Hollywood's UOF Problem
July 25, 2008 - Movies
There's been a recent trend in Hollywood towards reclaiming and/or reimagining old properties. Whether it's remaking a popular eighties show, (Transformers, Knight Rider) remaking a vintage movie, (War of the Worlds) or making a sequel to a movie franchise that hasn't had a new installment in over a decade, (Indiana Jones 4) there just seem to have been a lot of remakes. They've also really been mining comic book and video game properties. And while some of those have come out really well (Iron Man, HellBoy, the first two XMen movies) many have not (Fantastic Four, every video game movie except Final Fantasy: The Spirits Within)
So let me list out some of the examples I've found of Hollywood's lack of creativity. A friend where I work has labeled the minds behind these epic failures "UOFs". I'll leave out the superhero movies, since Kris Johnson has already done a fantastic job of that.
Eighties Remakes
- G.I. Joe: Rise of Cobra - With a title like this, you'd think they're planning a whole series. This sounds like they're planning on doing the same thing they did with Transformers. The only really good thing about this movie is that they've got Ray Park playing Snake Eyes. Other than that, Dennis Quaid, Brendan Fraser... who knows. I expect that in 2009 we'll see the same type of big-budget misfire that we saw with Transformers.
- Conan - Looks like Hollywood is planning a new take on the classic Barbarian, this time sans Arnold. It's listed with a release date of 2009, but there are still close to zero details. My hopes for this movie are not high.
- The A Team - Also listed with a 2009 date is the new A-Team movie. They've got Bruce Willis as Hannibal, Woody Harrelson as Murdock, and Ice Cube in Mr.T's classic role of B.A. Baracus. I'm really not sure about this. The only chance it's got is if they go the same route as the Starsky & Hutch remake and make it largely a comedy with a lot of fan service.
- The Greatest American Hero - This production may have stalled, since it's listed with a 2007 date, and no longer appears in IMDB. Guess I'll have to make do with sitting here humming the theme song. "...bringin' me out of a spell I was in, makin' all of my wishes come true... Believe it or not, I'm walkin' on air!" (Sad to admit, I think I know ALL the verses. Even the bridge.)
- The Smurfs - This one is supposedly a mix of live action and cartoon. With John Lithgow voicing Papa Smurf, I wonder who they'll get to play Gargamel?
- Land of the Lost - Are you serious? You mean that crazy old show with the dinosaurs and the Sleestaks? Yeah. Will Ferrell is going there. I've liked Will Ferrell before, but this movie screams Epic Fail.
Vintage Remakes
- Journey To The Center of the Earth 3D - This one's already in theaters, and I've heard mixed reviews. On one hand, I heard that it adheres more closely to Jules Verne's original novel than did any of the other filmic versions. But on the other hand, it's got Brendan Fraser.
- The Day The Earth Stood Still - Klaatu and his killer robut Gort visit the Earth again in this remake. But this time Klaatu is Keanu. Not sure how I feel about that.
- Sherlock Holmes - This one's too early in production to even show on IMDB, but apparently Sacha Baron Cohen is going to be playing Sherlock Holmes, and Will Ferrel will be playing Watson.
Sequels to old movies - These are really some of the most egregious examples I've got. When it's been over a decade since the last installment in a franchise and you decide to make a new movie and just stick a new number on the end, it's just plain sad. What's next? The Shining 2: Shinier? The Shawshank Re-Redemption? Casablanca 2? At least I've learned that there will be no Top Gun 2.
- Wargames 2 - "Computer hacker Will Farmer (Lanter) engages a government super-computer named Ripley in an online terrorist-attack simulation game. Little does Farmer know that Ripley has been designed to appeal to potential terrorists, and certain glitches have turned made him become paranoid." This just sounds... ungood.
- Lost Boys 2: The Tribe - I'm as big a fan of the original 1987 movie as anyone. I mean, it had Kiefer Sutherland! But this new one has just got the Coreys. Yep. Feldman and Haim. This one's coming out on video in a week or two, and I plan to see it. I'm just that masochistic.
- Starship Troopers 3: Marauder - This one just amazes me. Say what you will about the first Starship Troopers movie, but the second was one of the worst movies of all time. I mean, it's in the same league as Female Trouble, Mansquito, and Leonard: Part VI. Given that, I think I'd rather drink diet mountain dew until my kidneys fail than watch this movie.
- Tron 2 - Although there's no IMDB entry yet, it's just been revealed at ComicCon that Jeff Bridges will be back for Tr2n. Yeah. That's actually the name. Go figure.
