The creativity is always alive in Hollywood, you will only see it in independent films or films with low production costs. Remakes and sequels just mean the producers want a sure thing for the money invested.
Hollywood is not about creativity and art, it is and always has been, about money. For a long time the Supreme Court did not give films the same respect that they gave theatre or fine arts. SCOTUS did not think cinema was an art. They finally changed that.
Our real problem, then, is not our strength today; it is rather the vital necessity of action today to ensure our strength tomorrow. Dwight Eisenhower
although I voted for that option, it is also cheaper to deal with a known subject
“I would remind you
that extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice! And let me remind
you also that moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue.”
It's the first two. Like most liberals, Hollywood types don't have enough confidence in their own abilities to risk their own money producing what they perceive to be "high art". And most of the time, their ideas are so stupid that they can't persuade anyone else (i.e. studios) to risk their money either. So, they go for the "sure thing", producing high box-office films with scripts straight out of the cookie cutter. They ridicule someone like Mel Gibson when he bankrolls a film that nobody else will produce. Then when the film does big business, they engage in character assassination in an attempt to neutralize his box office potential for future films (of course, Mel Gibson didn't exactly help his own cause, but I digress). Anyway, Hollywood produces an inordinate amount of sequels because the industry is risk averse and greedy (making the most money for the least effort). Most of the best films these days are low budget affairs with unknown actors, paltry marketing, and limited distribution. And most of them are made "outside" Hollywood.
<i>Like most liberals, Hollywood types don't have enough confidence in their own abilities to risk their own money producing what they perceive to be "high art". </i>
Well that's a load of hooey. Many struggling Hollywood folks put everything they have on the line to create their "vision." Rich stars do it, too. Sometimes it works (Dances with Wolves), sometimes it fails (Waterworld, The Postman).
Studios want to make money, so they love sequels because they are, yes, a proven commodity that will make a pile of dough in the first couple of weekends even if the movie stinks.
Studios also love sequels because there's more and more revenue at risk with launching a movie. If it bombs, it disappears much more quickly than 15 years ago, because there are so many other entertainment venues out there. Sequels are less of a risk.
And most of what you said about Mel is ridiculous nonsense.
"They ridicule someone like Mel Gibson when he bankrolls a film that nobody else will produce."
I don't think many people were ridiculing Mel until he opened his fat trap after getting pulled over by the cops.
If no one wanted to bankroll "Passion", it was because of commercial reasons. That's all.
"Then when the film does big business, they engage in character assasination in an attempt to neutralize his box office potential for future films (of course, Mel Gibson didn't exactly help his own cause, but I digress)."
Actually, you hit the nail on the head with your parenthetical. No one in Hollywood was interested in trying to assassinate Mel's character until Mel gave everyone a jumpstart by being a doofus. All I remember after Passion was a sucess was people lauding Mel for sticking to his vision.
Obviously you weren't paying too much attention to the news coverage at the time "Passion" was being released. Story after story was presented questioning whether or not the film was anti-semitic and suggesting that Gibson was so stubborn in making this film (when clearly it had limited appeal relative to its offensiveness) that he dug deep into his pocket to make sure it was completed...whether there was public demand for it or not. Only after the film made some money did much of the press grudgingly praise Gibson's "gamble". Even then, the commercial success of the movie was credited to a troubling rejuvenation of evangelical Christianity...and residual intolerance.
I can see why nobody wanted to bankroll this film. It would have been a risky proposition, no doubt. I frankly didn't see the appeal of this movie. I've never seen "The Passion" and I don't plan to see it. But the ridicule that I am referring to was the open question of Gibson's sanity in pissing all his money away to make a controversial movie despite its seemingly limited appeal. Hell, I questioned his sanity.
Plenty of people before and after the film was released were ridiculing Mel Gibson. It was only after his pathetic display in Malibu that he became something of a pariah...before then he was only suspected of being anti-semitic. Only then did it become fashionable for nobodies like Rob Schneider to grandstand about Mel Gibson.
Your analysis of Mel Gibson is wrong. The Passion was a perfect example how Hollywood works. Mel tried to get the studios to back his production but they objected on two grounds. The biggest and most controversial one was the content, Religion, and two, they objected to movie being filmed in a foreign language with subtitles.
Mel Gibson risked personal bankruptcy to bring the passion to the screen by risking 30 million of his own money and according to him, everything he had at the time. The studios did everything they could to keep it out of the theatres including trying to block its release in studio owned theatres.
Where were you when all of the Jewish Groups attempted to keep passion off the screens because they thought it would result in hate crimes? I suggest you visit the ADL website that to this day is still criticizing the movie.
