NY Times article from 1966: too many remakes and sequels!

[Greens]

This is an article from 1966, and unfortunately it's behind a paywall but the abstract says it all:

http://query.nytimes.com/mem/archive/pdf?res=9A07E2D71F3BEF34BC4A51DFB266838D679EDE

Hollywood's Trend to Remakes Worrying Creative Filmmakers

April 22, 1966,

HOLLYWOOD, April 21 The Hollywood studios, alarmed by the mounting failure rate among major productions, are turning increasingly to remakes of old pictures, sequels, movies based on TV series and similar projects.

Sounds familiar? Most people seem to think that remakes and sequels are a new trend, but Hollywood has been doing it since film was invented. Remember the countless Frankenstein sequels back in the 1930s and 40s?

 

[redhawk23]

This is an article from 1966, and unfortunately it's behind a paywall but the abstract says it all:

http://query.nytimes.com/mem/archive/pdf?res=9A07E2D71F3BEF34BC4A51DFB266838D679EDE

Hollywood's Trend to Remakes Worrying Creative Filmmakers



Sounds familiar? Most people seem to think that remakes and sequels are a new trend, but Hollywood has been doing it since film was invented. Remember the countless Frankenstein sequels back in the 1930s and 40s?

While remakes and sequels aren't new, there is arguably a difference in how they are now the focus of the business model in terms of the resources they eat up.

Disney sequels for instance used to be straight to video fair. Their main line of animated films have featured very few sequels. (The Rescuers Down Under, the 2011 Pooh film, any others?).

Now they are lining up sequels to Frozen and Wreck it Ralph as major releases.

 

[:eek:]

Yeah, remakes is hardly anything new. There are even examples of big names remaking their own movies. Hitchcock made The Man Who Knew Too Much twice and Cecil B DeMille made The Ten Commandments twice. The big difference is the sheer number of releases today and considering you can't have a Spielberg or Nolan or whomever attached to all of them there are too many movies today made by not so talented directors.

 

[KRYPTON INC.]

I've been saying this for a long time now. Sequels, re-makes, adaptations of well known properties? It's been done before, if anything it's been baked into the very founding of film with Edison adapting Frankenstein back in 1910.

There are more ways than ever for original work and creator's visions to be seen these days. There is no reason to bemoan that there are lots of bad films based on pre-existing franchises or IPs because... There's lots of bad films made from original ideas. There are lots of GOOD films too, but let's keep Ben Bova's thoughts in our heads: "90% of everything is crap". T'was ever thus. Wanna go back to the last so called "golden age" of the 70's? For all the greatness of the Godfather or Jaws ect. there was also a metric ton of crap produced. Are great films based on something else rare? Yeah. But GREAT FILMS IN GENERAL ARE RARE, regardless or their origin, and at least today, there are more outlets and ways a film maker has at his disposal to get his work out even without having a major theatrical release or a big studio backing.

 

[Greens]

Wanna go back to the last so called "golden age" of the 70's? For all the greatness of the Godfather or Jaws ect. there was also a metric ton of crap produced.

Also, both the Godfather and Jaws are adaptations.

 

[spider-neil]

Lord of the Rings is an adaptation of a book.

Mission Impossible is an adaptation of a TV show.

The Thing ('80s) is a remake

Batman Begins is a reboot

X-Men First Class is a prequel

T2 is a sequel

Nothing wrong with; Adaptations, reboots, remakes, prequels and sequels as long as the film makers have a story worth watching and approach the subject matter with love and care.

 

[CyclopsWasRight]

Most of the time it's to bank on the name and turn out a safe but predictable bit of entertainment that green lights further flicks. Many movies that don't have anything further to say get sequels, comedies for example.

Studios don't take as much risks with Blockbuster anymore IMO. It's far too easy to just reboot an old property or do a sequel than a new idea and even easier to use those properties and stick to a guideline rather than than risk something new and unique with it. Sure some have unique characters or looks and so forth but the plots and structure are usually very similiar to proven successes.

For instance instead of doing another 'prevent judgement day' movie with call-back dialogue and using the same characters again like they did with the latest a terminator they could've used the franchise but told a new story with new characters fighting Skynet or rebuilding after defeating Skynet with a new off-shoot threat from the Terminators.

Then there's the whole thing about movies being multimedia marketing products nowadays. Instead of being made to tell a unique story and make money off the movie they're made to establish a sequel or spin-off or collective universe and sell toys and lunch boxes. Instead of being about the movie it's about the movie and the next movies and all the merchandise that can be milked to maximise profit and expanding them to other mediums to keep them at the forefront of Internet discussion.

For example with a Star Wars movie every year it's gonna changes the franchise from a unique trilogy based complete story repeated about ten years apart into a formulaic ongoing story that probably never gets resolved.

Audiences go to sequels and reboots and remakes more IMO because that's the bulk of what they see advertised. There are few original blockbusters marketed as much as those and then when they do it's usually one original movie to 4-5 adaptions or sequels so they get lost in the shuffle.

Audiences go to what they're familiar with but if there's wasn't much of those and instead lots of original properties they'd still go I reckon.

I have no doubt if Hollywood had a year with more original movies than remakes, sequels, prequels or adaptions but advertised them Hugely they'd sell well

 

[Drizzle]

The guy who wrote that probably had no idea what the 70's had in store.