Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 14, 2018 13:17:21 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by General Kenobi on Apr 14, 2018 13:23:33 GMT
Then my work here is done.  From the late 1960s through the late 1970s directors had complete creative control on their films, with no studio interference. This all changed when Heaven's Gate was a massive box office bomb. Studios took more control of how films were made and slowly began to stifle creativity and originality. Until we are where we are now, with a string of remakes, reboots, reimaginings, and sequels because marketing says that is the most profitable option. |
|
|
|
Post by BexxyJ on Apr 17, 2018 11:52:44 GMT
Six Million Dollar Man and A Star Is Born are being remade? WTF? Have they lost their minds?  |
|
|
|
Post by General Kenobi on Apr 17, 2018 18:11:29 GMT
Well in all fairness A Star Is Born is one of those films that gets remade every decade or so. Though I think a new remake is long past due since the last one came out 42 years ago. At least it's keeping alive the tradition of having the mentor being in a horror film.  |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 21, 2018 13:13:35 GMT
Six Million Dollar Man and A Star Is Born are being remade? WTF? Have they lost their minds?  |
|
|
|
Post by General Kenobi on Apr 21, 2018 18:27:32 GMT
Hollywood has been losing moeny for awhile now. I don't think they're going to see/understand what the problem is and take efforts to fix it. Instead they will continue making the same mistakes over and over again until they go bankrupt.
|
|
|
|
Post by dazz on Apr 22, 2018 4:51:03 GMT
In fairness a lot of the so called great films are also just remakes or reimagining's, most people though don't notice it or are fucking odd and just don't care until it's blatant by actually using the old names and such for marketing purposes, otherwise most shit is the same as it ever was.
|
|
|
|
Post by General Kenobi on Apr 23, 2018 18:11:47 GMT
Well. Can't argue with that. Especially not with my copy of Victor Frankenstein nearby.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 26, 2018 13:44:47 GMT
In fairness a lot of the so called great films are also just remakes or reimagining's, most people though don't notice it or are fucking odd and just don't care until it's blatant by actually using the old names and such for marketing purposes, otherwise most shit is the same as it ever was.  |
|
|
|
Post by dazz on Apr 26, 2018 14:02:36 GMT
Not to be a douche...ok well yeah to be a douche obviously there have been original films tats because every idea had to be put to film once before, problem is now with like 700 films being made a year, 1000 or more TV shows a year cranking out anywhere from 6 1/2 to 24 hours of content each obviously a lot of shit gets repetitive, thing is a lot of "original" ideas aren't original they just have been big yet, I mean a lot of the times original ideas are just old ideas with one or two elements switched out from something else.
I do agree they should try doing more first time adaptations than remake/reboot/prereseqboothashmakeal I like Bruce Campbell's idea scrap 1 $200m movie a year and make 100 $2m movies at the very least you could make your money back by selling shit to Netflix or as a way to bolster each studios inevitable own streaming service, and as Brucey said half will be crap, 5 will make you your nut back and 1 will likely become a classic.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on May 1, 2018 12:48:50 GMT
Not to be a douche...ok well yeah to be a douche obviously there have been original films tats because every idea had to be put to film once before, problem is now with like 700 films being made a year, 1000 or more TV shows a year cranking out anywhere from 6 1/2 to 24 hours of content each obviously a lot of shit gets repetitive, thing is a lot of "original" ideas aren't original they just have been big yet, I mean a lot of the times original ideas are just old ideas with one or two elements switched out from something else. I do agree they should try doing more first time adaptations than remake/reboot/prereseqboothashmakeal I like Bruce Campbell's idea scrap 1 $200m movie a year and make 100 $2m movies at the very least you could make your money back by selling shit to Netflix or as a way to bolster each studios inevitable own streaming service, and as Brucey said half will be crap, 5 will make you your nut back and 1 will likely become a classic.  |
|
|
|
Post by dazz on May 1, 2018 13:12:06 GMT
Not to be a douche...ok well yeah to be a douche obviously there have been original films tats because every idea had to be put to film once before, problem is now with like 700 films being made a year, 1000 or more TV shows a year cranking out anywhere from 6 1/2 to 24 hours of content each obviously a lot of shit gets repetitive, thing is a lot of "original" ideas aren't original they just have been big yet, I mean a lot of the times original ideas are just old ideas with one or two elements switched out from something else. I do agree they should try doing more first time adaptations than remake/reboot/prereseqboothashmakeal I like Bruce Campbell's idea scrap 1 $200m movie a year and make 100 $2m movies at the very least you could make your money back by selling shit to Netflix or as a way to bolster each studios inevitable own streaming service, and as Brucey said half will be crap, 5 will make you your nut back and 1 will likely become a classic. Well they do but the wrong type of risks, like they announce a 15 movie franchise before they release the first movie to figure out if people even want to see the franchise, and they spend millions in development of these films long before the first is even finished filming, putting themselves into a hole before the first film even comes out, this is one of the reasons why Superman Returns & MOS had such bloated budgets because they included the development cost of unrealised Superman film from a decade earlier, which they then use as a justification that Superman doesn't sell.
