What is Digg?Sponsored by Best Buy
Best Buy Employees Turn Carolers For A Day view!
www.youtube.com/bestbuy - Go behind the scenes to see real employees croon their way to star in Best Buy’s holiday campaign.
70 Comments
- amitrix, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3why??? i'll tell you why: "Hollywood is a place where they'll pay you a thousand dollars for a kiss and fifty cents for your soul"
Thats why! - tarun, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1@willaken: I took the headline from the main Slate page--look towards the right.
http://www.slate.com/ - Cerberus047, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1what we dont know is that this is the new way to get us to stop pirating movies....have movies that suck so bad we wont waste our bandwith on them.....
- Gills, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1it's simple: if u stop going to bad movies, they'll stop making them.
- AdverseEntropy, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1The majority of Hollywood makes me want to puke in my pants.
- riskable, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1I'd be more interested in reading an article titled, "Why can't Hollywood come up with it's own ideas?". It is hard to find a Hollywood film these days that isn't one of the following:
Remake of an old film
Adapted screenplay from popular events (e.g. The Producers, Alive, Hotel Rwanda, etc)
Adapted screenplay from comic books (superman, spider-man, etc)
Adapted screenplay from popular fiction (DaVinci Code, The Passion of the Christ, etc)
Where are the truly original movies? Why is it so difficult to get smaller studio films into U.S. theaters? Why are ticket prices increasing, while movie quality is decreasing as a whole? Why are animated films using famous real-world actors for their voices (this really pisses me off)?
A lot of these questions can be answered with another question: Why don't copyrights expire anymore? I'd love to see someone make a movie incorporating Wolverine, Mickey Mouse, and Indiana Jones.
-Riskable
http://riskable.com
"I have a license to kill -9" - wktaylor, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Serenity is not a movie remake as the article suggests, that annoys this Brown Coat.
- astrotrain, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0I am waiting for Hollywood to get to a point that they forget and re-make movies that were out a few years ago.
This is why I crack up when the movie flops, and they try to make up the loss on DVD...
"King Kong is coming to DVD.... blah blah blah"...
Yeah its already been on DVD for the last 20 years.... this is the reason I skip the re-makes
not only in theaters but when they are in the "New Releases" section.
Hollywood seems they are out of ideas and need money. So they pick any old movie, TV show, heck even cartoon and make a movie out of it.
I hate when they make the Cartoons into Live Action... **flash back to the Flintstones***
Recent movies such as The Fog, King Kong, Yours Mine And Ours, are the same story line, just with today's actors and a hipper soundtrack to entice this generation to go and pay money for it.
I imagine that Hollywood will continue this practice until they achieve an idea for a original movie. Of course this may occur when Flying Monkeys come out of the Glenda The Good Witches ass.
I am waiting for Hollywood to really scrape the bottom of the barrel like Disney, and make a
90 minute Mr. Rogers movie...I'm sure there would be ppl who would go pay $10 to sit through:
"Its a beautiful day in the neighborhood...., I'm King Friday, Meow..Meow..Meow In a Movie...Meow Meow..."
Yeah you get the drift.. - pseudojd, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0I wish we could edit our own friggin stories
- Metal_Hurlant, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0after recently watching the 1976 version of king-kong, I'm glad there's a newer version to replace this godzilla-wannabe of a movie.
- thidranki, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0you gotta love the HIV/Cancer/Diabetes/Gynecology ads up to tho
;P - Bokista, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0There's a big difference between "Remaking Bad Movies" and "Remaking Movies Badly" (or poorly.)
