We all know that Hollywood has been in a major slump lately with no end in sight to the cold shoulder of the viewing public. Why is Hollywood failing? Here's why: NO ORIGINALITY!!! I mean for God's sake what's the deal with all these remakes and adaptations flooding the screen? Don't get me wrong I appreciate a remake or adaptation every now and then, but this is ridiculous. Almost everything in theaters lacks the creativity and originality of past films.
The reason remakes are a problem is because the audience knows what will happen. It's like going to see a movie and some jerk behind you ruins the ending, except with remakes that jerk is YOU! Plus the adaptations have gotten out of control. There's adaptations of video games, comic books, and high profile novels. Where's the innovation and originality? There is none. These days, it's all about making the audience go "Wow, that's a big explosion!" rather than making them say "That was so touching it made me cry!" Hollywood had better get its act together or the studio system will collapse again.
Posted by BYSOAL (Member # 3846) on :
I mean this in the most friendly and welcoming way possible, but I just have to ask:
Is there any irony in someone with a screen name in which 62485 is a pasrt complaining about a lack of originality? Any significance to that number?
Oh, and obviously the answer is piracy. And me. If you can get past my cynicism, Welcome to Hatrack!
BYSOAL
Posted by kojabu (Member # 8042) on :
How is the problem piracy when the movies that are being made are just remakes of old movies?
Posted by Verily the Younger (Member # 6705) on :
quote:It's like going to see a movie and some jerk behind you ruins the ending, except with remakes that jerk is YOU!
I agree that there are far too many remakes and adaptations--especially remakes!--coming out these days. Someone here pointed out once that they had just gone to a movie and realized that of all the previews, not one was an original story. I myself have gone to the movies about three times since then (I'm not a big movie-goer) and have kept an eye open for that. Sure enough, not a single preview I've seen in that time has been for an original story. I think it's sad and pathetic.
Enough already. You know why they made Bad News Bears back in the '70s, Billy Bob? So you wouldn't have to.
We need some real writers going to Hollywood. Just think of the fantastic, heartwarming, original movies OSC could make, for example. [irony]After Ender's Game comes out, I mean.[/irony]
Or better yet, just sell Southern California to Mexico. Abandon Hollywood. Decentralize the film industry and let some people with some actual bloody vision into the game.
Posted by Occasional (Member # 5860) on :
The problem is more than originality. Its that Hollywood isn't making movies worthy of watching. The plots are weak, the characters are sterotypes, and no one cares about what happens.
To be honest, I don't think Hollywood is at all dying. They still make a boatload of cash beyond what any of us real people can even dream. Its just that prices to go watch are too high for such horrible talent. As someone else said, a larger portion of audiences take one look at what is out there in theaters and say "Video" or skip it altogether.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by Verily the Younger: Or better yet, just sell Southern California to Mexico. Abandon Hollywood.
HEY! Posted by Enigmatic (Member # 7785) on :
This same sort of thing has been said for years. What an unoriginal post.
Seriously though, of movies I've seen in theaters recently, the only one I can think of that WASN'T a sequel or an adaptation of a comic book or novel was probably the worst of the bunch (not that it was actually bad, just less good).
--Enigmatic
Posted by Troubadour (Member # 83) on :
Additionally, the studio system collapsed in the past due to the monopoly of the studio chain: the production house, the distributor and the cinemas were all owned by one company. In today's parlance, if you went to a Village cinema, you would see movies provided only by the Village distribution chains created in Village studios. While there's some fairly anti-competitive practices going on with regards to film distribution and cinema licensing, it isn't to the level where it was legislated against, which was one of the causes of the original studio system collapse.
Posted by Puppy (Member # 6721) on :
People who don't see original movies have only themselves to blame. There are LOTS of original and powerful movies made EVERY year, if you bother to find them.
Posted by Troubadour (Member # 83) on :
Also, while I agree that there's lots of sequels, remakes and adaptions out there, they're not always bad and not everything that's produced is terrible (even amongst the original work).
I just about refuse to watch Australian cinema, because our artists over here seem to think that poor production values = artistic merit. As if shooting with a 8mm handycam lends them some kind of credibility just because it looks gritty.