Makes me laugh because It did so good Hollywood want to crank out Stephen King adaptations again, but they forget King adaptations have been hits before, they also went down as well as a turd in a punch bowl, It worked because who they got to adapt & direct it knew how to do it the right way, they knew what to leave in and what to leave out, pretty sure had they left in the sewer orgy the critical and fan response wouldn't have been so positive, nor would their be as much repeat viewings, and from what I gather a lot of King's material can go that way, similar to CBM sure they are hot right now but a CBM alone wont make money, Green Lantern proved that.
It's like just stop chasing those billion dollar movies, make some smaller ones that if they bomb shit ok we can eat that loss, hell small budget but decent marketing you can trick an audience into making those profitable, I think that's the Saw formula atleast.
|
|
|
|
Post by General Kenobi on May 1, 2018 19:23:54 GMT
Sometimes the cart is put before the horse, with studios obsessed with building a cinematic universe instead of focusing on one film at a time. Universal spent more time plotting their Dark Universe then crafting The Mummy and it shows.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on May 4, 2018 13:18:57 GMT
Yeah. I like that idea Bruce Campbell has too and people tend to forget some of the classic films were made on low budgets and still went on to become some of the most popular movies of all time. I think things are far more expensive than they used to be with films and TV shows 'cause when you look back at how cheap some Horror movies were in the 80s there is no way you could make a movie for that price now and I heard the make up artists for 'Buffy the Vampire Slayer' and 'Angel' charge a lot more than they did when they were making those shows but I think it is all about how they use it and not every movie needs to have a $200 million budget for it to be good. The Incredible Hulk is a good example of that and the two movies had huge budgets but they nowhere near as popular as the TV show was. The TV show was one of the biggest TV shows in the world at the time and didn't even have special effects and had a different actor playing the Hulk. The movies were full of special effects and flopped. The main problem with Hollywood for me is they don't take enough risks anymore or give new writers a chance. Well they do but the wrong type of risks, like they announce a 15 movie franchise before they release the first movie to figure out if people even want to see the franchise, and they spend millions in development of these films long before the first is even finished filming, putting themselves into a hole before the first film even comes out, this is one of the reasons why Superman Returns & MOS had such bloated budgets because they included the development cost of unrealised Superman film from a decade earlier, which they then use as a justification that Superman doesn't sell.
Makes me laugh because It did so good Hollywood want to crank out Stephen King adaptations again, but they forget King adaptations have been hits before, they also went down as well as a turd in a punch bowl, It worked because who they got to adapt & direct it knew how to do it the right way, they knew what to leave in and what to leave out, pretty sure had they left in the sewer orgy the critical and fan response wouldn't have been so positive, nor would their be as much repeat viewings, and from what I gather a lot of King's material can go that way, similar to CBM sure they are hot right now but a CBM alone wont make money, Green Lantern proved that.
It's like just stop chasing those billion dollar movies, make some smaller ones that if they bomb shit ok we can eat that loss, hell small budget but decent marketing you can trick an audience into making those profitable, I think that's the Saw formula atleast.
With Superman I didn't know they used 'Superman Lives' as a justification that Superman couldn't sell but that is ridiculous when you look at how many ratings 'Lois and Clark: The New Adventures of Superman' was bringing in every week during its first three seasons. It was one of the most successful shows in the 90s and was slaughtering a lot of other shows and getting more viewers every week than a number of movies were getting in Box Office sales. After reading about 'Superman Lives' I am glad it didn't go through 'cause it was another movie that focused on Lex Luthor and even though it had Braniac in it Braniac was going to be some type of invention that merged with Lex at the end and I think Warner Bros' biggest mistake with Superman has always been overusing Lex Luthor when there are a ton of other Superman villains that would be more interesting to see on screen. I personally think if 'Superman Returns' had gone with Braniac, Darkseid, The Eradicator, Atomic Skull, Imperex, Cyborg Superman, Parasite, Bizarro, Mongul, Chemo etc as the main villain it would have been more successful 'cause I know a lot of fans that were disappointed with that movie using Lex Luthor for the 500th time but I would have liked to have seen a 'Superman' movie with Dean Cain and Teri Hatcher and think Warner Bros missed out on cashing in on their popularity in the 90s not making one with them instead of Nicholas Cage. 
|
|
) but I just looked it up and know a lot of the actors that appeared in it and I am confused, in what way would you say that put the films where they are now. You have confused me now.
