Welcome to the first of an occasional appearance by my inner-megalomaniac.
There’s a reason why fantasy sports leagues are so popular. They not only give us a rooting interest in games we otherwise wouldn’t care about, they allow us to become the owners, managers, and coaches we think we are smarter than in the first place.
With the exception of some contests for predicting box office success over a given period of time, the movie business isn’t really structured for this kind of fantasy. So I’ve made up my own game called IF I RAN HOLLYWOOD, and it has only one rule: I run Hollywood. With that:
IF I RAN HOLLYWOOD … REMAKES WOULD BE FORBIDDEN
I doubt many artists say, “I will paint my own version of the ‘Mona Lisa’.” I
doubt many novelists say, “I think ‘The Catcher in the Rye‘ needs to be rewritten.” And yet every year, filmmakers and studios say, “We should remake (insert film title here).” Imitation may be the sincerest form of flattery, but I have yet to find anything flattering about the awful 2008 remake of the classic 1951 film, The Day the Earth Stood Still.
So many, if not most or all, original films are available on video. This provides anyone who has seen an original version a chance to revisit it and make unflattering comparisons. It also provides newcomers a chance to do the same. I can only hope that studios will learn from Disney’s recent success with the theatrical rerelease of The Lion King (albeit a lesson without the 3D) and look into rereleasing popular catalogue titles to tap the nostalgia and curiosity veins, and save a fortune in production costs.
IF I RAN HOLLYWOOD … SEQUELS WOULD BE FORBIDDEN
The movie sequel was born in 1916 with Fall of a Nation (the follow-up to Birth 
of a Nation), and utilized with great success in the 1930s and 1940s with film series like the Andy Hardy films, among others. It was then “legitimized” in the 1970s with The French Connection II, and perfected in the 1980s with an endless stream of numbered and Roman Numeral’d films (there are too many to list here, but let’s go with one of the worst, Grease 2).
The modern-day movie sequel has always been, and continues to be, a money-grab at best, and at worst, an effort in filmmaking that would be given an “F” in film school.
Hollywood already invented something that shows us characters who were made popular in an original installment and then placed in different situations in subsequent installments. It’s called episodic television.
Speaking of episodic television …
IF I RAN HOLLYWOOD … MOVIES BASED ON TV SHOWS WOULD BE FORBIDDEN
I have to wonder if, when some Hollywood creative type shows up at a pitch meeting, anyone ever says to him, “Larry, the TV show you want to base your movie on was cancelled 15 years ago. Ever consider why?”
It seems Larry never considers why. Regardless of the success of a TV show, in so many cases, the show has long been cancelled. At least with a sequel, the thing filmmakers are exploiting was recent and only about two hours long. To use a TV show as the basis for a film is to take something that had dozens – sometimes hundreds – of hours to develop characters, tell story lines, and run its course of popularity. And, in some cases, that same show was aired again and again through years of syndication.
As is the case with remakes and sequels, there is always the memory of the original to live up to … which is why I didn’t care how tight Jessica Simpson’s cut-offs were in 2005’s rip-off of TV’s The Dukes of Hazzard… she was no Catherine Bach. Still isn’t.
These ideas come with a price, of course. For the hundreds of bad remakes, sequels, and TV adaptations through which we must suffer, we still get gems like The Thomas Crown Affair (a remake better than the original), Aliens (a sequel better than the original), and The Fugitive (a movie better than the TV show it was based on). But those gems are too few and far between to justify suffering through so much junk.
Hollywood is, arguably, the global epicenter for creativity. They should prove it by being more creative.
Wayne (7)
Andrew (4)
John (4)
Steve (4)
Justin (3)
Lauren (3)
Nick (3)
Andy (2)
Dave Enkosky (2)
Emily (2)
I’ve never been a big fan of broadly declaring all remakes/sequels/adaptations as instantly awful. I fear for the potential harm their awfulness may cause on perception of the original, but more often than not originals outlast because they have the staying power their modern blockbuster equivalents don’t have.
