Has Hollywood lost it?

[GhostPoet]

There is something about Hollywood that has really been amazing me…and not in a good way. It’s more like an amazed horror. Kind of like seeing a bloody car wreck and not being able to turn away.
Hollywood is obsessed with remakes, reboots and repeats. They keep recycling everything in hopes to find the next big money maker. But why? Why do this when there are so many great novels out there that would make fantastic films if done right?

Why do films like Priest keep getting made when novels like the Dragonlance series are ignored? So much obviously potential is out there…but Hollywood is stuck doing the same old thing, unwilling to look at their other options. What is going on out there in Hollywood??

 

[Lord]

I think the video game Doom had the potential to become a great horror film, but hey, it sucked.

 

[tecnowraith]

want them to make crappy reboots, remakes and repeats or make poor, crappy, b**tardized adaptations of good novels, comics and video games?

 

[Laderlappen]

No. Even though there's a lot of remakes and sequels made by hollywood, its still a small number compared to the movies that are not sequels or remakes.

 

[TX85]

A lot of people love to hate on Hollywood,I think they deserve some love&credit,I may not agree on A lot of decisions made But Hollywood overall on there on.....I still f'n love movies!!!!

 

[bullets]

No. Even though there's a lot of remakes and sequels made by hollywood, its still a small number compared to the movies that are not sequels or remakes.

Until next year when like 90 percent of the films fall under this category.

It's like nowadays everything you see might get a sequel if it makes money.

 

[Kahran Ramsus]

It isn't just that they like doing remakes, but they do it in the worst possible way.

There are a lot of good concepts out there that didn't make good films that easily could if it was handled better. Instead, they always want to remake the beloved classics that work because a whole slew of things came together at the right time and it worked. Then they take that classic and they make some monumentally stupid decisions with it. Not only will they remake Jaws (a bad idea in the first place), but they will cast Channing Tatum as Quint and have it directed by McG instead of somebody who knows what they are doing.

 

[8wid]

I n fact did just read that 2011 has the most sequels of any year in cinematic history. The reason that more books and other works are not adapted is because they have to be potentially successful in similar audience that goes to see movies for entertainment and can be interpreted as a passive experience and at the same time make money.

 

[WarBlade]

Hollywood is obsessed with remakes, reboots and repeats. They keep recycling everything in hopes to find the next big money maker. But why?

Because the financial side of the business is splashing out large sums and they want to stick to things that are proven, rather than gamble with things that aren't.

An interesting case example was Lord of the Rings. Fantasy movies kept winding up as low budget slop, so nobody wanted touch it. New Line bucked the trend on that film deal possibly in light of the bankability of adapting one of the world's most popular books. So the gamble was partly on the book, rather than entirely on the film genre.

Why do films like Priest keep getting made when novels like the Dragonlance series are ignored?

Dragonlance is an ensemble cast, exotic locations, and a huge special effects budget. If you had to budget those two side by side you'd have Dragonlance being three times the cost of Priest, per movie. That's assuming it gets done right and the film makers head into a trilogy commitment. Dragonlance might be cool, but I can see it easily just becoming another Eragon.

 

[Laderlappen]

Until next year when like 90 percent of the films fall under this category.

It's like nowadays everything you see might get a sequel if it makes money.

Are you sure, or are most of the movies next year you so far know about happen to be sequels?

 

[bullets]

Are you sure, or are most of the movies next year you so far know about happen to be sequels?

Not saying this in a begrudging way but , I'm sure. There is a good article on it but I didn't save the link. I'll just let the year speak for itself. I'm also calling 2012 year of the sequel / re imaginings. I think the Hunger Games will be one of the most successful original titles (Although It feels like a remake of Battle Royale-hope I'm wrong) .

 

[:eek:]

Well, let's see... the most successful movie this year so far (worldwide) is Pirates of the Caribbean. Want Hollywood to stop making these things? Stop watching them. It's as simple as that.

 

[Yurka]

Its just "lazy" writing, they stick to formulas they know work instead of taking artistic and financial risks.

 

[The Morningstar]

They're just pandering to the consumer. They want to make money right?

 

[dark_b]

are we talking about big budget(risky for studios who pay 200 millions) movies or small original movies that get made every year?

 

[dark_b]

Until next year when like 90 percent of the films fall under this category.

It's like nowadays everything you see might get a sequel if it makes money.

what had a bigger chance to make money?
a sequel to Hangover or an original comedy with a new cast and new story?

if hollywood needs to make a sequel to batman 3 and Hangover to give me original movies like Inception where the director has freedom and a big budget then F..... YEAH


i would also like more original movies and less sequels with the same plot. but the general public pays for sequels and remakes.

 

[marvelman2006]

what had a bigger chance to make money?
a sequel to Hangover or an original comedy with a new cast and new story?

if hollywood needs to make a sequel to batman 3 and Hangover to give me original movies like Inception where the director has freedom and a big budget then F..... YEAH


i would also like more original movies and less sequels with the same plot. but the general public pays for sequels and remakes.

AGREED, its all just business anyway. Sure we get the endless sequels each year and after the sequels are done then they reboot them but its the times we live in and the climate of the industry. Its sad because most sequels suck and when gems like inception, district 9, inglorious bastards, tropic thunder and others come along it feels special because there rare birds.

I said to my wife on monday night that you know the studio exec's are licking there chops right now at a hangover 3. It just speaks volumes when 2011 is the summer that has the most sequels to date.

 

[bullets]

what had a bigger chance to make money?
a sequel to Hangover or an original comedy with a new cast and new story?

if hollywood needs to make a sequel to batman 3 and Hangover to give me original movies like Inception where the director has freedom and a big budget then F..... YEAH


i would also like more original movies and less sequels with the same plot. but the general public pays for sequels and remakes.

