Why The Hell Hasn't The Breakfast Club Been Remade Yet

[FakeLaser]

Originally Posted by mitch_h Not to mention Inception did incredibly well this weekend... so I would say the masses do have an appetite for original material.

I wouldn't use this as a basis for this argument. Inception was great but it was still a huge-budget action film. A good one, yes. It still was directed by a huge mainstream director coming off of one of the biggest films of all-time. A good director, yes. A good film, yes. It still starred a former teenage Hollywood heart-throb. A good actor, yes.

My point being that it was a great film, with a great director, a great leading man and great supporting actors but it's not like it was some film out of left field or something that didn't have mainstream appeal already. The fact that it's a great film my a genius director/righter is kind of inconsequential in my mind.

[Jeritron]

Originally Posted by FakeRazor I wouldn't use this as a basis for this argument. Inception was great but it was still a huge-budget action film. A good one, yes. It still was directed by a huge mainstream director coming off of one of the biggest films of all-time. A good director, yes. A good film, yes. It still starred a former teenage Hollywood heart-throb. A good actor, yes. My point being that it was a great film, with a great director, a great leading man and great supporting actors but it's not like it was some film out of left field or something that didn't have mainstream appeal already. The fact that it's a great film my a genius director/righter is kind of inconsequential in my mind.

It's still new material though. I think material and creators are two different things.
A lot of people will feel comfortable with proven directors, writers and actors. This has almost always been the case.
Actors longer than directors.

With Hitchcock and Spielberg the birth of the namebrand director became a part of the film industry, but they still brought new material to the table.
In this situation the moviegoers and studios have the benefit of tapping into a brand and giving something new at the same time.

[FakeLaser]

Originally Posted by Jeritron It's still new material though. I think material and creators are two different things. A lot of people will feel comfortable with proven directors, writers and actors. This has almost always been the case. Actors longer than directors. With Hitchcock and Spielberg the birth of the namebrand director became a part of the film industry, but they still brought new material to the table. In this situation the moviegoers and studios have the benefit of tapping into a brand and giving something new at the same time.

I agree it's "new material." All that I'm saying is it's not like Inception was some movie by some unknown director with an unknown cast that blew up at the box-office strictly because it was "new material."

[mitch_h]

Originally Posted by FakeRazor I wouldn't use this as a basis for this argument. Inception was great but it was still a huge-budget action film. A good one, yes. It still was directed by a huge mainstream director coming off of one of the biggest films of all-time. A good director, yes. A good film, yes. It still starred a former teenage Hollywood heart-throb. A good actor, yes. My point being that it was a great film, with a great director, a great leading man and great supporting actors but it's not like it was some film out of left field or something that didn't have mainstream appeal already. The fact that it's a great film my a genius director/righter is kind of inconsequential in my mind.

Yeah I agree with this, my post was more of a response to Kalyx saying that we have an abundance of remakes because of consumers. I think the fact that the top two movies at the box office right now are based on original material supports Jeritron's theory that studios are just playing it safe.

As for remakes... it seems one thing the successful(artistically) ones were in the hands of strong directors.

12 Monkeys (Gilliam)
The Thing (Carpenter)
The Fly (Cronenberg)
King Kong (Jackson) etc. etc.

Then again the Psycho remake was directed by Gus van Sant ... but I would say he is the most experimental director of the names previously mentioned so his Psycho remake was more of a failed experiment.