6 ms·

Yet interestingly both were Cecil B DeMille productions.. kind of like the 50's one was a 'talkie remake' of this one.. interesting.

by cat199 9y ago

emodendroket 9y ago
Hitchcock did the same thing with The Man Who Knew Too Much. I think this was actually not that uncommon in the past.
- WorldMaker 9y ago
  As much as people want to complain about Hollywood remake culture today, it has very deep roots to some of Hollywood's earliest days.
  - leereeves 9y ago
    Remakes have always been with us, but doesn't it seem like Hollywood is creating fewer originals these days?
    - WorldMaker 9y ago
      It seems like one of those evergreen topics that applies to every Hollywood Age. Many early Hollywood films were adaptations of books. The Golden and Silver Ages involved a lot of adaptations of plays and musicals. Greek and Biblical history/myths have always been huge recurring topics. Most of the Disney Princessess are centuries old fairy tale characters of one sort or another. As much as we can laugh at how dumb their attempt at making the Dark Universe happen this decade, Universal really did get their start by churning out as many famous monster movies as possible and then blowing early moviegoers' minds by having those monsters meet and team up; it was film making's original franchise. I don't think anyone has done a full inventory, but I think overall the risk-to-reward equations for original screenplays versus adaptations and franchises has hardly ever shifted over the years. If anything, the larger numbers of "indie" studios, non-traditional "studios" in play (Amazon, Netflix, YouTube), and the increasing ability for everyone to access filmmaking by modern technology likely lead us to a place where we may actually be at the height of original entertainment in films, whether or not Hollywood is leading or following that trend.
      - emodendroket 9y ago
        I doubt that's right, because the average American went to the theater way more often (and things like double features were more common, and studios were able to compel theaters to take one movie if they wanted another) in the earlier days of film. Now the pressure is much greater to produce blockbusters (itself a pretty recent concept).
    - hw89y24y89 9y ago
      What new "information" can Hollywood put to film that will also make them their money back? Gen pop doesn't care about arty movies, hard SF, 3D, etc., at the scale they want to operate at. Skip Hollywood and back indie makers that publish online?
    - reaperducer 9y ago
      Very few movies made today, or in the past, are original. And it's not just remakes of movies. If you look at the last century, probably 90% of the hit films were actually adaptations of books. But it's not unique to Hollywood. At one time the same could be said of plays. Though these days, a lot of movies are being transformed into plays instead of books.
      - leereeves 9y ago
        In the 1980s, at least, nine of the top ten films were original. Four of those were sequels, but all in recently created franchises. Only one of the top ten was adapted from other media. Those original films were: ET, two Star Wars movies, three Indiana Jones movies, Ghostbusters, Beverly Hills Cop, and Back to the Future. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1980s_in_film https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1980s_in_film
        WorldMaker 9y ago
        ET was a bankable director's hobby project. The two Star Wars movies were still sequels, even if the franchise was new in the 70s. Star Wars wore many of its pulp Hollywood adventure series and World War 2 movie influences on its sleeve. The three Indiana Jones were two bankable directors' hobby project. In turn, they were heavily based on early Hollywood adventure serials and pulp adventure novels. Ghostbusters was bankable comedians' hobby project. Beverly Hills Cop was a "cheap" film in a bankable genre (cop film), that was easy to franchise if successful (which it was, and did). I won't directly harp on BTTF that much, but some combination of all the above applies to it, too. 5 of those 9 all directly involved Spielberg, in one capacity or another, which is another way for Hollywood to avoid risk by betting on the non-riskiest "risk taker" they can find. (Given Lucas' relationship with Spielberg, you can argue that Star Wars also benefited indirectly from Spielberg's "golden touch" in the 80s, bringing the count to 7 of 9.) But looking at the Top 10 isn't particularly fair in any decade. For every ET and Ghostbusters there were six of the seven Police Academy movies and seven James Bond films, for two easy 80s examples.
        leereeves 9y ago
    - MisterBastahrd 9y ago
      It's ultimately harder to create a great, original story than it is to film one, which is why it's a shame that screenwriters get paid so little compared to actors and directors.
    - pbhjpbhj 9y ago
      Less risk: people in the targeted demographic like this story, they already like these actors, they already watch this directors movies. They will buy the movie, will buy the products placed in it, will buy the merchandise, will bring their children and allow them to be invested as consumers in the media's financial system under the suggestion of cultural input, ...
    - blihp 9y ago
      I have no idea how you can say that... just look at the original (business) ideas out of Hollywood in the last few decades: - pretty much any popular movie got sequels (whether or not there was more story to tell was irrelevant... an innovation in itself!) - which led to trilogies - which led to series of trilogies - then became never ending series - which has morphed into endless reboots of never ending series Aren't you looking forward to seeing the 14th Spiderman reboot in your lifetime? Revel in the fact that Hollywood has perfected the audiovisual version of Coca-Cola: no aftertaste... 10 minutes after the movie ends, you forget what you watched and are ready for the next installment/reboot!
  - skywhopper 9y ago
    People have always told the same stories over and over, updating them with tweaks along the way. Most if not all of Shakespeare's works were "remakes" of older versions of the same tales. Operas, ballets, and religious music of the 18th, 19th, and 20th centuries retread the same source material over and over. The main difference now is that we've entrapped ourselves into a false idea that perpetual copyright is a cornerstone foundational right, not only for creators, but for their kids, grandkids, and great-grandkids.
    - WorldMaker 9y ago
      Right, we've allowed large corporations to gatekeep so much of our culture.
      - TheOtherHobbes 9y ago
        Large corporations are far more of a problem than copyright is.
    - kolpa 9y ago
      We didn't entrap ourselves. Disney bribed our government officials.
      - wahern 9y ago
        For decades there's been a growing vein of economic and legal scholarship that goes something like: 1) Strong property rights are good: they make economic transactions efficient and promote investment 2) Copyrights are property rights 3) Strong copyrights are good: they make economic transactions efficient and promote investment The scholarship is literally just that simple, and almost completely discounts or ignores all the obvious costs and caveats. This type of reductionism and equivocation is endemic to the modern economic and legal academies and doesn't show much sign of abating anytime soon.
    - emodendroket 9y ago
      But I think an important difference is that in classical literature and in Shakespeare the author does a lot to put his own spin on the story, including often substantially changing the plot (Ovid's Metamorphoses is notable for doing this... which also happens to mean we're not sure what the "real" version of myths that we only have in Ovid now are). Does every new Spider-Man film really have something new to say?
- rdiddly 9y ago
  Technology is one of the drivers of remakes. When movies first came along, a lot of them were remakes of written material (a book or play). Then when sound became available, a lot of silent films were remade as "talkies." Then came Technicolor, and you had an excuse to remake a B&W film in color. After a long period of incremental improvements in various areas, we got usable CGI, which gave you an excuse to remake an analog film (or "enhance" it, and that's in quotes because of George Lucas' fiddling about adding digital stuff to every shot seemingly for ADHD reasons). Speaking of Charlton Heston, Planet of the Apes went from guys wearing rubber ape masks in the 70s to a pretty successful modern-day POTA franchise that is almost completely CGI, with apes talking and using vivid facial expressions and such. Not sure it's "better" per se... it's almost a different art form, apples and oranges. Which is why I end up thinking a lot of remakes are justified, in that they're almost working in a different medium in some cases.
neaden 9y ago
You think that's bad, the Wizard of Oz movie everyone knows was the 5th Wizard of Oz movie made and the 10th movie set in Oz.

