2016 Has Been A Tough Year For Studio Movies

[Greg Cox]

The Fly remake is an interesting example since, aside from the basic concept, the Cronenberg film bears little or no resemblance to the 1950s version, or the original short story that inspired the first movie. You have different protagonists, in very different relationships, and even the transformation plays out very differently. Heck, the 1980s version doesn't even have a fly with a tiny man's head going "Help meeeee, help meeee . . . ."

So, in modern terms, is that a remake or a reboot or what? It's certainly not a new adaptation of the short story . . . .

It's hard to draw hard and fast lines here.

The bigger question is, what's wrong with enjoying multiple versions of same story? I like the 1950 version and the 1980s version and am certainly open to a new take on the idea someday, as long as it's done well.

There's no rule that says that there can only be one definitive version of any given story, character, or series. I have no idea how many different versions of "A Christmas Carol" or "The Hound of the Baskervilles" I've seen over the years, and I'm old enough to have lived through umpteen Tarzans, Zorros, and Supermans . . .

At the risk of getting pretentious, there's a reason that the Met keeps doing new productions of "Carmen." The idea that retelling the same stories, generation after generation, is a bad thing is a peculiarly modern notion that I don't quite get. Storytellers have always retold and reinvented old stories, going all the way back to the Greeks probably. Why should movies and TV shows be treated any differently?

Mind you, I was watching a bad remake of THE SHE-CREATURE just the other night, so it's not as though my tastes are all that exalted.

 

[M'rk son of Mogh]

There's no rule that says that there can only be one definitive version of any given story, character, or series. I have no idea how many different versions of "A Christmas Carol" or "The Hound of the Baskervilles" I've seen over the years, and I'm old enough to have lived through umpteen Tarzans, Zorros, and Supermans . . .

Some of that might be a difference in character, though. When we think of James Bond, we started with the description in the books, then went from there. Sherlock Holmes, Tarzan, Superman (comics), all the same thing.

But when we think of, say, Indiana Jones, Harrison Ford is our very first introduction to the character and everything after that, even Young Indiana Jones, is based on that. And it's not a local introduction, like for a play, but that is what the whole world saw at once.

Our attachment to Ghostbusters could be about the story, true, and stories are easy to change and update but what of the characters. Bill Murray IS Venkman, and every cartoon, comic, story after is based on that or around that to a degree. This isn't a Zorro or Tarzan situation. This is Bill Murray almost first, Peter Venkman second, which isn't the case with other long lived character that start in other media. Even Pine and Quinto live strongly in the shadows of Shatner and Nimoy. As will the kid who plays Han Solo. It's not a modern thing, I don't think, but how the character is first created.

 

[ichab]

On the subject of remakes for me its a case of "Ive seen that movie already and I own it so I'm not wasting more money to see it again with a different coat of paint" I'm more interested in seeing new stories and new characters and if we go back to that world again I want the story continued. Not repeated. That's what home video is for.

 

[Greg Cox]

On the subject of remakes for me its a case of "Ive seen that movie already and I own it so I'm not wasting more money to see it again with a different coat of paint" I'm more interested in seeing new stories and new characters and if we go back to that world again I want the story continued. Not repeated. That's what home video is for.

On the other hand, a movie is more than just its story. It's the whole package: the acting, the dialogue, the directing, the art direction, the mood and the atmosphere and music, etc. To my mind, the 1932 DRACULA is not the same movie as the 1958 DRACULA or the 1979 DRACULA and so on, so I haven't "seen that movie already." Just because the plot and characters are familiar doesn't make it the same experience, because you're talking different actors, different styles, different approaches, different eras of film-making, etc.

If knowing the story was the same as seeing a movie, then just reading the script would be the same as watching the finished movie.

And, honestly, often the plot is the least important part of a movie. It's just the skeleton you put the flesh and blood on.

 

[Kai "the spy"]

On the other hand, a movie is more than just its story. It's the whole package: the acting, the dialogue, the directing, the art direction, the mood and the atmosphere and music, etc. To my mind, the 1932 DRACULA is not the same movie as the 1958 DRACULA or the 1979 DRACULA and so on, so I haven't "seen that movie already." Just because the plot and characters are familiar doesn't make it the same experience, because you're talking different actors, different styles, different approaches, different eras of film-making, etc.

If knowing the story was the same as seeing a movie, then just reading the script would be the same as watching the finished movie.

