• Forum Moderator applications are now open! If you're interested in joining an active team of moderators for one of the biggest Pokémon forums on the internet, click here for info.

2005: The year of the remake

Status
Not open for further replies.
A

Alabaster.j.cat

I go *Bang*!
Joined
Jun 1, 2004
Messages
802
Reaction score
9
Hollywood has gotten so unoriginal this year. Their are hardly any movies that have a genuinely original theme to them. Already this year we've had The Honeymooners, Batman Begins, Bewitched, Herbie: Fully Loaded, The Longest Yard, Mr. and Mrs. Smith, and House of Wax. With War of the Worlds, The Dukes of Hazzard, The Bad News Bears, and Fantastic 4 all on their way through the end of august. All Remakes of some sort.

I'm not trying to bash these movies, but saying I want to see a DECENT movie that has an original story line. There are a few movies that stand their ground as original stories but I think the movie industry is starting a cycle of bad sequels and more future remakes. Just give me your thoughts?

Note: I put this in Debate cause im not exactly sure where to put this, but im positive that something will start over this.
 
This is a nostalga year. Sure they're a bunch of remakes but the fans love them. I personally intend to see Fantastic 4 and World of the Worlds.

And we've had great original this year and last year.
 
Don't forget Charlie and the Chocolate factory. That would be a remake of the original Willy Wonka.
 
Fantastic Four's not technically a remake. It's just a better version of the Corman film that came out in 1994 and was never released. It's on bootleg and it is BAD. You can get it online but why would you want to?

Anyway, the current Fantastic Four's not really a remake since the other FF movie wasn't released.
 
Don't forget Charlie and the Chocolate factory. That would be a remake of the original Willy Wonka.
Click to expand...

No, it's not a remake. It's a retelling of the same book - which is why it's so different. Calling it a remake would be like calling Schindler's List and Pearl Harbor remakes of eachother because they're based on the same war . . .
 
Zeta said:
No, it's not a remake. It's a retelling of the same book - which is why it's so different. Calling it a remake would be like calling Schindler's List and Pearl Harbor remakes of eachother because they're based on the same war . . .
Click to expand...


It's not a remake, but its not an original story line either. For the most part we all know whats happens if we've seent the original. They jsut added Johnny Depp, Threw in a darker look, and made it a comedy pretty much from the looks of it.
 
Out of the list you initially posted, I'd say that Mr. and Mrs. Smith is fairly original, although I believe it's a reworking of another film or book. And what about other films that don't have 'blockbuster' status like the following:

Cinderella Man
Howl's Moving Castle
The Sisterhood of the Traveling Pants (based on a book)
The Adventures of Sharkboy and Lavagirl
Madagascar
 
...

In the movie industry, the gross output per year involves about 70% "remakes" as you put it.

In fact these aren't remakes. They are called adaptations. Seriously, on average, 70% of movies in a given year are adaptations of another source. Whether they be literal, loose or in the middle, adaptations are the best source of film.

Screen writers do this because screen writing for the publich is a very hard talent especially with the constantly changing social demographic.

And charlie and the chocolate factory isn't adapted of the film but of hte obok. The original film wasn't e ven endoresed by Roald Dahl because it seemed too gene wilder-centric. And it was. hell the movie was called Charlie and the chocolate factory.

Mr. & Mrs. smith: isn't an adaptation of anything. There was a hitchock comedy in the fourties by the same name. But it wasn't ab out spies, but a screwball comedy. There was even another movie in '96 with scott bakula and someone else, but that was about two spies posing as husband and wife during assignments. So, the only way I could call it an adaptation is that they took the name.


Also, if you feel that these movies are unoriginal don't watch them. And form the post you've made, it's apparent you ahven't seen the originals. So why comment on these "remakes."
 
As far as sequels go, that is where a lot of films make obscenely huge amounts of money. That's why you'll see films as franchises, notably involving superheroes (Spider-Man, Fantastic Four, etc) and literature (LotR, Narnia).

I agree that there's a lack of originality in Hollywood. That's partially why I enjoy classic films such as 'Casablanca' and 'Key Largo'. Heck, even 'Ghostbusters' was original.
 
I am not completely bashing all new release and such i am just saying that the character, and storyline are no longer original. Up until around 2002 things were going fine in hollywood. Saving Private Ryan, O Brother Where art thou? , The Pianist, Spirited Away, Schindler's List, LOTR, ect were all 90's or early 00's movie that i feel were some of the best (personal opinion) ever made in the past 15 years. Because even though they were based on Books, historical events, or if they were completely original they created original characters, and a great storyline.