There's some spectacular cinema out there - check out 'Sideways' for an original. 'Sin City' is just fan-bloody-tastic, especially when compared against other comic adaptions (Fantastic Four).
Posted by Puppy (Member # 6721) on :
City of God Posted by Puppy (Member # 6721) on :
And by the way, I challenge just about anyone who complains about unoriginality to produce for me an idea of their own that is both original and good.
If you can't do it, don't complain like the world owes it to you and isn't paying up.
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
It's not just Hollywood. It's television too. If they must remake something, they should at least do something unique with it, most ideas are recycled in some way, but the talented people are like alchemists who bring out the best even in an old dull idea like boy meets girl.
Posted by Book (Member # 5500) on :
I agree with this post so long as Batman Begins and Sin City are not included among the "unoriginality."
You want greed? You want unoriginality? You want someone flooding the industry with comic book movies no one wants to see? Blame Avi Arad, president of Marvel.
quote: There's some spectacular cinema out there - check out 'Sideways' for an original.
Oh, dear God, that movie sucked.
quote:Seriously though, of movies I've seen in theaters recently, the only one I can think of that WASN'T a sequel or an adaptation of a comic book or novel was probably the worst of the bunch (not that it was actually bad, just less good).
Huh?
quote:Seriously though, of movies I've seen in theaters recently, the only one I can think of that WASN'T a sequel or an adaptation of a comic book or novel
I was with you through all that. It was everything that came after that I didn't understand.
Lack of sleep probably. Are you saying that of all the movies you've seen recently, they have been sequels or comic books. Except for one, which was based neither on a previous movie or a comic book, and was, in fact the worst of all of the movies you've seen?
Like you saw Star Wars, Batman Begins, The Longest Yard, Herbie: Fully Loaded, War of the Worlds, Fantastic Four, Bewitched, Shrek 2 and The Perfect Man and The Perfect Man was the worst of all of them?
You must have missed Hitch. Damn funny movie. Of course, I'm married to Albert, so everything that Hitch told Albert, nearly brought me to tears.
Okay, I just looked at a theater with 16 screens, on which they are showing 12 movies. Six of the movies were original.
The Adventures of Sharkboy and Lavagirl in 3-D, George A. Romero's Land of the Dead, Madagascar, Mr. & Mrs. Smith, The Perfect Man, (only one showing a day) and Rebound. (Though, seriously, isn't Rebound a remake of the Mighty Ducks and Mr. & Mrs. Smith basically Prizzi's Honor?) The other movies were Batman Begins, Bewitched (two screens) Herbie: Fully Loaded (two screens) The Longest Yard, Madagascar, Star Wars: Episode III - Revenge of the Sith, and War of the Worlds (three screens, I think.)
But, Dark Water and The Fantastic Four start Friday.
So, 16 screens and 3 original ideas plus 2 marginally original ideas and one showing of a sixth semi-original idea.
That sucks.
The theater we usually go to has 12 screens. Five new movies and 6 sequels/remakes or comic books on 7 screens.
But, I would like to point out one thing.
quote: And over-all business was hardly weak. It will probably end up being the third biggest Independence Day holiday.
quote:Sydney Pollack, a Hollywood veteran and regular guest at the Sun Valley retreats, told reporters Wednesday that box office earnings were hurting for several reasons — more people watching DVDs at home and an increasingly “loud and rude” environment for enjoying movies in theaters as people use cell phones during the movie.
“Some of it is the movie business’ fault,” Pollack added. “They’re not making movies people are happy with.”
And
quote: For the year, revenues are down about 7 percent, while factoring in higher ticket prices, admissions are off 10 percent. The longer the slump drags on, the harder it gets for Hollywood to dig itself out of that revenue hole, said Paul Dergarabedian, president of box-office tracker Exhibitor Relations.
"There's a spotlight on the slump and people's dissatisfaction about going to the movies. That negative perception can create a negative reality," Dergarabedian said. "It also gives people the opportunity to vent all the reasons they don't like going to movies, whether it's high ticket prices or the costs at the concession stand. So they feel validated in that by the slump."
I don't know. Cost of movies is ridiculous. Cost of concessions is ridiculous. I'd rather wait 6 months for the DVD and watch it in my own home with my cheaper popcorn. Especially if it's just a sequel or comic book or remake.
Spending $20 just to get in the door for the three of us seems a bit steep. I'd rather wait and either rent the movie for $3 or buy it for less than $20.
Posted by mothertree (Member # 4999) on :
It seems like the remakes screwed up the endings of both "The Italian Job" and "Ocean's 11". Which seems really silly, since the originals were so good.
Posted by Book (Member # 5500) on :
It's probably true about how damn expensive things have gotten. However, that still hasn't stopped me from seeing Sin City twice, and Begins four times (there were a lot of people out of town - I insisted I take them whenever they got back; PS, they never regretted it).
When there's something original out there, it's good to pay out of respect for it. I saw Star Wars once and had no desire to see it again, and so I didn't. I didn't want to see Mr. and Mrs. Smith, and I didn't and don't want to see War of the Worlds.
I know what I like, and when I find it, I will pay for it.
Posted by Zeugma (Member # 6636) on :
When we went to go see Madagascar, I decided to buy my soda and popcorn at the theater for the first time in 5 or 6 years. When the guy told me my medium soda was going to cost $4.75, I burst out laughing and couldn't stop. Almost as entertaining as the movie itself.
I'd be interested to know what effect home theater technology is having on this "slump". With 16:9 HDTVs and projectors, and really great surround-sound systems, a whole lot of people have home theaters that are as good if not better than the local cineplex. And a much more pleasant environment.
This has happened before... Film used to be shot in the 4:3 aspect ratio that standard TVs today use. When television became really popular, the movie industry felt threatened by the lure of getting entertainment at home for free, and started making widescreen movies to give people something they couldn't get at home.
Now they can, so what will Hollywood do next? I sure am seeing a lot of movies that use those 3D glasses lately.... Posted by Xavier (Member # 405) on :
quote:City of God
I just saw that a week ago. I liked it a lot. Funny how I had absolutely no problem with the subtitles (I could have enjoyed the movie without them even).
Very different, if disturbing .
That I think could be the next "big craze" in movies. True stories. Amazing events are happening every day, and there are still many many historical events dying for a movie portrayal.
Edit: Of course true stories are already being done, like "Hotel Rwanda". I'd like to see more of these.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
Why is Hollywood dying?
Because Tom Cruise Is Nuts .
Posted by Verily the Younger (Member # 6705) on :
quote:And by the way, I challenge just about anyone who complains about unoriginality to produce for me an idea of their own that is both original and good.
So only people with high levels of artistic ability are allowed to complain when an artwork fails to satisfy them? Sorry. Ain't buying it.
Posted by Jon Boy (Member # 4284) on :
quote:You must have missed Hitch. Damn funny movie.
I actually laughed out loud once or twice during it. The rest was just sort of meh.
Posted by Jim-Me (Member # 6426) on :
I, for one, find that the vast majority of my favorite movies of all time come from the last 15 years and don't have a problem with remakes, adaptations and sequels as long as they are GOOD.
LotR, Finding Neverland, The Incredibles, and Batman Begins have been enough for me these last few years and The Chronicles of Narnia looks to make the next several years worthwhile.
Posted by Enigmatic (Member # 7785) on :
quote: Are you saying that of all the movies you've seen recently, they have been sequels or comic books. Except for one, which was based neither on a previous movie or a comic book, and was, in fact the worst of all of the movies you've seen?
Exactly. The movies I was thinking of at the time were: Sin City, Star Wars 3, Batman Begins, Hitchhikers Guide, and Mr. and Mrs. Smith. Mr. and Mrs. Smith was a fun, dumb action movie, but the others were all better than it. (IMHO, I know others will disagree with that.)
However, thinking about it a bit more I remember that in that timeframe I've also seen Madagascar and Kung Fu Hustle. So that's two more originals that were both quite good. Neither of them beats Sin City or Batman, though.
The mention of Hitch raises another good point. It looks funny and good, but it's the kind of thing I'd probably rent later instead of see in the theater. That's not saying its not as good, but as a romantic comedy it just doesn't have anything that would be lost by watching it on a smaller screen. On the other hand, if I don't catch War of the Worlds in theaters I'll never see it, because all the big special effects shots are much cooler on the big screen than at home.
Let's take a nice look at the box office numbers for the Lord of the Rings trilogy and then see if anyone still thinks remakes and adaptations aren't making money.