Video Game Movies - I don't think it's a secret to anyone that movies based on video games are pretty much always bad. With the exception of Final Fantasy: The Spirits Within.
- Castlevania - As much as I've loved many of the games, I can't see this making a very good movie. I imagine it being something like 1987's Monster Squad. Oh, and by the way, they're remaking that too.
- Joust - This is one of my favorites, just because it sounds so horrible. "The film is set 25 years in the future and includes a Las Vegas suspended in mid-air" That's just one of a number of pricelessly terrible-sounding quotes about this movie. I swear, this is going to be the new Snakes on a Plane.
- Max Payne - Honestly, I never really liked the game. I'd be surprised if the movie is much better. "Coming together to solve a series of murders in New York City are a DEA agent (Wahlberg) whose family was slain as part of a conspiracy and an assassin (Kunis) out to avenge her sister's death. The duo will be hunted by the police, the mob, and a ruthless corporation."
- God of War - There is a complete script for this movie out there. David Jaffee has said he'd like Djimon Hounsou to play Kraatos. And just today, they announced that the movie will be directed by Brett Ratner. My hopes, once again, are not high.
- Pac Man - Here's the most unbelievable one. They're making Pac Man into a "live-action adventure". Yeah. Seriously. It's not on IMDB yet, and I've got no idea what they plan on doing, but I'm sure it will be epic.
Comments on Hollywood's UOF Problem
Comment Fri, July 25 - 4:36 PM by Greg
Ha! That should be the new GI Joe movie's tagline: "Kinda like Predator, only dumb"
Comment Fri, July 25 - 4:55 PM by Michael Abbott
Historically, Hollywood has always opted for the safety of the known over the risk of the unknown (the early 70s were a brief shining exception).
Having said that, I don't think the American film industry has ever been so mired in unoriginal retread ideas than it is now. Maybe the pressure from other competing media will push the industry to take more risks at some point in the future, if only to prove its relevancy. But in the meantime, we're apparently headed down a road that keeps getting narrower.
Interestingly, all the bright energy in film these days is coming from Mexico, South America, Asia, eastern Europe and other places Hollywood typically overlooks. If you're willing to dig a little, you can be a very happy film-lover and forget about Hollywood altogether.
Having said that, I don't think the American film industry has ever been so mired in unoriginal retread ideas than it is now. Maybe the pressure from other competing media will push the industry to take more risks at some point in the future, if only to prove its relevancy. But in the meantime, we're apparently headed down a road that keeps getting narrower.
Interestingly, all the bright energy in film these days is coming from Mexico, South America, Asia, eastern Europe and other places Hollywood typically overlooks. If you're willing to dig a little, you can be a very happy film-lover and forget about Hollywood altogether.
Comment Fri, July 25 - 6:24 PM by tagger
As Greg probably knows, I _used_ to know quite a few SF, film and TV writers. Subtract the ones who have died or relocated to another quantum reality to escape the overwhelming brain deadness of this one, and there are still a few I can find to talk with. The prevailing opinion seems to be that Hollywood screen writers and producers are scientifically illiterate (think "NASA management") and can take a story written by a competent SF author, strip it of any validity by turning all the dialog into technobabble a la "Star Trek," and turning out a screen play that makes "Iron Man" look like something that should get written up in Scientific American. If the story manages to remain intact despite the screen writers, the director is there to totally screw it up. The recent "I Am Legend" train wreck is typical.
My point--there is absolutely no shortage of clods who will shell out good money to watch any piece of trash Holyweird sees fit to foist off on them. As Greg points out, the perception is that remakes are safe. Consider the dumbness of taking a so-so TV show and making a movie out of it. Even a good TV show with literate scripts can make a really bad film (e.g. "Mission Impossible").
If you want good SF (or anything else, for that matter), I suggest you go read a book.
That said, I may give Holmes a look. I'm still waiting for someone who understands Sherlock as well as William Gilette's and Basil Rathbone's worthy heir Jeremy Brett did. Of course, not rewriting Doyle in the BBC productions didn't hurt either, and they had good luck with their Watsons.
My point--there is absolutely no shortage of clods who will shell out good money to watch any piece of trash Holyweird sees fit to foist off on them. As Greg points out, the perception is that remakes are safe. Consider the dumbness of taking a so-so TV show and making a movie out of it. Even a good TV show with literate scripts can make a really bad film (e.g. "Mission Impossible").