If I Ran Hollywood (to hijack your line) I’d ask one question before allowing someone to enact any of the above: “Do you have anything new to bring to the table?” Unfortunately that line of questioning may lead down the inevitable path of a Day The Earth Stood Still remake, but I’d be willing to deal with a few walks down dreary lane for the rare Magnificent Seven, The Thing, The Man Who Knew Too Much, Road Warrior, Toy Story 2, Godfather Part II, Terminator 2, The Dark Knight, Star Wars Episode IV: Empire Strikes Back, and some of the Star Trek collective.
Twitter: ScribeHard
October 4, 2011 7:35 am
Univarn: Thanks for your thoughts.
I agree with you that just because something is a sequel/remake/tv adaptation doesn’t guarantee its awfulness, and the films you mentioned are excellent examples of exceptions (although I would argue that, in the case of the STAR WARS films and maybe the GODFATHER films, those weren’t so much sequels as they were continuations of longer stories that couldn’t be effectively told in one film; I’d make a similar exception for the POTTER films, as each one of those is based on an independent written work). I just think “a few walks down a dreary lane” (to hijack you back) undersells both the number of walks and the dreariness of the lane. For every TERMINATOR 2 (representing excellence in unoriginality), there are dozens, if not hundreds, of NIGHTMARE ON ELM STREET (and the like) installments that we must suffer through, and while I’m usually a silver-lining type of guy, there are so many good, original films that I’m willing to sacrifice the occasional unoriginal gem in an effort to put an end to the dreck.
And it’s funny that you mention THE THING. Was the 1982 remake better than the 1951 original? Undoubtedly. So why do we need a 2011 remake of the 1982 remake? Why not remaster and rerelease Carpetner’s film?
That makes me think of something else: I’d be open to consider remakes of bad films instead of remakes of good ones. Instead of remaking THE THING, why not remake WATERWORLD (as the first example of a flop that came to mind – I’m not married to that specific example)? Why not take a crack at something someone thought would be good to begin with but wasn’t, and make lemonade out of the lemon?
Fair enough on the ‘few walks’ but even still I’d argue more often than not you can sniff out a crap remake/sequel/adaptation and veer out of the way with little flack. Unless of course you’re a completest, in which case I say sorry for your loss.
I think the primary reason Hollywood doesn’t remake bad films is marketability. Especially for something still stuck in the back of the mind of those who viewed it like Waterworld. I couldn’t even dream of the marketing effort that would have to be undertaken to convince audiences to once again shell out their hard earned cash on a movie with that high of a flop value. While nothing jumps readily to mind I’m sure there are quite a few mediocre to subpar films of the pre ’70s era which are most completely forgotten and could be hijacked for a remake.
Twitter: ScribeHard
October 4, 2011 10:45 am
And yet for all of that sniffing, crap remake after crap remake is, well, crappily remade. This world must be full of completists.
While I agree that marketing a remake of a bad film would be hard, is it really any harder than marketing a remake of something good? At least when THE MAGNIFICENT SEVEN was made, home video didn’t exist, and the general public’s exposure to Kurosawa’s SEVEN SAMURAI would have been greatly limited. Not so, today. Besides, I have to think it is easier to say “We improved this crap” than it is to say “We’re taking this decent think and simply modernizing, repackaging, or (my favorite) re-imagining it.”
Yeah, what Univarn said. Sure, these lead to some really crappy movies… but some of the best movies ever made are remakes and sequels.
And without movies based on TV shows… we would never have gotten Serenity, and Firefly would never have gotten closure!
Twitter: ScribeHard
October 4, 2011 7:49 am
Thanks, Nick.
If Univarn’s “a few walks down a dreary lane” undersells the issue, I think your “some of the best movies ever made are remakes and sequels” oversells the issue, but I understand the sentiment behind the statement. This might be the case within certain genres or subgenres, or during certain periods of time, but in the whole of “ever”, I’m hard-pressed to believe there are “some”.
As for SERENITY, I tend to think that Joss Whedon understands and loves his fanbase, and was enough of a Hollywood commodity to get the picture made, and I admire him for doing that. I will always give credit and great thanks to anyone who sees beyond the money. But does the wonder of SERENITY offset, say, THE BEVERLY HILLBILLIES movie? No (at least not to me).
I actually liked what Chris Carter did with the first X-FILES movie, making it a bridge between two TV seasons. At least it fit into the overall story of the show while the show was still in production.
