Hollywood Remakes

S

Sammi

New member
Am I the only one who's getting fed up of Hollywood spurning out remakes of films that aren't that old?

Obviously there running out of ideas if they're having to remake films that aren't even twenty years old.

Films such as Robocop and Escape from New York don't need remakes and I can't believe there even pondering over a remake of Leon (1994).

I'm just keeping my eyes open for remakes of Evil Dead, Top Gun and Groundhog Day to surface. :rolleyes:
 
I dont understand why they always remake the good films as wouldnt it make more sense to remake the bad films and try to improve on them!
 
Oh bloody hell! Its even got Raimi at the helm again. They must be paying him good to remake his own film. :rolleyes:

It won't be long before we'll see Stallone playing Dirty Harry :rolleyes:
 
It is fairly simple. With the possible exception being United Artists which is part owned by Tom Cruise many of the leading studios are not owned by filmakers. 20th Century Fox is owned by Murdoch, and Sony own MGM, Tri-Star and Columbia. Now in the case of Sony they bought the studios in order to ensure that given a repeat of VHS/Beta format wars they would have the content to make sure their format won. By all reports they succeeded as the Sony backed Blu-Ray format triumphed over Hi-Def.

This has resulted in a culture of ensuring that only that content which will be mostly popular gets made and anything remotely risky gets sidelined.

It also does not help that television in the US tenRAB to be made by writing teams - this is all very well but a singular talent does not emerge and we have TV by committee (and does n't it show :( ). Because of this writers with any form of originality do not get a look in and therefore nothing is fed up to the filmmaking process. (The situation in the UK is different but here new writers would get their big break in one off plays which are no longer produced)
 
Most movies don't need remaking and even less turn out ok but it's very simple why they are doing it,money without risk.

It essentially started in 2003 with the remake of Texas Chainsaw Massacre,a movie which cost less than 15 million to make,yet grossed over 80 million in the states alone.
Since then they have had a try at nearly every horror brand ever made,with mixed results.
Then Charlie & The Chocolate Factory and King Kong became major box office hits so Hollywood got very confident when it came to remakes.

Personally I think Robocop will not do anywhere near the business they expect it to.
 
Hollywood have been taking good foreign films and remaking them immediately for years. Luc Besson films have been remade by Hollywood a number of times, for instance (Nikita/Assassin).

Hollywood is very risk averse and anything original is a risk. The only time they allow something original is when it's cheap i.e. Blaire Witch or more recentely Cloverfield, then everyone jumps on the bandwagon for a time until the bubble bursts and someone gets burnt, then they all go back to the same borring stuff. the late 70's and early 80's were a great time for originallity and everything since then has just been remakes in disguise.
 
i think it's more to do with the younger generation who have lost the magic of cinema that we used to have. Sure some of the sets were bad or moved and in old films from the 30-40s we got a puff of smoke from a gun and someone fell over with blood dead. Yes it wasn't realistic but if you are caught up in the plot then the magic of the film made you believe it was real and you looked past some of these things.

Today kiRAB can't do that and if it doesn't look real they won't take any notice.

Plus you get the others who say " i know this remake will be rubbish but i'll just watch it to see what is it like". Or others who say I never saw the other one at the cinema so I will watch the remake there.

This all leaRAB to the remakes making a profit albeit a small one in some cases, if we all switched off instead then there would be no profit and they would stop making them
 
Back
Top