Where were you when movie reviewers were panning his movie even before it was released? The following missive was typical of the scathing reviews:
“A Mel Gibson movie about pain as man's highest purpose is practically redundant. Pain is at the core of the bloody Braveheart, the gruesome The Patriot, the tortured Mad Max and nearly every picture Gibson has made. His movies, including Ransom, Conspiracy Theory and Lethal Weapon, show that torment is his stock in trade.”
Once the box office numbers started coming in, they attempted to slime and malign him as being a anti Semite. There were people claiming he was a NAZI and a holocaust denier in an attempt to keep people from going to the theaters. Frankly, I am amazed that you are so naïve about the leftist ideology permeating Hollywood and its role in the movie business.
Just to refresh your memory, here is an excerpt from an Article about the new version of The Passion Recut in 2005:
“Regal Entertainment Group, the largest theater chain in the world (the Phil Anschutz-owned company operates Regal Cinemas, United Artists Theatres, and Edwards Theatres in the United States), also refused to show The Passion Recut. But Regal’s problems with Mr. Gibson and his movie go deeper than the unrated re-release. Earlier this month, Mr. Gibson settled a multimillion-dollar lawsuit against Regal for failure to honor the terms of its profit-sharing agreement with Icon—Mr. Gibson’s production company—during the film’s initial release.”
The major networks also refused to carry advertising for the Passion saying it would cause a backlash against Jews. The Hollywood elite did everything they could to stop the production of Passion and when that failed, they went on a tirade of attacking Mel Gibson in attempt to stop people from seeing it. Much to consternation of the Hollywood Elite, Passion broke box office records bringing in over 600 million dollars.
I just wished there were more Mel Gibson’s in Hollywood so that there would be more good movies made instead of the Politically Correct Ideology based crap that is being shoved down our throats.
The Patriot and We Were Solders are in my DVD collection and are two good examples of what hollywood is capable of making.
True dat. I enjoy Costner in any movie where he's playing a baseball player, whether active "Bull Durham" or retired "The Upside of Anger." He was good in "A Perfect World" and "No Way Out." But he's so...bland.
I completely agree. The cookie cutter plots, and CG everything is growing very tiresome. The most dangerous thing of all is how serious people take movies now. For example, the liberals who try and cite movies (fictional ones at that) as a reliable source of information. I am not advocating any type of censoring, or moderation. I believe stupidy ought to be recognized more in this country for what it is, and not engage in frivolous lawsuits. Every time I see "Do not attempt this at home", I sigh and wonder how messed up the gene pool really is.
We believe people want to see sequels because sequels are always a good product.
Sincerely,
The producers of "Rush Hour 3", 'Highlander 3", "The Next Karate Kid", "Teen Wolf 2", "Weekend at Bernie's 2", "Breakin' 2: Electric Boogaloo", "Caddyshack 2", and "Staying Alive".
Known commodities, like spiderman, make up for the deficit spending on so many of their movies. After all, you can only lose so much money before you have to put something out that people will go see. Something without a liberal message, such as, anti war, AGW, or just plain hogwash. I dont go see movies with messages. I go for entertainment.
I believe that the reason they do it, is because they already know that they can make money on them. This summer I believe they have more sequels out then, first run movies. They know that Americans are all about nostalgia. The people who saw the movies when they were children or young aldults will automatically go see it and take their children. Then in 25 years they can make a third remake and they can go and take their children and so on ...
Editor at Large
Comments Policy
follow the money
July 28, 2007 - 13:31 ET by botgit's about not taking risk, but i do have sympathy for the lack of creativity voters
Support our Troops
Hollywood isn't out of ideas...
July 28, 2007 - 13:55 ET by cr_uvaThey are just concentrating their efforts on making political statements than decent entertainment.
Less creativity is not right
July 28, 2007 - 14:05 ET by dagdaThe creativity is always alive in Hollywood, you will only see it in independent films or films with low production costs. Remakes and sequels just mean the producers want a sure thing for the money invested.
Hollywood is not about creativity and art, it is and always has been, about money. For a long time the Supreme Court did not give films the same respect that they gave theatre or fine arts. SCOTUS did not think cinema was an art. They finally changed that.
Our real problem, then, is not our strength today; it is rather the vital necessity of action today to ensure our strength tomorrow. Dwight Eisenhower
not really just less creativity
July 28, 2007 - 17:23 ET by paulnashtnalthough I voted for that option, it is also cheaper to deal with a known subject
“I would remind you
that extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice! And let me remind
you also that moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue.”
