Please note that this was written in 2013
With so many remakes and book adaptations, it seems that film makers are struggling to come up with new ideas.
In the past 12 months (because nobody says 'In the past year' anymore..) the biggest grossing blockbusters have mainly consisted of remakes, sequels, comic/book adaptations or TV shows:
Click here to see the list of biggest grossing films from 2012
Remakes:
With so many sequels and adaptations, not to mention the remakes it seems like new ideas are becoming impossible to come by. First lets start with the remakes. What is the point in remaking a film? Don't get me wrong, I understand about wanting to appeal to younger audiences who might not be willing to watch older films with older technologies, but surely the remakes can never stand up to the original? At the moment there is a big trend for reviving films made in the 80's and 90's. It is hard to tell whether this is down to the fact that the people who grew up watching these films in the 80's are now older and in a position to remake their favourite films, simply because they can, or because they want to appeal to younger people who are now more likely to watch a newer version of the same film rather than the original. The cynic in me says that the reason is simply that the film makers are looking for easy ways to make films, by remaking previously successful films. It would be much better for the film makers to create sequels rather than to just be lazy and remake an already existing film. A prime example of this would be Total recall. Made in 1990 the original featured Arnold Schwarzenegger (who lets face it, spoke only basic English), whereas the remake in 2012 starred Colin Farrell. I'm not knocking Colin Farrell's acting ability because clearly he both acts and speaks better English than Schwarzenegger, but to be honest, Schwarzenegger's lack of English is what makes the original so funny and entertaining. Another example of a recent remake is Judge Dredd (1995)/ Dredd (2012). Also, Evil Dead has just been released as a remake from the original made in 1981. Some films should never ever be remade. Lets hope that no one ever does a remake of Tron (which has had a sequel so hopefully will be left alone), Blade Runner or E.T.
Sequels:
Sequels are an easy way for film makers to make money. If they know there was a successful stand alone film, they are more likely to opt for a sequel over an original script. Don't get me wrong, I love a good sequel or series of films, as long as the plots do not run dry or get to the point where they are making a sequel just for the sake of it. Some of my favourites series are: Indiana Jones, Avengers, Die Hard , The Godfather and X men. I'm also looking forward to Finding Dory (the long awaited sequel to Finding Nemo). Sometimes though, sequels (and prequels) do not always live up to the originals. Successful films such as Cruel Intentions, Grease and The Blair Witch Project, all had sequels which completely flopped. Some sequels do not live up to the expectations from the originals, such as The Godfather 3, Star Wars Episode 1:The Phantom Menace, and Indiana Jones and the kingdom of the Crystal Skull. This is either because the plots do not live up to the originals, or because the Actors and characters have changed too much. The Godfather 3 as an example, was widely slated, mainly because the actors were much older than they were in the original films, and as a result the characters were older which made it harder for younger audiences to empathise with the characters. the younger characters which were brought in, such as Andy Garcia, were not as interesting as the original characters. I can't decide if it was because of Andy Garcia's acting, or whether it was the plot. One of the most successful franchises is the Star Wars franchise, which has just been sold to Disney to make another two or three trilogies, as if the second trilogy wasn't quite enough. Original films which have spawned sequels are: Toy story, The terminator, The transporter, Meet the parents, Shrek, Die Hard, American pie, Austin powers (Which is actually a spoof so I'm not too sure it counts here).
Some sequels are very successful, with the right actors and writers, such as The Avengers series, and most notably the James Bond films. Some films go on and on, such as the Superman andBatman films. The Dark knight trilogy was amazingly well written and filmed, but as for the other Batman films, they left something to be desired. Some films are loved so much that the audiences do not want to see the characters go, which again makes sequels a popular choice. Recent examples which have now ended are the Harry Potter and Twilight series, which are both adapted from books. (It is also worth noting that the James Bond and Godfather films are also adapted from books.
Book/comic/TV Adaptations:
It is easy to see why quite a lot of books are adapted into films. Some more successful than others. Shakespeare has had pretty much all of his plays converted into films, some more than others.Romeo and Juliet has been made Countless times and even has a new adaptation due out this summer (2013). Even the Twilight films were loosely based on Romeo and Juliet (at least the first two films were). Romeo and Juliet is one of the oldest and most well known tragic love stories in existence. This is probably because the tragic end is so unexpected (at least if you have lived in a cave your whole life and do not know the story, or if you are a young teenager reading or studying the story for the first time). Some of the more successful adaptations are: Twilight, The Godfather, Harry Potter, James Bond, The Hunger games, Lord of the rings, The Bourne Identity, Les Miserables, Sherlock Holmes, The chronicles of Narnia, The Da Vinci code. Then you have the comic book adaptations: The Watchmen, X men, Avengers, Superman, Batman, Men in Black, The Mask, The Losers, Kick ass, and Sin city to name a few. After you go through the TV adaptations such as Mission impossible, The A-Team, 21 Jump st, Charlies Angels, The Flinstones, GI Joe, Star Trek, The Smurfs, and Transformers, you start to wonder what is left.
