/Rant on/

 

Has Hollywood completely run out of ideas?

Saw "Nightmare on Elm Street" this weekend. Now I knew it was a bit of a remake of the original, but... wow. It wasn't a bad flick but it was basically a complete remake. I was complaining about all these remakes as we walked out of the theater. "Clash of the Titans" was playing across the hall. I pointed that out. That one really blows my mind. There are 1,000 of stories in the Greek mythology... you can't find a new one? You have to remake one?

"Charlie and the Chocolate Factory" Wouldn't it have been cool to see the sequel to this fine movie? Instead of a remake? Isn't the actor that played Charlie still alive? You could even get him to play himself and he has decided to retire. What a great idea, right? Took me 2 minutes to think of it. What up Hollywood?

The list goes on. Y'all know what I am talking about. Friday the 13th. Footloose. Fame.

As I am complaining about this we walk out of the theater and what do I see??? What do I see?

 

To quote Charlie Brown....

 

"I just can't stand it....."

:roll:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Found this:

 

http://www.denofgeek.com/movies/166239/55_movie_remakes_currently_in_the_works.html

 

OMG. "Meatballs"? Really?

I agree.  I know there are only so many notes out there, but people make new music all the time anyway.  I am pretty much sick of 99% of the crap Hollywood puts out anymore.  How do they not get that the public embraces new and different ideas with the success of movies like Precious, Crazy Heart, Julie and Julia, Hurt Locker, etc.  And instead it's just remake after remake being churned out of the big studios.

Why not? It's easy (script is already written), it's a proven winner, and you get a double dip of the new viewers who never saw the original and think it's a new concept, and old viewers looking for nostalgia. Plus because you've got a blueprint on how to direct / produce the movie, you probably reduce costs because you've learned not to repeat the mistakes from the first movie.

 

It's boring, but hey, movie studios aren't exactly known for being ground breakers.

 

And BTW, no way Meatballs ever deserves to have a remake. It was fair the first time around.

I agree. I know there are only so many notes out there, but people make new music all the time anyway. I am pretty much sick of 99% of the crap Hollywood puts out anymore. How do they not get that the public embraces new and different ideas with the success of movies like Precious, Crazy Heart, Julie and Julia, Hurt Locker, etc. And instead it's just remake after remake being churned out of the big studios.

 

Holywood lost its originality years ago.  Just watch TCM and see the sources from which todays films evolved.  About the only thing that's different today is the language.  Where would the writers of screenplay today be without the word f**k lol.

There are plenty of independent films or previous non theatrical releases out there.

 

There are no big budget films that are released just because x executive says so.  If that was the case I'd have all kinds of crazy stuff at your local cineplex!

 

There are a ton of movies that are sentimental favorites and a new generation of directors or producers would like to tell the story their way.

 

Clash of the Titan. Don't even get me started.  Wasted the talents of Liam Neeson and Ralph Fiennes!  However, it will be big on DVD release. 

I agree.  I know there are only so many notes out there, but people make new music all the time anyway.  I am pretty much sick of 99% of the crap Hollywood puts out anymore.  How do they not get that the public embraces new and different ideas with the success of movies like Precious, Crazy Heart, Julie and Julia, Hurt Locker, etc.  And instead it's just remake after remake being churned out of the big studios.

 

Holywood lost its originality years ago.  Just watch TCM and see the sources from which todays films evolved.  About the only thing that's different today is the language.  Where would the writers of screenplay today be without the word f**k lol.

 

You've got that right! The main function of today's Hollywood movies has seemed to become to promote and sell cheap "Crappy Meal" toys and other Chinese plastic gadgets, DVD's...as well as a host of junk/fast foods and sugar drinks. And, the more dumbed down the masses are..  being used to junk movies....they'll never know the difference.

 

This is why I seek out the independent films and documentaries that are not found in the mainstream. I am compiling a list.

Merchandising!  Merchandising! Merchandising!

 

I only get to go to the movies like once or twice a year these days and I was pretty pissed that I wasted my time and money on Clash of the Titans.  Despite (or perhaps because of) the cheesiness of the original, I loved that version and was looking forward to a different take on it while keeping the same elements of the story.  In every way that it could be, it was just bad bad bad.  What a waste of money, talent, resources, storyline, design, everything.

^ Its all about special effects these days with these kinds of movies... storyline/acting/scripts/content/substance all are second and can be crummy as long as you woooo the audience with CGI effects and stuff their faces with overpriced concessions. Although one good movie I liked recently was Apocalypto...  Great visual interpretation of the Mayans....

