Has Hollywood lost its creativity?

[Brad Bowers]

So what is next?

Casablanca?
The Maltese Falcon?
The Big Sleep?
North by Northwest?
Charade?
The Sound of Music?
The Great Escape?
Patton?

Lets see something new and FRESH!

I agree wholeheartedly, Andykev! I've heard a lot of rumblings about the quality of films being part of the reason for Hollywood's slump.

To break the bad news, Charade is being remade, but I don't recall what the new title is, or who is in it.

Don't forget, though, The Maltese Falcon that we know and love was a remake!

Brad

 

[HaraldTheSwede]

I've been saying this to myself for some time. But I don't know if they are making many more remakes today than they did before. Would be interesting to see a summary of remakes over decades.

Here are a few movies more that come to mind:
The Italian Job (and they're even filming a "Brazilian Job" now)
Rollerball
Get Carter
The Punisher

 

[jake_fink]

"The Truth About Charlie" nee "Charade"

Charade has already been remade. The dismal remake starred Marky Mark and was called The Truth About Charlie. It was directed by the Jonathan Demme (Silence of the Lambs, Swing Shift, etc.) who recently remade The Manchurian Candidate. The good news is that the dvd includes a beautiful copy of Charade itself.

And, yes, what little creativity Hollywood had left is now all gone. In an effort to reach a wide audience and get big BIG numbers on opening weekend they end up making pap for children, idiots and massive head injury survivors. Even the movies that I'm looking forward to are remakes (King Kong) or cast with "stars" I'd rather never see again (Ask the Dust with Colin Farrell).
:rage:

 

[thefish]

Unfortunately, with the stratification of entertainment media these days, (with hundreds of cable channels, the internet, DVD, and video games,) Mainstream Hollywood is only hedging its bets on filmmaking projects that can guarantee a return on investment. Hence so much of the same-old-same-old, sequels, and remakes.

Sad really.

I'm with Robert Rodriguez...Hollywood is dead... :rage:

 

[Michael Mallory]

Has Hollywood lost its creativity? In a word: yes. There are still creative people in Hollywood, but they aren't in charge -- in fact, they often aren't allowed to work at all. They tend to threaten the people who are in charge, who are all corporate bean-counting idiots who are only interested in opening weekends. Screenwriting has become a lost art. The other lost art is EDITING! I've not seen a film in the last five years that couldn't have been cut by 20 or more minutes without losing a single important point. All those agonizingly long beauty shots of digitally-created scenery, endless close-ups of stars in which the camera refuses to leave them until they finally figure out how to act, absurdly long fight scenes, glacial lap-dissolves, and the employment of 17 camera set-ups to cover two lines of dialogue have just reached the madness level. "Ray" is the only recent film I can think of that did not seem terminally padded.

 

[Quigley Brown]

At the moment Wolfgang Peterson is filming The Posiden Adventure and rumor has it that he may also be involved in a new Bullitt...but that should have been seem coming after the release of the new Charger and Mustang.

I, myself, don't mind some of the remakes. I don't judge them until after I've seen them. Also, don't judge Hollywood in general just because of these few remakes. There's plenty of fresh and original independent films out there and, of course, loads of foreign ones...lots of good stuff coming out of Brazil and Japan.

I finally figured out what someone earlier was referring to when writing about 'HF' in 'IJ.' I was thinking, 'What Henry Fonda flick could that have been?'

 

[Vladimir Berkov]

Yes, there are a lot of independant and original films out there. The problem is that almost all of them open only in NYC and LA. If they turn out to be successful, you might be lucky to see them somewhere else.

What sources there used to be for fresh, interesting films *cough* Miramax *cough* now are almost unrecognizable as such.

There are still good films out there, they are just getting harder and harder to find. What I usually end up with is a choice of a quirky, wierd low-budget mediocre film and a blockbuster, overhyped high-budget mediocre film.

 

[Feraud]

Hollywood is sufficiently out of creativity! Luckily for the business side of Hollywood, there are enough great and mediocre films from Hollywood past and overseas to make plenty of dough!

I generally dislike the idea of a remake. It tends to display a certain sense of laziness on the filmmakers. However, some remakes are worth the effort. The Mummy was a lot of fun and took nothing away from the original. The Dukes of Hazzard, Charlie's Angels, and Godzilla seem anything but in need of a remake, updating or re-imagining!

Hollywood is in it for the bucks and there is nothing wrong with that. If you want to view independent films and do not live in cities that feature them, the internet can provide the opportunity. Companies like Netflix provide the opportunity to view films that might not run at your local Multiplex or dvd rental outlet.

 

[Michael Mallory]

As near as I can tell, only two remakes in history have improved on the original(s): Huston's 1941 "The Maltese Falcon," which was considerably better than the 1931 version, and MILES above the 1936 version, and "Show Boat" from 1951, which I think is better than both the 1929 and 1936 versions. And that's about it. Oh -- and maybe the 1951 Alistair Sim "A Christmas Carol" over MGM's 1938 version. But that's it. I'm not even sure I buy the new "Fantastic Four" over Roger Corman's unreleased 1994 version (unreleased, but not that hard to obtain on video).

However, I have a few ideas for some new Hollywood remakes:

"IDIOT'S DELIGHT" starring Tom Cruise

"JAILHOUSE ROCK" with Li'l Kim

"THE BAD AND THE BEAUTIFUL" with Angelina Jolie

"THE VIOLENT MEN" with Russell Crowe and Sean Penn

"THE CHILDREN'S HOUR" with Michael Jackson

"THE KILLING" with Brittany Spears (...please!)

