![]() ![]() |
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
68.1.145.72
For some reason, perhaps vainglorious ambition, many directors attempt to remake classics, thinking those remakes will achieve similar status, however, in most cases this is not to be. Seems to me that much better candidates for remakes would be films that had great potential but did not achieve classic status for various reasons. IMO, in this way, directors would have higher probability of creating excellent, even perhaps classic remakes. What do you think? ~AH
![]()
Follow Ups:
nt
![]()
My take is that it is just "clever" business - movie makers are trying to get two bites out of the cherry - by picking a remake like say, Bewitched, and contemporising it, they are trying make a product which will have currency in EVERY age group. Ys and Xers will see it like young people do, because Nicole and Will are in it, and a bunch of Baby Boomers who can't resist a bit of a walk down memeory lane will go along as well.I would be much happier to see a new movie with new ideas with better creative cridentials than "will appeal to young people and old ones too".
It is a parallel strategy to the auto industries Retro craze. e.g. The new Ford Mustang or the coming Chev Camaro. Young people will buy them because they are new. Old people will buy them because they are living in the past.
It is common to blame the Hollywood for all those trashy remakes, but the reality is simple - it is Remake-R-Us situation, where the makers simply give us what we are demanding.People love reliving their former good experiences.
So there is less of that logical, analytical approach that you are suggesting, and more simple business.
BTW - a related question: could the multiple takes of the same classical literature be considered "remakes"? I mean of course things like War and Peace. I doubt you will call the Bondarchuk's film a remake... or would you?
![]()
![]()
While I agree with your and Jeff's emphasis on business aspect, I ask why simple business can't be logical-analytic in its profit making calculations on feeding the masses what they want? Granted, masses desires may be highly emotional, but business cannot afford to be that way, don't you think? IMO, sales in general appeals to emotions of consumers, for example, building up 'value' of products-services e.g., aesthetics, features, options, benefits, etc. and getting away from 'advertised price', which is what consumers often focus on, particularly when mark-ups, sales commissions and negotiations are involved. You as co-owner of a business, of course, probably know this well. If we accept what Jeff said, films that fell short of classic status are discounted due to increased risk factors, is this not being logical-analytic in calculating probablities of success of remakes? ~AH
![]()
..are the masses fed what they want or are the masses induced to swallow what is 'good for them'???
![]()
In the case of film marketing, I would surmise probably some of both. Time-worn and tested formulae of various genres encourage the film industry to repeat-reinforce what sells. If slasher films continually appeal to a sizeable(and highly profitable) market segment of consumers, then stick with it. This example might illustrate how the film industry would fulfill consumer wants while using power of suggestion to refuel those desires perpetually. ~AH
![]()
I'm sure there're millions out there just clamouring to see Matt Damon & Ben Affleck in the up-coming Butch Cassidy & the Sundance Kid remake.
![]()
I don't think it's got anything to do with directors thinking remakes will acheive similar status - it's just a Hollywood formulae because Hollywood has no balls, no ideas, no direction anymore and is purely run on business principles.
Most remake directors are 'appointed' or 'bought'...
There's too much risk in making a film of a potentially viable film that never made it first time round.
![]()
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors: