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.

 Vaktathi wrote:

But even stuff like the existence of C3P0 and R2D have gotten taken to rather absurd heights (and why Vader never recognized them...)

Who says he didn't? He doesn't mention recognising them, but it's entirely possible that he realised who they were and just didn't care enough to make a fuss about it. He had more important stuff going on in the brief time that he was in the same room as C3PO... and I don't recall him every actually being up close and personal with R2 in the OT.

Asterios wrote:
...then you look at Transformers another cartoon from the same era and yet it was altered all over heck and back and still did amazingly well,...

Transformers was particularly odd for all the complaining about the movies 'changing stuff' from the original, given how many times the franchise had already been rebooted and altered in comics and cartoons in the intervening years.



The people who expect a movie adaptation to be identical to the original source puzzle me, to be honest. If what you want is something that is identical to the original, why the hell wouldn't you just watch the original...? The whole point of a remake is to tell the story a different way.

 insaniak wrote:
The people who expect a movie adaptation to be identical to the original source puzzle me, to be honest. If what you want is something that is identical to the original, why the hell wouldn't you just watch the original...? The whole point of a remake is to tell the story a different way.

I agree, art should be adding something of value or removing/reducing flaws, not creating works that are almost entirely derivative.

 Manchu wrote:
The original RoboCop movie is no worse for the sequels or remake being terrible - but those sequels and remakes definitely hurt the brand. It will be a long time, if ever, before someone decides to put money behind another shot at RoboCop given the most recent take was a flop. It's a lot to overcome. Just think of any article about a hypothetical new movie: "The 2014 remake was widely panned by critics and fans alike ..." will be a line in virtually every piece.

This is the part that always confuses me. People always seem to react badly when a remake is announced, but then part of the criticism is that it doing badly will make people less like to do more remakes of that franchise due to the flop?

So the stated reason for disliking some remakes is that they make remakes less likely? It's utterly perplexing.

It's not that confusing. All that says it's that those people don't have a problem with remakes... Just with bad remakes.

 welshhoppo wrote:
I think the major reason many remakes/sequels fail is because they tend to lack the soul, or miss the point of the original. That and rose tinted glasses.


Take The Thing, it's one of my favourite movies of all time. Then we have The Thing same name premake.

I don't mind the second one, but I feel the first made such an impact because of the physical effects, they were brilliant. The second is entirely CGI, so it just ends up feeling like a poor mans copy.

Thats the second remake actually. The original, classic, linguistically awesome sauce version featuring a future sheriff is a 50s classic.

"Watch the Skies!"

 insaniak wrote:
It's not that confusing. All that says it's that those people don't have a problem with remakes... Just with bad remakes.

I mean the people that as soon as it is announced vow to not watch it though.

Remake is announced --> "I hate remakes" --> "I'm not going to watch it" --> It's a flop --> "I hate remakes, they make it so they won't touch X property" --> Remake is announced -->......

that sorta process.

 Jehan-reznor wrote:

 kronk wrote:
In a similar vein, Swamp Thing was brilliant, but Swamp Thing 2 was horrid!

I know why you like the first one

Spoiler:

We had the VHS copy of that movie. When you get to the scene where she's bathing in the swamp, the tracking gets messed up, like a 12 year old watched it 250 times...

 Goliath wrote:
I mean the people that as soon as it is announced vow to not watch it though.

Remake is announced --> "I hate remakes" --> "I'm not going to watch it" --> It's a flop --> "I hate remakes, they make it so they won't touch X property" --> Remake is announced -->......

that sorta process.

So... People you made up based on a quote that was saying something completely different, then?

I thought ghostbusters is interesting in that it's really broadly popular, and isn't just a geeky interest. It's an 80s comedy with Murray, Akroyd, and Ramis, with Sigourney Weaver and Rick Moranis. It's not exactly a small movie.

However, one of the things that made the first movie so good, and I think made it linger in the consciousness, was that it created a rich world. It helped that Akroyd really is an expert on the occult, but they blend "real" occultism with fictional in a way that makes the movie seem very vivid. It's also really funny.

It's not the top geek IP (stuff like Star Wars, Star Trek, Marvel, LotR) or even the second level (Bond, Aliens, TMNT, Dr. Who), but I think it's got a place in the third tier of geek properties, along with stuff like BSG, Starship Troopers, Firefly, etc

 Polonius wrote:
I thought ghostbusters is interesting in that it's really broadly popular, and isn't just a geeky interest. It's an 80s comedy with Murray, Akroyd, and Ramis, with Sigourney Weaver and Rick Moranis. It's not exactly a small movie.

However, one of the things that made the first movie so good, and I think made it linger in the consciousness, was that it created a rich world. It helped that Akroyd really is an expert on the occult, but they blend "real" occultism with fictional in a way that makes the movie seem very vivid. It's also really funny.

Also a haunted toilet. That thing (and it's merchandising tie-in) tickled ten-year-old me immensely.

 Goliath wrote:

 insaniak wrote:
It's not that confusing. All that says it's that those people don't have a problem with remakes... Just with bad remakes.

I mean the people that as soon as it is announced vow to not watch it though.

