Has Hollywood lost it?

[marvelman2006]

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.

Awesome point there. Peter jackson has yet to impress me with any of his work, I commend him for loosing a ton of weight though.

Sad to say this but I like michael bay for movies of his like the rock, armageddon and the island because there big budget action summer movies that arent sequels or remakes. Movies I like watching from directors who have a set and tell studios what they want to make are james cameron, christopher nolan, stephen spielberg and michael bay. I might maybe include M night on this list for the sixth sense and unbreakable.

 

[KenK]

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.

Congratulations for having the most pompous post of this thread.

You call out Matt Reeves for doing one remake, when his previous film was Cloverfield, while influenced by the whole "Giant Monster Attacks City" concept, was definitely an original film.

You don't care if Peter Jackson's Lord of the Rings films are genuinely good films, you just believe other directors should be making the Hobbit films. And I'm sorry, Del Toro and Raimi (director of the multi-million dollar blockbuster Spider-Man films) haven't been "hungry directors" for a while.

"I bow down to you Nolan."? I swear to God, if you removed the bat films from Nolan's filmography, you wouldn't have nearly as many people on his dick as there already are. I think people would still regard him as a good director, but I swear, the way fanboys have deified him, it's quite frankly sad.

 

[dark_b]

yes i went there.

and i am in noooo way a Nolan fanatic.

 

[KenK]

Yeah, that's why you liken him to a theological figure you bow to and sing praise to.

 

[dark_b]

i bow down to Bay for having real humans jump out of a plane and flying down through chicago skycrapers. that doent mean that i think he is god

 

[terry78]

There is a much larger scope of classic and film favorites that were adaptations or remakes than people assume.

 

[Kahran Ramsus]

There is a much larger scope of classic and film favorites that were adaptations or remakes than people assume.

Yes, but they weren't remaking beloved classics. That's the difference. Remaking The Maltese Falcon in 1941 was brilliant. Remaking it in 2011 would be stupid.

 

[Mrs. Sawyer]

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.

And there's your answer for why the aforementioned 2 are making their respective movies. For leverage.

And why not make something based on a book or tv show. They like doing it, and the people like it. So why not? I view it as pretentious whenever someone complains about that. The sequel/remakes I can totally understand complaints, but complaining about adaptations being made is the equilvalent of b***hing just to be b***hing.

God, adaptations have been made since the beginning of film. Get over it.

 

[MadVillainy]

You know I just saw X-Men FC last night and it was awesome. Guess what? It was an adaptation, prequel, and even to some people it was a reboot.
The movie I saw before that was Thor. An adaptation.
Before that? Fast Five a sequel

All those movies were good, fun, or both.

It shouldnt matter what something is as long as it's good. Besides most classic movies are adaptation. If people were in the mindset of less adaptations so many good movies wouldnt have existed.

That being said, instead of worrying about what a movie is we should be complaining about the talent that is allowed.
Uwe Boll has gotten terrible reviews for most of his movie and they dont make that much money. And yet he gets a steady stream of projects.
Another director example, the guy who directed Legion and Priest. Both films panned at the box office, neither of them made that much money and yet I hear that he was hired to do the Mortal Instruments movie adaptation. Why?

Actor example, Alex Pettyfer is a bad actor. Even more than that he has called Hollywood a dirty sesspool, threw tantrums on set, and was just an overall d*** and yet he still gets projects.
What about Taylor Lautner. I thought maybe it's just Twilight that made him look bad (because there are good actors in Twilight who look like sh** because of the writing) but I saw the trailer for his new movie Abduction and although it was a trailer, he looks TERRIBLE in it. No facial expression, no change in his voice. And the thing about it is that the script is pretty good. If they got a good young actor or at least decent one like Logan Lerman, Josh Hutcherson, or some other young actor they couldve had a good property. But no they gave it to Lautner.

Why do these people get work? There is talent out there that Hollywood isnt discovering or using. Forget about what a movie is, worry about the talent. Remake, original, reboot WHATEVER just get some good people in there. They could tell me 5 years later that theyre remaking Twilight, but say Christopher Nolan is directing (dont flip out it's just an example) and I'll see it because he has talent

 

[Mrs. Sawyer]

Congratulations for having the most pompous post of this thread.

This. God, that post is annoying.

 

[ALP]

Hollywood hasn't lost it or even gained it. They're steadily in the same position as always. And that is a mixed bag.

Every few years there are just the annoying 'fad films'... right now it's fairy tale movies and vampire movies. And it's not that they're fads...it's that they're simply all really bad movies.

 

[Mrs. Sawyer]

Another thing I want to add is that I don't care about sequels and remakes either. I'm a guy who simply loves seeing good movies, whether original (a term that's getting thrown around so much that's it starting to become pretentiously annoying) or not, and many people do.

