At The Cinema, Do You ever Get the Feeling You're Watching The Same Movie Over and Over?

KGeo777 said:
They are remaking THE EXORCIST as a trilogy, bringing back Ellen Burnstyn. Expect a lot of deja vu.

They say Linda Blair isn't in it but I will bet money she is being saved for the sequels.
Click to expand...

Unless they got an incredible story idea, they should not revisit this one.
 
I just rewatched the Exorcist recently. I had forgotten a large chunk of the film. It is over 2 hours long and the exorcism is not until at least two thirds of the way in. But that first two thirds is brilliantly done. Great story and acting. I vaguely remembered the early scenes in Iraq but not the parts about the victim's visits to doctors and hospitals to try and diagnose the issue. And about the priests struggles with belief and grief for his mum. Not all doom and gloom as there is a party in there too. The exorcism is the weaker part of the film, partly as it looks more dated. Also some of the blood is very brightly coloured which spoils the effect.
There is a somewhat unnecessary scene at the end, but it seems to be saying people are resilient and life goes on.

Much as I enjoy horror films you rarely see such a good story with fleshed out characters presented around the horror. I can't see it happening in a remake.
The one story cannot really be stretched out to a trilogy. So I imagine it will be someone exorcised and the demon surprisingly enters another person rather than being completely defeated. As has been seen in other series.
 
Judderman said:
I just rewatched the Exorcist recently. I had forgotten a large chunk of the film. It is over 2 hours long and the exorcism is not until at least two thirds of the way in. But that first two thirds is brilliantly done. Great story and acting. I vaguely remembered the early scenes in Iraq but not the parts about the victim's visits to doctors and hospitals to try and diagnose the issue. And about the priests struggles with belief and grief for his mum. Not all doom and gloom as there is a party in there too. The exorcism is the weaker part of the film, partly as it looks more dated. Also some of the blood is very brightly coloured which spoils the effect.
There is a somewhat unnecessary scene at the end, but it seems to be saying people are resilient and life goes on.

Much as I enjoy horror films you rarely see such a good story with fleshed out characters presented around the horror. I can't see it happening in a remake.
The one story cannot really be stretched out to a trilogy. So I imagine it will be someone exorcised and the demon surprisingly enters another person rather than being completely defeated. As has been seen in other series.
Click to expand...

It sounds like they're taking s cue from The Hobbit.
 
It is so soon after the Residential film series finished. But it does seem like that franchise can pump out a film every few years and keep getting viewers. Not like it is one of those classics that people don't want messing with either.
 
Judderman said:
It is so soon after the Residential film series finished. But it does seem like that franchise can pump out a film every few years and keep getting viewers. Not like it is one of those classics that people don't want messing with either.
Click to expand...

I think this one would have worked far better as tv series than a movie series.
 
Resident Evil movies are action packed. Does that work as well for TV series? Maybe it should.

Resident evil in the style of a season of 24 could be fun. With the star going from one madpack zombie scene to another with no chance to sleep.
 
Judderman said:
Resident Evil movies are action packed. Does that work as well for TV series? Maybe it should.

Resident evil in the style of a season of 24 could be fun. With the star going from one madpack zombie scene to another with no chance to sleep.
Click to expand...

How about Jason Voorhees meets Resident Evil ?:D
 
I think the movies that give me the greatest feeling of deja vu are:

Teacher takes over a class in run down city area and gives his/her cynical pupils hope through teaching them a sport soccer/basketball/baseball/ ….delete as required or add in your sports choice. Or sometimes it’s an academic pursuit (often up against a more priviliged school).

Of course, it all looks like it’s going to fall at the last hurdle but teacher gives a stirring speech Henry V would be proud of and somehow it all works out with victory achieved. Teacher is lifted on to shoulders of pupils. Cue freeze frame and end credits.

Or…
Institution (often an orphanage) is threatened by closure and money needs to be raised very quickly. Inspiration strikes and our gang of plucky protagonists decide to put on a musical show. They spend much of the movie rounding up talented individuals, who often burst into song and dance routines along the way. Again, it looks like failure is on the cards but somehow it all works out with a rousing selection of musical numbers at the show (often accompanied by audience dancing in the aisles) and prize money is used just in time to save orphanage/school/animal shelter.
 
Foxbat said:
I think the movies that give me the greatest feeling of deja vu are:

Teacher takes over a class in run down city area and gives his/her cynical pupils hope through teaching them a sport soccer/basketball/baseball/ ….delete as required or add in your sports choice. Or sometimes it’s an academic pursuit (often up against a more priviliged school).

Of course, it all looks like it’s going to fall at the last hurdle but teacher gives a stirring speech Henry V would be proud of and somehow it all works out with victory achieved. Teacher is lifted on to shoulders of pupils. Cue freeze frame and end credits.

Or…
Institution (often an orphanage) is threatened by closure and money needs to be raised very quickly. Inspiration strikes and our gang of plucky protagonists decide to put on a musical show. They spend much of the movie rounding up talented individuals, who often burst into song and dance routines along the way. Again, it looks like failure is on the cards but somehow it all works out with a rousing selection of musical numbers at the show (often accompanied by audience dancing in the aisles) and prize money is used just in time to save orphanage/school/animal shelter.
Click to expand...

Same old same old.:)
 
I rarely go to the movie theater (and didn't much before Covid as well) and this might be one of the reasons why. I also don't watch that many films at home on TV. However I think this doesn't have to do so much with them being the same movie as it does my not being interested in the subject matter. So even though the genre might be unoriginal I do think each movie is somewhat original.

