NationStates Jolt Archive

Have to take every great British film and turn it into shite

some examples

Get Carter

The Italian Job

The Long Good Friday

Day of the Jackal

All fantastic films which never needed to be remade...if it isnt broke...dont fix it!!

It's called 'dumbing down for your audience'.

Intelligent yanks don't bother with that tripe.

It's called 'dumbing down for your audience'.

Intelligent yanks don't bother with that tripe.

Surely thats a little insulting to the american public...do hollywood mogels really believe that their target audience is that dim?

Surely thats a little insulting to the american public...do hollywood mogels really believe that their target audience is that dim?

With 300 million people, there *will* be an audience filled with stupid, somewhere.

Surely thats a little insulting to the american public...do hollywood mogels really believe that their target audience is that dim?

No, but if they remake the movie, they get the money instead of some foreign guy. And it's pretty much guaranteed money because it's a proven film formula.

Surely thats a little insulting to the american public...do hollywood mogels really believe that their target audience is that dim?
They don't believe that... they know it!

Surely thats a little insulting to the american public...do hollywood mogels really believe that their target audience is that dim?

Not exactly, that young would be better.

The vast majority of the American movie-going audience is 13-18 years of age. Hence why most of our movies end up targeting that particular crowd to the exclusion of all others. Movies that are deep or even moderately intelligent get cut to fit the PG-13 movie of the week mold.

Have to take every great British film and turn it into shite

some examples

Get Carter

The Italian Job

The Long Good Friday

Day of the Jackal

All fantastic films which never needed to be remade...if it isn't broke...don't fix it!!

We do that to our films as well.

One I always remember is Sabrina. We have a theater that only shows old films. We were in watching Sabrina and there was two women behind and we hear one say that she saw the new one and thought it was good but this film is way more funny!

Casablanca was remade. It had David Soul (Starskey and Hutch fame) as Rick :eek:

Hollywood is running low on creative juices these days.

Surely thats a little insulting to the american public...do hollywood mogels really believe that their target audience is that dim?

A chunk of them are. Story is not that important when you have boobs and bombs!

A chunk of them are. Story is not that important when you have boobs and bombs!

We call that segment the American "Horror" movie crowd.

Because they're mostly rich people with no notion of what their wider audience who watch their stuff who happen to be poorer than them are interested in, so they just have the usual mix of , guns, sex, food, fart jokes, some witty one-liners because the plot is so bad.
Having said that i've never made a film so i wouldn't know how to make a good one but i could write a plot that would hammer their heads to ribbons.
I'm sure there are good filmakers, but those aren't many, maybe some LOTR stuff the star wars was a good laugh, when i was a kid i loved Jurassic park, and dinosaur films.:)

Because they're mostly rich people with no notion of what their wider audience who watch their stuff who happen to be poorer than them are interested in, so they just have the usual mix of , guns, sex, food, fart jokes, some witty one-liners because the plot is so bad.


The box office would disagree with you. That's what the wider audience come and see. They don't turn out for Woody Allen movies.

Americans seem to have a knack of screwing anything british up - take the tv show Red Dwarf - a british sitcom at its best, but they decide to remake it and its turned out to be complete and utter crap - the only saving grace was that it never made it past the pilot episode and even that was unaired

what black forest said.

an american producer cant take a recent american film and remake it so they take foreign films and remake them.

they are no better than the remakes of classic movies.

meaning that they mostly suck.


its far worse in the TV realm where a great cheeky british comedy is made by an american producer for US tv and is gutted because they do not dare do what the british comedy did.

the US version of absolutely fabulous comes to mind. they didnt dare make the actresses as harsh as the british actresses were. they didnt dare have as much drug abuse and prosmiscuous sex. they gutted what makes the show funny and tried to work with the empty shell. it didnt work.

its far worse in the TV realm where a great cheeky british comedy is made by an american producer for US tv and is gutted because they do not dare do what the british comedy did.
There’s always exceptions though.

For example, the US version of The Office is, IMHO, far superior to the British version, and actually adds a huge amount of character, emotion and storyline to the show.

I’m also looking forward to seeing the Us version of The Thick Of It. Not that I think it’ll be better than the British version, which is some of the best (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ee1uyc-sc5E&feature=related) political (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6phFQENkpII&feature=related) comedy (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ImKxp-nwvaE) of the past 20 years, but I’m interested to see what Christopher Guest (of Spinal Tap fame), who’s helming the show, will do to Armando Iannucci’s creation.

I live in hope.

Surely thats a little insulting to the american public...do hollywood mogels really believe that their target audience is that dim?

... considering they keep giving Uwe Boll films to make...

No, but if they remake the movie, they get the money instead of some foreign guy. And it's pretty much guaranteed money because it's a proven film formula.Maybe Hollywood should be taken to court for breaching anti-trust laws. That is they are colluding with each other to abuse their position as market leaders to constantly bring out the same old tat.
And that if it weren't for their practices audiences across the world would be exposed to a much wider array of choice and quality.

Have to take every great British film and turn it into shite

some examples

Get Carter

The Italian Job

The Long Good Friday

Day of the Jackal

All fantastic films which never needed to be remade...if it isnt broke...dont fix it!!
I disagree on The Italian Job. The original was a pointless waste of time. There was almost no content in the original Michael Caine version.

The American remake is a pretty tight heist film. It's really very little like the original.

Many "remakes" are just vaguely inspired by their source material, and are, for the most part, entirely different films.

And a lot of remakes happen. Will Smith's I am Legend is a remake of Charlton's Heston's The Omega Man, which itself was a remake of Vincent Price's The Last Man on Earth.

I’m also looking forward to seeing the Us version of The Thick Of It. Not that I think it’ll be better than the British version, which is some of the best (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ee1uyc-sc5E&feature=related) political (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6phFQENkpII&feature=related) comedy (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ImKxp-nwvaE) of the past 20 years, but I’m interested to see what Christopher Guest (of Spinal Tap fame), who’s helming the show, will do to Armando Iannucci’s creation.