I'm not against the idea of a sequel or a remake but I can see where an over abundance of them becomes a problem. The studios are making money and there's no reason for them to change the tide. So we could get to the point where the same things every year because there's no limit. Now instead of trilogies it's turning into saga's. Also they might use the Bond approach on a lot of films , I think they're doing this with Bourne and M.I.
Now when we do get an original film that rocks it does feel special but what happens when they make a sequel to that. There's been talk of a District 9 sequel and something like that might be better as a standalone.
I'm not worn out by it but I can see how some people might be.

 

[redhawk23]

A crap ton of movies in the silent era were adaptations of books and plays. A number of movies from the 30s and 40s were sound remakes of silent films. The 1950s brought on remakes and sequels of horror films from the 30s. Some of the greatest westerns of the 1960's and 70s were remakes of Japanese films. In the 70s and 80s and the beginnings of blockbusters we had movies that were made as purposful homages to movie serials from the 30s, 40s, and 50s. The 80s brought us slasherfilm after slasherfilm. In the past 20 years we've seen most of the old tropes get worn out and many films become self-aware and "ironic" in their use of them. In the past 10 years there have been a lot of pre-planned franchises, and re-used properties. Throughout all of this, for basically the past century, the film industry in general, and Hollywood in particular has adapted all it could, be it books, plays, legends, religion, radio serials, tvshows, comics and of course other movies. None of this is new. At all.

Also you're miffed because Hollywood adapted one property instead of another? Its not like they're on Priest 7.

 

[MadVillainy]

Hollywood hasnt lost it. People just b**** too much

 

[KenK]

Hollywood hasnt lost it. People just b**** too much

Thank you. I get tired of being the one to say it whenever these types of threads go up (all the f***in' time!)

 

[BAH HUMBBUG!]

There is something about Hollywood that has really been amazing me…and not in a good way. It’s more like an amazed horror. Kind of like seeing a bloody car wreck and not being able to turn away.
Hollywood is obsessed with remakes, reboots and repeats. They keep recycling everything in hopes to find the next big money maker. But why? Why do this when there are so many great novels out there that would make fantastic films if done right?

Why do films like Priest keep getting made when novels like the Dragonlance series are ignored? So much obviously potential is out there…but Hollywood is stuck doing the same old thing, unwilling to look at their other options. What is going on out there in Hollywood??

Are you really surprised? It's all about money and why risk putting millions of dollars into movies that might fail to turn a profit. It's a formula and they know how to execute it. It also has to do in large part in what audiences want to pay for and just look at the box office.

Take a look at your local theatre that plays independent films and look up how much they gross. Compare them to the quality of movies that are big budget, big money moneymakers.

There are exceptions to the rule, but in general Hollywood knows exactly what it's doing. So no, they haven't lost it.

 

[Laderlappen]

Not saying this in a begrudging way but , I'm sure. There is a good article on it but I didn't save the link. I'll just let the year speak for itself. I'm also calling 2012 year of the sequel / re imaginings. I think the Hunger Games will be one of the most successful original titles (Although It feels like a remake of Battle Royale-hope I'm wrong) .

Maybe you are right, I havent thought about how many sequels and remakes are coming out in 2012.

Hollywood hasnt lost it. People just b**** too much

There are just as much crap today as there there has even been. People just forget old bad movies.

 

[Cherry]

A crap ton of movies in the silent era were adaptations of books and plays. A number of movies from the 30s and 40s were sound remakes of silent films. The 1950s brought on remakes and sequels of horror films from the 30s. Some of the greatest westerns of the 1960's and 70s were remakes of Japanese films. In the 70s and 80s and the beginnings of blockbusters we had movies that were made as purposful homages to movie serials from the 30s, 40s, and 50s. The 80s brought us slasherfilm after slasherfilm. In the past 20 years we've seen most of the old tropes get worn out and many films become self-aware and "ironic" in their use of them. In the past 10 years there have been a lot of pre-planned franchises, and re-used properties. Throughout all of this, for basically the past century, the film industry in general, and Hollywood in particular has adapted all it could, be it books, plays, legends, religion, radio serials, tvshows, comics and of course other movies. None of this is new. At all.

Also you're miffed because Hollywood adapted one property instead of another? Its not like they're on Priest 7.

This. Hollywood is a business, and businesses are designed to make money. No money, no movies. And name recognition has a built-in audience.

We are looking at the past with rose-colored glasses. There was plenty of crap pre-1980s, but we only tend to remember the most amazing (or in some cases, the most terrible) films in history. I bet if you were around in 1940 going to the cinema you'd think there was a lot of crap too. Present-day Hollywood does tend to make a handful of amazing films every year, and those are the ones that will be remembered most in 50 years, not the crap.

 

[dark_b]

we shouldnt complain that hollywood (studios ) are only doing remakes,sequels and adaptations.

we should cmplain that directors who have freedom to do whatever movie they want, do sequels,remakes,adaptations.

lets take a look at Fincher. yeah you dont want to hear it. but here it goes. he is making The girl with the dragon tattoo. first movie was realesed 2 years ago. you also have Matt Reeves. a guy who has potential. but what was hes second movie? Let me in.i dont care about Speilberg. when he was young he made enough original movies.

i am still waiting for Jackson to do something more original. ohhhhhh but whait. he is doing The Hobbit 1 and 2. so in 10 years he will realese 5 LOTR movies. i dont f... .care how good LOT is. Hobbit was for del Toro and Raimi. hungry directors.

i bow down to you Nolan. your comicbook movie made a lot of money. so after TDK you made your dream ORIGINAL (not based on books,tvshow,...) movie. hallelluja.