Where does one start? How about each of these movies/TV shows "played it safe?" I saw nothing remarkable, eye-popping or awesome about any of them. I was completely underwhelmed by all of it. ( I have yet to see Hugo, so let's take it off the list for now) I'm finding more and more - both in my career in media and my personal tastes in media - that it's the people who've had a restriction placed on them that rise above and come up with creative, innovative solutions. The successful films have all been lower budgeted , and had a specific point-of-view that appealed to its target. Joss Whedon had a great comment about this when he was interviewed during the Buffy Reunion at the Paley Center. http://youtu.be/AO_1n4-qQMQ Terra Nova was none other than Lost in Space, but in the age of dinosaurs. John Carter wasn't a scifi adventure FANTASY - it was a muddied attempt at IMITATING a Hollywood blockbuster IDEA of a scifi adventure fantasy. I would have loved if they had given the filmmakers only X number of dollars and said, "You must make it for this. Now go write, storyboard and design for this amount. Figure out how to put the entertainment value in it." I think they all would have been far more entertaining, personal, experimental, creative and ultimately rewarding experiences.

John Carter took the notion of "refusal of the call" way too far. He spent at least 2/3 of the movie trying to get off Mars. Who wants to watch a movie where the main character spends most of his time trying to get out of the movie? Hugo did pretty well at the box office, so I don't think having an "old" story hurt that much. I haven't seen it, so I can't speak to the quality of the young actor. I do know there are few child actors who are truly engaging. I'd say Natalie Portman had a gift when she was in The Professional, but then she was terrible in Star Wars. Kids are very dependent on direction. (as an aside, I also thought Samuel L. Jackson was terrible in Star Wars.) I never got the appeal of Luck, but from the few episodes I watched, that had nothing to do with horse racing and everything to do with characters. Luck seemed to get a lot of traction on Twitter and that's skews towards a younger demographic. Boardwalk Empire seems to be big on Twitter, too, but I don't get that show either. I will admit the characters on Boardwalk are far more engaging than the characters on Luck.

The industry can safely assume audiences aren't going for some traditional qualities, they simply want the purest form of entertainment (i'd risk "identifying with story more than characters") possible. Tragedy being cheap stuff goes for quick profits thus demeaning the medium of Cinema itself as we've been served with for generations. I guess the trendy products compete each other's while tackling various genres to spike rapid but ephemerous public interests. Don't worry, it simply won't hold much longer. Everybody grows & ages beyond fast-food junk - eventually. Right now, it's all about quick (but still calculated!) demographics. What the future hides from youth is the wisdom to recognize more than just an experience. And what the movies give is some ways to determine how precious time *will* be once we're out of theaters with worthy memories to share with others.

This also speaks to the reason why Hunger Games was/will be a marketing success. If you look at the trailer which could have focussed on all the action of the second and third acts, see how much time is devoted to setting up Katniss as a very human, empathetic character.