And, honestly, often the plot is the least important part of a movie. It's just the skeleton you put the flesh and blood on.

To take your example of Dracula further, the 1992 "Bram Stoker's Dracula" follows the plot of the novel very closely, but by adding the tragic backstory of Dracula, it becomes something else entirely.

 

[Greg Cox]

To take your example of Dracula further, the 1992 "Bram Stoker's Dracula" follows the plot of the novel very closely, but by adding the tragic backstory of Dracula, it becomes something else entirely.

And this is where I'm compelled to point out that the tragic backstory and reincarnated lost love angle was first introduced by a 1974 tv-movie of version of DRACULA scripted by Richard Matheson, who presumably lifted the idea from DARK SHADOWS, which lifted it from the original 1932 version of THE MUMMY or possibly SHE by H. Rider Haggard.

But, even still, the 1974 movie is not at all the "same movie" as the 1992 movie, even though they have the same basic plot. They look and feel quite different, which makes for a very different viewing experience.

Same with many remakes and reboots.

 

[Greg Cox]

I noticed in the 1979 and 1992 versions of DRACULA, Lucy and Mina exchange fates. Since I didn't read the novel, is Coppola's Mina also the surviving character in Stoker's book? And if so, why were the characters switched for '79?

In the novel, Lucy gets staked and Mina survives. But the various movie and stage versions have been flipping the women's names since at least the 1927 stage adaptation by Hamilton Deane & John Balderston. The 1979 movie took its cues from the play (which Langella had just starred in to great success on Broadway) rather than the novel.

Not sure why the playwrights flipped the names back in the twenties.

 

[Greg Cox]

^ Boy, nothing like bringing up 1927 stage productions of Victorian novels to kill a thread, I guess . . .

 

[John Clark]

^ Boy, nothing like bringing up 1927 stage productions of Victorian novels to kill a thread, I guess . . .

Yeah, I was a little too young to enjoy the stage play properly.

I wasn't aware that they'd swapped the fates of Mina and Lucy from film to film. The ones I've seen or read have all had Mina be the survivor (or depending on which version it is of Mina, for certain values of survive I guess).

Anyway, the next film the guys want to see is apparently a box-office bomb. They want to go and see Gods of Egypt. After, that I think it'll be Independence Day (Though I expect the cinema will be packed for that)

 

[Greg Cox]

Yeah, I was a little too young to enjoy the stage play properly.

I wasn't aware that they'd swapped the fates of Mina and Lucy from film to film. The ones I've seen or read have all had Mina be the survivor (or depending on which version it is of Mina, for certain values of survive I guess).

It's not so much that they swap the fates as they swap the names. The plot is usually pretty much the same: There's The Girl Who Gets Vampirized and Staked and The Girl Who Almost Gets Vampirized but Survives.

Sometimes that first girl is named Lucy and the second girl is Mina; sometimes it's the other way around. But, at the risk of bringing the thread to a crashing halt again, the confusion seems to have begun with 1927 stage version, which is still the one that is mostly commonly performed by community theater groups. And both the original Lugosi movie and the remake with Langella were based on the play, not the novel.

In the Hammer version, oddly enough, Mina is the Girl Who Survives, but it's Lucy (the Girl Who Gets Vampirized) that is Jonathan Harker's fiancee. Go figure.

 

[JD]

I didn't realize that the girls' fates in Dracula had been switched around so much, I had just always assumed it was Mina who survived and Lucy who died.
Honestly, I really don't mind remakes/reboots as long as the movie/whatever is enjoyable. I definitely prefer it if they do change things up a bit, but that can be a slippery slope, because sometimes they change things so much that it doesn't even feel like the thing it's supposed to be.

 

[Greg Cox]

It's a balancing act. Copy the previous versions too much and what's the point of remaking it? Depart too far from what's been done and you running the risk of losing what made the property work in the first place.

Or you could come up with a great new version, or something else that bears little or no resemblance to the original but it is still enjoyable in its own right.

And when you're dealing with beloved old properties or long-running franchises, the challenge is also to balance nostalgia with the need to keep things new and fresh.

Easier said than done, I know!

 

[Marsden]

My favorite version of Dracula is the one starring Leslie Neilsen.



I'm still not sure what makes the difference, but I don't think anyone seeing a new A Christmas Carol would call it a "reboot" but then a new Spider-Man would almost certainly be called such.

