Your Unpopular TV/Film opinions.

[Exhuminator]

Let's reboot the forum with more lens flare.

[Segata]

More. It needs much more. I can still read his name.

[Ack]

You guys act like Hollywood hasn't been remaking the same stories over and over again for a century.

Do you know how many film versions there are of Dracula? Frankenstein? The works of Edgar Allen Poe? How often The Odyssey gets remade? Even The Wizard of Oz was a remake(the first version released in 1910) that was based on a book.

Shoot, how many Academy Award winners have been remakes or adaptations?

All Quiet on the Western Front is based on the book.
Cimarron is based on a novel.
Grand Hotel is based on a play, which was based on a novel.
Cavalcade is based on a play.
It Happened One Night is based on a short story.
Mutiny on the Bounty is based on a novel.
The Great Ziegfeld is a cinematic adaptation of the Ziegfeld Follies and a biographical work.
The Life of Emile Zola is a biographical work.
You Can't Take It with You is based on a play.
Gone with the Wind is based on a novel.
Rebecca is based on a novel.
How Green Was My Valley is based on a novel.
Mrs. Miniver is based on a novel.
Casablanca is based on an unproduced play.
Going My Way is based on a short story.
The Lost Weekend is based on a novel.
Gentleman's Agreement is based on a novel.
Hamlet is from Shakespeare.
All the King's Men is based on a novel.
All About Eve is based on a short story.
An American in Paris is inspired by an orchestral composition.
From Here to Eternity is based on a novel.
Marty is a remake of a teleplay.
Around the World in 80 Days is based on a novel.
The Bridge on the River Kwai is based on a novel.
Gigi is based on a novella.
Ben-Hur is a remake of a silent film.
West Side Story is an adaptation of a play.

You know what? I'm gonna stop at this point. This is just from the foundation of the Academy Awards in 1927/1928 to 1961. That's 34 total Best Picture winners, of which 28 are adaptations or remakes. This isn't new, and it won't stop any time soon.

[Segata]

But only in the last 15 years or so has hollywood relied so heavily on them. 80s and 90s relied mostly on original films. It had plenty of sequels and some remakes but it still balanced out.
It's not balanced these days. Seems almost every week we hear about another 10-15-20 or 30 year old film being rebooted and remade. The worst part is most the time they are so half assed.

[Exhuminator]

Movies based on books or plays is to be expected.

Remaking Ghostbusters was not necessary.

[Ack]

I don't think so. I just think now we're old enough to notice and see the cycle repeat itself or understand the works that are being adapted. And with over a century of cinema under its belt, Hollywood can look back to popular films and remake those as well.

Take the 1990s for instance. Here's the list of Best Picture winners at the Academy Awards for 1990-2000:

Dances with Wolves - Based on a novel.
The Silence of the Lambs - Based on a novel.
Unforgiven
Schindler's List - Based on a novel.
Forrest Gump - Based on a novel.
Braveheart - Based on an (biographical) epic poem.
The English Patient - Based on a novel.
Titanic - Fictionalized historical event.
Shakespeare in Love - Fictionalized biography based heavily on Shakespeare's plays.
American Beauty
Gladiator

Movies based on books or plays is to be expected.

Remaking Ghostbusters was not necessary.

Why not? It was released 30 years ago and made a lot of money. Why not remake it? What makes it so sacred that it shouldn't be touched?

[fastbilly1]

Y Even The Wizard of Oz was a remake(the first version released in 1910) that was based on a book.

A different telling of a common story is not a remake. Then again the 80s version is better:


Ghostbusters wasnt a remake it was a reboot. Those are very different things. A remake would be like Gone in 60 Seconds.

[Speedy-Mcspeedz]

I don't think so. I just think now we're old enough to notice and see the cycle repeat itself or understand the works that are being adapted. And with over a century of cinema under its belt, Hollywood can look back to popular films and remake those as well.

Take the 1990s for instance. Here's the list of Best Picture winners at the Academy Awards for 1990-2000:

Dances with Wolves - Based on a novel.
The Silence of the Lambs - Based on a novel.
Unforgiven
Schindler's List - Based on a novel.
Forrest Gump - Based on a novel.
Braveheart - Based on an (biographical) epic poem.
The English Patient - Based on a novel.
Titanic - Fictionalized historical event.
Shakespeare in Love - Fictionalized biography based heavily on Shakespeare's plays.
American Beauty
Gladiator

Movies based on books or plays is to be expected.

Remaking Ghostbusters was not necessary.

Why not? It was released 30 years ago and made a lot of money. Why not remake it? What makes it so sacred that it shouldn't be touched?

Book to film adaptations are expected. Its another way to experience the fiction and bring it to life. Never before has hollywood relied on nostalgia or past success so much and I for one am growing tired of this cash safety net they've put in place. This is how any industry starts to decay.

[Exhuminator]

Never before has Hollywood relied on nostalgia or past success so much and I for one am growing tired of this cash safety net

I agree with you. The ratio is too high. Also sequelitis.

Thankfully there are still great (and unique) films being made outside Hollywood.

[fastbilly1]

Ack is right that there have always been remakes, but sequels have gotten worse recently (we did not need three Starship Trooper movies). The problem is, most investors will not give money to a film unless it is a sure bet. I mean there have been plenty of films that have flopped that should have been big. The Wizard of Oz had huge named talents, a bulletproof rewrite of a classic book, an exceptional crew, and the film barely broke even and was considered a box office flop. Blade Runner did not even break even - which is one of the reasons it took them 30 years to make a true sequel. Shawshank flopped in the box office and was considered a commercial failure, despite critical acclaim. Granted all three of those made it back in rentals and syndication (Wizard of Oz became THE Thanksgiving/Christmas movie in the 60s). But to take some more recent examples - Hugo was a masterpiece, which did not even bring back half of its budget in the box office. Shoot 'em up is John Wick minus Keanu and more comedy and it barely got to half, where as John Wick did gangbusters. So when something that has a solid cast and crew fails, you too would be gunshy to drop big money.

Sure outside of Hollywood there are some great productions, but until the big monsters grasp is broken, they will still hold the cards. It is going to take something huge to change that. Internet movie creation and distribution was not big enough to shake it, I have no idea what will. And dont think just because they are making films in other parts of the USA, Hollywood is still calling the shots. The movie industry is like a traveling circus. Once the tax credits go away, they pull up stakes and move to the next town.