In another thread I said I couldn't name a good BBC sitcom other those of Gervais/Merchant. I had completely forgotten about this, fantastic show.

Because it's a provenly good movie. Hollywood takes the good movie and remakes it how they wish, and people go to see it...thinking it's going to be as good or better.

Also the main target audience is 15-20 year olds...not exactly the most mature folks out there.

American film makers still can make great films:

The Godfather trilogy
Bladerunner
Pulp Fiction
Reservoir Dogs
Unforgiven
Goodfellas
The Matrix
Lord of the Rings

Just to name a few off the top of my head

There's no need to defend American films, no other country comes close.

I disagree on The Italian Job. The original was a pointless waste of time. There was almost no content in the original Michael Caine version.

The American remake is a pretty tight heist film. It's really very little like the original.

Many "remakes" are just vaguely inspired by their source material, and are, for the most part, entirely different films.

And a lot of remakes happen. Will Smith's I am Legend is a remake of Charlton's Heston's The Omega Man, which itself was a remake of Vincent Price's The Last Man on Earth.

....which in turn is based of of the book which was superior to all the films together.

There's no need to defend American films, no other country comes close.

Now, the UK has some good films too. I was just pointing out that even though a majority of american films are crap, there are a few diamonds.

But then again, the same is for the French, UK, and Bollywood films.

Lots of crap films made by everyone. A few good films made by everyone

Now, the UK has some good films too. I was just pointing out that even though a majority of american films are crap, there are a few diamonds.

But then again, the same is for the French, UK, and Bollywood films.

Lots of crap films made by everyone. A few good films made by everyone

The very same goes for music.

In another thread I said I couldn’t name a good BBC sitcom other those of Gervais/Merchant. I had completely forgotten about this, fantastic show.
Along with The Thick Of It, I’d say Saxondale (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CO0yAuce9Hk&feature=related), Ideal (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MXGCCEj45oI), The Mighty Boosh (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nMYcNRckO14), The Royle Family (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2JPvGPMXF8Q), Marion & Geoff (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bcm27ofVYpQ).

Diamonds in the rough and all that...

Because it's a provenly good movie. Hollywood takes the good movie and remakes it how they wish, and people go to see it...thinking it's going to be as good or better.

Also the main target audience is 15-20 year olds...not exactly the most mature folks out there.

American film makers still can make great films:

The Godfather trilogy
Bladerunner
Pulp Fiction
Reservoir Dogs
Unforgiven
Goodfellas
The Matrix
Lord of the Rings

Just to name a few off the top of my head

lolwut

Now, the UK has some good films too. I was just pointing out that even though a majority of american films are crap, there are a few diamonds.


I can't think of a good recent UK film that has been free of American involvement.

I can't think of a good recent UK film that has been free of American involvement.

Define American Involvement

I can’t think of a good recent UK film that has been free of American involvement.
Exactly. It’s not as if ‘British’ films are made exclusively by citizens of the UK, or that ‘American’ films are made exclusively by citizens of the US. A film’s ‘nationality’ usually refers to where the finance of the film comes from, what studio is producing the film.

Anyways, TV is where it’s at. Far more exciting art is coming out of British and American telly sets than out of the big screen.

I can't think of a good recent UK film that has been free of American involvement.I take it you're not a fan of Simon Pegg then.

I can't think of a good recent UK film that has been free of American involvement.

What about Eastenders? a great film. or the sequel Coronation street, or the last one Emmerdale, all great films aren't they?

....which in turn is based of of the book which was superior to all the films together.

Perhaps, but you also have to remember that they're different media. With a book a writer has all the time and pages that he needs to develop the character and story. He can tell you what's going on inside the characters' heads and it doesn't seem phoney or stupid.

With a movie you have two hours. Otherwise people get up to go pee and miss enough that you're never able to reclaim their interest. If you try and get into what's in the heads of the characters you pretty much have to use a voice over which just seems silly to most audiences.

With a book you can detail all the minutae and tiny clues that lead the detective to his conclusion, where with a movie you have to have someone always going, "Look here!" which, again, looks damn silly, or you have to trust that the audience will notice too, which just isn't a good thing to rely on.

Basically it boils down to the fact that you have two very different entertainment media. Comparing them is often like asking how many apples are in an orange. They're both fruit, but you can't make one into the other.

Surely thats a little insulting to the american public...do hollywood mogels really believe that their target audience is that dim?

YES. Yes they do. In fact, they count on it. Why else would US studios bankroll films whose characters are taken from TV shows (Mission: Impossible, The Beverly Hillbillies, The Addams Family, The Brady Bunch, The Dukes of Hazzard, and coming soon, Get Smart, Knight Rider), video games (Resident Evil, Mario Bros., Final Fantasy), and kiddie-consumer cartoon series (Master of the Universe, Transformers), and even combinations thereof which spawned from a decent comic book (Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles). Those films get the kids, which raises them on dumb, which sets them up for films like Van Wilder, Bratz, Swimfan and other like films in their teens, and then sets them up for Talledega Nights, Blades of Glory, I Now Pronounce You Chuck & Larry, Good Luck Chuck, Hostel, Turistas and all the other crap as adults.

The box office would disagree with you. That's what the wider audience come and see. They don't turn out for Woody Allen movies anymore.

Fixed. They used to -- Annie Hall most notably.

The other side, though, includes dumb films which acquire a sembalnce, a veneer of worth through underground cachet. Films like Donny Darko, Lost Highway, Suicide Kings, Reservoir Dogs, Grindhouse and the like which are no better than their more mainstream counterparts, but have that so-called "edge" to them which makes faux-auteurs come in their shorts. Deliberate, meretricious obscurity is no better than transparency if you ask me (and I know, nobody did, but this is MY rant, dammit!).

