# Is hollywood losing it?



## Rodders (Jun 9, 2009)

Looking back over the last few years i've noticed a tendancy for Hollywood to be remaking or rebooting a lot of new films. As such there's not a lot of original films going forward. Is Hollywood loosing it's edge a good story?

TV has a lot to offer and although cancellation is rife, there have been a lot of good shows released lately. Video games are constantly going forward and are really getting great stories. 

Any thoughts?


----------



## j d worthington (Jun 9, 2009)

First, I would say this should be posed in the past tense. Hollywood has lost it. Period.

Not, however, for the first time. This is a periodic thing, and it takes the success of independent or foreign films (thus taking box-office from them) to get them out of the doldrums and stretch a bit. Either that, or a whole slew of maverick directors, writers, producers, and the like, such as we've only seen once or twice in the industry's history. Not likely at all, under current circumstances.

As for the other aspects... I think that's one I've answered numerous times, based on what I hear from people who work/have worked in that field over the years... and the most recent peroration on the subject can be found here:

http://www.sffchronicles.co.uk/forum/50790-total-recall-movie-to-be-remade-2.html#post1283639

Simply, it is now up to the audience to make Hollywood change; to force innovation and get rid of fossilized thinking... and, given the bubble-gum mentality of the bulk of movie-going audiences these days, I'm afraid that's simply not "in the stars"....


----------



## Dave (Jun 9, 2009)

I've also answered this many times before, but I think I've now softened my attitude a little providing the final product is good enough:

http://www.sffchronicles.co.uk/forum/50745-new-alien-film-will-be-a-prequel.html#post1281955

For example, _Terminator Salvation_ and _Star Trek_ that are in cinemas now are reasonably good. _The Day the Earth Stood Still_ from 2008 still leaves me asking "why?"


----------



## The Ace (Jun 9, 2009)

Naah, they never had it (Operation Burma, U-571, The Patriot......)


----------



## Connavar (Jun 9, 2009)

I saw in the cinema news mag i got after seein T4.

I was disgusted seeing so many remakes of every good 80s movie coming out 2009-2011.    

Ghostbusters III
The Warriors,Fame
The Thing
Dead Wish
The Escape from New York
Terror on Elm street
Karate Kid
Footlose
Wall Street 2
Robocop
Knight Rider
Dune
Highlander
Missing in Action
Romancing the Stone
They Live
Neverending Story
Total Recal


I have no interest in any remake except Robocop because it was an original story and deserve a real sequal.  Darren Aronofsky is good too.

They lost it many years ago imo.   I have seen two movies in the cinema this year.  Its alltime low for me.  I just have no interest in dumb blockbuster,remakes.  You will just have to rent the smaller quality film,the films from europe,asia.


----------



## nj1 (Jun 9, 2009)

Is this just a money saving excercise? Considering they would already own the rights to Conn's list, they would save a hell of alot on royalties by remaking.

Shocked to see Highlander and Dune on that list, classics both of them!!


----------



## iansales (Jun 9, 2009)

Dave said:


> For example, _Terminator Salvation_ and _Star Trek_ that are in cinemas now are reasonably good. _The Day the Earth Stood Still_ from 2008 still leaves me asking "why?"



I've not seen the new Terminator film, but the new Star Trek was monumentally stupid. It's only "good" in the sense that a crash during a Formula 1 race is "good" - more exciting than watching a bunch of cars driving round in circles, but no one wins prizes by wiping out at 200 mph.


----------



## Connavar (Jun 9, 2009)

nj1 said:


> Is this just a money saving excercise? Considering they would already own the rights to Conn's list, they would save a hell of alot on royalties by remaking.
> 
> Shocked to see Highlander and Dune on that list, classics both of them!!



If it was only about money they would make smaller action movies they know would make money with the adult audience or kids Movie that don't cost much.

Its just they are afraid of new ideas, the fear of failure. Remakes off classic or popular films are easier to make a hit off.

Despite the economic crisis there has already been more 100 Million dollar BO films in US than last year in the 5 months.  So its not about the cost,getting enough money back in BO.


