29 users responded in this post

Subscribe to this post comment rss or trackback url
mygif

I was in Manhattan a couple of weeks ago with a friend, and we happened to catch Ferris Bueller’s Day Off playing on cable at the hotel. Perfect late-night movie. We were suitably buzzed and it was nostalgic and we’re both writers who studied fiction and screenplays at SC.

And we both commented that movie could never get made nowadays, at least not the way that one was. The museum sequence alone; a solid couple of minutes of the three leads not doing much besides staring at art, with strong identification from one character with a particular painting?

Then again: Hollywood might never make it, but it’s now the kind of movie a couple of people could make together without a whole lot of effort. No special effects besides the Ferrari, after all.

ReplyReply
mygif

Actually, STAR WARS was kinda mid-budget- $13 million, less than what CLOSE ENCOUNTERS or EXORCIST II cost.

Hollywood’s almost always hedged its bets when it comes to the big A-budget movies and put in some kind of link to an established property.

ReplyReply
mygif

It could be bad ass, though. Jason all in moon boots and a snowmobile suit and mittens-on-a-string so’s he doesn’t lose one whilst frolicking in his snow fort.

ReplyReply
mygif

Whats “The robocop game”?

ReplyReply
mygif

I just want to make a small comment about your list of movies to come. While I Love You Beth Cooper is technically an adaptation, Larry Doyle only shopped it around as a novel when he couldn’t get anyone to bite on his screenplay. In effect, he gamed the system just so he could get his movie made.

ReplyReply
mygif

A) How the fuck does Tyler Perry’s ANYTHING make money? Those movies are dogshit awful

B) I thought the new Fast/Furious was just a sequel to the original – what’s the remake here?

C) The order of that list is all sorts of retarded. What the fuck is wrong with people

ReplyReply
mygif

I seem to remember an episode of Siskel and Ebert where they looked at the best movies of the 70s. They talked about what a mini Renaissance it was, with Copolla, Scorcese, Spielberg, and Lucas coming up. They concluded the show by saying that under the current studio system none of the movies they’d discussed would be be made. And that was probably fifteen years ago, never mind today.

ReplyReply
mygif

The studio method of film-making has become tired, self-consuming, marketed around ‘name’ actors and brand products that could guarantee big opening weekends… which aren’t guaranteed anymore if the lousy performances by Friday 13th remake and Land of the Lost/Will Ferrell travesty are any sign. And yet that’s all that can get distributed big-time across the major theater chains.

We need a newer distribution system. The technology of film-making – digital cameras, editing that could be done on one iMac, CGI software that doesn’t run on warehouse-sized Creys – has gotten more compact, and hopefully more affordable (as long as you know someone who thinks a $100k digital camera is ‘affordable’). The only thing preventing 10,000 Ed Wood wannabes from filming out of their garage is the lack of access to a viable distribution system, the one thing on which the studios have a death-grip.

Who complained about Tyler Perry’s movies being crap? Deal is, he’s able to get those films distributed, through Lionsgate, and he makes money off of those movies without dealing with any ‘major studio’. Just have to find out how he made that deal, and maybe, just maybe, we can make our own movies. Anyone got a decent script (no more zombies on a plane! That’s been done to death)?

ReplyReply
mygif

A) How the fuck does Tyler Perry’s ANYTHING make money? Those movies are dogshit awful

One day you will meet a black person (I know a few) and explain this to them. Said black person will look at you sadly, explain that you just don’t get black humor, and walk away thinking you’re a little racist.

Why do I think they still make money? Imagine living in a world were your options were Japanese Kung-Fu epic, Japanese situation comedy, Japanese love story, Japanese low budget buddy flick, or something staring Seth Rogan.

I mean, let’s face it, well over half the shit that makes it to theaters is crap anyway. At least you get to see crap with a leading character you actually identify with. :-p

See, also: BET

ReplyReply
mygif
Rawrasaur said on June 17th, 2009 at 6:27 pm

Here’s the thing though… back in 1977, George Lucas had some clout. He was one of the three writers on American Graffiti, which was nominated for a bunch of oscars and won several other awards. He had done THX 1138 before as well, and was a fairly well-established writer.

The first Star Wars had a fairly middling budget (as pointed out earlier by Evan Waters), and they gave him the green light. It was wildly popular, and the sequels were rapidly greenlit, reminding me much of the Matrix (budget: $63M, 1999) which came out the same year as Toy Story 2 ($90M budget), Star Wars: The Phantom Menace ($115M budget) and Disney’s Tarzan ($130M budget).

Would those “great” movies of yesteryear get made today? Maybe, but it all depends on what studio, who’s writing, who’s directing, and any myriad factors in between.

ReplyReply
mygif

Aw heck, that Friday the 13th film wasn’t dogshit in comparison to the other Friday the 13th films. I’d go so far as to say it was at least (at least!) the 2nd or 3rd best out of the whole series…? I’m barely serious, but still.

Also, these sorts of production trends are bound to be cyclical, surely? The original Star Wars probably wouldn’t be greenlit today, but it probably wouldn’t have been greenlit ten or twenty years BEFORE 1977, either. Expensive new sf/fantasy epics with no big names have never been an easy sell. (And that’s probably fair enough – how many original sf/fantasy epic scripts aren’t derivative crap?)

When franchise & remake revenues start to slide (which they have to, eventually – what comes after generation Y?) the studios & producers will take more chances on original ideas.

ReplyReply
mygif

@Davinder:
Yeah, and the films of the 70s wouldn’t have been made under the studio systems of the 60s, 50s, 30s etc, either. The 70s renaissance happened because the big producers kept on pumping out too much same old crap, and they stopped making money. It’ll happen again.