I only get to go to the movies like once or twice a year these days and I was pretty pissed that I wasted my time and money on Clash of the Titans. Despite (or perhaps because of) the cheesiness of the original, I loved that version and was looking forward to a different take on it while keeping the same elements of the story. In every way that it could be, it was just bad bad bad. What a waste of money, talent, resources, storyline, design, everything.

 

Wow you have me sold.

 

I blame Gus Van Sant...

I only get to go to the movies like once or twice a year these days and I was pretty pissed that I wasted my time and money on Clash of the Titans.  Despite (or perhaps because of) the cheesiness of the original, I loved that version and was looking forward to a different take on it while keeping the same elements of the story.  In every way that it could be, it was just bad bad bad.  What a waste of money, talent, resources, storyline, design, everything.

 

Design was very good.  I'll disagree with you on that.  Storyline was iffy.  Our post release focus groups thought they were going to see the original movie scene by scene. Since the '81 movie has played on TV so much it's ingrained in many peoples minds.  However the 9-15 segment (one of the target audiences) loved it.

 

^ Its all about special effects these days with these kinds of movies... storyline/acting/scripts/content/substance all are second and can be crummy as long as you woooo the audience with CGI effects and stuff their faces with overpriced concessions. Although one good movie I liked recently was Apocalypto...  Great visual interpretation of the Mayans....

I really try not to respond to anything you post but in this instance I must.

 

You have the right to your opinion and I respect that.  However, to say it's all about the special affects is incorrect on several levels.  Now if you have direct professional critiques about the development and production of theatrical releases by all means speak.  But be accurate.

 

In addition, the movie studios have nothing to do with the conscessions sold.  The theatres that the movies are played in are in no way connected to the studios!  You know going in the prices are marked up.

I agree with MTS - this is like blaming the price of beer at Blossom on Dave Matthews.  They don't have anything to do with one another.

I am a reformed movie guy by the way. My parents owned a video store from the time I was 5 until after I graduated highschool. So I have watched a lot of movies in my day. I think the problem with movies that I have grown up with such as Clash of the Titans and Willie Wonka is that most people don't realize that the cheesie part of it plays so much into the experience. And when that is gone it affects you on a personal level. Hence the negative over reaction to an OK to mediocre movie.

 

Things I don't understand are projects like Van Sant's Psycho. You want to do a scene by scene remake of a masterpeice? With Vince Vaughn? (usually I have much love to VV)

 

EDIT: Waiting for a Bill and Ted's Excellent Adventure remake. Jonas brothers? Maybe VV as Rufus?

I think he just overestimated VV's talent.  He really only has one note in terms of acting, and it's not one that fits in a Psycho remake.

 

I would be open to a Fast Times at Ridgemont High remake.  THAT would be fun to make.  While times have changed a lot for teenagers, I still see them working at the mall, I'm sure they still have all kinds of emotional drama, many of the situations would be easily translatable to today with minor updating.

I only get to go to the movies like once or twice a year these days and I was pretty pissed that I wasted my time and money on Clash of the Titans.  Despite (or perhaps because of) the cheesiness of the original, I loved that version and was looking forward to a different take on it while keeping the same elements of the story.  In every way that it could be, it was just bad bad bad.  What a waste of money, talent, resources, storyline, design, everything.

 

Design was very good.  I'll disagree with you on that.  Storyline was iffy.  Our post release focus groups thought they were going to see the original movie scene by scene. Since the '81 movie has played on TV so much it's ingrained in many peoples minds.  However the 9-15 segment (one of the target audiences) loved it.

 

^ Its all about special effects these days with these kinds of movies... storyline/acting/scripts/content/substance all are second and can be crummy as long as you woooo the audience with CGI effects and stuff their faces with overpriced concessions. Although one good movie I liked recently was Apocalypto...  Great visual interpretation of the Mayans....

I really try not to respond to anything you post but in this instance I must.

 

You have the right to your opinion and I respect that.  However, to say it's all about the special affects is incorrect on several levels.  Now if you have direct professional critiques about the development and production of theatrical releases by all means speak.  But be accurate.

 

In addition, the movie studios have nothing to do with the conscessions sold.  The theatres that the movies are played in are in no way connected to the studios!  You know going in the prices are marked up.

 

You totally analyze everything waaaayyy too much. You do not know the difference between a rhetorical statement and one that is specifically directed at a certain point. I have learned not to defend myself against your remarks either because it is a waste of time... But, this one I will. If you can sit there and say special effects have nothing to do with selling to an audience, then you're being really naive. Your word is not the gospel and others know a bit about marketing too. Secondly, the concession remark was out of sarcasm.... Again, you don't recognize the difference...and I never stated specifically that it did have anything to do with the studios...  Don't get me started because I don't have time to waste on your over analytical statements.

