Aerothorn on 2/4/2006 at 07:00
So, I need to suck off the tit of TTLG. Long story short, I have recently joined the staff of the school newspaper (which recently won the Pacemaker award, not that that means THAT much - still a school newspaper, no in-depth muchraking here). For my second article, my editor assigned me the duty of writing an opinion piece about the lack of original IP in Hollywood movies - how most everything is a remake, sequel, or adaptation. Now I suspect she kind of assigned me this because she didn't think I could write it in a non-snobby, semi-intelligent way, just so she could go "HA HA TOLD YOU IT WAS A BAD ARTICLE IDEA". Anyway, so instead of just giving the 'remakes suck' rant everyone has heard, I want to look into WHY this is. Obviously, the simple answer is, risk-aversion: the studios want a sure thing. But why is this more true now? Why were there more original movies in previous decades then now?
If anyone has any good ideas, please tell me.
Gingerbread Man on 2/4/2006 at 07:04
Man, I been thinking that over for a year now. Let me know if you figure out why they haven't had a decent original idea in ages, I'd much appreciate. Seems to me that everything's cribbed off a book, a previous movie, a TV show, a comic, or something else that we've seen before. it's like they have no confidence that anything new will get anyone interested.
fs take a look at that new "The Wild" movie or whatever it's called . MADAGASCAR AIN'T EVEN COLD YET BITCHES.
It's awful and disappointing and horrifying and just plain shit. But the worst of it is that people still go to see these ridiculous things. wtf remake of Predator?
I weep for the species; we've evidently become too stupid for our own good.
Scots Taffer on 2/4/2006 at 07:07
remake of predator
remake of the omen
remake of infernal affairs
more like we need a remake of HOLLYWOOD >:(
Strangeblue on 2/4/2006 at 07:25
Gotta second the cookie man: risk mitigation. Hollywood does not make "small" films anymore. Partially because of unionization and other issues, expenses for any movie made through the traditional channels are very high. Expected rate of return has to be high, too and, Hollywood is a business, not entertainment--not really. So, yeah, they re-make what they sold in the past, they cast actors who have "good box office" even if they can't act, they continue franchises like 007 until it's run into the ground, and they buy up best-selling books and then gut them into forumula pap because--and here's the kicker--most of the movie-watching public wants to see it! It's the bland leading the bland. They want the sure thing--or at least a reasonably close facsimile.
To reach the widest possible audience, you have to be non-threatening to as many people as possible, give them what they feel comfortable with and are already familiar with. Edgy little films that challenge your ideas about the world don't sell a lot of tickets outside of the big cities on the coasts. Bathos and stupid humor, predictable plots and pat endings do. Sorry. Especially when economic and political times are confusing, movies tend to go for easy comfort and familiarity, because audiences want to know something is still "right with the world" and Hollywood wants to get as many of their dollars as possible by serving them what they want: McMovies.
It's a business. It's not Art, no matter what the MGM lion says.
tungsten on 2/4/2006 at 07:31
Inflation: everything new has to be better, louder, bloodier, more spectacular than everything before.
As cinema is a market that normally only sells 1 view/person, you already win when everybody sees it and curses. How many sequels did you watch despite the fact you knew beforehand, it was not good (friends and critics said so) and how many 'new' movies with these same critics have you seen? - It still works. The advertisement for a 'new' movie usually says 'from the makers of ....' Because a bad sequel sells simply better than a bad newcomer.
Hollywood is about money, not art.
I know, that's nothing new either. - Make your article the sequel or a remake of an old article. Find one (there should be many) and make a remake of it.
Edit: I hate typing with a broken hand! Now I'm even ten times slower than strangeblue...
godismygoldfish on 2/4/2006 at 07:32
If I succeed wiht my plans (and oh I will succeed) I'll be giving the film industry a righteous kick to the teeth with some of the films I'm going to get made. :sly:
(in making new awesome stuff that's not based on anything out there)
Gingerbread Man on 2/4/2006 at 07:35
What's troubling Gus? You sound demented. Is it because someone talked and she told me he no longer thinks anything that moves and everything he sees is something to kill and eat?
Everything you see is something to kill and eat. What's troubling you, Gus? Is it nothing goes quiet? The mere mention of the name used to be enough to make make every bird stop singing... Is that what's troubling you, Gus? No one is afraid enough?
Kyloe on 2/4/2006 at 08:30
What on earth happened to French cinema? It used to be a real alternative to Hollywood, but I don't think I've seen a good French movie for ten years. I wonder if they still make them? Are they just eclipsed by the sky-rise of high quality German films, so we don't get to see them anymore?
Agent Monkeysee on 2/4/2006 at 08:37
Wait wait... remake of Predator? What?
Low Moral Fiber on 2/4/2006 at 08:42
I think it'd be cool if people remade blockbusters with lower budgets and shittier stars.
Like, like fucking Lord of the Rings starring Skeet Ulrich and Wil Wheaton on a mini-DV with sci-fi channel original movie effects.
This is a stupid idea and you're all dumb for allowing it
