Hollywood's really running out of originality, don't you think?

[DeltaSigStan]

They're seriously coming up on a drought of good, orginial ideas....

Doesn't it seem like 2005 will be even worse?

Charlie and the chocolate factory
Chronicles of Narnia
Hitchhiker's guide to the galaxy
King Kong
Amityville Horror
The Longest yard
War of the worlds
The Green Hornet
Bewitched
Doom
Pink Panther

The grudge 2
Deuce Bigalo, Euro Giggolo
Elektra
Miss Congeniality 2 (LIKE WE EVEN NEEDED THE FIRST ONE!)
XXX 2
The Sandlot 2
The Batman Prequel
Herbie Reloaded

Please, I emplore you, if it's a remake of a classic, WATCH THE CLASSIC, if it's depicted from a book, READ THE BOOK! Don't let these money hungry, uncreative, unoriginal, formulaic industry people get you....

ETA: Excuse the thread title....John hasn't fixed being able to correct typos in titles...

[tinydancer]

I must say, I agree. For the last couple of years, it's been obvious that there are no new ideas left in Hollywood.

[sugar and spice]

I don't know -- I don't think all of it will be bad. Charlie and the Chocolate Factory has the potential to be really good. The original movie is a classic, but even it is ishtty compared to the book. They had to insert a plot and a moral for the movie and change certain parts of the book that they didn't have the technology to make in a movie at the time. I think that a remake of this could be fantastic given the technology we have now and could delete some of the 1970s cheesiness of the movie, although I hope we don't lose ALL of the campiness of the original. There are some parts that could be just amazing with new technology (I'm thinking particularly of the scene where they first walk into the room with the chocolate river, etc.). I also think that the remake can learn from some of the mistakes of the original -- the half-assed musical numbers, the LSD-inspired hallucinations in the tunnel (what the hell was that about?), etc. I have to admit that I would not be nearly as excited about this without Johnny Depp's involvement, but I think he'll do a good job and that makes me look forward to the movie as a whole.

I don't think all of this stuff is necessarily doomed to be horrible -- after all, the third Harry Potter was a definite improvement over the first two. I think the Chronicles of Narnia could be good if done well (like the Lord of Rings, which along with Harry Potter undoubtably inspired the idea of making a movie out of it). I do think that the movie is almost always sub-par when compared to the book, but I've given up on people reading the books to most of these movies that come out -- although in some cases, the movies push people to read the source material, which is always a good thing. And I'd rather see a good movie that's based on an earlier book/movie than a bad original script.

But yeah, overall, Hollywood's lack of originality is pretty sad. I think the thing that disgusts me the most is that they now push for a sequel to any movie that did remotely well (Miss Congeniality 2, what?) just to make money, even if a sequel doesn't make sense to the story or characters. It's especially frustrating when they sacrifice the first film to do it (i.e., the first film is all about two characters falling in love, but for the sequel, they can only get the female lead to come back, so they come up with some flimsy excuse for them breaking up and give her a new love interest for the second film even though they spent the entire first film convincing us the first two were in Tru Luv, etc.).

[AchtungBaby80]

I haven't seen a movie that I really liked in a long time, with the exception of "Mean Girls." I don't know...it really does seem like there's been in this huge drought of lackluster films, and a whole bunch of sequels that should never have happened.

[ShaedyKD]

Unless The Sandlot 2 is a reunion featuring the same exact actors all grown up, which I still think is a stupid premise for a movie, the people who came up with this idea should be fired. No one should ever try to remake such a great movie. Don't even get me started on Charlie and the Chocolate Factory.

P.S. I <3 Mike Vitar aka Benny Rodriguez.

[amycat412]

In general the studios have been overrun with MBA and attorney types in the top spots who have their eye more on the bottom line than on creativity and originality. Creative people are looked as as people to be "handled" and "managed" by the suits rather than the true brains that make Hollywood run.

[AlphaFrog]

I was just thinking about a month ago that I would like to see a REALLY GOOD Narnia movie...with all the technology we have today I think they could do some really good things with it...but I think I'll only NOT be pissed off if they follow the books almost exactly...which they hardly ever do...

