Remakes! Remakes! Read all about 'em!
Hollywood makes it so easy to hate its industry when it gets this lazy...!
Seriously, it's bad enough when they try to remake classics like "Casablanca" and "The Wizard of Oz." It's even worse when a lazy or scheming executive decides to greenlight a remake of "Three's Company," "Weird Science," or something else even more recent.
That requires absolutely no imagination at all.
I just recently saw the movie version of "Get Smart" when my sister and her boyfriend rented the DVD over Thanksgiving.
It was totally forgettable and utterly mediocre to the point of asking, "Why bother with this?"
And Ben's right... Half the point of a lot of these remakes is for executives to make some quick money. Execs don't make money on re-releases of existing films and TV shows, BUT if they greenlight remakes you can bet that they have it written into a contract somewhere that they will get a piece of the profit, or at least some money for greenlighting the project.
I took a class or two taught by the producer of "Pete's Dragon" and the original "Witch Mountain" movies. And guess what? Disney's remaking the "Witch Mountain" movies!
I think the old gentleman could care less now (he's in his early 80's), but he told me a big reason for remakes was so that the current executives would get money off the newer versions... Of course, this was all around 10 years before the current wave of film and TV series remakes.
Seriously, it's bad enough when they try to remake classics like "Casablanca" and "The Wizard of Oz." It's even worse when a lazy or scheming executive decides to greenlight a remake of "Three's Company," "Weird Science," or something else even more recent.
That requires absolutely no imagination at all.
I just recently saw the movie version of "Get Smart" when my sister and her boyfriend rented the DVD over Thanksgiving.
It was totally forgettable and utterly mediocre to the point of asking, "Why bother with this?"
And Ben's right... Half the point of a lot of these remakes is for executives to make some quick money. Execs don't make money on re-releases of existing films and TV shows, BUT if they greenlight remakes you can bet that they have it written into a contract somewhere that they will get a piece of the profit, or at least some money for greenlighting the project.
I took a class or two taught by the producer of "Pete's Dragon" and the original "Witch Mountain" movies. And guess what? Disney's remaking the "Witch Mountain" movies!
I think the old gentleman could care less now (he's in his early 80's), but he told me a big reason for remakes was so that the current executives would get money off the newer versions... Of course, this was all around 10 years before the current wave of film and TV series remakes.
-
- AV Forum Member
- Posts: 5207
- Joined: September 27th, 2007
80's MGM...See how it works?Ben wrote:They're remaking <I>Child's Play</I>!??!??!????!?????
Surely that's a franchise still rip for another follow-up?
Also considering that Sony owns contemporary-MGM, has been growing increasingly desperate that they just don't have an audience-identifiable 'Boomer Marketing Franchise like Warner and Disney do (which explains why they keep ramming UA's Pink Panther down our throats) and is only too happy to let MGM indulge their 80's trips for cash, in the hopes of who it attracts and who they can sell to...
- AV Forum Member
- Posts: 1347
- Joined: January 23rd, 2006
- Location: The Middle of Nowhere
Someone needs to remake "The Black Cauldron". I like the film quite a bit, but someone needs to do the Prydain series properly, with one film for each book (Taran Wanderer would be a hard sell, but it's still a good story worth adapting).
The Official Lugofilm Ltd Youtube Channel: http://www.youtube.com/user/bartsimpson83
-
- AV Forum Member
- Posts: 5207
- Joined: September 27th, 2007
If they owned Marvel, yes.Ben wrote:...what, like <I>Spider-Man</I>?
But more like, back when Sony first bought MGM, and was about to release that Nicole Kidman 60's-TV movie that Shall Remain Nameless, Sony's marketing division tried to flood Target shelves with t-shirts, desk clutter, and assorted frou-frou of what they thought WERE now their two biggest Female Cutesy 'Boomer Pop-Culture Marketing Franchises:
Pink Panther (courtesy of MGM/UA), and...animated-credits iconography of "Bewitched" and "I Dream of Jeannie". (courtesy of Columbia Screen Gems Television).
...Nnnnn-NOT exactly Tweety Bird, Warner/DC Heroes, or Disney Princesses, but they're in there punching.
- AV Founder
- Posts: 25714
- Joined: October 22nd, 2004
- Location: London, UK
Sony never bought MGM. They purchased some stock options in them, but not a controlling share.
Spider-Man makes more money for Sony than it does for Marvel. Like the first Superman, the deal is that Sony licenses the rights and can do what they like with it, paying Marvel a royalty, hence why no Spidey (currently) in all the big and grandiose upcoming Marvel movie plans.
But...I get your point...against what the other studios have to offer, the Torch doesn't really have anything from their own library to compete: they also let Mighty Mouse slip to Viacom through various deals, and even Hanna-Barbera were distributed by Screen Gems, but now they own nothing of that.
About the best they have is Ray Harryhausen's Sinbad and those kinds of films...but you're not going to establish a marketing empire off the back of those!
Spider-Man makes more money for Sony than it does for Marvel. Like the first Superman, the deal is that Sony licenses the rights and can do what they like with it, paying Marvel a royalty, hence why no Spidey (currently) in all the big and grandiose upcoming Marvel movie plans.
But...I get your point...against what the other studios have to offer, the Torch doesn't really have anything from their own library to compete: they also let Mighty Mouse slip to Viacom through various deals, and even Hanna-Barbera were distributed by Screen Gems, but now they own nothing of that.
About the best they have is Ray Harryhausen's Sinbad and those kinds of films...but you're not going to establish a marketing empire off the back of those!
-
- AV Forum Member
- Posts: 5207
- Joined: September 27th, 2007
And any Columbia/UPA hopes for Mr. Magoo are completely tied up by Classic Media, and Gerald McBoingBoing is under the tyrannical world-domination thumb of Audrey Geisel...Ben wrote:But...I get your point...against what the other studios have to offer, the Torch doesn't really have anything from their own library to compete: they also let Mighty Mouse slip to Viacom through various deals, and even Hanna-Barbera were distributed by Screen Gems, but now they own nothing of that.
-
- AV Forum Member
- Posts: 338
- Joined: October 31st, 2008
-
- AV Forum Member
- Posts: 2679
- Joined: October 18th, 2007
- AV Forum Member
- Posts: 178
- Joined: November 24th, 2008
- Location: Missouri, US
- Contact: