REMAKES AND "NEW VERSIONS" . . . WHEN WILL THE INSANITY END?

Rev. Powell · May 20, 2009, 01:04:02 PM

Quote from: Jack on May 20, 2009, 06:47:12 AM
There have always been remakes, certainly, but it's become a much, MUCH larger percentage of Hollywood's output than it ever was before. It's like when rappers were sampling every single '80s pop song ever recorded.

I guess I could understand it from a completely cynical business point of view, but what absolutely boggles my mind is that the actors and directors of these things seem convinced they're doing ~~good~~ fantastic work. It's like a burger flipper at McDonald's talking about the latest hamburger they made as if it's truly a work of art.

Dunno... I'd be interested to see statistics on it. I think that in the early days of talkies, they remade many/most of the hit silent films with sound. I would be willing to bet there were a large percentage of remakes then.

No question that remakes are in an up cycle now. But as posts like this show, and the numerous rants you find when you enter "remake" into Google confirm, people are starting to notice it and get tired of it. Hollywood will shift gears to more "original" outings (that will really be just uncredited formula remakes anyway) if people get sick of them and stop making hits out of these things.

Kester Pelagius · May 20, 2009, 01:10:26 PM

The sentiments expressed by Jack and Circus Circus are abosultely right. It's not whether or not remakes and sequels have always been around it's the quality of the film(s) being produced. Used to be you had to WORK at making money from films. That means doing circuits, playing a movie until the last possible penny could be pinched out of a tattered and worn print that ran until it couldn't run anymore. Even crap movies had a quality about them.

And that quality, IMO, has suffered from the fact the "suits" (read the "money men") have reduced films into a "product" divorced from any semblence of artistic or literary merit. Films today are no different than fast food or twinkies, they're emblazoned with a logo, marketed to a target demographic (usually the PG-13 tweeners), and packaged to be sold with as quick a turn around to generate a projected profit margin within a set window of time.

Studios only need to sell a ticket once. Doesn't matter how bad a movie is, the suits know they have X amount of time to make Y amount of money before word of mouth spreads. Even then they know they can make money off the morbidly curious by squeezing as much money out of licensing fees for movie tie-ins, PPV, rentals, DVD, and broadcast rights.

The Burgomaster · May 20, 2009, 01:51:30 PM

What is REALLY frightening is the upcoming FOOTLOOSE remake . . .

Rev. Powell · May 20, 2009, 09:05:10 PM

Quote from: Kester Pelagius on May 20, 2009, 01:10:26 PM
The sentiments expressed by Jack and Circus Circus are abosultely right. It's not whether or not remakes and sequels have always been around it's the quality of the film(s) being produced. Used to be you had to WORK at making money from films. That means doing circuits, playing a movie until the last possible penny could be pinched out of a tattered and worn print that ran until it couldn't run anymore. Even crap movies had a quality about them.

And that quality, IMO, has suffered from the fact the "suits" (read the "money men") have reduced films into a "product" divorced from any semblence of artistic or literary merit. Films today are no different than fast food or twinkies, they're emblazoned with a logo, marketed to a target demographic (usually the PG-13 tweeners), and packaged to be sold with as quick a turn around to generate a projected profit margin within a set window of time.

Studios only need to sell a ticket once. Doesn't matter how bad a movie is, the suits know they have X amount of time to make Y amount of money before word of mouth spreads. Even then they know they can make money off the morbidly curious by squeezing as much money out of licensing fees for movie tie-ins, PPV, rentals, DVD, and broadcast rights.

I'm not saying you're wrong (and we're definitely off the remake topic) but I can't simply accept the idea that movies or worse and less artistic now then they ever were before without evidence (and I don't know where that evidence could possibly come from).

Ovid said, "It's only our ignorance of history that makes us slander our own times." We remember the crappy, cynical, soulless movies we suffer through today because we have to live through them. We don't remember the truly crappy, mediocre, unremarkable films of the 1940s, the derivative musicals, the formula melodramas, the unfunny comedies; they're all forgotten. Over time, the cream rises to the top, and I suspect we compare the cream of the past to the sludge of today and imagine a romantic time where everything was better and people cared about art.

I suspect a suit was always a suit; I don't believe Hollywood producers ever cared much about anything more than the bottom line. And I think the creators are still the creators; they still care as much as they ever did about communicating with the audience and putting out quality films. I imagine you'll find the exact same complaints about the business of marketing films from artists in any era. In 1973 the studio tried to bury THE WICKER MAN because it was too original. Screenwriter Anthony Shaffer said: "The [film] business is run mostly by zombies who are overpaid and are so timid that all they can do is reproduce something that's already been done a billion times." There's nothing new under the sun.