If you want good SF (or anything else, for that matter), I suggest you go read a book.
That said, I may give Holmes a look. I'm still waiting for someone who understands Sherlock as well as William Gilette's and Basil Rathbone's worthy heir Jeremy Brett did. Of course, not rewriting Doyle in the BBC productions didn't hurt either, and they had good luck with their Watsons.
Comment Fri, July 25 - 8:32 PM by tagger
Just one more thing--re "The Day the Earth Stood Still."
I think you should go read a Harry Bates story called "Farewell to the Master" (October, 1940--Astounding).
You can find a freebie at: http://thenostalgialeague.com/olmag/bates.html.
I think you should go read a Harry Bates story called "Farewell to the Master" (October, 1940--Astounding).
You can find a freebie at: http://thenostalgialeague.com/olmag/bates.html.
Comment Fri, July 25 - 6:32 PM by Greg
Tagger - not sure if you're familiar with the actors for the new take on Sherlock Holmes - I suspect that Sacha Baron Cohen's humor is not your cup of tea. He was Borat.
Comment Fri, July 25 - 7:16 PM by tagger
OMG!
Shoulda read the article first, I guess.
Looks like you're right about that. Though Holmes had his humorous moments (look hard), I don't think I'm ready for the Cohens to be doing this.
Guess I'll stay home and read. As for movies, DVDs and microwave popcorn are cheaper than the theater--since I turned 50 I seem to have lost my compulsion to be the first on my block to do anything, so I can wait.
Shoulda read the article first, I guess.
Looks like you're right about that. Though Holmes had his humorous moments (look hard), I don't think I'm ready for the Cohens to be doing this.
Guess I'll stay home and read. As for movies, DVDs and microwave popcorn are cheaper than the theater--since I turned 50 I seem to have lost my compulsion to be the first on my block to do anything, so I can wait.
Comment Wed, July 30 - 12:26 PM by KJToo
Tagger, I think you may be confusing Sascha Baron Cohen (Borat, Da Ali G Show) with Joel and Ethan Coen (collectively known as The Coen Brothers, directors of No Country For Old Men, Raising Arizona and Fargo).
Comment Wed, July 30 - 1:31 PM by Kris Johnson
Greg, I'm not sure how you'd qualify Transformers as a "big-budget misfire".
Financially? It raked in about $700 million globally during its theatrical run, and I'm guessing it's done a fair bit of business on DVD, too.
Artistically? Let's face it, Transformers isn't art, it's entertainment. Michael Bay takes a lot of flack for making movies that are big, fast and loud, but those are precisely the three qualities that fill theater seats. And Transformers put a lot of butts in a lot of seats.
Is it original? That depends, I guess. How many movies about giant, transforming robots have you seen recently? Yes, we've seen the Autobots and Decepticons before: they've been toys, they've appeared in comic books and they've had umpteen animated television series (you can call them "cartoons" if you want; I won't be offended). But live-action robots on a big screen...that's evolution, baby!
And it's fun. Big, fast, loud FUN.
But I'm digressing, I really am. The problem is that Hollywood is (as Michael Abbott points out) "mired in unoriginal retread ideas". Who's to blame? The writers? The directors? The producers? The studios?
None of the above. You want to know who the real culprit is?
Me.
'Cause I'm the guy who spent $8.50 to see Snakes on a Plane, and another $8.50 to see Transformers and then spent more money to buy 'em both on DVD. And you can bet your bottom dollar that I'll be at the theater when G.I. JOE and The A-Team are released (I may skip The Smurfs, at least until it's out on DVD, but someone else will take my seat in the theater; we're like a hydra that way). I will happily plunk down my money to watch these movies.
Why? They're unoriginal! They're retread! They're recycled characters and stories from the 1980s, for cryin' out loud.
Because they're fun, that's why. Because they're big and loud and fast (and loud) and most of all, they're FUN.
And guess what? That oh-so-clever independent film from Belize that everyone is raving about? I have absolutely no incentive to see it in the theater. None.
Why? Because I have a DVD player at home. Because that oh-so-clever independent film from Belize that everyone is raving about isn't at all loud or big or fast, so it doesn't benefit me in any way to see it digitally-projected onto a 35' screen with umpteen-speaker THX-certified surround sound. There's simply no reason (especially when you take the multitude of hassle-factors that going to the theater introduces into account) to see those types of movies in the theater; it's far better, in fact, to rent the DVD for $4 (or less) and watch it on my television at home.
