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

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?

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 .

--
Snag

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??

On 11/27/2015 8:46 AM, Don Y wrote:
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??

I actually read, that even at Shakespeare's time, that there were no new
stories, just new ways of telling them.

I have no problem with this.

Just do not like seeing sequels that leave you hanging. Often the whole
purpose of a sequel is to lead you to the next chapter. It is not like
the authors have an ending in mind. Recall "Lost" on TV.
I remember watching the ending and saying, I put in years watching the
show to see it crappy ending?

Recall the old Flash Gordon serials. Endings were planned. Watchers
were satisfied.

On 11/27/2015 7:02 AM, Frank wrote:

I actually read, that even at Shakespeare's time, that there were no new
stories, just new ways of telling them.

I have no problem with this.

Just do not like seeing sequels that leave you hanging. Often the whole
purpose of a sequel is to lead you to the next chapter. It is not like the
authors have an ending in mind. Recall "Lost" on TV.
I remember watching the ending and saying, I put in years watching the show to
see it crappy ending?

Recall the old Flash Gordon serials. Endings were planned. Watchers were
satisfied.

With "effects" that were no better than "sparklers" sticking out the *ss-end
of their "rocket ships"! :

Most (successful) serials attempt to tell stories within stories.
So, you can give the reader/viewer some "local satisfaction/resolution"
(to the *inner* stories) while stringing them along (with the *outer*
stories).

The trend to split the last serial into *two* serials...
Or, last "season" into *two* seasons...
just reeks of sleeze. Esp when you *know* there will be nothing
of substance that will make you *glad* you hung around for
that LAST episode of the second HALF of the FINALE...

If you want to tell a different story (e.g., remake of _War of Worlds_,
remake of _Day the Earth Stood Still_, etc.) then TELL A DIFFERENT
STORY! Don't tell the *same* story and tweek it a little -- unless
you're sure what you are doing is heads above the previous!

[E.g., Cocker's renditions of other folks' songs have the same
lyrics and melody but are *so* different than the originals
that you can easily consider them different songs, entirely!]

ACClarke wrote many versions of 2001 (some personal politics,
apparently, at play, there). Yet, we didn't see all of those
versions released as "remakes" of the original. Even the
sequels (2010, 2061, 3001) are different stories -- not just
different "versions" of the original (or any of its alternate
implementations). Likewise, _2001_ wasn't a lame retelling of
_The Sentinel_

Too often, authors and series fall into ruts -- endlessly relying
on a single gimmick on which to hang their wares (e.g., Dr Who).
You're left with a disappointing "yawn"...

"Don Y"

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?)

I like the original version where the banker gets payback instead
of the new 'politically correct' version.

"Frank" "frank wrote in message
...

Question is, how far can you milk a franchise?

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

Has Hollywood run out of stories?

They ran out of stories many years ago. They just rehash old stories and
change them around for the most part.

On 11/27/2015 2:09 PM, Ralph Mowery wrote:
"Frank" "frank wrote in message
...

Question is, how far can you milk a franchise?

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

Has Hollywood run out of stories?

They ran out of stories many years ago. They just rehash old stories and
change them around for the most part.



As long as people spend $$$$, they will continue to rehash.

On Fri, 27 Nov 2015 20:20:58 -0500, Ed Pawlowski wrote:

They ran out of stories many years ago. They just rehash old stories and
change them around for the most part.

As long as people spend $$$$, they will continue to rehash.

There will never be a sequel to _Gone With The Wind_

"Oren" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 27 Nov 2015 20:20:58 -0500, Ed Pawlowski wrote:

They ran out of stories many years ago. They just rehash old stories
and
change them around for the most part.

As long as people spend $$$$, they will continue to rehash.

There will never be a sequel to _Gone With The Wind_

A book was written but it was so far off topic that it bombed out.
The family that picked the writer sure picked the wrong person for the job.

On 11/27/2015 6:47 PM, Oren wrote:
On Fri, 27 Nov 2015 20:20:58 -0500, Ed Pawlowski wrote:

They ran out of stories many years ago. They just rehash old stories and
change them around for the most part.

As long as people spend $$$$, they will continue to rehash.

There will never be a sequel to _Gone With The Wind_

No, but a remake is not out of the question. I'm sure some
idiot will think he can do it better...

(OTOH, a claymation/Aardman style remake might be amusing -- if
done tongue-in-cheek)