Scamp From United States of America, joined Aug 2005, 611 posts, RR: 0 Posted (10 years 1 week 18 hours ago) and read 1601 times:
A conversation came up at dinner with friends the other night regarding remakes of old movies. It seems that the camp classic, "The Poseidon Adventure" has been/is being remade, twice no less, once as an NBC mini-series and the other as a big screen (assumed) blockbuster. You can view the trailer for the mini-series at http://www.hallmarkent.com/property.php?propertyId=PoseidonAdventur. Ironically, it seems that about the same time last decade when James Cameron's "Titanic" came out, CBS showed a pretty weak version of the catastrophe in the form of a mini-series. Although neither of these films were technically remakes (although I suppose that once a movie is written on a historical subject, anything done in the future might be considered a "remake" in the broadest sense). Seems to be a fair number of big-boat-goes-boom flicks out lately. It appears, based on the dialogue from the Poseidon mini-series that the TV version is going to be laughable, but the jury is still out on the big screen version as it's currently being filmed. Besides these two, "King Kong" is being remade, and I assume there are other remakes to hit the screens in the coming months and years. The conversation centered around the notion, 'Has Hollywood run out of movie ideas?' Personally, I have no problem with remakes as my logic is, what difference does it make if a movie is remade or a play or musical is revived, or for that matter if a television series is retooled, if it isn't a carbon copy, it's an entirely new movie. Assuming a decent interval of time has elapsed, what are the opinions on this topic by the A-netters? Has Hollywood run out of ideas?
Dtwclipper From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 2, posted (10 years 1 week 18 hours ago) and read 1585 times:
The worst remake ever:
"The Opposite Sex", a musical version with Joan Colins and June Alyson, of the 1939 classic "The Women" with Norma Shearer and Joan Crawford!
One of the best casts ever put together!
Norma Shearer .... Mrs. Stephen Haines (Mary)
Joan Crawford .... Crystal Allen
Rosalind Russell .... Mrs. Howard Fowler (Sylvia)
Mary Boland .... The Countess DeLave (Flora)
Paulette Goddard .... Miriam Aarons
Phyllis Povah .... Mrs. Phelps Potter (Edith)
Joan Fontaine .... Mrs. John Day (Peggy)
Virginia Weidler .... Little Mary Haines
Lucile Watson .... Mrs. Moorehead
Marjorie Main .... Lucy
Virginia Grey .... Pat (perfume counter clerk)
Ruth Hussey .... Miss Watts (Stephen's secretary)
Muriel Hutchison .... Jane (Mary's maid)
Hedda Hopper .... Dolly Dupuyster (columnist)
Florence Nash .... Nancy Blake
Not necessarily, but the economics of Hollywood has changed drastically. It used to be that a true blockbuster would run years, not weeks. When I was a kid, The Sound of Music ran so long at a big theater in downtown San Francisco, they actually built a wooden replica of Maria and the kids above the marquee. I think it played for something like 3 years at the same theater.
As it stands today, around 90% of ticket sales during the first week of release goes to the studio/distributor, and on a sliding scale downwards after that. The theater operators make most of their money from the concession stand, and a large percentage of that from teenagers.
The economic incentive now is to pack in a young audience quickly, benefitting the studio through ticket sales, and the theater owner via popcorn sales. As an example, the last installment of Star Wars did a great box office, but it came and went in a heartbeat. In contrast, in 1977, the original played in first-run theaters with lines around the block for months and months.
But studios don't really intend to break even on ticket sales these days. Nearly all the profit on a picture comes from what's known as ancillary markets. Now the definition of "ancillary" is "of secondary importance", but it's where all the money is made in modern times in the film industry. It includes DVD sales, pay cable, network TV, cable TV, and other uses from owning the intellectual rights to the property.
"Follow the money", as Deep Throat said, and you'll find the answer to most questions.
LTBEWR From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 13622 posts, RR: 17
Reply 7, posted (10 years 1 week 10 hours ago) and read 1550 times:
The making of movies is such a crapshoot, that far too often Hollywood goes back to the past for formulas that worked before to keep their movie factories open. I wish Hollywood would go into 'red state' America, and not just look as the big city centers for influence as to movies and more original ideas that may make money. They also need to stop spending so much money on the performers and filmaking staff thinking that money = a good profitable movie. Hollywood also has an issue too is that films have to be PC and suitable for worldwide markets, but to make sure under 17's can see them, a prime audience they make their money with, so one more reason for the retreads.
SlamClick From United States of America, joined Nov 2003, 10062 posts, RR: 66
Reply 9, posted (10 years 1 week 7 hours ago) and read 1527 times:
Quoting Scamp (Reply 8): I read somewhere once there were only about 10=15 plotlines possible. I wish I could find that.
