What is the next form of unoriginality? or how to reboot the unrebootable.

[Riceball]

I agree wholeheartedly with JD, reboots and remakes are nothing new, they've going since the earliest days of Hollywood and some of the most beloved movies of all time are remakes. I think that the only that may be different now is that Hollywood is busy remaking movies that did well instead of choosing either an obscure title or something that might have flopped when it first came out. Creatively, it makes sense to take something that's not well known or didn't do well but had something to it and try to improve but from the perspective of the studio, it doesn't make fiscal sense to do so. They don't want to remake flops because they figure, who's going to want to see a remake of a movie that nobody liked in the first place, and they don't want to remake an obscure title because it doesn't have the name recognition; so they go the safe route and remake the popular/well known movie that has the name recognition.

Personally, I feel that any movie that's 20 - 30 years old is fair game for a reboot/remake, after that amount of time you have a whole new generation to see the movie and enough time time has passed that tastes in movies has changed enough to make a reboot/remake worth it. Reboots are also good for ailing/aging franchises that have had their day in the sun but are starting to lose that spark that made them popular originally, or, in cases like the FF, never quite hit its stride despite 2 or 3 movies, so, in order to try and get a return on their invest (buying the rights to the IP) they reboot it in hopes of getting it right by starting from scratch.

 

[Laspector]

Personally, I feel that any movie that's 20 - 30 years old is fair game for a reboot/remake, after that amount of time you have a whole new generation to see the movie and enough time time has passed that tastes in movies has changed enough to make a reboot/remake worth it..

Can't say I agree with that at all. Just because something is old does not mean you throw it away and start over. Many many great movies stand up to the test of time. If it ain't broke, don't fix it just because it doesn't have enough 'splosions in it for today's ADD generation.

 

[Solo4114]

I think you have to consider the difference between older remakes of films and newer reboots. Reboots themselves tend to be focused around brand names and marketing, and taking something that is vaguely familiar to the audience just to get them to come to the theater at all. They also are often oriented around building a "franchise" which really just means a perpetual sequel machine. Once the machine is out of juice, they reboot it and start over, but retain the strength of the underlying brand.

By contrast, old school remakes were often remaking either failed films or films that weren't as well regarded. The Maltese Falcon is a good example. The Wizard of Oz is another. Many of them were also working off of literary works, so one could argue that the new film was less a remake of the old film, and more just a subsequent adaptation of the literary source material.

My major problems with modern remakes/reboots are threefold.

1. They're incredibly hard to do well. Either they deviate far too much from the original, to the point where you have to ask "Why'd you even bother calling it by the same name?" or they're so lacking in innovation that you have to ask "Why'd you even bother redoing the film, if you were just gonna do the exact same thing?" Reboots and remakes look good on paper because the name draws people in, but they almost never end up producing a quality film.

2. They're a form of crass market manipulation. Studio execs basically assume that audiences are morons who will go see anything if the right name is plastered on it. It doesn't help that they're often proved right. To be fair, this criticism extends to almost all "branded properties" these days. G.I. Joe: The Rise of Cobra isn't what I'd call a reboot or remake, but it certainly was a completely crappy film that was a blatant cash-in on the names and a thin veneer of IP. If you'd stripped out any of the identifying features and otherwise did the same movie, nobody would ever have seen it because it was crap. But Hollywood knows that you can stick the name of a board game or 80s toy line or candy or whatever on the film, and people will go see it. That depresses me.

3. They're stifling creativity. There's a finite amount of cash in Hollywood. It may be a huge amount, but it's not limitless. When a remake/reboot is greenlit, that means money is going to it that won't be going to something else original and interesting. There would definitely be undiscovered turds out there. But there's also undiscovered gold and it's not seeing the light of day so that we can bring you yet another branded property. Oh well. I mean, say what you will about how crappy something like Jupiter Ascending is. At least someone took a risk with that film.

 

[JD]

Can't say I agree with that at all. Just because something is old does not mean you throw it away and start over. Many many great movies stand up to the test of time. If it ain't broke, don't fix it just because it doesn't have enough 'splosions in it for today's ADD generation.