It's the first two. Like
July 28, 2007 - 18:12 ET by fitzfongIt's the first two. Like most liberals, Hollywood types don't have enough confidence in their own abilities to risk their own money producing what they perceive to be "high art". And most of the time, their ideas are so stupid that they can't persuade anyone else (i.e. studios) to risk their money either. So, they go for the "sure thing", producing high box-office films with scripts straight out of the cookie cutter. They ridicule someone like Mel Gibson when he bankrolls a film that nobody else will produce. Then when the film does big business, they engage in character assassination in an attempt to neutralize his box office potential for future films (of course, Mel Gibson didn't exactly help his own cause, but I digress). Anyway, Hollywood produces an inordinate amount of sequels because the industry is risk averse and greedy (making the most money for the least effort). Most of the best films these days are low budget affairs with unknown actors, paltry marketing, and limited distribution. And most of them are made "outside" Hollywood.
Like most liberals,
July 28, 2007 - 18:43 ET by balboa<i>Like most liberals, Hollywood types don't have enough confidence in their own abilities to risk their own money producing what they perceive to be "high art". </i>
Well that's a load of hooey. Many struggling Hollywood folks put everything they have on the line to create their "vision." Rich stars do it, too. Sometimes it works (Dances with Wolves), sometimes it fails (Waterworld, The Postman).
Studios want to make money, so they love sequels because they are, yes, a proven commodity that will make a pile of dough in the first couple of weekends even if the movie stinks.
Studios also love sequels because there's more and more revenue at risk with launching a movie. If it bombs, it disappears much more quickly than 15 years ago, because there are so many other entertainment venues out there. Sequels are less of a risk.
And most of what you said about Mel is ridiculous nonsense.
"And most of what you said
July 28, 2007 - 19:17 ET by fitzfong"And most of what you said about Mel is ridiculous nonsense."
Really, genius. Enlighten me.
Let me get out my slide
July 28, 2007 - 19:29 ET by balboaLet me get out my slide rule:
"They ridicule someone like Mel Gibson when he bankrolls a film that nobody else will produce."
I don't think many people were ridiculing Mel until he opened his fat trap after getting pulled over by the cops.
If no one wanted to bankroll "Passion", it was because of commercial reasons. That's all.
"Then when the film does big business, they engage in character assasination in an attempt to neutralize his box office potential for future films (of course, Mel Gibson didn't exactly help his own cause, but I digress)."
Actually, you hit the nail on the head with your parenthetical. No one in Hollywood was interested in trying to assassinate Mel's character until Mel gave everyone a jumpstart by being a doofus. All I remember after Passion was a sucess was people lauding Mel for sticking to his vision.
Obviously you weren't
July 29, 2007 - 12:52 ET by fitzfongObviously you weren't paying too much attention to the news coverage at the time "Passion" was being released. Story after story was presented questioning whether or not the film was anti-semitic and suggesting that Gibson was so stubborn in making this film (when clearly it had limited appeal relative to its offensiveness) that he dug deep into his pocket to make sure it was completed...whether there was public demand for it or not. Only after the film made some money did much of the press grudgingly praise Gibson's "gamble". Even then, the commercial success of the movie was credited to a troubling rejuvenation of evangelical Christianity...and residual intolerance.
I can see why nobody wanted to bankroll this film. It would have been a risky proposition, no doubt. I frankly didn't see the appeal of this movie. I've never seen "The Passion" and I don't plan to see it. But the ridicule that I am referring to was the open question of Gibson's sanity in pissing all his money away to make a controversial movie despite its seemingly limited appeal. Hell, I questioned his sanity.
Plenty of people before and after the film was released were ridiculing Mel Gibson. It was only after his pathetic display in Malibu that he became something of a pariah...before then he was only suspected of being anti-semitic. Only then did it become fashionable for nobodies like Rob Schneider to grandstand about Mel Gibson.
balboa Your analysis of Mel
July 29, 2007 - 13:52 ET by ScottyDogbalboa
Your analysis of Mel Gibson is wrong. The Passion was a perfect example how Hollywood works. Mel tried to get the studios to back his production but they objected on two grounds. The biggest and most controversial one was the content, Religion, and two, they objected to movie being filmed in a foreign language with subtitles.
Mel Gibson risked personal bankruptcy to bring the passion to the screen by risking 30 million of his own money and according to him, everything he had at the time. The studios did everything they could to keep it out of the theatres including trying to block its release in studio owned theatres.
Where were you when all of the Jewish Groups attempted to keep passion off the screens because they thought it would result in hate crimes? I suggest you visit the ADL website that to this day is still criticizing the movie.
