R
rocklobster
Guest
Most of the movies this year have been either remakes or adaptations of old TV shows. Have they just plain run out of ideas?
- Status
B
Bobby_Jim
Guest
Because when it costs many millions of dollars to finance a movie, the studios want a guaranteed winner.
But it’s not really a new phenomenon. The Beatles’ first couple of albums were mostly covers. Shakespeare re-worked a lot of pre-existing material. “The Flintstones” was take-off of “the Honeymooners”, and “the Jetsons” was a ripoff of “the Flintstones”. Etc.
But it’s not really a new phenomenon. The Beatles’ first couple of albums were mostly covers. Shakespeare re-worked a lot of pre-existing material. “The Flintstones” was take-off of “the Honeymooners”, and “the Jetsons” was a ripoff of “the Flintstones”. Etc.
M
MEP
Guest
The financial risk of funding a movie is the primary reason, but there’s more to it than just that. Frankly, audience expectations have been lowered over the last several decades. Comedies don’t have to be clever anymore, they just have to “push the envelope” of decency. Dramas don’t have to be dramatic anymore so much as they have to stir up a controversy or address some political issue. Action movies don’t have to be about heroes or valiant struggle anymore. They just have to have more explosions and special effects. I could go on and on…
It’s easier to use an existing premise than to create a new one when the only real goal of a Hollywood writer anymore is to try and craft scenes that will be cleaned up later by the CG effects artists or just craft scenes that depict a stereotypical oppressed woman/minority/homosexual fighting back against The Man. The kinds of cheap tricks that are used to illicit an emotional response from the audience these days can be easily squeezed into any infantile story you want and marketing a property that’s already familiar and well liked is even easier.
Frankly, most of the movie industry has gotten lazy (including the so-called “Indy” pictures which are all more or less the same nowadays too – like there was an Indy Film template somewhere unearthed by Tarantino and made available to all the “serious artists” in the industry).
Every once in a while, something really great comes along (like the LOTR movies which were based on books and not really original either), but for the most part, Hollywood produces a whole lot of nothing these days. There were always bad movies, and there were always more bad movies being released than there were good movies. But it used to be that the blockbuster events were good movies and the bad movies were largely ignored by most people. Now, even the huge movies with big stars suck. I watch more classic movies nowadays than I do new movies. If I’m going to be seeing the same material recycled over and over again, I might as well just watch the original movie rather than the sub-par remake (did anybody else fly into a rage when they remade Charade into The Truth About Charlie? Marky Mark Whalberg is no Cary Grant). They really don’t make them like they used to.
It’s easier to use an existing premise than to create a new one when the only real goal of a Hollywood writer anymore is to try and craft scenes that will be cleaned up later by the CG effects artists or just craft scenes that depict a stereotypical oppressed woman/minority/homosexual fighting back against The Man. The kinds of cheap tricks that are used to illicit an emotional response from the audience these days can be easily squeezed into any infantile story you want and marketing a property that’s already familiar and well liked is even easier.
Frankly, most of the movie industry has gotten lazy (including the so-called “Indy” pictures which are all more or less the same nowadays too – like there was an Indy Film template somewhere unearthed by Tarantino and made available to all the “serious artists” in the industry).
Every once in a while, something really great comes along (like the LOTR movies which were based on books and not really original either), but for the most part, Hollywood produces a whole lot of nothing these days. There were always bad movies, and there were always more bad movies being released than there were good movies. But it used to be that the blockbuster events were good movies and the bad movies were largely ignored by most people. Now, even the huge movies with big stars suck. I watch more classic movies nowadays than I do new movies. If I’m going to be seeing the same material recycled over and over again, I might as well just watch the original movie rather than the sub-par remake (did anybody else fly into a rage when they remade Charade into The Truth About Charlie? Marky Mark Whalberg is no Cary Grant). They really don’t make them like they used to.