Remake is announced --> "I hate remakes" --> "I'm not going to watch it" --> It's a flop --> "I hate remakes, they make it so they won't touch X property" --> Remake is announced -->......

that sorta process.

actually what irked me the most about the Ghost Busters remake is when the director said if you didn't like his movie you were misogynist or such. me didn't think the movie was even decent, it lacked the chemistry of the original 4. also it has yet to make its money back, last I noticed it was half way there though.

 insaniak wrote:


Transformers was particularly odd for all the complaining about the movies 'changing stuff' from the original, given how many times the franchise had already been rebooted and altered in comics and cartoons in the intervening years.

I had no issues with the changes, alone the whole allspark that was changed, the major thing that turned me off in the first movie was that they killed my favorite transformer Jazz! Had the toy as a kid and found it again in japan

Just my two cents:


Movies like the newest Mad Max were considered reboots until release, and we all realized that this wasn't a retelling of an old Max story, but rather a story selected from the overall timeline of his life. It's not a true sequel, because we do not know if it takes place after Thunderdome or not.

It's something like the Bond franchise (only, of course the Bond movies don't have the massive gaps between releases that would/could characterize a reboot)

 insaniak wrote:
It's not that confusing. All that says it's that those people don't have a problem with remakes... Just with bad remakes.

THis here. I'm far more interested in whether something is good or not than if it is different. I would be fine with fewer remakes/prequels/ect in general but I'm not going to dismiss them out of hand either because that is what they are. While awful, horrible films like the Transformers movies may be more common you still get the occasional John Carpenter's The Thing.

There was a video from Star Wars Celebration on Rogue One where the director (I think it was the director) says that one wants to respect the original but you also don't want to respect it to much or one will be afraid to try new and interesting things and if you aren't doing something different there really isn't a point in making something.

I doubt anyone doing (well, funding) a reboot today would be as cavalier with the original as John Carpenter was ... and perhaps therein lies the trouble? Another way of stating this complaint is, how about some fresh ideas Hollywood?

 Manchu wrote:
I doubt anyone doing (well, funding) a reboot today would be as cavalier with the original as John Carpenter was ... and perhaps therein lies the trouble? Another way of stating this complaint is, how about some fresh ideas Hollywood?

Well some of the earliest films were book* adaptations so I doubt that we will see a change anytime soon as far as that is concerned. We are certainly at a high point of reboots/remakes/adaptations but hopefully it will diminish considering a bit as some have bombed recently. Still, as long as people give the studios money to make them they will continue to produce them even if people online bitch and moan about it. I'm still annoyed that Pixar is making sequels. I huffed but let it slide for Toy Story series but once Disney acquired them their 'no sequels' imposed rule was right out the window. I don't really want an Incredibles sequel but they keep ignoring my letters of protest.

*Kids, ask your parents what a book is. It will blow your mind.

 Ahtman wrote:
but they keep ignoring my letters of protest

Think how I feel, 30,000+ posts on Dakka alone and nothing changes. Sometimes I wonder if it's all worthwhile.

 Ahtman wrote:
sequel but they keep ignoring my letters of protest.
.

When you email them, you shouldn't use the newspaper ransom font.

Manchu wrote:

 Ahtman wrote:
but they keep ignoring my letters of protest

Think how I feel, 30,000+ posts on Dakka alone and nothing changes. Sometimes I wonder if it's all worthwhile.

Thank god I don't have that many posts. *looks sideways at own post count*

kronk wrote:When you email them, you shouldn't use the newspaper ransom font.

Oh now you tell me.

As Ahtman alluded to, movies weren't always a nonstop parade of originality. What's happening isn't an end of a century long tradition of excellence, but just the closing of a pretty healthily long golden era for cinema.

Very early movies were formulaic and repetitious, and even the "studio system" movies of the 30s-60s played things very safe. We remember movies like Casablanca, but it wasn't the result of a genius auteur. It was a well crafted, but more or less simply an outlier to an otherwise production pace environment.

It wasn't until the Auteur era of the 70s through the 2000s where directors brought really vivid, personal, and new stories to the screen. The indie movement of the 90s also injected a lot of lifeblood into movies, and the rise of cable and vhs/DVD allowed for smaller movies to find audiences.

What's happening now is that, due to ease of watching a movie at home, audiences are really only coming out for spectacle: large movies that need to be enjoyed either on the big screen or immediately. Throw in the importance of the international market, especially China, and it's easy to see why studios are sticking with a pretty narrow range of movies: franchises that are action based, with a lot of special effects.

Look at Silence of the Lambs: modest budget, even for it's time, but it was the fifth highest grossing movie of 1991, and won five Oscars, including Best Picture. Movies like that don't make that much money, nor do they win awards. Sure, popular movies occasionally win Best Picture, but the two have split.

Reboots I feel mostly fail because they are obvious cash grabs from people who have no new ideas and are counting on the money of the fans of the orginal to at least break even.

And remaking a movie becuase you think CGI can do a better job than the original practical effects is well about the weakest reason to make a movie ever. Thats why I have not seen the new TMNT movies or the Total Recal remake.

People making sequels/prequels should observe what Miller did with Mad Max. People doing reboots should just be banned from film making.