Remakes, remakes and more remakes! Where's the originality?!?

I just browsed through the 'films to look forward to in 2005' thread. I looked and I saw War of the worlds and The Pink Panther, I have also seen trailers for a ton of other remakes this year. There are very few original ideas out there, they're just sequils and remakes!

When there are original ideas, they're usualy crappy. That's why I have basicly moved away from the movie scene since the matrix ended, or I stick to older ones like the classics or the little jems that were techicly bombs but you think are good that you find on TV late at night.

Now sure, I admit, I would like to see "Corpse Bride" (the new Tim Burton claymation movie) but that's the only movie this year I would like to see. Mainly the trailers I have seen for normal movies, are like I said, remakes or lies (White noise).

But anyway back to topic....what do you think about this whole, "remake everything until there is nothing to remake!" mentality of Hollywood? I'm getting alittle tired of it....As the title says, Where's the originality?!? The fact is....there is none...

New Wonka too....... although the fans would argue that its based on the book and not a remake.

What can I say? Some people have the talent to take a great classic and turn it into garbage.

RANT AHEAD (personal opinion):

We're still stuck in a creative wasteland at the moment. The rush and novelty of the CGI and special effects stuff hasn't quite worn off yet, and marketing departments are focusing on 'formulaic' movies.

The formula being:
Will the 18-34 age range (preferably male) like it?
Does it look slick enough?
Can the special effects cover up the shortcuts in scripting, directing, acting, continuity?
Are the stars famous or big names?
Will it look good for a video game?
Will it be part of the next fad?
What merchandise can we get from it?
Does anyone have to think while watching it? (if so, forget it.)

For these reasons, good scripting and directing is not a high priority.

However, you must admit that they acknowledge the older movies had 'the magic', however they still haven't got the idea by trying to 'remake' them. I would offer to go out and find them a clue, but since I am over 110 pounds and under 5'10", I will not be listened to.

Allow screenwriters to write stories. Allow the directors to tell the stories. Allow the characters to participate and drive the stories.

Leave the special effects alone and tell us stories!

Remakes occasionally scare me. I'm a little worried about "The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy" movie. That is going to be a remake (I never saw the original, mom did though) and Disney is doing it, though some of their moives have been good.

I'm also worried about the Chocolate Factory one. Am I going to like it as much as the Gene Wilder version? That was a good version. It's one of mom's favorite movies and I just loved Wonka. (Tell you the truth, it scared me as I kid, but I watched it anyway! HA HA HA!)

But the Indiana Jones? Forget it! I liked to orginial and let's just leave it be for a good 100 years. Then you can remake it.

Remakes are somewhat annoying and I've disliked a few, but some of the others were better, i.e. Stepford. I'd get angry if they had ended it like the original. Thing is, there were HUGE plot holes.

What's worrying me is the sudden interest in taking books and making them into movies (it seems like a lot this year...). I liked the other book by Kate DiCamillo, The Tale of Desperaux and I'm certain Because of Winn-Dixie will be a good book, but I'm slightly worried with Hollywood's interest in that. YAY for supporting Books, Hollywood, but I'm slightly worried because Hollywood tends to rewrite it slight. Hence my fear with Hitchhiker's Guide

I agree that there seems to be a lack of creativity in Hollywood. It's just like LT said with directors, actors, ect. Basically: What will give us the MOST amount of money?

EDIT: Remakes, books-to-movies (they have to be bestsellers!), and sequels (when there seems to be no need) seem to be what Hollywood is putting out. Don't get me wrong, there are some gems, but a good chunk seems to be that.

We're way too materalistic[sp] anymore.