- foxhoundadmin, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0"Take, for instance, The Hobbit, which was adapted into a cartoon in 1977. While New Line, which made Jackson's Rings films, owns the Hobbit movie rights, MGM has rights to distribute any Hobbit film. MGM's distribution rights are left over from a previous movie-rights purchase from J.R.R. Tolkien that the studio sold long ago. New Line doesn't want to share its profits with MGM (now owned in part by Sony), and of course Sony won't let New Line make the movie without getting its cut. Thus, the convoluted stand-off continues."
yea! production orgy! yea! - foxhoundadmin, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0i'm not going to digg this, because the person who posted this has no idea what the **** he's talking about. king kong wasn't a bad movie. neither was charlie and the chocolate factory (the remake might have been, but not the original). the producers wasn't even a movie. it was an adaptation of another movie on broadway. anyways, the producers looks like it might actually be good. so, who knows?
i don't even pay to see movies anymore, anyways. i did that once with sin city, and that sucked. it was a cliched, violent movie full of bad acting. ...and the mpaa wonders why i steal movies?
p.s.: movies don't look like you're streaming them over dial up if you download the proper divx encoded dvd rip. ...and, yes, this means you have to wait for the dvd to come out. who cares? - ksgant, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Hummm...the title of the article doesn't say anything about "bad movies". Just about remakes.
Since the 1933 King Kong is hardly a "bad movie" and the remake by PJ certainly isn't a "bad movie" just what the ***** is tarun talking about?
No digg. - foxhoundadmin, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0"A producer of the little-known 1975 film Moonrunners sued Warner Bros., saying that when he sold the studio his film's TV rights to make the Dukes of Hazzard series, he never granted any film rights. Last June, less than two months before Jessica Simpson was due to shake her short shorts in theaters, a federal judge issued an injunction barring the studio from releasing and marketing the film—even ordering that all copies be impounded. Since Warner had already spent more than $100 million on production and marketing, the studio quickly agreed to settle for a reported $17.5 million in order to release the film on time."
yea! let's steal this guy's idea, then rip this guy off so millions of guys can get a boner watching jessica simpson's bad acting! this way, we won't have to make a good movie! yea! great idea! - Arkitan, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0I don't really care if a movie is a remake or not if I enjoy it. I liked King Kong... The Producers looks pretty funny. I couldn't care less that these are remakes.
I do agree though that Hollywood is putting out way too much crap these days, and theaters are charging too much to see it. Then shoving commercials down my damn throat after I already paid them. I hate the theater experience these days and can't wait until there is something new. - skeeto, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Actually its surprising how many bad films get sequels or the remake treatment. 20/20 did a story about it a year or two, or rather a segment (John Stossell's Give Me A Break). Naturally it's all about money. Some bad movies are cheap to make and will get enough people in to make back the budget and a little more, so the script gets approved and the film gets bankrolled. Then you have the remakes. Hollywood, now more than ever, is obsessed with taking a usually hit movie and remaking it on a bigger and grander scale with more money and the latest special effects that weren't available at the time of the original. Sometimes it pays off. Sometimes it bombs. Most of the time it seems to make juuuust enough to cover the budget.... and have a little left over. It's a gamble really.
- headzoo, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0This article doesn't really explain why the movies are made, but rather explains the process of making a remake. Interesting article, bad title.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Hollywood makes money through crappy movies and creative accounting.
- 703_KN33, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0I completely agree. Hollywood is sooo out of ideas.
- Majin_Raditz, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Why? Because it makes them lots of money.
- Snarfy, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0uh, we keep buying them?
- Reliant, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Hollywood producers get the runs to even think about moving ahead with new challenging concepts. I remember reading a story in Time or Newsweek about this. The producers go out of their way to produce remakes. New stories have to really sell and practically be pushed in the faces of the producers to get past the script and onto the screen.
- Linuxrocks, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Why do they mention King Kong? King Kong is a fantastic remake and represents what all remakes should be.
- Dracos, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Proof that Hollywood is out of ideas.
- h2d2, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0atleast they are not copying like Bollywood...
http://www.bollycat.com/ - windwaker, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0That's one ***** article. Seriously, remakes aren't bad by default.
- Bokista, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0masterofshadows, your history lesson is fairly inaccurate.
