Tuesday, April 3, 2012

Stop the Remakes!

I went to see The Hunger Games on Friday night, but this is not going to be a review. If you want to know what I thought of the movie, check out this review by another blogger who totally nailed exactly the way I felt (note--she also describes her theater experience since she--lucky!--went to the midnight/first showing, and that, of course, was not at all what I experienced, but it's a neat thing to check out).

The reason I'm telling you I went is that while I was there I saw the preview for the new Spiderman movie.

I. Am. So. Irritated.

I had heard they were remaking it. I knew the new one starred someone other than Tobey Maguire, who in my opinion made an awesome Spiderman. I loved him in all three. I do not like the replacement--for both Peter Parker and Mary Jane--and will NOT be seeing the new movie. What makes me mad, though, is not so much that they got a new actor (how many Batmans have there been?) but that they are starting over.

Why does the first Spiderman have to be remade????

It has become this ridiculous trend. Another preview I saw while at The Hunger Games was for a Three Stooges movie. So, basically, two movies that were previewed were rehashes of old stuff. Rehashes of rehashes, really, when you think about it.

And then yesterday someone posted on Facebook that Total Recall is being remade.

Seriously? Why?

Again, Total Recall is a movie I loved. I am, I admit, a huge Arnold fan. Always have been. And there is. Just. No. Reason. the movie needs to be remade.

I can deal with the constant retelling of fairy tales and such. There are several versions of Snow White either out or coming out. It's kind of cool seeing the variety of dark versions and spoofs and such. But those are different. It's sort of like how it's okay to have a different take on Santa in the multitude of Christmas movies each year.

But when it comes to blockbuster films, what is happening? WHY is Hollywood investing in remakes instead of new stories? I'm so tired of it. I'm ready to start my own protest group.

I'll tell you right now--if they ever remake the first Highlander movie, you will hear my scream echo around the world.

12 comments:

sheryl said...

Cute post!

imladrisnine said...

The thing with Spiderman vs. Batman is that the original Spiderman movies were good, solidly built, films. They don't warrant begin retold with a different flavor because there is nothing antiquated or disappointing about them!

Batman, on the other hand, had lost a cohesive identity. It had seen too many directors and visions shellacked upon it and so its totally stripped down reinvention was completely legitimate. And awesome.

But that is the extreme rarity in rehashes. The only other one I can think of that I truly enjoyed was Star Trek, but Star Trek has such a well established theater cycle that when the reboot came out it really didn't feel so much like a rehash as just the latest in a huge franchise.

Ashley said...

While I thought the new Spidey movie looked really cool, I was thinking the same thing. Apparently Holly Wood is running out of creative juices, or something.

If they ever remade Transformer...I'd kill the producer with a wet noodle.

Kat Heckenbach said...

Very well said!

And to me, the Batman "remakes" are similar to the Star Trek movie--more like a redirection in course, not a scrap it and just re-do exactly what we did with a new actor and tweaked feel.

Plus, Star Trek kind of has a history of being "updated" and the new movie catered very well to old school Trekkies.

I read somewhere that people were tiring of Tobey M's "emo" portrayal of Spiderman (not a word I would have chosen for it!) and that's why the new guy. But judging based solely on the trailer I saw, the new one looks generic--relying on special effects to wow the audience rather than the depth of character in the first ones.

Kat Heckenbach said...

Yes, Ashley--my husband and I keep saying that. "Is Hollywood that dry on new ideas?" Sigh.

I have to admit I was disappointed in the Transformers movies--but it was because of the sexual tilt of them. To me, the action was awesome. There was so much awesomeness in the movies that all the sex stuff was not needed and, to me, cheapened it. Plus, I had to cover my kids' ears, and that should not be necessary in movies about action figures that appeal to eight-year-olds.

Kessie said...

I've been moaning about the Spidey remake since I saw that first awful Mirror's Edge trailer. (The one that's all CG from Spidey's perspective as he's running across roofs. Look up the game Mirror's Edge on youtube and you'll see it's exactly the same thing.)

Toby McGuire is My Spiderman, just like how Matt Smith is My Doctor. I'll give the new movies a change, though, just because I enjoy Spiderman so much. But I don't have high expectations.

Kat Heckenbach said...

Well, you are a braver soul than me, Kessie. I don't think I can even try the new Spidey movie. I hated the trailer--I hated the cocky personality they gave Peter Parker, and I want the old MJ!!!