[texas*princess]

Originally posted by DeltaSigStan
Please, I emplore you, if it's a remake of a classic, WATCH THE CLASSIC, if it's depicted from a book, READ THE BOOK! Don't let these money hungry, uncreative, unoriginal, formulaic industry people get you....

AMEN!

I'm tired of those teeny-bopper remakes or spin-offs of classics.

And I think the same (as far as all the unneccessary sequels) goes for Disney... Lion King 2... Little Mermaid 2... Mulan 2... 102 Dalmations... make it stop!

[GreenKappa]

while i see what you are saying on some of those movies, others i am glad that they are redoing with state of the art technology (like charlie and the chocolate factory and king kong) others tho....i don't think are unorignal...specifically narnia, while there was a made for TV movie, they have never done a full lengthed feature film....so props to them.

[krazy]

Hollywood needs to focus a little harder on the indie festivals, like Sundance and the like. Sure, they are big "who's who" party scenes, but I think they also have a lot of fresh ideas. This year's festival had some pretty unique things, especially docs, like Inside Deep Throat, Ring of Fire, and The Matador, along with normal Hollywood types like The Jacket, etc. There are new ideas out there, they don't always get the marketing they deserve though.

I guess the truth is that you have a little of both, and I am sure Dukes of Hazzard is going to make a bundle, regardless of how horrible it is, so you cannot really blame them, you know?

[AznSAE]

aww man, no harry potter?

[honeychile]

I agree - I'm sequeled out!

The only sequel that I found to be entertaining lately is Before Sunrise and then Before Sunset. They got so little promotion, though, that they may as well have be indie films.

I have to agree. I am kind of tired of the sequels, remakes, and biographies Hollywood has been spitting out these past few years. I personally liked Phantom of the Opera and it's reviews weren't great nor did it get a lot of Oscar nods like The Aviator and Ray (both biographies). Yea, it got 3 but not in any of the big categories like Best Actor, etc.

[TxAPhi]

here is part of an interesting article i read about this topic ---


Consider this list of remakes often involving considerable talent: "Psycho" (1960/1998), Gus Van Sant takes an imaginative whack with this shot-by-shot remake; "Godzilla" (1954/1998), yawn, a bust; "The Mummy" (1932/2000), poor Brendan Fraser -- he means so well; "Shaft" (1971/2000), John Singelton makes a pleasing attempt; "Planet of the Apes" (1968/2001), Tim Burton churns out a laughable remake of a laughable movie; "Ocean's 11," an easy-on-the-eyes remake of the rat pack movie -- the rat pack themselves remade "Gunga Din" (1939) before remaking movies was popular. The list goes on, but try to think of a movie that needed to and has been remade with any degree of adroitly.

Theater is a form more suited to the remake. With words as its medium, theater is written to be reproduced. But film's medium is not fluid and malleable words, but images that leave a lasting, stand-alone impression independent of context.

Words: mind. Images: emotion. This is especially true for Hollywood. A Hollywood movie provokes us, through use of images, to feel good (see "Hoosiers") or to cry (see "Beaches," I'm told). Think about it this way: When someone kicks ass or gets the girl, you know how to feel, regardless of what happened previously. But when Lear exclaims to Cordelia:

No, no, no, no! Come, lets away to prison;
We two alone will sing like birds i' the cage:
When thou dost ask me blessing, I'll kneel down,
And ask of thee forgiveness: so we'll live,
And pray, and sing, and tell old tales, and laugh
At gilded butterflies…

we process the imagery in its context to figure out what a beautifully tragic figure Lear has become. This isn't the stuff of pyrotechnic wizardry or the catalyst for a good Hollywood cry.

Perhaps film is the artistic form least-suited to the remake. Garage bands for decades have performed cover songs as homage. Hip-hop music borrows freely from previously recorded sounds and traditions. In my personal favorite riff on the remake, Jorge Luis Borges pens, "Pierre Menard, Author of Don Quixote." In this tale, the writer endeavors to rewrite "Don Quixote" and succeeds by rewriting the novel word by word -- in its entirety. That's good stuff.