ReplyReply
mygif

As pointed out, Star Wars was by George “American Graffiti” Lucas. Ferris Buller mentioned above was from John “16 Candles/Breakfast Club” Hughes.

ReplyReply
mygif

Alvin and the Chipmunks: The Squeakwel.

Oh, GOD.

There’s a bigwig and three executives write-up for this one in the wings, isn’t there?

ReplyReply
mygif

Soory, but “The Squeakwel” still cracks me up, I don’t care if it IS all part of a Scientological plan to brainwash the youth we didn’t really want around much anyway.

ReplyReply
mygif

Woohoo! I got my own response post!

Err, anyway, you have a point, but I think thos suggesting this is a cyclical trend could be right.

ReplyReply
mygif
VersasoVantare said on June 17th, 2009 at 8:35 pm

So, what, Jason’s got a cocaine habit now?

Simon: The Robocop Game is where you take a film’s title and replace a word in it with Robocop.

ReplyReply
mygif

@ Thoapsl:

Actually, the 70s renaissance happened for a number of reasons. The old studio heads all retired and sold their companies to major corporations, who appointed people who weren’t experienced with moviemaking. They didn’t quite know what would sell, but the director-as-auteur movement was popular, so they tended to give leeway to directors with a hit or two under their belt. On top of that, the MPAA rating system had been introduced recently, and filmmakers were able to explore the new freedom that gave them.

ReplyReply
mygif

It’s also worth mentioning that movies like “Star Wars” were hard to make back then, too. It’s easy to look back thirty years, see all the memorable and classic movies, and assume that it was some sort of Golden Age of cinema where they only made great, innovative work, but 1977 also was the year that gave us “The Exorcist II”, a remake of “The Island of Doctor Moreau”, “The Bad News Bears in Breaking Training”, and “Herbie Goes to Monte Carlo”.

Getting good movies made has always been hard. Getting crowd-pleasing dreck made has always been easy. Anyone who says otherwise is looking back at things through a pleasant haze of nostalgia.

ReplyReply
mygif

Is “Inglourious Basterds” really a remake? I was under the impression that Tarantino just swiped the name. And, um, spelled it wrong.

And yeah, I was under the impression Star Wars was middling-to-cheap for its day. That’s why it’s frustrating we don’t see movies like that more often. I mean, Lucas created an epic comic-book universe for the modern equivalent of, what, $50 million? Less? I’m sure someone could replicate the feat nowadays. They could probably get it done even cheaper, actually, if they’d be willing to think outside the box when it came to FX. I’d personally love to see a movie with stop-motion and forced-perspective models used to replicate this stuff instead of expensive CGI. To me these way-out SF and fantasy movies never look thoroughly “real” anyway, so why not just go hog wild and give it a stylized look? I think movies like “Sky Captain” were a step in this direction, except, well, Sky Captain kinda sucked.

ReplyReply
mygif

I always thought it was the Anus Game. It’s much more amusing that way.

ReplyReply
mygif

I think it’s just because Hollywood is like any business. As long as someone pays them, a person will do almost anything. So if nutbag producers with too much money want to fork out millions to a director, crews and actor to make another Punisher film then they’ll make it. The companies don’t care because all they do is distribute them and unless they’re absolute flops they’ll generally at least make their money back

I don’t think adaptations are the problem. As long as there have been movies there has been adaptations, it’s just the quality of the film making that stops any movie from being great. And it’s probably easy to see why people just churn out mindless crap when a movie about Transformers makes bajillions when in reality the only defining quality of the movie was it’s SFX

ReplyReply
mygif

I was with you until you lumped adaptations in there. A bad adaptation wastes as much celluloid as a bad remake or a bad sequel (remember Bonfire of the Vanities, starring Tom Hanks and Bruce Willis?).

But the history of global cinema stands on the shoulders of adaptations that transcended their source material. Off the top of my head: The Godfather, Schindler’s List, On the Waterfront, Saturday Night Fever, Jurassic Park, Gone with the Wind, One Flew Over the Cuckoo’s Nest, From Here to Eternity, etc, etc.

ReplyReply
mygif
Sofa King said on June 18th, 2009 at 12:26 pm

My Bloody Valentine 3-D? Gag me. That movie was shiite.

ReplyReply
mygif

Well, just about every point I was going to make has already been made, especially about “Star Wars,” so I guess the only thing I can do is verify that “Inglourious Basterds” is NOT a remake. I’ve read the script and about the only thing it has in common with the ’70s movie is a World War II setting and Nazis.

Incidentally, I’m still kind of surprised to find that that’s the intended spelling of its title. The script is so full of misspellings just like it, I thought it was just another mistake. They’re very consistent misspellings, too — like “weather” for “whether,” for instance — so they’re not typos. Kind of makes you wonder if Tarantino is mildly dyslexic — or if his brain just operates on such an accelerated plane of existence from the rest of us mere humans that the English language simply can’t keep up.

ReplyReply
mygif
Lister Sage said on June 18th, 2009 at 4:03 pm

Mike: I’m going with dyslexic.

ReplyReply
mygif

The original The Fast and the Furious was not a remake but based on a magazine article.

So, technically, it’s merely an incredible rip-off of Point Break.

ReplyReply
mygif
solid snake said on June 19th, 2009 at 8:48 pm

Inglourious Basterds= The Devil’s Brigade with less people.

ReplyReply
mygif

Never saw it myself, but there was a Roger Corman The Fast and the Furious. The title, at least, has been done before.

ReplyReply

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Please Note: Comment moderation may be active so there is no need to resubmit your comments