[MigueldaRican]

Originally Posted by MissionTrek08

The thing is, Z, that fact has NOTHING to do with remakes specifically. It's not like every original screenplay is gold-standard literature, and every remake script is crap. Hollywood product suffers from weaker screenwriting in general, compared to its past history. All hasten to add, American society suffers from weaker literacy as well, as so few people actually read today. Coincidence? I think not. Plenty of original scripts are also crap, but no one holds the same grudge against them because they are not remakes. It's a false standard for comparison. Hollywood needs to make less crappy films and more good films, period -- and as soon as people stop funding crap films at the box office by buying tickets, I'm sure Hollywood will follow the market. Until then...

[jerhanner]

Does that mean no more sequels to The Fast & the Furious? Hooray!

[horatio]

Originally Posted by MissionTrek08

Horatio, if you liked PJ's KONG at all, you really should see the original 1933 classic. You'll have to discount the world of difference in visual effects, but then again I bet you'll be might impressed at the effects demonstrated in the original considering it was over 70 years ago. I find the original's story much more involving than the remake, but then again KONG is one of the very first films I have memory of watching, and it got me interested in movies as a kid. Personal impressions aside, it's still a great film -- just be sure to see a good (recent) restoration of it.

Thanks for the tip, Mission

[Commodore]

Sometimes it's not so much the case of a remake having a bad script as having bad producers in charge. You can turn in a well-written and paced script only to have it totally hacked by producers who insist on "having more explosions here" or "let's put a lesbian nude scene there"--even if it's a remake of To Kill A Mockingbird. It's actually fairly common for the actual shooting script of a movie to be very different from the screenwriter's final draft of a screenplay. Sometimes even the endings are changed during production, much to the dismay of many screenwriters--and there's generally nothing they can do about it once they turn over the script to the producers and directors...

[kevin]

Originally Posted by jerhanner

Does that mean no more sequels to The Fast & the Furious? Hooray!

Maybe not after this summers 4th installment!

[Zardoz]

Originally Posted by MissionTrek08

The thing is, Z, that fact has NOTHING to do with remakes specifically. It's not like every original screenplay is gold-standard literature, and every remake script is crap. Hollywood product suffers from weaker screenwriting in general, compared to its past history. All hasten to add, American society suffers from weaker literacy as well, as so few people actually read today. Coincidence? I think not. Plenty of original scripts are also crap, but no one holds the same grudge against them because they are not remakes. It's a false standard for comparison. Hollywood needs to make less crappy films and more good films, period -- and as soon as people stop funding crap films at the box office by buying tickets, I'm sure Hollywood will follow the market. Until then...

I can agree with that. Why make a full turkey dinner, when you can serve spam and people will pay for it?

But it seems more like they are selling a "product" than a film.

Soem of these remakes have the feel of "brand recognition" more than genuinely remaking a film. While I wasn't a fan of the remake of Psycho, at least the director tried to make a good film, and tried not make the audience feel cheated. But anyone who saw the original 1960 version probably felt cheated anyway.

Seems there is a big lack of original ideas in films good, or bad.

[MissionTrek08]

Originally Posted by Zardoz

I can agree with that. Why make a full turkey dinner, when you can serve spam and people will pay for it?

But it seems more like they are selling a "product" than a film.

Soem of these remakes have the feel of "brand recognition" more than genuinely remaking a film. While I wasn't a fan of the remake of Psycho, at least the director tried to make a good film, and tried not make the audience feel cheated. But anyone who saw the original 1960 version probably felt cheated anyway.

Seems there is a big lack of original ideas in films good, or bad.

Agreed, but again the studios are fulfilling the market which shows up at theaters. When audiences demand more, studios will rise to the challenge... if only because they will go out of business if they don't.

My point is: the responsibility for 'crap' films being rewarded at the box office goes both ways. Don't expect studios to lead audiences out of their comfort zone, it must work the other way around. Studios are very comfortable making money, and very uncomfortable making films no one goes to see. But they make the smaller 'art' film which earns $38 million anyway, and pay for it by releasing Sequel Part Four-The Movie which earns $200 million, because people show up for Part Four just like they did for One, Two and Three.

[martok2112]

Movies you know they'll NEVER make a sequel to:

Gandhi.
Passion of the Christ.
Lion of the Desert.
Patton.


(just to name a few)

[Elizadolots]

I think if they can bring something new to the story, there's nothing inherently wrong with remaking a movie. If it can be re-invented to fit a new time, for example, that can make it more contemporary and interesting to a younger audience.

Heaven Can Wait is a remake of Here Comes Mr. Jordan, but it brought the story into a modern context and was, frankly, far funnier.

I guess there's some sort of "finality" that comes with putting something on film, but I do find it odd that no one ever complains about a play being re-staged.

Maybe the problem is many remakes don't bother to find anything new in the original source material and that sort of taints the whole concept of "remake".

[kevin]

Originally Posted by martok2112

Movies you know they'll NEVER make a sequel to:

Passion of the Christ.

So that episode of Family Guy was wrong?