The Criterion Collection

[malakaheso]

Originally Posted by mja345

I think the low point for Hollywood in recent memory was the "Point Break" remake. There was zero reason to remake that film except to appeal to teens who think the early 90s was too long ago to be asked to bother with. I saw it with my girlfriend because we were out to dinner and decided to check it out on a whim at a nearby theater. It had absolutely nothing that made the original enjoyable. And anybody who went for the nostalgia factor would be sorely disappointed because it's such a lifeless remake. Same goes for the "Robocop" remake. Both remakes sucked out loud and the depressing thing is a bunch of teens will probably identify both titles with the godawful remakes.

It seemed like a pointless remake to me too, albeit for different reasons. It was only a moderate hit at the time and unlike Robocop, I see no evidence that it has a big cult following, so I don't quite buy into the nostalgia point for that particularly film.

It was just another remake that made me feel old personally :-)

[mja345]

Originally Posted by malakaheso

It seemed like a pointless remake to me too, albeit for different reasons. It was only a moderate hit at the time and unlike Robocop, I see no evidence that it has a big cult following, so I don't quite buy into the nostalgia point for that particularly film.

It was just another remake that made me feel old personally :-)

I'd definitely say it has a pretty sizable following, some of which is probably because of how daft Keanu Reeves is in it. I enjoy action films from that era both ironically and unironically and the original "Point Break" can be enjoyed on both levels. It's nowhere near the quality of film that the original "Robocop" is obviously.

[TomN245]

I agree with what people here are saying. Last year I watched The Godfather with a friend (both of us 20) and he was bored. He turned it off after an hour .

Although, if we are talking film-students how about this. In a film class the teacher asks if anyone has seen The Third Man and to put their hand up. I am the only person in a class of 30 to put my hand up. Then we watch the film and half the class talked loudly and walked out after 30 minutes as they found it too boring.

This is one of the many contributing factors that is making Hollywood so stale at the moment. If they keep making money from sequels, remakes, unoriginal/unremarkable adaptations of books, without pumping fresh ideas into the mix, people are eventually going to lose interest. The sooner the better in my opinion. Hollywood can fall and I'd be more happy then sad.

There's trouble when the films nominated for best Foreign Language Film and Best Documentary categories at the Oscars are far (I mean FAR) superior than the films nominated for Best Film.

[Arch Stanton]

Originally Posted by TomN245

I agree with what people here are saying. Last year I watched The Godfather with a friend (both of us 20) and he was bored. He turned it off after an hour .

Although, if we are talking film-students how about this. In a film class the teacher asks if anyone has seen The Third Man and to put their hand up. I am the only person in a class of 30 to put my hand up. Then we watch the film and half the class talked loudly and walked out after 30 minutes as they found it too boring.

Yup. My experience as a film student is that fellow students are nowhere near as interested in classic film as I'd have expected. Not at all interested.

I have no idea where film is going to go in the next 20 years. The current generation are very much their own thing and influences are going to come more from video games/virtual reality than from prior movies like we had with the movie brats of the 70s. I expect more banal action films done in long-takes, basically.

[Ray Jackson]

Originally Posted by mja345

I'd definitely say it has a pretty sizable following, some of which is probably because of how daft Keanu Reeves is in it. I enjoy action films from that era both ironically and unironically and the original "Point Break" can be enjoyed on both levels. It's nowhere near the quality of film that the original "Robocop" is obviously.

Back off mja.

...seriously.

[belcherman]

Originally Posted by Arch Stanton

Both Harry Potter and LOTR are A: steeped in fantasy folklore and B: aimed at a lowest common denominator kind of audience. The Godfather may be equally as slow as LOTR but it's considerably more complex and challenging, while of course it relies on knowledge and interest on the post-war culture of the USA. The other two are basically blank canvases.

I'm not sure I agree with you about LOTR. It may be escapist fantasy, but the story has a lot of characters with multiple threads and the audience actually has to pay attention. Your other points are well made, however. Frankly, I took my kids to see the first three Harry Potter movies. I fell asleep through each one and I've only done that during one other movie in my life.

[mja345]

Originally Posted by TomN245

I agree with what people here are saying. Last year I watched The Godfather with a friend (both of us 20) and he was bored. He turned it off after an hour .

