Someone, PLEASE FLUSH HOLLYWIERD !

W

Wolvster1

Sr Member
Gone but not forgotten.
50 Friggin' remakes ?????? :confused

50 Upcoming Movie Remakes (Yep, 50!) | NextMovie

For all that's HOLY, is there NO ONE left
out there that has an actual FRESH IDEA ????

Sorry, I know this comes up allot here anymore
but when I saw that list I got even more irritated with
Hollywierd ! As if that is even possible...:unsure
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Wow so many great movies that need to be left alone. On the other side I would like to see a remake of Judge Dredd. Now I noticed Porky's was on that list and I admit I love those movies so are they going to do those sequeeeeeels too?
 
Out of everything on that list, I'm really only interested in Judge Dredd and Dune though I'm honestly not convinced Dune can be made into a single movie and done well because the book is simply too epic to condense well into a two hour film. Judge Dredd IMHO deserves a remake because it was never done right to begin with... however, that fan film Judge Minty may fill that niche better than the big budget film judging by what we've seen so far.

Remaking the Crow is just a crime against film though IMHO. :unsure

It just boils down to marketing. It's easier to market a remake because you've got the history of the original movie to build on. Since people are familiar with or even fans of the original, they're more likely to shell out money to see a remake (but "BIGGER" and "In 3D!!") because they have some idea of what they're going to go see... even if it does wind up being a huge steaming pile of poop. Sad but true...
 
And sadly these will get the brain dead to forget to original good movies. A The Thing Prequel could be interesting but we need a mad max sequel not a reboot. I guarantee most of these will be flops.
 
Jannix Quinn said:
The cool thing is that they aren't destroying the originals and people can still enjoy those.
Click to expand...

Wrong.

There is NOTHING cool about doing endless ****ing remakes.

Let me ask you something. Did you enjoy Inception? Think it was an interesting idea? A fresh take on things? Well, for every remake that costs $200 mil to make, that's one or two or even three good, original, new, fresh ideas NOT being made. There's a finite amount of money in Hollywood, and remakes, reboots, sequels, and adaptations are just the "safest" bets.

The only reason why guys like Chris Nolan get to make films like Inception is because someone, somewhere, took a chance on one of their original ideas (in his case, Memento), and it got widespread acclaim and audience enjoyment. He followed it up well with a "safe" reboot of a beloved franchise that he did extremely well with, and that now gives him the clout to say "Guys. Trust me. I'm gonna make you money with this film, but you've got to be willing to let me do my thing."

Everyone else, though, gets to make yet another ****ing remake/reboot/adaptation/sequel.

See, it's all about BRANDING. Name recognition. Hollywood knows that people have existing favorable associations with past films. They know taht people will be far more likely to give a film a chance if they already come into it positively predisposed because, hey, the original Escape from New York is such a cool concept, but man, how OLD is it now? Like, OMG. Totally OLD. But they know they've got a winning concept. People dig the original, so it's likely they'll dig the remake.

Same goes with titles like G.I. Joe and Transformers. I guaran-****ing-tee you if Transformers 1 was stripped of even just the names of the transformers themselves and didn't have Peter Cullen's voice, people would look at it exactly as the piece of **** film it is. But put Cullen back in and have his character be called Optimus Prime instead of Robolord One or whatever, and suddenly ZOMG IT WAS AWESOME!!!11!!!one!


As long as that keeps working, there is no reason for Hollywood to change it's formula. As long as people are willing to pay for marketing and brand names on films instead of demanding more, we'll get more of the same.
 
‘F/X’
Attached: N/A
Status: This one is still so early in the development process that it doesn’t seem to have anyone attached to it, even a producer, much less a director or actors. Still, reports surfaced earlier this year that MGM is looking to redo the Brian Dennehy vehicle about a special effects artist who finds his life in danger after he helps fake a mobster’s death for the witness protection plan. Considering how far special effects have come since 1986, this could be an interesting showcase.
Release Date/Year: Unknown



What are they going to have him carry around a green screen and a computer?
 
Solo4114 said:
Wrong.

