Chris Columbus: A 3rd Gremlins movie in development

Shit.

Yeah I might too. But then again, it isn't so much the company, but the people that direct/write the film that makes the movie any good. Still, I hope they can retrieve that perfect balance of comedy and darkness like in the original and actually use good effects, not that CG pile.

Exactly. I think people are so unoriginal nowadays is simply due to the fact that they look back in the past too much, and can't seem to make up stuff on their own. Thus, we are stuck with the same movie when they finally announce a new film in the franchise.

Yeah, I think that's all kind of exactly the opposite of the truth.

Looking at it in some Alex Jones sort of grand conspiracy or somethong might be tempting, but saying that they don't need the money and are trying to shove liberal propaganda by remakinf Gremlins is nonsense, and even more nonsensical is saying they don't need the money. It's all about money. Every part of it.

The real difference is that studios are built and run by business students now as opposed to movie lovers. The entire model is profit first and risk aversed. That's why you make Gremlins remake. It's the same reason why every other unoriginal movie is made. It's much easier to sell a movie to the public when they already know what it is. That way almost all of the work of marketing the brand awareness is done before you start. It also means they make money on the intellectual property they already own, and don't have to spend any money to develop new material. Streaming rentals and sales, blue ray sales, tv rights, merchandise, etc. for the old movies always go up when the remakes come out, and obviously they like the idea making money on both ends.

When something like Get Out comes out, the news story may become that a black director making a black horror movie is groundbreaking, and to some degree it is whether it's been done before or not the runaway success is something new, but what the business take away should be is that small and original intellectual properties can have their space and strike a chord... Even when they're not made with sequels in mind.

In some way Blumhouse is leading the charge in small and risky horror content, but there are every few others in that space, and even they do the predictable thing by making 87 sequels to their flagship property.

Independent films are certainly alive and constant, but there aren't as many companies financing them so getting them made made is the real hurdle. Once it's in the can and you can get some eye balls on your movie the odds have never been better of getting it sold for some kind of distribution. But unless you're working for Jason Blum or making a 'faith based' Christina film, getting a wide theatrical release is probably harder than ever.

And if you wanna talk about propaganda films, those Christian conservative movies are exploding and could not be more transparent. But they make money.

And Netflix and Amazon have done nothing but prop up small independent movies. Those small films that would have completely disappeared otherwise are able to make something back due to those platforms. The issue is that there are just so damn many that each title gets lost in the shuffle. They haven't squashed independent films, but they've created a glut by being more inclusive.

That also works for them and continues to bring in revenue partly because of that approach. And Netflix also, obviously plays on nostalgia too with their library, but also in making Stranger Things, which is of course so much about nostalgia for films like Gremlins, but is at least an original IP.

It's not about being stuck in the past either. Not on the business end, at least. This is the current landscape. Take no risks, and maximize profit, artistry be damned. That's the reason everyone wants a Star Wars or Marvel style 'connected universe' because each movie effectively acts as a giant advertisement for the next one.

It's an entirely capitalist approach.

I guess I asked for that. I didn't quite realize the depths of the Alex Jonesian babble I was going to be fed, but I appreciate you not actually responding to anything I said, therefore not dragging it down. 

But just because we had the production code and censorship in the days of the Hayes office doesn't mean that the 'Jewish mafia' is trying to castrate men and make women supreme leaders and perform mind control. Chem trails! Flath Earth!...

And a Gremlins remake is about money. Not Jews trying to make men less masculine and a cloaked group of the Stonecutters singing 'We do!' while running the globalist government.

I didn't know the Truman Capote hated Jews so much, so I learned something.

Most of your infowars rhetoric regurgitation is not worth responding to, of course, in the same manner that you didn't respond to my points... but just because you or I don't like Michael Bay's shitty movies, or Eli Roth's, doesn't mean they don't make money and make them loyal studio employees, and it doesn't mean that people like John Lassetter wasn't able to succeed at Disney, or that a shit festival director like Tyler Perry wasn't able to become a mogul with his transparent Christian propoganda  garbage. If it makes a lot of money it's undeniable. That's why a shitty movie like The Blind Side that caters to the other side can win an Oscar with a campaign from a major studio despite being terrible, a major studio makes an idiotic movie like The Shack, and Pureflix has made 3 terrible 'God's Not Dead' movies... And why the Kardashians and Duck Dynasty, both putrid mind numbingly horrendous shows, are massive successes on TV. And I think people who live in land locked areas and those who live by water are both susceptible to watching garbage TV.

