all 22 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] 1 point 1 year ago

They just wanna make more money.

  • source
  • [–] 30 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    Looks like articles are also stuck on repeat.

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 21 points 1 year ago (2 children)

    My crazy idea for Hollywood is instead of remaking and rebooting classic movies how about they remake or reboot flops or movies that had bad cgi and or bad characters and give them the respect and love they deserve?

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 17 points 1 year ago*

    "You don't remake Ghostbusters, which is a perfect comedy film, with all-time great comedic actors doing career-defining performances. That's not the movie you want to remake. You remake the movie that you CAN do better. You don't remake something that's utterly perfect." ~ Rich Evans, star of The Ellen Show and Never Been Kissed

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 8 points 1 year ago (2 children)

    Because it makes them the most money, either in actuality or just in their heads. Not like they're doing it because there's some guy that just thinks Jurassic Park is so cool.

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 7 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    Answer- because we keep going to see this slop and don't go out to see actually original movies.

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 10 points 1 year ago (2 children)

    Always has been.

    Even early movies were remakes of other media like books and plays into the newfangled moving pictures format. Many in the next couple of decades were serials and sequels of successful movies, because familiarity is like free advertising.

    We are continuing the same trends that have always existed.

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 1 year ago

    We are continuing the same trends that have always existed.

    Well said. Heck, for most Western countries, theater begins with the Greeks and even they were doing that with their gods and heros. The Bible has four different books about Jesus and sometimes even the same story is slightly different between the authors. The stories of English legends like King Arthur and Robbin Hood have been told and retold so many times that we can figure out when certain characters or traits that are common today were introduced.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 4 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

    Yep. There was a "The Mark of Zorro" in 1920 with Douglas Fairbanks AND in 1940 with Tyrone Power.

    There were versions of "The Count of Monte Cristo" in 1908, 1913, 1918, 1922, 1929, 1934, 1942, 1943, 1946, 1953, 1954, 1958, 1961, 1968, 1975, 1982, 1986, 1986, 1986 (yes, three versions in 86), 2002, and 2024... not counting the TV versions.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 4 points 1 year ago

    There's a bit of a difference between a re-packaged cash grab and the continuation of a series, or modern recontextualizing of a story.

    We remake Batman like every 10-20 years because we've been writing Batman stories since the second world war. Batman is more of a legendary folk hero, an archetype to build stories around, like Paul Bunyan was to early settlers (And the indigenous people's Glooscap, upon whom he was based.)

    And then there's concepts that keep inspiring more stories that can't be contained in one film. Alex Garland is an incredibly talented writer of original films, he wrote 28 Days Later and returned to write 28 Years, which is a sequel and not a remake.

  • source
  • [–] 3 points 1 year ago

    How can you put those two titles in the same category? One is a beloved horror series fans have been dying for, the other is corporate trash no one asked for or wants. These two are not the same.

  • source
  • [–] 4 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    The genAI is getting really close to producing feature-length films. And when that happens, there will be like 1 dude or a very small team creating banger movies. Smaller studios can take risks and write better stories.

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago

    There's gonna be a period when artists will make good AI films, creating original movies. Artists who can't get their project greenlit via normal means because studios only want maximum returns with sequels and reboots.

    Getting those movies seen by people will be the hard part because of all the crap that will also be made with AI by non-artists. Hopefully, the cream will rise to the top.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 4 points 1 year ago (2 children)

    Movies are so expensive I don't want to gamble. I already know I'll like 28 Years Later, and despite the last two flops, I'll probably like the new JP. Not a huge Superman fan, but the trailer looks great.

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago

    Just watched Jurassic World Rebirth today. It has pretty decent action, a bit different in tone from recent ones, predictable in some ways, but overall okay.

    To be fair, I watched it because I have an AMC movie pass. I probably would've skipped it if I didn't have that.

    I still haven't finished Dominion because that was so awful. I fell asleep twice in that one. Rebirth to me was far better than that.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago

    It's been this way for decades, if fans are just realizing it that says more about them.

  • source
  • 14 comments in c/movies@piefed.social view that post
    [–] 22 points 1 year ago* (3 children)

    Because MBAs and many executives had a shift a little while back and are now 110% focused on short term profits, at the cost of literally everything else. And margins are safer with reboots than with "risky" originals. Despite the potential of originals spawning franchises that can make more than the reboots combined. Because long term income, customer retention, product quality, etc. is literally not considered in the modern investor driven business world.

  • source
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 12 points 1 year ago* (2 children)

    One factor that is often overlooked in these discourses is why?

    I mean, Hollywood knows how to make good movies. They've been doing it for over a hundred years.

    And I have a theory about this.

    See, there's an entire branch of food science that companies use to analyze their foods, to make sure that they are tantalizing and appealing, but never satisfying. The reason for this is because if a food is not satisfying, consumers will tend to eat more of it, or will continue to go back to it over and over again, because there's some part of their Brain that's telling them this was tasty food and I want more of it and never seems to get enough.

    This results in increased sales of food for the companies that are making these foods. And it has made me aware of the fact that if you get tired of eating a food, that probably means that it's a good food.

    I said all of that to say, I now believe they are doing the same thing with movies. People watch movies because they want to be entertained, they want to be told stories and shown sights and have an experience that is above and beyond the mundane, right?

    And I think they realized that if they told slightly unsatisfying stories, Then the consumer's brain would not be satisfied and would therefore go out and watch another movie, and another movie, and a TV show, and another movie, trying to get the satisfaction of experiencing a movie for the first time and being satisfied by it.

    As long as they keep the tantalization factor high and the satisfaction factor low enough that people don't reject the entire system, then every single person that indulges in watching movies will consume more, meaning they would make more money by serving us movies and TV shows that do not satisfy the way that they should.

    Anyway, that's my theory.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 5 points 1 year ago

    I think people binge watching Netflix and streaming services are what gave them the data to dial it in. Beforeit was the same thing, but around the ticket sales (tantalizing and appealing trailers) and the movie being satisfying was hit or miss depending on how accurate it was to trailer.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 9 points 1 year ago

    The easiest way to make it stop is to not watch them which is a win-win-win: save money, save time, kill the reboot/remake industry

  • source
  • [–] 10 points 1 year ago (3 children)

    I gave up on movies a long time ago. Growing up in the 90s, yeah I've seen these films. I don't need to see another CGI fest of we can rehash the Lion King and Jurrasic Park. I mostly read and play video games now. Exploring the universe in my spaceship is way more exciting than we made Top Gun AGAIN.

  • source
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 4 points 1 year ago (4 children)

    Bemoaning movie remakes: why is entertainment media stuck on repeat?

  • source
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 6 points 1 year ago (3 children)

    Probably because it's a valid question

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 1 year ago* (2 children)

    The answer is that is what people will reliabily pay to see in a theater.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    I wonder if there is actually any evidence that it's more profitable to make only "safe" movies over taking some risks. My guess would be that some of the most wildly popular movies of all time were considered a risk up front.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment