Jump to content
 
Search In
  • More options...
Find results that contain...
Find results in...

Hollywood isn't remaking the Good Old Movies...


casablancalover2
 Share

Recommended Posts

The list of what is in pre-production is very discouraging.

 

*Flight of the Navigator* (1986)

 

*Videodrome* (1983)

 

*Jumanji* (1995)

 

*Commando* (1985)

 

*Point Break* (1991)

 

*Starship Troopers* (YEAH, that one)

 

*Weird Science* (1985)

 

*Popeye* (1980)

 

*Annie* (1982)

 

You can tell the Power Elite in Hollywood these days, and it's Gen X.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

> {quote:title=casablancalover2 wrote:}{quote}The list of what is in pre-production is very discouraging.

>

> *Flight of the Navigator* (1986)

>

> *Videodrome* (1983)

>

> *Jumanji* (1995)

>

> *Commando* (1985)

>

> *Point Break* (1991)

>

> *Starship Troopers* (YEAH, that one)

>

> *Weird Science* (1985)

>

> *Popeye* (1980)

>

> *Annie* (1982)

>

> You can tell the Power Elite in Hollywood these days, and it's Gen X.Its movie business for a reason. Us Gen Xers and younger are the only ones actually going to the movies so thats who they are made for.

 

And if a movie is already great, why try to do it again ? I agree with what the late Siskel and Ebert said, why not redo the bad films and try to get it right this time ? That would be worth seeing.

 

 

Most good new stuff is on t.v. anyways.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

.....why not redo the bad films and get it right this time?

 

That makes perfect sense ! There are so many bad ones out there, that a good re-make is the only way to go...the problem is, they would never admit to having made a 'bad movie' !

 

Twink

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am thinking about a remake of *Airport '77*. A luxurious 787 clips a giant offshore wind turbine and the plane loaded with Hollywood movers and shakers, the sierra club and assorted futurists and environmentalists winds up under water just off the SoCal shoreline. Any plan to raise the sunken airliner is complicated by a giant pod of dolphins swimming about over the plane. :^0 The dolphin pod is eventually dispersed with loudspeakers blasting La Boheme performed by Drew Barrymore at them. :^0

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I wonder what movie was remade the most, and which one was remade the quickest after the first virsion?

 

I think Madame X was remade the most, in various forms, and I recall a couple of movies made as silents in the late 20s, and early sound films in the early 30s, then remakes in the late 30s.

 

To Have and Have not has been remade 4 times, with 5 films in all being based on that Hemmingway story.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

To me it is too simplistic to say 'remake the bad movies, leave the good ones along'.

 

The key is why was a movie bad? Say the original story the movie is based on just isn't very good. Well it doesn't make a lot of sense to make a movie based on a poor original story.

 

To me the type of movies that make the best remakes are where the original story was strong but there were flaws in the screenplay, direction, casting, or strength of the actors.

 

As for remaking a good movie; Well one reason would be to make a more realist movie. In those good old days the censors would sometimes butcher a movie.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hey! We need a thread titled "WHICH WERE THE BEST REMAKES?"

 

For example, many people say the third version of THE MALTESE FALCON is the best.

 

I like the first version better.

 

All agree that the second version (with Bette Davis) was the worst.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's pretty obvious what is currently happening. Hollywood is headed torward the ash can of history. It's like Big Mac said to Roy Earle in High Sierra, *"Ya know Roy, all the A-1 guys are gone"* and they are. Who you have running Hollywood today is largely a result of an inter-Hollywood nepotism. Favoritism to relatives regardless of merit and we see the results: a now almost entirely exclusive fixation on the youngest demographic and a continued shameless catering to the lowest common denominator. Today it is near mindless cgi-impelled hyper-action kinetics with no real drama or substance. Todays Hollywood movers and shakers probably tell themselves if they're raking in the money they must be doing something right so never mind the mindless cgi, lack of story, characterizations or any intelligible viewpoint associated with the real world. The money's coming in so so what. What is there to be said or sung about Hollywood in 2013?...*"Show me the way da go home. I'm tired an' I wanna go da bed. I had a little drink about an hour ago an' it went straight to my head!..."* :_| :_| :_|

>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

>darkblue wrote: I liked 'The Beverly Hillbillies' (1993).

>

>I may be the only one. I thought Jim Varney did a great job playing Jed. His performance retained the character's natural dignity very nicely.

I like the inverse of the art forms. I like the Carol Burnett spoofs of the movies that were favorites:

 

Went With the Wind,

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IH6TBEbP77Q

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2Nt0yi4wbro

 

Double Calamity:

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

there's never been a truly great version of what some consider "The Greatest American Novel", The Great Gatsby, which is soon to have the latest movie redo in release. this will be a good test of the Siskel/Ebert idea, and if it's done right (which i hope for, but expect less from) maybe there's hope for "good", well made, thought provoking movies.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have come to the conclusion that adaptations are the best criteria for a remake, and a generation of time. *The Great Gatsby* fills both. I am a Leo fan, so I will be seeing it.

 

I do agree with most of what "FlyBack" says, and the real reason is money.

These remakes are easily accessible for rights, costs can be projected and it was a moneymaker historically, While we know it is not art, but cartoonish it will provide return on investment --until it doesn't.