 

Me: "The weather is bad today"

 

MTS:  "The weather is bad today"

 

"No...what do you mean? Can you state WHERE it is bad and what to you constitutes bad weather?"

The four movies I want to remake are:  Imitiation of Life, All about Eve, Westside Story, and Foxy Brown.

 

I only get to go to the movies like once or twice a year these days and I was pretty pissed that I wasted my time and money on Clash of the Titans.  Despite (or perhaps because of) the cheesiness of the original, I loved that version and was looking forward to a different take on it while keeping the same elements of the story.  In every way that it could be, it was just bad bad bad.  What a waste of money, talent, resources, storyline, design, everything.

 

Design was very good.  I'll disagree with you on that.  Storyline was iffy.  Our post release focus groups thought they were going to see the original movie scene by scene. Since the '81 movie has played on TV so much it's ingrained in many peoples minds.  However the 9-15 segment (one of the target audiences) loved it.

 

^ Its all about special effects these days with these kinds of movies... storyline/acting/scripts/content/substance all are second and can be crummy as long as you woooo the audience with CGI effects and stuff their faces with overpriced concessions. Although one good movie I liked recently was Apocalypto...  Great visual interpretation of the Mayans....

I really try not to respond to anything you post but in this instance I must.

 

You have the right to your opinion and I respect that.  However, to say it's all about the special affects is incorrect on several levels.  Now if you have direct professional critiques about the development and production of theatrical releases by all means speak.  But be accurate.

 

In addition, the movie studios have nothing to do with the conscessions sold.  The theatres that the movies are played in are in no way connected to the studios!  You know going in the prices are marked up.

 

You totally analyze everything waaaayyy too much. You do not know the difference between a rhetorical statement and one that is specifically directed at a certain point. I have learned not to defend myself against your remarks either because it is a waste of time... But, this one I will. If you can sit there and say special effects have nothing to do with selling to an audience, then you're being really naive. Your word is not the gospel and others know a bit about marketing too. Secondly, the concession remark was out of sarcasm.... Again, you don't recognize the difference...and I never stated specifically that it did have anything to do with the studios...  Don't get me started because I don't have time to waste on your over analytical statements.

I only responded to what you said.  Naive?  Never. 

 

I never once said my word is gospel.  I'm speaking from professional experience since I do currently work in the entertainment industry and certain Movies and TV do fall under my direct area of responsibility.

^ Yep...and I am allowed to be a critic/observationist of what the entertainment industry is selling as a product...and what I am buying, like any other...  All right??!!! ...and heerrree we go!

 

Topic of thread.... "Topic: Originality in Movies = dead?"

 

Meaning open for opinions and ideas and observations.

^ Yep...and I am allowed to be a critic/observationist of what the entertainment industry is selling as a product... like any other...  All right??!!!

 

Did I not say you were entitled to your opinion?  Yes or no?  However, what you state about the concept, development and production of a movie is incorrect.

 

Carry on.  I'm done with you.

To me its not incorrect as that is how I am interpreting much of the material/product these days, being more about quantity than quality--And, I agree with the notion that originality lacks. You can say I am incorrect all you want but as long as that is my perception of the product, I won't buy it. But what do I matter to mass marketing and promotions as long as they have suckers who will buy it no matter what it is? Those who want more? Who cares....  Poop can be made to look like candy...smell like roses through the power of marketing!

I know everyone that I have come in contact with and apparently everyone on here as well hates the remake of Clash of the Titans, but I loved every second of it and am glad it was remade with todays movie tech.

 

I know everyone that I have come in contact with and apparently everyone on here as well hates the remake of Clash of the Titans, but I loved every second of it and am glad it was remade with todays movie tech.

 

 

Not everyone!  I personally thank you for loving it.  Make sure you buy the DVD in BD when released!  ;D

We recently watched The Last Samurai again and I thought to myself, what an amazing movie! If you watch it and pay attention, it plays on every level of emotion that is viewed as good, wholesome, or pure. I usually watch the special features on the disc and History Channel did a short doc based on the TLS movie and it turns out that it was very close to being historically correct - based on events, not Tom Cruise's character of course (time-frame, wardrobe, mentality, Emperor's emotional tug-of-war, the Samurai etc.).