Twitter: callmesirphobos
October 4, 2011 4:00 pm
The wonder of Serenity does not, in any way, have to offset The Beverly Hillbillies.
No movie has to offset another movie that has nothing to do with it. The law that all sequels should be banned just because they are sequels would leave a pretty shitty crater in the film industry.
“If Univarn’s “a few walks down a dreary lane” undersells the issue, I think your “some of the best movies ever made are remakes and sequels” oversells the issue, but I understand the sentiment behind the statement. This might be the case within certain genres or subgenres, or during certain periods of time, but in the whole of “ever”, I’m hard-pressed to believe there are “some.”
If you really wanted someone to write up a list of great sequels, I think you’d have to change your stance.
Twitter: ScribeHard
October 4, 2011 6:08 pm
So which would you rather have? A shitty crater or a pile of shit?
And don’t think that crater would last very long. I’ll reply to Dylan with those thoughts.
As for someone writing up a list of great sequels, there’s no need to change my stance. I’m not suggesting we erase what’s already been made. And my point was that the assertion about Nick’s comment concerning “some of the best movies ever made are remakes and sequels” was that the number of great original films is so large compared to the number of great remakes, “some” is a stretch when putting a combined list together.
Twitter: callmesirphobos
October 4, 2011 6:22 pm
Forget the crater. If you were to ask me, “Would you rather have a whole lot of bullshit with a ton of awesome sequels, or no bullshit but no sequels at all?” I would pick the former. I bitch and complain about every shitty movie I watch, believe me, but at the end of the day, I don’t have to watch them. There are a million arguments one could and should make about originality and creativity, but none of them include not making sequels on principle.
As far as numbers, quantity is irrelevant when we’re talking about quality. Let’s say there are 10,000 movies in existence, and 1,000 of them are sequels. Of the 1,000 sequels, 400 are considered good or better. If the 600 crappy ones exist, who cares? If some people saw them and liked them, they have some sort of value even if you didn’t personally like them. It’s quite subjective. I know there are some movies that everyone can pretty much agree on their shittiness, but there are plenty where we can’t. So if 6% of sequels suck, oh well, 4% are still good. The argument should be focused on raising the quality of existing sequels, not vetoing all of them.
Although, if you were in charge of Hollywood all these years, we wouldn’t have had to suffer through Crystal Skull. Maybe you have a point.
Twitter: ScribeHard
October 4, 2011 8:49 pm
Thanks for keeping me honest, Nick. I was too focused on looking for sequels to notice other instances.
As for expanding this to include films based on books, my thinking was that remakes and sequels are (for the most part) film-specific, and TV shows are very similar to movies in presentation. Books are only in print form and, I think, deserve a shot at film adaptation because the two media are so different.
I will have a rant about this on an upcoming podcast.
That’s all I’m saying.
Twitter: ScribeHard
October 4, 2011 10:40 am
SJ: I look forward to hearing it. If you could, please post a link as a reply here when the podcast is complete. Thanks so much!
Twitter: MarkusWelby1
October 4, 2011 11:37 am
Think of all those people you would deprive of the joys of “Human Centipede II”
Twitter: manilovefilms
October 4, 2011 3:04 pm
My question to you, Michael – are you using extreme language as a writing tool or would you (granted this theoretical power) literally forbid all of the above?
While, in theory, I think I’m with you on the “the shittiness of the many doth not outweigh the greatness of the few,” I think were I running Hollywood, I’d be a more benevolent leader, employing Univarn’s table question to prospective filmmakers rather than being a unilateral dictator.
As for the remaking of crappy films, it’s not so much “crappy” films that should be remade, or historically “troubled” ones such as Waterworld and Cleopatra (oops), but forgotten and/or underseen films that might have had some issues but showed great potential. Even Thomas Crown probably its into this area: the original may be great (of course, I haven’t seen it), but I can tell you that it wasn’t all that relevant prior to the remake coming out. As opposed to The Great Escape, whose remake did nothing good for the original, and was a terrible movie in its own right.
Good debates all around, nevertheless.
Twitter: kaiderman
October 4, 2011 3:40 pm
Good point on remakes. My greatest example for a good remake was The Crazies. It was a decent film based on an interesting idea and a film that not many people knew existed. I like that angle for pursuing remakes. A new Point Break or Top Gun is a bad idea!
