Enough with the remakes!!!

MGM/Ghost House is preparing a remake of Poltergeist for release in late 2014.  So far the only announcements have been the director (Gil Kenan - Monster House) and the lead actress (Rosemarie DeWitt).  Kind of surprising to see indie actress DeWitt signing on for a horror film remake but she definitely has the acting chops to pull off the old JoBeth Williams role.

Is this yet another totally unnecessary remake?  Mostly yes...but here's an interesting thing to consider...

A recent survey was done of people ages 35 and under about their movie-watching habits.  What was discovered in the survey was that the majority of people in that age group have no interest in watching movies that came out prior to the early 90s.  

Because of the lack of interest in 80s and earlier films don't be surprised if EVERY 70s and 80s film that made significant money gets remade over the next 5 years.

I just saw the last half of the original "Poltergeist" on TV about a week ago....and it's still a hoot.

Doubt I'd bother watching a re-do though. Poltergeist II and especially "III" were bad enough!!

I definitely don't fit in with majority--I've always preferred movies made before the 90's!

I thought Poltergeist III was borderline creepy. Not exceptionally well made, mind you, but it had its moments. II was an utter bore. And I was a neat little package that no one has any business remaking.

I wouldn't care about all of the remakes if they were done well. I get that the movie going audience don't want old movies. Mostly though, they are crappy, really crappy!!!

I think that we tend to look at the past through rose tinted glasses sometimes though as if the big studios put out great movie after great movie in the 80's, they didn't, it was non stop Arnie, Sly, Jean Claude Van Damme, Tom Cruise drivel with the odd gem (almost by accident)

I'm going to make it a mission to never, ever see the Evil Dead remake though!  

I liked the first one - I don't think I saw any of the other ones.... As far as the remake? I'll skip it.

The 1980s was one of the worst decades for film in history (from an artistic standpoint), especially compared to the experimental brilliance of the 1970s.

But the 1980s was also the decade that spawned the "High Concept" film which is basically the template that Hollywood is still using to this day...so it is not surprising they are wanting to remake all these films from that decade.

For those unfamiliar with the term "High Concept" it basically refers to any film whose plot can be summed up in a single sentence...

Pacific Rim is "Giant Robots fight Giant Monsters"
White House Down is "Die Hard in the White House"

Fat Freddy wrote:

Doubt I'd bother watching a re-do though. Poltergeist II and especially "III" were bad enough!!

As Jay Sherman would say about them.....
 
 
 

S.D. wrote:

MGM/Ghost House is preparing a remake of Poltergeist for release in late 2014.  So far the only announcements have been the director (Gil Kenan - Monster House) and the lead actress (Rosemarie DeWitt).  Kind of surprising to see indie actress DeWitt signing on for a horror film remake but she definitely has the acting chops to pull off the old JoBeth Williams role.

Is this yet another totally unnecessary remake?  Mostly yes...but here's an interesting thing to consider...

A recent survey was done of people ages 35 and under about their movie-watching habits.  What was discovered in the survey was that the majority of people in that age group have no interest in watching movies that came out prior to the early 90s.  

Because of the lack of interest in 80s and earlier films don't be surprised if EVERY 70s and 80s film that made significant money gets remade over the next 5 years.

That is a shame for those surveyed. The 80s had some great movies!

S.D. wrote:

The 1980s was one of the worst decades for film in history (from an artistic standpoint), especially compared to the experimental brilliance of the 1970s.

But the 1980s was also the decade that spawned the "High Concept" film which is basically the template that Hollywood is still using to this day...so it is not surprising they are wanting to remake all these films from that decade.

For those unfamiliar with the term "High Concept" it basically refers to any film whose plot can be summed up in a single sentence...

Pacific Rim is "Giant Robots fight Giant Monsters"
White House Down is "Die Hard in the White House"

I like what Roger Ebert said best:

Quote :

“Star Wars'' effectively brought to an end the golden era of early-1970s personal filmmaking and focused the industry on big-budget special-effects blockbusters, blasting off a trend we are still living through. But you can't blame it for what it did, you can only observe how well it did it. In one way or another all the big studios have been trying to make another “Star Wars'' ever since (pictures like "Raiders of the Lost Ark," "Jurassic Park" and "Independence Day" are its heirs). It located Hollywood's center of gravity at the intellectual and emotional level of a bright teenager.