 

Edited by: casablancalover2 on Apr 27, 2013 11:02 AM

Link to comment
Share on other sites

> {quote:title=FlyBackTransformer wrote:}{quote}It's pretty obvious what is currently happening. Hollywood is headed torward the ash can of history. It's like Big Mac said to Roy Earle in High Sierra, *"Ya know Roy, all the A-1 guys are gone"* and they are. Who you have running Hollywood today is largely a result of an inter-Hollywood nepotism. Favoritism to relatives regardless of merit and we see the results: a now almost entirely exclusive fixation on the youngest demographic and a continued shameless catering to the lowest common denominator. Today it is near mindless cgi-impelled hyper-action kinetics with no real drama or substance. Todays Hollywood movers and shakers probably tell themselves if they're raking in the money they must be doing something right so never mind the mindless cgi, lack of story, characterizations or any intelligible viewpoint associated with the real world. The money's coming in so so what. What is there to be said or sung about Hollywood in 2013?...*"Show me the way da go home. I'm tired an' I wanna go da bed. I had a little drink about an hour ago an' it went straight to my head!..."* :_| :_| :_|

 

I don't know what to say but "Agreed". 20 years ago I was a fairly regular film goer because I could usually find, several times a year, something that interested me. I think the beginning of the real end was 1996 when "Independence Day" came out. If Ed Wood would have had access to CGI, this is what he would have come up with . I wonder if there were no ways to substitute explosions and effects for story, would modern films be any better?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

!http://ts1.mm.bing.net/th?id=H.4904698991740412&pid=1.7&w=254&h=174&c=7&rs=1!th?id=H.4647297339425533&pid=1.7&w=264&h

 

Edited by: Geminigirl on Apr 27, 2013 12:47 PM

 

Edited by: Geminigirl on Apr 27, 2013 12:47 PM

 

I thought was the only one who didn't understand how Ms. Paltrow was awarded that honor! She's average looking. Scarlett Johansson and Marion Cotillard must not have been contenders (maybe these 2 ladies are previous winners). As with standards for film, standards for beauty have gone waaaaaaay down.........................

 

Edited by: Geminigirl on Apr 27, 2013 12:48 PM

 

Edited by: Geminigirl on Apr 27, 2013 12:54 PM

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That sounds about right. Film critics seems to me have been all awash, agog and generally head over heels puppy dog in love with cgi ever since Independence Day. Back in 1996 they couldn't praise that nonsense fast enough or enough times. It's like they were secretly saying "praise be to cgi and the heck with drama, story and substance anymore" For example, the marvel comics movies, Hollywood has taken to re-inventing comic book characters who were long established in comics for many decades like Nick Fury, agent of S.H.I.E.L.D. For decades in comic books he was a white guy with a 3-day beard and now he's black. Todays Hollywood has gone nuts and is re-inventing everything for the sole sake of their prize sucker meal tickets, our ipod and cell phone-toting younger demographic and the rest of us life-long space cadets are left to wonder and try to ponder.it all.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Remember this is just the opinion of the editors at People magazine. Since the vast majority of readers are older (say post 40), women, the choice of Ms. Paltrow or Jennifer Anderson (who has 'won' before), makes logical sense.

 

These type of women are safe choices in that actually 'average' women don't feel offended. Also, most of the time the winner is a mother. It should be obvious why that is a criteria.

 

Choices that a man would make (hot, very sexual, younger women, like Scarlett Johansson), wouldn't go over well with People's targeted audiance.

 

So the choice has NOTHING to do with standards of beauty. It has to do with marketing!

 

Also, Paltrow is the female lead in Iron Man 3, a movie that could be the biggest box office draw of 2013. I believe there is a tie in there as well.

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

h4. . . . Downton Abbey

Marketing is taken over everything these days. Salesmanship matters most, not substance. Walking past a Banana Republic would tell you that.

 

Unless the story can have some cross-promotion opportunities, it maybe less than desirable to produce.

 

h5. Although Onion News Empire and Betas look promising..

 

http://www.imdb.com/list/_3kS1P3Q3Mc/?ref_=hm_3p_vi2#lb-5

 

Edited by: casablancalover2 on Apr 27, 2013 3:43 PM

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, thanks for the explanation. It makes total sense. Although Marion Cotillard is a mom, her stunning beauty would intimidate some female readers. And Halle Berry is another good choice; she is over 40 and a mother, but I don't think she has a blockbuster movie about to be released. I'll remember this criteria when they choose the sexiest man alive.............................

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

I actually don't have anything against remakes. IF they're done well. The remake of *Ransom* had a better ending and a more believable mother figure ( I could never imagine MY mother, or my children's Mother collapsing into a catatonic state), so it worked out there. On the other hand, the remake of *D.O.A.* didn't fare so well.

 

 

Too many times, when someone tries to remake a movie, they try to change EVERYthing. Some might start out with a good concept, but start to fall apart shortly in. My best example of this is *The Day The Earth Stood Still* . I would have gotten someone else besides Keanu Reeves, and would have tried to stick as closely as possible to it's original conception. But they chose to go off in an absolutely absurd direction. Gort was TOO big, and I would imagine an advanced civilization could come up with a destructive power that was better than mechanical locusts. But that's me.

 

 

If I were in the business, and attempted to "remake" a classic like, say *On The Waterfront* , I would probably do it verbatim, just have it recast( obviously) and do it as a period piece. This is done all the time on stage. Nobody goes to a performance of *Hamlet* and walks out of the theater saying, "I don't think it was as good as the ORIGINAL!"

 

 

Sepiatone

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

© 2022 Turner Classic Movies Inc. All Rights Reserved Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Cookie Settings
×
×
  • Create New...