the only way that studios think they can put fannies in the seats is with material that the viewers are already familiar with.

I don't think that's true. My daughter and I caught the preview of Arthur when we went to see Limitless last weekend. She was fascinated by the trailer. She loves Russell Brand and immediately wanted to see it. I told her it was a remake. She's 31 and she's never seen the original. That's the demographic they're going for and to them, it's brand spanking new.

The failure of new and different films like Scott Pilgrim reinforce this idea in the minds of the studio.

Which was an adaptation. And, which, I plain didn't like, so I don't shed any tears.

Actually, can we remake all of Jim Carrey's movies with someone I don't want to kill in his roles?

And Ashton Kutcher is your go-to guy for this?

Anything new and different is a huge crapshoot.

And that's true for every industry. Publishers promote the books of authors who are already bestsellers, because they want to make sure they get those titles sold, at the very least. Music producers know if preteen girls liked the Jonas Brothers, they're going to love Justin Bieber. It's not a new phenomenon.

I was trying to think of someone suitably obnoxious.

Also, he was awesome in Dude, Where's my Car? -- I give him a huge pass for that.

You know what needs to be remade? Dumb and Dumber!!! I mean, who doesn't want to see that again, with maybe Aston Kutcher and that other annoying dude, you know the one. AMIRITE???

Didn't they already do that with the sequel? (Or was it sequelS?)

You know- I am totally not a person who has a gripe with remakes/adaptations anything-- I do theater for gosh sake. I am trying to reserve judgment, but Jennifer Garner as Miss Marple really has me puzzled. Unless they put her in age make-up. Or, I guess, show her younger life, before Murder Is Announced and she started solving crimes.

Didn't they already do that with the sequel? (Or was it sequelS?)

I have blocked it (them?) from my mind. DO NOT SHATTER MY DELUSION.

I really don't think it is. Or at least, it's no more insane than it's been in the past. Part of the problem is that our view of the past is skewed. A lot of the films which have sunk without trace were probably remakes but we have no cultural memory of then.

I've seen this argument made against, "All music today is crap!"

RE: Independent films. I've seen some creative distribution/financing ideas from some indy filmmakers.

I've seen this argument made against, "All music today is crap!"

There are definitely cycles in music which are more exciting and innovative. But usually they're out of sight in some kind of regional scene or underground where they can develop while the mainstream scene is a bit bland.

However, the music business has changed so radically over the last ten years that I'm wondering if that's possible anymore.

Bubblegum, to cite an example I know well, used to be driven by independent producers. Studio insiders and hustlers who'd whip something up and get it out onto the market. But now Bubblegum is driven by huge mega corporations who see it as an extremely profitable genre with a built in audience.

Disney's vertical integration allows them to create an act, put them on TV incessantly and play them Radio Disney and then get them on some ABC show as well. Even the Cheetah Girls made a lot of money, and (in order) High School Musical, Hannah Montana and the Jonas Brothers all made billions. Not hundreds of millions - but billions. And most of that is from the ancillary marketing - the Jonas brothers pillows and Hannah Montana lunch boxes. Though the tours are also incredibly lucrative.