The Cinematic Motion Picture News Thread

[epilogue]

Some movies just don't need to be remade

The only time any movie needs to be remade or rebooted is when it was built on a good idea and it completely botched the delivery.

Or, you know, if someone has a new angle or approach to bring to the same premise.

A lot of the time, that should probably result in a new movie anyway.

"I have a new angle to the 'man with no name' premise; I'll make Mad Max" makes far more sense to me than "I have a new angle to the 'man with no name' premise; I'll remake A Fistfull of Dollars."

Team McPitstain.

[LoathedVermin72]

My problem with this staunch anti-remake pattern of thought a lot of people have right now is that it essentially suggests that all that matters is a movie's story. Because that's what a remake does: takes the same story and makes a new movie out of it. But who cares if it's the same story or premise? Who cares if the original was great? They're different entities. They're gonna have different aesthetics, different artists behind them, different performers in them. Stories aren't really important to audiovisual works of art, guys. There are loads of different creative possibilities that can be borne from the same premise.

[epilogue]

Because it's easy and often lazy. It's a way to capitalize on a proven entity.

The people funding and executing these remakes aren't often artists with an eye toward different creative possibilities or varying aesthetics. They're money men who want to throw easy money at a guaranteed return and get richer. They're monetizing nostalgia and exploiting previous artists for a third house somewhere U.S. taxes won't reach. Very rarely do these remakes bring anything new of value to the table.

I agree with McP. I'd rather take an old, worn idea and imbue it with new characters and places. Let these visionary apply their own aesthetics and creative possibilities to those ideas.

[E.H. Ruddock]

My problem with this staunch anti-remake pattern of thought a lot of people have right now is that it essentially suggests that all that matters is a movie's story. Because that's what a remake does: takes the same story and makes a new movie out of it. But who cares if it's the same story or premise? Who cares if the original was great? They're different entities. They're gonna have different aesthetics, different artists behind them, different performers in them. Stories aren't really important to audiovisual works of art, guys. There are loads of different creative possibilities that can be borne from the same premise.

I'm not against remakes at all, but Point Break?

[epilogue]

My problem with this staunch anti-remake pattern of thought a lot of people have right now is that it essentially suggests that all that matters is a movie's story. Because that's what a remake does: takes the same story and makes a new movie out of it. But who cares if it's the same story or premise? Who cares if the original was great? They're different entities. They're gonna have different aesthetics, different artists behind them, different performers in them. Stories aren't really important to audiovisual works of art, guys. There are loads of different creative possibilities that can be borne from the same premise.

I'm not against remakes at all, but Point Break?

BUT THEY ARE X TREME ATHLETES IN THIS ONE! THINK OF ALL THE NEW CREATIVE POSSIBILITIES!

[E.H. Ruddock]

My problem with this staunch anti-remake pattern of thought a lot of people have right now is that it essentially suggests that all that matters is a movie's story. Because that's what a remake does: takes the same story and makes a new movie out of it. But who cares if it's the same story or premise? Who cares if the original was great? They're different entities. They're gonna have different aesthetics, different artists behind them, different performers in them. Stories aren't really important to audiovisual works of art, guys. There are loads of different creative possibilities that can be borne from the same premise.

I'm not against remakes at all, but Point Break?

BUT THEY ARE X TREME ATHLETES IN THIS ONE! THINK OF ALL THE NEW CREATIVE POSSIBILITIES!

Then they should remake xXx

[epilogue]

My problem with this staunch anti-remake pattern of thought a lot of people have right now is that it essentially suggests that all that matters is a movie's story. Because that's what a remake does: takes the same story and makes a new movie out of it. But who cares if it's the same story or premise? Who cares if the original was great? They're different entities. They're gonna have different aesthetics, different artists behind them, different performers in them. Stories aren't really important to audiovisual works of art, guys. There are loads of different creative possibilities that can be borne from the same premise.

I'm not against remakes at all, but Point Break?

BUT THEY ARE X TREME ATHLETES IN THIS ONE! THINK OF ALL THE NEW CREATIVE POSSIBILITIES!

