of the top 30 grossing films of this decade, 28 were remakes

[pokerfan]

That is just sad...

Monday, November 16th, 2009

Wikipedia has a list of the highest grossing films of this decade so far, and kottke noticed that of the top 20 films at the box office, only one movie was not based on a past film or tv show (remake/sequel), or an adaptation of an established property (be it a comic, book, play, toy…etc).

http://www.slashfilm.com/2009/11/16/only-two-of-the-top-30-grossing-films-of-this-decade-are-original

[david13]

1. It is a comment on the sad state of creativity, and the memory of

the audience. But also, the audience becomes younger every time, so they didn't see the previous incarnation.
But also, there are those that say all stories were contained in the bible, or that there are only 4 stories in all the world. And each story/play is just a variation thereof.
Shakespeare did it all 400 years ago.
Since then, one way or another, it has been nothing but repeats.
dc

[pokerfan]

3. good point wrt Shakespeare

However, there are ways to do it while retaining some margin of creativity. For example, Forbidden Planet is considered a classic of fifties science fiction and was clearly inspired by Shakespeare's The Tempest, yet no one considers it a rip-off.

The films listed in the OP are true remakes rather than the re-imaginings of a classic work. They take a successful film and mindlessly "update" it hoping to trade on the popularity of the original. You can't really blame Hollywood for continuing to do this as the box office indicates that it's obviously a successful strategy.

The sad thing is that the average Joe or Jane doesn't really want to be challenged or required to think. Mostly, they just want to be reassured and watching the same old stories apparently feeds this need.

[NewJeffCT]

2. 28 were not remakes

many of the top 30 were based on books... and, if you look through the top box office movies of the 40s and 50s and even into the 60s (Mary Poppins), the top movies are dominated by Disney.

[cemaphonic]

5. Yeah, I wouldn't count book adaptations as the same category as remakes

Plus, some classic films, like "The Maltese Falcon," are both adaptations and remakes.

[NewJeffCT]

6. Gone with the Wind, Wizard of Oz, Wuthering Heights

& The Hunchback of Notre Dame, Goodbye Mr. Chips were all book adaptions from 1939, the best year ever for movies, by most accounts.

[begin_within]

4. Hollywood ran out of ideas in the 1980s.

Sorry but there's been very little originality coming out of Hollywood for the last 25 years. Now on the other hand, "independent" films, foreign films, documentaries... there have been some pretty original ones.

[valerief]

8. There are plenty of ideas but too many execs with capitalist messages to deliver. nt

[MilesColtrane]

20. I agree.

Just like the music business.

The creative artists are out there, but they haven't gotten the funding and promotion to be seen or heard by a wider audience.

[jobycom]

10. Oh, long before that. Heck, Hitchcock even remade his own films.

For that matter, everything they do now is a variation of some Shakespearean play, which was itself likely a variation of a former theme. If Joseph Campbell is right, you can go back to ancient myths around the cave fire for your first original idea.

[Bucky]

15. Actually, the majority of independent films you see are from Hollywood, too

And most independent film makers are gunning for a studio contract anyway.

[begin_within]

19. that's why I put quotes around "independent"

as it's kind of deceptive

[Yavin4]

7. Budgets for Films Have Skyrocketed

So, making a film which has a built-in audience becomes too attractive. It's far easier making a new Star Trek or a movie based on comic book heroes because you're almost guaranteed the opening weekend.

[jobycom]

9. If they are counting books and plays, I'd say that would be true of any decade.

It's weird what people get worked up about.

[Enrique]

11. adapations are not "unoriginal"

remakes usually are, but adapting books and plays into movies has always been done and some of the greatest movies ever are adaptations.

[blogslut]

12. The film industry has always depended on previously written material

The Academy of Motion Pictures Arts and Sciences has recognized this fact since 1927. That is why there are two awards - one for Best Original Screenplay and one for Best Adapted Screenplay.

One of my favorite films in the whole world was not just an adaptation but a bona-fide remake - His Girl Friday. It was adapted from a Broadway play and was first put on screen in 1931 with Adolphe Menjou as the star. The Cary Grant/Rosalind Russell version was released in 1940 and the Wlter Matthau/Jeck Lemmon version hit the theaters in 1974.

Granted, I abhor a lack of imagination in film making but the writer of that article has his terminology and his premise wrong. A adaptation is not a remake and a remake doesn't always imply a dearth of imagination. There are only five basic dramatic plots as it is. Yet somehow, writers, directors, performers and crew have been able to find new ways to tell the same stories since the practical beginning of civilization. To claim that adaptations of previously written material constitute unoriginality is as ridiculous as claiming no song is unique because there are only so many notes on the scale.

[Withywindle]

13. Adaptations and remakes are totally different balls of wax.

It's very disingenuous to combine them as if they're the same thing. There's a whole other set of issues involved and a LOT of creativity is required. There's a good reason why the Academy Awards have *two* screenplay categories, after all.

I get his overall point, though - that writing of original stories for films needs to be nurtured more. Can't argue with that.

[LostInAnomie]

14. They're stretching the word "remake" quite a bit to make their case.

Comic books, books, plays, toys, and sequels all get bunched together to count as "remakes". That's going a bit far. I call a movie remake if it is a remake of a previously made movie. That's it.

[Bucky]

16. They're counting The Passion of the Christ as a remake. A tiny faux outrage fail here.

In fact, they're counting the Star Wars films as remakes. They're not.

[NewJeffCT]

17. The actual article says "original"

the OP's title says "remakes"

[kedrys]

18. Let's hear it for Pixar

for coming up with fresh stuff time and time again. :applause:

And no, I don't think of Pixar as "Disney", I don't care who owns who.