One of my favourite films is The Prestige and after seeing the film, I read the book. Normally when I read a book that has been adapted into a film, the film is not as good as the book. This tends to be because the films have a limited amount of time, in which to cram a novel, which ultimately means that chapters , characters and sub plots need to be cut. The novel has to be completely re-written into a script, which makes it complicated and harder to keep to the original storyline. One solution is to break the films into two or sometimes three parts (creating sequels), but mostly, the films cut chunks out. It is down to the directors to decide whether to spend the first half hour introducing us to the characters, and give the plot about an hour to take place, or whether to simply jump straight in to the plot with no back story for the characters. With The Prestige I was actually surprised that Nolan (who has become one of my favourite directors), managed to keep most of the plot without compromising the story and the background too much (although the film is 2 hours and 10 minutes). The only difference was the ending. In the novel, the ending is completely different, and without giving too much away, I actually preferred the film.
One film that jumps straight into the action without too much back story being needed isSahara which is another of my favourite films and books. The opening sequence gives you a montage into the characters backgrounds so that there isn't much catching up to be done. There are quite a few parts that the film has left out, which would explain things a little better such as the aeroplane in the desert, and the gold coins they are searching for, but the film still works well. It is just a shame that the other books will not be made into films. Inca Gold is also one of my favourite books which I'd love to see as a film, but I know this will not happen now.
Examples where the books were better than the films, are easier to find, than the rare few where the films were better than the books. Some films are more well known than the books. Stephen King is one example of a writer who has had many of his books turned into films. Another is Nicholas Sparks. Please note that I am not comparing King to Sparks as their works are completely different. Sparks, has written a few soppy love stories with strong Christian values, which have been turned into successful films one after the other. King on the other hand has written many brilliant horror/ science fiction novels, of which a few were made into various films with different degrees of success. The most well known is probably The Shining - I mean who is not familiar with This? Although I doubt many people have actually read the book, but again the book goes into more depth about the characters backgrounds and the history of the town in which the story is set. I'm pretty sure that everyone (at least all girls between 16-30) have read at least one book by Nicholas Sparks (I'll admit I've read Dear John). The Time travellers wife is another example of 'Book Vs Film' where this time I think the book wins.
Some films are only based on books, so you wouldn't necessarily be aware that they were adapted.Identity was actually based on an Agatha Christie novel called 'And then there were none.' In the film, several strangers find themselves stranded in a motel during a storm, and one by one they are killed off. In the story, several strangers find themselves stranded on an island and one by one they are killed until no one is left. The concept is the same, but the motives and end result are completely different.
Are there any original films left any more?
Yes, there are still plenty of original films out there. A few of my favourites are: Looper, Inception, Donnie Darko, Ted, Garden state, Blades of Glory, Taken and Cemetery junction to name a few. Original films are becoming more and more rare, but they do exist. The money people in Hollywood who back the films, are finding it harder and harder to take risks on new ideas, instead backing what they consider to be easy gambles for already successful sequels and franchises. I mean come on, how much speculation went on over those stupid Shades of grey books? First the studios were fighting over who would get the rights to the book, when the book (if you can call it a book and not glorified toilet paper) came out? Ok, maybe not when the books came out, but when the media got hold of the books and made them into a best selling trend. People started buying the books just to see what the hype was about, which made them sell even more. Now there is a huge speculation over studios who want to throw their money away on something that to be honest, I don't see the films working out. The main reason I doubt the films will sell is because of the sex. If the films are to stay true to the books, they will need to have lots of saucy sex scenes, which will make the films an 18 rating, however as most of the people reading the books are teenage girl,s they will be too young to see the films, which means the film makers will have to cut down the sex scenes a lot and also tame them down, which would make them a 15. If they do this, the films will not be anywhere near as 'good' as the books and the audiences will be disappointed. Also this means they would need to come up with a plot which the books are severely lacking, which again means the films will either be terrible if they try to stick to the original, or they will be nothing like the original which could improve the films but not necessarily please the fans.
Newer ideas are harder to get funded. Just ask Zach Braff who is trying to get a second film into production, but the Hollywood bigwigs want to change too much and give him less creative control. If this is what film makers need to do to keep their own creative control, it is no wonder that Hollywood is losing its imagination. It is all too easy to make the safe films, but they need to start taking risks again if they want to keep their originality.