Not saying that these "Summer Blockbuster" will be horrible movies, I am stating that they are taking past hits (Bewitched, Honeymooners) or great comic book heros (Fantastic 4) and turning them into something that, if not staying to the original theme, will bomb in the theatre if fans are not satisfied by how they have been remade.
 
They bring back movies that brought in a lot of money, it is a simple bring back the winning forumla's. I mean look at Spiderman, they were dead on and made millions and even more with the sequel.

People love seeing classics revisted, thats just common sense.
 
Don't see Bewitched. Bad, bad, bad.

BTW, Howl's Moving Castle is also based on a book.
 
That's especially true when it comes to films about comic book superheroes. Ledian_X would agree. Their fanbase is fiercely loyal. If you're going to make a film about any given superhero, make sure you know what the hell you're getting yourself into.
 
Barb said:
That's especially true when it comes to films about comic book superheroes. Ledian_X would agree. Their fanbase is fiercely loyal. If you're going to make a film about any given superhero, make sure you know what the hell you're getting yourself into.
Click to expand...

Exactly. For every GOOD comic book movie, there's AT LEAST one bad one. And I'm not talking about opinion, I'm talking about a movie that 99% of the public found bad, and didn't do too well in the box office. For Spider-Man and Spider-Man 2, you have the ORIGINAL Spider-Man movie (which ACTUALLY wasn't that bad) and the last Hulk movie (so...mind-blowingly bad). For X-Men and X-Men 2, you have Captain America (wtf...an ITALIAN Red Skull?) and Batman and Robin. For Fantastic Four, you have the original, which was apparently SO bad, that they couldn't even release it.

But, the super-hero thing is a fad. People will get sick, and they'll stop being made. Same with the fad that Narnia is riding. Eventually people will get sick of seeing grand sweeping trilogies (because people are stupid). Personally, I LOVED the Narnia books, and cannot WAIT for the movies...but I just have a bad feeling about it, box office-wise.

As for the issue of remakes and adaptions. I don't mind them...unless they're based on TV shows. They always suck. Horribly. So very few exceptions.
 
With the sweeping success of Peter Jackson's LotR trilogy, I'm sure the producers of Narnia are hoping that lightning strikes twice. Literary adaptations tend to fall into two classes: (a) doing justice to the original work or (b) the book was better.
 
True, but movie-goers usually haven't read the book, at least the vast majority. Personally, I thought LotR was better than the movie, but look at the success. I highly doubt Narnia will be any different. I miss the old cartoon version. That was good.
 
That all depends on the book. Jaws was a bestseller and the movie was a blockbuster, despite having deviated significantly from the book in terms of plot. But it was general fiction and both LotR and Narnia are fantasy/sci-fi, which has a more loyal but less populated fanbase. Dune is an example of the "b" scenario I posted above. Everyone who's seen that film has told me to read the book instead.

The cartoon version of Narnia was great. However, the cartoon version of LotR sucked big time.
 
GrnMarvl13 said:
Exactly. For every GOOD comic book movie, there's AT LEAST one bad one. And I'm not talking about opinion, I'm talking about a movie that 99% of the public found bad, and didn't do too well in the box office. For Spider-Man and Spider-Man 2, you have the ORIGINAL Spider-Man movie (which ACTUALLY wasn't that bad) and the last Hulk movie (so...mind-blowingly bad). For X-Men and X-Men 2, you have Captain America (wtf...an ITALIAN Red Skull?) and Batman and Robin. For Fantastic Four, you have the original, which was apparently SO bad, that they couldn't even release it.
Click to expand...

You're forgetting two just plain screwed up pieces of crap, Daredevil and its spin-off/Sequel (Technically) Elektra. Both should have never been released.
 
Alabaster.j.cat said:
You're forgetting two just plain screwed up pieces of crap, Daredevil and its spin-off/Sequel (Technically) Elektra. Both should have never been released.
Click to expand...

Personally, I kinda liked Daredevil. Not as much as X-Men, but more than Spider-Man. But that's just me. In terms of a general audience, you're completely right, neither should have been released. BUT I DARE you to find a Marvel movie worse than Man-Thing. Past, present, OR future. NOTHING can beat it in terms of pure crap.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom