Philosophy in movies

[Illuminatus]

Dunno about 6 or 8...but there's definitely a limited amount

[Kain S. Branford]

Well, not all original concepts in literature, theatrics, and film fit in the "needle in a haystack" category. It's just easy to get disillusioned since there are so many carbon copies. Even the most general plots had one point of origin.

But the question with mainstream movies is if the formula was just made to tell a story with possible profound notions to muse over or to get a hose into your wallet. Too much of cinema today falls into the latter, but not that a story that is told has to be riddled with things that make you think about your insignificant life in this vast, endless cosmos.

[Sithdarth]

See we live in a society were one of the biggest event is a Sports game that is in one wor violent. I'd have to say at least 80% of Americans could care less about characters talking. They want to see blood, guts, and CGI. As such movies with no deeper meaning the images can make a crap load of money. Personally some times that's all I want in a movie. If I wanted depth I'd go read a good book.

[Archbio]

I love movies with depth. If I wanted to see senseless motion I'd close my eyes and imagine something. And once there's depth in the plot or characters or anything, it's unavoidable that some philosophy slips in.

So as such I don't think philosophy in movies is a new thing (if you don't judge what kind of philosophy it is), and the original Matrix doesn't count as highly philosophical in any sense. I felt all they did was put some Socrates/Plato quote while the movie itself actually asked the question: "Does the One knows to kung-fu or what?"

[Thaumaturge]

On the matter of originality, did you know that the idea that a story plot must be original is fairly recent? The ancient Greeks re-worked the same stories many times, and seem to have been quite happy with this.

As to philosophy, some movies do include some overt philosophy, usually in the form of allegory. Most philosophy in movies (or any media), however, is not directly intended. Instead it comes from applicability. That is, the audience reads philosophy in it by applying the events in the movies.

One example of this is the Lord of the Rings (the books; I'm not commenting on the movies). Many have suggested that the story is an allegory for the second world war. Tolkein refuted this, indicating the changes that would need to be made to bring it in line with this. In fact, from what I can gather, Tolkein disliked allegory in all of it's forms. On the other hand, many people will be able to find applicability of many kinds within the Lord of the Rings.

[Martyr]

It's because philosophy is inherent in story telling. There never was a great story that was about nothing. Every story has an obvious side and then a non-obvious side. There's no use to an author is he has no opinions and doesn't add in those philosophical morals and underlying themes into his work.
I mean, all books are analyzed deeply because all authors have something to say. Sometimes it's religious, sometimes it's political, sometimes it's revolutionary, and a lot of time you're also reading a comedy about a blue giant and his strife over a human girl who cannot love him... And how he rampages on and destroys nations with his horrible face that has, by now, been so covered with zits that one cannot distinguish an eye from a blackhead.

Obviously, such philosophy will take place in movies too. Especially in our time because so many people watch movies instead of read books. Because the audience has turned to this new and more exciting method of storytelline, the stories in a screenplay must now include thise philosophical (Or what have you) aspects.
In fact, most written work that does not have a deeper meaning, or, at least, that does not have a conceivable deeper meaning, is considered garbage and is never released. I'd bet that even some garbage movie like Hellboy might have some deeper theme that could possibly be very interesting. (Yeah, yeah... So you don't think it's garbage. It's just me, okay)

Also, there are lots of theories on what the mimited types of stories are. The most popular theory is that there are 35. I don't have a link ready, so I'll go find out exactly what the name is (Because it's actually in a book. A book that I should have, but lent out and never received it back). And it fleshes out every type of story you can make a catagory for. From revenge to romance and all the subcatagories for them.

Somebody else said that there are only two types. Fiction and Non-Fiction.

And I believe that though there are a finite number of catagories to place a story under (If you really must make catagories), there are still an infinite amount of stories that can be created.

[Thaumaturge]

From what I have gathered (I seem to recall that it was a book about Tolkein's work), Tolkein did not consciously any philosophy into the Lord of the Rings. Certainly an author's (or screenwriter's) philosophies will affect the course of the story at a lower level. If you are looking at this level, then every art-form contains philosophy.

[Kain S. Branford]

There's no real difference between personal idealism and philosophy as far as I'm concerned. I agree with Thaumatage since my own ideals and notions influence the course of my works.

Another issue is the depth of the philosophical messages in each work. The point that sometimes the issue is only what one sees has already been made. One might interpret the entire Lord of the Rings trilogy to signify at the least that good men should act in the face of evil as quickly as possible or else no one ever will. Now of course such fantasy concepts use devices such as fate to further engineer this, but would it really hold true? Should man always fight an evil when one seems to appear because evil always tends to have absolute victories?

Now as far as Hellboy goes... sure there's philosophy! Actually it's more like a moral that says if you have one freakishly oversized hand, you'll be spending a lot of time by yourself. Or vice-versa.

[Illuminatus]

Originally Posted by Sithdarth

If I wanted depth I'd go read a good book.

My sentiments exactly.

[Lockeownzj00]

That is such a flawed statements. What the hell? Since when are movies only good for action? "If I wanted depth I'd go read a good book?" First of all, this implies:

a) that books are inherently deep and philosphical
b) that all movies are action movies.

While SithDarth and Ih8stupidppl obviously do not think this literally, they seem to think along these lines. This makes no sense. Why would you want movies to not have depth? I'm all for mindless romps--I love em--and action movies are good too. You don't even have to like in-depth movies--but they exist. There are tons of em. Just because 12 year olds like I, Robot more than Adaptation means nothing. Apparently you were trying to make some sort of 'definitive, end-all' statement, but you can't when it's as flawed as that.

False depth, like any of the sequel matrix movies, I agree, is bad. They just weren't good movies, so they tried to infuse philosophy in them to make them good.

Look--philosophy has no place in...say, James Bond. Depth is important for a movie to be good most of the time anyway, so I still don't see why you wouldn't want it. Prefer books? K. Prefer movies? K. But rather than just say "i'd take a book over a movie anyday," or "today's mainstream movies are pretty bad," you basically punched every film maker out there in the stomach--especially the independent ones.