Then they should remake xXx

How was that movie, Ruddo? I never saw it.

[LoathedVermin72]

Because it's easy and often lazy. It's a way to capitalize on a proven entity.

The people funding and executing these remakes aren't often artists with an eye toward different creative possibilities or varying aesthetics. They're money men who want to throw easy money at a guaranteed return and get richer. They're monetizing nostalgia and exploiting previous artists for a third house somewhere U.S. taxes won't reach. Very rarely do these remakes bring anything new of value to the table.

Yeah, but the execs greenlighting these remakes are not the ones actually making them.

I'd rather take an old, worn idea and imbue it with new characters and places. Let these visionary apply their own aesthetics and creative possibilities to those ideas

I'd argue that that is exactly what a lot of the people making these remakes are doing. I mean, just look at that Point Break trailer. Isn't it the same premise with a totally new aesthetic? Totally new places? Just because execs are using brand recognition to help pull in an audience doesn't mean it's not a new and creative movie made by someone passionate.

[epilogue]

Because it's easy and often lazy. It's a way to capitalize on a proven entity.

The people funding and executing these remakes aren't often artists with an eye toward different creative possibilities or varying aesthetics. They're money men who want to throw easy money at a guaranteed return and get richer. They're monetizing nostalgia and exploiting previous artists for a third house somewhere U.S. taxes won't reach. Very rarely do these remakes bring anything new of value to the table.

I agree with McP. I'd rather take an old, worn idea and imbue it with new characters and places. Let these visionary apply their own aesthetics and creative possibilities to those ideas.

Yeah, but the execs greenlighting these remakes are not the ones actually making it.

I'd rather take an old, worn idea and imbue it with new characters and places. Let these visionary apply their own aesthetics and creative possibilities to those ideas

I'd argue that that is exactly what a lot of the people making these remakes are doing. I mean, just look at that Point Break trailer. Isn't the same premise with a totally new aesthetic? Totally new places? Just because execs are using brand recognition to help pull in an audience doesn't mean it's not a new and creative movie made by someone passionate.

I suppose you're right. I cannot know the minds of men/women. But it sure doesn't feel like anyone involved gives a good tin shit about this project. It screams cash grab to me.

Because if it was anything more, why not create new characters? Why not give it a new title? Because they know it's a piece of shit that only stands a real chance if it can cash in on a proven winner.

[epilogue]

And I'd wager these execs have a lot more say in movies like this than people care to know.

[epilogue]

Welp...


Stephen King’s IT Loses Director Cary Fukunaga

http://www.comingsoon.net/movies/news/4 ... y-fukunaga

That sucks. I say scrap the fucking thing, then.

[E.H. Ruddock]

My problem with this staunch anti-remake pattern of thought a lot of people have right now is that it essentially suggests that all that matters is a movie's story. Because that's what a remake does: takes the same story and makes a new movie out of it. But who cares if it's the same story or premise? Who cares if the original was great? They're different entities. They're gonna have different aesthetics, different artists behind them, different performers in them. Stories aren't really important to audiovisual works of art, guys. There are loads of different creative possibilities that can be borne from the same premise.

I'm not against remakes at all, but Point Break?

BUT THEY ARE X TREME ATHLETES IN THIS ONE! THINK OF ALL THE NEW CREATIVE POSSIBILITIES!

Then they should remake xXx

How was that movie, Ruddo? I never saw it.

Vin Diesel

[E.H. Ruddock]

If I wasn't married I would change my last name to Diesel.

[tommymtcom]

If I wasn't married I would change my last name to Diesel.

More like Weasel.

[epilogue]

If I wasn't married I would change my last name to Diesel.

I'll call you Diesel if you'd like.

[LoathedVermin72]

I suppose you're right. I cannot know the minds of men/women. But it sure doesn't feel like anyone involved gives a good tin shit about this project. It screams cash grab to me.

How so? I'm not crazy about the trailer, but it definitely does not feel like something its creator doesn't care about. I mean, the director physically shot everything himself! They took the time to actually go out to real locations, film real stunts, make things as big and exciting as they could. Maybe that's not something you're interested in, which is fine, but that certainly doesn't translate to laziness or a lack of passion on the part of the filmmakers.

