The Remakes Era

[djheadd]

Are the studios lacking of true creative talents or just betting on succesful old ideas? Anywhere you look around, from TV Series to Movies, the word is: Remake. What do you think?

[Lord_Stewie]

Remake it is.

[vegeta88]

I think remakes are considered "safe" in terms of making money. Plenty of people will recognize the name and may be more likely to see that film. It also might be cheaper to remake or adapt a story rather than come up with an original. Just my thoughts.

[Sponge-worthy]

Originally Posted by djheadd

Are the studios lacking of true creative talents or just betting on succesful old ideas? Anywhere you look around, from TV Series to Movies, the word is: Remake. What do you think?

Both.

[Rblu-Dblu]

I dont think the studios are lacking creative talent, they're just not utilizing it. In a bad economy they're trying to stick to things that they know are money makers. Studios are unwilling to take chances right now.

[BRu-LAy]

Originally Posted by vegeta88

I think remakes are considered "safe" in terms of making money. Plenty of people will recognize the name and may be more likely to see that film. It also might be cheaper to remake or adapt a story rather than come up with an original. Just my thoughts.

+ 1

As movies and tv shows get more costly to make, there less room for risk if it flops. So, in order to "play it safe", studio rely on remakes and sequels.

[moothemagiccow]

I wouldn't blame the economy; this has been going on for years. I'm not sure how much cheaper it would be to get the rights to existing intellectual property versus hiring a poor screenwriter with an original idea.

I just figure it's what everyone says: it's a safe bet someone will pay to see a familiar title, and the movie business is a business. And think about all the clueless relatives who'll buy you that new Scooby Doo dvd because you liked the show when you were 5.

[Septimus Prime]

I think it has to do with a new generation (my generation) growing up and entering/rising up through creative industries. Being so young, many of us have never experienced the original versions (or earlier remakes) of these things, so it's easy and safe to present something like this to us—who now have jobs and money—as "new."

I imagine it this way: a young, rising star executive coincidentally watches an old movie or plays an old video game and thinks it's great. He then wants to share his experience with his peers but wants to throw in his own slant and "improvements," since he is in the position to do so profitably.

I think this is also the reason we are seeing revivals and sequels for IPs that have been dormant for decades.

[Afrobean]

Remakes, sequels and adaptations are nothing new.

They've been remaking old movies, needlessly sequelizing, and adapting books and such into films for ever. Even classic films remembered as greats fall under this category.

The reason they're popular now is the same reason they've always been. It has little to do with the economic situation; Hollywood has always been working toward the easiest buck, and this often includes reusing ideas, and borrowing ideas from other media.

The only difference is that comic book adaptations of the past were never too successful. Superman the Movie showed it was possible, and 1989's Batman elaborated further, but it took the concept "dying" with Batman & Robin and to be reborn to greatness with the likes of X-men, Spider-man, and Batman Begins. Now comic movies are made with the same zeal as novel adaptations, remakes and sequels. Video game and TV show adaptations still have a way to go though.

[jhiggy23]

Originally Posted by Rblu-Dblu

I dont think the studios are lacking creative talent, they're just not utilizing it. In a bad economy they're trying to stick to things that they know are money makers. Studios are unwilling to take chances right now.

Exactly.

[OrlandoEastwood]

This thread is epic. I will remake this thread in another three weeks.

[Show spoiler]See how unoriginal my posts have gotten.

[RockChalk]

I personally hate re makes if 1 of 2 things are the case,

1. The movies is less than 25 years old

And. 2. If the movie is an all time great, people should just go watch the original!

[Afrobean]

Originally Posted by RockChalk

I personally hate re makes if 1 of 2 things are the case,

1. The movies is less than 25 years old

Sometimes movies can be made in such a way that the earlier version failed to capture the material in the best way possible. For example, Batman Begins falls into the category of reused idea (both a comic adaptation and a "remake"), and the previous series was less than 25 years old. But Batman Begins was GREAT and The Dark Knight really drove the point home. Even though 1989's Batman was still relatively new and itself identified as a modern classic in many rights, reusing the character and story in a new film proved to be a VERY good thing, not just in the B.O. but artistically as well.

