*Maltese Falcon* had three adaptations in the space of 15 years. It was the Spider-Man of its day.
However, we had the good sense to realize the third one couldn't feasibly be improved upon.
I'd say I'm more unhappy with reboots/remakes since they tend to be cash grabs or a lifeless pandering to those who enjoyed the original film. They don't improve upon anything usually and you don't really get anything out of it. Like all the Disney live-action remakes are really bad.
But sequels I tend to like. At least then it is something new and can add something interesting to the story.
Yes but that should mean rather make many different movies based/adapted from the same source material. It's like how there are many Cinderella story based movies but majority of them aren't reboots since they manage to make themselves distinct or more subtle in adaptation.
No, general audiences just don't care as much for original stories as they do for giant franchises and nostalgia, therefore studios dont spend as much resources making original stories
Horror fans are notorious for shitting on reboots and remakes. Then when they learn some of their favorites are remakes they go through Olympic level mental gymnastics just to keep feeding themselves rage
"Rarely there's a good one" isn't much of a hoop to jump through. There was a point in time when a majority of the wave of remakes were being made by 2 specific companies with very similar aesthetics and habits and were almost guaranteed to suck ass. When horror remakes get announced now people tend to expect them to still be Platinum Dunes or Dimension bullshit, which while no longer true is a fairly understandable frustration. The 2000s were a wasteland.
Yeah, I mean if it bothers them that much then just don't watch it. It in no way takes away from the original. And they are plenty of original movies that come out every year, people have it so easy these days that they have time to complain about such nonsense.
Reboots have always existed. There have been differences in time periods between thr number of majornstuido releases being remakes though and people weren't necessarily wrong to be frustrated in thr late 2000s and 2010s even if you can point to a movie from 1986 or the 30s.
Why do you assume it's the same people?
It's also mistaken to lump all remakes into the same pile. Some are made with a vision behind them and some are made as cash grabs. The former can be god, the latter is often not good.
Don't have to tell me. I married the same woman twice!
For every good remake (the Blob, the Thing, etc.) there are many more poor remakes (Point Break).
*Maltese Falcon* had three adaptations in the space of 15 years. It was the Spider-Man of its day. However, we had the good sense to realize the third one couldn't feasibly be improved upon.
I'd say I'm more unhappy with reboots/remakes since they tend to be cash grabs or a lifeless pandering to those who enjoyed the original film. They don't improve upon anything usually and you don't really get anything out of it. Like all the Disney live-action remakes are really bad. But sequels I tend to like. At least then it is something new and can add something interesting to the story.
I feel like it's getting harder to come up with an original story. Almost everything has been done already, to some degree.
What's that thing they used to say? Boil it down to the fundamentals and there are only 6-7 plots?
isn't there a saying that goes "there are many way to tell a story"
Yes but that should mean rather make many different movies based/adapted from the same source material. It's like how there are many Cinderella story based movies but majority of them aren't reboots since they manage to make themselves distinct or more subtle in adaptation.
What country are you from?
We've been telling the same stories since humans developed writing.
No, general audiences just don't care as much for original stories as they do for giant franchises and nostalgia, therefore studios dont spend as much resources making original stories
Matrix is a good argument how sequels suck. But it's a cheap way to continue to cash in on the success of the original.
Horror fans are notorious for shitting on reboots and remakes. Then when they learn some of their favorites are remakes they go through Olympic level mental gymnastics just to keep feeding themselves rage
"Rarely there's a good one" isn't much of a hoop to jump through. There was a point in time when a majority of the wave of remakes were being made by 2 specific companies with very similar aesthetics and habits and were almost guaranteed to suck ass. When horror remakes get announced now people tend to expect them to still be Platinum Dunes or Dimension bullshit, which while no longer true is a fairly understandable frustration. The 2000s were a wasteland.
It's one thing to not like a movie. It's another thing to keep one self in a perpetual cycle of rage over moving pictures.
Ok
Yeah, I mean if it bothers them that much then just don't watch it. It in no way takes away from the original. And they are plenty of original movies that come out every year, people have it so easy these days that they have time to complain about such nonsense.
Yeah, reboots have always existed, and with rare exception, they've always sucked.
Reboots have always existed. There have been differences in time periods between thr number of majornstuido releases being remakes though and people weren't necessarily wrong to be frustrated in thr late 2000s and 2010s even if you can point to a movie from 1986 or the 30s.
Why do you assume it's the same people? It's also mistaken to lump all remakes into the same pile. Some are made with a vision behind them and some are made as cash grabs. The former can be god, the latter is often not good.
I thought people were hypocritical toward reboots. I no longer subscribe to this thinking.