I'm not a fan of action films, superhero films and the like. I prefer either sophisticated comedies (which have been too few and far between for me), animated movies (not anime) and documentaries. There are very few dramas that I'm interested in.

I also lost interest in the Star Wars universe after the third chronological film. The Bond films lost me after Tomorrow Never Dies. I'm afraid the ambiguity of Woody Allen's alleged behavior has put me off his films as well. There aren't really any non animated movies that I follow for universe or director these days.
 
Franchises and brands don't work well for art. You can do it for a spell, but eventually it becomes devoid of passion. Especially since they do not have to worry about the future--the money is guaranteed. It becomes like a Walmart job. Frank Oz made a critique of the current Muppets--and he was very candid in saying that they sucked.

But the big problem remains the incredible restriction on character that has creeped in year after year, decade after decade.
To the point where, I am not even sure a character can shout in anger anymore--is that considered violence now?

You have to show reality for art to resonate. And be honest about it. And they aren't doing that.
The Mandalorian is a nice fable about child trafficking but most people aren't into child trafficking.


I thought at first they had the baby alien character so they could diffuse the masculine aggression element which you would expect in a story about bounty hunters. Having him look after a baby turns it into something else.

I do fear for Baby Yoda's well-being.
 
What I don't understand is the business model behind so many bad films.

I can understand why sequels to successful films get made - especially if the above the line costs are low, with sets, costumes, rights etc all secured from the first film. (The Harry Potter series springs to mind.) And why people would, following Feinman's principle - "Milk the cow till it's dry, then make hamburgers and wallets", churn out sequel after sequel of things like Resident Evil till they make a loss - then stop; then somehow contrive to set that loss against residual sales of the previous films so you don't have to pay cast and crew who worked on them their points.... Movie accounting is such that many World-wide box office smash hits have, if you juggle the numbers (and they do), never made a profit when it comes to paying the actors' residuals. But how does something like Bram Stoker's Legend Of The Mummy 2 which I attempted to watch last night* get made? How?

By the by, the only connection I can see that this film has with Bram Stoker is that it has his name in the title. (It is not, for instance, included in his list of writer credits on IMDb when obscure sh*te-like things such as Filipino comedy Batman Fights Dracula (1967) does. Bram Stoker's Legend Of The Mummy 2 was originally called Ancient Evil: Scream of the Mummy.

I can see why the actors would take any part they can get; especially not very good actors at the start of their careers (for seven out of the nine credited players this was their first or second screen credit - for a couple it was also their last). Everyone has to start somewhere. Even well-connected from the start, and extremely good George Clooney has Return of the Killer Tomatoes! and an episode of Murder She Wrote on his CV.

The director (David DeCoteau, a Corman alumni) currently has 176 directorial notches on his bedpost including such classics as Sorority Babes in the Slimeball Bowl-O-Rama (1988), Beach Babes 2: Cave Girl Island (1995), My Stepbrother Is a Vampire!?! and A Talking Pony!?! (both 2013. In one year he directed two movies with '!?!' in the title; I bet Steven Spielberg can't say that.) So he's obviously doing it for the money. And doing it well enough to keep getting work. No one directs five or six feature films in a year as a hobby.

But where does the money come from? Who bought this Piece of sh*t? [ (That's a genuine technical Hollywood term by the way: 'Piece of sh*t'). For that matter who bought A Talking Pony!?!? Where does the money ultimately come from? Us the punters. We buy tickets, we buy DVDs, we buy subscription packages but I cannot see how enough people could have been conned into buying hard copies of this (it never got a cinema release) to make anyone a profit. And I can't really believe that there's an endless stream of people wanting to throw their money away making crud like this. Somewhere along the line things like Bram Stoker's Legend Of The Mummy 2 must make money for.... someone. Somehow. I wish I knew who they were because I've got some brilliant crap film ideas I'd like to pitch them.







(*I was tired, all right?!)
 
I feel there's money laundering involved in it. People with money to waste.
Because it does not operate like a normal business at all now.

They don't seem to care about generating enthusiasm for a product. That is irrelevant.
30-40-50 years ago it was nothing like that. Whether it was tv or film--you had to generate some excitement.
The people making the decisions on money and funding--they do not care at all about the product.
It comes and goes--and I wonder how dispassionate the people making the films must be.

How do you get excited as an actor or director for My Stepbrother is a Vampire?

My Teacher is a Vampire, My Dentist is a Vampire....at least they generate an idea in your head--but your Stepbrother?
It is so bland.

Same with the Talking Pony.

At least if it was The Foul-Mouthed Pony that would give you some idea of the content.
 
There is a huge amount of advertising, trailers, articles, interviews and other media for many movies these days. I think they still generate the enthusiasm. At least to get people to watch the stuff. Still some good dramas around too.

As for b-movies streaming services , tv channels and adverts must bring in some money. And the odd one does much better than expected. Obviously salaries should be low..
 
Beautiful looking film. The story will probably as forgettable as in Avatar, but it will certainly be a spectacle.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Thread starter Similar threads Forum Replies Date
B What Do You Think of the Whole Concept of Development Hell In Cinema? General Film Discussion 11
B What Are Cinemas Greatest Adventure Movies ? General Film Discussion 19
B Who are Cinema's Most Boring and Uninteresting Characters? General Film Discussion 44
M. Robert Gibson Sky Arts - Classic Literature and Cinema General TV Discussion 3
CyBeR 3D cinema - Why is everyone so up at arms against it? General Film Discussion 37

Similar threads


Back
Top