This is what bugs me - you are not throwing the old movie away. Not at all. A remake, reboot or whatever doesn't mean we disregard what's happened in the past... no one says the older stuff is broken. Maybe some that missed the original film will seek it out.

You can blame, generalize and stereotype the younger generations just like the generations before ours did that to us. That doesn't make it a truth.

The simple fact is times change, tastes change, filmmaking changes. That doesn't mean a new film can't be as good - or maybe even (shudder) better than the originals.

I don't necessarily endorse remakes, reboots and such. I'd much rather see great, original material. But, I'd rather see an amazing take on an old property than a **** poor new film that makes me want to poke my eyeballs out.

I really wish there were more theaters out there that showed older movies. It seems too often, the theaters that show the classics are just for one night and the theaters are very prevalent. Maybe if the super-multiplexes did have the classics playing a little more regularly, we wouldn't have this issue.

 

[Riceball]

I think that what it comes down to is that in the past decade or two Hollywood has become very risk adverse which is why we see so many prequels, sequels, reboots, and remakes, they're safe bets to make lots of money. And lets face it, with the exception of your little indy studios, Hollywood is in the business of making money, not art, and movies are merely the way they make their money. Until some little indy arthouse movie is number the weekend of its release and makes a ton of money, Hollywood is going to continue to play it safe by giving us all of these prequels, sequels, reboots, and remakes; either that or until some future director(s) and/or actor(s) develop the same sort of clout as Clint Eastwood and strike deals with the studios that in order to appear in their big tent pole movie they get to do a project of their own choosing in return..

 

[batguy]

It's easy for an audience to accept the idea that a well-loved old movie is being remade, if they don't love that old movie themselves.



Right now the primary target movie audience is too young to remember 9/11.

Some of us have young hazy memories about the era when Michael Jackson was cool. These kids have young hazy memories about Michael Jackson's death.

Britney Spears was on the radio before they were born.

Some of the Star Wars movies came out before they were born - including some of the prequels.

The old R-rated Terminator movies which came out back when they were in gradeschool were T3 and T4.



It's not going to bother these kids seeing Ghostbusters or Point Break remade no matter how unnecessary & inferior a remake might be. There are millions of 30yo adults who have never seen movies that age, let alone the younger kids.

A show that everyone of all ages has seen like Star Wars or Harry Potter is an exception. If something is more than 15 years old and has not gotten unusually heavy/consistent cable TV airplay, then it's not "already done" anymore. We may remember it and care but they don't.

 

[Nismo]

well who buys movie tickets?.....High school and college kids (and then Adults with Kids) well to those demographics they are often not aware of the originals to begin with so it's new to them.

My nephews only know the Ninja Turtles of their generation - not mine and while 1989 batman was my batman ( I was 9 years old) they know the Dark Knight.

That's the thing about high schoolers

 

[Timey Wimey]

It doesn't feel as if younger generations only like their own media from what I've observed. With the existence of the Internet (I don't want to say peer pressure but) peer pressure (or some other more appropriate phrase) exists from all new perspectives. Younger audiences watching those nostalgia oriented critics or ones that just like movies seek out what is good rather than what is present. Generations are not getting dumber so why can't they something search movies of another era. The definition of the movies you grow up with has completely changed. The only difference is the new audience for classics only remembers what is noteworthy by the generation that watched it.

 

[Axlotl]

I forced my niece to watch "The 39 Steps" with me.
She was all reluctant and squirmy at first, but eventually she got into it, and ended up really digging it.
(For those who don't know, "The 39 Steps" is a 1935 black-&-white film by Alfred Hitchcock - it's actually quoted and referenced in "Catcher in the Rye" - and is a DAMN good film).

Should it be remade?
I don't think it needs to be.
The time it was made in is part of it's charm.
Plus, it's pretty much been remade a hundred times.
"Out of Sight"? "39 Steps" for the '90s.
Actually, pretty much anything made since 1935 with male and female protagonists forced to work together against their will/better-judgement is a remake of "39 Steps".
Would I welcome a remake of "The 39 Steps"?
Sure, I'm game.
But I'm also sure it will be dismissed as derivative by new generations who have seen the same story played out a hundred times in half as many films.
And I seriously doubt a remake could improve on the original.