Although, if we are talking film-students how about this. In a film class the teacher asks if anyone has seen The Third Man and to put their hand up. I am the only person in a class of 30 to put my hand up. Then we watch the film and half the class talked loudly and walked out after 30 minutes as they found it too boring.

This is one of the many contributing factors that is making Hollywood so stale at the moment. If they keep making money from sequels, remakes, unoriginal/unremarkable adaptations of books, without pumping fresh ideas into the mix, people are eventually going to lose interest. The sooner the better in my opinion. Hollywood can fall and I'd be more happy then sad.

There's trouble when the films nominated for best Foreign Language Film and Best Documentary categories at the Oscars are far (I mean FAR) superior than the films nominated for Best Film.

The level of discourse and demand on the intellect in the US has sunk so low unfortunately and the film industry is just a microcosm of it. I really believe social media has turned a great deal of people into anti-intellectual zombies. Not to get political, but we have Donald Effing Trump as the likely presidential candidate for one of our major political parties. People are content to stare mindlessly at photos on their phone as opposed to expanding their minds. It's sad really. Boredom is often a byproduct of a non-curious mind IMO.

[mja345]

Originally Posted by Ray Jackson

Back off mja.

...seriously.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zVQ6Qp7DPnU

[imsounoriginal]

Originally Posted by MifuneFan

I would say the color is like cheddar cheese, so it is orangey yellow.

[Show spoiler]

(Image source)

The background color of the DVD release is closer to mustard yellow

[Show spoiler]

Well I ended up going back during lunch and took a pic, just an FYI for others that there may be two distinct colors out there:

image.jpg

[CelestialAgent]

Originally Posted by TomN245

Although, if we are talking film-students how about this. In a film class the teacher asks if anyone has seen The Third Man and to put their hand up. I am the only person in a class of 30 to put my hand up. Then we watch the film and half the class talked loudly and walked out after 30 minutes as they found it too boring.

You should have seen the reaction when we were assigned Man with a Movie Camera! "Man that film's boring there's no story." The only people I can geek out about films with is the odd lecturer; everybody questions why I buy Blu-rays. Barely anybody ever turns up to film screenings, or falls into "isn't Tokyo Story terrible I thought we were going to watch Tokyo Drift". Hopefully once I'm a graduate I can befriend actual film fans!

[Snicket]

Do you think that older generations always b***h about the way younger generations watch movies/use technology/watch Tv/ walk down the street/talk to people/be alive?

[BobbyMcGee]

Originally Posted by TomN245

I agree with what people here are saying. Last year I watched The Godfather with a friend (both of us 20) and he was bored. He turned it off after an hour .

Although, if we are talking film-students how about this. In a film class the teacher asks if anyone has seen The Third Man and to put their hand up. I am the only person in a class of 30 to put my hand up. Then we watch the film and half the class talked loudly and walked out after 30 minutes as they found it too boring.

This is one of the many contributing factors that is making Hollywood so stale at the moment. If they keep making money from sequels, remakes, unoriginal/unremarkable adaptations of books, without pumping fresh ideas into the mix, people are eventually going to lose interest. The sooner the better in my opinion. Hollywood can fall and I'd be more happy then sad.

There's trouble when the films nominated for best Foreign Language Film and Best Documentary categories at the Oscars are far (I mean FAR) superior than the films nominated for Best Film.

That was my experience in all of my film classes (have a degree in Film Theory & Criticism). Sad.

[jw007]

Originally Posted by Snicket

Do you think that older generations always b***h about the way younger generations watch movies/use technology/watch Tv/ walk down the street/talk to people/be alive?

jayembee: this question is right up your alley.

Is it just my imagination or do younger generations b#tch less about the older generations than vice versa?

[malakaheso]

Originally Posted by CelestialAgent

You should have seen the reaction when we were assigned Man with a Movie Camera! "Man that film's boring there's no story." The only people I can geek out about films with is the odd lecturer; everybody questions why I buy Blu-rays. Barely anybody ever turns up to film screenings, or falls into "isn't Tokyo Story terrible I thought we were going to watch Tokyo Drift". Hopefully once I'm a graduate I can befriend actual film fans!

It really wasn't that much different in the late 90's when I was in college/university, but I did notice a change in second and third year with students who continued to study film.

