RomanArmyTalk

Dear Hollywood- ENOUGH WITH THE REMAKES!!! :lol: Good grief- now there's a NEW Superman movie- a remake of Superman The Movie... what the hell? hock: The Omen, King Kong, Superman, Cheaper by the Dozen, The Pink Panther, The Amityville Horror, The Texas Chainsaw Massacre, Yours Mine and Ours, Assault on Precinct 13- and about a gazillion more, and I'm SICK OF THEM. :evil: If anyone knows any studio heads or execs PLEASE tell them to make something NEW! There are thousands and thousands of good stories that have never been made into movies, so there's sure no shortage. I mean it's one thing to re-do an old movie that you can seriously improve on, but Superman? Assault on Precinct 13? The PINK PANTHER?! hock: Already great movies- why do them over and badly?

Absolutely!!! :evil: :? evil: :!:

However...

Matt, you forgot the 2nd Law of Hollywood (with no apologies to Louie B Meyer):

"This is show business kid, business. You want to send a message? Call Western Union. You want art? Go to a museum. This is business."

Lucas shopped his script to every studio, and was turned down by them all, save one, because they just knew you couldn't make money with a B grade space opera. And Fox sold the sequel and toy/gack rights to Lucas because they just knew you couldn't make money with sequels or toys (their own experience with the Planet Of The Apes series not withstanding.)

Hollywood hates taking chances, particularly on something new, or something they do not understand. So they did not take the chance and thus an empire was born.

Star Wars sold $3 Billion in toys & stuff last year alone.

Ever since May 1977 all of Hollywood has been trying to duplicate the success of Star Wars. And Hollywood has never been the same.

Occasionally art does creep in: The Seven Samurai (which the Weinstiens have just announced they are going to remake. :? x ) or Brother Where Art Thou? or a few others (we all have our own lists of favorites) but one fact remains -- it is all about the Benjamins. The more the better.

That "art" emerges at all from Hollywood is nothing short of miraculous. It does happen, every now and again, and perhaps its very infrequency makes it all the more important and memorable.

But I wax over long.

My apologies.



Narukami

But, were it not for remakes, we would never have had the 1959 "Ben-Hur," the Liz Taylor "Cleopatra," or the 50's "Quo Vadis." All were remakes. Granted, at least they let decades lapse between productions, but remakes nonetheless.

I just wonder when they'll finally do a remake of Gladiator.... :twisted:

But it was aremake of the "Fall of the Roman Empire" I think.

Kind regards

Oh I don't want art- I'm not one of those 'Hollywood is a sellout' people- I LOVE B-grade space operas :lol: I just don't want remakes of movies that can't be improved on. Ben Hur, Cleopatra and Quo Vadis were all SPECTACULAR improvements on the originals, just as John Carpenter's The Thing, and many other remakes have been- it's the volume and choice of late that I'm unhappy with. Here and there when they can definitely improve on the original, then great, I'm all for remakes and even re-tellings like Battlestar Galactica is now (although I'm sure there are some die-hard original fans who will disagree), but when the originals or even previous remakes are just excellent or are classics like the Pink Panther is, remakes are just ridiculous. I'll be forever disappointed in Steve Martin for doing Clouseau- he should have realized that no one will ever even match Peter Sellers and refused to even try.

Of course I do understand that the remake is probably one of the easiest and cheapest ways to potentially make a buck- don't have to pay for a new story because they already own the rights, they already have name/ story recognition, etc.- and I don't doubt that's the main reason for the rash of them lately. Sure, a few are intentional attempts at improvement or Peter Jackson's 'homage', King Kong (although I'd consider re-doing a classic to be saying 'I can do better' so isn't all that much of a tribute :lol: ), but most are just money-saving cheap cash-ins. Certainly that qualifies them for the 'don't like to take chances' aspect of Hollywood too- I know that... it just bugs me :lol:

I guess I have to remember that one will just go nuts trying to understand the 'logic' (word used VERY loosely) of Hollywood- afterall, with some series moving near double digits when the first one or two were barely good enough to deserve to be made, and the fact that they invented the absolutely RIDICULOUS idea of 'suspension of disbelief' (which is basically 'we're too lazy to do realism or rationality'), it's kind of silly to expect more from them.

And, of course, I admit I do suffer from the 'I could do SO much better's as well :lol: :wink:

Have to disagree about Assault on Precinct 13. Thought it was a superb remake. Sorry Matt. :?

The irony is if you want innovation look to the likes of HBO. Big risk takers.

Oh man Jim- from SWAT guys who can't breach a building without getting shot up by the dozen by some burnout undercover cop and weird street trash crooks, to sharpshooters who can't seem to hit the floor if they fell on it, as soon as the 'assault' started, I felt more and more violated with each passing second :lol: Ethan Hawke and his rag-tag band took out, what was it, 33 very heavily-armed guys... must have all been traffic cops and meter maids :wink: But then given some of the stuff I like, I can hardly judge others' taste in movies- each to their own! So long as one is entertained, that's what matters, yes?