And you really don't wanna cite HP Lovecraft. He was an unabashed anti-semite, racist, and xenophobe, who liked Hitler, hated black people, feared immigrants, and channeled that into compelling fiction, but clearly was reflective of his terrible outlook.

So anyway... A Gremlins remake... Somehow it's a Jewish conspiracy now. Someone should alert Joe Dante and Chris Columbus that they are secret Jews.

Well.. You danced over everything. If it doesn't support your conspiracy theory it's not worth talking about. Michael Bay couldn't possibly be successful even though he made shitty movies. Wonder Woman couldn't possibly have been cast because she was hot or because she had combat training (even though she was cast by a Christian Scientist) It has to be zionism! 

This is the problem with conspiracy nuts like you (among others), you take a kernel of truth and extrapolate it to fit your confirmation bias. The Kardashians are garbage, but why does that make them a Jewish conspiracy? No actual reason whatsoever. Just some random bullshit you wanna spout. Nobody demanded them or any bullshit reality show, but what does that have to do with anything? Nothing at all obviously. I don't remember anybody in the tristate area asking for Duck Dynasty either, but when they blew up my mind didn't immediately go to Kirk Cameron trying to control the world. If somehow not thinking the Kardashians are an Israeli conspiracy despite having absolutely no connection to such a thought means I think the public demanded it, then I can't follow the logic, but I must believe that??

You can quote authors, and again there's a kernel of truth to some of that, but why the fuck would you keep using Lovecraft? He also said the he liked Hitler, called his vision 'romantic,' called black people sub human, said that lynchings were justifiable to avoid mingling of black and white races, railed against New York City Jews by calling them mongoloids and describing how he wanted to punch everyone of them in the face, and touted his Aryan race as superior and feared outsiders and alien cultures having a space in the US. Not really a sound person to cite if you want to avoid devolving into flat bigotry and hate speech.

There are Jews in media, amazing revelation. But you're wilfully ignorant in pretending there are no non jews in media. No owners or studios, or producers or directors are non-Jews in your purview, which is flatly absurd, especially considering the movie at hand here which was a fucking Christmas movie written by a non Jew and directed by another... But Spielberg produced, and is Jewish!!

This was the original question, but your short answer is utter nonsense in every conceivable way.

They make movies to make money. Remaking movies, launching franchises, making properties with merchandise potential and cross media and vertically integrated marketing ability is the best way to maximize profits and minimize risk.

Murdoch owned Fox, which was created by Zanuck, and at least the last two studio heads are not Jewish. And they made many of their biggest profits on an Aryan Austrian strong man who represented military might and sheer masculinity, who was also the biggest movie star in Hollywood for about 20 years. They took chances by launching their tv network with things like Married with Children and The Simpsons. Not sure how those two things are brainwashing people into being Jews, but they certainly were not the status quo, and yet proved wildly popular. Murdoch championed those shows because he believed they'd make money.

Laugh if you like, but a Christian Scientist cast wonder woman. As well as Superman and Batman, neither of whom are Jewish. And I may roll my eyes at black or otherwise ethnic actors playing character who were white in comics, but that's a new trend that is good PR for the studios and a way to attract wiser audiences. It's transparent pandering to make more money.

The squashing of smaller movies at the behest of studios is all to do with money. Somebody makes a small movie that makes a good profit and they are immediately snatched up to make bigger and bigger things and eventually a giant superhero movie. James Wan, who is Christian and Asian, and has created a cottage industry, is a prime and typical example.


"Because the big companies are never going to come back to their senses.
They won't suddenly go--hey, maybe we have taken this diversity too far-maybe we should dial down the multiculturalism and make some works that cater to Europeans too.
They dont need the money and have no intention of changing because for them film is a means of distributing social control messages, they do not have any affection for art or literary history. "

Except toning down the multiculturalism is not going to be more profitable. In fact it's exactly the opposite. The new thing they are doing with these big movies is constantly pandering to the Chinese and otherwise Asian market. They did it with Transformers, they did it with the Fast and the Furious movies, they did it with upcoming The Meg, and they added a scene in The Martian that was not in the book, with the Chinese government saving the day, just to attract viewership in China, and it has worked like a fucking charm.

If you wanna somehow twist that into some Zionist social mind control conspiracy, by all means do those mental gymnastics, but that is a superficial cash grab to bring in the newest wide box office audience.