Yet interestingly both were Cecil B DeMille productions.. kind of like the 50's one was a 'talkie remake' of this one.. interesting.

by cat199 9y ago

Yet interestingly both were Cecil B DeMille productions.. kind of like the 50's one was a 'talkie remake' of this one.. interesting.

emodendroket 9y ago

Hitchcock did the same thing with The Man Who Knew Too Much. I think this was actually not that uncommon in the past.

WorldMaker 9y ago
As much as people want to complain about Hollywood remake culture today, it has very deep roots to some of Hollywood's earliest days.
- leereeves 9y ago
  Remakes have always been with us, but doesn't it seem like Hollywood is creating fewer originals these days?
  - WorldMaker 9y ago
    It seems like one of those evergreen topics that applies to every Hollywood Age. Many early Hollywood films were adaptations of books. The Golden and Silver Ages involved a lot of adaptations of plays and musicals. Greek and Biblical history/myths have always been huge recurring topics. Most of the Disney Princessess are centuries old fairy tale characters of one sort or another. As much as we can laugh at how dumb their attempt at making the Dark Universe happen this decade, Universal really did get their start by churning out as many famous monster movies as possible and then blowing early moviegoers' minds by having those monsters meet and team up; it was film making's original franchise. I don't think anyone has done a full inventory, but I think overall the risk-to-reward equations for original screenplays versus adaptations and franchises has hardly ever shifted over the years. If anything, the larger numbers of "indie" studios, non-traditional "studios" in play (Amazon, Netflix, YouTube), and the increasing ability for everyone to access filmmaking by modern technology likely lead us to a place where we may actually be at the height of original entertainment in films, whether or not Hollywood is leading or following that trend.
    - emodendroket 9y ago
      I doubt that's right, because the average American went to the theater way more often (and things like double features were more common, and studios were able to compel theaters to take one movie if they wanted another) in the earlier days of film. Now the pressure is much greater to produce blockbusters (itself a pretty recent concept).
  - hw89y24y89 9y ago
    What new "information" can Hollywood put to film that will also make them their money back? Gen pop doesn't care about arty movies, hard SF, 3D, etc., at the scale they want to operate at. Skip Hollywood and back indie makers that publish online?
  - reaperducer 9y ago
    Very few movies made today, or in the past, are original. And it's not just remakes of movies. If you look at the last century, probably 90% of the hit films were actually adaptations of books. But it's not unique to Hollywood. At one time the same could be said of plays. Though these days, a lot of movies are being transformed into plays instead of books.
    - leereeves 9y ago
      In the 1980s, at least, nine of the top ten films were original. Four of those were sequels, but all in recently created franchises. Only one of the top ten was adapted from other media. Those original films were: ET, two Star Wars movies, three Indiana Jones movies, Ghostbusters, Beverly Hills Cop, and Back to the Future. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1980s_in_film https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1980s_in_film
      - WorldMaker 9y ago
        ET was a bankable director's hobby project. The two Star Wars movies were still sequels, even if the franchise was new in the 70s. Star Wars wore many of its pulp Hollywood adventure series and World War 2 movie influences on its sleeve. The three Indiana Jones were two bankable directors' hobby project. In turn, they were heavily based on early Hollywood adventure serials and pulp adventure novels. Ghostbusters was bankable comedians' hobby project. Beverly Hills Cop was a "cheap" film in a bankable genre (cop film), that was easy to franchise if successful (which it was, and did). I won't directly harp on BTTF that much, but some combination of all the above applies to it, too. 5 of those 9 all directly involved Spielberg, in one capacity or another, which is another way for Hollywood to avoid risk by betting on the non-riskiest "risk taker" they can find. (Given Lucas' relationship with Spielberg, you can argue that Star Wars also benefited indirectly from Spielberg's "golden touch" in the 80s, bringing the count to 7 of 9.) But looking at the Top 10 isn't particularly fair in any decade. For every ET and Ghostbusters there were six of the seven Police Academy movies and seven James Bond films, for two easy 80s examples.