So we all slog through films and look for the ones we'll remember as having done a good job at entertaining us, telling us a story or enlightening us in some way. Nobody likes them all, but enough people like enough of them to keep them coming.

Define American Involvement

Money/direction/writing/acting.

I take it you're not a fan of Simon Pegg then.

Even Working Title is owned (or 70% owned) by an American company.

Fixed. They used to -- Annie Hall most notably.


Annie Hall had the lowest BO return of any Best Picture winner ever. If that's the response to a masterpiece...

A better question is why British filmmakers always cast the absolute worst American actresses to play British parts.

Annie Hall had the lowest BO return of any Best Picture winner ever. If that's the response to a masterpiece...

Not to mention that the Academy Awards isn't always the best indicator of how popular a movie is.

Oh no! You mean there are movies that do not meet your standards, but people still like? The shame of it. That nation must be full of idiots.




Sorry, people have different tastes. Deal with it.

Sorry, people have different tastes. Deal with it.
Same to you.

Excuse us for trying to appreciate films with depth, as opposed to trashy pulp.

Some things to remember when thinking about major movie decisions-

Studios get 90% of the box office on opening weekend, traditionally. As a result exhibitors tend to favor 'popcorn' movies, movies that attract crowds likely to buy popcorn in the hopes that they'll actually make money that weekend. This includes teenagers, families, and people on dates.


An R-rating means that on average a film will open on 2/3rds the screens as it would with a lower rating. This can adversely affect the opening weekend numbers, which are important in determining a movies momentum. Sleeper films are rarer and take more work to get going. (exceptions like My Big Fat Greek Wedding are notable because they are exceptions)


Movies are expensive to make, are a huge investment risk that often goes awry. Studios rely on 'tentpole' films, blockbusters that attract wide audiences to cover their loses on the other films they release throughout the year and to fund movies that generate smaller audiences but add prestige to the studio's line up. An artier film that barely makes back it's budget is covered by a Dukes of Hazzard.


Because the movies are so expensive, studios are prone, just like any other business, to go with what has worked in the past in order to increase the odds that they'll make that money back. Think about it, it's an industry that has to create around 25 (per company) multi-million dollar new products every year. If that was your money, you wouldn't hedge your bets?


Get off your ass and go watch the good ones. If more of you watched No Country for Old Men then National Treasure, what do you think we'd get more of?

Americans seem to have a knack of screwing anything british up - take the tv show Red Dwarf - a british sitcom at its best, but they decide to remake it and its turned out to be complete and utter crap - the only saving grace was that it never made it past the pilot episode and even that was unaired

*shudders* They did?!?!?!?!

Good lord that would have sucked if they tried!

I just love that show! :D

I take it you're not a fan of Simon Pegg then.

Hot Fuzz for the win! :D

I like Shaun of The Dead too! :)

because they have to appeal to a wide audience, you want a good film, you have to wade through independent films......some of them are awesome, but would never make it commercially due to the general awesomeness and lack of special effects wanking.

If more of you watched No Country for Old Men...
Me loves Coens.

Because the movies are so expensive, studios are prone, just like any other business, to go with what has worked in the past in order to increase the odds that they'll make that money back. Think about it, it's an industry that has to create around 25 (per company) multi-million dollar new products every year. If that was your money, you wouldn't hedge your bets?


Just to add to that:

William Goldman famously said "nobody knows anything" and he was right. The industry is petrified because it doesn't know what people will like, it only knows what people have liked and so it goes back to that time and time again. Sometimes it's remakes and sometimes it's sequels, adaptions, rip offs, biopics, theme park rides, toys. Even if they go with an original idea they'll use actors and directors people have already gone to see. They don't care if people want intelligent, original films - they only care whether or not people turn out for intelligent, original films (and they don't). Added to that, a lot of Fellini-worshipping film buffs will go and see 300 or Transformers but it doesn't seem to work the other way around.

A better question is why British filmmakers always cast the absolute worst American actresses to play British parts.
To make you guys look stupid, obviously.

To make you guys look stupid, obviously.

A theory throughly proven with the casting of Billy Bob Thorton as President of the US in a movie a few years back...

...if only it weren't so accurate.

Here's another example.
I recently saw a hilarious french film called 'les visiteurs'. It's basically about a medieval knight transported to the late 20th century after a wizard uses a wrong ingredient in a potion to send him back in time to save his wannabe-lover's father who the knight shot because he thought he was a bear after a witch had spiked his drink. I recommend it, even though it's subtitled for the non-francophone audience.
I later saw an american film on the same concept- no wizard, but still about a this time 18th century guy transported to the future. It tried to be funny, but all the gags were old, used, clichéd and generally it turned into the classic... no, not classic, common... love story instead of the brilliant, original quirky french version. It failed to use any of the comedic opportunities presented to it by the unique premise.

Here's another example.
I recently saw a hilarious french film called 'les visiteurs'. It's basically about a medieval knight transported to the late 20th century after a wizard uses a wrong ingredient in a potion to send him back in time to save his wannabe-lover's father who the knight shot because he thought he was a bear after a witch had spiked his drink. I recommend it, even though it's subtitled for the non-francophone audience.
I later saw an american film on the same concept- no wizard, but still about a this time 18th century guy transported to the future. It tried to be funny, but all the gags were old, used, clichéd and generally it turned into the classic... no, not classic, common... love story instead of the brilliant, original quirky french version. It failed to use any of the comedic opportunities presented to it by the unique premise.

I don't know if that qualifies as a remaking of a French film, since 'out of time' plots go all the way back to the first novel...