----------



## Overread (Jun 9, 2009)

I think also Hollywood easily gets into an isolation complex = you get a lot of yesmen surrounding those in charge which means that the same ideas keep getting used over and over. Plus I think they only care about a boxoffice hit nowadays and an easy way to get that is to get something with an already large fanbase back into the cinemas - ergo remakes. Its a sad thing that most remakes have poor CGI effects; often a writer and director despirate to make it their film so they chop and change anything they can; and are often backed up with poor rate actors.
At least I would prefer it if they could just make clone movies rather than remakes!


----------



## j d worthington (Jun 9, 2009)

Connavar said:


> If it was only about money they would make smaller action movies they know would make money with the adult audience or kids Movie that don't cost much.
> 
> Its just they are afraid of new ideas, the fear of failure. Remakes off classic or popular films are easier to make a hit off.
> 
> Despite the economic crisis there has already been more 100 Million dollar BO films in US than last year in the 5 months. So its not about the cost,getting enough money back in BO.


 
I would have to disagree with you to some degree. It may or may not be about the actual figures once all is said and done, but it is certainly about the producers' perception of cost-vs.-profit. Hollywood has long had this odd idea (at_ least_ as far back as C. B. DeMille) that "bigger is better" and that people like a spectacle -- so that part of cost is seen as pretty basic: bigger car crashes, bigger chases, bigger sets, bigger special effects in general. That is simply SOP.

_But_... new ideas, new scripts, new writers, new types of film... those are seen as "too high risk" -- too much chance of outlay without return on the investment. So your second point actually reinforces the concept that it's about money; the first, sadly, shows they know nothing about creativity, but only "panem et circenses"....


----------



## Urien (Jun 9, 2009)

Hollywood and the studios therein are businesses. A big movie going down the pan because it's a little off piste, a tad avant garde, a teensy bit experimental wipes them out. No more movies from that studio, hence no one wins.

There is no set winning (money making) menu for a movie, but there are general "what worked last time" ideas. So what worked last time is reworked this time, bigger bangs, more special effects, bigger stars and so on. Indeed now the "what worked last time" ethos has grown so pervasive that they are copying entire movies rather than merely ideas for movies. Smaller labels supported by the big studios or independents create the main driving force, they then get co-opted.

I don't applaud it but I do understand it. 

The car industry has gone much the same way; most cars today have much the same basic shape, (see cars in the 1930s for differences), the cost of a failure is so high it would wipe the company out. Most competition therefore is not on the design but on marketing, reliability, cost basis; and design differences tend to be just a bit of a riff on a theme. If you're an American the Japanese and Europeans (not the Brits, we lost two decades ago) won the car wars.


----------



## Saeltari (Jun 9, 2009)

What about Pixar?


----------



## ravenus (Jun 9, 2009)

Pixar is not above that. Most of their movies regurgitate the "outcast discovers his/her/their TRUE self" plotline.


----------



## Saeltari (Jun 9, 2009)

but not remakes or already done movies, then? And every movie regurgitates some plotline don't they? Unless you have seen a new plotline recently?


----------



## chopper (Jun 9, 2009)

hollywood has always eaten itself. here's the proof:
List of film remakes - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

there have been three versions of Ben Hur so far, according to this list, along with eight (count them!) Oliver Twists and three 39 Steps (117 steps in total, i suppose). even You've Got Mail was a remake.

the one i love is Menace II Society - especially when somebody asks if we stock "the first one".....


----------



## Lobolover (Jun 9, 2009)

A beter question would be in order . _Did it ever have "it" ?_

And before you answer , check out this reviewed

YouTube - Nostalgia Critic - North (Part 1)
YouTube - Nostalgia Critic - North (Part 2)
YouTube - Nostalgia Critic - North (Part 3)

All Texans, and Hawaiians should watch at least parts 1 and 2 (innuits and members of the Vigoda family only after consulation with your doctor or apotecary)


----------



## Connavar (Jun 9, 2009)

j. d. worthington said:


> I would have to disagree with you to some degree. It may or may not be about the actual figures once all is said and done, but it is certainly about the producers' perception of cost-vs.-profit. Hollywood has long had this odd idea (at_ least_ as far back as C. B. DeMille) that "bigger is better" and that people like a spectacle -- so that part of cost is seen as pretty basic: bigger car crashes, bigger chases, bigger sets, bigger special effects in general. That is simply SOP.
> 
> _But_... new ideas, new scripts, new writers, new types of film... those are seen as "too high risk" -- too much chance of outlay without return on the investment. So your second point actually reinforces the concept that it's about money; the first, sadly, shows they know nothing about creativity, but only "panem et circenses"....



