Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Not necessarily. It would be whichever car firm offered most cash for product placement Fitzz.

or am I just being too cynical?

Chibi Bodge-Battle wrote:Not necessarily. It would be whichever car firm offered most cash for product placement Fitzz.

or am I just being too cynical?

No Chibi...I think you hit the nail squarely on the head.. ..off course...maybe I'm being too cynical as well..


Automatically Appended Next Post:

BuFFo wrote:

FITZZ wrote:

BuFFo wrote:In the past 2 years, 86% of all theater released movies were either remakes, re imaginings or sequels.

I love the internet

I had no idea the number was THAT high...but,that's what I'm on about...where's the imagination?...where's the creativity?...I guess they're not important so long as the money machine keeps rolling.

Yes sir, this is a shyte-you-not-fact either.

It all has to do with risk versus reward. Your script won't get green lit now a days unless it carries little to no risk, and brand recognition almost guarantees a return on the investment.

Yogi Bear anyone?

Sad...by today's standards David Lynch(among others) would have ended up flipping burgers...and Jaws would have never been made...

And I hate the fact that we are where we are, but can you blame the movie industry? They're in it for money, and what's a better deal to them.... an interesting and original movie that some people may like, or Alvin and the Chipmunks 3: the Double Squeequel? Luckily most directors aren't able to retroactively ruin their movies, so we can enjoy the old films that we loved (btw Gods Damn you, George Lucas).

Well it is only a matter of tiem before they start remaking romantic comedies.

I wonder if sleepless in Seattle will be even more awesome the secondtime around...

Sleepless in Seattle is a RomCom?
Didn't make me laff.

Possibly because I stopped watching after 20 minutes.

Just a thought about lack of imagination, isn't True Grit by the Coen Bros. ?
They also remade one of the old Ealing comedies iirc tet those guys also made some pretty imaginative movies.

Chibi Bodge-Battle wrote:Sleepless in Seattle is a RomCom?
Didn't make me laff.

Possibly because I stopped watching after 20 minutes.

Just a thought about lack of imagination, isn't True Grit by the Coen Bros. ?
They also remade one of the old Ealing comedies iirc tet those guys also made some pretty imaginative movies.

I'm not sure that true grit counts as a remake. It's a different adapatation of the same source material- a novel from 1968.

Too many remakes are of things that were already done to great effect the first time. Why did they remake Psycho, almost shot for shot, for instance? The original was perfect.

It's probably because some studio money grabber wants to play as safe as possible and thinks that because something was good before it's guaranteed to be a winner this time. Yet that's why there are so many gakky remakes, mostly they simply don't compare to the original even if they do stand up on their own merits.

They should remake stuff that was crap the first time. Things that had a good concept in there but were awfully executed. The original series of Battlestar Galactica was pretty pants but the remake completely reinvented it into something great. The Prisoner was done to perfection the first time and the remake pissed it against the wall.

FITZZ wrote: It might be part me being an old cynical and jaded ...but between remakes and comic book movies I begin to wonder if there is a screen writer anywhere with a "new" script...

There's plenty of new scripts out there. They tend not to get made into films because it's easier to create media talk for a remake, and easier to engage people's interest in an established brand.

Hollywood is a business, and as a business they look straight at the dollars. They go with the types of films that make money, and that means remakes.

Why are remakes making money when everyone loves complaining about remakes? Because despite our love of complaining about remakes, they're the movies we keep showing up for.

Obviously at some point the film idustry had a smidge of creativity...you didn't see film makers in the 60's and 70's " remaking" Gone with the Wind...

Gone with the Wind was a remake.

God, back in the day of serials the entire industry was about remaking the same movies over and over again. This isn't particularly new.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

FITZZ wrote: Sad...by today's standards David Lynch(among others) would have ended up flipping burgers...and Jaws would have never been made...

Umm, there is still a flourishing industry for arthouse productions. Not only would David Lynch find work today, he'd find it much younger.