Here's another example.
I recently saw a hilarious french film called 'les visiteurs'. It's basically about a medieval knight transported to the late 20th century after a wizard uses a wrong ingredient in a potion to send him back in time to save his wannabe-lover's father who the knight shot because he thought he was a bear after a witch had spiked his drink. I recommend it, even though it's subtitled for the non-francophone audience.
I later saw an american film on the same concept- no wizard, but still about a this time 18th century guy transported to the future. It tried to be funny, but all the gags were old, used, clichéd and generally it turned into the classic... no, not classic, common... love story instead of the brilliant, original quirky french version. It failed to use any of the comedic opportunities presented to it by the unique premise.

The re-make was Just Visiting, which actually stared 2 of the same stars reprising there roles. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Les_Visiteurs
Have to admit the French version was better.

Have to take every great British film and turn it into shite

some examples

Get Carter

The Italian Job

The Long Good Friday

Day of the Jackal

All fantastic films which never needed to be remade...if it isnt broke...dont fix it!!

For the same reasons they do it with Japanese, French, and any other place you care to mention movies.

1) They're out of ideas. Hollywood started rehashing its old ideas from day one. Quite a few features from Hollywood's golden age were rehashed matinées.

2) Same reason that pharmaceutical companies insist on making drugs out of herbs that already accomplish the job that the future drug is intended to do. They get to charge you for watching it.

3) Will it play in Peoria? There is a feeling among the executive circles of the entertainment biz that Americans can't follow any movie that doesn't glorify them or require them to know another culture from a whole in the wall. That's why U-571, though set in a period before the US entered WWII, and based on a true story about British sailors who boarded a German u-boat to steal a code machine, was a movie about American sailors.

No, but if they remake the movie, they get the money instead of some foreign guy. And it's pretty much guaranteed money because it's a proven film formula.

Hence the overwhelming box office success of Feardotcom. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feardotcom) Based on a movie as successful as Ringu, how could it fail?

1) They're out of ideas. Hollywood started rehashing its old ideas from day one. Quite a few features from Hollywood's golden age were rehashed matinées.


And many of those were based on old melodramas, which, in turn, were often based on old plays and stories, which were often based on older stories, often based on folk lore

Hell, Shakespeare only had what...three fully original plays?

It isn't the origin of the content, but the content itself that matters.

Have to take every great British film and turn it into shite

some examples

Get Carter

The Italian Job

The Long Good Friday

Day of the Jackal

All fantastic films which never needed to be remade...if it isnt broke...dont fix it!!


The Italian Job remake was actually pretty damned awesome. Better than the original, in my debatably humble opinion. I haven't heard of the rest of those films.

Surely thats a little insulting to the american public...do hollywood mogels really believe that their target audience is that dim?

Transformers.

Alvin and The Chipmunks.

Epic Movie.

Yeah, I think they think we're that stupid.

And many of those were based on old melodramas, which, in turn, were often based on old plays and stories, which were often based on older stories, often based on folk lore

Hell, Shakespeare only had what...three fully original plays?

It isn't the origin of the content, but the content itself that matters.

Bless you. I get tired of having to say that.

Americans seem to have a knack of screwing anything british up - take the tv show Red Dwarf - a british sitcom at its best, but they decide to remake it and its turned out to be complete and utter crap - the only saving grace was that it never made it past the pilot episode and even that was unaired

That and the Kryten costume the American developers made was so much superior to the Blocky Condom Suit of old that BBC kept it for the rest of the show.

... considering they keep giving Uwe Boll films to make...

But that could give game developers a bogeyman leverage to hush fanboys.

"SHADDAP OR WE'LL GIVE THE MOVIE RIGHTS TO UWE BOLL!"

Here's another example.
I recently saw a hilarious french film called 'les visiteurs'. It's basically about a medieval knight transported to the late 20th century after a wizard uses a wrong ingredient in a potion to send him back in time to save his wannabe-lover's father who the knight shot because he thought he was a bear after a witch had spiked his drink. I recommend it, even though it's subtitled for the non-francophone audience.
I later saw an american film on the same concept- no wizard, but still about a this time 18th century guy transported to the future. It tried to be funny, but all the gags were old, used, clichéd and generally it turned into the classic... no, not classic, common... love story instead of the brilliant, original quirky french version. It failed to use any of the comedic opportunities presented to it by the unique premise.

Les Visiteurs is a very good film...saw it years ago and ive also seen the remake...it doesnt even compare.

As for the people who think the remake of the Italian Job is good??

HELLO??

Another little thing ive just remembered...when I saw Quentin Tarantinos 'Reservoir Dogs' I was blown away by its supposed originality...thought the man was a genius...so imagine my surprise when I settled down to watch Channel 4s movie channel awhile ago and they were showing a japanese movie which was almost identical in every way...cant remember the name of it but my jaw dropped...I was devastated...

Another little thing ive just remembered...when I saw Quentin Tarantinos ‘Reservoir Dogs’ I was blown away by its supposed originality...thought the man was a genius...so imagine my surprise when I settled down to watch Channel 4s movie channel awhile ago and they were showing a japanese movie which was almost identical in every way...cant remember the name of it but my jaw dropped...I was devastated...
Devastated?

Tarintino’s entire career is based on pop culture references and homages/rip-offs of East Asian cinema.

I think the film was called 'City On Fire' though I could be wrong

Bless you. I get tired of having to say that.
Haha...I'm used to saying it
Les Visiteurs is a very good film...saw it years ago and ive also seen the remake...it doesnt even compare.

As for the people who think the remake of the Italian Job is good??

HELLO??

Another little thing ive just remembered...when I saw Quentin Tarantinos 'Reservoir Dogs' I was blown away by its supposed originality...thought the man was a genius...so imagine my surprise when I settled down to watch Channel 4s movie channel awhile ago and they were showing a japanese movie which was almost identical in every way...cant remember the name of it but my jaw dropped...I was devastated...
There are lingusitic theories that state there are only 5 root stories, which every other story is a variation upon.

There is no such thing as an "original" story, and hasn't been for centuries. Every story is influenced and inspired, be it directly or indirectly, by what has come before it. Reservoir Dogs is the same movie regardless of the source material. Paradise Lost is the same epic, regardless of its biblical origins.