--Enigmatic
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:We all know that Hollywood has been in a major slump lately with no end in sight
I don't know that.
It seems that this must be a pretty mild slump.
Ever since I can remember 99% of the movies haven't been worth seeing.
And yet people keep going and watching them.
I blame you.
Posted by Primal Curve (Member # 3587) on :
quote:Originally posted by Jon Boy: I actually laughed out loud once or twice during it. The rest was just sort of meh.
Sounds like Will Smith's entire career.
Posted by Jon Boy (Member # 4284) on :
Yeah, more or less. Though I liked Men in Black and I, Robot.
But in Hitch, it was like he wasn't even trying to be funny. He was just sort of there.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
They keep talking about the box office slump. It's not my fault - I go to the movies all the time.
Posted by Puppy (Member # 6721) on :
quote:So only people with high levels of artistic ability are allowed to complain when an artwork fails to satisfy them? Sorry. Ain't buying it.
My point is that people act like "originality" is an ingredient a person can just buy at a store and add to a movie, and if they don't put in enough for your satisfaction, they've somehow harmed or cheated you.
Originality is HARD to pull off after thousands of years of human artistic achievement. It's even HARDER to make a work of art that is truly original without those same exact complainers shunning you because the thing you made for them is too foreign and unfamiliar.
All I'm saying is, if you want to complain about unoriginality, try to come up with something original yourself. Realize that it's HARD, and it's even HARDER to come up with something truly original that other people will accept.
Posted by Jim-Me (Member # 6426) on :
I'd also like to add that originality is not all it's cracked up to be-- if no one's ever done it before, there's probably a very good reason.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
I agree that anyone who can't find something original to watch simply hasn't been looking hard enough. There are great, original movies made all the time. Go see March of the Penguins.
Posted by Annie (Member # 295) on :
quote:Where's the innovation and originality? There is none.
Take a walk down to your local video rental store (not Blockbuster - they won't have anything decent. See if there's an independently owned rental place) and ask them to point you to the independent and foreign film section.
Have a ball.
Posted by The Silverblue Sun (Member # 1630) on :
quote: And by the way, I challenge just about anyone who complains about unoriginality to produce for me an idea of their own that is both original and good.
I've got about seven ideas that are fresh original and good, now i just need to conquer my writers block and my act 3 problems and we'll be all good.
Posted by Verily the Younger (Member # 6705) on :
quote:Originality is HARD to pull off after thousands of years of human artistic achievement. It's even HARDER to make a work of art that is truly original without those same exact complainers shunning you because the thing you made for them is too foreign and unfamiliar.
Granted. I can't speak for anyone else, of course, but I'll point out that when I complained about originality, I personally was not referring to the idea that storylines are being used that have been thought of before. I'm well aware that a truly original idea, in that sense, is scarcely even possible anymore.
Here's what I personally was talking about: I've gone to the movies three times this summer. Of the previews I saw during those three movies, every single one was for a movie that was either a remake of an existing movie, an adaptation of an existing work, or a fictionalized account of a supposedly "true" story.
The three movies I saw? Two were adapted from books. The other from comic books.
And I'm not even saying that's inherently bad. I enjoyed all three of those movies, actually. But when one can go to three different movies and not see a single preview for a movie that originated with a screenwriter who said, "Hey, I've got a great story idea we could do," then one begins to get the impression that film-makers just aren't trying anymore.
That impression is misleading, I know. Batman Begins was the first truly good Batman movie there's ever been. Their take on the character was genuinely refreshing, after having seen the previous pieces of dreck. It made it so new and exciting that it's almost as though it erased the awful old movies. The fact that Batman and his universe have existed for decades now really don't diminish the accomplishment. I understand that.
Still, though. All those previews . . . do we have to have that many remakes and adaptations all at once?
(For the record, I haven't seen Hitch. I wanted to see it, but I didn't have a girl to go with, and me and all my guy friends are juuuust insecure enough to not want to go see that together. Even though we all wanted to see it. Sigh. Maybe when it comes out on DVD I'll finally get to see if it was as good as it looked like it would be.)
Posted by Shmuel (Member # 7586) on :
quote:We all know that Hollywood has been in a major slump lately with no end in sight to the cold shoulder of the viewing public. Why is Hollywood failing? Here's why: NO ORIGINALITY!!!