Where were you when movie reviewers were panning his movie even before it was released? The following missive was typical of the scathing reviews:
“A Mel Gibson movie about pain as man's highest purpose is practically redundant. Pain is at the core of the bloody Braveheart, the gruesome The Patriot, the tortured Mad Max and nearly every picture Gibson has made. His movies, including Ransom, Conspiracy Theory and Lethal Weapon, show that torment is his stock in trade.”
Once the box office numbers started coming in, they attempted to slime and malign him as being a anti Semite. There were people claiming he was a NAZI and a holocaust denier in an attempt to keep people from going to the theaters. Frankly, I am amazed that you are so naïve about the leftist ideology permeating Hollywood and its role in the movie business.
Just to refresh your memory, here is an excerpt from an Article about the new version of The Passion Recut in 2005:
“Regal Entertainment Group, the largest theater chain in the world (the Phil Anschutz-owned company operates Regal Cinemas, United Artists Theatres, and Edwards Theatres in the United States), also refused to show The Passion Recut. But Regal’s problems with Mr. Gibson and his movie go deeper than the unrated re-release. Earlier this month, Mr. Gibson settled a multimillion-dollar lawsuit against Regal for failure to honor the terms of its profit-sharing agreement with Icon—Mr. Gibson’s production company—during the film’s initial release.”
The major networks also refused to carry advertising for the Passion saying it would cause a backlash against Jews. The Hollywood elite did everything they could to stop the production of Passion and when that failed, they went on a tirade of attacking Mel Gibson in attempt to stop people from seeing it. Much to consternation of the Hollywood Elite, Passion broke box office records bringing in over 600 million dollars.
I just wished there were more Mel Gibson’s in Hollywood so that there would be more good movies made instead of the Politically Correct Ideology based crap that is being shoved down our throats.
The Patriot and We Were Solders are in my DVD collection and are two good examples of what hollywood is capable of making.
I could almost forgive
July 28, 2007 - 21:05 ET by Roger the ShrubberI could almost forgive Costner for Waterworld, but Postman went over the line...
True dat. I enjoy Costner
July 28, 2007 - 21:34 ET by balboaTrue dat. I enjoy Costner in any movie where he's playing a baseball player, whether active "Bull Durham" or retired "The Upside of Anger." He was good in "A Perfect World" and "No Way Out." But he's so...bland.
Fitzfong
July 30, 2007 - 08:49 ET by Six String SpiffI completely agree. The cookie cutter plots, and CG everything is growing very tiresome. The most dangerous thing of all is how serious people take movies now. For example, the liberals who try and cite movies (fictional ones at that) as a reliable source of information. I am not advocating any type of censoring, or moderation. I believe stupidy ought to be recognized more in this country for what it is, and not engage in frivolous lawsuits. Every time I see "Do not attempt this at home", I sigh and wonder how messed up the gene pool really is.
What the MSSM doesn't report can kill you.
Dear Sirs, We believe
July 28, 2007 - 21:11 ET by Roger the ShrubberDear Sirs,
We believe people want to see sequels because sequels are always a good product.
Sincerely,
The producers of "Rush Hour 3", 'Highlander 3", "The Next Karate Kid", "Teen Wolf 2", "Weekend at Bernie's 2", "Breakin' 2: Electric Boogaloo", "Caddyshack 2", and "Staying Alive".
and...
July 28, 2007 - 22:28 ET by LionKingRocky XX...Rocky kicks a$$ in the nursing home when the orderlies will not let the residents watch The People's Court.
....Police Academy 6, Rocky
July 28, 2007 - 22:30 ET by fitzfong....Police Academy 6, Rocky IV, Grease 2 (Grease 1), Lethal Weapon 4, Bride of Chucky, and The Godfather Part III.
How could I have forgotten
July 31, 2007 - 12:57 ET by Roger the ShrubberHow could I have forgotten the Police Academy franchise? Flog me with a wet noodle!
Known commodities, like
July 29, 2007 - 14:11 ET by bassndudeKnown commodities, like spiderman, make up for the deficit spending on so many of their movies. After all, you can only lose so much money before you have to put something out that people will go see. Something without a liberal message, such as, anti war, AGW, or just plain hogwash. I dont go see movies with messages. I go for entertainment.
Save a SeAL, club a liberal!!
They're known commodities
July 30, 2007 - 10:25 ET by shannon20I believe that the reason they do it, is because they already know that they can make money on them. This summer I believe they have more sequels out then, first run movies. They know that Americans are all about nostalgia. The people who saw the movies when they were children or young aldults will automatically go see it and take their children. Then in 25 years they can make a third remake and they can go and take their children and so on ...
The sad thing is a lot of
July 30, 2007 - 13:25 ET by FlashmanThe sad thing is a lot of people don't realise they're watching remakes.