 

This got me thinking about all of the historical events that took place that we need to be reminded of ... i.e. lots of ideas for new movies.

....maybe some originality has PC'd out...seriously could "Blazing Saddles" be made today?

....maybe some originality has PC'd out...seriously could "Blazing Saddles" be made today?

 

Yep.  Straight to DVD.  LOL

We recently watched The Last Samurai again and I thought to myself, what an amazing movie! If you watch it and pay attention, it plays on every level of emotion that is viewed as good, wholesome, or pure. I usually watch the special features on the disc and History Channel did a short doc based on the TLS movie and it turns out that it was very close to being historically correct - based on events, not Tom Cruise's character of course (time-frame, wardrobe, mentality, Emperor's emotional tug-of-war, the Samurai etc.).

 

I have to say, I didn't hate the Last Samurai as much as most people did.  I think whacky Tom Cruise was really trying to do a good job there and I thought it was an interesting and pretty good movie.

We recently watched The Last Samurai again and I thought to myself, what an amazing movie! If you watch it and pay attention, it plays on every level of emotion that is viewed as good, wholesome, or pure. I usually watch the special features on the disc and History Channel did a short doc based on the TLS movie and it turns out that it was very close to being historically correct - based on events, not Tom Cruise's character of course (time-frame, wardrobe, mentality, Emperor's emotional tug-of-war, the Samurai etc.).

 

I have to say, I didn't hate the Last Samurai as much as most people did. I think whacky Tom Cruise was really trying to do a good job there and I thought it was an interesting and pretty good movie.

 

I would love to see a non-Richard Chamberlain version of Shogun

 

I thought Last Samurai was ok. Tom Cruise's biggest problem is that he's become a character in his own right. I see him in that movie and I'm wondering, why is Tom Cruise in 19th century Japan? Must be on a missionary junket to preach Scientology.

 

Poop can be made to look like candy...smell like roses through the power of marketing!

 

Please tell me when and where this product will be sold. It will save me a lot of grief at home.

 

 

My take on the whole CGI vs Story debate: CGI has been and will be instrumental in bringing good stories that have already been written (like LOTR) to life. I'm finally able to see a great fantasy / sci fi novel brought to life.

 

Movies with good original stories tend to be through smaller production houses that are more willing to take a risk, and need a strong script to make up for a smaller budget. Doesn't seem like the two intersect too often (ie. I haven't yet seen a highly produced / big special effect movie with a great original story line). Spaceballs is clearly the exception to that rule. And of course, Ice Pirates.....

" movies I want to remake are: ... All about Eve..."

 

Mark my words, I know people who can make things seem like "accidents" - if I so much as see anyone, even Meryl 'Miranda Priestley' Streep herself in a preview uttering "fasten your seatbelts..." I *know* who was responsible.  :x

 

 

That said - MTS and EC, please use the Private Messaging system when you realize your conflict is taking a thread off-topic.

Yea, I USED to be a VV fan... until I saw this swill:

 

 

Could it be more obvious you wanted to spend some time in Bali on someone else's dime?    :wtf:

 

 

 

Ha ha. Can you blame him? I didn't even bother to watch it.

I'm pretty sure that's the "Couples Retreat" poster where the black couple was photoshopped in after an all-white version had already been released.

Wow!

" movies I want to remake are: ... All about Eve..."

 

Mark my words, I know people who can make things seem like "accidents" - if I so much as see anyone, even Meryl 'Miranda Priestley' Streep herself in a preview uttering "fasten your seatbelts..." I *know* who was responsible.  :x

 

 

That said - MTS and EC, please use the Private Messaging system when you realize your conflict is taking a thread off-topic.

 

Now dear, I just brought down my ex skank in laws entire family.  You really don't want to go to war with me.  I'll win!  I'm not like Clinton or Bush.  I finish the job.

 

You know I love and worship Bette.  However, the remake would be just as fierce if I have anything to do with it!

 

Right now, I cannot even think of an actress that can pull off the role of Margo Channing!

 

Right now, I cannot even think of an actress that can pull off the role of Margo Channing!

 

RuPaul?

 

Right now, I cannot even think of an actress that can pull off the role of Margo Channing!

 

RuPaul?

 

Actress not "Actor"  and for christsakes, this All about Eve not Victor/Victoria!

ACTOR IS A GENERIC TERM used by both sexes.  Surely being in the business you know that.  "Actress" is a term reserved for a) award show categories and b) overly dramatic teens.  "I want to grow up and become a famous actress!"