        leereeves 9y ago
  - MisterBastahrd 9y ago
    It's ultimately harder to create a great, original story than it is to film one, which is why it's a shame that screenwriters get paid so little compared to actors and directors.
  - pbhjpbhj 9y ago
    Less risk: people in the targeted demographic like this story, they already like these actors, they already watch this directors movies. They will buy the movie, will buy the products placed in it, will buy the merchandise, will bring their children and allow them to be invested as consumers in the media's financial system under the suggestion of cultural input, ...
  - blihp 9y ago
    I have no idea how you can say that... just look at the original (business) ideas out of Hollywood in the last few decades: - pretty much any popular movie got sequels (whether or not there was more story to tell was irrelevant... an innovation in itself!) - which led to trilogies - which led to series of trilogies - then became never ending series - which has morphed into endless reboots of never ending series Aren't you looking forward to seeing the 14th Spiderman reboot in your lifetime? Revel in the fact that Hollywood has perfected the audiovisual version of Coca-Cola: no aftertaste... 10 minutes after the movie ends, you forget what you watched and are ready for the next installment/reboot!
- skywhopper 9y ago
  People have always told the same stories over and over, updating them with tweaks along the way. Most if not all of Shakespeare's works were "remakes" of older versions of the same tales. Operas, ballets, and religious music of the 18th, 19th, and 20th centuries retread the same source material over and over. The main difference now is that we've entrapped ourselves into a false idea that perpetual copyright is a cornerstone foundational right, not only for creators, but for their kids, grandkids, and great-grandkids.
  - WorldMaker 9y ago
    Right, we've allowed large corporations to gatekeep so much of our culture.
    - TheOtherHobbes 9y ago
      Large corporations are far more of a problem than copyright is.
  - kolpa 9y ago
    We didn't entrap ourselves. Disney bribed our government officials.
    - wahern 9y ago
      For decades there's been a growing vein of economic and legal scholarship that goes something like: 1) Strong property rights are good: they make economic transactions efficient and promote investment 2) Copyrights are property rights 3) Strong copyrights are good: they make economic transactions efficient and promote investment The scholarship is literally just that simple, and almost completely discounts or ignores all the obvious costs and caveats. This type of reductionism and equivocation is endemic to the modern economic and legal academies and doesn't show much sign of abating anytime soon.
  - emodendroket 9y ago
    But I think an important difference is that in classical literature and in Shakespeare the author does a lot to put his own spin on the story, including often substantially changing the plot (Ovid's Metamorphoses is notable for doing this... which also happens to mean we're not sure what the "real" version of myths that we only have in Ovid now are). Does every new Spider-Man film really have something new to say?
rdiddly 9y ago
Technology is one of the drivers of remakes. When movies first came along, a lot of them were remakes of written material (a book or play). Then when sound became available, a lot of silent films were remade as "talkies." Then came Technicolor, and you had an excuse to remake a B&W film in color. After a long period of incremental improvements in various areas, we got usable CGI, which gave you an excuse to remake an analog film (or "enhance" it, and that's in quotes because of George Lucas' fiddling about adding digital stuff to every shot seemingly for ADHD reasons). Speaking of Charlton Heston, Planet of the Apes went from guys wearing rubber ape masks in the 70s to a pretty successful modern-day POTA franchise that is almost completely CGI, with apes talking and using vivid facial expressions and such. Not sure it's "better" per se... it's almost a different art form, apples and oranges. Which is why I end up thinking a lot of remakes are justified, in that they're almost working in a different medium in some cases.

neaden 9y ago

You think that's bad, the Wizard of Oz movie everyone knows was the 5th Wizard of Oz movie made and the 10th movie set in Oz.