web counter
 

Will Inception Change the Way Movies Are Made? Don't Be So Naïve

By Dustin Rowles | Posted Under Box Office Round-Ups | Comments (33)

orr_jul13_inception_post.jpg

Christopher Nolan’s Inception scored $60 million on its opening frame over the weekend, easily good for the number one spot, beating out Despicable Me and it’s $32 million second weekend (giving it a $118 million cumulative). You notice anything strange about the top two films of the weekend? They’re both original properties. That’s not something we’ve been able to say for a while in the box-office round-up. And sadly, it’s destined to give us all false hope.

Why? Because people — media pundits and movie bloggers — will probably start in with their, “Has Inception changed the way we make movies” pieces anytime now. I haven’t checked around this weekend, but chances are, it’s already started. We saw the same thing, obviously, after Avatar and after The Dark Knight. What did we get? A lot more 3D movies, a lot more comic-book movies and (thanks to Batman Begins), a lot more reboots. Studios heads didn’t take away from those experiences the originality of those movies; they extracted from them the easiest possible marketing advantage they could find, which was to charge higher ticket prices, adapt a whole lot of comic books and graphic novels, and reboot flailing franchises.

Maybe the success of Inception will be different. Maybe studio heads won’t begin searching in vain for all the movies based around dreams. Maybe they’ll take away from Inception the idea that an original concept can make money. Because whether you liked Inception or not (and I’m guessing it’s about 80/20 in favor of Inception), it has to be given credit at least for being new. For being one of the most thought-provoking $150 million movies ever made. And for being challenging.

And not to take anything away from Nolan — he’s been as consistently excellent as any director over the last decade — but there are other visionaries out there. There are other great scripts floating around. And there are probably a lot of great directors who want to direct them who haven’t been given the chance. If anything, let’s hope that the studios seek them out now. Maybe brilliant directors won’t first have to direct a franchise before they can make the movies they want to make. Because maybe, just maybe, it’s the non-franchise movies that we’re more eager to see.

But I wouldn’t get your hopes up too high. Studios are still run by marketing people, and marketing people didn’t have a clue what to do with Inception and if people start ignoring trailers and pre-publicity write-ups, then a lot of marketing people are going to be out of jobs. There was a ton of hype for Inception, but no one paid any attention to it. I don’t know how many people I’ve heard tell me that they didn’t watch trailers or read anything about Inception before they went in. That’s amazing. And I haven’t checked the stats yet, but I’m guessing that Dan’s review was probably read much more on Saturday and Sunday than it was on Friday afternoon, before people had been given a chance to watch Inception. That’s outstanding. Really, really outstanding. For one week out of the year, the good guys won, goddamnit. And that feels great.

But please, I beg of you, do not mention the prospect of a Inception sequel. That would be the most deflating scenario I could imagine. And I don’t think Nolan would do it. But what Inception does show is that he won’t have to make a Batman movie every three years to support his other movies; those other movies will support themselves.

Meanwhile, The Sorcerer’s Apprentice, which was based on a Mickey Mouse short, managed only $24 million over five days. Ha fucking ha! Suck it, unoriginal ideas (and we’ll just ignore the fact that number four — Twilight: Eclipse — and number five (Toy Story 3) — are the fourth and first highest grossing films of the year, so far, respectively. Goddamn sequels.









Each Time You Like, Share, Tweet or Stumble a Pajiba Post, An Angel Does the Paul Rudd Dance

← Book Review: "Bizarre Diseases of the Mind" by Richard Noll | Gatchaman Trailer | Battling Seizure Robots →









Comments

**Twilight: Eclipse

What? I'm a horrible person, nothing I don't know.

Posted by: Zerath at July 18, 2010 7:18 PM

My problem was the trailers and such weren't compelling to me. I didn't mind the hype per se, it was just all blankness to me. "Is this movie about something?". I like to have an idea that I'm going to enjoy something or not, and they just didn't give me any feelings of enjoyment, so I just stayed off to the side.

Posted by: Jay at July 18, 2010 7:29 PM

Yes, Inception will change the way movies are made. From now on, all movies will be pointless and stupid and have no characters you care about.

Posted by: Case at July 18, 2010 7:32 PM

I actually have a lot of friends who got pulled into Inception by the ads for it. I follow guys like you and knew about the hype for it way before most of them, but they definitely got sucked in through the hype. It only seemed to intensify once it went more public. Pretty nifty, I think.

Posted by: Ken Hart at July 18, 2010 7:41 PM

I read on a blog that they are going to reboot Inception next year ... in THREE D! They're going to call it Inception: Titanic, or IT for short. I can see the ads now - "Make sure you see IT! IT will be the best movie of the year!"

It sends shivers down my spine.

Posted by: Darcy at July 18, 2010 8:05 PM

Inception won't change a fucking thing and you can rest assured that we'll have Will Smith's annoying, talentless, scientospawn crammed down our throats for the next 10 years, or until we choke, whichever comes first.

If I wasn't a strict, passively practicing Christian, I would kill myself.

