now Planet of the Apes; sheesh; restart of a lot of superhero movies; redoing John Wayne; come on Hollywould; cant you guys write a decent movie anymore, I know I sure could.
Anyone have any thoughts on all the remakes; at least the Tron movie was a continuation; but seriously.
|
All the original talent writers, directors, and visionaries are abandoning Hollywood because the paid cable channels like HBO, Showtime, and Stars are buying them up and treasuring them like they should be.
You want original writing, phenomenal acting, and genuine stories that don't cater to the pedantic majority?
The Tudors
A Game of Thrones (premiering tonight. I'm intentionally avoiding the previews)
Pillars of the Earth
The Borgias
Camelot
Spartacus
Kings (before it was cancelled due to lack of viewers - that's actually on NBC, but still, better than a movie in most respects)
Yeah, and what's with the Royal Shakespeare Company and all of their unoriginal plays? I mean, haven't they done Hamlet enough already? Isn't it time for them to write something new?
As even low special effects based films are pushing 100 mil in production costs you better believe that the bean counters aren't risking that kinds of capital without feeling confident about their ROI. ask Guillermo Del Toro and James Cameron why they cant get at the mountains of madness produced R ratings don't bring in the cash of PG-13 films.
This disinclination towards risk also means that remaking, rebooting, adapting proven successful properties (particularly those with cult-following status: superheroes, horror franchises, etc.) are seen as safer investments. I do agree that the small screen is producing some of the more original media around. I also miss the H#&& out of Kings. the long tail effect on Cable/satellite TV means smaller viewer shares can still yield economically successful ventures. [NBC/ Universal] [Disney/ABC] are killing on this with their various family of channels.
As it has been said above, mostly because Hollywood is at the moment playing it reeeeally safe. It has nothing to do with the 2008 recession; Hollywood has been on a "low risk policy" for quite a few years.
It's actually a major issue for writers nowadays; movies cost so much to make that they have to rely more and more on their producers - who themselves tend to become more and more an agglomeration of producers - who will only OK what they think is a safe bet.
There are a lot of good, original stuff out there, but less and less is produced in Hollywood. Since Hollywood productions tend top dominate the market (at least in North America), there isn't much new material under the sun...
'findel
As it has been said above, mostly because Hollywood is at the moment playing it reeeeally safe. It has nothing to do with the 2008 recession; Hollywood has been on a "low risk policy" for quite a few years.
It's actually a major issue for writers nowadays; movies cost so much to make that they have to rely more and more on their producers - who themselves tend to become more and more an agglomeration of producers - who will only OK what they think is a safe bet.
There are a lot of good, original stuff out there, but less and less is produced in Hollywood. Since Hollywood productions tend top dominate the market (at least in North America), there isn't much new material under the sun...
'findel
A much nicer summation than mine.
I've said it before and I'll say it again: this is nothing new.
The film industry has been doing "remakes" since its inception.
Most of the original moving pictures were either "remakes" of books or plays. Most of the original talking pictures were "remakes" of silent films. And so on, ad nauseam, ever since.
Look at the bright side.
In todays politically correct uberness theres no way they can do 80% of the old movies because they contain things like
Smokeing
Inappropriate language( huck finns title for jim comes to mind)
Blatant sexism.(big strong he-man charecters that helpless women looked up to and depended on for protection)
Raceism(too many examples to mention)
All of these things will force holywood to make new material eventually.
Look at the bright side.
In todays politically correct uberness theres no way they can do 80% of the old movies because they contain things like
Smokeing
Inappropriate language( huck finns title for jim comes to mind)
Blatant sexism.(big strong he-man charecters that helpless women looked up to and depended on for protection)
Raceism(too many examples to mention)
All of these things will force holywood to make new material eventually.
Actually as I said before as PG-13 sells far more tickets than R rated features so sanitized versions of those occurring is not beyond the pale. Also the blatant sexism is still part of the Hollywood machine.
Actually as I said before as PG-13 sells far more tickets than R rated features so sanitized versions of those occurring is not beyond the pale. Also the blatant sexism is still part of the Hollywood machine.Look at the bright side.
In todays politically correct uberness theres no way they can do 80% of the old movies because they contain things like
Smokeing
Inappropriate language( huck finns title for jim comes to mind)
Blatant sexism.(big strong he-man charecters that helpless women looked up to and depended on for protection)
Raceism(too many examples to mention)
All of these things will force holywood to make new material eventually.