Cost-profit has always been hollywood since there BO blockbusters started.   The reason there is more bigger is better movies even more now is the economy crisis.  I saw Hollywood reporter show where some expert said smaller,middle films that would get maked are too much of a risk now and get scrapped.  Thats why it seems like its summer blockbuster all the years around.

Personally my problem with hollywood isnt the blockbusters that people want.  The problem is the oscar movies,the serious movies that are suppose to creative are un-original,remaking the same ideas to win oscars.  A Milk every year to win the oscar.   Some famous real life person movie,some tragic drama and so on.

I cant remember the last time i saw an original movie that was great from hollywood.  They are books if not cliche of an typical oscar film.

I dont care anymore.  I watch classic film noir era films,the 60s,70s film i missed.  The rest i watch thoughtprovoking films,other type creative films  from the rest of the world.   Films like Old Boy,Pan's Labyrint.


----------



## Interference (Jun 9, 2009)

Familiarity is supposed to attract the young audiences, which are the only audiences anyone cares about.  TV has shown the way in this case, loyalty to series being the only way they can attract advertising to pay for their parties and cocaine.


----------



## Saeltari (Jun 10, 2009)

I agree, the Oscars really seem to be a joke anymore.


----------



## ctg (Jun 10, 2009)

Oscars as I see them has been and will be jokes for as long as the same cast of executive directors stay in the helm of Hollywood studios. There will be no changes, no new ideas, nothing as long as 'they' receive the same treatment as the banking bosses. Honestly, and I don't mean to upset you Americans, you need to reboot the system. Do what Danny Boyle did with Slumdog Millionaire and embrace the idea of getting in the new sh*t. Then again, maybe it's not that bad. Maybe you're supposed to stick with the old, when Europe and Bollywood keep doing these thought provoking 'artistic' films with much, much smaller budgets. All I can do is to hope that Iron Sky is going to strike there where it really hurts.


----------



## Rodders (Jun 10, 2009)

I always thought that there was a certain snob factor with the Oscars and it wasn't meant for the average guy.


----------



## j d worthington (Jun 10, 2009)

In reference to Oscars... they aren't (purportedly) supposed to have anything to do with popularity, but rather with picking the best work in whatever category for that year, as judged by a panel of their peers. However, the Academy Awards have always been very political, meaning there is seldom (though not never) reason to use them as criteria of what is or is not good work. (And, of course, even a _bad_ film can have outstanding work in some areas.)

Connavar: the thing I have against the blockbuster/spectacle mentality is that it has become increasingly about eye-candy and less and less about producing anything either intelligent or artistically notable. It's super-kitsch, nothing more. Unfortunately, this is too often the case with the dramas as well, which tend more and more toward overblown melodrama. (Though there are, of course, exceptions in both cases; yet these are becoming, I would say, ever more rare.)

However, I'd like to see the recent crop of directors/producers go back and really _study_ the best films Hollywood has produced, going back to the earliest days of the form. Not to copycat or remake any of these films, but to once again learn how to make films which both tell an entertaining story, manage to have something to say, and are aesthetically pleasing to the eye and ear. Goodness knows they've got a wealth of good, even excellent films from throughout their history; it's time to refresh their memories on why some of these things are still watched and enjoyed today, 20, 30, 50, or even 80 or 90 years after they were first released....


----------



## Lobolover (Jun 10, 2009)

I have a one sentence definition for that , J.D. 

_"If the movies' selling point is the only point it has, there is no point in watching it ."

Me_


----------



## Noah Phoenix (Jun 10, 2009)

They are so scared of 'wiping out' that it seems only remakes and movies of books with an already large fanbase are the only films that will do any good. I don't see this as such a bad thing; after all its the directors vision and skill that will make a remake a success or not. Mind you, trying something different with a tried and tested film doesn't always work (The Day The Earth Stood Still -2008) However, films of books do-Harry Potter, Twilight (Even if the books not that good).
During the current finacial climate, we aren't going to see anything too daring. After everyones got over the panic? I think there are going to be a lot of bored people looking for something different once there's more money floating around.

