Nostalgia As A Selling Point In Film

Nostalgia As A Selling Point In Film

George Lucas, wya?

Nostalgia, one of life's truly incredible feelings that can be so gratifying. Triggered by something that draws you back to a better, simpler time in your life. Film, in modern society, is one of the major vessels in which nostalgia is delivered to the masses. No bigger series of films is known for this than Star Wars. The original three were a cultural phenomenon that fully impacted and altered the entertainment industry for the next 40 or so years.

I mean an incredible artistic collaboration that is a unique take on the hero’s journey that was fun and inspiring for every age, which no doubt was created with some ambitions for monetary gain, but on a base level was a passionately done product of truly magical inspiration. Some sixteen years later, the next three were, from an artistic standpoint, an absolute and utter failure. Why?

Why take this beloved film series and completely half-ass it? I mean the story being bad is one thing, but the characters are awful.

The answer is nostalgia, well, more so the exploitation of it in the name of collecting your money. Film is an incredible medium where writers, actors, directors, photographers, and many other artists come together to showcase their incredible abilities in beautiful new ways. Now there are many ways in which to bastardize the medium for selfish fiscal reasons. Nostalgia is time and time again the most effective tactic used by production companies to coax us out of our money.

Indiana Jones, for example, is another George Lucas collaboration. It is also another franchise whose overall quality has diminished and the lazy sequel was a sadder piss-poor copy of the original films. These reboots of classic films are just awful toss out ideas to help these major film companies make a quick, easy, thoughtless win. No true risks are being taken on young or unique artists who have new innovative takes on the classic genres of film.

More importantly, it's an insidious ploy to trick bored, overstimulated people who need something comforting just to get them through the week. If you’re going to exploit people’s love for nostalgic comforts, do it the right way: be exciting and make an interesting new take on it.

The most recent Star Wars film is a good example of this, or even better, is the Netflix series "Stranger Things." The series fully immerses the viewer in nostalgia and brings you back to that original feeling where it really feels like you're watching something truly unique. "Stranger Things" is a fantastic example of old art being used in new art. It isn’t insulting to anyone's intelligence watching the show. It keeps the original idea alive by being original in its own right.

Two years ago, "The Force Awakens" did an incredible job of not absolutely destroying the original love we all had for the first three films. Let's hope for this Christmas season, it doesn't pan out to be a massive monetary success and an emotional disaster. I bought my tickets the minute they went on sale. I mean the only reason I’m this angry about it is that they get me every time.

Cover Image Credit: That Moment In

Popular Right Now

Why YouTube's New Regulations Discriminate Against Small Channels

No 1,000 subscribers? No money.

On January 16th, YouTube made changes to its Partner Program. These changes pertain to the threshold for monetization. Originally, content creators were eligible for monetization if they had 10,000 or more lifetime views, that is, 10,000 public views.

Now, creators will be required to have 4,000 hours of watch time from the past twelve months, as well as at least 1,000 subscribers. If a content creator does not meet these criteria, they will be unable to monetize their videos.

In a blog post, YouTube announced that this change in monetization regulations is being put in place in order to "prevent bad actors from harming the inspiring and original creators around the world who make their living on YouTube". YouTube also claims that they have arrived at the decision to create these new regulations after "conversations with creators". However, the online response by creators towards YouTube's new policies have been almost entirely negative, with many people saying that it would be better to simply punish the channels that are misusing the platform instead of punishing the platform as a whole.

YouTube themselves have stated in the previously mentioned blog post that these changes will effect a significant number of platform users, but have tried to write this off by explaining that 99% of the effected users are making less than $100 a year on YouTube. However, this really isn't a fair excuse.

Yes, $100 is not a lot of money, but think about it this way. This is money that these creators could be using to improve their videos and grow their channels. Now, however, they no longer will be earning the money to do so.

If YouTube wanted to gain more users and dedicated viewers, it is more likely that they would of implemented a different policy, perhaps one that makes stricter guidelines for content. By making it harder for small channels to monetize their views, YouTube appears to only care about their larger channels, often run by internet celebrities who partner with YouTube's streaming service, YouTube Red, to create or star in feature length films or television shows.

It is worth noting that the majority of the top comments on the YouTube blog post are "sub for sub", that is "subscription for subscription". Most of the people commenting this have also included additions such as "if everyone reading this did a sub for sub we could all get at least 1,000 subscribers".

It's clear that while the new guidelines are definitely a blow to smaller channels, many smaller creators are banding together and supporting each other. Many larger creators have spoke up online, offering smaller creators ways to make money while they build up their subscriber base, such as starting up a Patreon (a membership platform where people can give money to creators and receive small gifts or prizes in return).

If YouTube wants to continue to gain users, they shouldn't make changes to the platform that penalize smaller users. Yes, the bigger users bring in the money for YouTube, but in order to continue to grow as a platform, they need to appeal to new users, and encourage smaller channels to keep creating.

Cover Image Credit: pixabay

Related Content

Connect with a generation
of new voices.

We are students, thinkers, influencers, and communities sharing our ideas with the world. Join our platform to create and discover content that actually matters to you.

Learn more Start Creating

'Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles' Is A Hidden Gem Of The 90s

The first film based on our favorite pizza-eating dudes is a lot deeper than you'd think.

Like many, I have been a fan of the Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles franchise since I was a young boy. I have fond memories of watching the original cartoon, playing the various video games, playing with the toys and reading the comic books. Also, like many, I have fond memories of the live-action films that were released in the early 1990s.

While looking back on the first three film I noticed that films two and three didn't exactly hold up well. While "Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles II: The Secret of the Ooze" is fun, it's overall a shallow experience. "Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles III" was a straight-up bad film with obnoxious writing and characters. However, that wasn't the case when I decided to watch the first film.

"Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles" was released in 1990 and was a really big hit that year. Looking back at the film, I was surprised to find a sizable amount of thematic depth in the film. I know that sounds surprising coming from a movie based on a cartoon that was used to sell toy, but if "The LEGO Movie" has taught me anything it's that even films based on products can have great characters and depth.

The film's theme is primarily that of fatherhood. Through the characters of Splinter (Kevin Clash) and Shredder (James Saito) we see examples of loving fatherhood and exploitative fatherhood. Splinter is portrayed as an old fashioned father who disciplines the turtles, but always shows them that he loves them and would risk his life for their well being.

By contrast, the Shredder is a surrogate father figure to many of the disenfranchised children and teens of New York City. The Shredder uses their adolescent love of games, smoking, and a sense of belonging to lure them into his criminal empire (The Foot) and uses them to commit various street crimes. He he gives these emotionally troubled youths a "family" and in return he receives loyalty from them.

In many ways this is how real world street gangs maintain a sense of loyalty among its members. Most gang members start as children from broken homes and families. These young people find their escape in the gang which becomes a surrogate family to them. In return they pledge loyalty to that "family" and do everything in their power to protect their "family" from those that would harm it, such as police or rival gangs.

We see both of these examples of fatherhood play out in the film. We see Splinter try to reason with one of the members of the Foot and tells him the story of his origin. This act of kindness and the desire to understand the boy results in the boy helping our heroes in the final fight. We also witness Splinter putting his own life at risk to protect his sons, both when he is being interrogated by Shredder and during the final battle.

Shredder, on the other hand, cares only for his criminal empire and his desire to wipe out his enemies. He may seem like a "cool dad" who brings you games and totally "gets" you, but he eventually reveals that he wasn't all that great and wasn't the type of father you needed. This is punctuated by the boy beginning to fear him when Shredder discovers that he's been talking to the imprisoned Splinter behind his back, and when Shredder's henchman takes out his frustration on one of the Foot ninjas and doesn't seem to care.

The films is good for many other reasons as well. The characters are likable and the costumes are great examples of practical effects work. The fight scenes are really well done and impressive, especially when you remember that actors in hot and bulky costumes had to perform them. The film also has a well-realized gritty aesthetic that reminds viewers of the original comic Ninja Turtles and give New York City this realistic, lived-in feel.

While the film's dialog isn't that great, and the pacing and cinematography are nothing to write home about; it is still a well made children's film that may go a bit deeper than you realize. If you are a fan of the franchise or you have children who are curious about the things their parents loved as kids, then I recommend you give it a watch. It's certainly better than most of the Ninja Turtles films you see nowadays (wow, do I feel old saying that)!

Cover Image Credit: YouTube

Related Content

Facebook Comments