Have anyone notice the increasing number of sequals and remakes over the last couple of years? I think Hollywood has run out of fresh ideas. I think the movie studios think they can throw anything out and the general public will watch it.
-
If you would like to get your account Verified, read this thread -
The TMF is sponsored by Clips4sale - By supporting them, you're supporting us. -
>>> If you cannot get into your account email me at [email protected] <<<
Don't forget to include your username
Hollywood selling us cheap?
- Thread starter R. Davis
- Start date
TklDuo-Ann
Verified
- Joined
- May 21, 2003
- Messages
- 8,381
- Points
- 0
Given some of the ideas we've seen come out of Hollywood the last few years, it may be GOOD that they ran out! lol 😛
Ann
Ann
HOLLYWOOD
2nd Level Yellow Feather
- Joined
- May 6, 2002
- Messages
- 3,339
- Points
- 0
i think they are running low on idea out there in hollywood right now. it seems remakes are a big deal but they usually are not as good as the orignal. look at the new mandy morre movie. it looks like a bad knockoff of roman holiday and i will not see it. also even though i loved pirates of the caribeen, is it not bad thattheymake movies out of rides at disney world now? something not right in my mind about this.
Limeoutsider
1st Level Green Feather
- Joined
- Nov 6, 2002
- Messages
- 4,123
- Points
- 0
I cant wait for the twirling tea cups of doom to have their own movie 🙄 🙄
There making movies that they know will make money, which is why there are so many movies of popular comic books and books. The already established fan based guarentees some level of success. Same thing goes with sequels. Hollywood doesn't like making new and original movies because there's not nearly as much a promise of success.
Which is also why the big name actors get the roles that they do, the seemingly shallow response of "oooh, so and so is in it, I'm gonna watch that right now!"
Which is also why the big name actors get the roles that they do, the seemingly shallow response of "oooh, so and so is in it, I'm gonna watch that right now!"
Oddjob0226
4th Level Indigo Feather
- Joined
- Apr 22, 2001
- Messages
- 6,852
- Points
- 0
I think Cav has it. Hollywood isn't out of ideas so much as Hollywood wants properties that are proven to be successful. A new idea that might pay off is more financially risky than something that has already been shown to have the capability of "making it". That's why some of the biggest successes in the last few years that were FRESH ideas were indie movies or foreign films. Bigger risk with a new idea, but smaller potential loss.
Plus, nowadays for movies to be considered successful, they don't have to be good, they just have to make money the 1st two weeks. And they do that by people rushing out to the theaters to a new movie as soon as it comes out rather than wait a month (remember all those 24 hours showings of ID4 on it's first day, or midnight premieres of LOTR?). And that isn't Hollywood's fault, that's the stupid impatient public's fault that makes bad movies big news by rushing out to hand out their money to these things. All Hollywood wants to do is make a living selling these movies and these first-two-weekers people allow them to.
Plus, nowadays for movies to be considered successful, they don't have to be good, they just have to make money the 1st two weeks. And they do that by people rushing out to the theaters to a new movie as soon as it comes out rather than wait a month (remember all those 24 hours showings of ID4 on it's first day, or midnight premieres of LOTR?). And that isn't Hollywood's fault, that's the stupid impatient public's fault that makes bad movies big news by rushing out to hand out their money to these things. All Hollywood wants to do is make a living selling these movies and these first-two-weekers people allow them to.
The Greatest Quote on Hollywood...
"Hollywood only pays out money that they expect to get back."
- My Remaining-Nameless Hollywood Friend
And he's right. Hollywood is a business town and always has been.
Essentially what happened is that in the 1960s, the studios blew practically all their holdings on big Biblical epics that didn't fare very well in the political climate. They hired a lot of young kid directors like Marty Scorsese, Michael Cimino, Stevie Spielberg and George Lucas (to name a few) because a lot of them could make a feature length movie for a shorter budget (thanks to years of making their own). Their ideas were the movies that broke the bank throughout the 1970s. By the 1980s, the studios were back on their feet with a little help from a new invention: the BLOCKBUSTER. ANd thanks to a little screw-up by a film called Heaven's Gate, the studios had an excuse to take away creative control from the very people who helped them.