Twitter: ScribeHard
October 4, 2011 6:45 pm
My answer to you, Dylan – i employ no writing tool to gin-up debate. I’m willing to ask questions to spur debate, and I’m even willing to play devil’s advocate in the interest of debate, but I always say when I’m doing either. If I write a declarative statement without those caveats and I don’t mean it, my credibility is shot.
So yes, I meant it. Literally.
Look, every year seems to bring with it the same two general complaints about movies: sequels/remakes/adaptations are crap, and not enough time/attention/money are paid to better/smarter films. This year, the former seemed especially worse around the time the latest TRANSFORMERS installment was released, and the releases of more unoriginal films (like the FOOTLOOSE remake) became imminent.
I took a stand; a theoretical one, ultimately, but a stand nonetheless.
So how do you fix those complaints? Eliminate the former and let the time/attention/money flow to the latter. (This is the crater-filler I told Sir Phobos i would get to). Let’s say each remake/sequel costs an average of $50MM to make (THE DARK KNIGHT cost $185MM and NIGHTMARE ON ELM STREET cost $35MM, but I believe there to be more films made in the $35MM range so I rounded down). If you eliminate 10 of those a year, you might lose THE DARK KNIGHT, but you can take that $350MM you didn’t spend and make 2 INCEPTIONs (and by pluralizing it I mean INCEPTION-caliber films), or 14 SHAWSHANK REDEMPTIONs, or 40 PULP FICTIONs.
To me, that’s a better deal.
And while I like Univarn’s notion, being pitched about an idea’s originality invites spin, and spin invites wiggle room, and the next thing you know, FINAL DESTINATION 12 is in theaters near you.
Back in reality, I do like your take on my remake suggestion. It’s a happy medium.
And yes, very good debates all around.
Twitter: kaiderman
October 4, 2011 3:38 pm
Essentially, you’re making a gripe that everyone has but I feel like you’re taking the wrong angle. The idea of remakes, TV adaptations and sequels aren’t the problem. Greenlighting SHITTY versions are the problem.
The Fugitive, Mission Impossible, Empire Strikes Back, The Departed, Dawn of the Dead are just a few examples of why I would never deny these three things from happening. I would certainly say they are the exception that proves the rule but are certainly also proof that we should never say never.
And we can have all this dialogue but until people stop buying tickets, it’s gonna keep happening… and most people are dumb!
Twitter: manilovefilms
October 4, 2011 3:43 pm
Yeah, this is the angle I always take as well: don’t blame Hollywood for doing what they’re told to by their consumers. As soon as the consumers collectively stop doing something, Hollywood will take note and follow suit. It ain’t rocket science. They’re in it to make money, and if they can do so easier with remakes/sequels/TV adaptations (which they most certainly can, since the largest obstacle – not having a known quantity – has already been taken care of), they will for as long as possible. I don’t begrudge them one bit. It’s a sad state of affairs for movie buffs/geeks/aficionados/snobs/whatever you want to call us, but it’s 100% logical, which I have to respect as well.
Twitter: callmesirphobos
October 4, 2011 4:09 pm
The same thing goes for video games, too. If you’re tired of seeing the same, shitty FPS come out year after year, here’s a hint: stop buying it.
Twitter: ScribeHard
October 4, 2011 7:18 pm
This is in response to your post ending with the funny CRYSTAL SKULL reference. It didn’t offer it own ‘reply’ button.
I totally get … and agree with … the quality versus quantity argument. I just think the volume of quality originals dwarfs the volume of quality sequels. I’ll put this out there:
The AFI 100 Years 100 Movies List … and I mention it not as gospel but as a point of reference … has only 1 sequel: THE GODFATHER II at #32 (and as I mentioned earlier, I’m not sure that this is a traditional sequel versus the continuation of a story that wouldn’t fit in one movie, a la STAR WARS). Is a 1% loss worth it? I think so. See my response to Dylan for what I think that loss could actually yield.
Great debate!
Looking at that same list, to be fair… it also has a remake and a film that spawned a TV show (I know it’s the reverse, but whatever
). And OVER half the list (probably over 80%) shouldn’t be considered as original material, as they are adapted either from books or plays.
