BuckeyeDawg

Is it just me, or does it seem like every other movie is a remake these days? And the ones that aren't remake, are a copy of a formula that just worked for some other recent smash hit.

remakes:
A Perfect Murder (Dial M for Murder)
Cruel Intentions (Dangerous Liasons)
Psycho (same title)
Planet of the Apes (same title)
The Italian Job (same title)

Future remakes:
Salem's Lot
Wicker Man
Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory

There's a ton more I could think of, but I'd be here all day. It just seems like more and more copies are coming out than ever before.


Dehydrated, ready made films (just add water):
(reinvented films (same story over and over and over))
Scream series
I know What You Did Last Summer series
Urban Legend I and II
Final Destination I and II


Is it just me, or is Hollywood losing its originality and freshness?

Daytrip

there are only so many things to make a movie about

Groucho

People have been making this same criticism for nearly 100 years. Nothing's changed. Hollywood is rarely daring or original.

Daytrip

and when they are daring and original they don't make any money. making a movie is a buisness like it or not it's only there to make money

NickAdonidus

Seriously... how many "NEW, FRESH" ideas exist...??? Keep in mind that movies are still hamstrung by cost as well... so even if an idea exists that might be brand new, and totally fresh... sometimes it just isnt economically feasible to make it.
I personnaly am completely STOKED that the studios take the time to remake an older film, and put it into a younger target audience...
I guess thats all i have to say about that!

BuckeyeDawg

Thanks for the input. Was just curious to see what other people's thoughts are.

Spooky

Are you a studio exec?! Sure sound like one!

Norm de Plume

I agree completely, Buckeye. Taking good movies from the past and bastardizing them for a modern (read: young and suffering from ADD) audience is a sickeningly cynical way to rake in the green, even by Hollywood standards.

Another thing: Why the hell does every second movie have to be some variation of "_____ing _____"? What is this obsession with doing something to someone. Mainstream Hollywood seems to be completely devoid of creativity.

sundog

It's out there. You just have to look beyond what's offered up by the mass market.

Inverse

The "original" Dangerous Liasons was remake (of a 1959 flick ... and a 200 year old novel!)

The classic versions of the Maltese Falcon, Wizard of Oz, Ben Hur, Robin Hood, Frankenstein, Dracula, the Magnificent Seven, a Fistful of Dollars, and 20000 Leagues Under the Sea are all remakes of things that had been done earlier.

So the problem isn't remakes - it's *bad* remakes.

BuckeyeDawg

Inverse, I agree to an extent. I suppose if you do a film justice, through your own interpretation, that's fine. Take "The Man Who Knew Too Much" for example. When is the last time we saw a director take his own film and redo it, and do it better the second time?

Are there going to be the same basic cliche's in most films? Sure, but come on. Let's give the story a little life of it's own. Don't just retell a story and ruin what the memory of the original. Give it a life of it's own, alter in a way that it's the same, but that it's different.

But hey, some new stories would be nice...

Daytrip

no, it's fact, there are only so many genre out there eventually everything gets recycled. i mean a movie is there to make money first and foremost, if there wasn't any money in it we'd be shooting stuff in our back yards with no budget to work with. second i don't see why a movie has to be groundbreaking or original to be enjoyable. i see movies as just a way to pass time, if a good one comes along and does something new or does it in a really ingenious way then good but if it doesn't is my life going to crumble? no

Pants

1. Lack of originality is one thing (you guys are right there are only so many stories with so many variations), but the proliferation of flat out remakes these days is stupid. There hasn't been a single one that was good.

2. There have been so many more remakes in recent years than just the ones Buckeye mentioned (Red Dragon, Truth About Charlie, You've Got Mail, The Mummy, etc.)

3. Dangerous Liasons was a readaptation of the novel. I also wouldn't claim that Cruel Intentions was a remake of the movie, but rather the novel

Maltese Falcon- you're right, definately a remake
Wizard of Oz- readaptation of the source novel. It took nothing of its look or style from the Oz shorts. Add to that that they made it a musical!
Ben Hur- definately a remake. Even though they're based on the same novel, the 1959 version borrows strongly from the original
Robin Hood- readaptation of earlier source legend
Frankenstein- what's this a remake of? Golem?
Dracula- Browning's '31 version is an adaptation of the stage play which also starred Bela Legosi, not a remake of Nosferatu. Magnificent Seven- inferior remake
Fistful of Dollars- inferior remake
20000 Leagues Under the Sea - readaptation of the NOVEL, again, Disney's version borrows very little from the old silent version.

Groucho

Some hack named Thomas Edison made a "Frankenstein" movie in the early silent era. Although I think this is a case of two films based on the same novel, rather than a direct remake of the earlier film.

Pants

I'm sure it is. I may be wrong but I think James Wale's '31 version was based on a stage play version (as was Dracula '31)

Jaymole

For all those who say that there aren't that many new stories to tell anymore - BULLS**T. The problem is that Hollywood is just not going to risk money on anything that isn't safe, especially when the average film costs $40 million, which is why we are flooded with sequels, remakes and bastardizations.

BuckeyeDawg

Jaymole - while I do agree with you, I think it's more of a copout than a legitimate argument (not on your part, but Hollywood's).

Take upcoming "Underworld" for example. Take Shakespeare's "Romeo and Juliet", minus the people, swap in Vampires and Werewolves. An OLD story, with a very, fresh, modern day twist.

It takes two safe elements - the storyline that is already provided, by arguably the greatest writer of all time, and adds in the concept of Werewolves and Vampires.

You have a Horror/Action/Love story.

I only wish I had thought of that...

icondude

As long as people continue to flock to the theaters to watch remakes, there will be remakes.

Look on the bright side, this means potentially that there will be a HDTV DVD of a remake of your favorite movie...

NCMojo

Ummm... haven't I seen this post several times before?

mwj

I think it's the current studio system. They are trying to maximise profits to the exclusion of everything else. Plot, dialogue, and character are inconvenient and time consuming.

So some executive who may know business, but not much else, is in charge of green-lighting every picture. This person is much safer jobwise if they approve a known quantity like a remake. And this assumes they would even recognize creativity.

This problem is magnified even more by the cost of the average picture. When Eddie Murphy gets $20 million for Pluto Nash a movie does not even come close to making his salary back let alone it's $90 million budget. A lot of risk-taking just is not in the cards.

Daytrip

do you blame them? if you do something good at work and get a raise you don't gripe about it i'm sure

atari2600

kinda related - i just saw money talks for the first time the other day (i like chris tucker) and i realized its the same movie as rush hour! and i think it has the same director. basically:

money talks - sheen + chan = rush hour

but i still enjoyed it.

Daytrip

that's all that matters

Rocky_Stallone

I have nothing against remakes, they are not all that bad.

Sometimes people feel that older movies need an updated version.

The only remake I care to see is "The Walking Tall" remake with the Rock starring as Bufford T. Pusser, now that's going to F'ing rule!!!!

Pants

Name a remake made in the last 5 years that was good. It doesn't even have to be better than the original, merely "good".