Sunday Sunrise - Feb 17

[Head Mutant]

Over the past couple years, I've been hearing complaints from critics along the lines of "There's too many zombie movies these days -- that genre is totally played out". Substitute other niche genres for "zombies", such as apocalyptic, CGI animation or superhero flicks.

The question is: can these so-called specialty genres be fully tapped and covered ad nauseum to the point where Hollywood should just say "No More", or are they as unlimited in scope and possibilities as the bigger genres, such as romance or the latest inspirational dance instructor film?

[beedub]

This is one of the fundamental differences between critics and regular movie audiences - the demographic that goes to movies the most (what I call "the mallrat crowd") has a very short memory, and either don't know or don't care about the older classic movies in any given genre. Sadly, this means we get countless remakes, "re-imaginings," and sequels that have little or no originality in them because, hey, the target audience won't know the difference.

That being said, I think it is possible for a genre to get "played out" - if too many of the same kind of movie are released within a smaller window of time, a few years maybe. (Remember all those natural disaster movies that came out in the mid-90s?) As genres move in and out of vogue, there will always be a rising generation unfamiliar with past genre titles, and will embrace whatever new product there is - regardless of whether it's good or not.

[sarahbot]

It depends. Take CGI animation, as you mentioned. It's seen a huge boom lately, which I personally can't stand. I love the look of hand-drawn animation and the history behind it. Furthermore, we seem to be in a period where all you need are some semi-famous actors willing to do two weeks' voice acting, a few pop culture jokes and voila, finished movie. Most of these movies - with the exception of the original Shrek, which I believe started this trend - have terrible animation. It's literally painful to watch. Traditional animation could be done better and cheaper, but that doesn't fit with the bandwagon.

However, as long as Pixar keeps working, computer animation will never ever be played out. Quality wins out.

[Ms. Jellybean]

When it comes to a particular genre being "played out," I think those who make the claims are stating it on personal preference or just movie snobbery. Which is what movie-watching is all about, right? Opinions. But it also goes in cycles, I think. Depending on what happens to be successful or what decade you're talking, different types of movies were exhausted in their own respective time periods.

So with that said, yes, I think some types of movies in this decade are hitting their played out stage. Torture porn, for example. I personally cannot stomach much more than the occasional trailer that I'm unfortunate enough to see, so I am going on the assumption that ultimately these movies are coming up with new and exciting ways to make human beings as miserable as possible. Even with some semblance of a plot, this is a concept that's gotten old very quickly. But then again, I could say that movie musicals are being played out. It seems like there's a new movie musical or two every year, and they're largely hit-or-miss when it comes to translating the music to the screen. But since I consider this higher art than torture porn, I like to say that the genre is just trying to make a solid comeback. That's where the personal preference and snobbery factors in, you see.

[TheOogieBoogieMan]

It depends on the genre. CGI animation, for instance, is a relatively new medium that has so much potential. It's just incidental that most CGI filmmakers choose not to meet that potential and settle for the same-old-same-old.

On the other hand, there's the zombie genre, which has been around for so long that it seems like every possible scenario has been played out.

That said, I don't think a particular genre will ever go extinct. As time goes on, things are going to happen in world politics and whatnot that will make nearly any genre seem relevant again, if only for a short time. Cloverfield took imagery from 9/11 to give the old "monster movie" genre some new depth and dimension. As long as life goes on, art will be able to imitate it in one form or another.

But most of all, I think the problem is just that filmmakers don't seem to be trying very hard. Why should filmmakers care about putting on a little elbow grease and going the extra mile when so many people are willing to gorge themselves on stuff like Date Movie or National Treasure 2?

[tremorsfan89]

Anything can be tapped out if people keep buying the product, but if people keep buying the product is it really tapped out?

Every week when I make my pilgrimage to the local comic shop I make note of what comes out so if somebody gives a certain book a good review or says something cool about it I can always go back and check it out. There are no less than SIX zombie specific books that come out every week. Thats six books in one week. Thats 24 books a month, that all feature zombies. Most of the books don't do anything too different or reletivly new, they just fall into the same catagories as most other zombie properties do.

Now people do buy these comics so the companies supply them. Does this make the zombie comic played out?

I think in terms of story, characters, themes, and just general content yes, the genre is played out. Nothing new is being done or created to differentiate one title from the rest. But people keep buying the comics, so the company will continue to put out more zombie comics.

You think I would be happy with the little 'zombie boom' we've been experiencing here, if only most of the properties didn't suck.

[aargmematey]

I think maybe it might depend on how filmmakers choose to tackle a particular genre. On the one hand they could take a genre and turn it into something new and exciting, or choose an old genre to tell an interesting story. On the other hand they already know they've got an audience so they could just put out some crap slap a label on it and make some bucks.

Sadly I think most of the time filmmakers choose the latter option, but I also think that the former in a way causes the latter. For example, someone takes an old genre and puts an interesting and unique spin on it and it has a great story. And the movie is loved. So then everyone thinks "well, this is clearly the genre to be in right now," and makes a bunch of knock-offs, disregarding the fact that the movie was loved not just because of the genre but also because it actually had a good story (and great characters, and what have you).