There is no such thing as an "original" story, and hasn't been for centuries. Every story is influenced and inspired, be it directly or indirectly, by what has come before it. Reservoir Dogs is the same movie regardless of the source material. Paradise Lost is the same epic, regardless of its biblical origins.

I think there's a distinction to be made between being influenced by something just rehashing something.

And many of those were based on old melodramas, which, in turn, were often based on old plays and stories, which were often based on older stories, often based on folk lore

Hell, Shakespeare only had what...three fully original plays?

It isn't the origin of the content, but the content itself that matters.

I refer you to my post above regarding the Feardotcom remake of Ringu. So bad they had to reremake it.

Haha...I'm used to saying it

There are lingusitic theories that state there are only 5 root stories, which every other story is a variation upon.

There are a lot of theories like that, but my favorite comes from a book by Christopher Booker called the Seven Baisic Plots, where he breaks down all plots as:

Overcoming the monster (James Bond movies, Beowulf)
Quest (the Odyssey, Lord of the Rings)
Comedy
Tragedy
Rags to Riches (Puss n' Boots, Harry Potter)
Voyage and return (Alice in Wonderland, The Time Machine)
Rebirth (Sleeping Beauty)

There are theories that would bundle some of those together, but stories like Sleeping Beauty, Beauty and the Beast, the Ice Queen, and Snow White have too much in common with each other to lump them in with even Classical comedies.

Though Beowulf and James Bond travel long distances to defeat their foes there just isn't enough going on to consider them the same sort of story as Lord of the Rings or the Odyssey.

And while the women in classical comedies almost always turn out to be of higher birth than initially supposed, it just doesn't happen in the way that it does in Rags to Riches stories like all those cheesy teen movies where a really pretty girl with glasses and a ponytail removes both and is recognized by all as beautiful.

He does a convincing job of covering the bases and after reading the book it's hard not to see stories as mostly one of the seven above, and a bit of some of the others.

Surely thats a little insulting to the american public...do hollywood mogels really believe that their target audience is that dim?

Not dim so much, as the least common denominator. Plenty of intelligent people are willing to lay down six bucks to see a movie that's pure fluff, whereas few unintelligent people will bother with a "smart" movie.

I think there's a distinction to be made between being influenced by something just rehashing something.
Not much of a distinction. I can't think of a single original story line out of the last 300 years
I refer you to my post above regarding the Feardotcom remake of Ringu. So bad they had to reremake it.
I didn't say they'd all be quality. I said that they should be judged based on quality, not origin
There are a lot of theories like that, but my favorite comes from a book by Christopher Booker called the Seven Baisic Plots, where he breaks down all plots as:

Overcoming the monster (James Bond movies, Beowulf)
Quest (the Odyssey, Lord of the Rings)
Comedy
Tragedy
Rags to Riches (Puss n' Boots, Harry Potter)
Voyage and return (Alice in Wonderland, The Time Machine)
Rebirth (Sleeping Beauty)

There are theories that would bundle some of those together, but stories like Sleeping Beauty, Beauty and the Beast, the Ice Queen, and Snow White have too much in common with each other to lump them in with even Classical comedies.

Though Beowulf and James Bond travel long distances to defeat their foes there just isn't enough going on to consider them the same sort of story as Lord of the Rings or the Odyssey.

And while the women in classical comedies almost always turn out to be of higher birth than initially supposed, it just doesn't happen in the way that it does in Rags to Riches stories like all those cheesy teen movies where a really pretty girl with glasses and a ponytail removes both and is recognized by all as beautiful.

He does a convincing job of covering the bases and after reading the book it's hard not to see stories as mostly one of the seven above, and a bit of some of the others.
Sounds very close to the theory I was thinking of

Not much of a distinction. I can't think of a single original story line out of the last 300 years

I didn't say they'd all be quality. I said that they should be judged based on quality, not origin

But the way that Hollywood remakes movies isn't the same as how Shakespeare based his plays on folktales and history.

Shakespeare based Hamlet on the folktale Amleth, about a prince whose father was murdered and the throne usurped by a man who compelled his mother to marry him legitimizing his claim to the throne. Amleth then feigned insanity, killed the unpopular usurper and regained the throne. Incidentally, he saved his mother and did not murder any innocent old men.

Shakespeare changed all the characters and motivated the protagonist not with a sense of justice, but with a desire for revenge, and stripped him of courage and resolve to tell a tale not of the triumph of justice, but the folly of revenge. Shakespeare had an understanding of what made a story, and so he could take one kind of story and make it into a different, but also effective story.

Quentin Tarrintino does not have any such understanding, so while he admires east Asian cinema, his attempts to duplicate what makes it so affecting are disgusting and obscene. Just take a look at Kill Bill. Sure he includes the "wise old man," character, but makes him a sadistic psychopath who murdered an entire religious order because one of them did not notice him nod his head.

And he's actually following an artistic vision! Most of the remaking is done by studio executives who are trying to appeal to a demographic rather than a well told story. When that happens the story just falls to crap.

e.g. the director of 'O,' said that the studio heads wanted him to change the ending. His response was "ok, but take my name off of it so that you can be the guys who thought they could improve Shakespeare." Well, you could make a version of Othello with a happy ending, but you would have to fundamentally change who either Othello or Desdemona is. Which means you can't just change the ending. But the execs just want to tack on a happy ending because they know that most people will like it better and only a few will be disturbed by the idea that someone who does everything wrong still ends up with everything he wants. Which means that the inferior film may pay more.

Sounds very close to the theory I was thinking of

It's an excellent book, and I highly recommend it. I can honestly say that my enjoyment of every book I read and every film I see has been enhanced by reading that one. And books and movies I already hated, I am now more well equipped to say why.

At least parts one and two.