Agree/ Disagree? Let me know what you think in the comments box!
In the past 12 months (because nobody says 'In the past year' anymore..) the biggest grossing blockbusters have mainly consisted of remakes, sequels, comic/book adaptations or TV shows:
Click here to see the list of biggest grossing films from 2012
Remakes:
With so many sequels and adaptations, not to mention the remakes it seems like new ideas are becoming impossible to come by. First lets start with the remakes. What is the point in remaking a film? Don't get me wrong, I understand about wanting to appeal to younger audiences who might not be willing to watch older films with older technologies, but surely the remakes can never stand up to the original? At the moment there is a big trend for reviving films made in the 80's and 90's. It is hard to tell whether this is down to the fact that the people who grew up watching these films in the 80's are now older and in a position to remake their favourite films, simply because they can, or because they want to appeal to younger people who are now more likely to watch a newer version of the same film rather than the original. The cynic in me says that the reason is simply that the film makers are looking for easy ways to make films, by remaking previously successful films. It would be much better for the film makers to create sequels rather than to just be lazy and remake an already existing film. A prime example of this would be Total recall. Made in 1990 the original featured Arnold Schwarzenegger (who lets face it, spoke only basic English), whereas the remake in 2012 starred Colin Farrell. I'm not knocking Colin Farrell's acting ability because clearly he both acts and speaks better English than Schwarzenegger, but to be honest, Schwarzenegger's lack of English is what makes the original so funny and entertaining. Another example of a recent remake is Judge Dredd (1995)/ Dredd (2012). Also, Evil Dead has just been released as a remake from the original made in 1981. Some films should never ever be remade. Lets hope that no one ever does a remake of Tron (which has had a sequel so hopefully will be left alone), Blade Runner or E.T.
Sequels:
Sequels are an easy way for film makers to make money. If they know there was a successful stand alone film, they are more likely to opt for a sequel over an original script. Don't get me wrong, I love a good sequel or series of films, as long as the plots do not run dry or get to the point where they are making a sequel just for the sake of it. Some of my favourites series are: Indiana Jones, Avengers, Die Hard , The Godfather and X men. I'm also looking forward to Finding Dory (the long awaited sequel to Finding Nemo). Sometimes though, sequels (and prequels) do not always live up to the originals. Successful films such as Cruel Intentions, Grease and The Blair Witch Project, all had sequels which completely flopped. Some sequels do not live up to the expectations from the originals, such as The Godfather 3, Star Wars Episode 1:The Phantom Menace, and Indiana Jones and the kingdom of the Crystal Skull. This is either because the plots do not live up to the originals, or because the Actors and characters have changed too much. The Godfather 3 as an example, was widely slated, mainly because the actors were much older than they were in the original films, and as a result the characters were older which made it harder for younger audiences to empathise with the characters. the younger characters which were brought in, such as Andy Garcia, were not as interesting as the original characters. I can't decide if it was because of Andy Garcia's acting, or whether it was the plot. One of the most successful franchises is the Star Wars franchise, which has just been sold to Disney to make another two or three trilogies, as if the second trilogy wasn't quite enough. Original films which have spawned sequels are: Toy story, The terminator, The transporter, Meet the parents, Shrek, Die Hard, American pie, Austin powers (Which is actually a spoof so I'm not too sure it counts here).
Some sequels are very successful, with the right actors and writers, such as The Avengers series, and most notably the James Bond films. Some films go on and on, such as the Superman andBatman films. The Dark knight trilogy was amazingly well written and filmed, but as for the other Batman films, they left something to be desired. Some films are loved so much that the audiences do not want to see the characters go, which again makes sequels a popular choice. Recent examples which have now ended are the Harry Potter and Twilight series, which are both adapted from books. (It is also worth noting that the James Bond and Godfather films are also adapted from books.
Book/comic/TV Adaptations:
It is easy to see why quite a lot of books are adapted into films. Some more successful than others. Shakespeare has had pretty much all of his plays converted into films, some more than others.Romeo and Juliet has been made Countless times and even has a new adaptation due out this summer (2013). Even the Twilight films were loosely based on Romeo and Juliet (at least the first two films were). Romeo and Juliet is one of the oldest and most well known tragic love stories in existence. This is probably because the tragic end is so unexpected (at least if you have lived in a cave your whole life and do not know the story, or if you are a young teenager reading or studying the story for the first time). Some of the more successful adaptations are: Twilight, The Godfather, Harry Potter, James Bond, The Hunger games, Lord of the rings, The Bourne Identity, Les Miserables, Sherlock Holmes, The chronicles of Narnia, The Da Vinci code. Then you have the comic book adaptations: The Watchmen, X men, Avengers, Superman, Batman, Men in Black, The Mask, The Losers, Kick ass, and Sin city to name a few. After you go through the TV adaptations such as Mission impossible, The A-Team, 21 Jump st, Charlies Angels, The Flinstones, GI Joe, Star Trek, The Smurfs, and Transformers, you start to wonder what is left.