From fairly early on in the history of the movies, making a film wasn't about a "vision." The Hollywood studio system, from which came most every movie made before the 1960s (at least in America), was hardly about vision. It was about systemization, star power, vertical integration, and profits. Sure, there were directors who were able to bring their ideas to the screen, but it was based heavily on compromise. Even Hitchcock, whom many regard as an auteur, was successful because he was able to mix fine filmmaking with profitability. The "B" movies were generally the films that were the lesser name in a double feature at the theaters; shot with a fairly low budget, second rate stars, and a shooting schedule that would make your head spin, these "B" pictures were basically time fillers. "Film as High Art" was barely thought of before auteur theory came along (though there are some exceptions). Movies were for the common people. For a while, like in some Film Noir, "B" picture elements were considered to be useful in A-list films (especially as the culture began to enjoy the subject matter in b-films. Also, the studios controlled which films were being made and were responsible for both the A and B movies. So saying that the directors of B movies didn't care about "art" is nonsense. It was almost purely a matter of funding and priority within the system. - StevePoling, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0If you're reading this and you think Christianity is an obsolete myth, you don't quite understand the people who flocked to see "The Passion of The Christ." (I didn't see it, but I know many who did.) Narnia is doing well at the box office and it's not a remake. Lord Of The Rings also did well and it was not a remake. These films reflect to a certain degree the Judeo-Christian worldview.
Hollywood can read maps like the one Michael Moore drew of "Jesusland" after the last presidential election. They see this potential market and actively seek scripts for "family" dramas but "Meet The Folkers" missed that target. They just don't get it.
Those who run Hollywood talk to Evangelical Christians about their faith as often as digg.com says something positive about Intelligent Design. The best Hollywood can do to reach this demographic is to fall back on earlier formulas that have had good box office in the past.
I'm not selling anything and I'm not condemning anybody. All I'm saying is that until you really understands this demographic, you won't know how to sell to it. - meteors, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0The answer, I think, is very simple:
...it's cheaper.
It's a lot less time-consuming and expensive to take a proven formula and re-do it rather than invest loads of energy in new material.
Have you listened to the radio lately? How many of the songs aren't remakes? The singers usually aren't even really musicians any more; they're "performance artists".
-j - trash666, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0I don't think Hollywood is out of ideas, it just lacks producers with balls to make something original.
There are plenty of good scripts out there. - forgeflow, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0answer to the question posed in the topic: because you idiots keep paying money to see them. although, looking at this years box office, not as many as had been anticipated. must be the fault of all those durn pirates. for extra fun points, add in all the sequels from this year to the remakes. and count derivative works too - like "the cave" being sort of 'pitch black' meets 'dracula'. see how many actual original movies were made this year.
damn few. - SmeRndmGy, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0because you idiots keep paying to see them. "i heard it sucked but lets see it anyways." if nobody watched them then they would stop making them.
- ShaneApex, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Every time I go to see a movie in the theater and they play that downloading movies is stealing, or buying bootleg DVDs is wrong commercials i always laugh as loud as i can followed by, "I'm gunna download this when i get home!"
- hibern8, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Because people keep paying money to watch them.
- meyerj88, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0"Calling serenity a remake is just retarted, no digg." acemilo
retarted??? - acemilo, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Calling serenity a remake is just retarted, no digg.
- Sandkat, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0If you've never seen the original then it's new to you.
- tarun, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0ABOUT THE TITLE: I got it from http://www.slate.com/ main page. Look towards the right.
- mika76, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0I believe remakes are good, as most of the people from later generation will not see the old movies, just because they are old and the clothes seem outdated. The fact is, there are some good movies from the past that could use a little updating, but have good stories.
- masterofshadows, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0The reason we used to have good movies before is because it was all about the art. The director, the writer the arctors/actresses, they all were concerned with one thing, making something that would show thier vision. But then came the vampires, those who would prey on the profits of art without regard for the art itself. These vampires spawned the "B" movies section, and it would over time, prove to make more money than the high budget "A" section because less was invested. So gradually the "B" culture crept into the "A" culture resulting in the drivel seen so often today.