"NO TIME FOR COMEDY" written by, directed by, and starring Woody Allen

and last, but not least,

"GONE WITH THE WIND" featuring creativity in Hollywood

 

[Vladimir Berkov]

Come on! Doesn't anybody want to see a remake of The Maltese Falcon with Hayden Christensen and Paris Hilton?

 

[Michael Mallory]

Hey, why not shoot for the moon? "The Maltese Falcon" with Bruce Willis and Sarah Jessica Parker?

Suddenly, I'm not hungry for dinner anymore.

 

[The Wolf]

"Robin Hood"- good the first time

They always remake the films of one of my favorite actors: Douglas Fairbanks.
Errol Flyn did "Robin Hood" and then "Mark of Zorro" with Tyrone Power (which kept the Fairbanks title (( originally a pulp story called "The Curse of Capistrano")) and tried to mix in Flynn's Hood's elements.
Danny Kaye remakes "The Milky Way" and "Ball of Fire".
Now they are remaking "The Libeled Lady" with Van Johnson, Esther Williams and Lucille Ball. Nothing against those actors but how do you top the original, excellent cast.

As for "The Maltese Falcon", Bogart looks more like Ricardo Cortez than the Sam Spade in the novel.

The Wolf

 

[Deleted member 259]

This is a bit of a sore spot for me.
Being a stage actor - the lack of talent within the celebrity pool, as well as hollywood's loss of creativity is appalling.
It used to be that you coudn't make it anywhere unless you were classically trained. I'm talking tap/jazz/ballet, vocal work, alexander method, the whole 9 yards.
Now it seems all you need is enough $ to get an agent and maybe a boobjob. Oh, and it helps if you're a singer and have no background in acting whatsoever.

There are a couple remakes that were pretty good, especially since the general populace isn't familiar with the original. (I really like The Mummy) But Overall, I'm not a fan.
House on Haunted Hill (Or was it the Haunting? I always get the titles confused) was a remake - and if you've ever seen the original...well...it's something to chuckle about.

Even though Charlie and The Chocolate Factory isn't a golden era remake, I'm curious how it's going to come out. Burton and Depp have always made a great combo, but the original was great, and Gene Wilder is one of my favorite actors. His style just can't be re-created.
I have a sister who's 9, so I have an excuse to get excited about "childrens" movies, even though this version is supposed to be darker and more true to the book.

++I also feel that animation has gone way down hill, it hit it's visual peak in the early 90s and it's creativity pool long before that.
Anyone else have a likeing for Felix, Tom&Jerry, and Popeye for example. I'm not sure whether the downfall is due to the sudden rise in PC culture, or the handoff from people who really care about their art to people making dough.

 

[Michael Mallory]

Most remakes are nothing more than "pre-solds:" films with automatic title recognition. Nobody really cares if they're any good or not, as long as the title brings 'em in.

As for "The Avengers," if they'd cast Catherine Zeta-Jones and Rupert Everett, it might have worked.

 

[Deleted member 259]

Too many remakes try to make it bigger and throw in effects when what drew us to the originals were character and story. Those are the parts some movie makers forget.

The Wolf

Well Said, Wolf!

 

[Quigley Brown]

Too many remakes try to make it bigger and throw in effects when what drew us to the originals were character and story. Those are the parts some movie makers forget.

The Wolf[/QUOTE]

They're not making these remakes for us....they're for the whole new generation of filmgoers. When I go see a film it's not just the film I'm going there for...it's for the whole atmosphere. So the comedy film I saw last week wasn't one of the best, but I had a date, ate some popcorn and had some laughs.

 

[Feraud]

This topic begs the question:

Is a remake good, bad or indifferent for an original film?

Would remaking Casablanca with Ben Affleck and Jennifer Garner take anything away(or add) from the origianal?

I think in a good sense, it can interest people who have never seen the original into an unknown genre. All it takes is one great 'classic' film to start you down the road to the 'Golden Era'.

 

[Deleted member 259]

A remake can't be judged solrly by the fact that it has been done before. It really depends on the vision of the producer, director, cast and crew.

I don't think all remakes are doomed to failure or mediocrity, but in my opinion, the majority of them have not held up to the standards of their predecessors.

 

[HaraldTheSwede]

remaking Casablanca with Ben Affleck and Jennifer Garner

Oh the horror, the horror! Even thinking of the possibility will give me nightmares.

 

[jake_fink]

Casablanca remake

Casablance was turned into a television show starring David Soul (who was either Starsky or Hutch). Now, when you think of Casablance does the image of David Soul in a dinner jacket come to mind, and does it ruin the memory of the original? What about Psycho? Does the Gus Van Sant shot for shot remake come to mind or does the original? I don't think that remakes ruin the orginal film, though the danger is that they might, in their way, overshadow a more obscure original, as Against All Odds did in the eighties (it was a remake of Out of the Past). The worst thing about remakes and the trend toward making films based on presold commodities - tv shows, comics etc., is that at their worst they are dull, derivative, empty and just not enjoyable movie experiences. When I think of the first time I saw the films I still love today I remember being surprised and enthralled. (Remember the first time you saw Raiders?) Now I'm doing well if I don't walk out in boredom or disgust part way through.