REMAKES??? AGAIN? I MEAN, AGAIN, AGAIN?!!

Slugwriter

Slugwriter

Okay, no doubt the 2000's have been all about Remakes, Sequels, Re boots and Superheros.... No doubt. Is this proof that companies are just trying to make a quick buck off old material, simply because they cant come up with something new? Are they wanting to bring the fans what they wanted, or is it for themselves, their own greedy purposes?

Superheros may be the only good thing to come from the list above. Dark Knight, Iron Man 1, Spiderman 1-2, Xmen 1-2 being the best. But all the Remakes that come to mind, well, pretty much sucked "Explicit." So, where does the Cinema world go from here? The 2010's are ahead, and do we follow this same trend? The 70's and everything before was all new and fresh ideas. None of them really ever getting a sequel, with exceptions, and I wonder why? Cough cough.

But now look at Cinema! Kids these days, even most adults, wont sit down and watch a black and white movie if their life depended on it. Im lucky to have a girlfriend who does! Not only this, but all they want are graphics. Is CGI destroying story? Is it all about the fighting and blood and Huge ass Robots? That no longer, a good mystery, or a good brando-esc movie is no longer appropriate? Most movies that win the movie of the year Oscar don't have good box officer scores! Except for No Country For Old Men. The 2000's are a new breed of films, from the old breed of writers and producers. A new breed must be delivered!! But will things ever change?

What are your opinions on Remakes, Sequels and the whol Sha-Bang? What movie does need a remake, or sequel that hasn't already and why? Tell me your thoughts, am I going insane or has the world changed without me? I do like a good summer blockbuster, and most of the movies are entertaining but that's not the point! Is it?
 
Hey man, I totally agree. I'd love to see some original content get made. Maybe no one's writing original shit that people feel safe sinking money into. It's gotta be kind of scary being an investor in original movies. Who knows if they'll be a hit without a fan base already waiting, such as in super hero movies and sequels and remakes.
 
Slugwriter said:
Okay, no doubt the 2000's have been all about Remakes, Sequels, Re boots and Superheros.... No doubt. Is this proof that companies are just trying to make a quick buck off old material, simply because they cant come up with something new?
Click to expand...

I hear this all the time and feel the need to defend myself and my fellow screenwriters:

IT'S NOT BECAUSE WE CAN'T COME UP WITH SOMETHING NEW!!! (Sorry for the shouting, but I take this very personally.)

Fact of the matter is, studio movies are incredibly expensive to produce, in no small part because of star salaries. In order to maximize the potential for recouping their investment, the studios look for anything that has some built-in appeal, whether it's an existing movie franchise or some other product, in order to pre-sell the movie as much as possible. Spec screenwriters like me come up with original stuff all the time since we (I) can't afford to option an existing property. But in the studio world - which is who my manager deals with - we don't kid ourselves that the material has a prayer of being produced. They're just writing samples to try and line up work as a scriptwriter or doctor for a studio optioned piece.

Indies produce original stuff all the time, but it's very difficult to get A-list talent involved because their salaries usually can't be met. Without A-list talent the major distributors won't touch them because they know most audience members won't buy a ticket. People vote at the box office and they get what they pay for.

Don't blame the writers, blame the ticket buyers.
 
I wouldn't say the 2000s have been ALL about remakes and superheroes..

I think the illusion of this is that technology has only now become good enough to do anything worth watching in that realm. And then they get promoted the hell out of.

Imagine making Iron Man with technology from the early 90s.

There is also the factor of the writers strike... I don't know if that played a roll with the amount of re-makes and such.. Like 3:10 to Yuma, Taking of Phelam 123, Poseidon Adventure, etc. etc.
 
The state of affair in Hollywood as of 2010 and most likely far beyond.

The truth is, for original ideas coming from writers who are unknown is going to be harder then ever and will not change soon. Studios have shut the doors for a new way they buy material and it's harder to squeeze through the crack. Here is the break down of how you can get a screenplay into the HW with a bit of luck.