Caprice Hokstad said...

I totally agree with you on the remake thing. I'd even go so far as to NOT give so much leeway on Star Trek. If they wanted to be new and go "where no one has gone before", then they should have let the characters of Kirk, Spock and McCoy ALONE if they weren't going to have Shatner, Nimoy, and Kelly play them (and sorry, but the "cameo" of Nimoy didn't quite cut it for me). Are those actors too old and/or deceased? Okay. So then why not do something with the MANY Trek actors that are still young? Scott Bakula could easily have starred in an Enterprise movie. All the actors from that incarnation are still in their prime.

If they decided "Enterprise" wasn't popular enough, they could have taken any character from any of the newer series and done an "offshoot" type of thing. Voyager was lost a long time in that other quadrant. They probably ran out of contraceptives. How about a new host for Dax, from DS9? Plenty of possibilities. But no. They fell back on Kirk, Spock, and McCoy.

The remake trend irritates me, but something else irritates me just as much: the endless, pointless sequels. Disney is doing this a lot and it's really annoying. ESPECIALLY when the sequel to blockbuster is "made for DVD" and not up to snuff enough to release in theaters. (Aladdin 2, Cinderella 2, etc.)

It's one thing when the story was planned that way (Harry Potter). But when they take a story that was OVER, and the characters "lived happliy ever after" and then try to change that and milk it for more...grrrr. It's so obviously a greed thing. We need to start boycotting these kinds of ploys and vote with our wallets to force Hollywood to EARN our money. No, there is definitely no dearth of good stories out there that could be chosen for movies. The problem lies in greed and guts. No one wants to take a chance. No one wants to do something new and fresh and different because it may flop. So they take the "proven" ideas and recycle them. And as long as consumers keep paying, it won't stop.

Kat Heckenbach said...

I'm sure Hollywood was looking at money when they did the Star Trek thing (as they always do), and I do see your point about all their other options! I am happy, though, that they at least took the old-schoolers to heart when they wrote the characters and didn't go overboard with creative license.

I also agree TOTALLY with the second-rate sequels, especially from Disney, that are meant just to drag a story out too long. There is a HUGE difference between, say, the Toy Story movies and Aladdin's pathetic sequels. Even the Lion King. Ugh.

imladrisnine said...

Caprice-

In terms of the Disney direct to video sequels they've been gradually steering away from that since the rise of Pixar and giving Eisner the boot. John Lassater has been on there for a while now and while the Tinkerbell franchise was too far along to scrap when he began, Lassater did totally overhaul whatever sort of story mess it was in and made a much more respectable product for release.

If you notice too, the theatrical animation sequels have been silent for a while now. There is no Princess and the Frog 2 or Tangled 2. But you are right. When Eisner was there it was all a bottom line issue, but ledgers were ruling all the project decisions, not the creative folk. That's why they put out that recycled crap. That's why there is such abominations as 'Home on the Range'.

Thankfully Jobs believed in more than money and between Pixar and Studio Ghibli's (Disney handles the English versions of Miyazaki's films) stellar stories Disney had to change its tune or be left totally behind. (not that there arent all sorts of direct to video money makers, but at least they have left their most recent big projects un-whored by direct to video)

David N Alderman said...

Oh Kat, I'm so glad you posted this. I knew I had to drop in when I saw your post, because you and I both agree about the Total Recall remake.

Why? Why so many remakes? I am so sick and tired of Hollywood lacking in originality. Yes, there are some great movies that have come out - and I've enjoyed the Star Trek and Batman reboots (they needed to be done.) But the great movies that really make me happy to have spent my hard-earned money on them are few and far between.

I was telling my wife the other day that I'm sick and tired of going to the theater, seeing a movie, thinking 'this is great', and then hearing that it's a remake of a remake of a remake. Bah! How about someone turn your writing and my writing into movies. At least then there will be some originality out there. ;)

Kat Heckenbach said...

Thanks for stopping in, David :).

I just don't get what Hollywood is trying to accomplish with all the remakes. I wonder if it's about not having original ideas or a belief that these movies don't have a life of their own. I'm sure someone along the line thinks they are paying tribute to the originals, but they're really just making the originals obsolete. It makes me sad.

Anyway, yeah--if they need new ideas, we can gladly provide them!