Finite Creativity

I saw an interesting tweet the other day that said (in paraphrase) that Hollywood has run out of original movie ideas. I suppose if you look at titles and themes you might think that. But, then, I subscribe to that school of thought that says there is only a finite pool of story themes to draw from. To me, the differences between the re-makes is in execution, in the re-imagining of the story.


For example, I can think of four different takes on the Snow White fairytale: there’s Disney’s “original” animated feature, many years later, “Snow White: A Tale of Terror” starring Sigourney Weaver in the late 90s and, most recently, “Snow White and the Huntsmen” with Kristen Stewart and Chris Hemsworth, and “Mirror Mirror: The Untold Adventures of Snow White” with Julia Roberts. Check IMDb and you’ll find several other versions. I have to say that the Huntsmen and Mirror Mirror movies – released a few months apart – were vastly different and refreshing for that reason. I wouldn’t even consider them the same story. And to me, they underscore the power of reinvention.

Singers who want to stay relevant in the industry find new faces to show to the public every few years. Think Madonna. So why shouldn’t Hollywood pander to audiences’ love for the tried-and-true by twisting underlying themes? It’s like they give us just enough familiarity to bring a certain level of mental comfort while mixing in a generous serving of whatever’s in style – be that darkness, edge, thrills or modern comedy.

I’m not disenchanted or disillusioned.

But what’s your spin? Any favorite re-makes? Overdone storylines that you don’t want to see on screen ever again?

Personally, I would’ve said no more Batman…until I saw the Dark Knight. Or even the Spiderman franchise until Andrew Garfield showed up as The Amazing Spiderman. I think there’s always room for a better idea.

How about you?

Is it the how or the what?

I was looking at an Interview article about the new fall TV lineup and got totally sidetracked by Terrence Howard, who's bringing star quality to the new Law & Order: Los Angeles. Then I click on an in-story promo in the next column to gaze at Blair Underwood for a minute or two. Seems he's one of the stars in The Event, premiering on NBC this fall.

Oddly enough, the thought that came to mind as I read the two features was not how fine those two male specimens are (okay, maybe for a second), but the concept of versatility.

Have we not seen Terrence and Blair in all types of movies? They've acted in romances, thrillers, fantasy, on TV and on the big screen. What takes them there, I wonder? Is it the mode of transmission or the story they're telling? (Though I have no doubt it's simply been a matter of needing a paycheck on some occasions.) Hollywood has proven that it's not for everyone. Look at Kiefer Sutherland, son of movie-great Donald, who has fared far better on weekly television. Don't you think?

So, as I acknowledge that big isn't for everybody (though it can lead you to the same fulfilling outcome), I turn this idea inward and wonder about my own writing quest. Is publication about the mode of transmission or the story I'm telling?

Tell-tale details

The chances of your character scrawling words across a piece of paper are getting less and less likely. Well, depending on the age of your character and how tuned in you are to that generation's traits.

This year's Beloit College Mindset List says that writing in cursive is one of those things the class of 2014 just doesn't do. (And I can attest to that. While my oldest learned cursive in second grade, both my younger two rolled right through the early grades without it. I'm told it's a less-than-useful skill in these modern days and precious curriculum time can be devoted to some other subject.) But back to our topic.

The references we use as writers to frame setting are often mired in tiny details like planners for work, post-it notes on the fridge, CDs in drive time. But depending on your target reader, they might be accustomed to a life with PDAs, text reminders, and those fancy iPod hookups in the car. Your assumption that you're on the pulse of the times might totally disconnect your reader from the story and compel them to write you off as old-fashioned or not their type of author.

Admittedly, we can't predict every new tide changing times bring. For example, I was reading a Dean Koontz book last year (sorry, can't recall which one), and a single character action snatched me out of the story: There was a doctor in a hospital and he went into the lounge to have a cigarette.

Gasp!

I immediately turned to the front of the book and searched for the copyright. I found that the book had originally been released in 1972 (or thereabouts), which explained why the doctor was lighting up in the hospital. We all know that doesn't happen nowadays. In fact, I know of at least one local hospital that prohibits smoking anywhere on the property. Obviously, smoking was still 1950s cool when Dean penned that manuscript. Who knew that two decades later it would rank right up there with the plague? lol

So, we should -- I think -- do what we can as authors to remain timely, yet timeless, and true to our characters. That takes research, social perception, and a little leeway from readers if we're blessed with Dean's longevity.