Comments on: "Rosemary's Baby" To Get Remake Treatment http://popcritics.com/2008/03/04/rosemarys-baby-to-get-remake-treatment Reviewing popular culture so you don't have to Fri, 25 May 2012 10:50:49 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.2.1 By: Mike http://popcritics.com/2008/03/04/rosemarys-baby-to-get-remake-treatment#comment-13386 Mike Wed, 05 Mar 2008 06:54:33 +0000 http://www.popcritics.com/2008/03/rosemarys-baby-to-get-remake-treatment/#comment-13386 We were talking remakes and sequels...and also that these studios need to go after books instead of remaking old movies. An old epic poem is exactly what they should be doing. 300 was unique... Transformers...it's not a sequel or a remake, but yeah, it's from a TV show...still, those are borderline... We were talking remakes and sequels…and also that these studios need to go after books instead of remaking old movies.

An old epic poem is exactly what they should be doing. 300 was unique…

Transformers…it’s not a sequel or a remake, but yeah, it’s from a TV show…still, those are borderline…

]]> By: MichaelB (formerly known as Chaplin) http://popcritics.com/2008/03/04/rosemarys-baby-to-get-remake-treatment#comment-13385 MichaelB (formerly known as Chaplin) Wed, 05 Mar 2008 06:21:55 +0000 http://www.popcritics.com/2008/03/rosemarys-baby-to-get-remake-treatment/#comment-13385 Mike, Transformers and Simpsons should not be on that list--they are not exactly remakes but reimaginings of an existing property. There is a mythology to both ideas, and the movies expanded/exploited them. 300 was based on an old epic poem, so it isn't exactly original, either. I mean, this is about originality, right? I would then discount Wild Hogs as well--there wasn't anything original in that one. Superbad, Ratatouille and Knocked Up, I'll give you those--even though I wasn't overjoyed with Superbad. Mike, Transformers and Simpsons should not be on that list–they are not exactly remakes but reimaginings of an existing property. There is a mythology to both ideas, and the movies expanded/exploited them.

300 was based on an old epic poem, so it isn’t exactly original, either. I mean, this is about originality, right? I would then discount Wild Hogs as well–there wasn’t anything original in that one. Superbad, Ratatouille and Knocked Up, I’ll give you those–even though I wasn’t overjoyed with Superbad.

]]> By: Jason http://popcritics.com/2008/03/04/rosemarys-baby-to-get-remake-treatment#comment-13384 Jason Tue, 04 Mar 2008 22:09:01 +0000 http://www.popcritics.com/2008/03/rosemarys-baby-to-get-remake-treatment/#comment-13384 I think my point is that the execs are happy to make crappy remakes because it doesn't take any real out of the box thinking or undue risk. They know they can spend X number of dollars and make X number of dollars. It won't be much, but it'll be a profit. From a business point of view I understand that. I'm just saying that if they would actually spend a few more of those dollars on original ideas (that is, ideas that haven't already been made into movies) that would probably make better movies and make more money in the long run. But then, I'm not supporting my family working as movie studio executive, so I guess I don't have to make those decisions. One thing is for sure, though, none of these horror remakes were on <a href="http://www.boxofficeguru.com/top20gross07.htm" rel="nofollow">last year's Top 20 list</a>. A lot of sequels, yes, but not remakes. I think my point is that the execs are happy to make crappy remakes because it doesn’t take any real out of the box thinking or undue risk. They know they can spend X number of dollars and make X number of dollars. It won’t be much, but it’ll be a profit. From a business point of view I understand that.

I’m just saying that if they would actually spend a few more of those dollars on original ideas (that is, ideas that haven’t already been made into movies) that would probably make better movies and make more money in the long run.

But then, I’m not supporting my family working as movie studio executive, so I guess I don’t have to make those decisions.

One thing is for sure, though, none of these horror remakes were on last year’s Top 20 list. A lot of sequels, yes, but not remakes.

]]> By: Mike http://popcritics.com/2008/03/04/rosemarys-baby-to-get-remake-treatment#comment-13383 Mike Tue, 04 Mar 2008 21:54:39 +0000 http://www.popcritics.com/2008/03/rosemarys-baby-to-get-remake-treatment/#comment-13383 What do you constitute as "droves"? Or that isn't a remake? Transformers (never been a movie) 300 Ratatouille The Simpsons (never a movie) Knocked Up Wild Hogs Superbad All of those made over $120 million, a few over $200... What do you constitute as “droves”? Or that isn’t a remake?

Transformers (never been a movie)
300
Ratatouille
The Simpsons (never a movie)
Knocked Up
Wild Hogs
Superbad

All of those made over $120 million, a few over $200…

]]> By: MichaelB (formerly known as Chaplin) http://popcritics.com/2008/03/04/rosemarys-baby-to-get-remake-treatment#comment-13382 MichaelB (formerly known as Chaplin) Tue, 04 Mar 2008 21:32:06 +0000 http://www.popcritics.com/2008/03/rosemarys-baby-to-get-remake-treatment/#comment-13382 Jason, name me 5 original movies that audiences came out in droves to see in the past year. And then name me 5 remakes/sequels that the same thing happened with. The problem is that the second list is so much longer than the first. In fact, I doubt that first list has more than 2. You mention The Sixth Sense, which is a good example, but that was made in 1999, almost 10 years ago. Jason, name me 5 original movies that audiences came out in droves to see in the past year. And then name me 5 remakes/sequels that the same thing happened with.

The problem is that the second list is so much longer than the first. In fact, I doubt that first list has more than 2. You mention The Sixth Sense, which is a good example, but that was made in 1999, almost 10 years ago.

]]> By: Mike http://popcritics.com/2008/03/04/rosemarys-baby-to-get-remake-treatment#comment-13381 Mike Tue, 04 Mar 2008 18:08:15 +0000 http://www.popcritics.com/2008/03/rosemarys-baby-to-get-remake-treatment/#comment-13381 Always is a strong word Michael, but I do agree that people go to crappy movies and keeps them going. I mean, National Treasure got pretty crappy reviews, but people like to sit in those kinds of movies. Although I agree with Jason, there are some good original ideas that can make a ton of cash. Always is a strong word Michael, but I do agree that people go to crappy movies and keeps them going. I mean, National Treasure got pretty crappy reviews, but people like to sit in those kinds of movies.

Although I agree with Jason, there are some good original ideas that can make a ton of cash.

]]> By: Jason http://popcritics.com/2008/03/04/rosemarys-baby-to-get-remake-treatment#comment-13380 Jason Tue, 04 Mar 2008 18:04:47 +0000 http://www.popcritics.com/2008/03/rosemarys-baby-to-get-remake-treatment/#comment-13380 One could argue that the <em>Rosemary's Baby</em> remake will make more money than an original idea because the original ideas that Hollywood <em>does</em> actually make are stupid and uninspired. There's a reason audiences would rather sit through a remake of a movie they already know the ending to than pay $8 or $10 to take a chance on a new idea - it's because the new ideas the audience decides to take a chance on lets them down more times than not. I don't buy that it's ALL the audience's fault. I understand the economics of it, but I think an audience will turn out in <strong>droves</strong> for a well made, original idea. Look what happened when <em>The Sixth Sense</em> came out. One could argue that the Rosemary’s Baby remake will make more money than an original idea because the original ideas that Hollywood does actually make are stupid and uninspired. There’s a reason audiences would rather sit through a remake of a movie they already know the ending to than pay $8 or $10 to take a chance on a new idea – it’s because the new ideas the audience decides to take a chance on lets them down more times than not.

I don’t buy that it’s ALL the audience’s fault. I understand the economics of it, but I think an audience will turn out in droves for a well made, original idea. Look what happened when The Sixth Sense came out.

