Thread: Maleficent 5/30
View Single Post
Old 05-21-2014, 10:42 AM   #55
v2micca
Ring of Famer
 
v2micca's Avatar
 

Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Austin, TX
Posts: 1,051
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by 91BRONCO View Post
Yeah, but it's a remake of a movie that was not made all that long ago. In addition, what inspired the remake because the original was crap. Why are we remaking crappy movies in the first place

Why not come up with something original or shine some light on little known true stories if an original idea is impossible?

Hollywood has gotten lazy.

Actually, it was less a remake and more of a better adaptation of existing source material. One that was a vast improvement over the previous adaptation, kind of like The Maltese Falcon (1941) was an improvement over The Maltese Falcon (1931), or like The Wizard of Oz (1939) was better than The Wizard of Oz (1925), and you can always pick your favorite version of Les Miserables (1952, 1978, 1998, 2000, 2012) But yeah, apparently Hollywood revisiting existing properties has never lead to anything worth while.


Also, I would contend that Hollywood has not gotten lazy, but that the financiers backing films have become risk adverse. Films are no longer cheap productions that can be thrown together and screened at the local drive-through. Even on the cheap end, you are looking at several million dollars of investment. I hate most of the drivel out there more than the next person, but if I had to bet my kid's college tuition on the success of the movie, I would probably be more inclined to put it on some craptastic Bay-Fest that I know will be terrible and make bank instead of betting that Guillermo Del Toro can get my money back on an R rated adaptation of At the Mountains of Madness (though, as a movie goer, I would much rather see the later)

Last edited by v2micca; 05-21-2014 at 11:40 AM..
v2micca is offline   Reply With Quote