Remakes: The worst has happened.

[Entropy]

Originally Posted by Heretic Machine

Can you really say that Dawn of the Dead, Friday the 13th, Fright Night, The Texas Chainsaw Massacre, either Planet of the Apes, The Fly... etc, lift heavily from the scripts of the original?.

Several of the movies you listed borrow heavily from the originals. Friday the 13th and Texas Chainsaw Massacre especially...the others to a lesser extent.

Friday the 13th borrowed heavily from the originals...

The whole intro is from part 1
The barn sequence is a reference to part 3
The girl pretending to be the mom is from part 2
Jason jumping from the water in the last scene continues the tradition from part 1,2 and 3.
The guy searching for his sister is from part 4
The cloth mask is from part 2 and the discovery of the mask is from part 3
The shrine of his mother's head is from part 2

I can go on

You seemed to ignore the most valid part of Xydarc's post though...remakes are easier to market and create because they have an existing audience...name recognition from day one...no need to flesh out and then sell a new IP.

[KSmitty]

I'm not 100% against remakes, some stories could benefit from being updated (better effects,etc), OR weren't exactly high cinema in the first place so a remake wouldn't diminish the franchise/original.

HOWEVER most of the time the studios decide to remake popular/good films that really don't need to be remade, hoping to cash in on that popularity/nostalgia... and then the movie just plain sucks. I can't remember the last remake I saw and then afterward said to myself, "I'm so glad they decided to redo that movie!".

I see the new Footloose as being a "we're teens rebelling against the man (in a commercially marketable way)" variant of the 'Step Up' franchise.

[J Arcane]

[Superman's Dead]

They remake horror movies because you people go see them. When they make NEW campy horror movies and they fail to capture the attention of the audience, everyone takes a loss.

There are people who have and keep their jobs by finding ways for studio to make safe money so they can take chances with other things. ANy studio who went balls-out with completely original IPs that no one had ever heard of for their first few years of features risks going under.

I just get so frustrated when people blame this monolithic 'HOLLYWOOD!!!' for things like this, when it's moviegoing audiences who proved time and time again that this is what they want. It's what sells, and at the top levels of decision-making they're in the business of making money.

[Entropy]

Originally Posted by Superman's Dead

I just get so frustrated when people blame this monolithic 'HOLLYWOOD!!!' for things like this, when it's moviegoing audiences who proved time and time again that this is what they want. It's what sells, and at the top levels of decision-making they're in the business of making money.

You are 100% correct...as long as we keep showing up they will keep making them.

[Widgetcraft]

Originally Posted by Entropy

Several of the movies you listed borrow heavily from the originals. Friday the 13th and Texas Chainsaw Massacre especially...the others to a lesser extent.

Friday the 13th borrowed heavily from the originals...

The whole intro is from part 1

That lasted what... a minute?

The barn sequence is a reference to part 3

Bullshit, while there was a barn in part 3, that's where the similarity between the scenes end.

The girl pretending to be the mom is from part 2

Which, in part 2, happened for all of about fifteen seconds. Here it played a much greater role in the plot.

Jason jumping from the water in the last scene continues the tradition from part 1,2 and 3.

Bro, I didn't say that the movie didn't reference the original movies, I'm saying that it didn't lift heavily from them.

The guy searching for his sister is from part 4

A side character from part 4 which really should have played a much larger role in the movie. For reference: The sister never actually shows up in part 4, we never even see her; it is implied that she was one of the victims from the previous movies. In this movie, we see her all the time, as she is one of the main cast.

The cloth mask is from part 2 and the discovery of the mask is from part 3

A) Reference.
B) He discovered the mask in an entirely different way. From the barn scene, no less!

The shrine of his mother's head is from part 2

Reference.

I can go on

You can, but you'll just continue to make a damn fool of yourself.

You seemed to ignore the most valid part of Xydarc's post though...remakes are easier to market and create because they have an existing audience...name recognition from day one...no need to flesh out and then sell a new IP.

I never said that they weren't easier to sell.

[Entropy]

Originally Posted by Heretic Machine

You can, but you'll just continue to make a damn fool of yourself..

Something tells me I made a fool of myself when I decided to feed you...that won't happen again

[muddi900]

Originally Posted by Superman's Dead

They remake horror movies because you people go see them. When they make NEW campy horror movies and they fail to capture the attention of the audience, everyone takes a loss.

There are people who have and keep their jobs by finding ways for studio to make safe money so they can take chances with other things. ANy studio who went balls-out with completely original IPs that no one had ever heard of for their first few years of features risks going under.

I just get so frustrated when people blame this monolithic 'HOLLYWOOD!!!' for things like this, when it's moviegoing audiences who proved time and time again that this is what they want. It's what sells, and at the top levels of decision-making they're in the business of making money.

I mean did nobody see my Gene Siskel video?
[/dork]

[Widgetcraft]

Originally Posted by Entropy

Something tells me I made a fool of myself when I decided to feed you...that won't happen again

Let's just break down the barn thing, for starters. In Friday the 13th Part 3, there was a barn on the property where most of the action takes place. Many people get killed in the barn, including a biker gang. In the remake the barn appears in exactly two scenes: Once on the outside where the main protagonist approaches some stoner redneck asking about his sister, and another where said redneck is getting high in the loft of the barn, sexually assaults a mannequin, and is then killed by Jason. Jason then sees the mask, and grabs it, after his mask was torn by the redneck.

None of this shit happens in the barn in part 3, despite there being numerous scenes in the barn. Jason does find his mask in part 3, but he pulls it off of one of the victims, who was (ironically) using it to pretend to be a serial killer. While there were two stoners in the movie (though, they weren't rednecks), neither was killed in the barn, or in anything remotely resembling the way the stoner in the barn died in the "remake."

[Wolvie]

Originally Posted by Suave Peanut

I don't understand why Cowboys & Aliens is the basis of your impression of modern Hollywood. It started off as a graphic novel pitched (by a comics publisher) as a movie which eventually took nearly 15 years to come out. Granted, the results were neither critically nor financially exceptional, but I would hardly consider the same writers as Children of Men and the first Iron Man to be five-year-olds representative of the studio executives who chose to remake Footloose.

Because it's retarded. It's a dumb idea, and sounds like something a kid would come up with. It just shows how dumb Hollywood has become. I mean we have a BATTLESHIP movie on the way. Need I say more? You don't get any dumber than this.

All Hollywood is these days is stupid ideas and shitty remakes.

Sure there a few good movies here and there, but I find the space between the great films getting larger and larger. At this rate my faith in Hollywood will be gone, and replaced with jaded indifference.

Edit: *slaps IMHO opinion on post*

[Widgetcraft]

I don't really see how it's a stupid idea. Why do aliens have to attack in the modern era? Why not the past or future?

[Savok]

Dude, Pride & Prejudice with an alien invasion.... you're a genius.

[Zero]

Originally Posted by Suave Peanut

I don't understand why Cowboys & Aliens is the basis of your impression of modern Hollywood. It started off as a graphic novel pitched (by a comics publisher) as a movie which eventually took nearly 15 years to come out. Granted, the results were neither critically nor financially exceptional, but I would hardly consider the same writers as Children of Men and the first Iron Man to be five-year-olds representative of the studio executives who chose to remake Footloose.

It's very convoluted. It boils down to the graphic novel being nothing but an advertisement for the movie rights. The company that created it, allegedly, paid comic stores to order issues so that it would go to the bestsellers list and be noticed by movie studios.