I can't wait for Ghostbusters 3. Sequels are good, so long as they don't go down the whole bigger, costlier, more explosions and half naked women route. (Transformers 2 may well turn out this way)I loved both Terminator Salvation and Star Trek, even though I don't like Star Trek.
Provided directors and Producers can get permission for a new 'take'/'vision' for a franchise, it's all good.


----------



## j d worthington (Jun 10, 2009)

Noah Phoenix said:


> after all its the directors vision and skill that will make a remake a success or not.


 
Sorry, but I have a _looooot_ of trouble with this claim. Frankly, it's nonsense. as a director can't do a damn thing without a script. (This even applies to those directors who are also the screenwriters.) It is not the _director_, but the _writer_, who has the vision. A bad, even an egregious film, can be made from a fine script; but a good film from a truly bad script is an extreme rarity. And it is unlikely that someone doing a rewrite of a thing which has already been done is going to put in the sort of effort they would on either an original idea of their own, or an adaptation from a literary original for which they had an affinity. It does happen, yes, but again, it is an extreme rarity, given the number of films which are remade....


----------



## ctg (Jun 10, 2009)

JD, there are exceptions, like for example Blair Witch Project. Also I think some of the Indie makers do extempore films.  

Nevertheless, I agree on your point, it is the writer who has the vision. Without a script, so many projects would be probably quite confusing. The script is like a guideline to so many people in the industry and yet, it is almost always either the director or the actors that gets the credit.


----------



## Rodders (Jun 10, 2009)

and yet Hollywood produces so many mediocre (at best) stories. Surely their executives should be able to look at something and say, i'm not producing that, it's crap. (That said, would we have had Star Wars if that was the case? That got passed around considerably.)


----------



## Lobolover (Jun 11, 2009)

I think what Ebert once said aplis here " When you get money to produce a movie in Hollywood, you press forward as fast as you can:"


----------



## Noah Phoenix (Jun 11, 2009)

j. d. worthington said:


> Sorry, but I have a _looooot_ of trouble with this claim. Frankly, it's nonsense. as a director can't do a damn thing without a script. (This even applies to those directors who are also the screenwriters.) It is not the _director_, but the _writer_, who has the vision. A bad, even an egregious film, can be made from a fine script; but a good film from a truly bad script is an extreme rarity. And it is unlikely that someone doing a rewrite of a thing which has already been done is going to put in the sort of effort they would on either an original idea of their own, or an adaptation from a literary original for which they had an affinity. It does happen, yes, but again, it is an extreme rarity, given the number of films which are remade....



I meant the director has a vision *for* the script. Every one knows its the writer that has the vision, so to say that that's what you thought I meant was a little off to be honest. Perhaps I should have worded it better though.


----------



## Interference (Jun 11, 2009)

Writers and directors are both story tellers.  The final arbiter of quality is whether the story was worth telling in the first place.  When a director and writing team fires on all cylinders, a masterpiece can emerge.  Otherwise, you get Terminator 4, Star Trek 3 and 5, every re-make there ever was (where the original vision is rarely even acknowledged by the makers of the film) and most RomComs.

Kevin Costner went up in my estimation for a while when he was reported as having watched Errol Flynn's _Adventures of Robin Hood_ and saying, "Don't remake it, re-release it."  Of course his stock with me plummeted again when he starred in the ill-starred remake.  I maintain, though, that his first instinct was correct.  Remaster and re-release.  Make stars again of Flynn, Bogart, Bacall, Bette Davies, Fields, West, Colbert, Gable etc etc etc ...

Or pick only bad films to re-make and regain the lost visions and reputations of the medium's less regarded pioneers. 

But in any case, remake with affection and respect, not cynicism and accountants.


----------



## Moonbat (Jun 11, 2009)

Re-release Errol Flynn's robin hood? Are you mad?
Film has moved on alot since those days. Even looking at Robin Hood prince of thieves you can see how far the movie making process has moved on in the last 20 (?) years.
Heat (starring De Niro and Pacino) is a re-make, should that not have been made, but instead we should have been happy with LA Takedown?


----------



## Interference (Jun 11, 2009)

Imho, vision is the thing, not clever effects, MB.  There is more humour and adventure and swashbuckling and character in 4 frames of Flynn's Hood than in the entire duration of Prince of Mehs.

Heat had Vision  (Heat vision?)

Of course, the argument "film has moved on", if applied to photography or novels or paintings or architecture or any other creative medium, wouldn't hold water, either.