I think it's a combination of the original source, how recent a past movie has been made, and also what the filmmakers intentions for starting a "franchise".

I think books, especially literary classics, would be the "definitive version" of a story, like A Christmas Carol, and then any movie based on that would be an adaptation. Possibly called a remake because there have already been adaptations already made, btw my favorite adaptation is Scrooged. I try to watch that every Christmas.

Then there's situations like The Amazing Spider-Man not following Spiderman 3 or Batman Begins not following Batman & Robin. These were clearly reboots because the other movie that was being disowned, or it's continuity, was not that long ago and they were clearly intended to be a new franchise for both.

I don't think it's as clear cut with the Burton/Keaton Batman from 1989, I don't think the term reboot was invented yet but I don't really think they would have needed it for that as I don't think anyone would get confused from that movie not following the events of Batman from 1966. Also, I don't think it was a clear intention that Batman Returns would be made. After the success of Batman, yes, sequels were common but not like now.

I think that's also a big influence on how something is perceived, when it's supposed to be the first in a line of movies, rather than just a movie. There was a time not that long ago, they were all just a movie, but now everything has a sequel by design. That's a whole other thread of discussion on the pros and cons of that, but when trying to start a new franchise, that seems like the reboot is used more often.

 

[Starscream2112]

My favorite version of Dracula is Love at First Bite.

 

[Captain Craig]

The Hollywood Reporter is stating that the first month of YTD comparisons for May show a decline of 22% thus far.

Revenue for the May 6-June 12 period is roughly $1.24 billion, a 22 percent decline from the $1.597 billion collected between May 1-June 14 in 2015. Due to the vagaries of the calendar, the summer tally officially started on May 1 in 2015, compared with May 6 this year when Captain America: Civil War debuted.

More analysis in the article. It does mention how several films can still potentially raise the summer take with Dory, Jason Bourne, Star Trek Beyond and Independence Day: Resurgence (which it considers a dark horse and I agree with) to do well.
Something like Conjuring 2 over performing are not enough to offset the YTD numbers.

 

[Grendelsbayne]

My favorite version of Dracula is the one starring Leslie Neilsen.



I'm still not sure what makes the difference, but I don't think anyone seeing a new A Christmas Carol would call it a "reboot" but then a new Spider-Man would almost certainly be called such.

I think it's a combination of the original source, how recent a past movie has been made, and also what the filmmakers intentions for starting a "franchise".

I think books, especially literary classics, would be the "definitive version" of a story, like A Christmas Carol, and then any movie based on that would be an adaptation. Possibly called a remake because there have already been adaptations already made, btw my favorite adaptation is Scrooged. I try to watch that every Christmas.

Then there's situations like The Amazing Spider-Man not following Spiderman 3 or Batman Begins not following Batman & Robin. These were clearly reboots because the other movie that was being disowned, or it's continuity, was not that long ago and they were clearly intended to be a new franchise for both.

I don't think it's as clear cut with the Burton/Keaton Batman from 1989, I don't think the term reboot was invented yet but I don't really think they would have needed it for that as I don't think anyone would get confused from that movie not following the events of Batman from 1966. Also, I don't think it was a clear intention that Batman Returns would be made. After the success of Batman, yes, sequels were common but not like now.

I think that's also a big influence on how something is perceived, when it's supposed to be the first in a line of movies, rather than just a movie. There was a time not that long ago, they were all just a movie, but now everything has a sequel by design. That's a whole other thread of discussion on the pros and cons of that, but when trying to start a new franchise, that seems like the reboot is used more often.

I think the biggest difference is in the age and status of the story/property being remade. Modern properties are all owned by one specific company, so there is a sense of intention and control behind remakes for characters or stories that were popular in the past. Basically the company is 'rebooting' their franchise in order to make more money off of it, which is often seen as sleazy, since they technically have a monopoly on that character/story. Older properties are in the public domain. When anyone can make something it becomes less of a big thing, because no one is 'sitting on a gold mine' or 'misusing a classic franchise'. Those movies have to stand on their own merit to start with, because they actually do have direct competition, so people are more willing to just let the bad ones go bad without much comment.

Also, most of the time, very old properties are just much less likely to get people riled up, because they weren't such a huge part of their childhood experience.