- dorkusmalorkus, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Yes...Yes. If there were only some way to obtain crappy movies and watch them without paying to see them at the theaters. Hmm.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Pirate King Kong! Then the MPAA has yet another reason to whine about their supposedly "declining" profits. Its not because they make *****, and with more access to media than ever before, more people are noticing. Oh no, definitely not. Its the software "thieves". We should all do our part, making copies of all the ***** we dont like, and never watch it, so the MPAA can run out of funds and die off, making way for inde films with better stories. We all know cloning movies is the same as ripping them out of the poor fragile arms of the MPAA. According to the MPAA, this plan is foolproof. We'll "steal" all the bad movies so no one else can watch them. I know when my car gets stolen, I cant drive it. So lets get this ***** off the streets asap. WHO'S WITH ME!!!
- Rajio, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0I feel the same way about reposted 'news'
*cough* - PimpL, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0>>There's a big difference between "Remaking Bad Movies" and "Remaking Movies Badly" (or poorly.)
This is so true: there have been quite a few remakes that were worth the trouble of remaking. The directors and producers can find some new way to tell the story in a fresh new way. The real problem is that no one knows what will do good or bad. I don't remember the original quote off hand, but Hitchcock said (more or less) he'd rather take a bad book and turn it into a good movie than a great book into a bad movie. Why doesn't Hollywood take some bad movies with good ideas and turn them into better movies, if they are going to remake them in the first place. I think a lot of the problem is they see one successful Item as reusable template for success. This is not always the case. oh yeah stop spending so much money on these crappy films. If your going to make crappy films make them on the cheap.
If Hollywood can make'm on the cheap they can sell more of them cheaper and have less piracy and make more money.
BTW: its still OK to see a bad remake if you can guarantee you will get laid. but that is the only exception. - classwarrior, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Heh...Why else? We The People keep falling for the ads for movies that arent'worth it and paying inflated ticket prices, and tolerating a bad atmosphere in the theater: people taking, cell phones, poor projection, etc.
Hollywood keeps MAKING, not only RE-making, bad movies for the glaringly obvious reason, IT'S PROFITABLE.
I never got more box office refunds on movies than I did in the year 2005. And I cut WAY back on what new movies I'd see.
FINALLY HW has admitted they have a problem w/ lagging profits and is casting about for ways to increase them like reducing the on-screen ads in theaters that plague movie goers! Heh, re-arranging deck chairs on the Titanic.
I think HW is like Detroit and General Motors: it may be too late for them to regain their alienated customers. After decades of ripoffs customers have found other modes of entertainment, and other ways to see movies like NetFlix, etc.
I do not tolerate poor value: if what I buy is not worth it, I make the seller pay; in the case of movie theaters I demand a refund. If the theater management is not reasonable, I bring to the attention of the authorities the unsanitary conditions in food service, etc. Next time, management is usually reasonble.
There's a war on, seller vs. buyer! Fight the good fight! - scarper86, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0"Hollywood is sooo out of ideas."
***** movies are nothing new. Hollywood's been making them since there's been a Hollywood. There are tons of excellent movies released every year, you just have to look beyond the local multiplex. - Terry2, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Some movies are great - but with all the creative talent and people that work on a movie, how can they make so many bad ones? Are they blind to what a good movie consists of? Can't a producer tell when a movie is beginning to stink? Sometimes I think they have no common sense.
- Shawna, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0The reason they keep making remakes of bad movies is because people still go see them. They say OMG! that movies looks so stupid...... you wanna go see it? If people weren't so stupid then they would not go see these stupid movies that they keep remaking.
-
Show 51 - 70 of 70 discussions
Browsing Digg on your phone just got easier with our enhancements to the 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is