We can agree that they don't care about at at the major studio level, but the real reason is because they want to make money. They'll be happy to prop up ideas they don't like if they think it will bring them a big enough return on investment.

You may be right on Capote, but you're definitely wrong on Lovecraft. He was a hateful bigot who was afraid of outsiders and non-Aryans and felt all others were inferior.

Also the idea that there are no low level filmmakers making their films for their audiences, or TV for that matter, is jud t 100% false. The big studios (run by those dirty Jews!) are making essentially only movies for 100 million dollars or more. Everything else is small by comparison, and there have never been more options or more total films. That's why you can see a piece of shit like Christian Mingle The Movie alongside snobby European lesbian wannabe art film like Blue is the Warmest Color on Netflix. Or Kirk Cameron's Saving Christmas alongside some other whatever token indie liberal movie you wanna pick on Amazon prime. Or the glut of shitty reality shows that depict trash from whatever major city you want to criticize, along with the glut of shitty reality shows of good Christians or redness trash from the country. There's more of everything now provided it doesn't cost too much.

And the white Christians in America have essentially an entire music industry of their own, with 87 awards shows for them. And the studios are indeed starting to try to glob on to the 'Faith based' movies that have made big profits on small budgets of late. This is another recent trend. Hard to imagine how that's a Jewish conspiracy.

When Gary Oldman or Mel Gibson says the Jews run Hollywood you listen, because that's what you want to hear. And there's some truth to it. But when others say that money runs Hollywood, and that massive blockbusters are squashing out smaller films in favor of just making as much money as possible no matter what, you don't listen, because that's not what you want to hear, even though that discussion occurs aaaalll the time.

The 70s did indeed give rise to the blockbuster film, especially once the expensive auteur film was largely killed by Heaven's Gate, but you're wrong that the audience isn't part of the equation. Everyone went to see Jaws, and then everyone went to see Star Wars. And then everyone went to see Superman, and then everyone went to see E.T. And so on. If those movies weren't massively successful then they wouldn't have kept making movies like that. Everyone copies what works. That's how these trends start. Yes, some smaller movies certainly can do well, but the mega hits were coming from making big movies that seemed to appeal to everyone. They are made to get everyone into the theater. That's why you put a black guy and a woman as headliners in the new Star Wars, because you have nerdy white middle aged guys and their kids in the bag already, so you look to put the share of the audience that may not come front and center. It's all business. No massive corporation will ever take the attitude that they do not need the money, ever.

I don't disagree that some audiences would go for more intelligent and varied films if given the choice. We see it online and certainly more so on television/steaming now. But conflating blockbusters with only being for Jews is bizarre, and conflating the Kardashians with jews is even stranger. The fact of the matter is that what makes money cannot be denied. I hate the Kardashians, and have no interest in ever watching them, but I'm not stupid enough to deny that they have their audience. They couldn't possibly still be around or have grown if they didn't. Just as the Diggers, or Honey Boo Boo, or Jersey Shore, or Duck Dynasty or whatever bullshit reality shows you wanna use as an example (Not that I can think of have much of anything to do with Jews). I hate them all. I hate Tyler Perry's movies (actually they can be fun in a MST3K way sometimes), but his success is undeniable, and as far as I can tell is not part of a grand Jewish conspiracy.


All of this is noise that surrounds a topic that you careened off the rails by bringing up Jews trying brainwashing the world...

The Gremlins remake. It's a popular title, it's a Christmas movie, it was written by somebody who is a Christian and has made massively successful films, and was directed by someone who is not Jewish and has made a nice career making B horror comedies... And... It's a Christmas movie.

It's being remade, as are many other titles. Because a remake means there's already an audience built in, they already own the rights, the risk is low, they'll make money on the original, and more than anything else, it's an easy way to make more money. It's money above all else.

Keep publicly embarrassing yourself if you must, but you do know that Lovecraft was indeed a bigot and a racist despite that, would often rail against Jews in her presence as mongrels and immigrants (which she was as well) for diluting the Aryan and 'chalk white' population, and that their marriage lasted only roughly 2 years in earnest and they hadn't been living together for about a decade by the time he was extolling the virtues of Hitler and the Nazis. He seemed to ignore it in her, because racists and bigots are not reasonable or rational people, and he like many hateful bastards, was a massive hypocrite. You can keep trying, but you can't successfully deny that Lovecraft was a racist and a bigot. He made it very clearly, unsubtly in his fiction, and plainly in his nonfiction. 

