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

paralanguage said:
It seems like hollywood has been pumping out the last action hero for the better part of 3 decades by now and we all have the luxury of being able to shut the whole machine off by simply boycotting over priced movie theatres and their derivative offerings....
Click to expand...

...and don't think Hollywood hasn't felt this recently. There have been many articles written on how people are just staying home and not going in for the overpriced film and popcorn. Its starting to worry them. Plus, I can buy five pounds of popcorn for $3 and put real butter on it by the way, as opposed to $7 for a medium with the dreaded "buttery flavored topping". (Seriously, what is that stuff :huh:)



I suppose the problem lies in the audience's apathy to fiind something worth watching. its more likely the case that alot of people dont want to think while watching a film and who can blame them after spending a hundred dollars to bring their family out to a megaplex.
Click to expand...

I don't know if I think its apathy. I'll give myself as an example for this:
Last weekend there really wasn't anything at the multiplexes that I really wanted to see. What can I really do about that? Complain to the cashier who knows absolutely nothing - including where the manager is who I could complain to? Or a few weeks back, I really wanted to see a film called Cherry Bomb, a film about the girl band The Runaways (Lita Ford and Joan Jett both belonged to this band) It never made it to my city. Again, what can I do about that?

Alot of people just wait for it to come out on DVD and that is why NetFlix is becoming a "problem" for Hollywood. At least there you can get the movies you want to see, including that obscure little documentary nobody's heard of.

-- spinner :cool:
 
spinner said:
the dreaded "buttery flavored topping". (Seriously, what is that stuff :huh:)
Click to expand...

I used to work at a movie theater and one time I checked the list of ingredients on the bottle. I don't recall anything having less than four syllables ... it read more like a high school chemistry book. And it comes in a jug that looks like anti-freeze. Ugh.
 
Where would we be without Google???

"New laboratory tests conducted by the non-profit Center for Science in the Public Interest reveal that a $12 medium-popcorn-and-soda combo sold at Regal, the country’s largest movie-theater chain, contains 1,610 calories and 60 grams of saturated fat — the equivalent of three McDonald’s Quarter Pounders with 12 pats of butter."
 
The reason for remakes and sequels is fear... and money.

The *average* Hollywood movie costs over $106.7 million by the timne it hits your screen. That's the average one, the big summer blockbusters often come in at $250m (some more). Studios are owned by washing machine companies - just another division of a big conglom. The conglom wants every division to make a profit. So the studio gets really picky about what they spend their $106m or $250m on - they only want sure things. Things that have made money before... and that leads to sequels and remakes. Also a focus on films based on things that have made money - like comic books and video games and pop novels and board games and toys.

When you are *investing* that much money in a film, you want the investment to pay off.

And the audience - the people who buy tickets and actually decide what movies get made - often flock to some sequel or remake or film based on a Hasbro toy because they like the original... or at least have heard of it. If they make MONOPOLY: THE MOVIE (and they are) they don't need to tell you what Monopoly is, you've played the game, you know the game. So instead of explaining everything, they just say it's a movie based on Monopoly, and just about everyone knows what that is. Less money spent on adverts that have to explain what the heck Monopoly is. Now, compare that to an original story - nobody knows anything about it! You have to explain everything!

And that audience who decides what movies get made (by buying tickets for one kind of movie and not buying tickets for some other kind) - well, last year (2009) was a *record* for ticket sales. Not box office, but actual tickets sold. People loved last year's movie big time... starting in January with PAUL BLART: MALL COP. That film increased biz by 24% over 2008! And it just kept going the whole year - ending with a record year for ticket sales.

This year - not so good. Reason why? Too many sequels and remakes. And studios are realizing that originals like PAUL BLART and HANGOVER and AVATAR are critical to ticket sales and box office... and next year there will be more originals in the mix.

But 2009 was a record year for ticket sales... and oddly enough a slump year for DVD and BluRay. More people wanted to see movies on the big screen with others than in the privacy of their homes.

But some of the successful films of 2009 were sequels and remakes... and it looks like TOY STORY 3 is going to be one of the big hits of 2010.

- Bill
 
paralanguage said:
there is more hope now than ever before for adventurous cinema. netflix is a huge revelation right now
Click to expand...

This runs contrary to what I've heard from others on this forum (though no personal experience yet).

While Netflix may be beneficial to movie consumers, it's quite possibly a death knell for indie producers. Even if a movie couldn't score a theatrical run, at least there were many thousands of video stores around the country who might buy a DVD for their shelves. Now Netflix is driving them out of business and, while Netflix may opt to carry an indie flick, from what I've heard they only buy a handful of copies to cover the whole country, and they don't pay royalties. A film can't pay for itself by only selling half a dozen DVD's. The market is evaporating.

Again, this is just what I've heard from others here and I don't mind admitting it scares the bejeezuz outta me.
 
Lets hope they come up with something other than 3d to keep people going to theaters. I love the theaters but I don't even go very often, even being a guy who loves movies. I've got netflix just like everyone else.
 
I just saw the teaser trailer for the Smurfs...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UpPqQYJuOwE

Laff.....

