Do people just ignore Plan 9 from Outer Space when they say movie-quality? And its ilk, I mean. I guess I remain unconvinced movies are worse than they ever were.
I think the difference is that we get big budget movies that may be worse than Plan 9, and the publicity jammed down our throats so much that they are actually successful.
I'd rather watch an Ed Wood movie than a Transformer movie. The laughs are better and I don't see the money going to waste that could have been better spent on...anything, including how many Ed Wood movies it could have purchased.
I just now realized that "Leaves of Grass" was about pot. I don't know what I thought it was about, maybe some sort of poetry?
maybe some sort of poetry?
You're saying Walt Whitman was a pot-head?
You're saying Walt Whitman was a pot-head?
That'd make Whitman's samplers a lot more popular.
That'd make Whitman's samplers a lot more popular.
"The Candy Man makes / everything he bakes / satisfying and hempalicious / you can even eat the roach clippies..."
OMG! Is "Splendor in the Grass" about pot?
OMG! Is "Splendor in the Grass" about pot?
It is. And those shoes you call Mary Janes? Marijuana!
On other boards I see people railing about movie remakes on principle, as if by definition every remake has to be a bad thing. I suspect it has to do with the current cultural equation of creativity with originality, which seems to be applied to films more than to any other art form, especially if they're based on other films rather than books or plays. (I thought it was hilarious recently how it was emphasized that the Coen's "True Grit"
wasn't
a remake of the Wayne film, but a new adaptation of the book, in order to give it more credibility).
But filmmaking has always been hugely derivative. Right from the very beginning, people were copying ideas, concepts, even entire movies, especially if they were successful. The first US remake of a French movie was in the 1890s, and vice versa. It's not good or bad, it's just the way the business has always operated.
Nowadays familiarity makes it easier to sell movies, or "franchises", as we must now call them. It's why the studios love sequels and remakes and reboots and why films are pitched as hybrids of other films.
So at the moment you have strong commercial predelictions for remakes versus strong cultural inclinations against them. There's bound to be some conflict.
The idea of a Star Trek reboot made my skin crawl but that turned out OK. The idea of a Time Bandits remake is equally horrible, especially for the reasons DJ mentioned, but I'm going to try and keep an open mind. (Gritting teeth....).
And remember, Shakespeare's plays were largely "remakes" of existing stories...
But filmmaking has always been hugely derivative. Right from the very beginning, people were copying ideas, concepts, even entire movies, especially if they were successful. The first US remake of a French movie was in the 1890s, and vice versa. It's not good or bad, it's just the way the business has always operated.
THIS! It makes me crazy when people talk about remakes as if it were a new, bad thing that's happening and is sign of film making in decline!