I love Star Wars--or at least I used to--but this is a good point.

corplhicks wrote:

I like what Roger Ebert said best:

Quote :

“Star Wars'' effectively brought to an end the golden era of early-1970s personal filmmaking and focused the industry on big-budget special-effects blockbusters, blasting off a trend we are still living through.

I love Star Wars--or at least I used to--but this is a good point.

Ebert of course nails it, but I also think Jaws (released 3 years prior to Star Wars) was instrumental in creating the "summer blockbuster" mentality among the Hollywood brass.

corplhicks wrote:

I like what Roger Ebert said best:

Quote :

“Star Wars'' effectively brought to an end the golden era of early-1970s personal filmmaking and focused the industry on big-budget special-effects blockbusters, blasting off a trend we are still living through. But you can't blame it for what it did, you can only observe how well it did it. In one way or another all the big studios have been trying to make another “Star Wars'' ever since (pictures like "Raiders of the Lost Ark," "Jurassic Park" and "Independence Day" are its heirs). It located Hollywood's center of gravity at the intellectual and emotional level of a bright teenager.

I love Star Wars--or at least I used to--but this is a good point.

I guess the proof is in the pudding - people like the movies. I guess change can be hard for some but people seem to enjoy the feeling that when summer comes, the action and adventure blockbusters come out.

exact33 wrote:

I guess the proof is in the pudding - people like the movies. I guess change can be hard for some but people seem to enjoy the feeling that when summer comes, the action and adventure blockbusters come out.

I love many summer action/adventure flicks (as did Ebert for that matter). The problem right now is quality...and current fare like Battleship or R.I.P.D. makes Raiders Of The Lost Ark look like Citizen Kane. Writing is declining to an almost infantile level, it's a sad thing to witness.

S.D. wrote:

exact33 wrote:

I guess the proof is in the pudding - people like the movies. I guess change can be hard for some but people seem to enjoy the feeling that when summer comes, the action and adventure blockbusters come out.

I love many summer action/adventure flicks (as did Ebert for that matter).  The problem right now is quality...and current fare like Battleship or R.I.P.D. makes Raiders Of The Lost Ark look like Citizen Kane.  Writing is declining to an almost infantile level, it's a sad thing to witness.  

There are several things I miss about summer blockbusters from the pre-Matrix 'era:'

1. A sweeping, enigmatic and and rollicking score. All we get now is anti-thematic electronica or a bunch of pounding drums.

2. Inventive camera maneuvers and long takes. Today we get shaky-cam (grrrrr) and breakneck editing.

3. This is an obvious one, but handmade FX. CGI has zapped all the magic...and warmth...out of visual fiction.

4. Odes and homages to the cinema of old, like how Raiders was tipping the hat to the adventure serials of the 30's, and Back to the Future referenced not just the 50's with junk americana et al but also the old fashioned concept of time travel with a satirical hook. Today filmmaking is about cutting edge without any reference or salute to past influences.

5. Characters worth a damn. We used to have Arnold and Stallone; now we have Lautner and Lebouf (at least we had Lebouf). We had Indie and Snake Plissken; now we have Bourne (the flattest action vehicle I have ever seen) and Percy Jackson. Sure, some of the heroes we grew up with were one-dimensional or caricatures, but they always had a memorable hook about them. No one now is truly memorable, and most of them are adapted from novels, which leads me to the most obvious point--

6. Originality. Not much to discuss here that's already been said.

S.D. wrote:

exact33 wrote:

I guess the proof is in the pudding - people like the movies. I guess change can be hard for some but people seem to enjoy the feeling that when summer comes, the action and adventure blockbusters come out.

I love many summer action/adventure flicks (as did Ebert for that matter).  The problem right now is quality...and current fare like Battleship or R.I.P.D. makes Raiders Of The Lost Ark look like Citizen Kane.  Writing is declining to an almost infantile level, it's a sad thing to witness.  

I think what people lament as infantile can be viewed as good writing by others - it just depends on the audience.

Does anyone think that Battleship had good writing? Is there anyone who thinks that most of the action flicks coming out now have good writing? The last one that I really thought was well written and well thought out was Inception.

Fact is that most people don't care, they just wan't action. As Lonnie Dragon said in Action

"It's explosions, boobs, explosions. It used to be boobs, explosions, boobs, but women's liberation has come a long way!"  

Quote :

That is a shame for those surveyed. The 80s had some great movies!

Meh, it's a generational thing. Most of us on this forum came of age in the '80s. Back then, did most of us have any interest in movies from the 60s or older? Probably not.

