...the economics of remakes and sequels is hard to argue. In the modern era the marketing of a film is key and for a big budget picture can often exceed $100m. Sequels and remakes bring a built-in brand name . That is why Hollywood is intent on endless reboots and sequels of superhero franchises such as Superman, Batman, X-Men and Spider-Man. It also explains why 2011 will see a fourth Pirates of the Caribbean movie, a film series inspired by a theme-park ride at Disneyland.
[following is by Philip French, not the main article author]
... Remakes have been Hollywood's stock in trade ever since in 1914 Edwin S Porter (director of The Great Train Robbery, the first film to achieve worldwide recognition) was told his company needed to produce a feature-length movie a week. "There's not enough talent in the world to make that many pictures in a year," Porter replied.
...
Are they ever justified other than commercially? Yes, if significant improvements can be made, especially if this means going back to a literary source. Eventually someone is bound to make a successful version of Fitzgerald's The Great Gatsby. But some attempts should never be made or allowed. Only a fool or a knave would embark on remakes of Casablanca, Citizen Kane, Gone With the Wind or Singin' in the Rain, though Gus Van Sant, a director who is neither fool nor knave, got egg on his face and a tarnished reputation with a shot-for-shot reworking of Hitchcock's Psycho.
Remakes are frequently interesting sociologically for the light they throw on changing times and different cultures: Seven Samurai becoming The Magnificent Seven, for instance, or the blaxploitation version of Odd Man Out and The Informer, or the four contrasted treatments of The Front Page.
SOURCE: http://www.guardian.co.uk/film/2011/jan/02/hollywood-remakes-sequels-weinstein
Hollywood takes a safe bet for 2011 with the year of the repeat
To critics' dismay and despite the success of original films like Inception, the movies on this year's agenda announced by Harvey Weinstein are sequels, spin-offs and remakes of past hits
ambition, hope and renewed energy in the creative industries. So when movie moguls Harvey and Bob Weinstein recently announced details of a deal for a series of remakes, sequels and TV shows based on their film classics, the collective sigh of despair from critics was enough to make the most cynical Hollywood observer take notice.
Shakespeare in Love 2, Bad Santa 2 and Rounders 2 were all promoted as projects in the press release, despite sounding like films no cinephile could imagine being made. The touting of the entire Weinstein Company back catalogue also raises the prospect of a remake of Reservoir Dogs. Or a TV show based on the guys movie Swingers. Or even a sequel to the gritty police drama Cop Land. Few pundits pulled their punches. "This sounds bananas," wrote Entertainment Weekly columnist Darren Franich. But not to the Weinsteins. They dismissed the criticism with a pithy comment about the state of Hollywood's movie output. Shakespeare in Love 2 would be, the Weinsteins insisted, "... better than 90% of the films out there".
A look at the roster of expected films for 2011 reveals that the moguls have a point. Hollywood's dream factory, beset by spiralling marketing costs and a pinched bottom line, is retreating into the safe bets of sequels, do-overs or films based on bestsellers and theme park rides. Coming to a multiplex near you are such franchised delights as Journey to the Centre of the Earth 2, Sherlock Holmes 2, a new X-Men series, Happy Feet 2, The Hangover 2 and the eighth Harry Potter film.
It is possible, however, that the endless parade of cookie cutter titles, spin-offs, reboots and tired sequels has finally run out of road. The groan that greeted the Weinstein deal could represent the moment that scraping the barrel for familiar concepts became old hat. "I could hardly think of a movie that more deserves being the subject of a late-night comedy skit than Shakespeare in Love 2. Don't the Weinsteins have anything else to do?" said Richard Laermer, a cultural critic at the Huffington Post. If that opinion gains critical mass, it raises an interesting prospect. Could Hollywood end up searching for that most elusive of things in movieland – fresh ideas?
Some of the signs are good. One of last year's biggest hits was Inception, a multi-layered thriller set in a series of dream worlds. It had Leonardo DiCaprio as its star, but flouted most Hollywood conventions. It was long, complex in its plotting and had an ambiguous ending that deliberately left its audience wondering. There was certainly no first kiss against a sunset and a gradual fade to black. Yet Inception was both a critical and a box-office smash, raking in hundreds of millions of dollars across the globe.
Another original idea, the cartoon film Despicable Me, was also a huge hit. It was one of the top 10 earners last year, yet it was not based on a toy, a graphic novel or a prequel. The success of these films, and a few others, even prompted the New York Times to write a feature hailing the dawn of a new era of originality in big budget movies. Hollywood bigwigs opined that "originality" and "quality" were the next big thing. "We think the future is about film-makers with original voices. Original is good and good is commercial," Amy Pascal, Sony's co-chairwoman, said.