Later,
Pen1300

quote:

Originally posted by pen1300 Remakes occasionally scare me. I'm a little worried about "The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy" movie. That is going to be a remake (I never saw the original, mom did though) and Disney is doing it, though some of their moives have been good. I'm also worried about the Chocolate Factory one. Am I going to like it as much as the Gene Wilder version? That was a good version. It's one of mom's favorite movies and I just loved Wonka. (Tell you the truth, it scared me as I kid, but I watched it anyway! HA HA HA!) But the Indiana Jones? Forget it! I liked to orginial and let's just leave it be for a good 100 years. Then you can remake it. Remakes are somewhat annoying and I've disliked a few, but some of the others were better, i.e. Stepford. I'd get angry if they had ended it like the original. Thing is, there were HUGE plot holes. What's worrying me is the sudden interest in taking books and making them into movies (it seems like a lot this year...). I liked the other book by Kate DiCamillo, The Tale of Desperaux and I'm certain Because of Winn-Dixie will be a good book, but I'm slightly worried with Hollywood's interest in that. YAY for supporting Books, Hollywood, but I'm slightly worried because Hollywood tends to rewrite it slight. Hence my fear with Hitchhiker's Guide I agree that there seems to be a lack of creativity in Hollywood. It's just like LT said with directors, actors, ect. Basically: What will give us the MOST amount of money? EDIT: Remakes, books-to-movies (they have to be bestsellers!), and sequels (when there seems to be no need) seem to be what Hollywood is putting out. Don't get me wrong, there are some gems, but a good chunk seems to be that. We're way too materalistic[sp] anymore. Later, Pen1300

Materialistic is certainly one way to put it, though I think my art history teacher said it best when she said we live in a mercenary society...

That was quite the humerous rant, actually. And it all started when we told her that putting our teeth under the pillow gets us money, whereas in her day all she would get was good luck.

I have to agree with Lady Tesser, for the most part...I honestly do not like the idea of remakes, in general. Granted, there are some exceptions: I thought the remake of Lolita was better than the original, for example. There are not many more examples other than that I can think of, though...

I do not like the idea of a Charlie and the Chocolate Factory re-make...it is going to be horrible, mark my words! And that's one of my favorite movies, too (though I could be biased since I played the part of Mr. Wonka in an elementary school production)...

Pen's worry about books is also very justified, and I feel the exact same way. I do not mind adapting books into movies too much, and there are bound to be differences, but so long as it keeps the spirit of the original (and hopefully attracts a new audience who will go off to read the book had they not already done so), it is not so bad. Of course, there have been your fair share of book-movie disasters (The Scarlet Letter, anyone? Talk about ruining a vision...), and they tend to outnumber the successes...

Remakes do not really bother me. It angers me if they remake a movie I like, but I'll still see it if it looks good.

Manchurian Canidate with Denzel Washington was a very good movie, even though it was a remake. I did not see all of the first one, but I saw parts of it when it aired on one of my movie channels, and I liked it. So in that case, both versions were good.

Now, as for Charlie and The Chocolate Factory, I guarantee you it will not be good as the first one, because the first one is a classic. No matter what you add to it or do to it, nothing will equal it. Does this mean I will not see the new one? Nope, I plan to see it because it looks good. (Plus I watched the trailer around 25 times to get that super-cool-fun song stuck in my head. Now I just need to get down that squeaky voice)


Now, just because remakes don't bother me does not mean I am in favor of them. I wish Hollywood had more creativity because while remakes are nice to watch, you already know what's going to happen. So that takes away some of the thrill of watching a movie.

quote:

Originally posted by Ace of Spades What can I say? Some people have the talent to take a great classic and turn it into garbage.

AMEN ACE!! Yep yep! That just about sums it so far! ^_~""

I read somewhere they want to remake Dirty Harry...

I have no clue as to the validity of this, as all mentions of it are from early to mid 2004. Google it and you'll probably find the ones I'm thinking of.

Oh, yes. In these articles, the rock is mentioned as a possibility for the title role.

I have this HORRIBLE mental image of this happening, and I am willing to bet money that if it does, the Smith and Wesson .44 will be replaced by a chrome Desert Eagle.

quote:

I do not like the idea of a Charlie and the Chocolate Factory re-make

It'll probably rake in the cash.

