And how about The Avengers, the 1998 film with Sean Connery ? A remake of the 1960s TV show.

That tanked.

Add to the list of retro bombs the 1996 Steve Martin film SGT. BILKO, the remake of the old 1950s Phil Silvers TV show

Does anyone even REMEMBER the 1996 film ?

It didn't even recoup its budget back

And that's the thing. It's hard to capture and retain the original flavor of an old show while you're also "updating" it. You get "Land of the Lost" going from being a prehistoric adventure to a Will Ferrell vehicle: Will's going to do something funny with dinosaurs and it will be great. That didn't work because it was "Land of the Lost" in name only. I'm a big fan of "The Rockford Files" (1974-1979). There were "Rockford Files" movies in the 90's with James Garner, some other actors from the series, and a few of the same writers and production people but the writing wasn't as good. After years go by, you can lose the flavor of your own show.

I think what you need is a director and production team who understand the appeal of the show. They don't have to be fans of the show or have any connection to it when it ran but they do have to "get it." Nicholas Meyer directed "Star Trek II," which is probably still the best Star Trek movie. He understood the characters and their relationships and he told a story that pulled from the history within the show with the kind of writing that sounded like an old episode. Old and new fans loved it.

The people who made the "Addams Family" movies of the 90's understood the 60's show. They knew they had to be creepy in a funny and clever way. They turned out to be so well done (and well-cast) that it seemed like someone made those movies thinking, "If the people who did the show in the 60's could do it now, what would that look like?" That's different from a director-writer-producer team just thinking about how to update something from at least two decades ago.

Some shows are products of their time. "Charlie's Angels" was about three female detectives investigating crimes and often in skimpy outfits though it did have a feminist streak to it even then as well, the character Sabrina being more of a management type. I thought the two movies with Drew Barrymore found a way to bring the show into the 21st century in an entertaining way but the TV show from a few years ago drifted too far from the original to be recognizable. It's also tough to sell a western these days.

Jess

quote:

Originally posted by mykdude:

quote:

Originally posted by Tommy C:
Look at all of the retro films and TV shows, from the past 10 years, based on old programs, that flopped:

FILMS: Baywatch, CHiPs, Land of the Lost, Three Stooges, probably others

TV: Knight Rider, Charlie's Angels


The only retro TV shows that have been hits are "Hawaii Five-O" and now "Magnum, PI."

And the only retro movies, the 2 "21 Jump Street" films.

The other problem is they change the classification of the show. Chips and Baywatch may of had plenty of things to poke fun of but they were not comedy's. Land of the Lost was a kids show but took itself seriously, it wasn't about the stupid antics of an actor like Will Ferrell but a family lost in pre-history.

Interestingly the two you mention that were hits stuck to their original mood and premise. Not saying this would have made the other films good but it was what most people were expecting to see.

There was also that Lost in Space movie with Matt LeBlanc from Friends. Who thought that was a good idea ?

Getting back to 2019, Doctor Sleep looks like it needs meds. It's certainly not a hit with roughly $42M worldwide at this point. It may wind up a big loser. I think there are a few reasons why people should have saw this one coming and maybe opted for a short mini-series on cable instead of a film.

First of all, Stephen King stories are generally difficult to translate to the screen, as he can do a lot more in his books, and a lot of his stuff plays well in the imagination, but looks silly when they try to show it. More King adaptations go the way of The Dark Tower, rather than IT.

Second, Ewan McGregor would not be my choice for the adult Danny Torrence. I don't think he can carry the film and he seems miscast to me.

Third, it's a long film, over two and a half hours, which means a lot of time is wasted trying to catch up with The Shining and explain what's going on, but it's still not enough. I think it would have played better as 6 or 8 one hour episodes that are paced to tell you what you need to know, without cramming it in or taking time away from the new material.