]]> By: MichaelB (formerly known as Chaplin) http://popcritics.com/2008/03/04/rosemarys-baby-to-get-remake-treatment#comment-13379 MichaelB (formerly known as Chaplin) Tue, 04 Mar 2008 17:58:40 +0000 http://www.popcritics.com/2008/03/rosemarys-baby-to-get-remake-treatment/#comment-13379 Um, horror remakes are normal now. I'd think you guys would be used to it. Texas Chainsaw, Amityville Horror, Hills Have Eyes, all those old 70s horror movies are getting updates. And yet, they all make money. That's the only reason for this--it's not because there aren't any original ideas, it's because a remake of Rosemary's Baby will make more money than an original idea. The audience is ALWAYS to blame here, not the production company. Um, horror remakes are normal now. I’d think you guys would be used to it. Texas Chainsaw, Amityville Horror, Hills Have Eyes, all those old 70s horror movies are getting updates. And yet, they all make money. That’s the only reason for this–it’s not because there aren’t any original ideas, it’s because a remake of Rosemary’s Baby will make more money than an original idea. The audience is ALWAYS to blame here, not the production company.

]]> By: Jason http://popcritics.com/2008/03/04/rosemarys-baby-to-get-remake-treatment#comment-13378 Jason Tue, 04 Mar 2008 15:04:19 +0000 http://www.popcritics.com/2008/03/rosemarys-baby-to-get-remake-treatment/#comment-13378 And you know, part of the problem is us...well, some of us. Hollywood knows they can put $35M into a <em>Texas Chainsaw Massacre</em> remake and a certain group of people will run out and see it. Pure economics. Movie costs X number of dollars and will gross X number of dollars in theater, dvd, etc. They know they'll make a small but certain profit. If that group of teenagers or whoever didn't run out to see that remake, they'd stop doing it. It's not like they're taking a good movie and saying "Gee, the original was pretty good. What could they do if we gave them $100M to make this movie?" And you know, part of the problem is us…well, some of us. Hollywood knows they can put $35M into a Texas Chainsaw Massacre remake and a certain group of people will run out and see it. Pure economics. Movie costs X number of dollars and will gross X number of dollars in theater, dvd, etc. They know they’ll make a small but certain profit.

If that group of teenagers or whoever didn’t run out to see that remake, they’d stop doing it. It’s not like they’re taking a good movie and saying “Gee, the original was pretty good. What could they do if we gave them $100M to make this movie?”

]]> By: Scotty Dub http://popcritics.com/2008/03/04/rosemarys-baby-to-get-remake-treatment#comment-13377 Scotty Dub Tue, 04 Mar 2008 14:33:49 +0000 http://www.popcritics.com/2008/03/rosemarys-baby-to-get-remake-treatment/#comment-13377 I'm with you Mike, there are so many amazing books that could be great movies as well. I guess Hollywood feels like the safer and cheaper route is to just 're-imagine' a movie that did well years ago instead of really creating anything new. Sad really. And then they wonder why more and more people stay home and wait for the DVD. why would anyone want to go pay $10 or more for a family to see a knockoff of a classic? Esp if they wait a couple months they can check it out for $4 at home. Hollywood just doesn't get it. <em>Scotty Dub's last blog post..<a href='http://careerwaymark.com/2008/03/03/warren-buffett-says-were-in-recession-what-does-that-mean-to-you/' rel="nofollow">Warren Buffett says we’re in recession; what does that mean to you?</a></em> I’m with you Mike, there are so many amazing books that could be great movies as well. I guess Hollywood feels like the safer and cheaper route is to just ‘re-imagine’ a movie that did well years ago instead of really creating anything new. Sad really.

And then they wonder why more and more people stay home and wait for the DVD. why would anyone want to go pay $10 or more for a family to see a knockoff of a classic? Esp if they wait a couple months they can check it out for $4 at home. Hollywood just doesn’t get it.

Scotty Dub’s last blog post..Warren Buffett says we’re in recession; what does that mean to you?

]]>