Having said that, the directors they were interested in were mostly American ones (e.g 80's and 90's 'indie' darlings like Van Sant and Jamursch) and some French new wave directors (mostly Godard and Truffaut). When I returned to study in 2003 or so I noticed that the attention has shifted slightly to directors like Korine and Wes Anderson. Now I've heard from academics I know that there is more interest in John Cassavetes than there was 15-20 years ago.

[mja345]

Originally Posted by jw007

jayembee: this question is right up your alley.

Is it just my imagination or do younger generations b#tch less about the older generations than vice versa?

I think this is absolutely true. Difference right now is I think there's a sharp divide between older millennials and younger millennials. Theoretically, people in the same generation should be reasonably simpatico. But I believe a lot of people who are in their late 20s and 30s right now feel like they were born on a different planet than some of the people in their teens and early 20s currently. I'm much more simpatico with my brother, who is 38 and ten years older than me, or even my old man than I am with a lot of people who are 7 or 8 years younger than me right now. I think the social media/cell phone addiction has sped up the "Get off my lawn" phase for people who came of age right before that zeitgeist took over.

[malakaheso]

Originally Posted by mja345

I think this is absolutely true. Difference is right now is I think there's a sharp divide between older millennials and younger millennials. Theoretically, people in the same generation should be reasonably simpatico. But I believe a lot of people who are in their late 20s and 30s right now feel like they were born on a different planet than some of the people in their teens and early 20s currently. I'm much more simpatico with my brother, who is 38 and ten years older than me, or even my old man than I am with a lot of people who are 7 or 8 years younger than me right now. I think the social media/cell phone addiction has sped up the "Get off my lawn" phase for people who came of age right before that zeitgeist took over.

Old people *****ing about younger people has always been true, but the difference now compared to say 40-50 years ago is that it was expected that you grew out of your youthful interests/obsessions and develop into a 'mature adult'. That process is not really happening anymore, at least not with the same degree of regularity and frequency as it once did. It has now become more socially acceptable to be a kidadult well into middle age. The criticisms are getting harsher because a lot of older people feel that young people get away with being completely irresponsible. These criticisms have grains of truth mixed in with a bit of envy.

I'm a young member of Gen X (i.e an old fart to young millennials), but these criticisms were originally directed towards my generation. Don't think it's just you millennials that cop it! We get it too! Less about social media and smart phones though admittedly, but we criticise each other for that too. i.e we recognise that it's a social 'problem', not strictly a youth related problem.

MJA: My friends in their late 20's say the exact same thing about people in their late teens and early 20's.

[Martin_31]

The audience today is not interested in movies like The Godfather or even the Lord of the Rings trilogy. The films are too long and too complex. Audiences now prefer mindless entertainment. They flock to idiotic s**t. Just take a look at all the YouTubers, the guy from snapchat that made Damn Daniel, the Kardashian family, or Alex from Target. And this is my generation. When I say that I buy Blu-ray's, watch old movies (not just old but a variety of movies), read books, and don't listen to the majority of pop music from today, people look at me like I'm crazy or they'll label me as a hipster. A word that I f***ing despise like reviews that use the word pretentious and overrated. I'd preferred they call me a nerd or geek like in middle or high school. Oh well! At least there's a site like this filled with people who like movies.

[Bates_Motel]

Originally Posted by mja345

I think the low point for Hollywood in recent memory was the "Point Break" remake. There was zero reason to remake that film except to appeal to teens who think the early 90s was too long ago to be asked to bother with. I saw it with my girlfriend because we were out to dinner and decided to check it out on a whim at a nearby theater. It had absolutely nothing that made the original enjoyable. And anybody who went for the nostalgia factor would be sorely disappointed because it's such a lifeless remake. Same goes for the "Robocop" remake. Both remakes sucked out loud and the depressing thing is a bunch of teens will probably identify both titles with the godawful remakes.

Well, again, The Maltese Falcon was made THREE times in the span of 9 years, the third being the classic Bogart version. I don't hold the notion that any remake is "unnecessary," because the best stories are always the ones re-told generation after generation. It was just done badly. There's room for this and RoboCop remake, for sure.