That's a moneymaker...

p.s. it said it's going to be in 3D
 
The current remake trend seems to be playing on childhood memories. A-Team, etc. 25 years later. 80s stuff. They did this 10 years ago or more/less with 70s stuff. Charlie's Angles, Mission Impossible. I guess in 10 years it will be 90s time.
 
I agree with 2001. NetFlix is not opening up avenues for
independent filmmakers. Without a “name” an indie film rarely
comes up on the “suggested for you” list and movie watchers just
don’t search out the true independent movie. NetFlix doesn’t pay
royalties so, as 2001 said, the distributor might sell five units
of an NetFlix film - total. That doesn't make a sale to them
profitable. So the very best we can hope for is “exposure”.

Any perceived demise of the studios (“Hollywood”) is not going to
help the true independent filmmaker like us. People making movies
without name talent because we have the passion, drive and talent
to make them. However, there will always be that rare exception
and that will continue to drive independent filmmakers like us to
hope we will be that exception.
 
I agree 100%. With films such as "Avatar" (which, to put it bluntly, sucked) graphics are becoming more important than story. 3D as well. People turn their nose up at movies that are shot in boring old 2D, even though 3D adds nothing to the film whatsoever. It just makes it look pretty. In my opinion, film is descending to a formulized world, where the big shot producers re-use the same plot over and over because its what brings in big bucks at the box office. True filmmakers won't even be able to make much money because their only venues will be festivals and self-distribution. It makes me want to cry.
 
ROC said:
I just saw the teaser trailer for the Smurfs...
Click to expand...

Call me evil, but if I were releasing the SMURFS movie I would release an R rated red band trailer filled with language and nudity and violence... actually, I'd *leak* it.

Because I have zero interest in seeing the SMURFS MOVIE, but if I saw some wicked trailer, I'd see it just for to see if any of that stuff was in the movie. Sure, I'd be pissed off... but it wouldn't be the first trailer that lied to me.

- Bill
 
droowl said:
With films such as "Avatar" (which, to put it bluntly, sucked) graphics are becoming more important than story.
Click to expand...

Did you miss when AVATAR made Empire Magazine's list of Ten Unproduced Screenplays in 2005? Or when some other mag listed it as Top Ten Unproduced Screenplays back in 2000? No graphics involved there - just words on the page.

I think it is easy to miss quality in stories told visually, because the images work on your subcinscious rather than your conscious. Most people "get it" - even though they do not know how or why they get it. The images - the visual storytelling - is the job of the screenwriter. It is not called "audio track writer".

If you are arguing against sequels and remakes you are arguing *for* original films like AVATAR which are not only popular with those folks who buy tickets, but popular with all of the major film critics and also gets nominated for screenplays and best film Oscars. Quality and popular.

- Bill
 
droowl said:
I agree 100%. With films such as "Avatar" (which, to put it bluntly, sucked) graphics are becoming more important than story. 3D as well. People turn their nose up at movies that are shot in boring old 2D, even though 3D adds nothing to the film whatsoever. It just makes it look pretty. In my opinion, film is descending to a formulized world, where the big shot producers re-use the same plot over and over because its what brings in big bucks at the box office. True filmmakers won't even be able to make much money because their only venues will be festivals and self-distribution. It makes me want to cry.
Click to expand...

Avatar to me was much more pleasing to watch visually than Nosferatu...
 
wcmartell said:
Call me evil, but if I were releasing the SMURFS movie I would release an R rated red band trailer filled with language and nudity and violence... actually, I'd *leak* it.

Because I have zero interest in seeing the SMURFS MOVIE, but if I saw some wicked trailer, I'd see it just for to see if any of that stuff was in the movie. Sure, I'd be pissed off... but it wouldn't be the first trailer that lied to me.

- Bill
Click to expand...

You don't have to make a separate leaked trailer for that. All you have to do is slap "Unrated" on it and that gets pervs running.
 
indietalk said:
The current remake trend seems to be playing on childhood memories. A-Team, etc. 25 years later. 80s stuff. They did this 10 years ago or more/less with 70s stuff. Charlie's Angles, Mission Impossible. I guess in 10 years it will be 90s time.
Click to expand...

Oh, that doesn't sound good :scared:

What was there in the 80's? They have to do the 80's first.

Weird Science in 3D? Flashdance in 3D! Top Gun in 3D! The Blues Brothers in 3D!

Wait!:idea: National Lampoon's Vacation IN 3D!

"Holiday Roooooooooooooaaaaaadd!"


-- spinner :cool:
 
Next thing you know in the McGuiver movie, McGuiver will be black.

Baywatch the movie...

Saved By The Bell - The Children's Class...

Steve Erkel's movie would have a nerdy white kid..

High-speed Trains, Jumbo Planes and Electric-mobiles...

They are already making a Gilligan's Island...

Hoosiers would be a good remake - but the original will still be the best sports film of all time...

Ghostbusters...

Ferris Beuler's Day Off... They can't remake that, can they??

Breakfast Club...

Caddyshack...

Back to the Future...

Already did Karate Kid...
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top