And boat building.


----------



## Heinleinaddict (Jun 11, 2009)

I think that remakes are just the trend in recent years.  Some remakes are actually good as well such as Star Trek.  Cashing in a bit on peoples desire for Nostalgia.


----------



## Interference (Jun 11, 2009)

Remaking Psycho as a frame-by-frame homage didn't work.  Remaking Rio Bravo as Rio Lobo (or was it the other way round), arguably, did.  As long as the remake is approached with integrity I have no issue with it.  But if there is none, the result will be, at best, a pastiche of its inspiration.

We don't need _Gone With The Wind_ remade, we don't need _Casablanca_ re-made, we don't need _The Great Dictator_ or _Citizen Kane_ remade, but maybe _Lost Horizon_ could do with a proper re-visit one day.


----------



## j d worthington (Jun 11, 2009)

Noah Phoenix said:


> I meant the director has a vision *for* the script. Every one knows its the writer that has the vision, so to say that that's what you thought I meant was a little off to be honest. Perhaps I should have worded it better though.


 
That depends on the director. Get a good director, and yes, that can be the case (though it isn't always true). The majority of directors are (as in most fields) mediocre to crap, and can't honestly be said to have this quality.

But the reason I objected to this so strongly is, frankly, the nonsense of "auteur" theory, which has done more to support dismissing the writer without cause than perhaps any other branch of film theory/criticism ever to come down the pike... and that comprises a lot, believe me, as producers and the like have always held the writers to be chattel... *at best*!

The problem is, of course, that -- as with most such criticism -- there's a grain of truth to it, and some exceptional examples which would seem to give it a great deal more (whether producers or directors): Val Lewton, Werner Herzog, Stanley Kubrick, Ken Russell (wonky as he is), and the like. But these are definitely among the exceptions, and generally have a hand in writing the script, either in part or entirely.

As for Blair Witch... well, no, it's not really an exception, save in a very formal sense. True, there was no "script" in the sense of lines of dialogue written out for the actors, but the filmmakers did have an outline of what they wanted, they gave out what was necessary to the actors for each scene they wanted, and let the improvisation go from there. This isn't so different from certain other scripts in film and experimental theater to begin with; and it still requires at least a script in the writers'/directors' (the same thing, in this case) head, whether or not committed to paper.

However, this film also shows the dangers of that approach, in that, it simply doesn't hold up under a review, no matter how much the novelty of it appeals the first time around; and the majority of the faults here lie very much in the fact there was no formal script, allowing for far too many anomalies and poor conceptions to creep in....


----------



## Parson (Jun 11, 2009)

Is Hollywood losing it? That depends on what "it" is. 

Hollywood is a business based on art, it is not in the strictest sense art. The same could be said about football and the NFL, or any sport vs. professional sport. When you are looking to make a profit the market decides what will be produced in quantity and what will not. As the market shifts so does the production. There will be little which is original, and what is original will either be roundly criticized, or quickly copied if financially successful. 

If you would use painting or sculpting or writing poetry as examples you would see that most of the people who did these were not financially very successful. Some were financially successful but reviled by their peers while others of them were revered by their peers (and others in-the-know) but had more modest financial success. Still others just did what came from their heart, and let the market and the critics do with their work whatever they pleased -- sometimes they were loved; more often they were despised. (I find that it is the last group which is most original.)

On the other hand if you mean "it" to mean "meaningful" rather than "original," then I would agree that Hollywood is losing it. I believe that a large part of the reason for this is that our culture has fewer and fewer shared experiences and norms. Without these, the ability to create a movie that says something to us becomes much more difficult and and when attempted is often formulaic.


----------



## Noah Phoenix (Jun 11, 2009)

j. d. worthington said:


> That depends on the director. Get a good director, and yes, that can be the case (though it isn't always true). The majority of directors are (as in most fields) mediocre to crap, and can't honestly be said to have this quality.
> 
> But the reason I objected to this so strongly is, frankly, the nonsense of "auteur" theory, which has done more to support dismissing the writer without cause than perhaps any other branch of film theory/criticism ever to come down the pike... and that comprises a lot, believe me, as producers and the like have always held the writers to be chattel... *at best*!



Hmmm, seems like there's quite a lot of bitterness here...