Not dim so much, as the least common denominator. Plenty of intelligent people are willing to lay down six bucks to see a movie that's pure fluff, whereas few unintelligent people will bother with a "smart" movie.

Reminds me of that scene in the narration to Idiocracy.

"The most popular movie was called Ass. And that's all it was. Some guy's ass, on the screen, for 90 minutes. It won 8 Oscars that year, including Best Screen Play."

And Owen Wilson's beautiful inaugural speech.
"I see a world where reading isn't just for fags. Where people use it to write movies with stories. So you care whose ass it is, and why it's farting."

I'm paraphrasing, because I don't remember the exact speech.

Have to take every great British film and turn it into shite

some examples

Get Carter

The Italian Job

The Long Good Friday

Day of the Jackal

All fantastic films which never needed to be remade...if it isnt broke...dont fix it!!

http://cache.viewimages.com/xc/3311740.jpg?v=1&c=ViewImages&k=2&d=11B127B063386F618A9906727DFE0617A55A1E4F32AD3138

RIP British masterpieces. *plays taps*

Not much of a distinction. I can't think of a single original story line out of the last 300 years


Well, you can always step back and step back and step back until you're as vague as is required to say that x and y are both examples of z but is it fair to say that if you read Bernard Shaw's pygmalion and produce a screenplay based on the same elements you've created a work with as much to say as Annie Hall? Nothing is truly original in the sense that nothing can appear by magic, everything must be the product of what has gone before. But you can move forward - Annie Hall did that to pygmalion.

... considering they keep giving Uwe Boll films to make...

Actually most of Uwe Boll's films are financed largely by Germansa nd shot mostly in Europe with C List American actors. He keeps making films because the way the German tax code is set up investors who lose money on his garbage get huge write offs. It was designed to bolster the German film industry but instead brings us films like Alone in the Dark.

This all came from Wiki, but whatever.

Plenty of intelligent people are willing to lay down six bucks to see a movie that's pure fluff, whereas few unintelligent people will bother with a "smart" movie.

[/thread]

e.g. the director of 'O,' said that the studio heads wanted him to change the ending. His response was "ok, but take my name off of it so that you can be the guys who thought they could improve Shakespeare."

*resolves to watch more Tim Blake Nelson films*

Well, you can always step back and step back and step back until you're as vague as is required to say that x and y are both examples of z but is it fair to say that if you read Bernard Shaw's pygmalion and produce a screenplay based on the same elements you've created a work with as much to say as Annie Hall? Nothing is truly original in the sense that nothing can appear by magic, everything must be the product of what has gone before. But you can move forward - Annie Hall did that to pygmalion.
But aren't you kind of making the core point, though? That the art is in the telling, not in the 'purity' of where the story comes from?

But aren't you kind of making the core point, though? That the art is in the telling, not in the 'purity' of where the story comes from?

I wouldn't say the two examples would represent the the same story told differently. I'd say they are two different stories.

If the core point is that no story can be truly original, I agree. However, "I think there's a distinction to be made between being influenced by something [and] just rehashing something." isn't a challenge to that point, more of an attempted clarification because I feel that there is a difference between saying no story can be truly original and saying all stories are the same (or are all one of seven stories).

I wouldn't say the two examples would represent the the same story told differently. I'd say they are two different stories.

If the core point is that no story can be truly original, I agree. However, "I think there's a distinction to be made between being influenced by something [and] just rehashing something." isn't a challenge to that point, more of an attempted clarification because I feel that there is a difference between saying no story can be truly original and saying all stories are the same (or are all one of seven stories).

We might be getting into that sort of 'music copyright' kind of coding, though-like as long as every 8th note is different it's a different song.

Gus Van Sant, regardless of how you might feel about the attempt, did a shot for shot re-make of Psycho, and while it was shot for shot, it still wasn't the same movie. Even within those confines it still a matter of how you tell it, so how much do we give it? How much has to be different for it to be 'pure?' Ultimately, on every level, execution matters significantly more than source. It's true of music, you don't get the same cello concerto from Yo Yo Ma as you do from Truls Mørk, why should story telling be different?

Surely thats a little insulting to the american public...do hollywood mogels really believe that their target audience is that dim?

.... Do you watch much mainstream American cinema, if any? o.O All it is, is explosions, tits and toilet humor.

We might be getting into that sort of 'music copyright' kind of coding, though-like as long as every 8th note is different it's a different song.

Gus Van Sant, regardless of how you might feel about the attempt, did a shot for shot re-make of Psycho, and while it was shot for shot, it still wasn't the same movie. Even within those confines it still a matter of how you tell it, so how much do we give it? How much has to be different for it to be 'pure?' Ultimately, on every level, execution matters significantly more than source. It's true of music, you don't get the same cello concerto from Yo Yo Ma as you do from Truls Mørk, why should story telling be different?

Well, now we're talking context which is a different matter. Suffice to say had Van Sant's movie been released in 1959 it would have been a classic.

Oh btw, that stream of work might start to dry a little now the DGA has come to an agreement.

Well, now we're talking context which is a different matter. Suffice to say had Van Sant's movie been released in 1959 it would have been a classic.
I don't think that really addresses it, though. I'm not sure what you're getting at so I can't form a better response.
Oh btw, that stream of work might start to dry a little now the DGA has come to an agreement.

Could have provided a link...dammit, now I have to go look it up.

And reality shows don't use DGA people either. But work has been non-existant since Christmas. However, a major film has its offices literally down the street from where I live, and the assistant production coordinator is someone I've worked with before. Now, if he remembers me fondly I can finally work on something I'd actually want to fucking watch. At this point I'd work at your grandma's 70th birthday, just get me some fucking work...

Have to take every great British film and turn it into shite

some examples

Get Carter

The Italian Job

The Long Good Friday

Day of the Jackal

All fantastic films which never needed to be remade...if it isnt broke...dont fix it!!

another example that shouldnt be overlooked, is Ladykillers, a perfect example of a classic Ealing Studios comedy and then the americans get a hold of it a few years ago and completely fuck it up! Tom Hanks for fucks sake, i mean he's a great actor but hes not a comedy actor!