R
rocklobster
Guest
Amen to that. Look at the horror movies of old. They didn’t need all that gore to be scary. Even Carrie seems kind of light compared to the stuff in theatres today. And only one person died in that one (deservedly too! She had one of the worst moms)
E
Edwin1961
Guest
I get the impression that Hollywood is recycling old TV shows and movies to put them into the 21th. Century (i.e. either make them PC or slant them with degrading morals).
Case in point: The Dukes of Hazzard
The 1980’s tv program was based for a family audience with ‘slapstick-like’ comedy and each program ended with a moral of some type.
Jump to 2005, the film is only a shadow of the original program…not because of the cast, but because of the sexual suggestions and other language.
Why Hollywodd recycles? They rarely think of anything decent that the majority of the country wants to see.
Yet, take a lesson from the Penquins.
Case in point: The Dukes of Hazzard
The 1980’s tv program was based for a family audience with ‘slapstick-like’ comedy and each program ended with a moral of some type.
Jump to 2005, the film is only a shadow of the original program…not because of the cast, but because of the sexual suggestions and other language.
Why Hollywodd recycles? They rarely think of anything decent that the majority of the country wants to see.
Yet, take a lesson from the Penquins.
B
Bulldog
Guest
From my understanding from watching a show about the TV version was that the show was more racy (1st season–more southern also more adult content/theme) then they notice that kids were watching and I believe the time slot changed to an earlier time. I watched part of 1st season (I believe) and it feeling is totally different then all rest. I bet that’s what they are basing it on – was the first season not the kid friendly-er later episodes…
F
Fitz
Guest
Hollywood worships money. Clear, simple, easy money. We are foolish to allow it to continue. Every time we go to a bad movie we endorse this behavior.
If we waited until another Passion of the Christ, they would make it. We are the consumers of their garbage.
If we waited until another Passion of the Christ, they would make it. We are the consumers of their garbage.
D
Della
Guest
My dh and I haven’t seen anything since War of the Worlds (which was a bit of a disappointment) and that was the best of a bad lot! We might go see Penquins which looks interesting. But otherwise, we are looking forward to December when The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe is scheduled to be released.
You’ll all take note that both LOTR and LWW are NZ productions, not Hollywood. Down there they still like to make films with real imagination that are fun as well as moving. Hollywood has completely sold out to those with a LLW agenda. It’s no wonder nearly everything they produce these days are loud, indecent, and BORING AS H***!
You’ll all take note that both LOTR and LWW are NZ productions, not Hollywood. Down there they still like to make films with real imagination that are fun as well as moving. Hollywood has completely sold out to those with a LLW agenda. It’s no wonder nearly everything they produce these days are loud, indecent, and BORING AS H***!
W
wabrams
Guest
What about the gymnasium that was on fire with people trapped in it?
D
deb1
Guest
Um…as a person who loves horror movies, I am a bit startled that you find horror movies today more gory, if anything they are much less. Modern horror movies have actually improved due to the fact that directors are depending more on suspense then gore, example The Ring.
When I was a teenager every summer the crop of horror movies included The Nightmare on Elm Streets, Chucky, Friday the Thirteenth and a host of blood soaked movies made just for us teenagers. Not only was there a lot of gore but the busty victims had a habit of tearing off their tops for no reason.
Why all of us that grew up in the eighties are not deranged serial killers is beyond me.
M
MEP
Guest
Nightmare on Elm Street is a modern horror movie.
I think the disparity in opinion is based on a disparity in age.
And as for suspense, HA! The Ring pales in comparison to Hitchcock.
I think the disparity in opinion is based on a disparity in age.
And as for suspense, HA! The Ring pales in comparison to Hitchcock.
D
deb1
Guest
Hooray! The movies that I watched as a young woman aren’t considered old yet.
I agree Hitchcock was one of the best.
M
MEP
Guest
I’m the potential wierdo here. Nightmare on Elm Street was new when I was still too young to watch it. But I grew up watching old movies from the 20s-60s, so I can’t stand most of what passes for “cinema” since the 70s with notable exceptions, but really, filmmaking has gone downhill as a whole since the MPAA instituted the ratings system. Now that directors can make R movies, that’s what most of the choose to do. It’s like a crutch for the imagination. Before, when a director wanted to portray something terrible on screen, he had to come up with a really creative to do it that wouldn’t keep it locked out of theatres. Now, anything goes and they just don’t have to try as hard to make movies at all, let alone try hard to make them well.
