When I went to the cinema once over the holidays, one of my friends noticed a strange trend – every poster we passed could be dismissed as ‘remake/reboot’, ‘adaptation’ or ‘sequel’, with very few exceptions. John Carter from Mars, Conan, Jane Eyre, Green Lantern, Thor, X-men: First Class, Harry Potter – everywhere you looked, things that you’d seen before. This is not necessarily a bad thing in moderation, but over the last couple of years there has been a slightly disturbing trend for what is essentially unoriginal material. The reasons for this present themselves easily: in a recession, people are choosier about what they spend their money on, and in a world of quick DVD releases and easily downloadable online content the expensive and time-consuming ‘full cinema experience’ is a luxury that nobody is too worried about sacrificing. Still, people will always go to the cinema for something they really want to see, something that they think will be a uniting cultural event, or alternatively something that they just don’t want to get spoiled by friends or reviews. And what kind of film are punters excited by? Well, one that they already know.
This is over-simplified of course, but logically the more a person knows about a film then the more excited (or at least interested) they’ll be in going to see it. In a world with dozens of releases every couple of weeks, one film really has to stand out and assure the viewers that they’ll get value for their money. Certainly, a dedicated marketing campaign helps bridge this difficulty, but it’s far easier and less time-consuming to tap into these ‘existing audiences’. These adaptations, remakes and sequels are seemingly ‘less risky’ than an altogether new idea. A Hobbit fan who hates the idea of an adaptation would still want to go and see it, even if to only satisfy their curiosity.
It’s an exaggeration to say that all films coming out these days are unoriginal (Avatar, the highest-grossing film in cinematic history is an original concept), and of course just because a film is a remake or adaptation doesn’t mean it’s a bad film – just look at the critically praised Tinker, Tailor, Soldier, Spy, which is both a remake (of the BBC series) and an adaptation. To complain of ‘built-in’ audiences may also seem naive – people have always flocked to the latest release of their favourite star or director while knowing nothing about the film in question. Is this any different? Perhaps technically not, but I find this dearth of original content somewhat depressing. Spider-man was rebooted less than five years after the release of the last in the series, remaking films that did not warrant remaking – yes, the third was a little uneven, but overall the series was successful in presenting the mythos and character of the comic. This reboot lays bare the cynicism and greedy mentality of the studio system, stripping away any illusion that there was a motivation to make this film aside from profit. No matter how good the film is, or any other remakes for that matter, it is symbolic of the distasteful culture of profit over art that cheapens cinema.
When I went to the cinema once over the holidays, one of my friends noticed a strange trend – every poster we passed could be dismissed as ‘remake/reboot’, ‘adaptation’ or ‘sequel’, with very few exceptions. John Carter from Mars, Conan, Jane Eyre, Green Lantern, Thor, X-men: First Class, Harry Potter – everywhere you looked, things that you’d seen before. This is not necessarily a bad thing in moderation, but over the last couple of years there has been a slightly disturbing trend for what is essentially unoriginal material. The reasons for this present themselves easily: in a recession, people are choosier about what they spend their money on, and in a world of quick DVD releases and easily downloadable online content the expensive and time-consuming ‘full cinema experience’ is a luxury that nobody is too worried about sacrificing. Still, people will always go to the cinema for something they really want to see, something that they think will be a uniting cultural event, or alternatively something that they just don’t want to get spoiled by friends or reviews. And what kind of film are punters excited by? Well, one that they already know.
This is over-simplified of course, but logically the more a person knows about a film then the more excited (or at least interested) they’ll be in going to see it. In a world with dozens of releases every couple of weeks, one film really has to stand out and assure the viewers that they’ll get value for their money. Certainly, a dedicated marketing campaign helps bridge this difficulty, but it’s far easier and less time-consuming to tap into these ‘existing audiences’. These adaptations, remakes and sequels are seemingly ‘less risky’ than an altogether new idea. A Hobbit fan who hates the idea of an adaptation would still want to go and see it, even if to only satisfy their curiosity.
It’s an exaggeration to say that all films coming out these days are unoriginal (Avatar, the highest-grossing film in cinematic history is an original concept), and of course just because a film is a remake or adaptation doesn’t mean it’s a bad film – just look at the critically praised Tinker, Tailor, Soldier, Spy, which is both a remake (of the BBC series) and an adaptation. To complain of ‘built-in’ audiences may also seem naive – people have always flocked to the latest release of their favourite star or director while knowing nothing about the film in question. Is this any different? Perhaps technically not, but I find this dearth of original content somewhat depressing. Spider-man was rebooted less than five years after the release of the last in the series, remaking films that did not warrant remaking – yes, the third was a little uneven, but overall the series was successful in presenting the mythos and character of the comic. This reboot lays bare the cynicism and greedy mentality of the studio system, stripping away any illusion that there was a motivation to make this film aside from profit. No matter how good the film is, or any other remakes for that matter, it is symbolic of the distasteful culture of profit over art that cheapens cinema.