Another factor is that the old studio system had artistic businessmen like Louis B. Mayer and his contemporaries; guys who could be creative and still balance the books. But they were old and out of touch by the 1960s and dead by the 1980s. And as you know, the yuppie era of the 1980s gave a HUGE boost to corporate whoring and the studios became subsidiaries of communications conglomerates.
Today, the CEOs of enormous conglomerates send off their underlings to be the CEOs of the studios, which are now little more than subsidiaries they acquired in mergers. These lackeys choose their own lackeys called "executies" to make all the financial decisions. Unfortunately, the job security for these guys is the same as it is in the financial world: one decision could make you a god or it can lose millions and your job with it. So every time a project comes up, no matter HOW ill-equipped these guys are to creativley deal with the project, they feel the need to interfere and put their own .02 in so that it LOOKS like they are single-handedly responsible for a film's success, even if it destroys any meritorious traits of teh story. So executives wield a great deal of power, but their jobs are hanging by a thread.
These people are trained BUISNESSMEN...not artists. They need for a film script to be broken down into formulas so they can understand them, much like financial reports. Remember Shakespeare in Love when they list the reasons for how "Romeo and Ethel the Pirate's Daughter" will work?: "fighting, debauchery...a dog"...well, that's exactly how they do it these days. They look at the box-office of the most successful movies and convert all the themes and characters into aggregates and variables in financial equations; the result is they basically rearrange these elements in different ways to come up with the same solution...thus, the same damn movies over and over again.
Hollywood only spends what they intend to get back. That's why Armageddon is given a budget of $100 million and Monster's Ball is given a budget of $4 million (or so). Because the first will make $200 million at the box-office and the latter will make $8-9 million.
And the rest I blame on audiences.
"Hollywood only pays out money that they expect to get back."
- My Remaining-Nameless Hollywood Friend
And he's right. Hollywood is a business town and always has been.
Essentially what happened is that in the 1960s, the studios blew practically all their holdings on big Biblical epics that didn't fare very well in the political climate. They hired a lot of young kid directors like Marty Scorsese, Michael Cimino, Stevie Spielberg and George Lucas (to name a few) because a lot of them could make a feature length movie for a shorter budget (thanks to years of making their own). Their ideas were the movies that broke the bank throughout the 1970s. By the 1980s, the studios were back on their feet with a little help from a new invention: the BLOCKBUSTER. ANd thanks to a little screw-up by a film called Heaven's Gate, the studios had an excuse to take away creative control from the very people who helped them.
Another factor is that the old studio system had artistic businessmen like Louis B. Mayer and his contemporaries; guys who could be creative and still balance the books. But they were old and out of touch by the 1960s and dead by the 1980s. And as you know, the yuppie era of the 1980s gave a HUGE boost to corporate whoring and the studios became subsidiaries of communications conglomerates.
Today, the CEOs of enormous conglomerates send off their underlings to be the CEOs of the studios, which are now little more than subsidiaries they acquired in mergers. These lackeys choose their own lackeys called "executies" to make all the financial decisions. Unfortunately, the job security for these guys is the same as it is in the financial world: one decision could make you a god or it can lose millions and your job with it. So every time a project comes up, no matter HOW ill-equipped these guys are to creativley deal with the project, they feel the need to interfere and put their own .02 in so that it LOOKS like they are single-handedly responsible for a film's success, even if it destroys any meritorious traits of teh story. So executives wield a great deal of power, but their jobs are hanging by a thread.
These people are trained BUISNESSMEN...not artists. They need for a film script to be broken down into formulas so they can understand them, much like financial reports. Remember Shakespeare in Love when they list the reasons for how "Romeo and Ethel the Pirate's Daughter" will work?: "fighting, debauchery...a dog"...well, that's exactly how they do it these days. They look at the box-office of the most successful movies and convert all the themes and characters into aggregates and variables in financial equations; the result is they basically rearrange these elements in different ways to come up with the same solution...thus, the same damn movies over and over again.
Hollywood only spends what they intend to get back. That's why Armageddon is given a budget of $100 million and Monster's Ball is given a budget of $4 million (or so). Because the first will make $200 million at the box-office and the latter will make $8-9 million.
And the rest I blame on audiences.