My point was more that it wasn't like the original Carpenter movie wasn't all that well-done or all that old that it was 'time' for a remake or that, like Spiderman, it could be done so much better now.

Yes, some remakes are fun and some are much better than the original.

I do like Carpenter's Thing ("It's Chariots Of The Gods man, they practically own South America.") but I also like the original. Howard Hawkes use of overlapping dialogue is quite good even if some of the characterizations are not.)

Jackson's King Kong on the other hand...You take a 90-minute film with a fairly thin story to begin with and expand it to 3 hours -- to what purpose? One evening we watched the original and my grandson was enthralled by it all. Then we put on the "new" Kong and 10 minutes in he asks if we can fast forward to the ape because this is boring. At 20 minutes in we were all clamoring for the remote so we could fast forward to something better. Unfortunately 'something better' turned out to be the end credits.

However...

It is interesting that certain remakes we accept without protest, in fact welcome with eager anticipation.

Consider Shakespeare and how often his plays have been redone on both stage and screen.

The Bard in Space: Forbidden Planet

In Ancient Japan: The Throne Of Blood

In 1950's NYC: West Side Story

In 1930' England: Richard III

And on and on too numerous to list.

I like Olivier's Henry V, and I also like Branagh's too.

In the Kabuki theatre as well it is fun to watch actors from different families play the same role. Although at first glance their performances may appear to be so similar as to be identical, there are in fact many differences both subtle and striking that speak volumes towards the actor’s concept of the character he is portraying.

Even so...

I do take your point Matt, and I generally agree. Why remake a film unless you are going to brig something new to it.

Batman Begins did bring a new look to an old story.

A shot-for-shot remake of Psycho? Why bother. :? (

Remake The Seven Samurai? :evil: :evil: :evil:

Remake of The Wicker Man due out this September: ???

As with many things if the re-make is a success then clearly it was a great idea. And if not, then one can only wonder what ever possessed "them" to think this was a good idea in the first place.

If Hollywood wants better box office returns they need to make better movies.

And if they want to make better movies they need to tell better stories.

After all, film is just a medium for story telling. Without a story to tell there is noting worth watching no matter how slick its presentation.

Dan O'Bannon once said that the best movie he had ever made was the one he imagined in his head before he ever set pen to page of exposed a single foot of film.

The genius of some filmmakers is that they can translate their inner movie onto film for the rest of us to enjoy. It does not happen often, but when it does it is truly magic.

Narukami

And don't forget the number of foreign language films turned into Hollywood blockbusters:

http://www.listology.com/content_show.c ... 95/Current

Right you are Tarbicus! :!:

In fact your list mentions only one of the re-makes of Seven Samurai.

Besides the western, Magnificent Seven (which itself spawned a couple of sequels and a TV series) there was also:

Battle Beyond The Stars (7 Samurai in space with screen play by John Sayles of all people.)

A Bug's Life (Animated 7 Samurai for kids. Yes, this might be stretching the point just a bit, but not as much a Hollywood stretches it.)

Seven Samurai 20XX (A video game set in the future -- haven't played it, and have no intention of doing so.)

Seven Samurai -- The Remake (Yet another remake with a Chinese actress in a leading role -- no details yet.)

Clearly some stories (like the plays of Shakespeare) have the strength to withstand (or support) numerous re-interpretations.

To my mind all of this 7 Samurai re-make madness points to the genius of Akira Kurosawa.

Narukami

Mr Kurosawa is a Master! His epic film Kagemusha is awesome!

Aw man, now there's a remake of The Hitcher... what's next- a remake of Lord of the Rings?! Pathetic.

And the biggest fun about it is that loads of brilliant scripwriters and scripts will be never red by any producers, just for some squalid bed affairs, if not just for indolence, ignorance, etc. Save that a miracle happens and a low-budget script/movie becomes a blockbuster. But the system re-makes/miracles is totally fool as business system and strictly recalls the public administrations bad management of public money... Is'nt it a bit odd for the champions of business philosophy like the Americans? :evil:

Remember Bollywood and Chinese movies...

Valete,

Perhaps the problem is a bit more complex. The number of stories appears to be limited. This is one of the conclusions of the research to oral traditions, and explains why the same type of story appear in all civilizations. Take, for example, the myth of the Great Flood, which can be found in Africa and among native Americans, who can not possibly have read the oldest recorded version, from Sumeria. Probably, it appeals to some basic instinct.

I think the same applies to movie scenarios. It takes a genius like Charlie Kaufman to create a new type of plot. And although I like his stories, I confess that it takes me more mental energy to understand it. The old, well-known stories, are easier. Not only because we already know what to concentrate upon, but also (I guess) because they appeal to certain basic instincts.