:headbang: Rant over...

Tom Hanks for fucks sake, i mean he's a great actor but hes not a comedy actor!

:headbang: Rant over...

He's not a what??? Wow, the transformation is complete! Bosum Buddies, Joe vs. the Volcano, The 'burbs, Dragnet, The Man with One Red Shoe, Bachelor Party, all erased. Wow, that's kind of impressive...

I don't think that really addresses it, though. I'm not sure what you're getting at so I can't form a better response.


Could have provided a link...dammit, now I have to go look it up.

And reality shows don't use DGA people either. But work has been non-existant since Christmas. However, a major film has its offices literally down the street from where I live, and the assistant production coordinator is someone I've worked with before. Now, if he remembers me fondly I can finally work on something I'd actually want to fucking watch. At this point I'd work at your grandma's 70th birthday, just get me some fucking work...

Art - or culture - depends on context. The context of intent, time, significance, audience, author, influence, works previous, works following etc etc. The psycho remake isn't a drastically different piece either in terms of story or execution if we look at those two elements in isolation - the real difference comes with all this extra meaning we attatch to it (that we do this is totally right - I won't argue that - but it does provide difficulties in isolating individual elements in practice).

And the DGA thing isn't news because of the deal in itself, it's news because it puts pressure on the WGA.

Art - or culture - depends on context. The context of intent, time, significance, audience, author, influence, works previous, works following etc etc. The psycho remake isn't a drastically different piece either in terms of story or execution if we look at those two elements in isolation - the real difference comes with all this extra meaning we attatch to it (that we do this is totally right - I won't argue that - but it does provide difficulties in isolating individual elements in practice).
But it's still a different work performatively. (it's a word now) So now we have to determine the weight we give the 'original' work, or source? That doesn't work. You can only re-create great works? Or marginal works? I still think it comes down to execution greatly out weighing 'source.'

And the DGA thing isn't news because of the deal in itself, it's news because it puts pressure on the WGA.

Meh, the work I was getting was from a local production company that didn't increase or decrease and ads, and there will always be ads. (Sadly, my car pulled as much money as me last week...sometimes it's depressing to know you're value is the same as an inanimate object...(and it didn't even work that long, it was done by 1pm...) And maybe we can start getting some movies made up here.

I don't go to the theater very often at all - maybe once a year. I wait 'til the good films are on DVD and buy them. Due to my preference for good movies, my film library is quite small. there are a few movies I would like to see remade, like 'Sergeant York", due to the better modern effects, not to mention COLOR!! but the Hollywood crowd would destroy the soul of that film.

I think many forgotten books by British authors would make good movies if made in a manner true to the book, but the modern directors and screenwriters can't resist "improvement". Even the "Lord of the Rings" trilogy was massively rewritten. At least "The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe" turned out OK. I have high hopes for "Prince Caspian."

Ever read G.A. Henty? Fine adventure stories.

Meh, the work I was getting was from a local production company that didn't increase or decrease and ads, and there will always be ads. (Sadly, my car pulled as much money as me last week...sometimes it's depressing to know you're value is the same as an inanimate object...(and it didn't even work that long, it was done by 1pm...) And maybe we can start getting some movies made up here.

I thought you said you were getting more work because of the strike. I was obviously mistaken though.

And no, Los Angeles gets all the films. It's the law.

I think many forgotten books by British authors would make good movies if made in a manner true to the book, but the modern directors and screenwriters can't resist "improvement". Even the "Lord of the Rings" trilogy was massively rewritten.

You're right, how dare they meddle? They should have made a 600 hour film!

what deal did the directors get?

is the wga asking for more than it can reasonably expect to get? i thought they were stuck on "we're not talking to you".

I thought you said you were getting more work because of the strike. I was obviously mistaken though.

And no, Los Angeles gets all the films. It's the law.
That was supposed to be the theory, but I was mostly joking. The reports where all, "As scripted shows fall off they'll be replaced with Reality Shows" so in theory it would mean more work for me, provided those shows are either based here or travel a lot. I did work 21 days straight in December but I don't think the strike caused that. I'd rely on narrative work, but the total days of filming for all four shows that take place here was 7 days. And the movie shooting down the street is the first one here since I started doing this.

what deal did the directors get?

is the wga asking for more than it can reasonably expect to get? i thought they were stuck on "we're not talking to you".

It's important to note that I'm neither a director nor smart so it's 'pinch of salt time':

They got a decent deal imo - no rollbacks, jurisdiction over the internet and have established a rate for ad-supported internet usage.

Three things to note:

1) Despite the name the Directors Guild represents more ADs than directors. ADs are salaried and so they don't care about the residuals.

2) The DGA is more powerful. You need writers but there's a time delay between writing and production (in films this delay is often a matter of years). If directors walk out, you're screwed.

3) The WGA wants more than what the DGA wants but this deal is likely to have been calculated, in the tradition of pattern bargaining, with the writer's strike very much in mind.

1) Despite the name the Directors Guild represents more ADs than directors. ADs are salaried and so they don't care about the residuals.
.

He's talking about Assistant Directors, for those wondering. They're the ones that actually make the movie (when you here "action!" that's the AD, and he'll call the cut even though the director actually decides when. He's the one who goes to all the department heads with 'what's next' and keeps the schedule. All the 'work' of directing a film is done by the AD while the director does the creative part, so to speak.)

It's important to note that I'm neither a director nor smart so it's 'pinch of salt time':

They got a decent deal imo - no rollbacks, jurisdiction over the internet and have established a rate for ad-supported internet usage.

Three things to note:

1) Despite the name the Directors Guild represents more ADs than directors. ADs are salaried and so they don't care about the residuals.

