Star Wars awakens looked like it remade the very first one.
Star Trek mixed and redid KAHN...
Now, Matrix remixing the other movies - wasting time with the same scenes...
(based on latest trailer)
why?
anyone know?
have we stopped supporting "unsafe" creativity, and only pay for these safe remakes?
Because nobody in charge of money in Hollywood knows what the word 'original' means. They only know what titles in the past made money and that's what they base their decisions on.
shareSHHH🤫
shareexctly, this one looks exactly like a rehash of the first one
sharehave we stopped supporting "unsafe" creativity, and only pay for these safe remakes?
You're far too perceptive to be on here.
shareONE ISSUE WITH YOUR WELL THOUGHT OUT THEORY...
"The moment they stop going to see sequels and reboots, Hollywood will stop making them."
THE REMAKES,SEQUELS AND REBOOTS ARE AS OLD AS HOLLYWOOD ITSELF...NOTHING NEW...BUSINESS AS USUAL.
Very true. It's not so much an issue with remakes or reboots. It's more of annissue with poorly made remakes or reboots.
You don't always get the Thing, the Blob, or Batman Begins. There's usually a couple stinkers to get past like the total recall remake or a nightmare on elm street.
Yes, that's true. Quite right.
The 'new' parts are, a) the 'blockbuster model' that started with Jaws and Star Wars, and b) blockbusters being almost the only kind of movie audiences will nowadays go out to see. Theatrical distribution for mid-budget movies has become much rarer, because audiences are happy to watch... I dunno, something like, let's say, Marriage Story on streaming services, but are more willing to take a trip out of the house to watch something like Matrix 4.
The mid-budget stuff is still out there and still has an audience. It's just not in cinemas so much any more.
THAT IS TRUE...AS MUCH AS I LOVE FILMS OF ALL KINDS...MY ENTIRE LIFE OF 40 YEARS ITS BEEN MAINLY MAJOR RELEASES AVAILABLE AT THEATERS...UNLESS YOU GO ARTHOUSE OR THE SUCH...THE NEW PARTS SEEM OLD TO ME.
shareHehe. Yes, the 'new' part is pretty old now. But, of course, it has been accelerated and refined by technology over the last twenty years or so... which, um, still makes it old really.
yep. very solid point. and it IS a business, and if that's what the people's want, so be it. it ain't roclet science.
I had an open mind for this M4 movie.... at the start. Seeing the trailers RE-DEUXing many parts, I am saddened by the weak attempt now. I'm sure it will LOOK COOL with decent action, and maybe the plot will be interesting, but losing a 1/4 of the film to flashbacks, redos, whatevers, is very dissapointing. No matter what the plot is. Feels like they are going to $#!T all over the 1st 3 movies.
Because all the movies you listed are HITS!
Can you name a big budget hit isn't a "re-doing"? The most original big budget movie in recently years is TENET, and it bombed.
And you forgot to mention Mad Max 4, it's re-doing Mad Max 2.
One of the most original movies in the last few decades was The Matrix. :)
shareI said "big budget," The Matrix isn't.
sharewelllll.... 63 million was not low budget back in 1999. ;) But I get what you mean: these silly 150 to 300 million movies, that cater to one and all.
but THIS movie is just wasting our time by the looks of it: oooh a nod here, a nod there, then more nods to previous films.
I didn't say The Matrix is LOW budget, I said it's not BIG budget.
The problem with BIG budget is: you can't be original. If you're CEO and greenlight a BIG budget re-doing, then it bombed, you can said:" I just follow the past success, how do I know it would fail?"
If it's a orginal movie with BIG budget, you're fired.
ya true
shareSuccessful film franchises will always be rehashed every few years or so and they always have since film began. The phenomenon is nothing new.
There are plenty of exciting new films out there but you don’t hear about them because people on the internet are so obsessed with complaining about the blockbusters.