Like "John Carter".
I've seen so many kids put down this film because "it's trying to be Star Wars".
If they only knew Star Wars wouldn't exist without John Carter...
But they don't. They didn't grow up on books written in 1912 like I did.
They don't understand that this is where it all began.
And you can't explain it to them.
Their history begins in 1998.

I look at reboots/remakes the same way I look at rock'n'roll bands covering awesome songs.
If you're going to do it exactly the same, then why bother? (*cough* "Psycho" *cough* "Poltergeist" *cough*)
Bring something new to the table, or stop wasting time and money.

 

[JD]

well who buys movie tickets?.....High school and college kids (and then Adults with Kids) well to those demographics they are often not aware of the originals to begin with so it's new to them.

Actually, according to the MPAA - frequent moviegoers (those that go once a month or more) shows that the age bracket is fairly evenly spread out - with nearly 40% in the 18-39 range. The numbers in parentheses is the overall percentage of tickets sold). Either way it shows that those buying movie tickets are not predominantly High School and college kids.

ages 2-11 = 7% (15%)
ages 12-17 = 15% (11%)
ages 18-24 = 19% (13%)
ages 25-39 = 19% (23%)
ages 40-49 = 15% (13%)
ages 50-57 = 11% (12%)
age 60+ = 14% (13%)

In 2014, attendance declined for all age groups under 40 - and increased for 40-60.

Of course, this is about movie ticket sales - and doesn't account for home sales. While it can be argued that the younger generation is more apt to watch on at home (either on home televisions or phones or tablets), that doesn't really include the price increase home viewing usually means (an average blu-ray or legal download for a new release isn't cheaper than a movie ticket).

 

[Timey Wimey]

Is it possible to deboot?

 

[batguy]

It doesn't feel as if younger generations only like their own media from what I've observed. With the existence of the Internet (I don't want to say peer pressure but) peer pressure (or some other more appropriate phrase) exists from all new perspectives. Younger audiences watching those nostalgia oriented critics or ones that just like movies seek out what is good rather than what is present. Generations are not getting dumber so why can't they something search movies of another era. The definition of the movies you grow up with has completely changed. The only difference is the new audience for classics only remembers what is noteworthy by the generation that watched it.

I didn't make my age/awareness comments above to bash younger kids. It probably came across that way but it wasn't my intent at all.

On the contrary I think the current crop of younger kids are probably more pop-culturally aware of the past than any previous one. The internet has done quite a job of exposing kids to older stuff, at least stuff that's 1-2 generations older so the primary fans are still online heavily. And the kids have done quite a job of crapping all over the media machine's assumption that they will always want new over quality. It seems particularly true in pop music. The slower pacing of older TV/movies and less aggressive shooting/editing styles are not a factor with 3-minute audio songs.

But being more aware of the past than previous generations isn't saying much if the previous generations' awareness standard was very little at all. I get the feeling that the non-media-enthusiasts of the younger kids are still mostly watching very new stuff. Just like with my generation and the ones before it.

I was just trying to point out how young 13-14yo really is in 2015. I didn't mean to hold it against them.




That movie ticket sales by age chart is eye-opening.

 

[Nismo]

Actually, according to the MPAA - frequent moviegoers (those that go once a month or more) shows that the age bracket is fairly evenly spread out - with nearly 40% in the 18-39 range. The numbers in parentheses is the overall percentage of tickets sold). Either way it shows that those buying movie tickets are not predominantly High School and college kids.

ages 2-11 = 7% (15%)
ages 12-17 = 15% (11%)
ages 18-24 = 19% (13%)
ages 25-39 = 19% (23%)
ages 40-49 = 15% (13%)
ages 50-57 = 11% (12%)
age 60+ = 14% (13%)

In 2014, attendance declined for all age groups under 40 - and increased for 40-60.