Same goes with titles like G.I. Joe and Transformers. I guaran-****ing-tee you if Transformers 1 was stripped of even just the names of the transformers themselves and didn't have Peter Cullen's voice, people would look at it exactly as the piece of **** film it is. But put Cullen back in and have his character be called Optimus Prime instead of Robolord One or whatever, and suddenly ZOMG IT WAS AWESOME!!!11!!!one!
.
Click to expand...

Oh how I wish Peter CUllen alone was enough to make that movie good lol. I'd actually would have rather they done a CGI animated remake of the cartoon movie with as many of the original cast as possible. Any G1 fan who says they liked these are nuts (includes my friend who is a collector).
They're going to keep making remakes because its what gets people into theatres and by people i mean teenagers because that's the biggest group of money spenders at theatres these days. They think the originals are lame because their parents liked them so they go to see the remakes thinking they're different enough that their families won't be into them.
 
Solo4114 said:
Wrong.

There is NOTHING cool about doing endless ****ing remakes.

Let me ask you something. Did you enjoy Inception? Think it was an interesting idea? A fresh take on things? Well, for every remake that costs $200 mil to make, that's one or two or even three good, original, new, fresh ideas NOT being made. There's a finite amount of money in Hollywood, and remakes, reboots, sequels, and adaptations are just the "safest" bets.
Click to expand...

You make a very valid point however it's a bit different from what Jannix was saying I think. The remakes don't destroy the original movies they are based on so the originals are still there to enjoy. That is true. As you pointed out however, what the remakes do that is bad is prevent other original concept movies from being made and thereby probably destroy new films some of which could eventually become classics if they were given a chance.

Both are valid points I think but whichever perspective you take tends to sharply color your feelings.

For example, to me, the Crow is an utterly fantastic film that doesn't need to be remade so I think it's a horrible idea and the money would be better spent on something else. Judge Dredd on the other hand I think could use a decent remake... well... assuming they can make a decent remake. I might feel differently after seeing the movie.

And also, there's the issue of the folks that own the various franchises. Everybody wants to own a franchise these days. That's the way to get rich in Hollywood... franchises and sequels.
 
cobalt crimson said:
Oh how I wish Peter CUllen alone was enough to make that movie good lol. I'd actually would have rather they done a CGI animated remake of the cartoon movie with as many of the original cast as possible. Any G1 fan who says they liked these are nuts (includes my friend who is a collector).
They're going to keep making remakes because its what gets people into theatres and by people i mean teenagers because that's the biggest group of money spenders at theatres these days. They think the originals are lame because their parents liked them so they go to see the remakes thinking they're different enough that their families won't be into them.
Click to expand...

Yeah, the teenagers and early 20-somethings who are presumed to have never seen anything made before, oh, 1996 or so. I dunno. Growing up, I was exposed to plenty of older movies, and as a result, I like a wide variety of film styles. I mean, I love me some L.A. Confidential, but I also love The Big Sleep even though they're two TOTALLY different styles of film (albeit both "detective stories"/film noir). Without the longer term knowledge and appreciation for what's older, it's a lot easier to just keep rapidly repackaging old stuff in flashy new containers, and shipping them out to the local populace. Movie audiences are totally passive nowadays. They have no desire to go try other stuff. They'd rather just eat nothing but McDonalds their entire lives and never know anything better or even DIFFERENT exists.

dualedge said:
You make a very valid point however it's a bit different from what Jannix was saying I think. The remakes don't destroy the original movies they are based on so the originals are still there to enjoy. That is true. As you pointed out however, what the remakes do that is bad is prevent other original concept movies from being made and thereby probably destroy new films some of which could eventually become classics if they were given a chance.

Both are valid points I think but whichever perspective you take tends to sharply color your feelings.

For example, to me, the Crow is an utterly fantastic film that doesn't need to be remade so I think it's a horrible idea and the money would be better spent on something else. Judge Dredd on the other hand I think could use a decent remake... well... assuming they can make a decent remake. I might feel differently after seeing the movie.

And also, there's the issue of the folks that own the various franchises. Everybody wants to own a franchise these days. That's the way to get rich in Hollywood... franchises and sequels.
Click to expand...


