Gingerbread Man on 3/4/2006 at 18:44
See, now, those are actually good points. Perhaps a section of this is directors / producers etc who grew up with various films being their favourites, and they say "you know, with today's tech, I could do this film PROPERLY" -- which is probably what Peter Jackson had in mind with the King Kong.
Morte on 3/4/2006 at 18:59
Quote Posted by Gingerbread Man
But it's true that there are a LOT of remakes and straight-up adaptations designed to cash in on the popularity of something from another medium these days. Doom movie, I'm looking at thee.
Yeah. Most likely because ticket sales are down, and studios are desperately going for anything with a built-in fanbase that they can count on dragging their asses to the theatres instead of waiting for the dvd.
Scots Taffer on 3/4/2006 at 22:43
Lack of originality?
We got snakes on the motherfuckin' plane, guys.
Also:
Quote Posted by Vigil
That's an even more hilarious reason to pull a film.
Yeah, lol. Bob: I DONT HEARD OF NO GODDURN SPACE ALIUMS BAN THAT PICTUR!
Shug on 4/4/2006 at 01:15
ENOUGH'S ENOUGH
I'VE HAD IT WITH THESE SNAKES
Scots Taffer on 4/4/2006 at 01:26
YOU WANT THEM OFF THE MOTHERFUCKIN' PLANE?
Shug on 4/4/2006 at 01:52
no... I want to keep them :(
tungsten on 4/4/2006 at 03:13
Quote Posted by Gingerbread Man
See, now, those are actually good points. Perhaps a section of this is directors / producers etc who grew up with various films being their favourites, and they say "you know, with today's tech, I could do this film PROPERLY" -- which is probably what Peter Jackson had in mind with the King Kong.
And the problem is always that we've seen it all. Just imagine what an impression the Tarzan movie with Johnny Weissmüller must have made at its time: probably the first film/foto with lions, crocs and jungle for most viewers. So what you can change in a remake is the studio-setting (cute paintings on walls) and the physics, but you can not change, not even repeat the fact that spectators have never seen 'wild' lions and elephants.
And because of that, you can't show those crappy background-paintings and studio settings anymore. Computer-tech is expensive and so it slips into the focus of the studio-bosses. But technology should remain a tool, not a topic (we had Toy Story for that, now it's done).
my point? I prefer the old movies, but if you make a new one like these, I probably wouldn't like it.
Strangeblue on 4/4/2006 at 04:36
Aerothorn: Look at some of the sources that examine American films of the Depression and World War II. Some very good criticism has been written and analysis made of why certain film types--like "screwball" comedies, romances, historicals, and "family" films--were the biggest box office during those rather upset times. You may seem some similarities in the social situations at the time, though the economics were different.
Aerothorn on 7/4/2006 at 02:08
Quote Posted by Myoldnamebroke
Indeed. As much as it's nice to be suprised by a story, it's not high on the list of priorities when picking a film. If it was, I wouldn't buy DVDs and watch my favourites over and over.
The difficulty is, there is a connection between remakes/sequels/etc and making shoddy films. Saying 'why do bad remakes suck?' sounds kind of stupid, but it's almost what's at work here. 'Why are there so many bad remakes?' might be better..
For what it's worth, this article isn't about 'remakes suck' - most people already agree with that sentiment, no need to write about it - it's a more neutral 'why are there so many remakes' thing.
Blue: Good idea for a later draft - have to finish this draft tonight, so can't quite yet.
So far I covered 3 of the points brought up in this topic and/or thought up by me (forget which is which): the 'entertainment inflation' idea, the 'comfort in a trouble time' idea, and the 'everyone has a DVD player and a cheap home theatre system, so going to the theatre just isn't as attractive as it used to be' idea.
As for sourcing: anyone know where I could find a list of movies made in a year? Like, movies that see theatre release in the USA- I can't use IMDB cause they list every college film shown in some guy's dorm. My dad suggested that this could be a result of supply and demand: there are a huge number of theater screens in this country and they need product to show, so Hollywood has to pump out films to fill these screens (his theory was undermined when I corrected him on his idea that the studios own the theatres: unless the case was reversed, this was made illegal back in the 50s). So maybe they just have to run with any old schlock. I dunno.