Yeah, but it's not a new problem. There was even this hack in the 16th-17th century who ripped all his plots off from older playwrights and historians and used the same plot devices in play after play. Shakespeare, I think his name was. No wonder live theatre has all but bitten the dust.
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
Hollywood uses too many cliches. There is nothing I hate more than cliches. It's all well and good to take an old idea like sibling rivary or marriage and make a story out of it, but just don't use the same tired old cliches. I swear if I have to see one more dumb, whiny obnoxious husband story and his long suffering wife, I'll scream...
You know what's a good movie? You can Count on Me. I am suprised I never heard of that movie. It's so quiet and good and Laura Linney's acting was just spectacular.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:There is nothing I hate more than cliches.
There's nothing I hate more than hyperbola. Posted by Verily the Younger (Member # 6705) on :
quote:There was even this hack in the 16th-17th century who ripped all his plots off from older playwrights and historians and used the same plot devices in play after play. Shakespeare, I think his name was.
The standards were different then. It's generally regarded as unfair and invalid to judge past generations by the standards of your own era.
Posted by Occasional (Member # 5860) on :
At least with Shakespeare he stole things and made them better! Today's Hollywood steales things and usually (although not always) makes mincemeat out of them.
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
quote:Originally posted by mr_porteiro_head:
quote:There is nothing I hate more than cliches.
There's nothing I hate more than hyperbola.
Too bad... Stretching language until it snaps is a lot of fun.
Posted by Mintieman (Member # 4620) on :
To be honest the independent film industry is amazing at the moment. Every genre of film is being produced wonderfully from all around the world, and once you get used to subtitles, you'll never lack for originality in films. Even hollywood could be worse, even if their comedies have always been a bit well... pish.
As many have stated, Sin City and Batman Begins were great, and Eternal Sunshine the year before is well... gorgeous.
I dont see the slump to be honest. Other than lucas's dialogue, everything seems to be healthy
Posted by Jim-Me (Member # 6426) on :
quote:Originally posted by mr_porteiro_head: There's nothing I hate more than hyperbola.
Don't graph 1/x then. </geek>
Posted by Earendil18 (Member # 3180) on :
I'd like to bring in another point and that is the advent of the home theater in recent years.
It seems to me that most profits are now shifting towards DVD sales because with the latest advances people can get home theater packages for cheap.
You can choose how loud you want the movie to be, you can pause, select scenes, view subtitles, extra angle features all for a one time price of 14.99 on average. And you can watch it AGAIN, and AGAIN, on your own time.
Compare that to paying 8.50-10.00 and more for parking, for 1 viewing. Sitting through (we're up to) 20 minutes of advertisments and previews in a large room that has 8 speakers on each side just to fill the darn space with sound. Loud volume levels, crying kids, and people making snide editorials of the movie.
Batman begins and WotW are my favorite summer movies, but I draw the line at a certain point because I can't just keep seeing the movies in the theater. It's way to expensive for me and really the only thing the theaters now have for me are a bigger screen, and subwoofers that are 15" instead of 12". With home theater I think that's becoming more and more the case.
Combine that with a 1:4 ratio of movie releases that are actually worth the prices nowadays, and you have teh HORRIBLE slump that Hollywood's biting their fingers about.
It also doesn't help they show nearly all the good scenes from the movie in the 2 minute trailer they release.
They say it's piracy and I'm sure that does account for some slumping but in all honesty I think they're afraid to admit that the problem might actually be on their end.
Just my thoughts.
Posted by jh (Member # 7727) on :
Hollywood isn't dying, Fantastic Four just snapped the slump.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
First of all, to Jesse, who started this, if the last part of your screen name is your birthday, you're a year, minus one day, younger than me. Just thought it was cool that your birthday was close to mine, anyway...
SO, on to Hollywood. So far this year, I have been to the movies 37 times. That includes seeing a couple movies twice, but I've seen 33 new movies this year IN theaters.
As far as cliches go, what ISN'T a cliche anymore? What hasn't been done, to the point where any movie made from now until the end of time isn't going to have a number of stereotypes and cliches in it? Sorry, it's going to happen. You really can't win on that front.
