Here’s the thing: we /did/ grow up in an era of great movies. Star Wars, E.T. Indiana Jones, Ghostbusters, Goonies, Back to the Future, Wrath of Khan, Rambo, etc.

The problem is that those are the greatest. There were hundreds of films during that time that weren’t nearly as popular. So what exactly happened? It was a transition point from the bleak, gritty dramas of the seventies, and provided an optimistic escape from every day life.

Of your two possibilities, Trey, only the first is historically accurate. The right creator hasn’t assembled the right story with the right cast. Option 2, that the type of Adventure films of the 80′s are no longer possible … consider that the Indiana Jones and Star Wars films were based upon the storytelling of much older works. All the ingredients are there for another decade of insanely great movies, but they aren’t being brought together. Corporate studios aren’t willing to take those risks any more, and will instead cash in on a “sure thing” like the Hannah Montana movie.

So what can we do? Change it. We’ve got cameras. We’ve got talent. We’ve got stories. Let’s get to work making our own films, bringing that same sense of adventure to the 21st century.

“We got the tools! We got the talent!”
I think it’s possible that both options are true to a certain extent. What the mix between the two would be in that case, I don’t know.
I still believe in Option 1 though, not because I have to or want to, but because “things” seem to support it more.
Of course, there’s a lot of historical “evidence” tied up in that, and though it also makes more sense to me, I’m from that historical time period as well.
What I’m asking is, how well can the lab rat dissect itself?
I suppose the results are either true, or the experiment is too contaminated for analysis. Either it is or it ain’t.
Moving to Option 2, maybe a good way to ascertain how much of it is accurate, is to study how well movies like Indy 4 were received by various age defined demographics.
Anyway, who cares, right?! Because it’s their time. Their time! Up there! Down here, it’s our time. It’s our time down here. That’s all over the second we ride up Troy’s bucket.

Goonies never say die!

This discussion has had me thinking the last few days; and I think that the question isn’t “will there ever be another Indiana Jones?” but rather “should there be another Indiana Jones?”

I’m not saying that Kingdom of the Crystal Skull was a bad movie, I think it was a wonderful movie that complements the series quite well.

Instead, what I’m asking is that are we perhaps focusing on the past a bit too much. Technology has altered how mass media works, but studios and networks are still holding on to their early-20th century business models. I think that the great adventure movies of our youth /can/ be recreated at any time. The barrier is in the method of giving that to people.

Movies and television networks work as a single gatekeeper of entertainment. But it’s being proven each day that niche programming can succeed online. Remember Red vs. Blue? Witness a rise of specialty podcasts (both audio and video) that deliver short, entertaining, products not to millions of broad users, but to thousands of dedicated fans.

I’m thinking that “big summer movies”, the “great adventure stories” that we remember can in fact come back — I’m writing a screenplay now that I’m hoping can capture that same magical sense of awe and wonder — but the landscape of media consumers is changing.

We are, in fact, in the early years of a new frontier of media production. The days of pleading with a network or a studio to give us money to tell a story and send it to theaters, or transmit over the air, is coming to an end. Maybe not this year, maybe not in five years, but it’s changing. Digital distribution is cheaper, and we can capitalize on this medium. We can get a start now, and be established with it finally matures. Its like the early days of film all over again … we can be the Cecil B. Demille’s, the Alfred Hitchcocks, the Steven Spielberg’s of the next generation. All we have to do is try.

That’s exactly what’s been running through my mind as well!
I wonder if we’re venturing back into the golden age of serials and limited release short-from entertainment. Maybe swashbuckling science and two-fisted technology are notions being revisited in the real world. And perhaps, this is yielding a fast-n’-loose approach to current production values and medium.
In other words, we’re trading in a highly polished art form for an unprocessed one that radiates raw energy. A kind of uncapped creative volativity.
Of course, we build on our past, so we are carrying that previous “polish” with us. But, it’s also a salvage operation from the sinking of S.S. Old Rust-Bucket Media. This just means we can’t use it the same way it was in the past.
With our society and culture advancing at exponential rates, I wonder if it will only take half the time it did in the 20th century to reach a pinnacle of technology and technique with the new media. So, instead of 80 or 90 years, it’s only going to take 40 or 30 before the cycle repeats itself with new tech and ideas.
Anyway, long story short, I totally agree with everything you wrote, Ryan. Especially, the idea of having a small, dedicated audience. The sheer logistics of wading through all the entertainment options the net has the potential to offer can only lead to such a marketing platform.
And at the mention of marketing for new and future media, I will end my post, because that’s another topic entirely.

Whew…