And complaining that Jaws would never have been made makes no sense. It was the original high concept movie*, that created the modern film industry. The idea that Jaws wouldn't be made today is crazy, because they're making films like Jaws constantly. The entire film industry is built around trying to make movies like Jaws.



*Well, some argue it was Star Wars. Either way these are the two movies that redefined the film industry to what it is today.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Howard A Treesong wrote:Too many remakes are of things that were already done to great effect the first time. Why did they remake Psycho, almost shot for shot, for instance? The original was perfect.

It's probably because some studio money grabber wants to play as safe as possible and thinks that because something was good before it's guaranteed to be a winner this time. Yet that's why there are so many gakky remakes, mostly they simply don't compare to the original even if they do stand up on their own merits.

They should remake stuff that was crap the first time. Things that had a good concept in there but were awfully executed. The original series of Battlestar Galactica was pretty pants but the remake completely reinvented it into something great. The Prisoner was done to perfection the first time and the remake pissed it against the wall.

I agree, but that's because you and I are looking at how Hollywood should make movies that are actually good. On the other hand, Hollywood is looking at how to make money.

They remake old movie because they want the brand recognition. No-one is going to read an article about Russel Brand playing a rich git, but a lot of people are going to pay attention to Russel Brand in a remake of Arthur?

Why? fethed if I know? The reasons most people take an interest in one film or another are inexplicable to me, and I believe the stupid rationales people use to pick their films are exactly the reason most films are terrible.

You make some good points sebster...and even opened my eyes to a few things I myself was not aware of (Gone with the Wind being a remake.)..

My point concerning Jaws was one that if the film industry had had similar leanings then as they seem to now ( Less risk/more profit) then Jaws may not have seen the light of day...as for the time it was an ambitious undertaking with a great deal of risk involved in it's production.

Have you seen the remake of teen wolf that's coming out?

They have gone down the twilight route.

Why call it teen wolf in the first place if you are going to change everything about it?

You can bet there won't be a guy with his nob out in the crowd at the end either.

I for one would be not be disappointed about that.

Unless the teen wolf is a habitual flasher and the plot of teen wolf is about him airing his twinkling whistlestick in front of all and sundry.

FITZZ wrote: You make some good points sebster...and even opened my eyes to a few things I myself was not aware of (Gone with the Wind being a remake.)..

Heh, I was just told that myself for the first time the other day.

My point concerning Jaws was one that if the film industry had had similar leanings then as they seem to now ( Less risk/more profit) then Jaws may not have seen the light of day...as for the time it was an ambitious undertaking with a great deal of risk involved in it's production.

Yeah, that's true. There's always a lot of risk involved in shooting on water, and cost blowouts seem pretty common. Even though Titanic made a lot of money, for a long time investors were very nervous. It ended grossing stupid kinds of money, but it was a huge risk and looked like a disaster for much of its production. Then there's Waterworld, that had big cost blowouts but turned out to be really crappy and lost everyone involved loads of money.

But that said, I actually think films like Jaws are more likely in the current era. It isn't a big tent production like Titanic, by modern standards it's pretty cheap. And what's really changed in the industry since it was made is that studios have realised how much money there is in simple concepts like Jaws*. This is why every year there's hundreds of films about people getting eaten by various bits of wildlife, films about aliens invading, films about serial killers. These are straighforward concepts with proven audiences.

What we won't see much of anymore is high cost, high quality productions like Chinatown. The idea of giving a scriptwriter the time to go away and getting a really tight script ready over the course of six months or a year, and only starting to lock in talent once the script was ready, and making that movie for an adult audience just doesn't happen anymore. Guillermo del Toro tried to get a $150 million together to make a version of Beyond the Mountains of Madness, focussing on traditional production values over special effects, but he didn't want to sign off on potentially cutting content to avoid an R rating, so the project got cancelled. He's making a much cheaper movie about robots fighting aliens instead.



*While the film is masterful, you can explain it to people by saying 'it's about a big shark attacking people'. That's what is meant by high concept, some people confuse it with lowbrow movies, but really the term means a film with a very broad concept that is simple to communicate in marketing.