reply
- Feature
- Like
@seedeypete maybe the stupid film producers are just really, really, nostalgic.
reply
- Feature
- Like
I think the remake of 'Miami Vice' was a vast improvement over the TV version. '3:10 to Yuma' is another good remake IMO. Not sure why so many remakes occur. They're generally not as good as the originals. Maybe good screenwriters are a vanishing breed?
reply
- Feature
- Like
I think part of the problem is that the writers and decision-makers have basically always been men, which naturally makes for limited output in terms of content and perspective. (Always a number of exceptions, such as the recent Revolutionary Road, which I thought was great.) I don't know why it's taking so long, but I am hoping the day will come when some of the choice "Hollywood" women will pool their resources, have their own major studio, and start producing films and TV full of material we haven't seen/heard yet, from all kinds of deserving people who have been denied access elsewhere. There is no shortage of creative people, and no end to the stories we haven't heard. After all, every single person has at least one story to tell that no one has heard yet.
reply
- Feature
- Like
respectfully, i completely disagree. Obviously, no one who remakes something is aiming to make it S****y. they want to make it good, better than the original if possible. These aims often fall short, but doing something over and over again and trying to make it better each time is evolution, not devolution. In terms of originality, I think there are more unique minds out there now, coming up with more original ideas than any time in history. But when it comes to making money off of art, tried and true is the safest bet. On a personal note, I have to say, The American Office is far superior to the British version. They did it first, but we did it better.
reply
- Feature
- Like
Same stories, different creative viewpoints. Someday I'll watch the original Office, I feel like a phoney only knowing the American version.
reply
- Feature
- Like
reality is more interesting. sometimes, as i'm going through life, i say to myself, "jeez, i really should write this sh*t down."
reply
- Feature
- Like
probably looking for a more creative-centric reason, but with production costs being stratospheric, and with producers noted more for their money than their creativity, it's hard to sell and idea that hasn't been proven. Even The Office *pause for choirs of angels* was proven before it was produced here. Having some stake in the matter, although not secret information or The Truth, I don't see it as lack of creativity as much as lack of marketably.
reply
- Feature
- Like
Do you know what just occured to me? Many of you have never seen the Flintstones and don't even know what the Honeymooners were, and are asking, "Jackie Gleason. Who is that?" So, let's have another cup of coffee, and let's have another piece of pie.
reply
- Feature
- Like
I know its like those boring old painters - always using the same colours and paints and stuff...
reply
- Feature
- Like
Yep, it's the same old same old, turns out. But this is not new. I've asked this same question ever since I noticed in the 1960s that the Flintstones were replaying the story plots from the old Honeymooners/ Jackie Gleason Show. What comes around goes around.
reply
- Feature
- Like
"There are only two stories: somebody goes on a journey or a stranger comes to town."
reply
- Feature
- Like
It seems to me that if there are only a few plot lines and everything is a remake and all of the stories have been told, then we have some VERY creative people running around keeping us entertained and keeping all the old stuff new and interesting. There are a lot of bad remakes, sure, and some plot points find themselves in way to many movies/tvshows, but overall i think we, as viewers, are provided with a decent spectrum of entertainment. plus, there are some situations that most, if not all, humans can imagine themselves in. like loving someone who doesn't love you back. we are going to continue to see themes and situations that are more universal over and over.
reply
- Feature
- Like
I've never seen an actual list, but there a limited number of possible plots. I've hear figures of around 50. One guy(Polti) wrote a book(36 Dramatic Situations). Actually we are over entertained. Most movies are made to make money. Common denominators dictate what is made. Also, people don't want to be challenged, they want to be stroked. Creativity is limited to special effects and gadgetry. When remakes work, why risk being original?
reply
- Feature
- Like
I think it's a lot easier to copy than to create. Plus there's a lot less financial risk in re-trying something that has already earned ratings than to take a chance on something new. Consider the number of "original" shows that we enjoy that we hear the network execs nixed because they were considered too radical a departure from what had worked before. While we say we want new and original, what we're most comfortable with is the same-old. If we truly interested in new and original we would not shower such ratings upon the remakes!
reply
- Feature
- Like
You know, in Rome every year there would be a re-imagining of Oedipus Rex as part of a competition. Given its roots in oral tradition, it is no wonder that it has been reinvented. I do not see this as a bad thing. Almost the entirety of post doctoral research is taking a paper presented at a conference and challenging or improving upon it. This seems like evolution -- hardly devolution. As far as movies go, I have seen many movies which were unlike anything I could remember. Oh sure, I could say "that's sci fi", "oh they use the buddy cop formula", but the fact that there is some recognizable attribute does not mean the whole thing is derivative. Off the top of my head (I'm going to stick to movies in my own lifetime and I guess the more recent the better, right?)... you may disagree... Pulp Fiction, Fight Club, Beetlejuice, MIB, May, Terminator, Aliens, Waking Life.... heeeyyyy.... I think I could seriously go on and on here.
reply
- Feature
- 1
- Like
Obviously, I'm biased, but what a ridiculous question. Remakes have been around since the dawn of time. Romans remade Greek plays, SHakespeare remade countless lesser plays. Movies to it constantly and there are some GREAT and countless examples! (ever see the original Invasion of the Body Snatchers vs the Brilliant 1970s version?) The world is a better place for having All in the Family and Sanford and Son - both remakes of English shows! QUality re-making is PART of the creative process of the arts. Boom. Roasted!
reply
- Feature
- Like
Well, I think that we all like to imagine that we could tell a story in different way, or could make it more relevant to folks of a new generation or area. The Office, there, is a great example. The British workplace humor really doesn't translate well across the ocean. Remakes of movies are often to do a more visually impressive and more timely take on the story. Even if the original is incredible, for young audiences, quality might not translate because it doesn't look as impressive as modern films and much of the dialogue leaves for want to young people. It's not a bad thing. Romeo and Juliet was a remake. In fact, most of the Elizabethan plays were remakes or retellings. And that's not even to suggest that what they stole from were original--Romans stole from the Greeks, Greeks were retelling stories that had been in existence since time began. Most masterpieces are just reimaginings of plots you already know. And that's where the spark of creativity really lies. Who cares if the story is a rip from a cliche as old as time, so long as something new and fresh is brought to the table? Think of Baz Lurhman's Romeo+Juliet... it used Shakespeare's dialogue, yet it clearly was not the same Romeo and Juliet we all know, just because it was so heavily styllized and made modern. And regardless of whether you LIKED the film, it'd be hard to argue that it wasn't creative.
reply
- Feature
- Like