Take King's Ransom, totally horrible movie with cliches up the wazoo in it. Personally I think it never should have been made, but not because of the cliches, it was just a bad, bad, bad movie. In it, there's a rich black guy who is kind of a prick, and a poor white trash guy who is constantly made fun of and being called a wuss and a virgin. Now if you switch it and make the white guy rich, then it's the same old rich white guy and poor black guy movie. The fact that it's multi racial at ALL means someone has to fall into a stereotype.
I think Hollywood is honestly running out of ideas. Whenever they try something new, a la Matrix or Crouching Tiger Hidden Dragon, it gets pounced on so fast that it IMMEDIATELY becomes a cliche, and loses it's value.
But, that doesn't mean that remakes, books/comics turned into movies, and sequels have no value, it just means that these things have been laid off of for so long because they could never really have been done well before now. Would you have wanted to see a 1970's version of a live action LOTR? I think it would have been awful.
Look at what is coming out just this year, this is from a list of movies that I have seen, and plan to see:
Kingdom of Heaven - Book adaptation and historical remake Star Wars III - sequel War of the Worlds - remake and adaptation Serenity - sequel to tv show Harry Potter - book adaptation Lion Witch Wardrobe - book adaptation Be Cool - sequel to Get Shorty Sin City - comic book sequel Sahara - book adaptation Hitchhiker's Guide - book adaptation Mr. and Mrs. Smith - adaptation/loose remake Fantastic Four - comic book adaptation The Island - remake of "Parts - The Clonus Horror" Doom - Adaptation The Pink Panther - remake/adaptation The New World - Remake/historical adaptation The Producers - adaptation/remake Zathura - more or less remake of Jumanji Sound of Thunder - novel adaptation Guess Who? - remake The Amityville Horror - remake The Longest Yard - remake Batman Begins - remake/adaptation Charlie and the Chocolate Factory - adaptation/remake The Bad News Bears - remake The Brothers Grimm - adaptation The Dukes of Hazard - adaptation/remake Four Brothers - remake of the Sons of Katie Elder Chicken Little - remake/adaptation Aeon Flux - adaptation Lords of Dogtown - based on true story Hotel Rwanda - based on true story Meet the Fockers - sequel Flight of the Phoenix - remake Ocean's 12 - sequel to a remake Triple X State of the Union - sequel The Ring 2 - sequel to an adaptation Land of the Dead - sequel to many movies and a couple remakes
Did I miss any from this year? Probably, but those are just MY movies. If you want something NOT based on a remake or sequel, you can go for Monster in Law, The Weather Man, Wedding Crashers, or Kicking and Screaming, The Pacifier, Man of the House and King's Ransom but those are recycled ideas from dozens of older movies (and many were not good).
Looking for SOME originality? Robots, Corpse Bride, Valiant, Madagascar for your non live action films. Crash was very good.
Look to independent films for some ideas a little less mainstream. House of D, Smile, Winter Solstice, Rory O'Shea Was Here, Bigger Than the Sky and Millions (sorta).
I should note though, that that large list of movies I listed that were remakes, sequels or whatever. All are movies I have seen or plan to see, becuase they all look really good.
Edit to add: I missed Dark Water, it is both an adaptation and a remake. It was a book, made into a movie in Japan last year, and then remade this year in America.
Second edit to add: Howl's Moving Castle, was not a remake, but it was an adaptation from a novel I believe. It was however extremely good.
Third edit to add: Now come on, Puffytreat is the movie guru? Look at all that. Booyah!
Posted by TL (Member # 8124) on :
Whoa. You're planning to watch Doom???
Posted by TL (Member # 8124) on :
quote:
"There's nothing I hate more than hyperbola."
That is so funny. You see what you did there, right? I'll assume so, because of the smiley face.
Posted by TL (Member # 8124) on :
Lyrhawn, your post is so rife with errors. No offense. I wrote half a post correcting them all but then I thought, 'No', be nice.
Man, I'm snarky tonight.
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
The problem with Hollywood is they know they can release any weak piece of crap with bad dialogue as long as it has flashy special effects; people will still watch it. It doesn't matter if they will leave the theatre groaning from irratation, Hollywood will still make its money so they don't really have to take the effort anymore with mainstream movies. The same thing is happening with pop music. No effort, just a great deal of T and A or non-threatening sexuality and you've got a hit. Remember, fast food is like pig's swill, but people will still eat it.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
That's because some of the biggest consumers of movies and pop music are 14-year-olds, who are not known for their discriminating taste.