No, I hear what Jannix is saying. I just don't think you can defend remakes. Yes, it doesn't destroy the original, but that's not the source of my frustration with remakes.

For me, it's not about protecting the original. It's about the fact that these remakes crowd out other potentially more interesting films, and are based PURELY on manipulation of audiences. Like I said, there's a finite amount of cash out there. Every remake draws down on that pile of money, and means that the money WON'T be spent on something new and interesting. This is all done specifically because Hollywood knows it can do so and doesn't have to try. Nobody's saying "that sucks. Try harder." Every time people spend money to go see a "branded" film it sends a message to Hollywood: "Keep up the good work."

Now, I do agree that remakes can sometimes be entertaining, and sometimes even more entertaining than the original. But it's the sheer volume of remakes that are being made these days (as well as other "branded" properties), that just boggles the mind.


In 2010, I've been to the cinema ONCE. Literally. Just once. That was to see Inception. I've been wanting to see Avatar in 3D for the rerelease, but I don't know if it's still around. No other films really made me think "I have GOT to see this in the theater." Inception, however, seemed interesting and original enough that I'd want to see it. But Inception is the exception to the rule. And this rule has been in place for at least the last seven years or so. Maybe longer. It's really getting old.
 
If they make these things closer to the books and comics they're really not remakes but entirely new versions so that's not so bad in my opinion. Though considering how strung out O'Barr looked last time i saw him i don't think we should be giving him more cash.
 
d_jedi1 said:
While I agree, let's suppose they made it true to the comic... How would that sit with you?
(not saying that they're going to.. just a what if)
Click to expand...

It does get into personal preferences... For me, I never really liked the Crow comic but I thought the movie was brilliant. Someone that loved the comic on the other hand might see it as reasonable to remake. Kind of like my opinion with the Judge Dredd remake because I thought the original didn't do the comic justice.

Generally speaking, I think most would agree in general that Hollywood makes too many remakes but if the choice were up to us on the RPF, we'd probably have a heck of an argument over which should be remade and which shouldn't... It'd make that recasting thread look like like a love poem :p

Solo, I agree with you on your point that making remakes takes money from original movies. I just also agree with Jannix that, thank God, we can at least go back and watch the originals when they do make a stinker of a remake. Well, most of the time anyway with one notable exception.
 
I gaurantee you that over half of those will never be made.

BUT I have to say that there are alot of them that would be cool to see remade. Take Commando and Mad Max for instance. Both of the originals were fun and decent movies, but it would be cool to see a new take on them.

The biggest WTF on that list is "American Werewolf in London".
 
A lot of these are sequels/prequels, American versions of foreign films, and new installments or interpretations of non-film properties (based on a book or a comic or another cultural icon). A new crow movie, for instance, shouldn't be considered a "remake," as its source material isn't the original film. If, in thirty years, someone re-cast and filmed "Inception," that would be a remake. Properties that exist in perpetuity in various media can't really be measured the same way.

It's a wonder people don't get all up in arms when they publish a new title or switch writers or artists for any given comic character...

As for the argument that there's only so much money in Hollywood and remakes are preventing great films from getting made, that's a bit off the mark too. Great films of various budgets are made each year, to begin with. Second, we do see filmmakers who do good work rewarded with trust and control (Nolan, for instance). And ultimately, Hollywood studios are businesses run by businessmen, not artists. If these movies weren't scoring well with audiences and generating revenue, while interesting and original fare soared at the box office, you'd see a shift in the balance of what gets greenlit, to be sure. Don't blame the bean counters - blame the audiences for rewarding the crummy flicks.

What bothers me most is that when given a chance to do a film based on a popular character or property, these people do such a crap job of it. The results are so much more offensive than the attempt.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

N
please delete
Replies
0
Views
126
nwjedidave
N
Baltar
PLEASE DELETE
Replies
0
Views
433
Baltar
Baltar
renaissance_man
Mods please delete.
Replies
0
Views
248
renaissance_man
renaissance_man
renaissance_man
Mods please delete
Replies
1
Views
327
renaissance_man
renaissance_man
Knightmare
Would you consider someone who has not seen Predator 2 odd?
Replies
10
Views
718
NeoRutty
NeoRutty
Back
Top