If the directors are mostly mediocre or crap, how come they keep getting the work? Not that I'm sticking up for them, but I feel they do deserve a little more respect. 

I do, however completely agree that writers do not ever get the credit they deserve for their work. It's always the lead actor or the director on the posters or asked for interviews and given the most credit on successful films, when the films simply wouldn't exist if were not for the skill of the writers.


----------



## Dave (Jun 11, 2009)

If I can play devil's advocate here:

Are you saying that Jerome Robbins of 'West Side Story' is owed no credit; that it is all down to Willy Shakespeare?

Or that having 'Richard III' with tanks isn't a stroke of genius?

You think the original 'King Kong' is still better than Peter Jackson's? 

Maybe you do, but I can't agree.


----------



## j d worthington (Jun 11, 2009)

Noah Phoenix said:


> Hmmm, seems like there's quite a lot of bitterness here...


 
No, I don't think bitterness, save for the fact that there is too much accorded to directors these days, and not enough ever accorded to scenarists. Good directors -- let alone the really superb ones -- deserve a lot of credit. They are, however, the exceptions, not the rule. Take a look at the sheer number of films released in any given year -- and I'm not including those put out by small or independent companies -- and you'll find that a fair number of those directors do little work; those who do, generally don't go much beyond competent work; and a fair number are (justly) forgotten.

And as for why they keep getting work -- an _enormous_ amount of Hollywood has to do with who you know, and how good you are at politicking; it has very, very little to do with quality. As noted in many places above, this is a business, not an art. What art comes out of it is usually incidental, save for the quite rare exceptional individual (Orson Welles, Martin Scorsese, Billy Wilder, Robert Wise, and the like among directors; Val Lewton, Irving Thalberg, etc. among producers).

Dave: I'm not sure whether that was a query aimed at me or not, but here's my response: 

Yes, I think Robbins deserves credit... but then, even Shakespeare's version is simply a retelling of a much, much older tale. Each of them took a fairly common story and retold it in contemporary (for them) terms. That's quite a different thing from remaking a film, rewriting a pre-existing script, or "re-imagining" for an audience only a few years apart.

*Richard III* with tanks... depends on how such is used. It could be ludicrous, or it could be very effective. I don't see it as a stroke of genius, as it is nothing more than a technical modernization of a technical point, rather than a fundamental alteration of the script... save insofar as the inevitable results of such a technological change would come into play. And, again, anachronism was nothing new in Shakespeare, either....

Haven't seen Jackson's *Kong*, but I'm wary of it; the original's running time seems about appropriate for that tale; stretching it past that point would seem (to me) to be padding things... much as was the case in *Meet Joe Black*, which was an interminable retelling of the much more concise (and witty) *Death Takes a Holiday*.... And then there's always Jackson's rather frenetic approach... something I can only take in relatively small doses.... (However, I could be wrong, and could end up liking the film, once I see it. That, however, only the future may tell....)


----------



## Jimmy Magnusson (Jun 13, 2009)

Richard III with tanks has already been made, with Ian McKellen as Richard. I've read the play and this was an interesting adaption.


----------



## Interference (Jun 13, 2009)

It was excellent, if occasionally camp - as when his jeep gets bogged down and he goes into the "A horse, a horse" speech.  Blurry hilarious 

A highly enjoyable romp, though, all told.



Parson said:


> our culture has fewer and fewer shared experiences and norms. Without these, the ability to create a movie that says something to us becomes much more difficult and and when attempted is often formulaic.



Excellent point I hadn't considered before.  I will proceed to consider it now ...

The vitality of community is all-but lost in (particularly city) society.  The proliferation of entertainments media no longer unite millions in the way it once did - pubs losing business while Tony Hancock was on the radio?  Completely unheard-of-today loyalty to an entertainer.  Hollywood has to wonder what appeals to the largest demographic.  I assume they find it's RPs and War Games of some description (I'm so far out of the loop in this I'm in no danger whatever of knowing how wrong I am).  How does a medium like fim compete with total-immersion games like that?  I think we've seen the answer.


Oh, and yes, the original King Kong is streets ahead of any of its re-makes.


----------



## Foxbat (Jun 13, 2009)

Remakes are nothing new for Hollywood or any other film industry. 