 

[Mrs. Sawyer]

Hollywood hasn't lost it or even gained it. They're steadily in the same position as always. And that is a mixed bag.

Every few years there are just the annoying 'fad films'... right now it's fairy tale movies and vampire movies. And it's not that they're fads...it's that they're simply all really bad movies.

This too. I love the amount of sensible posts in this thread.

Hollywood has always been the same. A business, and though business tactics change, Hollywood is always in it to make money.

 

[Mrs. Sawyer]

One more point: Liking a movie for being original instead of liking it because of quality is pretentious. There's no beating around the bush, or anything other analogy you want to use. It's pretentious.

According to that Logic, I should like the Room more than the Godfather or TDK because the Godfather is an adaptation and TDK is a sequel.

 

[ALP]

They take a gamble and see if it pays off. Alice in Wonderland cost about $200 Million and made a billion so we get Red Riding Hood, two Snow White, and who knows what else.

On the other hand Universal spent $150M on the Wolfman and it flopped. Had it been a big success we'd already have rushed updates of Dracula, Frankenstein, and Invisible Man.

Like you said Parker Wayne, the most important thing is to just make a good film regardless of what the source is. I wouldn't be complaining about Twilight or Red Riding Hood or Transformers II if they were good films.

 

[BAH HUMBBUG!]

One more point: Liking a movie for being original instead of liking it because of quality is pretentious. There's no beating around the bush, or anything other analogy you want to use. It's pretentious.

According to that Logic, I should like the Room more than the Godfather or TDK because the Godfather is an adaptation and TDK is a sequel.

I like original movies, but, if they suck I just appreciate the original idea or concept. I don't just flat out like them because they're original.

 

[Mrs. Sawyer]

Original concept or not doesn't matter to me. It's the execution that's most important and if the execution is bad it doesn't matter how original the concept is.

And it's not you I'm talking about Humbug. I'm talking about Marvelman's post about liking Bay only only because they aren't a sequel or remake.

 

[BAH HUMBBUG!]

Oh I know you're not, just thought I would add my two shiny cents.

As for Bay, he makes big budget explosive movies. That's it, that's all he's got.

Pearl Harbor was atrocious.

 

[Mrs. Sawyer]

One thing I admire about Bay is that while his movies may not always be good, he's goes down swinging everytime by making his films events, with high production values and explosions. That's one of the few things I like about Bay. That and this commercial.

[YT]lXRCf9LbLM0[/YT]

 

[BAH HUMBBUG!]

One thing I admire about Bay is that while his movies may not always be good, he's goes down swinging everytime by making his films events, with high production values and explosions. That's one of the few things I like about Bay. That and this commercial.

[YT]lXRCf9LbLM0[/YT]

LOL! Okay he gets some cred for that commercial.

 

[Mrs. Sawyer]

The way he says awesome makes it hilarious

 

[BAH HUMBBUG!]

Word dough

 

[Tron Bonne]

One more point: Liking a movie for being original instead of liking it because of quality is pretentious. There's no beating around the bush, or anything other analogy you want to use. It's pretentious.

According to that Logic, I should like the Room more than the Godfather or TDK because the Godfather is an adaptation and TDK is a sequel.

Hmm, no, I think I may have to disagree with this. At least to a point. I mean, yeah, I get what you're saying, but at the same time, I really don't see why it's so pretentious to enjoy something's concept enough to enough the film even if it's not a great film. Case in point for me, Sucker Punch. In the end, it's not that good of a film. I'd argue it's not quite horrible or anything, but I was pretty drawn in by the fact that it was pretty different from anything else out there. The fact that it was original helped me appreciate it more, and therefore like it (or at least like it more than I would if were just a standard action film with the same general plot). I don't see how doing so implies some kind of elevation above the crowd or any particular self-importance, which is what being pretentious is all about.

Of course, you're example there borders more on liking something because it's original over something that's not that's better, which yeah, but your first sentiment is a lot broader than that.

 

[Anita18]

One thing I admire about Bay is that while his movies may not always be good, he's goes down swinging everytime by making his films events, with high production values and explosions. That's one of the few things I like about Bay. That and this commercial.

[YT]lXRCf9LbLM0[/YT]

That was the highlight of my very crummy week. Thanks!

 

[ALP]

One thing I admire about Bay is that while his movies may not always be good, he's goes down swinging everytime by making his films events, with high production values and explosions. That's one of the few things I like about Bay. That and this commercial.

[YT]lXRCf9LbLM0[/YT]

Never thought I'd like Bay, even for a moment.

I was wrong