Fraid I will have to politely disagree with you Dragonsong.
In my Opinion and from what I have observed it's hollywood doing the exact opposite.Women are in control and men are just stupid, seems thats hollywoods latest PC rant.
You raise a good point otherwise but theres no way they can sanitise things like the old Jonny Weismuller tarzan films or the WWII films where temrs like "crout" and "slant eyed devil" or other just as blatant terms were used.
They may have been appropriate then but definatly not by todays standards and all studioes live in fear of protesters.
|
Hollywood has always made sucky movies. It's par for the course.
It's not fair to blame the scriptwriters though, they have far less input into the creative process than people think.
Most people believe that scriptwriters come up with an idea for a great film and then a producer buys their script and makes the film- ruining it in the process.
In actuality producers come up with the basic idea for the vast majority of films and then hire on a scriptwriter to make their ideas into a film. The scripts that float round Hollywood are only glorified resumes proving you can write. Occasionally one will be picked up and made into a movie (Starship Troopers and the Die Hard movies are good examples) but that's the exception rather than the rule.
If you are a scriptwriter your carefully constructed opus about the nature of the human condition and the fragility of life only really serves as an advert to potentially get you a job co writing Big Momma's House 3. Depressing isn't it?
Making things even more sucky big blockbuster movies don't only have to appeal to English speakers but to people whose culture is quite different. So to do this successfully you reduce the basic idea to a simple premise that speaks to basic human nature. Take the Kings Speech and Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen for example. A subtle story of the friendship between a future king and his speech therapist? That's complicated. Idiots running away from a giant robot? That isn't. Guess which one of these got a higher worldwide gross? Yup by orders of magnitude the idiots have it.
So there's basically your answer. Good films, even ones that win a hatful of Oscars, might run you a $350 million profit. Popcorn movies, even stupid, loud, moronic, special effects laden crap of the type that Michael Bay keeps vomiting out, earn you a good $800 million profit.
On top of that it's hard to make sticker books, lunchboxes, toys etc. out of a period drama. Pepsi isn't going to be putting Colin Firth's face on a can, nor are you likely to see a Geoffrey Rush action figure in a Happy Meal (well unless it's for pirates of the Carribean). This year Pixar are releasing Cars 2. Now Cars is an OK movie but most people admit that it's the weakest of all Pixar's efforts. So why are we seeing a Cars 2? Because it's easier to merchandise Cars 2 than Wall-E 2. Sad but true.
So which type of movie is Hollywood going to produce more of? Of course they will produce primarily the lowest common denominator stuff that you can merchandise to hell and back and sell all round the world because that's what makes the most money. But how do you do this from scratch? Well, Hollywood tries to create shortcuts to these sorts of cash cows by tapping into pop culture stuff that people are already familiar and comfortable with- Transformers, GI Joe, old TV shows, superheroes etc. You already have a built in audience with these and therefore people will come to watch it. The theory goes that if I remember X fondly I will then come to see the film. It's less of a risk doing this than coming up with your own fresh intellectual property (which as an aside is why Pixar should generally be applauded for not going the easy route of adaption and remake).
The other way to do it is through spectacle. Both Michael Bay and Roland Emmerich love doing this. Why was Independance Day a success? Because they blew up the White House and showed it in the trailer, that's why. What's the selling point of Pearl Harbour? Yup the attack itself which again they showed in the trailer. People crave excitement and escapism, they want to be transported into an adventure and wowed in the process. The rest of the film might be a horrible mess of bad writing and stereotypes but people will still come and wolf down the popcorn if the spectacle is there.
The bottom line is it's all about making money and minimising risk. An ideal big movie therefore will have to push the following buttons:
1) Ready made intellectual property to exploit
2) Easy to sell worldwide
3) Easy to merchandise
4) Full of spectacle and adventure
That's why you see all these remakes and adaptations because it minimises the risk and maximises the profit. It's a wonder any good movies get made at all frankly.
Fraid I will have to politely disagree with you Dragonsong.
In my Opinion and from what I have observed it's hollywood doing the exact opposite.
Women are in control and men are just stupid, seems thats hollywoods latest PC rant.