I think these kinds of remakes follow a pattern different than what you suggest. Yes, execs greenlight them because they want money. But execs greenlight ALL movies because they want money. They're execs. The film industry is just that: an industry. Pretty much every movie could be considered a "cash grab" if you wanna look at it cynically.

But the difference is that, like I said, those businessmen aren't the ones actually making the movies. They hire an artist to do that. Not only that: they often hire an artist who hasn't directed many movies. Look at the guy who made this: Ericson Core. He's a cinematographer who only has one other theatrical film to his name as a director. You don't think he (or any other young artist) who gets a chance to make a movie that is going to be seen by huge numbers of people is going to want to take advantage of that? To make something that gets people to take notice of them? To let the world know they can make an awesome movie? Hell, they'd have to be a moron not to be passionate and try to make it as good as they can.

Because if it was anything more, why not create new characters? Why not give it a new title? Because they know it's a piece of shit that only stands a real chance if it can cash in on a proven winner.

Why WOULD they give it a new title when using the same one will almost guarantee that it would be more financially successful? Who gives it a shit what the movie is called? Who gives a shit if the characters have the same names (that certainly doesn't mean they will have the same characterizations)? It has nothing to do with "knowing it's a piece of shit" and everything to do with maximizing its financial return. That doesn't mean the movie still can't be good, and it doesn't mean the people involved aren't committed to its quality.

[E.H. Ruddock]

If I wasn't married I would change my last name to Diesel.

More like Weasel.

wow

[tommymtcom]

If I wasn't married I would change my last name to Diesel.

More like Weasel.

wow

[epilogue]

But the difference is that, like I said, those businessmen aren't the ones actually making the movies. They hire an artist to do that. Not only that: they often hire an artist who hasn't directed many movies. Look at the guy who made this: Ericson Core. He's a cinematographer who only has one other theatrical film to his name as a director. You don't think he (or any other young artist) who gets a chance to make a movie that is going to be seen by huge numbers of people is going to want to take advantage of that? To make something that gets people to take notice of them? To let the world know they can make an awesome movie? Hell, they'd have to be a moron not to be passionate and try to make it as good as they can.

That's naive. I'm not sure you're familiar with how Hollywood works.

Of course the guy wants to make the best movie he can. Of course he wants people to take notice. But a project like this is a studio project. He'll have these cash grab execs over his shoulder the entire time. He's a pawn in this situation, not an artist. Maybe this allows him to prove himself so that next time he can make a real artistic statement. He'll make as bold a statement here as he's allowed to make. But this is nothing short of easy money. The fact that they went with a new director instead of someone more established points toward that. They want someone who has something to prove, who will do whatever they want, who will shut up and take it on the hope that it'll lead to something real.

That's the way these things work.

Why WOULD they give it a new title when using the same one will almost guarantee that it would be more financially successful? Who gives it a shit what the movie is called? Who gives a shit if the characters have the same names (that certainly doesn't mean they will have the same characterizations)? It has nothing to do with "knowing it's a piece of shit" and everything to do with maximizing its financial return. That doesn't mean the movie still can't be good, and it doesn't mean the people involved aren't committed to its quality.

I'm not saying the movie can't be good or even great. Based on this one trailer, I'm guessing this one won't be. But nothing I've said means this can't be good.

[LoathedVermin72]

Sounds to me like you have an awfully high amount of selective cynicism applied to remakes, Joey. Pretty much everything you said can be applied to a lot of studio films. Although there are plenty of cases, especially now when we have execs like Thomas Tull who are much more willing to let artists be creative, when artists do indeed get to make the vision they want to make (being commercially accessible and artistically fulfilling are not mutually exclusive).

And every filmmaker is an artist. It doesn't matter if they're being overseen by execs or working under restrictions: they are still making a work of art. Saying a director making a film under studio restrictions is not making a work of art is like a cinematographer who is working under the instruction of a director is not an artist. That's nonsense.