S
ShroudMan
Guest
The Daily Show pretty much debunked this wacky second banana actor from the Dukes Tv Show who has been making the rounds…namely on FOX spewing how the new Dukes movie is an attack on the “family values” and the memory of the old show… in steps my man John Stewart with the REALITY CHECK he and his show are so famous for!
As this old coot is rambling about the Dukes being “family”… and for the little kiddies…John has clips running from the show highlighting Daisy Duke with her boobies hanging out of her skimpy swimssuit top… and clips of John Schneider and Tom Wopat and their huge crotch bulges busting out of their extra tight blue jeans.
I love the Daily Show
As this old coot is rambling about the Dukes being “family”… and for the little kiddies…John has clips running from the show highlighting Daisy Duke with her boobies hanging out of her skimpy swimssuit top… and clips of John Schneider and Tom Wopat and their huge crotch bulges busting out of their extra tight blue jeans.
I love the Daily Show
M
mlchance
Guest
You obviously didn’t watch Carrie. Nearly everyone dies in it, including the title character.
– Mark L. Chance.
S
ShroudMan
Guest
Only ONE person died in Carrie? :bigyikes:
Watching something before commenting is usually helpful.
Watching something before commenting is usually helpful.
K
Katie1723
Guest
I’d like to think they are recycling because the old movies/ shows were better. I’d like to see a remake of Dr. Zhivago and Whatever Happened To Baby Jane? If there were only 2 movies I could watch, they would be it.
~ Kathy ~
~ Kathy ~
L
LeftHandBlack
Guest
Um, Della, those productions were FILMED in New Zealand. They weren’t distributed or handled by an NZ film company. Besides, New Line (the American company that handled, financed, and distributed LOTR), originally wanted ONE 90 minute movie for the whole thing instead of the trilogy. Why? Probably because they were afraid audiences wouldn’t get it in it’s fully glory. And their cautions were well founded when you consider The Fantastic Four movie, which was an affront to the original characters and story created by Stan Lee back in the 1960s. But people still flocked to it when it opened- why? It’s running time appealed to short attention spans and the special effects made them go “ooh! ah!”
As for Hollywood, they’re not all trying to go for a Liberal Left Wing agenda. The Entertainment industry isn’t in on some huge conspiracy to get Catholics.
On a separate note/observation, if there is any aspect of Christianity that is being attacked in the entertainment industry, it is fundamentalist Protestanism. In contrast, many of the religious protagonists in the movies I have seen are Catholic and are portrayed as dutiful and good folks who, like all of us, have their fair share of problems and short-comings.
M
Maccabees
Guest
Actually the Hollywood Studio execs wouldn’t touch the Passion so they had no part in making the Passion nor do the normal Hollywood Execs have any plans of making religious themed movies a Evangelical Christian Billoinare is financing the Chronicles of Narnia series though his company Walden.
The only thing DIsney is doing is distributing it like they do the Pixar films they have no creative control of the project and financed none of the project save for marketing.
So the Passion and the Narnia series both were done outside the Hollywoood Industry.
Those who point to the recycled TV shows and remakes of old movies have a point Hollywood wants a built in audience however they make and fincance many movies that plainly will loose money just because of thieir racy content. Its been known that G and PG rated movies make more money than R rated movies but Hollywood makes more R Rated movies than the family firendly ratings also most independent movies have racie storylines glorfiying violence, homosexuality, etc these filsm are hits with the few crticis and sometimes win awards but they don’t make money.
Just look at how Hollywood glorfied the likes of abortion in Oscar nominated Vera Drake last year and glofied euthanasia in Oscar winning films the Sea Inside and the Million Dollar Baby. Now what these movies made paled in comparions to the Passion but the Passion was shut out of the insiders Oscar awards and while all 3 films dealt with subject matter that don’t figure to draw a big box office they got financed anyway. The Passion despite being produced by a past Oscar winning director (Mel Gibson) was not able to get financing from the Hollywood Studio System.