S.D. wrote:

corplhicks wrote:

I like what Roger Ebert said best:

Quote :

“Star Wars'' effectively brought to an end the golden era of early-1970s personal filmmaking and focused the industry on big-budget special-effects blockbusters, blasting off a trend we are still living through.

I love Star Wars--or at least I used to--but this is a good point.

Ebert of course nails it, but I also think Jaws (released 3 years prior to Star Wars) was instrumental in creating the "summer blockbuster" mentality among the Hollywood brass.

True. Before Jaws, summertime was the dumping ground for flicks that were pre-conceived to be flops (or whatever you'd like to call them) much like January and September are nowadays.

Fat Freddy wrote:

Quote :

That is a shame for those surveyed. The 80s had some great movies!

Meh, it's a generational thing. Most of us on this forum came of age in the '80s. Back then, did most of us have any interest in movies from the 60s or older? Probably not.

Agree - I had no interest in "older" movies when I was growing up.... it was only later as an adult that I started to like older flicks (outside of the Connery Bond flicks that is!)

When i was a kid, I watched a lot of films with my dad, so I loved a lot of older movies. But I'll accept that this wasn't the norm.

Quote :

Agree - I had no interest in "older" movies when I was growing up.... it was only later as an adult that I started to like older flicks (outside of the Connery Bond flicks that is!)

Same here. During the 80s and 90s I had little interest in movies that weren't current (early Bond flicks being one of the few exceptions). It's only been in the last fifteen years or so that I started digging further back.

The very first films I saw as a kid were older movies. There was an independent station that used to play old movies most of the day and I grew up watching those with my Grandmother. Screwball comedies, musicals, detective movies, film noir, old Universal horror flicks, etc. Because of this I grew up with an appreciation of films from all eras with no bias toward when they came out.

Around the time I turned 11 I started checking out books from the library about film history and filmmaking. During the 80s I probably read more non-fiction books about movies, directors, actors and film studios than I did fiction novels.

It is a passion that has never gone away over the years, I'm still a movie fanatic over 35 years later.

Boris2008 wrote:

Does anyone think that Battleship had good writing? Is there anyone who thinks that most of the action flicks coming out now have good writing? The last one that I really thought was well written and well thought out was Inception.

Fact is that most people don't care, they just wan't action. As Lonnie Dragon said in Action

"It's explosions, boobs, explosions. It used to be boobs, explosions, boobs, but women's liberation has come a long way!"  

Battleship was good for what it was - a blow em up flick. Its what it was written to be and i dont see anything wrong with it.

Boris2008 wrote:

When i was a kid, I watched a lot of films with my dad, so I loved a lot of older movies. But I'll accept that this wasn't the norm.

So did I! So that at least makes two of us. Maybe were the norm.........

I've always liked a lot of older movies: the noir genre, WW2, horror, science fiction and older tv shows as well.

I'm younger by about a decade than the majority of the board, so I didn't really come of age until the 90's. That said, there were three genres of movies I enjoyed the most: sci-fi, westerns, and classic b/w films such as Duck Soup. My first experience with 2001 was at six years old (my mom was there and will verify this) and I think that's what framed my cinematic preferences. Later it became character-driven films after seeing Richard Linklater's work. I would venture to call him one of the greatest director who's been working the industry for over 20 years now. His movies completely transcend all the boilerplate excess we've been seeing in the theaters.

exact33 wrote:

Boris2008 wrote:

Does anyone think that Battleship had good writing? Is there anyone who thinks that most of the action flicks coming out now have good writing? The last one that I really thought was well written and well thought out was Inception.

Fact is that most people don't care, they just wan't action. As Lonnie Dragon said in Action

"It's explosions, boobs, explosions. It used to be boobs, explosions, boobs, but women's liberation has come a long way!"  

Battleship was good for what it was - a blow em up flick. Its what it was written to be and i dont see anything wrong with it.

My problem is not with Battleship, which I have not seen but read a fair amount on, but with the fact that Hollywood has been spending bloated amounts of $$$$ on this type of movie constantly. Plus, if we look at the Transformers template, which seems to be the norm these days, I don't believe it's fair for the industry to be insulting their audience by saying we can't have big-budget action woven with intelligent stories and complex characters, like, say, how James Cameron used to make movies. It's all a very cold, odd, repetitive, and overly familiar approach that's not fair to the human realm.