daver@felix.UUCP (Dave Richards) (03/05/86)
In article <1406@decwrl.DEC.COM> version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site felix.UUCP felix!oliveb!glacier!decwrl!dec-rhea!dec-ecad!williams williams@ecad.DEC (Round up the usual suspects...) writes: >>In article <> daver@felix.UUCP (Dave Richards) writes: >>>So name a movie made in the last twenty years that has had "new or novel ideas" >>>in it. (and describe which part you consider new or novel) >>>David Siskel Ebert Richards, III >> >>How about '2001: A Space Odyssey'. This movie was many, many, many years >>ahead of its time in special effects (as space movies go). The scenes with > etc. >Correct me if I'm wrong but what I believe the original writer is saying >in his challenge is that there is no such thing as an original idea, only >new presentations of old ideas. In other words, any "new" story idea can be >broken down into its elements and traced back to other story ideas. The >only thing a filmmaker can hope for is a "novel" approach to that idea. > >Look at "Star Wars" for example. Nothing new there in basic plot elements, >it's just good vs. evil. What makes it different is its presentation. It >convincingly takes you to faraway worlds and introduces you to strange >characters. It all comes down to how the characters and events are portrayed >and that's where the originality lies. > >Skip Williams Right on the mark, Skip. What I was trying to show (by sarcasm) is that a criticism of a film because it contained no "new or novel ideas", is not valid in my opinion. I certainly support a person's right to say that a film is not entertaining to them, because to me that's the important thing: entertainment value. I thought about both films mentioned above before I posted my challenge. The person who suggested "2001" mentioned the great effects, but he did not address the "new or novel idea" aspect. And Star Wars had all the plot of a shoot-em-up western, and we all know what a miserable flop that was! Heh, heh. Dave