Posted by: BarbadoSlim at July 18, 2010 8:10 PM

Yeah, as soon as I heard Nolan had a new film coming out, i was sold. I only watched the original teaser and spent the remainder of the time prior to the film's release in "Inception blackout" mode. I was pissing off my gf by turning the channel or closing the laptop. Nolan is one of the only directors who actually reveal anything during their films, as opposed to the trailers laying out a blueprint for the emotional cues. He's just a filmmaker that i trust, which is very rare. Him and PTA.

Posted by: adam at July 18, 2010 8:44 PM

Inception makes me sigh happily. And then think really hard. And then frown because it won't change anything. And then sigh again and lean back and accidentally bang my head against the wall. And then shout, "OW!" and startle my roommate.

Posted by: esme at July 18, 2010 8:55 PM

The only way Inception will affect movies is in reminding movie studios that 3D is not necessary for every damn movie.

If it can stop the trend of upconverting movies, I'll be happy.

Posted by: Fredo at July 18, 2010 8:59 PM

One of the most apt reviews of Inception that I read stated that we have now gone into an era where movies can no longer be great, they can only be awesome.

I just thought I would share that. And say that Inception was really awesome. but maybe not great.

Posted by: buttercup at July 18, 2010 9:06 PM

I think Coraline is one of the only films to do 3D correctly, Che. It creates a lot of depth and wonder. As Coraline's world expands, so do the images, drawing you into the world.

Posted by: adam at July 18, 2010 10:29 PM

3D to me fits in with where video games were a few years ago, that is that people assume that because they can't think of any use for the medium then there must not be one. Give 10 years for the technology to mature and people to spend some time figuring out how to taking advantage of it in a useful way and produce something meaningful.
And for those who think that video games still can't be art I encourage you to check out this video of a game in production by Giant Sparrow.

Posted by: Chugga at July 18, 2010 11:32 PM

I agree with Adam. Coraline is the only movie I've seen in 3D that made sense that way. Everything else was, "Look! It's coming out of the screen! Wacky!"
Coraline was true stop motion with the old-school theatrical wing and flat style layers. It's 2D made to look 3D which made it amazing. Everything else? My brain can interpret without your $4 glasses, thank you.

Posted by: grendel at July 18, 2010 11:39 PM

grendel just stole my only argument for 3d. Coraline used it so it wasn't obtrusive, but it did add something to the experience. And I'm still waiting for that to happen again.

Posted by: Anne (in Reno) at July 19, 2010 1:43 AM

oops, Adam and grendel.

Posted by: Anne (in Reno) at July 19, 2010 1:44 AM

@Che:

How to Train Your Dragon, but not for the whole movie. I thought the flying sensation was really well done using 3D.

Posted by: Mick J at July 19, 2010 2:08 AM

How perfectly this post sums up my feelings this weekend. I saw Inception this weekend in Chicago, all whilst dodging detours on the way to the theatre. Why? Because Michael Fucking Bay was filming a section of Transformers 3 on a very busy street all weekend, about four blocks away from the movie theatre. A hackneyed movie being filmed as I went to see possibly the best moving of the year so far... it was a strange weekend.


PS: The area in which they filmed was also above lower Wacker drive, where the great chase scenes from both the Blues Brothers and The Dark Knight were filmed. It was almost sad.

Posted by: Alicia at July 19, 2010 2:10 AM

@Barbadoslim - whoa, Whoa, WHOA! No need to be dissing Will Smith. Will Smith is the man. He just...picks bad projects. A lot.

Posted by: Littlejon2001 at July 19, 2010 3:46 AM

i was actually waiting for the blogs to read "OMG Inception is sooooo original!!1!!@3@#$"

i really liked the movie but the ideas aren't anything we haven't seen before: the cell, the matrix, countless star trek episodes where an entire lifetime is lived out by the characters in their mind/alternate reality/future and then they go back to square one, also countless star trek episodes where reality is played out in the subconscious.

obviously the story itself is new, but the science fiction elements have been done before.

Posted by: Sinnh at July 19, 2010 8:36 AM

Yes, Inception will change the way movies are made. From now on, all movies will be pointless and stupid and have no characters you care about.

*looks at ad for Grown Ups*

How is that "a change" precisely?

By the way, nice thoughtful review there. I know you want to be the resident asshat, but we have many fine candidates. Keep plugging away. though!

obviously the story itself is new, but the science fiction elements have been done before.

Ugh. You really had to do it, huh? You had to state the most blatantly obvious sentence in the history of film....no, of storytelling itself. So goddamn obvious THE FREAKING BIBLE says it. Good for you.


...Look, I am sorry for any offence. I really am. But I am sick and tired of somebody, always, ALWAYS crushing a nice buzz by saying inane crap. And that is one of the most inane, trite, downright insulting supposed "thoughts" ever crafted. Again, I don't mean to slam you personally, just this ridiculous tendency for people in general to say that crap. Which is ironic, since by saying it, you are in fact recycling something already said instead of saying something "original".