I've heard the same thing. I've asked about that in several college journalism classes over the years. What follows is usually an interesting discussion of Biblical or Greek or Shakespearean origins but no actual list of plotlines.
It may be valid to remake silent movies with sound or remake some old black&whites in color. (The artsy preference for b&w is a bunch of stultified crap!) It is just easier for a modern audience to watch a color movie. LIFE IS IN COLOR.
Personally I dislike intensely the video-game mentality of the remakes and the MTV-style stuttercut editing. Annoying to the max! Flight of the Phoenix with Jimmy Stewart was a decent, very simple movie and just as relevant today as a period piece as when it was new. I have not seen the remake as the trailers sparked no interest whatever. They showed the plane hitting the sand dunes at about a thousand miles per hour. Don't show me the ridiculous stuff up front!
Same with Pearl Harbor. That was a retelling of the events of Tora! Tora! Tora! but with the only apparent purpose of airing new CGI methods. I'm glad they are working on the CG stuff, maybe one day they will do great movies with it and we will have only one movie star left and no one will know what he looks like. (unless you recognize Tom Hanks voice)
I just wish they'd rename them or add a numeral when they remake them. That way you don't get your hopes up. It would be like a casino marquee leaving off the "Jr." when Frank Sinatra Jr. was performing.
Happiness is not seeing another trite Ste. Maarten photo all week long.
Roger136913 From United States of America, joined Aug 2005, 473 posts, RR: 0
Reply 10, posted (10 years 1 week 5 hours ago) and read 1518 times:
Quoting SlamClick (Reply 9): Personally I dislike intensely the video-game mentality of the remakes and the MTV-style stuttercut editing. Annoying to the max! Flight of the Phoenix with Jimmy Stewart was a decent, very simple movie and just as relevant today as a period piece as when it was new. I have not seen the remake as the trailers sparked no interest whatever. They showed the plane hitting the sand dunes at about a thousand miles per hour. Don't show me the ridiculous stuff up front!
The remake of "Flight of Phoenix" was lousy. The original was simple as you said. The remake was garbage and 2 stars at best, but thats my opinion.
One movie I would love seen remade it The Day the Earth Stood Still.
Though I love the movie the way it is, I am a Sci-Fi freak and want to see more.
Kind of like the movie "The Thing" The Kurt Russell version was the better one, again IMHO.
Let's say there are 5. That leaves 135 movies that are NOT remakes. If you can't find something original in that 135, you are the problem, not the film industry.
Get your lazy ass down to the local theater that shows indies, documentaries, etc. Nearly every major city has at least two. If you don't have such a theater nearby, either move or suck it up and wait until the film comes out on DVD.
Slider From United States of America, joined Feb 2004, 7116 posts, RR: 33
Reply 15, posted (10 years 1 week 4 hours ago) and read 1500 times:
Quoting TedTAce (Reply 1): Some movies are meant to be remade, others you just CAN'T FU*K with!!
Quoting Roger136913 (Reply 10): The remake of "Flight of Phoenix" was lousy. The original was simple as you said. The remake was garbage and 2 stars at best, but thats my opinion.
Another one that was an interesting spin was Oceans 11. Entertaining and a better production as a remake (as most remakes are today given technology), but lacked any fire or camaraderie as the original did with the Rat Pack.
Seb146 From United States of America, joined Nov 1999, 13067 posts, RR: 14
Reply 17, posted (10 years 6 days 23 hours ago) and read 1470 times:
I am not a big movie person, but my biggest problem with movie remakes is they seem to be remaking stupid ones. I have traumatic childhood memories of Disney movies like Herbie and Chitty Chitty Bang Bang. I want to break things when I see ads for these movies.
On the other hand, remaking All About Eve or Sunset Boulevard would not work. Those were grand films with wonderful actors. The New Hollywood would never ever do those films justice. I do like the classics and hope Hollywood would just leave them be.
OzarkD9S From United States of America, joined Oct 2001, 5454 posts, RR: 20
Reply 18, posted (10 years 6 days 23 hours ago) and read 1470 times:
Some remakes succeed but most don't IMHO.
The two Scarfaces (Paul Muni original and Al Pacino remake) for instance are an example of a remake that succeeded. But the remake succeeded to a level that rendered the original nearly forgotten (and it definately SHOULD NOT be).
The worst remake was Cabo Blanco, and absolutely insipid remake of Casablanca. All parties connected to the remake should forced to do dinner theatre in hell for daring to touch it.
Scamp From United States of America, joined Aug 2005, 611 posts, RR: 0
Reply 21, posted (10 years 3 days 3 hours ago) and read 1452 times:
Quoting Roger136913 (Reply 20): How was this movie? I did not see it and wated to but too many mixed reviews left me wondering
it's pretty visceral. not great, but entertaining. I have to admit that I saw it "under the influence" so it had more of an "impact" as a result. I did see it a second time. The first time was better, if you know what I mean.