The Golden Age of RE--

We've had the Classic Age and the Golden Age... we've been at the height of the Blockbuster Age for nearly 30 years now. And thanks to Batman Begins we officially enter the Age of Rehash/Redo/Rerun/Remake/Reboot... take your pick.

Take a look at the film slate (over the past and) for the next few years--you'll see many familiar faces: Fun With Dick & Jane. Mr & Mrs Smith. Sleuth. The Incredible Hulk. Clash of the Titans. RoboCop. Highlander. Street Fighter. The Punisher. Hellraiser. Race to Witch Mountain. The Pink Panther. Halloween. Friday the 13th. The Wolf Man. The A-Team. A Christmas Carol. The Musketeer. The Dukes of Hazzard. I Am Legend. King Kong.

And these are the films that will be available when there isn't a sequel/triquel/quadquel on the screen.

It's not that a few of the above were not good candidates, it's that it is becoming very apparent that there is a waning of creativty going on. It's one thing if a film is remade because the first attempt bombed e.g. Lee's The Incredible Hulk. Damme's Street Fighter. Lundgren's The Punisher. But RoboCop? Clash of the Titans? Highlander? These are Classic films with a solid following of fans who deserve more than just a cliche "darker more realistic" story with visual effects update. RoboCop doesn't need a remake, it just needs a real sequel... Clash of the Titans doesn't need to be redone, not when there are a plethora of other Greek legends that haven't even been done ONCE... And Highlander doesn't need a reboot, it just needs writers who understand that Immortals are mere footnotes to History who fight there battles on the threshold of our awareness...

Hollywood still hasn't learned that what made The Golden Age of Cinema "Golden" was the understanding that EVERY film was a story of characters told by the Actors and Actresses. Everything else was so much garnish.

Comments

[Thomas]

Howdy,

Yes, I've noticed this trend in Hollywood as well. I think what it boils down to is two basic things. 1) Hollywood is bankrupt in the conceptualization department and 2) they want to make at least a 100 percent rate of return on their investment.

It really isn't any surprise that Hollywood is bankrupt in their stories. In the so-called Golden Age of Hollywood, it's the producers and writers who had the most influence in the making of a movie. The director is more of an afterthought, a hired hand.

A visual, technical craftsman, such as a director, wouldn't normally have the wherewithal to conceive and execute interesting stories. There are exceptions, like Speilberg and Shaymalan, but even they are more producers than directors. Directors are for the creatively visual/ technical end of movie, not its progenitors.

And, of course, money is the bottom line. I mean, these people aren't going out there and shelling out millions of dough for the sheer altruistic ends of titillating folks. Re-runs, re-hashes, re-made movies have an already built in audience. Name recognition alone could possibly translate into a few more million bucks at the box-office and DVD sales.

The stories would be predictable re-treads of well-worn ideas, but if that gives the studios an extra few percentage points in profits, it would probably be worth it for them.

However, as far as I'm concerned, there are only a few good reasons for remaking a well-known, successful movie. The main one is if the remake expands and elaborates on themes only touched upon in the original movie. That is, if the remake wants to ADD TO the original.

Remaking a movie with ideas that's contradictory to the original is a cold wet slap in the face of the original, and remaking a movie with nothing new to add is like a base scavenger picking from a carcass.

One remake that I thought was thorough offensive even though I haven't even seen it is Beowulf. Beowulf is a Christian story from beginning to end, and the remake, I understand, is one long scream against Christianity.

[Josh]

A further thought on remakes:
It's terribly sad that's it is obvious to everyone BUT Hollywood that they are losing money because they consistently churn out garbage or liberal garbage or a special effects parade. Back in the old days, a hit film was simply re-released, much to the joy of film-goers and original filmmakers.

So either H-wood is simply dunce, or they view themselves as an island. I think it the latter. And so long as they have their few multi-million blockbusters every year, be it a "re--" movie or something original (gasp!), they will continue to operate as an island society.

And you know, even though Clash of the Titans is a historic film in the storied career of Ray Harryhausen, a "remake" would be interesting if they did to it what Lucas did to the classic Star Wars trilogy. But too often, remakes of this kind of film are not just for "darker more realistic" and updated special effects; "darker more realistic" here means "mindless violence, graphic sex" ala 300

On the topic of Directors:
I have long-thought it a complete waste to have a seperate "Best Director" category for film awards. It's there because of the unions, but it is completely redundant (and stupid when a director wins the award, but not the film he directed).

On the subject of BEOWULF:
I reviewed on here (check the archives) and gave it a failing mark for all of the reasons you describe, Tom...and more.