Jack · May 21, 2009, 07:43:19 AM

Quote from: Rev. Powell on May 20, 2009, 09:05:10 PM
Ovid said, "It's only our ignorance of history that makes us slander our own times." We remember the crappy, cynical, soulless movies we suffer through today because we have to live through them. We don't remember the truly crappy, mediocre, unremarkable films of the 1940s, the derivative musicals, the formula melodramas, the unfunny comedies; they're all forgotten. Over time, the cream rises to the top, and I suspect we compare the cream of the past to the sludge of today and imagine a romantic time where everything was better and people cared about art.

Rev., this is the Bad Movies.org website

I guess I don't understand your point - you're saying that that the majority of Hollywood's output has always been rather awful, and so people shouldn't complain that it's awful now? Is hope just the domain of the ignorant?

The Burgomaster · May 21, 2009, 08:38:34 AM

There have always been remakes. I don't have any statistical evidence of this, but I'm willing to bet the PROPORTION of remakes to the total of all movies made in a year is significantly higher now than it was, say, 40 or 50 years ago. Look at how many remakes have already been released or have been announced for release later in 2009.

Rev. Powell · May 21, 2009, 10:46:38 AM

Quote from: Jack on May 21, 2009, 07:43:19 AM
Quote from: Rev. Powell on May 20, 2009, 09:05:10 PM
Ovid said, "It's only our ignorance of history that makes us slander our own times." We remember the crappy, cynical, soulless movies we suffer through today because we have to live through them. We don't remember the truly crappy, mediocre, unremarkable films of the 1940s, the derivative musicals, the formula melodramas, the unfunny comedies; they're all forgotten. Over time, the cream rises to the top, and I suspect we compare the cream of the past to the sludge of today and imagine a romantic time where everything was better and people cared about art.

Rev., this is the Bad Movies.org website

I guess I don't understand your point - you're saying that that the majority of Hollywood's output has always been rather awful, and so people shouldn't complain that it's awful now? Is hope just the domain of the ignorant?

Yeah, you pretty much got my point.

Anyway, why complain about Hollywood at all? They serve the masses and the blandest possible tastes. Just look for stuff you enjoy that's mostly made outside the Hollywood system.

Kester Pelagius · May 21, 2009, 05:45:32 PM

Friends, Bad Movie Watchers, & Iconoclastic Rev(olutionary) Powell:

I know, at times, this thread may seem like the incorrigible naysayings of a bunch of fourflushers but it's not all pappy, we're just noting that movies today are incondite. Granted, I understand that many may be fatigued and disgusted with this cant, for it does seem to pop up with regularity. But, o saucy mortals, lend me your generous ears! True there has always been inconsistency in movie quality and, yes, when we look back on the films of yesteryear we may be looking through rose tinted glasses. Suits have always been suits, though some wear them better than others, just as their is nothing new under the sun. (Though Ben & Jerry may argue the validity of that, but I digress.)

So what if the bean counters in suits were always there? The marketing of contemporary movies seems a lot more crass, the marketing budgets bigger, and the quality no better. But, to be fair, we can ask: Is it really so?

There are far more movies today than ever, so perhaps it's only a matter of degree. Too, it has to be acknowledged that making money has always been the goal. Studios don't make movies for the art. It's a business. Yet, at some point, it seems like the dreamy eyed moguls of yesteryear got dumped into the bean dip and Hollywood took to mass producing formulaic cookie cutter drivel.

Perhaps The Burgomaster is right and it's always been so. Or perhaps Jack has the right of it and our hopes and desires are merely the ignorant ramblings of haggard wild eyed fools.

Yet if someone produced a movie about midget zombie gangsters getting thrashed by topless chainsaw wielding lesbian Amazon's that had blockbuster box office reciepts you know that there will probably be a slew of movies with midget zombies and/or topless chainsaw wielding lesbian Amazon's rushed into production to try to cash in on the trend. But does that mean we should meekly accept them?

I think not.*

Once upon a time movies were spectacles, spotlight events, not so much today. The novelty has faded. Audiences have seen most of the gimmicks and forumulaic plot contrivances. Though I suppose the same could be said of computer/console games, theater, stand up comedy, porn, comics, novels, or any "entertainment" for that matter. But, in my opinion, that's all the more reason why we should expect MORE of movies today.

Or is this asking too much of filmmakers and studios?

Perhaps the esteemed Rev. Powell has the right of it. We should merely accept Hollywood and it's re-imagined remakes for the mass produced mediocrity that they are and, if not tolerate them, then at the very least ignore them and seek our entertainments elsewhere.

What say you dear friends?

Kind Regards,

Kester Pelagius

(*) To be nakedly honest it would probably largely depend on the actresses cast in the part.