If we’re going to argue against using prior material of other kinds, why not against books, as well? After all, sometimes you get Harry Potter and Lord of the Rings. Sometimes you get Eragon.
Twitter: callmesirphobos
October 4, 2011 7:50 pm
The thing about the argument for re-investing money that would have been used for a sequel into something more worthwhile is that, at least in your example of The Dark Knight, investment was totally returned and used for “the greater good.” Christopher Nolan doesn’t just sit on his ass and make Batman movies all day. He uses the money he makes on those to go do other, original movies. Not everyone does that or even has the luxury of attempting it, but still.
What you’re essentially saying is:
some of X is bad, therefore X is bad.
You’re also framing this as if we’re all forced to watch this crap. No one has to keep up some sort of good/bad film proportion when watching movies. If I decide to watch a sequel on DVD, I don’t have to sit through 9 horrible ones before I get to the movie I want to see.
All in all, there’s more to this than simply recognizing that there are shitty movies and then saying they shouldn’t be made because they might be shitty.
Twitter: ScribeHard
October 4, 2011 6:55 pm
Hello Kai.
My response to Dylan addresses most of your post here, but the last part makes an interesting point.
“And we can have all this dialogue but until people stop buying tickets, it’s gonna keep happening… and most people are dumb!”
What I think we have is a chicken/egg-type situation. Do feed us junk because we buy the tickets, or do we buy the tickets because all that’s out there is junk?
i don’t know, but it begs this question, too: if you take the junk away, will the people buy tickets to what fills the void?
Twitter: callmesirphobos
October 4, 2011 7:24 pm
I’ve commented plenty on this, but I’m curious. How would you address the fact that there are countless unoriginal movies made every year that aren’t sequels or remakes? Like every romantic comedy ever, or every Kevin James movie? Rob Schneider also comes to mind, as do all the low-budget rip-offs of popular movies.
Twitter: ScribeHard
October 4, 2011 8:59 pm
The only reason why I used THE DARK KNIGHT as an example was because it was a great sequel (and future great sequels would suffer under my rules) with a big budget; I’m not picking on Nolan specifically. However, let’s not rush to beatify Nolan just yet either. Two of his last four films have been Bat-films, and his next film is a Bat-film. I’m not discounting THE PRESTIGE or INCEPTION; I’m just saying 60% of his most recent work is Bat-centric. His non-Bat work proves he’s not a one-trick pony, but he keeps making the Bat-movies.
And I’m not saying “some of X is bad, therefore X is bad.” I’m saying that much/most of X is bad, and I’m willing to sacrifice the tiny good parts of X to eliminate the majority of X, which is bad.
And you and Nick are both right; there is very little originality in general in Tinseltown these days, whether its an endless stream of cookie-cutter rom-coms, BARB WIRE ripping off CASABLANCA (and dreadfully), or AVATAR ripping off FERN GULLY (or DANCES WITH WOLVES, depending on who you believe), but some examples – sequels, et al – are more blatant than others.
Let me ask you this: Why so clingy? What’s wrong with losing THE DARK KNIGHT (as a representative of great sequels) if it means the possibility of getting 40 PULP FICTIONs? Or even 10 PULP FICTIONs?
Twitter: callmesirphobos
October 4, 2011 9:16 pm
Because what you’re proposing isn’t how things work. There’s no one-to-one exchange ratio that says if we lose The Dark Knight we automatically gain another Inception. Maybe that Dark Knight money goes instead to make a movie about flying dolphins who save the world from eco-terror while singing about Jell-O pudding with Bill Cosby. I admit that specific outcome is improbable, but you get my drift.
Twitter: manilovefilms
October 4, 2011 9:48 pm
I’m so in for that flick. But only if Cosby is attached. And charming children saying darndest things.
Twitter: callmesirphobos
October 4, 2011 10:01 pm
http://www.shoutwiki.com/w/images/simpsons/thumb/d/d1/Bill_Cosby.png/250px-Bill_Cosby.png
Twitter: callmesirphobos
October 4, 2011 9:17 pm
Re-reading, I realize you asked what’s wrong with ditching Batman for the POSSIBILITY of getting 40 Pulp Fictions. But I don’t see that possibility increasing or decreasing due to The Dark Knight being made.