I suppose we will have to, thats the great thing about arts/entertainment. I do see the following as examples that dont conform to that assesment
Suckerpuch which had the earmarks of being a Girrrl power bent
ended up not with Carla Gugino's character as the spiritual leader/ spirit of escape. They opted for a "magical, old, white, male", I love Scott Glenn but really... really. And lets not even get started on the Stepahnie Meyer adaptations and the image of helpless female therein.
You raise a good point otherwise but theres no way they can sanitise things like the old Jonny Weismuller tarzan films or the WWII films where temrs like "crout" and "slant eyed devil" or other just as blatant terms were used.
They may have been appropriate then but definatly not by todays standards and all studioes live in fear of protesters.
So saving private ryan, inglorious bastards and the like is what you are talking about?
1. Lack of imagination.
2. Lack of respect for the story (as opposed to the income).
3. Lack of support from the audience.
Unfortunately the reality is that the audience likes the same old stories brought around again. If there wasn't a boatload of money in it, Hollywood wouldn't be doing it.
I've said it before and I'll say it again: this is nothing new.
The film industry has been doing "remakes" since its inception.
Most of the original moving pictures were either "remakes" of books or plays. Most of the original talking pictures were "remakes" of silent films. And so on, ad nauseam, ever since.
THIS.
The 1940 version of the Maltese Falcon was, what? the 3rd version fo that particular film which was in turn based on the Dashiell Hammett story of the smae name?
I think people are really ignorant of how many remakes or adaptations have actually been made and for how long people who make movies and TV shows have been doing it.
So saving private ryan, inglorious bastards and the like is what you are talking about?
Not to mention HBO's The PACIFIC or BAND OF BROTHERS...
To me, the worst part of remakes is that people keep going on about how great they are, and when you tell them it's a remake they stare vaguely at you. Apparently nobody but me knows that Ocean's Eleven was a remake... How about that.
Which leads to the simple fact that some remakes turn out to be better than the original. I think that's the case with OCEAN'S ELEVEN.
I defintely think that's the case with the American remake of THE RING.
I think part of it is copyright law. I think there are a lot of remakes coming because studios want to make sure they hold onto the copyrights of the ongoing IP. Little bit of speculation...
We need a guy like Dino DeLaurantis around; he made the movies we all love; Conan and whatnot; so many. Guy was a dreamer and I loved him for it and the movies he made and he didnt rehash or reguritate old movies, but brought some of our favorite book characters to life.
"Oceans 11" was much better than the original, loved "Let me in" over "Let the right one in", But on the other hand we have "Planet of the apes", "Clash of the titans", and "Charlie and the chocolate factory". So it just depends on what they choose to remake and how much they respect the sorce material but if they say the word "reimagining" then I am not going to bother.
We need a guy like Dino DeLaurantis around; he made the movies we all love; Conan and whatnot; so many. Guy was a dreamer and I loved him for it and the movies he made and he didnt rehash or reguritate old movies, but brought some of our favorite book characters to life.
Except of course for the whole Change the ending to Army of Darkeness thing nothing visionary about that move on Dino's part.
As even low special effects based films are pushing 100 mil in production costs you better believe that the bean counters aren't risking that kinds of capital without feeling confident about their ROI. ask Guillermo Del Toro and James Cameron why they cant get at the mountains of madness produced R ratings don't bring in the cash of PG-13 films.
They need to find a way to channel from The Ring (American version) if they want to target a PG-13 audience and manage to effectively scare the crap out of them.
"Oceans 11" was much better than the original, loved "Let me in" over "Let the right one in", But on the other hand we have "Planet of the apes", "Clash of the titans", and "Charlie and the chocolate factory". So it just depends on what they choose to remake and how much they respect the sorce material but if they say the word "reimagining" then I am not going to bother.
For me, some degree of reimagining is the way to go. If the remake is too much like a preceding movie, then it's completely unnecessary to make it. It needs some fresh difference that makes the remake worthwhile. Ocean's 11 is a good example of a reimagining. It went from being a Rat Pack personality showcase with a casino heist on the side to a character-driven casino heist movie. Definitely a reimagining and definitely worthwhile.
One of the reasons the Asian Movie/Culture became quite big for a while was because it wasn't the same rehashed stories we've experienced for the past 30+ years, but that comes to the real reason Hollywood is just churning out updated versions of old movies. I could also mention the Seven Samurai was used as pretty much the whole damn basis for it's spaghetti-western American-Version, The Magnificent Seven.
Risk.
Plenty of brilliant ideas for movies, plenty of directors willing to take a new take on an old genre and aim for something that is appealing without following the interchangeable scripts that plague most movies. Problem is, the companies that make, and bankroll, the filming industry are unwilling to risk that much cash on the off-chance some self-proclaimed critic pans it for not following his 'idea' of how the movie should be or something happens during production that makes the 'new take' somehow unfavourable to the general public.
On a personal note, I find I enjoy movies that the critics these morons listen call terrible than the movies they say are good. Who decides that these people have the right to say 'Uh, this movie is terrible!' anyway? Is there a board somewhere handing out permits or is it just egos and social connections that make that work? I'm seriously interested in knowing just how these people get their positions.
As even low special effects based films are pushing 100 mil in production costs you better believe that the bean counters aren't risking that kinds of capital without feeling confident about their ROI. ask Guillermo Del Toro and James Cameron why they cant get at the mountains of madness produced R ratings don't bring in the cash of PG-13 films.They need to find a way to channel from The Ring (American version) if they want to target a PG-13 audience and manage to effectively scare the crap out of them.
Well from the articles I read online they were not willing to go down to PG-13 hense the project is currently dead in the water. And, as both are heavily visually based directors I can see them not opting for the Ring's style it simply isnt thier own even gullermos films like the Orphanage and the Devil's Backbone play with a bit too much visaul popcorn moments than the Ring. Cameron: he of Terminator, Avatar, Aliens (lets show the Gieger ispired monster front and center rather than the slow dread of the original)not his directatorial style. I'm not suggesting going Tokyo Gore Police, but there may be some serious viscera as the Petal Things begin the vivesections.
Well from the articles I read online they were not willing to go down to PG-13 hense the project is currently dead in the water. And, as both are heavily visually based directors I can see them not opting for the Ring's style it simply isnt thier own even gullermos films like the Orphanage and the Devil's Backbone play with a bit too much visaul popcorn moments than the Ring. Cameron: he of Terminator, Avatar, Aliens (lets show the Gieger ispired monster front and center rather than the slow dread of the original)not his directatorial style. I'm not suggesting going Tokyo Gore Police, but there may be some serious viscera as the Petal Things begin the vivesections.
A shame actually, as Cameron has the financial gravitas similar to Lucas to put up the costs himself if he believes in a certain product similar to what he did with Avatar and then turn around and sell the distribution rights. But it's definitely not the case here as this is more of a niche genre that may not have appeal to the general audience at large and thus not get the financial returns based on the expenditure required to fulfill the vision desired for this product so it doesn't come across as a schlock.
Again, a shame. :(
I could also mention the Seven Samurai was used as pretty much the whole damn basis for it's spaghetti-western American-Version, The Magnificent Seven.
Pedantic Amateur Film Critic Alert!
Spaghetti-western refers to Italian-produced westerns shot mostly in Spain, the most notable examples being the films of Sergio Leone whose A Fistful of Dollars was so much like Akira Kurosawa's Yojimbo that AK was able to successfully sue for beaucoups cash. (Ironically enough, Yojimbo was a "reimagining" of Dashiell Hammett's gangster novella Red Harvest.)
John Sturges's The Magnificent Seven, with much the same cast as The Great Escape plus Yul Brynner, was a Hollywood-blockbuster western (and hence, not spaghetti) remake of Seven Samurai.
It's also interesting to note that there is a whole subgenre of Kurosawa samurai adaptations of Shakespeare (Throne of Blood, Ran) for whatever that's worth.
I'm a pedantic amateur film critic and I approve all of these movies.
A shame actually, as Cameron has the financial gravitas similar to Lucas to put up the costs himself if he believes in a certain product similar to what he did with Avatar and then turn around and sell the distribution rights. But it's definitely not the case here as this is more of a niche genre that may not have appeal to the general audience at large and thus not get the financial returns based on the expenditure required to fulfill the vision desired for this product so it doesn't come across as a schlock.
Again, a shame. :(
Without a doubt a shame. It makes me wish they would opt for a version of the colour out of space, dreams in the witch house, maybe even the rats in the walls all of which I could see making PG-13 or a lower cost (as the locations would be easier to film) R rated feature to do a market run to show interest in a bigger budget Lovecraft project.