So, no. I don't think it's the genre that people get tired of, it is the crappy movies that hop onto the bandwagon for a quick buck. That's my take on it. I hope it was coherent and not too ramble-y. I'm a little tired right now.

[starwenn]

As someone who's seen one of her favorite movie genres (the musical) go through too many cycles to count, I admit that it depends a lot on the quality of the genre.

Musicals are a good example. Look at the late 60s. For every Oscar-winning "Oliver" or fun "Hello, Dolly!" being made, there were three or four lousy, lumbering Broadway adaptations ("Camelot," "Paint Your Wagon"). Coupled with a change in audience music taste the lack of the ability of the people making many big musicals to cope with these changes, and suddenly musicals are considered to be dinosaurs...until the rise of music videos and concept albums make story-telling with music look viable again.

Fast forward to one of the 90s most dependable genres, the Animated Musical. In the 80s, with Disney in flux, "animation" was largely cheap adaptations of favorite characters like Transformers or Care Bears. Don Bluth's three big movies did respectively, ok ("The Secret of Nimh"), very well ("An American Tail,") and good but better on video ("The Land Before Time"). Disney, however, completely revitalized hand-drawn animation with 1989's "The Little Mermaid." Through the mid-90s, everyone between the ages of 2 and 92 had to see the newest release from Disney; "Beauty and the Beast" was nominated for an Academy Award for Best Picture, something that's never happened again.

By the mid-90s, the imitations had begun to roll in. I liked "Anastasia" for the gorgeous, Broadway-worthy music and some fine animation, but even I knew the plot was ridiculous. "Ferngully, The Last Rainforest" had some nice visuals but a heavy-handed environmental message. "The Swan Princess" had lovely numbers, but reeked of Disney imitation, and the awful "Quest For Camelot" and the animated "King and I" were even worse. Disney itself realized it was in a rut and tried to pull out with serious stories ("Pocahantaus," "The Hunchback of Notre Dame"), comic action tales with a few musical numbers ("Mulan," "Hercules,") and semi-musical action ("Tarzan"). It was too much, too late. The damage was done. This coupled with the rise of computer and other forms of animation around the same time, along with the constant stream of animated videos (including Disney's fondness for cloning it's biggest successes into endless sequals), sounded the death knell for the animated musical extravaganza.

[Al]

Disney's Hunchback was a serious story? Which part? When Jason Alexander was cast as the wisecracking gargoyle?

[starwenn]

The part where Frollo was standing in front of a raging fire, more-or-less singing about how he lusts after Esmerelda. You should have seen all the kids in the theater freak out.

[Al]

I guess I'll buy that. I just have real problems when they change the horridly depressing moral of the book (people who are different will always be feared and hated by those around them)into a happy-go-lucky lesson that says the exact opposite thing (people who look different are just the same as you and me!).

[aargmematey]

Except in the Disney movie the moral kind of is "if you are ugly, and the girl has a chance of falling for you or a good looking guy, even though you are the protagonist of the story...she will fall for the good looking guy. Because sometimes you're just too ugly."

That moral is one of the reasons I don't like Hunchback. It's like, in the Little Mermaid they completely changed the ending from the original. Could they not have done that in Hunchback too? If they're not going to keep the original, why hold back from making it actually happy?

Curse you Disney for subversive morals! Just like in "The Fox and the Hound" how the moral is "sometimes you're too different to be friends." And in Bambi it's "Humans suck." (although this Bambi message is better than the book's which is "Humans REALLY suck, and everything you love will die and your father will never really care about you. So kill yourself NOW.")

[Al]

Speaking of the good-looking guy, did you know Phoebus of the novel is a smarmy, lying slimeball who tries to trick Esmeralda into sleeping with him by pretending he loves her? Isn't that just perfect love-interest material? I realize I shouldn't be looking for a faithful adaptation into a kids movie or anything, but Hugo novel is just absolute gold (enormous passages on architecture nonwithstanding) and to see an entire generation of kids grow up thinking that the Disney story has anything to do with the actual source material is almost heartbreaking. Sigh.

[StarOpal]

gunslingeral said:

Speaking of the good-looking guy, did you know Phoebus of the novel is a smarmy, lying slimeball who tries to trick Esmeralda into sleeping with him by pretending he loves her?

You left out him still trying to seduce her after she tells him the story about how she can only find her mother again if she keeps her virginity and that he's already engaged to another woman.

Al, you hit just the thing I had wrong with the Disney Hunchback! We had to read it in sixth grade, so it was still pretty fresh in my mind when Disney's came out. Strangely enough, since Phoebus being an incredible bastard made such a strong impression on me, that was the only part (as far as accuracy goes) that bothered me.

Didn't they also cut out the whole long lost mother storyline? I only saw it once so I can't remember.

[Al]

They had you read that in sixth grade? Abridged, I hope.

I've only seen it once, too, but I'm pretty sure the whole mother thing got cut. There was just so much great stuff already in the novel they could have used and didn't (like Gringiore- he's a poet and a playwright and a unrepentant goofball. What else could you ask for in a narrator?). Arghhh!