Of course, as home theater technology improves, the incentives to watch those big, loud, fast, fun movies in at the multiplex dwindle, too, but I'm not anywhere near the point where my television can compete with a movie theater when it comes to bringing the spectacle.
So bring on those unoriginal, retread remakes of my fondest childhood memories, Hollywood! Play me and millions of my ilk like your own, private string section. Yeah, I'll bitch about what a travesty it was that you gave Optimus Prime a frickin' MOUTH, but in the end you'll have my money and another reason to crank out a sequel to that unoriginal, retread remake. It's the circle of life.
Financially? It raked in about $700 million globally during its theatrical run, and I'm guessing it's done a fair bit of business on DVD, too.
Artistically? Let's face it, Transformers isn't art, it's entertainment. Michael Bay takes a lot of flack for making movies that are big, fast and loud, but those are precisely the three qualities that fill theater seats. And Transformers put a lot of butts in a lot of seats.
Is it original? That depends, I guess. How many movies about giant, transforming robots have you seen recently? Yes, we've seen the Autobots and Decepticons before: they've been toys, they've appeared in comic books and they've had umpteen animated television series (you can call them "cartoons" if you want; I won't be offended). But live-action robots on a big screen...that's evolution, baby!
And it's fun. Big, fast, loud FUN.
But I'm digressing, I really am. The problem is that Hollywood is (as Michael Abbott points out) "mired in unoriginal retread ideas". Who's to blame? The writers? The directors? The producers? The studios?
None of the above. You want to know who the real culprit is?
Me.
'Cause I'm the guy who spent $8.50 to see Snakes on a Plane, and another $8.50 to see Transformers and then spent more money to buy 'em both on DVD. And you can bet your bottom dollar that I'll be at the theater when G.I. JOE and The A-Team are released (I may skip The Smurfs, at least until it's out on DVD, but someone else will take my seat in the theater; we're like a hydra that way). I will happily plunk down my money to watch these movies.
Why? They're unoriginal! They're retread! They're recycled characters and stories from the 1980s, for cryin' out loud.
Because they're fun, that's why. Because they're big and loud and fast (and loud) and most of all, they're FUN.
And guess what? That oh-so-clever independent film from Belize that everyone is raving about? I have absolutely no incentive to see it in the theater. None.
Why? Because I have a DVD player at home. Because that oh-so-clever independent film from Belize that everyone is raving about isn't at all loud or big or fast, so it doesn't benefit me in any way to see it digitally-projected onto a 35' screen with umpteen-speaker THX-certified surround sound. There's simply no reason (especially when you take the multitude of hassle-factors that going to the theater introduces into account) to see those types of movies in the theater; it's far better, in fact, to rent the DVD for $4 (or less) and watch it on my television at home.
Of course, as home theater technology improves, the incentives to watch those big, loud, fast, fun movies in at the multiplex dwindle, too, but I'm not anywhere near the point where my television can compete with a movie theater when it comes to bringing the spectacle.
So bring on those unoriginal, retread remakes of my fondest childhood memories, Hollywood! Play me and millions of my ilk like your own, private string section. Yeah, I'll bitch about what a travesty it was that you gave Optimus Prime a frickin' MOUTH, but in the end you'll have my money and another reason to crank out a sequel to that unoriginal, retread remake. It's the circle of life.
Comment Thu, July 31 - 6:55 AM by The Dock
I agree with Kris, if you want artsy "Independent" films, get the Sundance Channel. I quote the late George Carlin "...I want to see bodies flying up in the air, I want to see a car careering into the crowd and explode, I wan't to see some schmuck with his hair on fire, punching his own head trying to put the flames out.." you know fun stuff.
Not sure if you have RED BOX, in Colorado, but if I want "Independent" film $1 a night is hard to beat (not counting Netflix or Blockbuster). As for Transformers, what were you expecting to find, a deep story line and complex character arcs? Given the source material, I thought it was very well done (Get the wrong director and wrong story writer and you Get Masters of the Universe staring Dolph Lundgren, I rest Kris's case.)
Not sure if you have RED BOX, in Colorado, but if I want "Independent" film $1 a night is hard to beat (not counting Netflix or Blockbuster). As for Transformers, what were you expecting to find, a deep story line and complex character arcs? Given the source material, I thought it was very well done (Get the wrong director and wrong story writer and you Get Masters of the Universe staring Dolph Lundgren, I rest Kris's case.)
I'm actually semi-interested in the new Conan, not sure how they could possibly top the original though. It was fairly gritty for it's time.