Pedantic Amateur Film Critic Alert!
Spaghetti-western refers to Italian-produced westerns shot mostly in Spain, the most notable examples being the films of Sergio Leone whose A Fistful of Dollars was so much like Akira Kurosawa's Yojimbo that AK was able to successfully sue for beaucoups cash. (Ironically enough, Yojimbo was a "reimagining" of Dashiell Hammett's gangster novella Red Harvest.)
John Sturges's The Magnificent Seven, with much the same cast as The Great Escape plus Yul Brynner, was a Hollywood-blockbuster western (and hence, not spaghetti) remake of Seven Samurai.
It's also interesting to note that there is a whole subgenre of Kurosawa samurai adaptations of Shakespeare (Throne of Blood, Ran) for whatever that's worth.
I'm a pedantic amateur film critic and I approve all of these movies.
As another amateur film critic I agree although Dreams is my favorite Kurosawa Film his body of work is pretty amazing all in all.
Spaghetti-western refers to Italian-produced westerns shot mostly in Spain, the most notable examples being the films of Sergio Leone whose A Fistful of Dollars was so much like Akira Kurosawa's Yojimbo that AK was able to successfully sue for beaucoups cash. (Ironically enough, Yojimbo was a "reimagining" of Dashiell Hammett's gangster novella Red Harvest.)
I've read that Kurasawa was more influenced by Hammett's The Glass Key than anything else and any resemblance to Red Harvest was incidental...
I blame VHS.
No, really. It used to be that a film - or a TV show for that matter - was put it in the can and forget about it. There were ways to revisit older material, but it was somewhat limited in scope. Novelty was, in some ways, the only option.
But then, things like VHS came along, along with the explosion of television stations, not to mention the backlog becoming sufficient that post-theater markets or syndication became a goal, and not just a mere afterthought. It made these various media properties indelible.
VHS invented nostalgia. Nostalgia made a market.
And come on, if a rich uncle you didn't know about died and left you in charge of a film studio, do you seriously propose that there aren't at least six media properties out there that you haven't at least spitballed what the movie should look like with your friends? That deserve a modern remake or at least a fix?
I've read that Kurasawa was more influenced by Hammett's The Glass Key than anything else and any resemblance to Red Harvest was incidental...
Spaghetti-western refers to Italian-produced westerns shot mostly in Spain, the most notable examples being the films of Sergio Leone whose A Fistful of Dollars was so much like Akira Kurosawa's Yojimbo that AK was able to successfully sue for beaucoups cash. (Ironically enough, Yojimbo was a "reimagining" of Dashiell Hammett's gangster novella Red Harvest.)
Further research shows the following:
Most commentators point to plot similarities between Yojimbo and Red Harvest.
Kurosawa has always said that the inspiration was a film of The Glass Key.
I have read Red Harvest and the plots seem pretty similar. I have neither read nor seen The Glass Key (it's going on the Netflix queue right after this), but the plot synopsis seems more like Miller's Crossing than Yojimbo.
I'm not going to say AK is wrong--it's his movie and he should know more about its inspiration than most, certainly more than me. I always thought Miller's Crossing bore a lot of resemblance to Red Harvest, but the existence of another story by Hammett that I haven't read probably has a lot to do with it.
Anyway, the moral of this tale is: Watch more Kurosawa and Leone films, read more Hammett!
Anyway, the moral of this tale is: Watch more Kurosawa and Leone films, read more Hammett!
And watch Millers Crossing again!
Anyway, the moral of this tale is: Watch more Kurosawa and Leone films, read more Hammett!And watch Millers Crossing again!
This is something I try to teach all my boys: always make sure to put one in the brain!
Stuff
Until recently, they didn't have the moviemaking technology to make a superhero film that looked any good.
Also, take films like Lord of the Rings for example, there is no way that could have looked as good as it did 20-30 years ago. (The only way they could do it was through cartoon).
As for other remakes, I guess they feel it's a classic story. Why do they remake songs? Because they're good.
They're remaking Highlander sometime soon, and to me it's "why bother", they'll never make it as good as the original. But for kids these days, they just want to see what's new and current, even if it's an inferior rehash of what's already been done.