Fourth, unlike The Shining which was strictly supernatural horror, Doctor Sleep mixes in a lot of elements that are culled straight out of fantasy stories. Where The Shining seemed original, Doctor Sleep seems like a hybrid copycat, drawing on the first story as well as Carrie and The Fury and all those Harry Potter types. As the reader or viewer, we know where it's headed because we've seen it all before.

Finally, without discussing spoilers, there isn't many laughs in this story even before the baddies come on. It's pretty grim just in the whole Doctor Sleep part without moving on to the main storyline.

For the record I haven't seen the film and will probably wait until it hits video or not even. I did read the book and didn't really care for it, maybe because I was expecting something else and haven't read King in at least the past decade. I understand there are a few differences between the book version and the film version, so not sure if I'd like it more or less.

quote:

Originally posted by Raven:
Getting back to 2019, Doctor Sleep looks like it needs meds. It's certainly not a hit with roughly $42M worldwide at this point. It may wind up a big loser. I think there are a few reasons why people should have saw this one coming and maybe opted for a short mini-series on cable instead of a film.

First of all, Stephen King stories are generally difficult to translate to the screen, as he can do a lot more in his books, and a lot of his stuff plays well in the imagination, but looks silly when they try to show it. More King adaptations go the way of The Dark Tower, rather than IT.

I will probably go see it but judging from the previews I agree it seems to have many layers it is dealing with. The first film (and book) was very straight forward.

I did see Midway this afternoon. Was a little surprised at how full the theater was. Although this is a Military/NASA town.

I liked it in the way I like a John Wayne war picture. Patriotic but shallow on the substance of war. The movie covers a lot of ground and would be a nice introduction to those who have been failed by history class.

It wasn't jacked up like Pearl Harbor and stuck to the basics. By comparison to Emmerich's Independence Day 2, Midway is best picture Oscar.

Looks like Charlie's Angels bombed. Made only 8 million this weekend. Guess no one cared.

I was surprised that Ford v. Ferrari pulled in over 31M and went #1. I suspected Angels would do poorly, but this is a real belly flop. Terminator, Doctor Sleep, Motherless Brooklyn, The Good Liar and Angels are all losers in November.

This has been the year that many (if not most) sequels and franchise films have under performed:

Terminator
Rambo
Charlies Angels
Dark Phoenix (X-Men)
Lego Movie 2
Maleficent
Men in Black
Angry Birds 2
Hellboy
Secret Life of Pets 2

None of them set the box office on fire, and all did much worse than the prior films. I guess people (even kids) are weary of the same old stuff.

quote:

Originally posted by Tommy C:
None of them set the box office on fire, and all did much worse than the prior films. I guess people (even kids) are weary of the same old stuff.

A recognized title won't guarantee an audience if it's not a good movie, except for a select few action films that can still pull in a mass audience regardless. We can argue about it, but to me, recent Star Wars, Jurassic, Marvel and DC related films have not been anywhere near the best. However they open big anyway, sometimes better internationally than even domestically, just because people want to see them and are willing to make excuses for them.

On the other hand, many of the numerous sequels and prequels from lesser Gods are getting hammered in reviews this year and the fan bases have shutdown. It's not that the reviews aren't disserved, but it wouldn't matter if the rabid popularity kept up. That's when "weary of the same old stuff" hits home. When people suddenly admit that this stuff has been garbage for awhile now and the fact that they made money did not make them good films.

My problem with new movies is one thing - the trailers. If they're not flashing a new scene every 1-2 seconds, they're busy NOT telling you what the movie's about.

I'll watch a trailer and have absolutely no idea what the plot of the movie is supposed to be. I guess I'm supposed to go see the movie based solely on who's appearing in it.

This is one of the reasons why movie franchises are so successful. At least when you go see the next franchise installment, you at least have an inkling of what the movie will be about.

I miss the days of movie trailers beginning with, "In a world where..." At least then, I could understand the plot of the movie.