- Comics/video games - If the comic/game becomes popular then it already have a following, storyboard and advertising. Nothing a studio/agent likes to hear more then those three things already done.

- Name recognition - yes, there are a few out there who can do this by dragging in audiences by their name. Not many, but a few. So like others on this board, making films yourself and hoping to be heard is another way to get out their.

- Bestselling book on NYT list - Again, it already has a following and that is what agents/studios want to hear.

- Sequels/remakes - they already own the rights to the product and they can do what ever they want with it. They know, most likely, it has been popular before and they figure the younger kids want a fresh updated version. Also, not only the kids want a fresh updated version, but so does TNT, TBS, WGN, etc. when it comes to the movies they show on their station. Why? Because so does the advertisers want a fresh new version to keep the fat, couch potato kids coming back for more (and like said earlier, the fat couch potato kids wanted a fresh updated version to begin with). Aaahhh.....the circle of life in action.

- In general, anything which gets a lot of coverage (news stories, a popular indie, meth, etc.)

- Anything with a good word of mouth. If they are hearing the buzz about something they WANT IT.

Yes, there is no business like show business but in the end it's about the ducats and nothing is going to change that. And since adults and college students are ripping off material on the internet or paying $10 for 10 movies in a month, I mean hell, why go after that crowd? It's about the young kids who have the disposable income from their parents. It's been effective for Hollywood the last 10 years and it will keep on being effective as long as we (adults and college students) allow it to happen. We are all at fault and you are too slugs you mouthy bitch. So eat your cake and shut up because nothing is going to change as of yet.

Also, someone posted a great letter from some consultant which said it all perfectly.

Also, what I'm saying is not new. Many understand this and it not much we all can do about it at this time. Now there are some media outlets which do help small films but not like it was in the past. And sure, the equipment has gotten cheaper and the ability to make a film more accessible. But if you ask me, the risk is higher and harder to get to the MASS audience. Now if you like small, indie feature films then get off the couch and start making them for the love of film, not for the cash.

Only you can prevent forest fires.


PS - I hope you know I was just kidding slugs about jab, I just felt like being a dick at the time and moment for no reason. :D And the meth statement.

Good luck.
 
Last edited:
I never blamed it on the writers, I said companies. And I did blame people, stating most people wont watch anything orginal or good. I don't blame writers. I understand.

And good point about the graphics. But I still think money plays a huge part. And yes, now companies aren't putting forth much money if they cant pre sell. But in the golden age you could, even the 70's and 80's. But not now, not today.
 
Slugwriter said:
I never blamed it on the writers, I said companies. And I did blame people, stating most people wont watch anything orginal or good. I don't blame writers. I understand.

.
Click to expand...


Ouch, how about you just hit the masses with the shovel of un-intelligence...?

Nobody expects the masses to love art-house or Indie thrillers, most don't have the time for anything new or have ever been in the circumstance of being introduced to anything but what they know, and what with the million distractions i wouldn't hold your breath.

Seeing as the forum is high and wide in the demographic of those you suggest do watch original and "good" movies, I won't pry bro. :P
 
Slugwriter said:
I never blamed it on the writers, I said companies. And I did blame people, stating most people wont watch anything orginal or good. I don't blame writers. I understand.
Click to expand...

Didn't mean to lay into you personally, Slug. It was the "can't come up with anything original" phrase that I hear all the time -- which implies writers since studios don't "come up with" scripts for movies, they buy properties and hire writers to flesh them out. The general public often doesn't differentiate between the two.

I talked about this in a previous post and wridingrlm touched on it again here, the people who might otherwise support original, thought-provoking material don't go to theaters anymore like they did in the pre-video days. Consequently, studios seldom finance movies that target that audience.

I've always felt that ticket prices should reflect the cost to produce the movie. If you want to see Avatar, a ticket costs $20. If you want to see an indie without the latest megastars it costs $5. As it stands now, given the choice between shelling out $15 for a $250,000,000 sci-fi extravaganza versus the same $15 for a $25,000,000 drama, 95% of people who go to movies are going to go for the big experience and wait for the latter on video. Flexible admission prices would level the playing field a bit, I think, and encourage more people to go to the theater. The theater owner would make out because they make most of their money off concession sales and the price of a bucket of popcorn would be the same for both patrons, plus they'd sell more in total.

