2012movies.net

In the last years, the studios gave movie fans great movies but also a lot of sequels and remakes. Don't get me wrong, those, from time to time, are fun to watch but it's the dangerous growing trend that don't like. Are movie goers responsible? Are studios playing safe? Are actors paid to much? Let's take look at the 2003 to 2006 top 10 grossing movies and try to answer those questions.

S = Sequel
R = Remake
Source: Lee's Movie Info

2006

1. Pirates of Caribbean 2 (S)
2. Night at the Museum
3. Cars
4. X3 (S)
5. The Da Vinci Code
6. Superman Returns (S)
7. Happy Feet
8. Ice Age 2 (S)
9. Casino Royale (R)
10. Pursuit of Happyness

2005

1. Revenge of the Sith (S)
2. Chronicles of Narnia
3. Goblet of Fire (S)
4. War of the Worlds (R)
5. King Kong (R)
6. Wedding Crashers
7. Chocolate Factory (R)
8. Batman Begins (S)
9. Madagascar
10. Mr. and Mrs. Smith

2004

1. Shrek 2 (S)
2. Spider-Man 2 (S)
3. The Passion
4. Meet the Fockers (S)
5. The Incredibles
6. Prisoner of Azkaban (S)
7. Day After Tomorrow
8. Polar Express
9. Bourne Supremacy (S)
10. National Treasure

2003

1. Pirates of Caribbean
2. Return of the King (S)
3. Finding Nemo
4. Matrix Reloaded (S)
5. Bruce Almighty
6. X2 (S)
7. Elf
8. Terminator 3 (S)
9. Matrix Revolutions (S)
10. Cheaper by...Dozen

In 2003, we see the start of this trend when 5-6 top movies/year are sequels or remakes. In the previous year, it was 2-3 movies.

Are movie goers at fault?
Yes but I think part of it is the price of tickets. Why pay $12 and take a risk on a movie? But when you know the characters and like the premise in advance, it's a safe way to get entertained with your hard earned cash. If the price would be cut by half, I'm sure that most people would see more movies and take the risk. I know because I go when prices are lower(not half yet) and I see a lot more movies than in previous years. And yes, I'm guilty, I also go see the sequels or remakes.

Are studios playing safe?
Yes and we can blame the higher cost of big budget movies. I can understand them for playing safe because they loose more often than they gain. It's a business after all. But if a sequel can bring box office numbers while recycling stuff from the previous movie, why not? It let them pay for the other movies.

I don't mind a remake like War of the World(2005) because the original was made in 1953. I don't like those made in the 70'. It is a trend seen in horror movies lately like Black Christmas(1974, 2006), The Hills Have Eyes(1974, 2006), Texas chainsaw Massacre(1974, 2006)... Instead, they could make a prequel or sequel if none was created before. A Colossus: The Forbin Project (1970) sequel is something I would look forward.

It will also mean that the 80' will be next soon and we could get remakes of Ghost Buster(1984), E.T.(1982) or even Scanners(1981). Incidentally, a remake of Scanners is scheduled for 2008.

Apart of remakes, they could look into books. Harry Potter and The Lord of the Rings are 2 good examples. I'm sure they are other books that can be adapted. I don't read books and I always say: "If a book is good then I will wait for the movie".

Last week 300, based on a graphic novel by Frank Miller, is good example of an adaptation. It made 70 Millions the first weekend on a 60 Millions budget.

One other source for Hollywood could be foreign movies. The best example is this year Oscar winner The Departed. This movie was based on Infernal Affairs(Hong Kong).

Are actors paid to much?
Yes but who can blame them for taking the offer. One way for studios to lower the cost is more profit sharing with actors. Instead of a 10-20 Millions payday, they could get just 1 or 2 Millions and have an higher percentage. If the movie bomb at the box offices both parties looses but it's mostly the studios. But if it's a major blockbuster, then everybody wins.

Upcoming sequels/remake for 2007

Are We Done Yet?, The Hills Have Eyes II, Shrek 3, Spider-Man 3, Pirates of Caribbean 3, 28 Weeks Later, Hostel: Part II, Ocean's 13, Fantastic Four II, Die Hard 4, Nancy Drew, Rush Hour 3, The Bourne Ultimatum, Halloween,The Heartbreak Kid, Resident Evil 3, Saw IV, AVP 2, National Treasure 2

Who will be in the top 10 this year? Time will tell.

Bookmark to:

This afternoon, I went see "300".

The place was full for an English movie in s city where 98% speak French. It is not Montréal. I must specify that it was the only English movie available in the city. The other theater, showing a few English movies also, closed a few weeks ago and that left an hole in the schedule of theater owners, contract wise, I'm guessing. So, back to the movie.
I tried not see/hear critics or look at stories about it and I saw the trailer like many of you. My expectations started mid-range like I do with most movies.

I don't notice the soundtrack most of the time but this one was right in the beginning. After that, I was more concentrate on the movie.

The visual was different like we saw in the trailer. The real start of combats started after 40-50 minutes. Those were done well and some part are in slow motion.

It's a 2 hour movie and the time past fast. I did not look at my watch often(2 times). The dialogs was funny at times. There is also a back story with the queen that fill some of the time. One of the officers chronicles the events(childhood to king) during the whole movie and describe the Spartan mentality.

Like they often do, I' sure that they will make a DVD with more time and unrated.But, if you want a testosterone filled movie, this is a movie for you.

300

Bookmark to: