# Overused plotlines in cinema



## Foxbat (Aug 25, 2013)

One of my pet hates in cinema today is the vastly overused 'teacher inspires student scenario'. The sheer number of times this had been done amazes me.

Just a few examples:

Knight Of The South Bronx
Dangerous Minds
Karate Kid
Educating Rita
Blackboard Jungle
Lean On Me
Dead Poets Society
The Emperor's Club
Coach Carter
Freedom Writers
Stand And Deliver
The Class

I could go on (and on and on) but, here's my point - how many of these kinds of films do we actually need? Granted most have differing methods of execution(karate, writing, football, chess, poetry, calculus) but, essentially, they are the same thing repeated over and over again. 

When you think about other film genres, you find, on close inspection, essentially the same scenes repeated over and over (just think about how many times you think it's over in a horror flick only for a hand to come up and grab the hero/heroine, or somebody you thought was dead gets up, or the hero/heroine wakes up to find he's been dreaming but then wakes up again to find the dreaming scene was also a dream etc).

So, is it simply an indication of how difficult it is to come up with something that feels truly original? Or is it just lazy writing?


----------



## quantumtheif (Aug 25, 2013)

Its lazy writing part of the Hollywood corruption. Studios write similar scripts based on what movie sold in the past. Its why Ferris Bueller (do nothing or nerd becoming a unihibited alpha male) is written over and over again.
In Blockbuster films these days the only original stories will be popular books.


----------



## Dave (Aug 25, 2013)

I think the "teacher inspires student" is supposed to be an inspiring concept that warms the cockles of your heart. You would find the same in books and plays. Maybe you have no heart. 

You could add The Miracle Worker, To Sir With Love, Goodbye Mr. Chips, Good Will Hunting.

I like some of your list. Some are very good films. It is overused but only because people like the stories and are inspired by them. It sells at the box office.

There is also the concept where the pupil is not inspired by the teacher much (usually for comedy purposes): Kindergarten Cop, Bad Teacher, School of Rock
edit: Luke Skywalker and Yoda


----------



## Brian G Turner (Aug 25, 2013)

The Mentor is a key storytelling trope, especially in mythic structure. And you've listed quite a few based in schools. 

The entertainment comes from the way conflict and tension can develop in their relationship.

While it may be over-used in some instances, there are some quality films mentioned in this thread.


----------



## Foxbat (Aug 25, 2013)

As far as I'm concerned, conflict can only work as a tool if there is some doubt about the outcome. The vast majority of these have no real conflict because it always comes good in the end. 

I don't find these movies inspiring so, perhaps, I have no heart - or perhaps it's just a case of familiarity breeding contempt (which brings me back to overuse).


----------



## quantumtheif (Aug 25, 2013)

They're a little bit more inspirational when they are based on a true story.


----------



## Sourdust (Aug 25, 2013)

Foxbat said:


> how many of these kinds of films do we actually need?



That's not a question that a commercial producer would ever ask: their only pressing concern is 'Will it sell (again)?' 

The problem with Hollywood (although I know your list contains some indies) is that it entered a steroidal profit-seeking spiral in the 80s. As the budgets got bigger, more eggs were put into fewer baskets, and the studios grew ever more conservative and avaricious, to the point that all new studio films are variations on a handful of templates.

It's perhaps too obvious to mention superheroes, but I consider the superhero-mania of the last ten years something of a plague. No amount of 'rebooting' can disguise the staleness of the basic formula; even the 'ironic' variations such as _Kick Ass_ are tedious in my opinion, although the public appetite shows no sign of waning. 

Even worse is the remake culture: Hollywood is now cannibalising its own back catalogue relentlessly, particularly in the horror genre. Almost without exception the remakes are blander, less sophisticated, and generally redundant. Creativity has to look elsewhere for funding.


----------



## Ursa major (Aug 25, 2013)

Hollywood has always cannibalised its back catalogue. In the past, they had the excuses, "Now with sound!" and "Now in color!".

All they've got now is "Now in 3D!"


(They never seem to claim, "Now with fewer clichés!" "Now with proper acting!" or "Now with a script that makes sense!")


----------



## Sourdust (Aug 25, 2013)

Ursa major said:


> Hollywood has always cannibalised its back catalogue.



True, but the 80s gave us some genuinely innovative remakes such as Carpenter's _The Thing_ (remade _again_ in 2011) and Cronenberg's _The Fly_. The novelty then was particularly gory special effects, which are yet to be bettered by CGI (although _District 9_ did a pretty good job on that score).


----------



## steve12553 (Aug 25, 2013)

Sourdust said:


> True, but the 80s gave us some genuinely innovative remakes such as Carpenter's _The Thing_ (remade _again_ in 2011) and Cronenberg's _The Fly_. The novelty then was particularly gory special effects, which are yet to be bettered by CGI (although _District 9_ did a pretty good job on that score).


 
As much as I appreciated *The Thing from Another World* (1951),* The Thing *(1982) returned to the original story and created a masterpiece in paranoia. This was a rare case of Hollywood adapting a good story twice and doing it well both times. The backstory *The Thing* (2011) was about as useful as *Star Wars Episodes I-III*. (We already knew what was going to happen). Remaking a film is a poor idea, making a better interpretation of an interesting story can work very well.


----------



## Foxbat (Aug 25, 2013)

Ursa major said:


> (They never seem to claim, "Now with fewer clichés!" "Now with proper acting!" or "Now with a script that makes sense!")


 
Made me laugh

Perhaps you have to wear special glasses to see proper acting.



> As much as I appreciated *The Thing from Another World* (1951),* The Thing *(1982) returned to the original story and created a masterpiece in paranoia. This was a rare case of Hollywood adapting a good story twice and doing it well both times. QUOTE]
> 
> I agree. A pity this is an exception rather than the rule.


----------



## Ursa major (Aug 25, 2013)

Before we (me included) get too snooty about Hollywood (or TV), those dramatic arts that think really highly of themselves - theatre and opera - are full of remakes, which go under headings such as reimaginings. (Obviously, live arts must be produced over and over again, as otherwise they'd not be performed at all. But I'm not thinking of those productions.)

Set_ Romeo and Juliet_ on the beaches of Hawaii, with the Montegues and Capulets as surfer gangs, one followers of Stalin, the other of the Nazis, and you'll be hailed as a genius (complaints from the those members of the audience who are "less attuned" to such "genius" notwithstanding). The ego of the producer is here the equivalent of the desire of the studio to bring in loads of cash.

And in opera (and ballet), bringing back an "old production" is tantamount to admitting the producer has no imagination at all.


----------



## Dozmonic (Aug 25, 2013)

You can simplify any story, no matter how complex, in to "stuff happens (or doesn't)". That doesn't mean that no story is worth telling.

The mentor story works. It's a part of every day life. Using it isn't a bad thing. The delivery is an art in and of itself and is a large part of story. Supreme originality only really comes from doing stuff people have never done before, which ultimately means doing largely random things. As with dreams, they would only have meaning to the person who wrote (or dreamt) them. Some people could find parallels that allowed them to enjoy it, but having that level of originality doesn't make such a story better than, say a mentor tale.


----------



## Foxbat (Aug 25, 2013)

I'm not saying the mentor tale doesn't work, it's when you look at the sheer number of times it's been done...and that's not being snooty, it's about realising it's not about art, it's about playing safe, and that gets boring a couple of  dozen times down the line. 

You look at these films and you see the same linear motions, the same step progression, the same set-pieces, the same conflict, the same resolution. It's filming by numbers.

You can dress a turd in a tutu but, at the end of the day, it's still a turd.


----------



## Ursa major (Aug 25, 2013)

Motion in a tutu is ballet.









Sorry; couldn't resist.


----------



## Foxbat (Aug 25, 2013)

Ursa major said:


> Motion in a tutu is ballet.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
Groan


----------



## quantumtheif (Aug 25, 2013)

Foxbat said:


> You look at these films and you see the same linear motions, the same step progression, the same set-pieces, the same conflict, the same resolution. It's filming by numbers.
> 
> You can dress a turd in a tutu but, at the end of the day, it's still a turd.



Very true whether their in space or the old west the story progression and events are the same. Which makes me appreciate the movie *memento*


----------



## soulsinging (Aug 25, 2013)

I think there's a difference between a trope and repeating plotlines. As pointed out, the mentor relationship is a mythological staple. The fact that many movies center around it, to me, says more about our cultural values than a lack of interest in originality.

I'll also note for the record that I think originality is highly overrated... for every Memento there are a dozen movies doing "unique" things that are utterly unwatchable self-indulgent/lsd-fueled nonsense. I'd rather see an engaging take on the mentor story done well than some art-house wank session that is different for the purpose of being different rather than telling a compelling story.

What comes to my mind when I read this topic is something like Taken-Edge of Darkness-Getaway... aka, Liam Neeson scores big with some macho father-taking-vengeance flick and so every studio pumps out a dozen knock offs on the same theme to make a quick buck. It's similar to the music industry where Smells Like Teen Spirit leads to grunge mania and the next thing you know someone gives Gavin Rossdale a recording contract...

A similar thing would be the Transformers, GI Joe, Battleship flicks.... turning 80s nostalgia into generic CGI-driven blockbusters.


----------



## Dave (Aug 25, 2013)

soulsinging said:


> I think there's a difference between a trope and repeating plotlines.


I have to agree with soulsinging. This thread has turned into 'another' Hollywood is so un-original thread - something which I agree with wholeheartedly. However the OP was that the "teacher inspires student" trope was unoriginal, which, as Brian and other have pointed out, is a mythological staple. There are only so many stories to tell, but the mentor one is an inspiring one and will always be so, in whatever manner it is retold.


----------



## Moonbat (Aug 25, 2013)

Not sure if this counts but I've just watched *The Mechanic* with Jason Statham, not a particularly good film, not even that good for a Statham action flick, but it did have the mentor/student plot line.
Statham's mentor is wheelchair bound Donald Sutherland, but Statham is a hitman (what else?) and is then given a job to kill his mentor, he checks it out and is convinced that it is the right thing to do, so he kills him, but then Sutherland's son is taken on by Statham as he teaches him the art of killing, as it unfolds the son finds out Jason killed the father and so tries to kill him but Statham is too clever and foils the plan, surviving and killing the son in the process. As I said, not a great film, and not even a great original plot, but it does try to add some twist to the whole mentor/student story.


----------



## Ursa major (Aug 25, 2013)

And, of course, that film is a remake of an earlier one, starring Charles Bronson and directed by Michael Winner.


I've just looked at the earlier film's Wiki page, which inlcudes this:


> Vincent Canby of _The New York Times_ described _The Mechanic_ as a "solemn, rather spurious action melodrama". Noting the "father son rivalry" between Arthur and Steve and picking up on the "latent homosexual bond" between the two, *Canby* concluded that the film was "non-stop, mostly irrelevant physical spectacle" and *pondered what a different director might have done with the same material.*


my bolding




(I don't recall much about the earlier 1970s film, but I do remember watching it on the TV.)


----------



## Sourdust (Aug 26, 2013)

Dave said:


> There are only so many stories to tell



Yes - plot is only one ingredient in a film, and not necessarily the most important one. Most of the classic genres were based on a handful of plot permutations. What makes individual examples interesting, as with genre fiction, are stylistic choices, variations in the cinematic 'grammar', things such as editing, shot length, production design.

It is also possible, of course, that the sense that Hollywood's output is particularly thin at the moment is an illusion of perspective, but I doubt it. Looking at the US box office top 10 for 2012 (the benchmark of what is made for mass consumption), we find three superhero titles (four if you count James Bond), three YA fantasy adaptations (_Hunger Games, Hobbit, Twilight_), and two animations (three if you count Seth MacFarlane's _Ted_). 

The profile for 2002 is very similar (_Spider-Man, Lord of the Rings, Star Wars Ep. II, Harry Potter_). If we go back another decade to 1992, we also find animations and superheroes (Disney's _Aladdin_; _Batman Returns_), but also two relatively witty comedies (_Sister Act, Wayne's World_), a decent thriller (_Basic Instinct_), and Clint Eastwood's _Unforgiven_ coming in at number 11. 

Maybe the difference isn't that great, but there does seem to be one. Of course, the best of even the commercial stuff is rarely to be found in the top 10: in 1982, _The Thing_ came in at no. 42. Many would hypothesise an _inverse correlation_ between originality and popularity, which is probably generally true, but then things like _Inception_ confound that assumption.


----------