And. 2. If the movie is an all time great, people should just go watch the original!

Sometimes great classic films have more than a little room for improvement. For example, the visuals in Burton's Charlie and the Chocolate Factory blow away the visuals in the earlier film. Completely. He failed to improve the film in other areas (Wonka-centric backstory and resolution, not to mention the characterization Depp used), but that's apart from the point I'm trying to make here. If Burton HAD hit all the right points (as he should have been able to!), it wouldn't matter HOW classic the previous film version had been, there would have been a new definitive telling of the story regardless.

And honestly your argument could even be applied to books. "If a book is an all-time great, people should just go read the original!" But if that were the case, we'd never have such great films as Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory, The Dark Knight, Wizard of Oz, or Gone with the Wind. Yes, let us ignore the memorable performances of Wilder as Wonka or Heath Ledger as the Joker. These movies should have never been made in the first place, because they originally came from books and those books should be the iconic depictions of the character.

I personally only judge remakes and adaptations on a case-by-case basis. For example, I really like 1989's Batman and I'm glad they adapted the comic into a film (especially in light of 1966's Batman film), but I'm less fond of 1997's Steel, which shouldn't have even been made. I appreciate Burton's adaptation of Charlie and the Chocolate factory, but still have to go in favor of the previous Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory almost entirely because of Gene Wilder's performance. And I don't know about you guys, but I'm really looking forward to seeing what Jackie Earle Haley does with Freddy Krueger in the upcoming Nightmare on Elmstreet reboot (itself a remake of a film only 25 years old!).

[koontz1973]

I have no problem with remakes. I just treat them like an individual film.

Some are good, some bad, some pointless.

[RockChalk]

Originally Posted by Afrobean

Sometimes movies can be made in such a way that the earlier version failed to capture the material in the best way possible. For example, Batman Begins falls into the category of reused idea (both a comic adaptation and a "remake"), and the previous series was less than 25 years old. But Batman Begins was GREAT and The Dark Knight really drove the point home. Even though 1989's Batman was still relatively new and itself identified as a modern classic in many rights, reusing the character and story in a new film proved to be a VERY good thing, not just in the B.O. but artistically as well.


Sometimes great classic films have more than a little room for improvement. For example, the visuals in Burton's Charlie and the Chocolate Factory blow away the visuals in the earlier film. Completely. He failed to improve the film in other areas (Wonka-centric backstory and resolution, not to mention the characterization Depp used), but that's apart from the point I'm trying to make here. If Burton HAD hit all the right points (as he should have been able to!), it wouldn't matter HOW classic the previous film version had been, there would have been a new definitive telling of the story regardless.

And honestly your argument could even be applied to books. "If a book is an all-time great, people should just go read the original!" But if that were the case, we'd never have such great films as Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory, The Dark Knight, Wizard of Oz, or Gone with the Wind. Yes, let us ignore the memorable performances of Wilder as Wonka or Heath Ledger as the Joker. These movies should have never been made in the first place, because they originally came from books and those books should be the iconic depictions of the character.

I personally only judge remakes and adaptations on a case-by-case basis. For example, I really like 1989's Batman and I'm glad they adapted the comic into a film (especially in light of 1966's Batman film), but I'm less fond of 1997's Steel, which shouldn't have even been made. I appreciate Burton's adaptation of Charlie and the Chocolate factory, but still have to go in favor of the previous Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory almost entirely because of Gene Wilder's performance. And I don't know about you guys, but I'm really looking forward to seeing what Jackie Earle Haley does with Freddy Krueger in the upcoming Nightmare on Elmstreet reboot (itself a remake of a film only 25 years old!).

