Dixon Carter Lee
Headliner
- Joined
- Nov 22, 1999
- Posts
- 48,682
Tear them up!
- Thread starter Dixon Carter Lee
- Start date
scrymettet
Silly chocolate angel
- Joined
- Oct 11, 2001
- Posts
- 24,043
Why
remaking movies ?
I never understood that.
Is it a lack of imagination or a kind of homage to the preceding ...
remaking movies ?
I never understood that.
Is it a lack of imagination or a kind of homage to the preceding ...
Spinaroonie
LOOK WHAT I FOUND!
- Joined
- Jul 29, 2000
- Posts
- 17,721
Dixon Carter Lee said:
OMG> THE MAN HE WENT FOR HIS COMPUTER MOUSE AND HE GRABBED A REAL MOUSE!!!!!!!
Ladies and Gentlemen, we've just witnessed the apex of american humor.
Star of Penumbra
Literotica Guru
- Joined
- May 28, 2002
- Posts
- 5,106
Re: Why
Hollywood is just churning out the same shit in diferent packaging year after year after year. Sometimes it's just more obvious.
scrymettet said:
Hollywood is just churning out the same shit in diferent packaging year after year after year. Sometimes it's just more obvious.
teddybear4play
better when i'm drunk
- Joined
- Apr 8, 2002
- Posts
- 12,906
Is Crispin Glover trying to atone for being George McFly or something?Dixon Carter Lee said:
TB4p
Dixon Carter Lee
Headliner
- Joined
- Nov 22, 1999
- Posts
- 48,682
Re: Why
Movie studios used to put out between 100 and 300 films a year, with plenty of room for sitnkers and prestige pics. Today they put out about 10 big features and two or three smaller films, only half of which they actually made, so every film's got to make money. It's a hell of a lot easier for a film to turn a profit if it has built in awareness, buzz and marketing. Sequels, remakes, and retreads of other properties (like TV shows and cartoons) have subject matter the public is already familiar with, guaranteeing at least some ticket sales.
scrymettet said:
Movie studios used to put out between 100 and 300 films a year, with plenty of room for sitnkers and prestige pics. Today they put out about 10 big features and two or three smaller films, only half of which they actually made, so every film's got to make money. It's a hell of a lot easier for a film to turn a profit if it has built in awareness, buzz and marketing. Sequels, remakes, and retreads of other properties (like TV shows and cartoons) have subject matter the public is already familiar with, guaranteeing at least some ticket sales.
bknight2602
Knight of Pleasure
- Joined
- Jul 22, 2002
- Posts
- 24,362
I think I'll have a headache when theis opens.
Gaucho
Literotica Guru
- Joined
- Jul 13, 2000
- Posts
- 2,631
Re: Re: Tear them up!
Actually, I think he's trying to recover from being too stupid to make the sequels.
I just finished watching the three "Back to the Future" movies on DVD and one of the fascinating (for me, anway) things to come out of it was watching a documentary on the making of the trilogy.
While a sequel to the original movie was inevitable, it didn't happen for 5 years and when it did, the two Bob's (Zemeckis and Gale) had no idea what kind of a story to make. So they decided to see how much of the original cast they could get back (after landing Michael J. Fox and Christopher Lloyd).
The only major original cast member not to come back was Glover. Supposedly, when contacted about doing the sequel, his agent sent a laundry list of demands which the producers were unwilling to meet and when he wouldn't modify them, he was written out of the two sequels. In fact, his absence gave them the 'hook' to build much of the story of BTTF II around.
One other interesting thing is how the girl who plays Marty's GF in the 1st movie morphs into an uncredited Elisabeth Shue in the second and third flicks.
teddybear4play said:
Actually, I think he's trying to recover from being too stupid to make the sequels.
I just finished watching the three "Back to the Future" movies on DVD and one of the fascinating (for me, anway) things to come out of it was watching a documentary on the making of the trilogy.
While a sequel to the original movie was inevitable, it didn't happen for 5 years and when it did, the two Bob's (Zemeckis and Gale) had no idea what kind of a story to make. So they decided to see how much of the original cast they could get back (after landing Michael J. Fox and Christopher Lloyd).
The only major original cast member not to come back was Glover. Supposedly, when contacted about doing the sequel, his agent sent a laundry list of demands which the producers were unwilling to meet and when he wouldn't modify them, he was written out of the two sequels. In fact, his absence gave them the 'hook' to build much of the story of BTTF II around.
One other interesting thing is how the girl who plays Marty's GF in the 1st movie morphs into an uncredited Elisabeth Shue in the second and third flicks.
JazzManJim
On the Downbeat
- Joined
- Sep 12, 2001
- Posts
- 27,360
Yep and they've cast Ving Rhames to play Kojak in a movie based on the TV show, too....
Similar threads