ACTOR IS A GENERIC TERM used by both sexes.  Surely being in the business you know that.  "Actress" is a term reserved for a) award show categories and b) overly dramatic teens.  "I want to grow up and become a famous actress!"

 

I know.  Im being facetious!  >:D

Ha ha. Can you blame him? I didn't even bother to watch it.

 

I wasn't going to but since I USED to be a VV fan I figured I would give it a shot.

IMO that could be the worst chick flick ever made...

 

 

I don't think that there's a lack of originality in movies...i think it's mostly that the remakes are the ones that the studios are deciding to really market.  There are original movies out there, you just have to look hard for them.

 

Movies are about making money, above all.  I like to think of film as an art form, but some of it's good and some of it is bad...i tend not to get too mad if someone has a reprint of Starry Night in their house.  I know it's not the original, but that doesn't bother me.

 

There are a lot of remakes going on and some of them i just don't understand...Red Dawn?  Robocop?  but i'll see them eventually.  At least i can always go back and watch the original.

ACTOR IS A GENERIC TERM used by both sexes.  Surely being in the business you know that.  "Actress" is a term reserved for a) award show categories and b) overly dramatic teens.  "I want to grow up and become a famous actress!"

actually hasn't the generic "actor" for both sexes been around for only a few years, at the very most ten to twenty? I don't ever remember anyone who was an aspiring actor/actress back in the 60's or even 70's using "actor" when referring to a female. It was always actress. If the term is eventually going to become entirely gender neutral--as those involved the profession (serious "actors") seem to want it--then maybe awards shows should do away with their current categories for both men and women.

ACTOR IS A GENERIC TERM used by both sexes. Surely being in the business you know that. "Actress" is a term reserved for a) award show categories and b) overly dramatic teens. "I want to grow up and become a famous actress!"

actually hasn't the generic "actor" for both sexes been around for only a few years, at the very most ten to twenty? I don't ever remember anyone who was an aspiring actor/actress back in the 60's or even 70's using "actor" when referring to a female. It was always actress. If the term is eventually going to become entirely gender neutral--as those involved the profession (serious "actors") seem to want it--then maybe awards shows should do away with their current categories for both men and women.

 

I think many of us would be grateful if they had lead male actor or lead female actor categories instead of actor and actress.  It has been "actor" as far as I have been studying entertainment, which has been since I was a very little girl, so maybe about 35 years.  In that respect, yes, relatively recently in entertainment history.  But I can't point to any specific time period where it started.  I mean, you don't say doctress, or writress. 

 

Found online:

 

Many critics have argued that there are sexist connotations in the use of the suffix –ess to indicate a female in words like sculptress, waitress, stewardess, and actress. The heart of the problem lies in the nonparallel use of terms to designate men and women. For example, the –or ending on sculptor seems neutral or unmarked. By comparison, sculptress seems to be marked for gender, implying that the task of sculpting differs as performed by women and men or even that the task should typically be performed by a man. For occupational titles, the use of –ess has been almost completely replaced by recently formed gender-neutral compounds such as flight attendant and letter carrier or by the –er/–or forms.

I'm still waiting for a worthy successor to Mansquito:

 

Mansquito

Let's be honest. The movie industry peaked after Gymkata

 

I just read this whole thread and the flashbacks it created were nuts.

 

I remember when I was at Byron Junior High School in Shaker Heights.  I got a job in the cafeteria in the dishwashing room.  Guess who taught me how to use the dishwasher?  Peter Ostrum, Charlie from Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory.  Last thing I heard he's a vet in upstate NY.

ACTOR IS A GENERIC TERM used by both sexes. Surely being in the business you know that. "Actress" is a term reserved for a) award show categories and b) overly dramatic teens. "I want to grow up and become a famous actress!"

 

I know. Im being facetious!   >:D

 

"I'M NOT AN ACTOR, I'M A MOVIE STAR".  Peter O'Toole as Alan Swan in "My Favorite Year".  The most profound statement of all time in any movie.

I remember when I was at Byron Junior High School in Shaker Heights. I got a job in the cafeteria in the dishwashing room. Guess who taught me how to use the dishwasher? Peter Ostrum, Charlie from Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory. Last thing I heard he's a vet in upstate NY.

 

He's from Ohio? Did not know that.

Look he even has a perfect mustache to play the lead in "Wonka Part II".

 

 

But no... let's just do a remake.

 

At least "Alice" was more of a sequel then a flat out remake.

 

 

For everyone complaining about a lack of originality in film: stop going to a mutliplex and start going to an independent theater.  If you want originality, there's plenty of it out there, but you have to look for it.