Edit: that sounded harsher than I meant it to be. I know that when I was 14, I also watched whatever and listened to whatever. Much of that was because I was willing to watch anything to get out of the house and away from the parents and instead be somewhere with my friends.
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
I had great taste when I was 14. I was into opera and jazz and cool things like that.
I was such a cool nerd...
Posted by Jon Boy (Member # 4284) on :
I started watching lots of movies with my friends when I was about 15, and yeah, we saw a lot of crappy movies. Like Porter said, it was mostly an excuse to get out and do something fun (and it was only three bucks for a matinee back then).
Posted by rollainm (Member # 8318) on :
The sad thing is, whether or not you agree Hollywood is in a slump, Ender's Game will be coming out right in the middle of all the griping and complaining for originality. I'd just hate that the movie we've all been waiting for for years will be discredited and ignored because it's unoriginal.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:I had great taste when I was 14. [Big Grin] I was into opera and jazz and cool things like that.
I was such a cool nerd...
I was into that stuff too, but mostly because I delighted in being into something that the unwashed masses couldn't get.
Posted by unicornwhisperer (Member # 294) on :
Just thought I'd say "Death to Hollywood!!!" Posted by Xaposert (Member # 1612) on :
I'm under the impression that 14-year-olds have some of the most discriminating tastes of them all - that's not to say it is good taste.
Then again, I'd argue it's better taste than certain older groups who don't appreciate science fiction novels and hate anything animated. Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:I'm under the impression that 14-year-olds have some of the most discriminating tastes of them all
I didn't when I was 14.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
TL -
For example....? It's not nice to just throw something like that out there without at least enumerating ONE of the problems you have with it.
My criteria for movies isn't very strict, at least not all the time. If a movie looks like it has decent flashy effects, I'll probably go see it, so long as there is a halfway decent story to go with it. If a movie is all about character development, I plan to see some very good dialogue. But I never listen to movie reviews or friends when they tell me it's a bad movie. Often times I've greatly enjoyed films that reviewers have said were crap.
Mostly, I'm not going to a movie to dissect it, I'm going to get lost in it. There have been many movies that satisfied me, but were totally lacking in what many people here would call substance. Call me simple, call me a fourteen year old boy (I'm a 21 year old guy, not much difference), call me whatever, but I guess it doesn't take much to really entertain me anymore.
I'd really like a chance to defend my list though. So, if anyone has any complaints, list them here.
Posted by Pelegius (Member # 7868) on :
I saw a realy origianal film recently, called "Travelers and Magicians." Of, course, it was made by a Bhutanese director (who is also Budhist Lama) with Bhutanese actors and finaced by a French corporation, so it isn't exactly Hollywood. And, in my town, it was only in an arthouse for about a week. Still, it was great.
Posted by TL (Member # 8124) on :
Yeah, I know it isn't nice. Forget it. It wasn't worth mentioning. My bad, my bad.
* holds up fist in a symbol of unity and brotherhood *
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
No no, now you've really got me curious.
If you get the time or whatever, throw them out there, I'd really like to know.
Posted by Bob the Lawyer (Member # 3278) on :
While I'm as guilty of it as anyone, I've often wondered why people are so quick to turn their noses up at the idea of a remake of a previous movie. I mean, the next closest thing, theatre, thrives off of "remakes" and its because of different interpretations that we know the plays and understand the characters so well. And heck, good theatre tickets are even worse than movie tickets.
Is it because theatre doesn't try so hard to duplicate the "original" exactly? Simply a question of volume (both in the number of shows and the promotion of said shows)? Or is it really entirely our mentality?
Posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong (Member # 2229) on :
City of God is one of my favorite movies of all time.