It is like playing with Lego bricks for me. Yeah, I know what the individual pieces look like. But I would rather focus on what was built from them, than whether or not each and every piece was recycled from another set.

Posted by: Vermillion at July 19, 2010 9:22 AM

I seem to recall them saying the same thing after that motion-capture/animated version of Beowulf came out. And what did that change, exactly?

@Che, I also enjoy 3D used sparingly. I will agree with those who pointed out Coraline as an instance of well-done 3D that did actually enhance the viewing experience, and I enjoyed its use in My Bloody Valentine 3D, though that was largely for the nostalgia/camp value. But for the most part, I do find it a pointless waste of money. For instance, would I pay to see Grown Ups in 3D? (OK, maybe that's a bad example, as I wouldn't pay to see it in the first place, but you take my meaning.) There are places where it is just unwarranted, unnecessary, and useless, and I for one will refuse to pay that surcharge for something like that. If that means I see even fewer movies at the theater, then so be it.

Posted by: Anna von Beaverdouche at July 19, 2010 9:30 AM

Really, I'm hoping for a What Dreams May Come reboot. Only, this time, there will be vampires, it will be in 3D, and Cuba Gooding, Jr. will guide - oh, I don't know - Zac Efron through the afterlife... or is it only a dream?!?!?!?!?

Also, can we get some robots in there? Thanks.

Posted by: myjetski at July 19, 2010 9:55 AM

Sadly I won't be able to see inception until the weekend. However, the estrogenocracy that runs my household will be away starting Friday so I do not expect to see the outside of my local theater excepting to drive home and sleep. I will not see Toy Story 3D though.

Posted by: admin at July 19, 2010 10:04 AM

Buttercup that review over on movieline was quite frankly bullsh**. Avatar was simply "awesome" while Inception was both "awesome" and "great filmmaking." Anytime I see negative reviews for inception I automatically put the reviewer in the same category as an Armond White, being the whiny "it wasn't good enough" reviewer just because everyone else loved it.

Posted by: aroorda at July 19, 2010 10:23 AM

Vermillion: i was just reacting to the article gushing over the movie being so original. in keeping with your analogy, yes, the same tired legos were used to build something new, but don't forget those legos have been around for ages. i just think it's a diservice to all the science fiction that has come before to say "oooh wow we've never seen this done before." original, remake, or reboot, it's all been done before. maybe to you that's an inane statement, or even one that's been hashed out to no end, but this article doesn't seem to know that.

Posted by: Sinnh at July 19, 2010 10:42 AM

I hear Transformers 3 will have Incepticons that invade the dreams of Hollywood producers to plant ideas to ruin films for humanity forever. It will be revealed that Incepticons are responsible for rebooting Car 54, Where Are You?; Jar-Jar Binks; Indiana Jones 4; and the post-70's work of Francis Ford Coppola.

Posted by: myjetski at July 19, 2010 11:39 AM

I can see both Sinnh's and Verm's points and don't see any reason why they can't both have merit. My point being that yes, these are not new ideas, while at the same time they are being presented in a new exciting and innovative way.

Posted by: BarbadoSlim at July 19, 2010 12:04 PM

BarbadoSlim : your viewpoint is pretty much what i was trying to convey. i loved the movie, can't wait to see it again, and (but?) the whole time i was thinking "wow this is a really neat twist on a familiar theme." the scene with leo and page during the "teaching" moment, the hallway scene, the kicks during the different layers, the gut-wrenching ending, all had me squeeling with glee, which i thought would no longer be possible this summer.

Posted by: Sinnh at July 19, 2010 12:24 PM

i gotta say also, the ending got a noticeable reaction from a packed house when i went to see it. i kinda hate it when people clap at the end or something, but it was very neat to know that everyone was on the edge of their seat at that moment.

Posted by: Sinnh at July 19, 2010 12:30 PM

Don't dismiss the problem of marketing. I've gone to see every Christopher Nolan movie that was ever in the theatre near me, but not consciously until the Dark Knight. Memento because it the only movie starting then, the Prestige because it was the only thing that weekend that wasn't a kiddie movie or romantic comedy. Batman Begins because it was Batman. Now that I know I like his movies I was excited for Inception, but otherwise I would have been utterly confused by the trailers and ads. Kind of like the Matrix which had terrible and confusing ads that annoyed me until I was dragged by a friend. This was reflected by the Inception showing I went to being nearly empty on opening night at 7pm. What could this movie have been had people actually heard about it properly?

Also, why are you hating on the Sorcerer's Apprentice? It looks terrible, but that has nothing to do with it's origins. The first Pirates of the Carribean was pretty good considering it was based on a tame boat ride.

Posted by: Whitney at July 19, 2010 1:44 PM

Somebody is learning HTML.
Somebody already learned HTML.

Posted by: superasente at July 19, 2010 8:13 PM

When sequels are of such incredible quality as Toy Story 3, I don't see the problem!

Posted by: Jeremy at July 20, 2010 12:56 AM

Aw Case don't get butt-hurt over the fact you didn't understand the movie.

Posted by: superpooper at July 20, 2010 2:42 AM