There is something to be said for the corruption going in Hollywood and its anti-religious bent. It’s very real and evidenct and Hollywood is suffering financially because of its agenda driven drivel.
I was reading an article about the Lack of Postive Roles for Heterosexual Male actors they are non-existent. Hollywood Actor James Wood says he can’t read a script anymore that has a postivie male role model that is heterosexual - they are non-existent in Hollywood.
This has been real evident since the Movie AMerican Beauty which potray the heterosexul males in the movie as dysfunctional or just rerpressed homosexuals. The openly homosexual males where the only positive and likeable men in the whole movie. And this trend has contineued form that point on. The Passion was a hit for that reason alone it had a postiive male role model that wasn’t a cartoon or gay very rare outside of Pixar.
L
LeftHandBlack
Guest
Actually, the Passion was a hit because it was great movie about the last hours of Jesus Christ. Even if you’re not a Christian, you can still appreciate the film for it’s awesome production values. And as for your asserion, Maccabees, that it was successful because it featured a positive heterosexual character…THE MAIN CHARACTER IS JESUS CHRIST. WHAT DID YOU EXPECT HIM TO BE?!
And when did James Woods say something like that? I’d like to see some evidence to back that up!
Moving on, if I or anyone I knew were starting to become even a little like Col. Frank Fitts, USMC in “American Beauty”, I would encourage either coming out of the closet and burning it for kindling and just giving up their heterosexuality membership in favor of becoming asexual. That guy was an abusive nut who was wayyyyy too repressed for his own good and was probably the end result of long standing child abuse in addition to his own closeted proclivities. And as for the gay neighbors being the only likable men in the movie, you have to keep in mind that they were only on screen for a grand total of…five minutes maybe? By that logic, if we as an audience came to know the main characters in the movie (i.e., the Burnham family and the Fitts family)and the intimate details of their lives, we were only briefly acquainted with Jim Olmeyer and his partner. For all we know, they could’ve been faking their happiness like the Carolyn (Annette Bening). And besides, Lester (Kevin Spacey) and Ricky (Wes Bentley) were, in my opinion, pretty likable characters. Heaven forbid they should have their quirks and personal demons to contend with.
I would go in depth into the difference between characterization and true character in film, but I don’t want to seem like I’m screaming at a wall. But, in short, to paraphrase Homer Simpson, if you like your beer cold, your TV loud, and your male characters to be blameless and likable based on their heterosexuality, go rent a Kirk Cameron movie!
And when did James Woods say something like that? I’d like to see some evidence to back that up!
Moving on, if I or anyone I knew were starting to become even a little like Col. Frank Fitts, USMC in “American Beauty”, I would encourage either coming out of the closet and burning it for kindling and just giving up their heterosexuality membership in favor of becoming asexual. That guy was an abusive nut who was wayyyyy too repressed for his own good and was probably the end result of long standing child abuse in addition to his own closeted proclivities. And as for the gay neighbors being the only likable men in the movie, you have to keep in mind that they were only on screen for a grand total of…five minutes maybe? By that logic, if we as an audience came to know the main characters in the movie (i.e., the Burnham family and the Fitts family)and the intimate details of their lives, we were only briefly acquainted with Jim Olmeyer and his partner. For all we know, they could’ve been faking their happiness like the Carolyn (Annette Bening). And besides, Lester (Kevin Spacey) and Ricky (Wes Bentley) were, in my opinion, pretty likable characters. Heaven forbid they should have their quirks and personal demons to contend with.
I would go in depth into the difference between characterization and true character in film, but I don’t want to seem like I’m screaming at a wall. But, in short, to paraphrase Homer Simpson, if you like your beer cold, your TV loud, and your male characters to be blameless and likable based on their heterosexuality, go rent a Kirk Cameron movie!
- Status