I wish they would make a "Wheel of Time" movie (and have it not suck).
|
|
All the original talent writers, directors, and visionaries are abandoning Hollywood because the paid cable channels like HBO, Showtime, and Stars are buying them up and treasuring them like they should be.
You want original writing, phenomenal acting, and genuine stories that don't cater to the pedantic majority?
The Tudors
A Game of Thrones (premiering tonight. I'm intentionally avoiding the previews)
Pillars of the Earth
The Borgias
Camelot
Spartacus
Kings (before it was cancelled due to lack of viewers - that's actually on NBC, but still, better than a movie in most respects)
The Tudors COULD have been a good one but they changed up facts and made it more of a soap opera. it was as close to Historically accurate as Braveheart which while a good move was so far out in left field it was not funny.
Spartucus is more sex than I have seen on TV in a long time. The original Sparticus was 100% better.
As for WHY Hollywood remakes movies? The righters can just re-hash what has been done. it does not matter if they can make it better or worse, they just see the $$$$$.
There are SO many books and historical events that would make compelling or great movies. But Hollywood has a lack of knowledge and talent. The same reason CGI films like Toy Story 1, 2, 3 and what maybe a 4th are made. They do not have to pay as much money to make them, yet they make money.
Lets just remake Episode 4 of Star Wars a New Hope, Gone with the Wind, Casablanca, or The Ten Commandments.
Personally I appluad Hollywood if they can make something original. I'd prefer it was close to historically accurate and not have a tiny, skinny, small of starure King Henry, a Man that was 6'2" and over 300 pounds by the time his 3rd wife Jane Seymour dies in child birth.
I know the Tudors from beginning to end. I know the clothing of that period as if it where today (I actually wear HA dresses during Ren Faire season from the 1st layer out). And to me, I laugh when they are all wrong.
I've read that Kurasawa was more influenced by Hammett's The Glass Key than anything else and any resemblance to Red Harvest was incidental...
Further research shows the following:
Most commentators point to plot similarities between Yojimbo and Red Harvest.
Kurosawa has always said that the inspiration was a film of The Glass Key.
I have read Red Harvest and the plots seem pretty similar. I have neither read nor seen The Glass Key (it's going on the Netflix queue right after this), but the plot synopsis seems more like Miller's Crossing than Yojimbo.
I'm not going to say AK is wrong--it's his movie and he should know more about its inspiration than most, certainly more than me. I always thought Miller's Crossing bore a lot of resemblance to Red Harvest, but the existence of another story by Hammett that I haven't read probably has a lot to do with it.
Anyway, the moral of this tale is: Watch more Kurosawa and Leone films, read more Hammett!
Oh I ABSOLUTELY agree with what you said about the strong similarities between Red Harvest and Yojimbo. I was kinda surprised to read that AK claimed that Yojimbo was inspired by The Glass Key. He does cite one specific thing in The Glass Key that was imported almost directly from The Glass Key in to YoJimbo and that's the Ed's beating and torture at the hands of one the gangster's (Vermin? Verma?) henchman which is similar to Sanjuro's beating at the hands of that HUGE thug after it's discovered that he's been playing both sides against the middle and he freed the miller's (?) wife from servitude.
Otherwise youre right, as a huge fan of Miller's Crossing (it's one of my favorite gangster films it ranks just below the godfather films, but just above Goodfellas and hands down my favorite Cohen Bros film) The Glass Key has more similarities to it than to Yojimbo.
But I agree watch more Kurasawa (especially High and Low, Ikiru Throne of Blood (aka Macbeth) and Stray Dog) and Leone and definitely read more Hammett.
Sometimes I think the movie creation process goes something like this:
Producer has, say, a hundred million dollars to make a movie.
He decides, based on what everyone else is doing, to make a movie of genre <fill in the blank>.
He hires a SFX company to make awesome eye candy for 32 million dollars.
He checks who is the current big star, and hires him for another 32 million dollars. The star does some acting and they get generic lines, a kiss, and some generic genre appropriate action scenes.
He hires an ad company to make a massive hype about the movie for 32 million dollars.
Time passes. Trailers bleat out the Arrival of the movie for months.
Producer then hires bigshot director, for 999.995$. Director decides on the order the existing footage will be shown in.
Then, there is a final meeting.
Producer: "Okay, there are 5 bucks left for a script. Anyone has a retarded monkey who would give us a script for 5 bucks?"