Of course, this is about movie ticket sales - and doesn't account for home sales. While it can be argued that the younger generation is more apt to watch on at home (either on home televisions or phones or tablets), that doesn't really include the price increase home viewing usually means (an average blu-ray or legal download for a new release isn't cheaper than a movie ticket).

where the data get's really thrown off is the younger generations are probably bootlegging movies much more than they are buying tickets for them ...kinda like in the 90's when all the sudden CD's sale for 16-25 year olds tanked cause of Napster

 

[JD]

where the data get's really thrown off is the younger generations are probably bootlegging movies much more than they are buying tickets for them ...kinda like in the 90's when all the sudden CD's sale for 16-25 year olds tanked cause of Napster

No, the data is solid. My post was replying to your comment that was specific to your comment: "well who buys movie tickets?.....High school and college kids (and then Adults with Kids)." You didn't make a claim about who downloads movies.

There are also studies that suggest that "pirates" are more likely to also buy legal content.

 

[jarroth]

prequels, sequels, reboots aint they not just all made to boot the sale of old merchandise for the originals?
jurassic world comes out. friend who has a toy store had to order tons of jurassic park stuff cause people asked more for the older stuff than the new things.
star wars, part one two and three came out, he had to order tons of the old merchandise.
last two star trek movies came out, he never sold more old enterprise A models in his life (he started working in that shop when he was 15, he's 52 now and owns the shop)
and that happend with more sequels, prequels or reboots.

 

[cboath]

No, the data is solid. My post was replying to your comment that was specific to your comment: "well who buys movie tickets?.....High school and college kids (and then Adults with Kids)." You didn't make a claim about who downloads movies.

There are also studies that suggest that "pirates" are more likely to also buy legal content.

If that throws the number off, that's all well and good, but suits look at the records in hand and that would stop the catering to that bracket more than have them target it. What target a demographic that's going to steal as opposed to buy?? Hell, they seem to only consider box office for success/failure and likely greenlighting as well. You fail week 1 you're a failure and it's likely ignored even with a great home video market.

 

[CessnaDriver]

No, the data is solid. My post was replying to your comment that was specific to your comment: "well who buys movie tickets?.....High school and college kids (and then Adults with Kids)." You didn't make a claim about who downloads movies.

There are also studies that suggest that "pirates" are more likely to also buy legal content.

Yep, they see the movie, download it, go back see in theaters anyways to see it big screen again, buy the bluray later. Yep.
Not that I know any "pirates". Arggh scourge of the digital seas!

 

[NormanF]

Now if there are written source materials..... Logan's Run for instance where the book was very different in many ways and your goal is to get a more accurate transfer from the written source material because now we can do the FX that they could not back then, things start to make sense.
I've yet to see a proper War of the Worlds. There was some crappy low budget attempt that tried but it was horrible.
And it could be either a period piece or modern. The story can work both ways.

Or "Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep?"
I could support that film, because it's not Blade Runner is it? It's very different in many ways from the film and
there is a ton of material there to explore the film barely touched or did not include.


If your picking up story later, I'm not sure I call that a "reboot". Are we too quick to call things "reboots' when they are truly a sequel?
I agreet hat Tron Legacy was not a reboot.

I feel the same way, but that might be partly because I absolutely hate movies that are based on a book or some other source and change most if not all of the story. The best example of that is of course "World War Z". Another good example is "We'll Remember It For You Wholesale". After reading that you will wonder how they got "Total Recall" from it. If you go back to the original source then I am totally cool. Look at "The Thing". The original was vaguely based on the original. The Carpenter version was much closer to the story. http://nzr.mvnu.edu/faculty/trearic...uscri/Who Goes There/Who Goes There Index.htm. I'm also OK with rebooting bad movies. Heck, I'd like to see a reboot of "Starship Troopers", that would take care of bad movie and honoring the original source. Win-win!

As for early reboots like "Wizard of Oz" and "The Maltese Falcon", I think that was less noticed back then because people were not buying it to watch at home and it wasn't shown every other night for a month on FX.

 

[bwayne64]

I say reboot, till you get it right. I have plenty of popcorn, and a remote control,

 

[CessnaDriver]

Perhaps it is time.

Reboot Plan Nine from Outer Space!!!!!