And why would a studio make a movie about Jews, at a time when Jews were a growing audience in the US? Hm.. It boggles the mind. Maybe they thought they could appeal to an audience and make money? Maybe they, unlike you, weren't as fearful of other cultures and races and might want to appeal to a growing audience population that was fleeing Europe because they would rather not be murdered en masse? Right, I forgot you don't believe companies want to make money... I wonder if now you're going to tell me they weren't actually escaping anything in Europe either.

The films of the 60s started to shift with the wider culture, but if anything the film industry was behind the times. The world in the 60s was largely about failure, and the films of the day started to reflect that. Many filmmakers became less interested in the standard of everything, including the standard male, standard female, standard plots, standard exposition, standard composition, standard mise en scene, standard color palette, standard acting style, etc. You can revel in the freedom of the Italians for make the Dollars movies, but the change in the tide of American film at the time was largely European influence coming from Italy, and France and was about expanding the boundaries beyond just the typical old fashioned Hollywood film.

But you're being fucking stupid about this too. Nothing actually happened to the alpha male character, nor the actors who embodied them. There were just other types of movies being made as well. Charlton Heston and John Wayne didn't stop working all of a sudden. They had some of their biggest  hits in the 60s and John Wayne, against all reason, won an Oscar in the 60s. And the time also gave rise to the likes of Clint Eastwood and Charles Bronson and Steve McQueen and Sean Connery. And the alpha male was never more alive on television. 

And wasn't United Artists nothing but a zionist conspiracy in your nonsensical ramblings? They released The Greatest Story Ever Told in the 60s. Maybe Jesus wasn't 'alpha male' enough for you, but hard to imagine even you trying to explain how the story of Jesus was Jewish propaganda. Maybe the Jews who ran the company wanted to, I don't know, make money off of the film, like others had on biblical epics throughout the 50s and 60s? Hmm... Making money: what a concept for a business.

You're reeeeeallly grasping at straws with the Schwarzenegger argument. That's possibly the dumbest, straw graspingest argument I've ever tried to see someone make in any context. He wasn't a leading hero? The 80s didn't see a glut of muscle bound, macho man action movies? 

At this point, I kind of have to assume you're joking.

Funny to mention a neurotic, weak, failure under HP Lovecraft...

Your Weinstein argument is yet another extremely stupid, poorly thought out, and flatly incorrect one.

Weinstein was a powerhouse in Hollywood, possibly above any other. Mira Sorvino was just another piece of ass to him. A dime a dozen. He could blackball her because he could afford to. It wasn't because she wasn't jewish. It was because of his personal issue with her. He harassed her, she spurned his advances. It's the classic cliche. He could make or break her because he had all the power, and if he decided to tell people not to hire her, she wouldn't find work. And it's not like she was a super mega star. She wasn't opening big movies on her name. Nobody would argue otherwise.

Cooking the books, and Hollywood accounting is about the studios controlling the mean of production and the means of distribution. They can charge themselves nothing for distribution costs and claim a major hit film as a loss as a way to cheat the creators out of money that they owe them. That's what that means. It doesn't mean just magically manufacturing money out of absolutely nowhere. That's not how anything works. 

And there is plenty of panic among the people who don't want to make superhero movies or giant robot movies. There's constant talk about the death of the middle budget film and how only the smallest the the biggest budgeted movies have a real shot to get made anymore.

And even those that are making those big movies are absolutely panicking. WB is freaking out.  They thought they had a plan to copy Marvel and it blew up in their faces because they made bad business decisions. They made a movie about two alpha males fighting each other and assumed it would be a hit and it fucking sucked and didn't make enough money, and the follow up was a mishandled disaster. Now they are in panic mode.

Universal announced their big Dark Universe plans. They were rushing films into production, they signed a bunch of major stars, they hired writers and directors to over see multiple films, and then they made the first one and nobody went to see it. Not in America at least. So they are in free fall mode. They've effectively scrapped the whole thing, fired the producers, shut down the offices, cancelled or postponed their future plans, dissolved contracts, etc.

Why? Because they didn't make the money that they expected. 

The box office is bad not because studios aren't making money, it's because only the major studios are making money, and they are only making money off of a handful of titles. But those select blockbuster movies are breaking and setting new financial records all of the time. A

There are a lot of articles about this. You may have misread them.

Disney is not among the big boys? They own the two biggest properties and have an endless flow of cash because their properties make money. Are you not aware that Star Wars and Marvel are massively profitable?