• We have updated the guidelines regarding posting political content: please see the stickied thread on Website Issues.

Hollywood's Pointless Remakes, Reboots, Prequels & Sequels

Xanatic* said:
It appears they are going ahead with rebooting the tv-show Supernatural. Why not, 15 seasons of it clearly isn`t enough.
Click to expand...

Excellent! My missus and l love it, and are currently bingeing it (up to Series 8, so no spoilers!)

maximus otter
 
Top Gun 2 was on the other night, but I couldn't bring myself to watch it.
If there's shaky camera/fast cutting, I'd have got very angry, so best avoided I reckon.
 
I don't mind sequels, but I do think reimagings just show a lack of faith in the audience. Almost as though film makers are too afraid to make new stuff in case people don't like it, so they stick to remaking old stuff (which they already know people like). Or maybe it's just easier to raise finance for films that already have a track record?

Some of the reimaginings are being made of films that are so old that a couple of generations have reached viewing age now without ever seeing the original, which might explain more.
 
brownmane said:
I was not impressed by the original, so doubt I will see this one.
Click to expand...
I suppose it was OK if the viewer was a post goth era next generation goth at the time. Sort of like people identifying with the 'tortured soul' re invented contemporary Joker. When it come's to modern era setting goth films, I'd go with The Hunger every time but each to their own.
 
The original 1953 Salaire de la Peur/Wages of Fear movie was an absolute classic and the 1977 William Friedkin remake (Sorcerer) was IMHO pretty good (partly because I absolutely loved the Tangerine Dream soundtrack).
I have just watched the 2024 French re-remake though and found it profoundly disappointing.
Why transfer the action from South America to a North African country undergoing a coup for starters? Why throw in a pointless heist gone wrong? Why the gratuitous sex scene with a woman who has far too much dialogue but no need whatsoever to be in the movie?
As for the unconvincing shoot-outs, they would have been better suited to a Jason Statham B-movie.
Overall, this is just a mess and I can see why it didn't linger at the cinema, but went straight to streaming.
If the original was a 9/10 movie and the 1977 remake maybe a 7/10, this version rates no more than a 3/10 (and that is mostly due to the picturesque Moroccan scenery).
Just made it onto Netflix but, trust me, this is a truly pointless remake.
 
catseye said:
I don't mind sequels, but I do think reimagings just show a lack of faith in the audience. Almost as though film makers are too afraid to make new stuff in case people don't like it, so they stick to remaking old stuff (which they already know people like). Or maybe it's just easier to raise finance for films that already have a track record?

Some of the reimaginings are being made of films that are so old that a couple of generations have reached viewing age now without ever seeing the original, which might explain more.
Click to expand...

Studios, understandably, want to make a profit and reduce risk, reusing known intellectual property often has been lucrative over the past decade or so. It's also a way of hanging on the the rights for some IP - with some contracts you have to make a film or TV programme featuring the property within a certain timeframe in order to retains those rights, or they revert to the company that sold them to you.

I remember reading an article ten or more years ago about the then recent pointless and critically and financially unsuccessful reboots of Total Recall and Robocop, amongst others. The article said that producers have to go please senior shareholders when with forthcoming projects, things that sound money making or at least safe, especially when you consider movies might be three years from being greenlit to actually coming out. It's easier to do that if you can say: we are remaking/rebooting/sequel-ising "X" and can point to a previous successful incarnation.
 
In case it hasn't been mentioned in this thread: a new Matrix film has been announced, to be directed by Drew Goddard (writer of The Martian, Cloverfield and World War Z).
 
Ogdred Weary said:
Studios, understandably, want to make a profit and reduce risk, reusing known intellectual property often has been lucrative over the past decade or so. It's also a way of hanging on the the rights for some IP - with some contracts you have to make a film or TV programme featuring the property within a certain timeframe in order to retains those rights, or they revert to the company that sold them to you.

I remember reading an article ten or more years ago about the then recent pointless and critically and financially unsuccessful reboots of Total Recall and Robocop, amongst others. The article said that producers have to go please senior shareholders when with forthcoming projects, things that sound money making or at least safe, especially when you consider movies might be three years from being greenlit to actually coming out. It's easier to do that if you can say: we are remaking/rebooting/sequel-ising "X" and can point to a previous successful incarnation.
Click to expand...
Isn't it also a factor that thanks to 'creative accounting', if a re-hashed property fails to please the fandom then insurance means the studios lose far less than they might've.
 
blessmycottonsocks said:
The original 1953 Salaire de la Peur/Wages of Fear movie was an absolute classic and the 1977 William Friedkin remake (Sorcerer) was IMHO pretty good (partly because I absolutely loved the Tangerine Dream soundtrack).
I have just watched the 2024 French re-remake though and found it profoundly disappointing.
Why transfer the action from South America to a North African country undergoing a coup for starters? Why throw in a pointless heist gone wrong? Why the gratuitous sex scene with a woman who has far too much dialogue but no need whatsoever to be in the movie?
As for the unconvincing shoot-outs, they would have been better suited to a Jason Statham B-movie.
Overall, this is just a mess and I can see why it didn't linger at the cinema, but went straight to streaming.
If the original was a 9/10 movie and the 1977 remake maybe a 7/10, this version rates no more than a 3/10 (and that is mostly due to the picturesque Moroccan scenery).
Just made it onto Netflix but, trust me, this is a truly pointless remake.
Click to expand...