You can attatch tim burtons name to ANYTHING and it'll automatically bring in an audience (not a criticism, but...you know I'm right.)

quote:

Originally posted by Sharpshooter005 You can attatch tim burtons name to ANYTHING and it'll automatically bring in an audience (not a criticism, but...you know I'm right.)

Tim Burton's last remake, Planet of the Apes, bombed at the box office.

The funny thing is he insisted on calling it 'a reimagining' instead of a remake. It was like Burton was trying to start a new Hollywood jargon for 'I'm all out of fresh ideas.'

quote:

Originally posted by Sharpshooter005 I read somewhere they want to remake Dirty Harry...

AHHHH! I really hope this isn't true!

Stupid Hollywood with their remakes and sequels....it's the same trend that the video game industry is falling into. It seems all the make is sequels nowadays.

Yeah, I will probably go see Charlie and the Chocolate Factory. I don't know if it'll be good but it'll certainly be different than the original.

quote:

Originally posted by pen1300 But the Indiana Jones? Forget it! I liked to orginial and let's just leave it be for a good 100 years. Then you can remake it.

They're remaking Indiana Jones?!?

WTF?!?!?

Not remaking.



It'll be Indy 4

Lupin's right...(O_o...that felt strange hehe)...

It'll be the 4th Indiana Jones movie...not a remake of an earlier one.

"The Pink Panther" is definately a remake...


I haven't heard anything about a new Charlie and the Chocolate Factory movie though...

quote:

Originally posted by evanASF27 Lupin's right...(O_o...that felt strange hehe)... It'll be the 4th Indiana Jones movie...not a remake of an earlier one. "The Pink Panther" is definately a remake... I haven't heard anything about a new Charlie and the Chocolate Factory movie though...

oh...i was almost scared to death!

charlie and the chocolate factory, starring johnny depp. I think there was a thread about it here...

quote:

Tim Burton's last remake, Planet of the Apes, bombed at the box office.

Further proof of this is how I completely forgot about it.

Point well taken.

quote:

Originally posted by Lady Tesser We're still stuck in a creative wasteland at the moment. The rush and novelty of the CGI and special effects stuff hasn't quite worn off yet, and marketing departments are focusing on 'formulaic' movies. ...However, you must admit that they acknowledge the older movies had 'the magic', however they still haven't got the idea by trying to 'remake' them.

I'm not normally an IGN fan but there is a fascinating pair Mirrormask articles about Dave and Neil there. Apparently, Sony told them point blank you can have creativity or money, but not both, as non-formula movies are financially risky in the short-term (pointing to Time Bandits, Dark Crystal, and Labyrinth as extremely creative, well respected bombs.)

That's not exactly a new phenomenon, though. The oldest movie I've ever seen is the 1927 It: a romantic comedy/star vehicle, based on short film based on a fad. And not long before that they tended to be pure experiments with the new moving-picture technology with no plot at all. I think older movies seem more magical because the ones that weren't were allowed to spontaneously combust.

quote:

Originally posted by Mr. Peabody The funny thing is he insisted on calling it 'a reimagining' instead of a remake. It was like Burton was trying to start a new Hollywood jargon for 'I'm all out of fresh ideas.'

I am so sick of that word...I wonder if the moguls realize how much this is like waving a red flag with 'Unimaginitive and crappy!' emblazoned on it. Though I suppose as long as it involves girls in neoprene with shiny explosions, it won't matter at the box office...but you'd think Burton could afford more self-respect.

quote:

Originally posted by pen1300 Remakes occasionally scare me. I'm a little worried about "The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy" movie. That is going to be a remake (I never saw the original, mom did though) and Disney is doing it, though some of their moives have been good.

I think Hitchhiker has a good chance, mainly because Adams himself was very involved in the production up to his death. But it probably will diverge from the previous versions: Adams has never been very concerned with a consistent storyline: the radio play, book, and TV series are all pretty different. Even character motivations/relationships changed pretty significantly from version to version. (And he hated the TV version, anyway.)

I was sort of dissapointed to see Zaphod with only one head, though.