Rev. Powell · May 21, 2009, 08:11:01 PM

Why can't we all just agree Hollywood sucks?

Kester Pelagius · May 21, 2009, 09:18:21 PM

Quote from: Rev. Powell on May 21, 2009, 08:11:01 PM
Why can't we all just agree Hollywood sucks?

Nonsense! It also blows.

Allhallowsday · May 21, 2009, 10:12:55 PM

Quote from: RCMerchant on May 18, 2009, 05:48:51 PM
I agree. The bottom line,IMHO,is taht Hollywood is just plain LAZY. Why do something original when you can rehash old stuff? Films like THE DAY THE EARTH STOODSTILL (sorry Indiania),PLANET OF THE APES,DEATHRACE 2000,the US GODZILLA....why? why remake these films...and almost without exception....even with all their money and CGI fx...are CRAP! Look at I AM LEGEND....sure...It was remade with Heston in the 70's...but it was done with care. The Will Smith travesty was an overblown video game,to cash in on Smith ,done with cheap CGI,for preteens. BAH! Lets see some intelligent,original horror films...made for adults...not for fashion concious teenie boppers. It's either remakes,or stupid torture crap,like HOSTEL and SAW. I like remakes if they're done with respect to the sensibilities of an ADULT audiance (ie-Carpenters The THING) but the exceptions are few. Films like the Hammer DRACULA series are a whole differnt ball game. The didn't try to remake the Lugosi version...it was a entirly different animal. The reason for all these remakes and sequels-$$$$$. It's the state of modern exploitation. And I-as a fan of expliotation films-am not happy. If yer gonna exploit a classic-ie-the DAY THE EARTH STOOD STILL-make Gort go on a psycho limb tearing rampage. Don't try to top the original. Put boobs and gore and cannabilism in it....THEN at least it's interesting!

Thanks I needed a good laugh.
It's also worth pointing out that there was none of that CGI horsesh!t in JOHN CARPENTER's THE THING.

Quote from: Rev. Powell on May 20, 2009, 09:05:10 PM
Ovid said, "It's only our ignorance of history that makes us slander our own times." We remember the crappy, cynical, soulless movies we suffer through today because we have to live through them. We don't remember the truly crappy, mediocre, unremarkable films of the 1940s, the derivative musicals, the formula melodramas, the unfunny comedies; they're all forgotten. Over time, the cream rises to the top, and I suspect we compare the cream of the past to the sludge of today and imagine a romantic time where everything was better and people cared about art.

Hey I thought we were all here for the truly crappy, you know, derivative melodramas, formula musicals, forgotten comedies...

JaseSF · May 21, 2009, 10:45:36 PM

Maybe it's related to the overall dumbing down media influence upon society but laziness does seem awfully more likely. Making a quick buck with an already recognized name no doubt is on the minds of the suits too. But this is not just true of movies but TV shows too...Hell even worse they remake TV shows into movies nowadays...The imagination, fun, character actors and often plot doesn't seem to make the transition..heck let's just throw together CGI monsters, sex and violence (sometimes extreme) and one recognizable mediocre comedy star and that seems to be the now thought upon formula for success.

Terf · May 22, 2009, 04:59:28 PM

Remakes introduce a film to a new generation. And sometimes the acting is better than in the original. But overall I'm NOT a fan of remakes.

Personally, I'm still waiting to hear back on my idea on the Chuck Norris/Dave Chappelle zombie film. I thought it was pretty original.

Rev. Powell · May 22, 2009, 07:18:14 PM

Quote from: Allhallowsday on May 21, 2009, 10:12:55 PM
Quote from: Rev. Powell on May 20, 2009, 09:05:10 PM
Ovid said, "It's only our ignorance of history that makes us slander our own times." We remember the crappy, cynical, soulless movies we suffer through today because we have to live through them. We don't remember the truly crappy, mediocre, unremarkable films of the 1940s, the derivative musicals, the formula melodramas, the unfunny comedies; they're all forgotten. Over time, the cream rises to the top, and I suspect we compare the cream of the past to the sludge of today and imagine a romantic time where everything was better and people cared about art.
Hey I thought we were all here for the truly crappy, you know, derivative melodramas, formula musicals, forgotten comedies...

It's a fine line between crappily inspired (=entertaining) and crappily uninspired (=revolting), isn't it?

Psycho Circus · May 24, 2009, 09:25:28 AM

IMO, basically it seems that no-one apart from indy filmakers want to tell a good story anymore, but only if it puts out some important political or self-indulgent social message. There's no craft and heart anymore. The movie business had to rely on other options and creativity to get around certain budgets, lack of technology and various other constrictions. People are lazy and impatient, due to the business losing sight of why it is there in the first place....

Films make money, but too much money makes films with no substance.