I don't want to pay the price for a first week feature anymore. I usually hear from people I know and trust who have seen a film. My theatre (I live in a town of 30,000 people) has not had a proper update since 1996 so there is nothing super special about going. 1 out of 10 times you have to go tell the staff the sound is not working right. People on their cell phones distracting. I got the regal pass for the summer because there were a number of features my daughter wanted to see. The next film she wants to see on the big screen is nothing. After Last Jedi I am not even excited about the next Star Wars film but since I have seen all of them on the big screen I will buy my ticket.
As a former owner of a comic book store, I have skipped Venom, Captain Marvel, the new Hellboy as well as other comic book films because I just don't care enough anymore.

When you look at what is (or will be) the Top 10 highest domestic grossing films of 2019, it will pretty much all be Disney, Marvel Comics, Star Wars, and 1 DC Comics film (Joker).

I could be wrong, but have there been any films in the last 4-5 years or so that REALLY excited people, that people REALLY waited with great anticipation to see ? Maybe Star Wars VII in 2015, as people waited 32 years to see Luke, Leia, and Han Solo again. Maybe the Avengers movie this year ? But aside from those, I don't think there have been any huge "event" films in recent years. Maybe Top Gun will excite people in 2020.

I remember how people were so excited in 1989 to see BATMAN. Maybe times have changed, or I am dating myself there !

As a result, the big money makers for 2019 are the established audience-- the comic book fans and Disney fans. Nothing else stands a chance of making money. Other franchises like Rambo and Terminator are D.O.A.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: Tommy C,

quote:

Originally posted by Tommy C:
I could be wrong, but have there been any films in the last 4-5 years or so that REALLY excited people, that people REALLY waited with great anticipation to see ? Maybe Star Wars VII in 2015, as people waited 32 years to see Luke, Leia, and Han Solo again. Maybe the Avengers movie this year ? But aside from those, I don't think there have been any huge "event" films in recent years. Maybe Top Gun will excite people in 2020.

I remember how people were so excited in 1989 to see BATMAN. Maybe times have changed, or I am dating myself there !

As a result, the big money makers for 2019 are the established audience-- the comic book fans and Disney fans. Nothing else stands a chance of making money. Other franchises like Rambo and Terminator are D.O.A.

Or is it that the Disney empire right now has some of the best stories to tell? Plus as you stated that Marvel and DC are practically embedded in the DNA of modern audiences. For those of us reading comics back in the 60's through 80's, this is the dream come true. I think a film making industry rolling in overdrive has pretty much destroyed what you refer to as the "Event" film. Just too many content providers to juggle with. I remember when it was common for a big movie to stay in the theater for over a year. I also believe the quick transition from big screen to home viewing kills so much of the impact and wonder of cinema. I recently saw ALIEN in the theater and it was like experiencing it for the first time after years of viewing it on TV.

I can't say much for Rambo, the first film should have followed the book. Terminator just can't seem to find any creative or original way to explore that universe. I still believe there are good stories to tell.

Now with Elizabeth Banks blaming men for the failure of Charlies Angels, audiences have to also deal with whatever PC scene is corrupting Hollywood at the time if certain films bomb. Seems that Banks and Cameron both missed the point that if you have to begin with a premise to somehow prove something then you have already built in a road block to the creative flow of a good story. Especially with titles that have already established the idea years ago.

I have seen a couple of trailers that I am really looking forward to 1917, the new Kingsman and The New Mutants. I had no interest in seeing the new Jumanji as I figured lightning couldn't strike twice. After seeing the previews I have changed my mind. I see Indie stuff that looks pretty good but generally I am not going to fight the hassle of theater going for it.

Movies that I will see simply because I will always be a sucker for the title? Godzilla vs Kong, Bill and Ted, Dune, Marvel and DC. High hopes for Wonder Woman, Black Widow and Morbius. I normally wouldn't give the new Candyman film a second thought but Jordan Peele has won me over.

And of course we have EVEN more Grudge, Bad Boys, Fast and Furious, Mulan, Legally Blonde, Top Gun, Ghostbusters, Mulan AND Halloween coming.

Plus James Bond 25 (No Time to Die) coming in April. Wonder how that will do ?

