddy cops films that predate it (it came out before Lethal Weapon, the other film often cited as the first in the genre).
  - WorldMaker 9y ago
    Sure, but as my point is that pioneering isn't mutually exclusive with "risk averse". Buddy cop films had a long history before it, so adding comedy had some risk, but not as much risk than if there hadn't been as much interest in buddy cop films elsewhere in the 70s and 80s.
    - emodendroket 9y ago
      That's fair enough, but I don't think what people are lamenting is some golden age when studio executives weren't primarily concerned with movies they thought they could make money from.
      - WorldMaker 9y ago
        Sure, but it's that risk/reward pendulum that determines Hollywood's "original" output, and BHC here is a good reminder that what can be perceived to be very original to us the audience can still fit well known genres/forms that Hollywood studios may not perceive to be a risk. It's also maybe an reminder that Hollywood can only bottle that Lightning every so often. "It's a standard buddy cop film, but with Eddie Murphy, so it's the first funny buddy cop film," only really works once.

WorldMaker 9y ago

ET was a bankable director's hobby project. The two Star Wars movies were still sequels, even if the franchise was new in the 70s. Star Wars wore many of its pulp Hollywood adventure series and World War 2 movie influences on its sleeve. The three Indiana Jones were two bankable directors' hobby project. In turn, they were heavily based on early Hollywood adventure serials and pulp adventure novels. Ghostbusters was bankable comedians' hobby project. Beverly Hills Cop was a "cheap" film in a bankable genre (cop film), that was easy to franchise if successful (which it was, and did). I won't directly harp on BTTF that much, but some combination of all the above applies to it, too. 5 of those 9 all directly involved Spielberg, in one capacity or another, which is another way for Hollywood to avoid risk by betting on the non-riskiest "risk taker" they can find. (Given Lucas' relationship with Spielberg, you can argue that Star Wars also benefited indirectly from Spielberg's "golden touch" in the 80s, bringing the count to 7 of 9.) But looking at the Top 10 isn't particularly fair in any decade. For every ET and Ghostbusters there were six of the seven Police Academy movies and seven James Bond films, for two easy 80s examples.

leereeves 9y ago
Are you arguing that bankability explains the originality? That's possible. Perhaps current directors and stars are less bankable? Or perhaps current bankable directors and stars are less original?
- TheOtherHobbes 9y ago
  There's been a trend in all the mainstream entertainment divisions to avoid risks and maximise profitability. The result is bankable but bland and homogenised "content". There used to be indie scenes in music and movies that would kickstart the careers of the next wave of creators. Ironically, making the tools affordable and accessible has killed that next wave, because success depends as much on access to mainstream distribution and monetisation as it does on creation - and there's far less money available to distribute, promote, and monetise non-mainstream projects than there used to be. Not only is there no money in true indie originality now, there isn't even much chance of exposure.
- WorldMaker 9y ago
  "Bankability" is a variable in the risk-reward equation, certainly. I think I was more trying to get a point across that most of those probably were perceived to be relatively "low risk" original or not. If you compare apples to apples you could probably find an equal number of relatively bankable directors/stars making mostly original stuff. Guillermo del Toro is a big one in my mind thinking about this decade; Paul Feig and Edgar Wright also come to mind as bankable directors. Between them you can probably point to plenty of original films that might stand toe to toe with ET or Ghostbusters. Don't forget to take off any rose-colored glasses when comparing of course; there's always that nostalgic factor when comparing one's childhood favorites to today's output. If there is a big difference between the Top 10 list in the 80s and the Top 10 list this decade so far might be that audiences rewarded the big experiments in ET and Ghostbusters a bit more fondly at the box office than any equivalents this decade, but mainstream favor is always the hardest part of that risk/reward equation for Hollywood. Not to mention on top of that you have the market shifts of bigger international audiences, smaller domestic theater audiences (shifting to home theater setups), etc. How do you even compare Okja, for instance? (That one is a bankability "hire", too, in that the director proved himself in adaptation and foreign market work.) One of the most original films in the last decade, and who knows what its equivalent box office numbers might be except maybe some formula of a Netflix accountant somewhere?
  - deleted 9y ago
    [deleted]
emodendroket 9y ago
Beverly Hills Cop was pioneering, though. I can't think of any action-comedy buddy cops films that predate it (it came out before Lethal Weapon, the other film often cited as the first in the genre).
- WorldMaker 9y ago
  Sure, but as my point is that pioneering isn't mutually exclusive with "risk averse". Buddy cop films had a long history before it, so adding comedy had some risk, but not as much risk than if there hadn't been as much interest in buddy cop films elsewhere in the 70s and 80s.
  - emodendroket 9y ago
    That's fair enough, but I don't think what people are lamenting is some golden age when studio executives weren't primarily concerned with movies they thought they could make money from.
    - WorldMaker 9y ago
      Sure, but it's that risk/reward pendulum that determines Hollywood's "original" output, and BHC here is a good reminder that what can be perceived to be very original to us the audience can still fit well known genres/forms that Hollywood studios may not perceive to be a risk. It's also maybe an reminder that Hollywood can only bottle that Lightning every so often. "It's a standard buddy cop film, but with Eddie Murphy, so it's the first funny buddy cop film," only really works once.