What is important is not that it is a remake but that it contributes something new. Sadly, in 99% of remakes it just regurgitates what has gone before but,  sometimes, a remake can add something more. I cite as an example Werner Herzog's _*Nosferatu, Phantom Der Nacht* _which managed to add a sense of melancholy and (dare I say) humanity.

We need to be more discerning in our choices of where we spend our cash. If poor remakes are constantly flopping financially, the studios will soon get the message.


----------



## Team 2012 (Jun 13, 2009)

And if they're making money.... well, then they aren't losing it are they?


----------



## Teresa Edgerton (Jun 13, 2009)

Parson said:


> I believe that a large part of the reason for this is that our culture has fewer and fewer shared experiences and norms. Without these, the ability to create a movie that says something to us becomes much more difficult and and when attempted is often formulaic.



I agree with Interference that you have made a very good point, Parson.  Without those reference points I think it becomes harder and harder to communicate.  If you can't communicate, I guess you have to fall back on explosions and other gimmicks to grab the viewers attention at least momentarily.


----------



## Team 2012 (Jun 13, 2009)

Our culture has fewer shared experiences?   That's a remarkable statement.   Most observers would tend to come to the opposite conclusion.  But I guess it's all in each one's way of looking at it.

But isn't there something in there about universal experiences, the ones all humans share?   Hollywood is movie-maker to the world, not just the United States.  Guy meets girl, loses girl, chops girl up into pieces to feed to his dobermans is something that doesn't go out of fashion, and doesn't really depend all that much on whether or not everybody goes to mass or watches the Thanksgiving Parade or whatever it is that is supposed to bind us together, no?


----------



## Pyan (Jun 13, 2009)

Moonbat said:


> Re-release Errol Flynn's robin hood? Are you mad?
> Film has moved on alot since those days. Even looking at Robin Hood prince of thieves you can see how far the movie making process has moved on in the last 20 (?) years.



Sorry, Moonbat, are you suggesting that _Prince of Thieves_ is an *improvement *over _The Adventures of Robin Hood_?


----------



## Rodders (Jun 13, 2009)

That's my point exactly Moonbat. It's all remakes and sequels, No originality. 

I don't mind remakes or sequels, but when i was growing up, these where few and far between and it seemed as though there was more originality. Heck, some scripts were written directly as a film.


----------



## Noah Phoenix (Jun 13, 2009)

Around the 80's were the best times for films for me. Masters of the Universe was the first film I went to see at the cinema; good memories. Tron, The Dark Crystal, Ghostbusters, Star Wars, Willow, Labyrinth, The Terminator plus hundreds more. Great movies I'll always remember. Might not have been the best thought provoking or intelligent, but most were things people had never seen before. You just don't get a lot of that any more. Its all the same with 'bigger = better'.


----------



## Teresa Edgerton (Jun 13, 2009)

Team 2012 said:


> ... doesn't really depend all that much on whether or not everybody goes to mass or watches the Thanksgiving Parade or whatever it is that is supposed to bind us together, no?



I assume that is a rhetorical question and what you are really saying is that you don't agree.  But I believe it does matter very much in conveying the subtle touches that add immeasurably to the emotional experience of the viewer. 

******

Pyan, although I am very fond of the Errol Flynn _Robin Hood_ -- or maybe I just like watching Errol Flynn and Basil Rathbone swashing their respective buckles -- but I can see room for improvement.  I have yet to see a filmed version of the story that _has_ improved on it, but that's another story.


----------



## Team 2012 (Jun 13, 2009)

Ah Christ, not again.    Look, baby, whatever you want to think, beleive of stress is okay with us, all right?   You go, girl.   Etc.  Meanwhile, trisect the word "assume".  One rarely encounters anyone who so determinedly tells a person what they really meant to say, then takes issue with it.


----------



## j d worthington (Jun 13, 2009)

*ahem* Let's watch the descending to personalities. Addressing a person's arguments/points is fine;  engaging in personalities _is *not*_.


----------



## Teresa Edgerton (Jun 13, 2009)

Well then, if it wasn't a rhetorical question but a real one:

No.  I think part of the audience's experience does indeed depend on understanding the significance of the sort of things you mention.


----------



## Jimmy Magnusson (Jun 14, 2009)

pyan said:


> Sorry, Moonbat, are you suggesting that _Prince of Thieves_ is an *improvement *over _The Adventures of Robin Hood_?



Well, _Princess of Thieves_ sure is.


----------