 

[Greg Cox]

Like I said before, it's hard to draw a line between "remake" and "new adaptation." Yeah, a new version of "A Christmas Carol" is probably inspired more by the original novel than the previous film versions, but a new PLANET OF THE APES movie is going to be perceived (with reason) as a reboot of the old movie series, not a new adaptation of the Pierre Boulle novel. Lord knows the most recent APES film owed more to the later Roddy McDowall movies than the original novel. And who knows if Cronenberg even read the original short story before remaking THE FLY? Ditto for the recent remake of THE DAY THE EARTH STOOD STILL, the original of which was also based on a relatively obscure short story.

Let's be honest: if and when we get a new version of LOGAN'S RUN, it's going to be perceived, rightly or wrongly, as a remake or reboot of the movie and TV show, not as a new adaptation of the novel. And a lot will depend on how much "iconic" imagery they pick up from the 1970s movie.

It's also worth noting that Hollywood has always hoped for sequels to its movies, not just in recent years. Heck, the 1975 movie version of DOC SAVAGE ended with an on-screen title promising that "Doc Savage will return in THE ARCH-ENEMY OF EVIL." And then there was REMO WILLIAMS: THE ADVENTURE BEGINS back in 1985. (Both promises went unfulfilled, alas.)

And the 30s and 40s had ongoing franchises that rivaled today's in length: The Thin Man, Charlie Chan, Mister Moto, Tarzan, Topper, Blondie, Andy Hardy, Ma and Pa Kettle, Torchy Blane, Mexican Spitfire, Bulldog Drummond, The Saint, The Falcon, Francis the Talking Mule, etc.

Not sure sequels were originally planned for all those those, but I'm willing to bet that whomever green-lighted the early Tarzan or Charlie Chan movies were well aware of the fact that there were umpteen book sequels just waiting to be filmed if the first movie made money.

 

[Ovation]

Like I said before, it's hard to draw a line between "remake" and "new adaptation." Yeah, a new version of "A Christmas Carol" is probably inspired more by the original novel than the previous film versions, but a new PLANET OF THE APES movie is going to be perceived (with reason) as a reboot of the old movie series, not a new adaptation of the Pierre Boulle novel. Lord knows the most recent APES film owed more to the later Roddy McDowall movies than the original novel. And who knows if Cronenberg even read the original short story before remaking THE FLY? Ditto for the recent remake of THE DAY THE EARTH STOOD STILL, the original of which was also based on a relatively obscure short story.

Let's be honest: if and when we get a new version of LOGAN'S RUN, it's going to be perceived, rightly or wrongly, as a remake or reboot of the movie and TV show, not as a new adaptation of the novel. And a lot will depend on how much "iconic" imagery they pick up from the 1970s movie.

It's also worth noting that Hollywood has always hoped for sequels to its movies, not just in recent years. Heck, the 1975 movie version of DOC SAVAGE ended with an on-screen title promising that "Doc Savage will return in THE ARCH-ENEMY OF EVIL." And then there was REMO WILLIAMS: THE ADVENTURE BEGINS back in 1985. (Both promises went unfulfilled, alas.)

And the 30s and 40s had ongoing franchises that rivaled today's in length: The Thin Man, Charlie Chan, Mister Moto, Tarzan, Topper, Blondie, Andy Hardy, Ma and Pa Kettle, Torchy Blane, Mexican Spitfire, Bulldog Drummond, The Saint, The Falcon, Francis the Talking Mule, etc.

Not sure sequels were originally planned for all those those, but I'm willing to bet that whomever green-lighted the early Tarzan or Charlie Chan movies were well aware of the fact that there were umpteen book sequels just waiting to be filmed if the first movie made money.

Man, even Hollywood's lack of originality is based on its own prior lack of originality. Is there no hope for something new under the sun?

 

[Greg Cox]

Also, most of the time, very old properties are just much less likely to get people riled up, because they weren't such a huge part of their childhood experience.

Depends on your age, of course. Personally, I'm lot more emotionally invested in THE WOLF MAN or ZORRO than in TRANSFORMERS and TEENAGE MUTANT NINJA TURTLES.

 

[acid burn]

^ Boy, nothing like bringing up 1927 stage productions of Victorian novels to kill a thread, I guess . . .

Stage!?
Pfft, you youngsters, back in my day nobody could afford actual stages.
Instead, actors acted in mud pits....