Someone makes a few calls. A script is produced. A few extra scenes with other actors are filmed.
Voila! New, and very profitable, movie! Yay!
You think I am exaggerating? See Armageddon and say that again...
That should be 33 million dollars in all instances of 32 million. =)
Producer has, say, a hundred million dollars to make a movie.
That's really the heart of it. In the current world market conditions scraping together $100,000,000 ($120m with cost over runs and licensing various IP's) is pretty daunting for someone with "hey I have a great idea...I just need 100,000,000 dollars." When James effing Cameron can't get the dough you know it has nothing to do with past success (talking about money only here) or marketability of the name.
There are some very wealthy actors that throw some of their money back into the ring to keep the process going, but a lot of it is 2nd or even 3rd generation production company owners who just want to keep their family money rolling in until their trust fund is available. Then you have the more typical corporate conglomerates (who own a dizzying array of non-related companies) that are trying to wage private finance wars in Africa, Asia and South America and just can't spare the time or money to see if a new movie concept is worth the investment (even if the CEO's, owners, etc really really LIKE the idea).
So...we get retreads. But as has been said previously, hardly anything is really new, and can be traced back to old silent films, early independant films, b movies, off-broadway plays or tv shows (still waiting for the revamp of Happy Days staring Justin Beiber as Richie Cunningham)
There is one benefit to the world from this repackaging industry. There is a much wider population of exposure, and even if the remade movie sucks by comparison hopefully some kid in Europe, Asia, Antarctican Research Facility sees it and decides to make something better or new.
Heck there was a time that Operas were written almost exclusively in Italian (Opera BEING an italian word). No offense to the Ities, but I'm glad we get to watch modern visual entertainment in our native tongues. Repackaging is partly responsible for this...
For those of you who want to watch Hollywood making fun of Hollywood along the lines of what's being discussed here, I would recommend Robert Altman's The Player.
For what we're discussing, the best scene is probably when Buck Henry pitches to Tim Robbins's studio exec getting Dustin Hoffman and Katharine Ross together and making The Graduate 2.
Hee hee!
Wheel of Time, well at least the first book would be a good movie.
about remakes; hmm; I remember that there used to be a high rated series called Wagon Train; and Star Trek was made with the billing of "its Wagon Train; but in space" hehe; and look where that got us.
as far as remakes; any idea when the second movie of the reboot series comes out?
Planet of the Apes; I liked the original book before the movies; last chapter was a shock, but I cant see anybody doing it better than old Charlton Heston; he was great. I suppose they will tell the story of the Ape revolution, they havent told that part yet; just alluded to it.
I sure would like to see Dreamworks do another Incredibles movie.
Anyone see Megamind; what did you think?
There are so many totally awesome books out there that would make excellent first time movies; this rehash and old story even with an interesting twist is more a you tube video thing than a full blown movie crying to be made.
For those of you who want to watch Hollywood making fun of Hollywood along the lines of what's being discussed here, I would recommend Robert Altman's The Player.
For what we're discussing, the best scene is probably when Buck Henry pitches to Tim Robbins's studio exec getting Dustin Hoffman and Katharine Ross together and making The Graduate 2.
Hee hee!
Yea one of Altman's best and does play with Hollywood form an insiders view.
Tangent: Doodlebug or anyone else see Altman's Prarie Home Companion movie?
I sure would like to see Dreamworks do another Incredibles movie.
The Incredibles was a Pixar production and yes they should totally make an Incredibles sequel. Personally it's my favorite superhero film, the only one that pretty much got everything right.
Yes, the Inredibles need a sequal, but cars!!! what where they thinking.
Megamind was great
Havn't heard any real updates on the new "Startrek 2" movie.
For those of you who want to watch Hollywood making fun of Hollywood along the lines of what's being discussed here, I would recommend Robert Altman's The Player.
For what we're discussing, the best scene is probably when Buck Henry pitches to Tim Robbins's studio exec getting Dustin Hoffman and Katharine Ross together and making The Graduate 2.
Hee hee!
Yea one of Altman's best and does play with Hollywood form an insiders view.
Tangent: Doodlebug or anyone else see Altman's Prarie Home Companion movie?
No. Any good?
His movies were really hit and miss. For every MASH, there was a Popeye, for every The Long Goodbye, a Beyond Therapy.