On 11/27/2015 6:20 AM, Terry Coombs wrote:
Frank" "frank wrote:
On 11/26/2015 11:54 PM, Uncle Monster wrote:
Check out Google's Easter Egg related to Star Wars. Go to Google and
type in: " a long time ago in a galaxy far far away"

Make sure the sound is on.

[8~{} Uncle Star Monster


Question is, how far can you milk a franchise?

New Rocky, new Star Wars, new Hunger Games....

Has Hollywood run out of stories?

Nope , just talented writers .

+42

On the one hand, I've always been *amazed* at how folks can come up
with these stories -- and, then *execute* them in such delightful
detail! Even notoriously BAD movies still seem like they would
be incredibly difficult to conceive and produce (_Attack of the
Killer Tomatoes_, etc.)

On the other hand, it seems like we're just getting a slew of
remakes -- often *bad* ones! -- and wimpy sequels.

I was recently thinking of exactly this -- though for other reasons!

I've been listening to some classic Joe Cocker (that's just what
happened to be "next" in the jukebox) and marveling at how much
BETTER so many of his versions of other folks' material happen to be.
And, thinking about how much *worse* other artists' efforts have been
in the "remake" category.

From there, contemplating how many works (music/movie) "got it right"
the first time -- and how incredibly stupid it would be for others
to even *try* to "make it better".

Finally, trying to identify any criteria that *I* may be using to
decide whether "original" or "remake"/sequel is better.

I've identified a number of issues that play into how/why a different
version may come along and why it might be perceived as better/worse
(or just "different"):
- nostalgia (it's hard to imagine _It's a Wonderful Life_ without
Jimmy Stewart. Maybe a younger generation could see someone else
in this role?)
- technology -- or lack thereof (sometimes technology enhances a
product; other times, it competes with the product! _Jurassic Park_
without the technology would be pretty lame; OTOH, _Forbidden Planet_
would lose much of its appeal with CGI)
- imagination -- how involved the reader/viewer must become in the
presentation (_The Sentinel_ is far more *poignant* than _2001_)
- cultural (original version of _The War of the Worlds_ spoke to a
different culture than Wells' original text; and the later remake's
attempt to be more true to the original text was probably "lost"
on most viewers -- unfamiliar with the culture associated with
that publication)
- skill/talent (it's hard to imagine many of The Jefferson Airplane's
tunes sung -- well -- by other artists)

I'm sure movie makers are just looking to push familiar buttons and
minimize the chance of failure (moreso than maximizing the chance of
success). Sure, it's nostalgic to see Sherman and Peabody trolloping
through history in their CGI forms; yet, the takeaway is not what
a great *movie* it was but, rather, how so much better the *original*
cartoons were! Does anyone *really* want to see CGI versions of
Charlie Brown, Snoopy, et al.? Even if it was an entirely "new"
story??

Will Star Wars episode *9* really be a "big surprise"? Or, just another
churn of the marketing wheel??