One of my favourite films is The Prestige and after seeing the film, I read the book. Normally when I read a book that has been adapted into a film, the film is not as good as the book. This tends to be because the films have a limited amount of time, in which to cram a novel, which ultimately means that chapters , characters and sub plots need to be cut. The novel has to be completely re-written into a script, which makes it complicated and harder to keep to the original storyline. One solution is to break the films into two or sometimes three parts (creating sequels), but mostly, the films cut chunks out. It is down to the directors to decide whether to spend the first half hour introducing us to the characters, and give the plot about an hour to take place, or whether to simply jump straight in to the plot with no back story for the characters. With The Prestige I was actually surprised that Nolan (who has become one of my favourite directors), managed to keep most of the plot without compromising the story and the background too much (although the film is 2 hours and 10 minutes). The only difference was the ending. In the novel, the ending is completely different, and without giving too much away, I actually preferred the film.
One film that jumps straight into the action without too much back story being needed isSahara which is another of my favourite films and books. The opening sequence gives you a montage into the characters backgrounds so that there isn't much catching up to be done. There are quite a few parts that the film has left out, which would explain things a little better such as the aeroplane in the desert, and the gold coins they are searching for, but the film still works well. It is just a shame that the other books will not be made into films. Inca Gold is also one of my favourite books which I'd love to see as a film, but I know this will not happen now.
Examples where the books were better than the films, are easier to find, than the rare few where the films were better than the books. Some films are more well known than the books. Stephen King is one example of a writer who has had many of his books turned into films. Another is Nicholas Sparks. Please note that I am not comparing King to Sparks as their works are completely different. Sparks, has written a few soppy love stories with strong Christian values, which have been turned into successful films one after the other. King on the other hand has written many brilliant horror/ science fiction novels, of which a few were made into various films with different degrees of success. The most well known is probably The Shining - I mean who is not familiar with This? Although I doubt many people have actually read the book, but again the book goes into more depth about the characters backgrounds and the history of the town in which the story is set. I'm pretty sure that everyone (at least all girls between 16-30) have read at least one book by Nicholas Sparks (I'll admit I've read Dear John). The Time travellers wife is another example of 'Book Vs Film' where this time I think the book wins.
Some films are only based on books, so you wouldn't necessarily be aware that they were adapted.Identity was actually based on an Agatha Christie novel called 'And then there were none.' In the film, several strangers find themselves stranded in a motel during a storm, and one by one they are killed off. In the story, several strangers find themselves stranded on an island and one by one they are killed until no one is left. The concept is the same, but the motives and end result are completely different.
Are there any original films left any more?
Yes, there are still plenty of original films out there. A few of my favourites are: Looper, Inception, Donnie Darko, Ted, Garden state, Blades of Glory, Taken and Cemetery junction to name a few. Original films are becoming more and more rare, but they do exist. The money people in Hollywood who back the films, are finding it harder and harder to take risks on new ideas, instead backing what they consider to be easy gambles for already successful sequels and franchises. I mean come on, how much speculation went on over those stupid Shades of grey books? First the studios were fighting over who would get the rights to the book, when the book (if you can call it a book and not glorified toilet paper) came out? Ok, maybe not when the books came out, but when the media got hold of the books and made them into a best selling trend. People started buying the books just to see what the hype was about, which made them sell even more. Now there is a huge speculation over studios who want to throw their money away on something that to be honest, I don't see the films working out. The main reason I doubt the films will sell is because of the sex. If the films are to stay true to the books, they will need to have lots of saucy sex scenes, which will make the films an 18 rating, however as most of the people reading the books are teenage girl,s they will be too young to see the films, which means the film makers will have to cut down the sex scenes a lot and also tame them down, which would make them a 15. If they do this, the films will not be anywhere near as 'good' as the books and the audiences will be disappointed. Also this means they would need to come up with a plot which the books are severely lacking, which again means the films will either be terrible if they try to stick to the original, or they will be nothing like the original which could improve the films but not necessarily please the fans.
Newer ideas are harder to get funded. Just ask Zach Braff who is trying to get a second film into production, but the Hollywood bigwigs want to change too much and give him less creative control. If this is what film makers need to do to keep their own creative control, it is no wonder that Hollywood is losing its imagination. It is all too easy to make the safe films, but they need to start taking risks again if they want to keep their originality.
Agree/ Disagree? Let me know what you think in the comments box!