OCT 2015 MOVIE DISCUSSION

[Jingus]

That's less believable than a woman having to think twice about getting back together with George Clooney?

[muhammedboehm]

That's less believable than a woman having to think twice about getting back together with George Clooney?

You got me there

[elizium]

 

One day Hollywood will discover original ideas again.

 

One day.

They've been doing remakes for over a century now. It's nothing new; hell, neither is the concept of a "remake". ALL of Shakespeare's plays had directly stolen their ideas from well-known older works.

And if there's one thing I don't mind at all, it's the idea of doing gender-swapped remakes. I find that idea fascinating, to show how the same ideas would work with characters of the opposite sex.

 

 

Yeah, early Hollywood was all about remakes, you'd see the same stories released every couple years. I guess it comes from the theatre background, where if a production/story is popular, you keep doing it. You'd see the same thing in the early 1900s music business. If a song sold well, there'd be a rush of artists and producers releasing their own versions.

 

Hell, John Ford even remade his own films, turning 1934's Judge Priest into 1953's The Sun Shines Bright. I'm pretty sure he did the 3 Godfathers story a couple times as well (which of course would eventually get remade itself into 3 Men and a Baby).

[Raziel]

You realize with Ocean's, we're in remake of a remake territory?

[Brian Fowler]

Hitchcock did some remakes of his own early films as well.

And the famous version of The Maltese Falcon was the third time the novel had been adapted in about a decade. By the same studio.

[nate]

That's it, then: All movies are shit.

[Reed]

Hitchcock did some remakes of his own early films as well.

 

 

Yeah, but he had a good reason: New technology was coming in all the time. Sound and color, etc.