Probably do well, as it's been 5 years since the last one.

I predict that Top Gun will be a big hit next summer. Paramount definitely needs a winner. The studio had so many flops in 2019. Its biggest hit was ROCKETMAN, the Elton John movie, which so far has been only the 25th highest grossing movie of the year. Someone should be fired !

quote:

Originally posted by mykdude:
Now with Elizabeth Banks blaming men for the failure of Charlies Angels, audiences have to also deal with whatever PC scene is corrupting Hollywood at the time if certain films bomb.

Banks was blaming sexism for the failure of Charlie's Angels shortly before it even opened, getting a jump on it I guess.

The argument doesn't hold water. Even assuming that a majority of men don't want to see the revamped Angels because they are somehow offended, wouldn't a majority of women want to see the film because they are empowered to be more than pretty faces? That's not my opinion, I'm just trying to follow the logic.

There have always been some movies that just by the subject matter appealed to one sex more than the other. I'm sure Ford v. Ferrari appeals to men more than it does women, but it still scared up 31M. If all the women who don't want to see that went to Charlie's Angels instead, wouldn't it have made an equal or greater sum? Are we not dealing with roughly half the population either way?

Fact is, not enough men or women went to see Charlie's Angels and it bombed. Maybe it's not any worse than a lot of movies, but there is no demand. Just like we have some card sets that are quite good, but still no one wants them. It's easier to claim to be a victim of something that is beyond your control than to say you miscalculated and misread public demand or maybe miscast or didn't adequately promote the film you made.

I read a review of "Charlie's Angels" that pointed out it didn't have any big action scenes. The McG-directed movies of 15-20 years ago gave the audience exaggerated fight scenes and explosions leaning toward comedy rather than the drama of the original show. Drew Barrymore was one of the Angels in those films but she was also one of the producers as is the case with Elizabeth Banks, and if I recall correctly, Barrymore was the one with the vision of what the movie would be. She wanted to be playful with premise of the 70's show but the story was going to be about three women taking care of business.

I can understand Elizabeth Banks not wanting to try to match or outdo McG's action scenes nor wanting to try to be as funny or playful than Barrymore's vision but don't go in a different direction, fail to attract a large audience, and then insult the people who stayed away. The review noted that most of the weekend's audiences were women and most of them didn't like it.

quote:

Originally posted by Tommy C:
Looks like Charlie's Angels bombed. Made only 8 million this weekend. Guess no one cared.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: catskilleagle,

Lets also not forget the simple concept that remakes, reboots or upgrades to a past film are a major gamble. Many "can't lose" titles crash and burn. By 2019 even the McG type action flick has been over done and is no guarantee of success.

Personally, the previews did absolutely nothing for me. If a trailer fails that is not a very good sign.

This weekend we have opening among lesser films, Frozen 2, A Lovely Day in the Neighborhood and 21 Bridges.

I think we all know Frozen 2 should be the big winner, so I don't know why the studios put anything against it. Nevertheless they did and it has to hurt these two films.

21 Bridges is a an actioner and as such it doesn't look too bad in previews. I hope it finds the audience that isn't taking the family, but it really hasn't gotten much promotion. It would have been better to see it in the August or September period, like when Angel Has Fallen opened. It may get lost here.

Neighborhood, aka Mr. Rogers, I'm not sure about at all. I didn't grow up watching him, so have no fond memories. His personal life seems to be just like his show, meaning this is not some sort of scandal story. A wonderful man, a wonderful life, and I'm not sure how many people care to see that as a movie.

I could be wrong, I wouldn't want to see it, but as I said I have no stake in it. Plus Tom Hanks has never been a favorite of mine since his movie choices changed drastically years and years ago. Anyway, putting it up against Frozen 2 seems self destructive and unnecessary if you want a hit.

With regard to all of these recent big disappointments, maybe people are just tired of angry folks with guns, both women (Terminator, Charlies Angels) and men (Rambo)

Just a theory.