However, those sort of comments do not convince many industry-watchers. They are far more likely to regard the Weinsteins' plans with a resigned shrug. Hollywood studios, they point out, have never been interested in originality or quality. They are simply interested in making money. Sequels, remakes and franchises of beloved comic-book heroes are the safest bet for movie moguls. They believe the public will love what it already knows. "It is hard to convey an original idea in a 30-second advert for your film. That's what it boils down to," said Nikki Finke, founder of website Deadline Hollywood and long-time gadfly to the industry. She dismissed the idea that the time for sequels and remakes was past its sell-by date. "There is no sign of that changing. If anything it is just going to get worse. We are going into a time of reboot mania."
Other figures agree. The Los Angeles-based celebrity interviewer Gayl Murphy has no illusions about the industry. "There are a lot of people in Hollywood who consider themselves artists and can't pay the rent and others who consider themselves writers who work on paying projects and have five houses," she said.
When put in those terms, the economics of remakes and sequels is hard to argue. In the modern era the marketing of a film is key and for a big budget picture can often exceed $100m. Sequels and remakes bring a built-in brand name . That is why Hollywood is intent on endless reboots and sequels of superhero franchises such as Superman, Batman, X-Men and Spider-Man. It also explains why 2011 will see a fourth Pirates of the Caribbean movie, a film series inspired by a theme-park ride at Disneyland.
They also work. While Inception and Despicable Me were hits in 2010, the rest of the list of top 10 movies makes dismal reading for anyone wanting more originality. The highest-grossing movie in America last year was Toy Story 3. Alongside it were Iron Man 2, the latest Twilight film and Shrek 4. The last three were largely poorly reviewed, but it did not matter. Audiences flocked to see them. Meanwhile, some notable original films, such as the thriller The Tourist and the romantic comedy How Do You Know flopped, despite boasting star names such as Johnny Depp, Angelina Jolie, Reese Witherspoon and Jack Nicholson.
So it is not necessarily Hollywood executives who should be blamed for the decline of originality but the viewing public. No matter how many critics gripe online or in newspapers, the real power lies in the hands of the people with their willingness to fork out at the box office.
"When you look at the all-time box-office leaders and see how many of them are sequels, there's no sign being sent to Hollywood that audiences have had too much, or at least not in a language that Hollywood cares to understand," said Dr Jonathan Gray, a professor of cultural studies at the University of Wisconsin.
Of course, sequels and remakes do not have to be bad. The recent reboot of classic western True Grit, directed by the Coen brothers, has been a critical success. Indeed, Hollywood has been remaking and rebooting and churning out sequels since it first started making movies at the start of the last century. Some all-time greats, such as The Godfather Part II and The Empire Strikes Back, were sequels.
"Good storytellers have always found ways to make a new telling exciting, interesting, fascinating, and moving," said Gray. "The 15th production of King Lear that one sees might be the truly sublime one, and if good storytellers are at the helm, even the old may seem new."
That may sound an optimistic view of the situation. Yet Shakespeare happily mined earlier works for many of his plays, including Hamlet, so perhaps the Weinsteins will be proved right after all. "Even a sequel has to begin with a new story," said Finke.
HOW REMAKES REVEAL OUR TIMES – BY PHILIP FRENCH
Remakes have been Hollywood's stock in trade ever since in 1914 Edwin S Porter (director of The Great Train Robbery, the first film to achieve worldwide recognition) was told his company needed to produce a feature-length movie a week. "There's not enough talent in the world to make that many pictures in a year," Porter replied.The desperate, unceasing search for potentially profitable properties had begun for an industry that believes if something succeeds once it will work again. Had Karl Marx been a moviemaker, his statement that history repeats itself, first as tragedy, the second time as farce, would have continued, "then as a western and finally as a musical". Remakes are endemic in Tinseltown.
Old Masters such as Ford, Hawks and Hitchcock, whose one remake was his own The Man Who Knew Too Much, created precedents that were followed by the generation of Spielberg, De Palma, Scorsese (who eventually won an Oscar by relocating a Hong Kong thriller to Boston), the Coen Brothers and Soderbergh (who produces a remake most years). Many American film-makers only go to see foreign movies, especially French comedies, as possible fodder for rapid transposition to the US. Given production costs and the public's fondness for the familiar, it's not surprising the temptation to rework successes is often irresistible.
Are they ever justified other than commercially? Yes, if significant improvements can be made, especially if this means going back to a literary source. Eventually someone is bound to make a successful version of Fitzgerald's The Great Gatsby. But some attempts should never be made or allowed. Only a fool or a knave would embark on remakes of Casablanca, Citizen Kane, Gone With the Wind or Singin' in the Rain, though Gus Van Sant, a director who is neither fool nor knave, got egg on his face and a tarnished reputation with a shot-for-shot reworking of Hitchcock's Psycho.
Remakes are frequently interesting sociologically for the light they throw on changing times and different cultures: Seven Samurai becoming The Magnificent Seven, for instance, or the blaxploitation version of Odd Man Out and The Informer, or the four contrasted treatments of The Front Page.
But looking at the matter aesthetically, I can't put my hand on my heart and say that any remake has improved on a distinguished original, though I'm sure quite a few Hollywood producers could put their hands on their wallets and prove me wrong.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Please ensure your posts are appropriate in tone and content! All comments are reviewed by the blog owner before being published.