2) The DGA is more powerful. You need writers but there's a time delay between writing and production (in films this delay is often a matter of years). If directors walk out, you're screwed.

3) The WGA wants more than what the DGA wants but this deal is likely to have been calculated, in the tradition of pattern bargaining, with the writer's strike very much in mind.

but if the dga gets internet revenues shouldnt the wga get a cut too? has it become a matter of how much they will get yet?

but if the dga gets internet revenues shouldnt the wga get a cut too? has it become a matter of how much they will get yet?

Yes and no. They took a lower cut than would be proportional to what the writers were asking for with a provisional 'developmental' agreement for the next three years. The problem is that the writers took a similar developmental cut to get VHS off the ground and it still hasn't gone up (part of what they're striking for), so you can understand why they'd be reluctant to take another one of those...

but if the dga gets internet revenues shouldnt the wga get a cut too? has it become a matter of how much they will get yet?

Well, yes. It seems like this is the AMPTP moving toward an agreement - they've accepted residuals so they can limit them. Time will tell.

Yes and no. They took a lower cut than would be proportional to what the writers were asking for with a provisional 'developmental' agreement for the next three years. The problem is that the writers took a similar developmental cut to get VHS off the ground and it still hasn't gone up (part of what they're striking for), so you can understand why they'd be reluctant to take another one of those...

yes i can.

its a mystery to me how each side can continue to hold out. they are all losing so freaking much money.

yes i can.

its a mystery to me how each side can continue to hold out. they are all losing so freaking much money.

Well, the producers are hoping that the writers are losing more money than they are and can't wait as long. It's not as if the writers have the equivilent of a bunch of reality and game shows to run to make money while this rides itself out. There's plays, I guess, but that's a horrible horrible way to make money...usually involves crew-whoring for reality shows to get by...<.< >.>

You're right, how dare they meddle? They should have made a 600 hour film!


darn right!

actually, it was mostly the swapping lines around between characters that irked me. as a whole, the movies were good.

Well, the producers are hoping that the writers are losing more money than they are and can't wait as long. It's not as if the writers have the equivilent of a bunch of reality and game shows to run to make money while this rides itself out. There's plays, I guess, but that's a horrible horrible way to make money...usually involves crew-whoring for reality shows to get by...<.< >.>

i really pity the poor schmucks that have to do THAT!

are you still in the play writing biz?

i really pity the poor schmucks that have to do THAT!

are you still in the play writing biz?

I still write plays, it's been a while since anyone paid for one of them. But then, I've been busy. I just started tapping those wells again this week.

.... Do you watch much mainstream American cinema, if any? o.O All it is, is explosions, tits and toilet humor.

Not particularly no...I try to avoid it...though I do watch the odd blockbuster from Hollywood I mainly watch World cinema.

I understand what you guys mean though by people borrowing from movies but like what has been mentioned there is a difference between 'taking the story of the film' and 're-hashing the actual film'

My favourite film of all time Seven Samurai was the blueprint for the Magnificent Seven...yes same story...but different time and place...and I dont feel offended by it...the Magnificent Seven is a good film in its own right

There is a big difference

....which in turn is based of of the book which was superior to all the films together.

Which is a given

.... Do you watch much mainstream American cinema, if any? o.O All it is, is explosions, tits and toilet humor.

There's nothing wrong with explosions and tits (as long as you don't combine them) ;)

He's talking about Assistant Directors, for those wondering. They're the ones that actually make the movie (when you here "action!" that's the AD, and he'll call the cut even though the director actually decides when. He's the one who goes to all the department heads with 'what's next' and keeps the schedule. All the 'work' of directing a film is done by the AD while the director does the creative part, so to speak.)
OK, can you answer I've had for years? Most half-decent films have, somewhere in the back of the credits, a "2nd Second Assistant Director" (even if higher up on the list there have been more than one "Second Assistant Director" and maybe even some "Third Assistant Directors"). The first time I saw that title I thought it was a joke, but apparently it is a standard term in the industry. I WANT TO BE A 2nd SECOND ASSISTANT DIRECTOR! Uh, what do they do?

OK, can you answer I've had for years? Most half-decent films have, somewhere in the back of the credits, a "2nd Second Assistant Director" (even if higher up on the list there have been more than one "Second Assistant Director" and maybe even some "Third Assistant Directors"). The first time I saw that title I thought it was a joke, but apparently it is a standard term in the industry. I WANT TO BE A 2nd SECOND ASSISTANT DIRECTOR! Uh, what do they do?

The crap work. It's a horrible job. They prepare and copy call sheets, 'sides' (little copies of the pages of the script that they'll be shooting the next day), crew maps, etc. They manage resources at 'base camp' with things like lunch count (a PA counts the number of people who show up for lunch and compare their count to the caterers, as well as take the time the last person goes through because half an hour after that, we're back)...unless you like doing meticulous office work in an office on a trailer while mild chaos goes on around you, it's pretty sucky. Though you are close to craft services, but you're usually to busy to abuse it.

Have to take every great British film and turn it into shite

some examples

Get Carter

The Italian Job

The Long Good Friday

Day of the Jackal

All fantastic films which never needed to be remade...if it isnt broke...dont fix it!!

But Americans were the first group to make James Bond into a movie (admittedly for T.V.), in the Casino Royale episode of CLIMAX!.

And thus 007 entered into the visual world--as an American (Jimmy Bond) if anyone remembers. Felix Leiter entered as a British agent sent to assist him.

Talk about cocked-up. :D

But Americans were the first group to make James Bond into a movie (admittedly for T.V.), in the Casino Royale episode of CLIMAX!.

And thus 007 entered into the visual world--as an American (Jimmy Bond) if anyone remembers. Felix Leiter entered as a British agent sent to assist him.

Talk about cocked-up. :D

I have literally just finished watching QI on Dave where they were discussing this very topic.

For those keeping tabs, it's looking more and more like the DGA agreement is going to good for all.