This is just my own theory, of course. I may be completely whack. :hmm:
 
The truth is 95% of the people in this word, yes, the masses, are stupid. They follow the follower.this is productive, for me, and if it is for me, then no one elses opinion matter, period. Most of the people writing on this forum are apart of this 95% of stupid people. Sorry, some are not. And the oil spill is none of my business, it has nothing to do with me. Movie business is my business and it matters to me. I feel a certain way. You feel a certain way, and both of our opinions don't matter. When the world is gone, our opinions wont matter, neither will movies, so I just do what makes me happy.
 
@2001 Hey, Valentine's Day was sooooooooooooo much better in the theater than on DVD. It was also soooooooooooooo cool in 3D IMAX.

I mean, the 5.1 sound effects for the flower truck were awesome. The airplane ambience was breathtaking in 5.1. Queen Latifah's office in 3D was a sight to behold.
 
I've always felt that ticket prices should reflect the cost to produce the movie. If you want to see Avatar, a ticket costs $20. If you want to see an indie without the latest megastars it costs $5. As it stands now, given the choice between shelling out $15 for a $250,000,000 sci-fi extravaganza versus the same $15 for a $25,000,000 drama, 95% of people who go to movies are going to go for the big experience and wait for the latter on video. Flexible admission prices would level the playing field a bit, I think, and encourage more people to go to the theater
Click to expand...

I have to admit, I've always felt the same way. With the lay of the land with distribution companies and theatres shaking hands for their business deals will make this tough, but I like the way you think 2001P.
 
@Slug - Well, my opinion is that the 2000s held some of the best filmmaking gems thus far in the history of film and to write it off as the "decade of the comicbook Superhero" and "lousy scriptwriting" is a little narrow-visioned for my taste.
 
Whoa Whoa Whoa! I never siad I didn't like the movies! Lol, that wasn't what my Thread was about. If you re-read what I wrote, you will notice it was all questions! Not my personaly opinions. I though it was make for a good conversation. And I also never said it was bad writing! Even though none of the scripts written in the last ten years, Eternal Sunshine of the spotless mind aside, are in the top 100 scripts of all time. They still are good. I never downed anyone in my orignal post and if you thought I did, I am sorry. I feel us writers are brothers. We should unite, not fight. Just understand I feel this decade is different. And you cant doubt it hasn't changed. But things change, that's how it is.

Thank you for reading.
 
Oh, okay then.

"Okay, no doubt the 2000's have been all about Remakes, Sequels, Re boots and Superheros...."

That's what I read. I thought you meant that.

Alright.
 
Oh, great opportunity in sound design. More flexibility in sound design. Doing things with sound which was previously not possible.

Doing things with picture which wasn't possible before, like Avatar's 2 camera deal.

But, mainly I think sound broke out and really made big impacts on the major films coming out.

There were lots of good movies that came out and had a big impact on the industry, as well.
 
Slugwriter said:
none of the scripts written in the last ten years, Eternal Sunshine of the spotless mind aside, are in the top 100 scripts of all time.
Click to expand...

Actually, it's more correct to say that none of the scripts FOR MOVIES THAT WERE PRODUCED in the last ten years are in the top 100. I'd venture to guess that some of the best scripts written have never been produced and probably never will be because they don't have what the studios consider marketable elements in them.

CHINATOWN is widely considered to be one of the best original screenplays ever written, but a decade or so ago somebody tried an experiment. They took Robert Towne's script and changed the title and character names - nothing else - and shopped it around Hollywood. Not only was it rejected by every studio, but none of the execs (most of whom weren't even born when Chinatown was released) even recognized it.

To me, that's modern Hollywood in a nutshell.
 
@2001 yeah - heh.

That's because Chinatown doesn't have T&A, guns or drugs in it, right?

They couldn't figure out a way to make it unrated.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top