Just like The Thing was remade in 1982 and became a classic in its own right. It's just that most people who saw it in 1982 were younger and many hadn't seen the original, so they didn't hold it in the same high regard and balk at Carpenter remaking it, the way people today balk at something being remade that's 30 years old. If a 16 year old sees the new RoboCop without seeing the older one first, there's nothing to "compare" it to. You're coming into the film already holding the original as a classic, but you can't really look at it that way, or else you have to look at the entire of Hollywood history the same.

[mja345]

Originally Posted by Bates_Motel

Well, again, The Maltese Falcon was made THREE times in the span of 9 years, the third being the classic Bogart version. I don't hold the notion that any remake is "unnecessary," because the best stories are always the ones re-told generation after generation. It was just done badly. There's room for this and RoboCop remake, for sure.

Just like The Thing was remade in 1982 and became a classic in its own right. It's just that most people who saw it in 1982 were younger and many hadn't seen the original, so they didn't hold it in the same high regard and balk at Carpenter remaking it, the way people today balk at something being remade that's 30 years old. If a 16 year old sees the new RoboCop without seeing the older one first, there's nothing to "compare" it to. You're coming into the film already holding the original as a classic, but you can't really look at it that way, or else you have to look at the entire of Hollywood history the same.

I agree that most films are inspired by films that came before them. You're completely accurate in that assessment. I mean, Quentin Tarantino has built an entire career on remaking films if we're totally honest. And you're correct that remakes can work if they're done well. It's just that so few are. The problem with the "Point Break" remake is that it would take such a specific mix of actors to make that storyline work as the original did. Edgar Ramirez and Ray Winstone are accomplished actors, but were completely neutered in that film. What's the point, other than a money grab? You're never going to recreate the original when it's well-liked and dependent upon the chemistry of the actors.

"Robocop" is just a terrible film to remake because of the sharply satirical tone of the original. The sequels alone proved that. If you try to recreate the satirical tone, then it's going to seem overly derivative and, if you don't, then it's going to seem as if it's missing the point of the original. Anyone who is seeing it who has already seen the original is going to probably dislike it because it can't match the satire of the original. So, then you're basically limiting it to teens who can't be bothered to see the original. The "Total Recall" remake was also a travesty IMO. It's difficult to remake Paul Verhoeven films because they strike such a specific tone. In today's day and age, you're limiting a remake to people who can't be bothered to see the original unless the source material is incredibly generic.

You bring up a great point about "The Maltese Falcon" and "The Thing". I think the '31 version of "The Maltese Falcon" is solid, but could be upgraded. Specifically, going from Ricardo Cortez to Bogart. What can you really upgrade about the original "Point Break" or "Robocop", given the context of those films? It's just a pure money grab IMO.

[adamhopelies]

Originally Posted by malakaheso

It really wasn't that much different in the late 90's when I was in college/university, but I did notice a change in second and third year with students who continued to study film.

Having said that, the directors they were interested in were mostly American ones (e.g 80's and 90's 'indie' darlings like Van Sant and Jamursch) and some French new wave directors (mostly Godard and Truffaut). When I returned to study in 2003 or so I noticed that the attention has shifted slightly to directors like Korine and Wes Anderson. Now I've heard from academics I know that there is more interest in John Cassavetes than there was 15-20 years ago.

Funnily enough I wrote my undergrad dissertation on Cassavetes, in 2005. Now I teach film studies, and I'd say the most popular filmmaker with our 18 year olds is Tarantino, much to the chagrin of some of my colleagues (I think of him as a great gateway filmmaker to all manner of areas, so use this to my benefit). Spielberg has become inexplicable popular in recent years too, he's certainly more "fashionable" than he was when I was studying in 2003 thru 2006.

I think I posted recently about how frustrated I felt when introducing a concept from Godard's Breathless recently, only to find that but a handful of my class had seen it. Rather than being too depressed about it tho I simply scheduled a screening of the film for a few weeks later (alongside a couple of other staples from the NW).

Generally speaking students are pretty good these days. University fees in the UK have rocketed in recent years, so a lot of those that saw it as an easy three years have been put off of studying film, and instead have gone for more vocotional subjects. Back when I was doing my undergrad degree we literally had folk in my class that refused to watch films in their spare time, on account of it "feeling like work" to them! Crazy!