Posted by TL (Member # 8124) on :
All right, but under protest. A few errors that leap out at me:
Kingdom of Heaven - Book adaptation and historical remake [what book? remake of what?] Be Cool - sequel to Get Shorty [book adaptation] Sin City - comic book sequel [sequel? wrong] Mr. and Mrs. Smith - adaptation/loose remake [adaptation of what? remake of what?] The Island - remake of "Parts - The Clonus Horror" [i sincerely question this] The New World - remake/historical adaptation [remake of what?] Zathura - more or less remake of Jumanji [this is actually based upon a book by the same author as Jumanji in the same series] Sound of Thunder - novel adaptation [the sound of thunder is a short story] The Brothers Grimm - adaptation [of what?] Lords of Dogtown - based on true story [actually an adaptation of the documentary]
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
I won't be on here again until tomorrow, so I'll say which parts I know and back up the others with documentation tomorrow.
Kingdom of Heaven - is said to be based on a book that was uncredited, there is currently a lawsuit in motion suing for copyright infringment. And by remake, I mean it depicts real life historical events.
Be Cool - Well, technically I'm not WRONG then, I just left part of it out. sequel/novel adaptation
Sin City - Crap, you got me there, I meant to say adaptation.
Mr. and Mrs. Smith - based on old tv show from 1996 that was cut after 13 episodes. Starred Scott Bakula as Mr. Smith. Plot is slightly different, but it's a remake.
The Island - I don't know if it's official or not, but have you SEEN the Clonus Horror? The plot is almost identical.
The New World - Well, there have been about a dozen movies made about John Smith and Pochahontas. "Pocahontas" by Disney comes most readily to mind. And either way it is definetely an historical remake.
Zathura - Yeah I know, I forgot to add novel adaptation. But seriously, even the novel looked like a remake of his first novel. It has the same premise, only instead of the jungle, it's sci fi this time.
Sound of Thunder - You got me there I guess, it's a short story adaptation.
The Brothers Grimm - I'll get back to you on the specifics.
Lords of Dogtown - Technically I was right again. I just didn't go far enough. It IS still based on at true story, only more specifically the documentary that was based on the true story.
Posted by Sopwith (Member # 4640) on :
Bah, Hollywood isn't dying. Your local Megaplex is, though.
And after paying $15 for tickets for my wife and I for Star Wars III, plus $3.00 for a box of Milk Duds and $4.50 for a SMALL drink to share... and then watching 15 minutes of commercials before the movie... heck, I'm not sure I'll be sad to see the corporate movieplexes go.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Argh! I HATE COMMERCIALS BEFORE MOVIES!!!
Especially that god forsaken Bounty commercial.
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: Argh! I HATE COMMERCIALS BEFORE MOVIES!!!
Especially that god forsaken Bounty commercial.
So do I dude. I get enough commercials from television. Even worse is product placement. I just can't stand it when a movie is just a 2 hour commericial for Starbucks or pepsi. Pretty soon in medieval movies they will have characters swinging down Pepsi from fancy goblets.
Posted by Enigmatic (Member # 7785) on :
I smell parody potential. Lord of the Rings with product placement! Orcs in Nikes chugging Mountain Dew before battles. The Riders of Rohan tooling around on Harleys and Gandalf showing up in a Mercedes. Legolas had LASIK. When you're as old as Aragorn and doing that much flirting, use Viagra. Sam cooking rabbit for Frodo on a George Foreman grill. Gandalf and Saruman arguing over which bleach gets your white robes the whitest!
--Enigmatic
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
There was a thread awhile back about using these characters to promote products in commercials.
Ad Campaigns Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Alright TL I'll relent on The Brothers Grimm. I can't find a specific source on what it's based on.
But it's hardly original, it draws from Grimms Fairy tales.
Posted by Altáriël of Dorthonion (Member # 6473) on :
Bring back the musicals!!!
Posted by Shanna (Member # 7900) on :
RENT is coming to theatres in November and The Producers is coming sometime this winter.
Posted by Altáriël of Dorthonion (Member # 6473) on :
Yay!
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
The Producers comes out December 23. It looks promising. The cast alone is hilarious, I trust they will work well together.
And I can't get that damned song from the RENT trailer out of my head.
Posted by TL (Member # 8124) on :
Lyrhawn, I guess you and I just have different ideas on what constitutes a remake.
For example, in my opinion a 'remake' must, by definition, be based upon a previous movie or television show.
Adapting historical events to the silver screen does not make something a remake.
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[ROFL]](graemlins/rofl.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Evil Laugh]](graemlins/evillaugh.gif)