Have to admit that I thought it was an ok thriller..
 
Stormkhan said:
Isn't it also a factor that thanks to 'creative accounting', if a re-hashed property fails to please the fandom then insurance means the studios lose far less than they might've.
Click to expand...

Yes but that's always the case, regardless of IP. Hollywood accounting is a slippery beast to say the least, most films are never "in profit" this is to avoid paying out in profit participation and generally paying taxes. Big players like Tom Cruise or Spielberg get a back end pay out from the gross profit, small players (almost everyone) get pay outs from the net, so don't get paid. David Prowse famously got a statement every to say Return of the Jedi was yet profitable, so he would not be getting anything that year.

It's even more complicated than that, most big blockbusters seem to have budgets around $200-250M but I've seen breakdowns of some (Avengers Age of Ultron was one) where the actual budget was over $300M. Some of this is recouped by product placement and tax breaks, they also make money through merchandise and product tie-ins but these are separate to production. Some costs are also internal i.e. you paying another part of your company to do something. There's also marketing, which can be as much as the production budget, though probably not in the case of the most expensive films.

Fandoms don't make successful blockbusters, they help contribute certainly, especially if they go to see their favourite movies multiple times; what makes a film a massive success is the general audience going in large numbers, some of whom may go more than once, but most won't. They also spread the word that a film is good encouraging other casual cinema goers to give the movie a try. I'd warrant 75%+ of box office for big films is from general audience, maybe it's more like 90%+. Fandoms are smaller than people realise, even if they are very vocal and visible online. Obviously, what constitutes fandom is open to interpretation is open to question, is someone who sees every MCU once film and does little else relating to the MCU in the fandom? They are not the same as people who see most or all films, multiple times, buys merch and DVDs, is active on social media talking about the films on a regular basis.
 
blessmycottonsocks said:
Had I not seen both the brilliant original and the satisfactory Friedkin version, I would have agreed with you.
This illustrates that making a bit of a pig's arse of a remake is not just the sole preserve of Hollywood!
Click to expand...

I agree that it's not up to the standard of the previous two versions.

I'd give Sorcerer 8.5/10. I only saw The Wages of Fear 1956 version maybe 50 years ago as a kid so difficult to reliably score it. Must rewatch it.
 
Last edited:
Floyd1 said:
Top Gun 2 was on the other night, but I couldn't bring myself to watch it.
If there's shaky camera/fast cutting, I'd have got very angry, so best avoided I reckon.
Click to expand...
You did the right thing. I tried to watch it but quickly got irritated by the annoying characters and ludicrous storyline. I fell asleep before the end so in my head they killed off a couple of them which would have redeemed the film a bit had it really happened.:yawn:
 
Swifty said:
I've never seen Liam Neeson in a comedy, dry or otherwise. I'm not holding my breath this will be as good.

Liam Neeson .. being this good? ... pfft

Click to expand...
I agree but then again...Leslie Nielson wasn't known for his deadpan comedy until Airplane. I'll allow myself to be pleasantly surprised.
 
Aydee_Aitchdee said:
I agree but then again...Leslie Nielson wasn't known for his deadpan comedy until Airplane. I'll allow myself to be pleasantly surprised.
Click to expand...
Fair enough. Val Kilmer was OK in 'TOP SECRET' now I think about it which was very much made in the same style as AIRPLANE, Police Squad and The Naked Gun so as long as the writing, directing is up to that level? .. it could be good.
 
Swifty said:
so as long as the writing, directing is up to that level? .. it could be good.
Click to expand...
Yeah, that's going to be the lynch pin more than Liam Neeson. If Zucker-Abrams-Zucker write the script and direct, I'm not sure it matters who is in it.....

A Liam Neeson-starring reboot of the Naked Gun franchise is back on track at Paramount, with the studio announcing a July 18, 2025, release date today.
The reboot will be directed and executive produced by Lonely Island's Akiva Schaffer, who co-wrote the draft script with his Chip n' Dale: Rescue Rangers collaborators Dan Gregor and Doug Man. The film is being produced by Family Guy creator Seth MacFarlane and Erica Huggins' production company Fuzzy Door.
Click to expand...

Never mind. Don't bother.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top