I have a similar but not quite the same complaint about how everything today is deconstructed. Deconstructed Fairy Tales, Super Heroes etc. etc. Sometimes a classic story is a classic for a reason. Please just tell us stories sometimes. I feel bad for kids who grew up on Shrek et al. They know the parodies of the fairy tales more than the stories themselves.
I think writers may have finally realized that innocent naïfs are not particularly interesting people, and are rarely the most popular characters in their own stories.
So you’re assuming, like my fifth grader, that if a book’s any good it’ll be made into a movie? And any book that hasn’t doesn’t count?
But I’m glad you made this comment, because I was about to bring up the adventure novels of Hammond Innes and how I just found audio versions of a dozen or so of his classic “inexperienced but honorable good guy caught up in conflict and has to take sides and grow up fast” books.
But now I don’t have to, because they were never made into movies.
And in any case, I don’t quite see how you could use the novels of Hammond Innes, who died in 1998, as counterexamples to the claim that “they don’t really make” such stories “anymore” (emphasis added). Innes’s last published book came out nearly thirty years ago.
This generation has action/hero reality shows. Why would they be drawn to fiction on the subject? Modern mountaineers have camera crews, and divers all have go pros. We are awash in the actual sight of people really doing those things, and biopics of their lives are very popular.
The Alpinist, Free Solo, and 14 Peaks are all stunning for a few. Then there’s Survivor, Alone, The Great Race, I mean, who needs fiction?
I’m assuming that most people are at least someone familiar with most popular movies and television series so they can be discussed, and there are so many books published that I’m sure one can find a lot that qualify for anything.
Also Hammond Innes died like 30 years ago and most of his books were written in the 50s. So I’m not sure how you think that invalidates my theory?
You get a few more ensemble films nowadays where the hero’s journey is more shared: the second-generation Jumanji movies are generally good fun and do this well, hte recent Dungeons and Dragons movie (which deserved more box office love than it got) was a good found family/adventure romp, and I suppose in the Marvel catalogue GotG, Marvels and even Avengers qualify.
Adventure movies like “African Queen”, “King Solomons Mines”, “Treasure of the Sierra Madre”, were leaps into the unknown for the audience as well as the characters. Doesn’t work anymore. Kate and Alnut would use Google Earth to navigate the swamp, Quartermain would be arrested for poaching and the miners would have to worry about cartels instead of bandits and federals.
I think Brin does a good job of explaining why the original Star Wars movies are great and while the prequels and sequel trilogies, not so much.
Every story doesn’t have to be a cynical deconstructed social commentary that gives equal weight to both sides of the story. There is room in the Star Wars universe for both Luke Skywalker on his hero’s journey from farm boy to space wizard and everyman Cassian Andor trying to navigate the political complex and often morally ambiguous Galaxy.
Didn’t Disney more or less remake “African Queen” as “Jungle Cruise” with The Rock and Emily Blunt?
I think it failed for many of the reasons you described. It was targeted towards audiences used to Googling stuff or seeing a documentary on the subject. So instead of quiet stretches of coasting along the river developing the characters and their relationship, with intermediate bits of action to drive the plot, you have few minutes in the boat with a few clever quips and character tropes between each big budget CGI spectacle to obtain the next Mcguffin.
So what happens at the end of the film is that nothing feels “earned” beyond a sort of videogame-esq sense of completing some levels and defeating a few bosses.