I disagree completely, So you are saying if a movie doesnt have stunning visuals no matter how good the story is you should remake it with better visuals?!?! I dont get movies shoudl be about acting, story, development, and visuals should be a bonus, not the main point

[jhiggy23]

Originally Posted by moothemagiccow

I wouldn't blame the economy; this has been going on for years. I'm not sure how much cheaper it would be to get the rights to existing intellectual property versus hiring a poor screenwriter with an original idea.

I just figure it's what everyone says: it's a safe bet someone will pay to see a familiar title, and the movie business is a business. And think about all the clueless relatives who'll buy you that new Scooby Doo dvd because you liked the show when you were 5.

I agree with most of what you said, but there is no possible way to argue that the economy does not and has not had an effect on the types of movies made. Of course it does. It is inextricably linked with the creation of films with built-in fanbase.

[jhiggy23]

Originally Posted by Afrobean

Remakes, sequels and adaptations are nothing new.

They've been remaking old movies, needlessly sequelizing, and adapting books and such into films for ever. Even classic films remembered as greats fall under this category.

The reason they're popular now is the same reason they've always been. It has little to do with the economic situation; Hollywood has always been working toward the easiest buck, and this often includes reusing ideas, and borrowing ideas from other media.

The only difference is that comic book adaptations of the past were never too successful. Superman the Movie showed it was possible, and 1989's Batman elaborated further, but it took the concept "dying" with Batman & Robin and to be reborn to greatness with the likes of X-men, Spider-man, and Batman Begins. Now comic movies are made with the same zeal as novel adaptations, remakes and sequels. Video game and TV show adaptations still have a way to go though.

It is absolutely baffling how you and moo can claim that the economy has little to do with the current state of movies. Why are less films released each year? The economy (as STATED by Hollywood execs). If less movies are released, they need these movies to do well. So, what to do? Release sequels, remakes, adaptations, etc., because at the very least the built-in fanbase will go see it. The economy has an effect on EVERYTHING and EVERYONE. To say otherwise is ludicrous.

[jhiggy23]

Originally Posted by RockChalk

I personally hate re makes if 1 of 2 things are the case,

1. The movies is less than 25 years old

And. 2. If the movie is an all time great, people should just go watch the original!

I agree with you completely, like usual, Rock. It annoys me to no end when classics are remade, like Halloween and others.

[jhiggy23]

Originally Posted by koontz1973

I have no problem with remakes. I just treat them like an individual film.

Some are good, some bad, some pointless.

Generally, I agree--I too treat them like individual film. However, I agree with Rock in that if I see a classic film has been remade, I immediately have a fundamental aversion to it.

[Afrobean]

Originally Posted by RockChalk

I disagree completely, So you are saying if a movie doesnt have stunning visuals no matter how good the story is you should remake it with better visuals?!?! I dont get movies shoudl be about acting, story, development, and visuals should be a bonus, not the main point

Film is a visual medium. Good acting with lacking visuals means there is still room for improvement. For example, Wizard of Oz that we all know was not the first adaptation. There was a silent take on it before. But you think it having the BEST ACTING EVER would make it stand up favorably to the later film? Even if the sound didn't make the version we all know favorable, the amazing color would. As long as the storytelling isn't terrible and the acting isn't terrible, the previous version has little chance of being remembered.

But I was just using that as a SPECIFIC example too. What about Batman? He's had a total of 8 theatrical films of 4 different incarnations. But each later take on the character was an improvement on the previous one in one way or the other. First was Adam West as Batman, campy and terrible. Then they did Michael Keaton in the title role and all was good. Then there was the animated series movie with Kevin Conroy, arguably the most iconic take on the character. And long after these, Christian Bale came in to the play the character and he has done an amazing job with it, making him the best live action take hands down and a good contender for best overall.

But even though I enjoy Batman Begins and The Dark Knight, that doesn't mean I think Michael Keaton's acting was bad or Burton's directing was bad or anything. There was just room for improvement regardless of the previous take being good.