Hollywood is ripping off Alfred Hitchcock's Rear Window

ravaged_warrior · Post by **ravaged_warrior** » Sat Jan 20, 2007 11:20 am

Well, it was bad enough when they were just making terrible, dumbed-downed remaking hordes of classics, but now I'd say they've gone too far. They've given it a new name and made a few changes, but I think anyone who reads the plot summary will recognize where the important stuff came from right away, granted that they've seen/heard of Rear Window.

Terastas · Post by **Terastas** » Sat Jan 20, 2007 1:48 pm

Switch his broken leg with house arrest, his nurse with his mother, and upgrade Lars from murderer to cereal killer (IE: make it dumber and more blatant), and yes, it is indeed an exact remake.

And it's because of this absolute void of originality in Hollywood that I'm convinced Freeborn will be a hit.

Kaebora · Post by **Kaebora** » Sat Jan 20, 2007 2:51 pm

Did they attempt to remake The Birds, or North by Northwest yet? If not, bravo. These movies are so classic, you can't touch them. Its just as absurd as remaking Wizard of Oz.

Teh_DarkJokerWolf · Post by **Teh_DarkJokerWolf** » Sat Jan 20, 2007 2:57 pm

Well they did make a birds 2..I couldn't force myself to watch it

Terastas · Post by **Terastas** » Sun Jan 21, 2007 11:05 am

Kaebora wrote:Its just as absurd as remaking Wizard of Oz.

That's what everyone said about Charlie & The Chocolate Factory. Trust me, they'll get around to Oz eventually.

Kaebora · Post by **Kaebora** » Sun Jan 21, 2007 3:04 pm

The new C&TCF movie was an insult to the original. I will be very angry if OZ is remade. It would be merely an excuse to make money.

Fenrir · Post by **Fenrir** » Sun Jan 21, 2007 6:16 pm

Isn't this the one were the guy gets pushed out of the window?

Fang · Post by **Fang** » Sun Jan 21, 2007 7:47 pm

Are you gfuys talking about the Hitcher?

Terastas · Post by **Terastas** » Sun Jan 21, 2007 8:14 pm

Fenrir wrote:Isn't this the one were the guy gets pushed out of the window?

At the end, yes. I had to watch Rear Window for a film class, and I remember when he was falling, that was the only time the movie looked really cheap and dated so the entire class burst out laughing.

Ink · Post by **Ink** » Mon Jan 22, 2007 12:21 am

Hollywood is a rip-off; that's how they make money.

That's why I like going to the see a production... At least I'm paying large groups of live somebody to busting their bottoms for a good production.

Or watching earlier movies... like Sahara (1943) or anything with Humphrey Bogart in it. Good ole Bogart! Plus my lavish love for fantastic westerns - like Open Range and Oh My Darling Clementine!

Ah! My heart be still for actual acting!

ravaged_warrior · Post by **ravaged_warrior** » Mon Jan 22, 2007 12:40 am

Ah, yes, the classics. It's amazing how such original films can produce such derivative garbage in the long run...

You know, I've always wanted to see a stage play. I'd like to see a Shakespeare, or perhaps Little House of Horrors. Damn, I wish I could see Little House of Horrors, it was one of the older remakes that showed that a remake didn't HAVE to be unimaginative... Okay, technically it wasn't a remake, but it comes close. It's amazing to see how the newer remakes take an original film and turn it into dumb, made-for-teens crap when you get older remakes like House of Wax '53, The Thing '82, The Blob '88, and Little Shop of Horrors '86 that in many ways would IMPROVE on the original.

Well, I went off track there, but I'm going to say this: I totally agree about Hollywood and early films, Ink.

Ink · Post by **Ink** » Mon Jan 22, 2007 4:07 pm

I used to live with a Shakespeare addict. I like the stories - but I'm not obsessive.

No matter what I do I have to go to plays - but I am 45 minutes from Broadway when I'm at university. It's a by proxy sort of thing - there's no excuse not to living so close.

If you ever get a chance - go see one, it's worth it.

Terastas · Post by **Terastas** » Tue Jan 23, 2007 12:05 am

Ink wrote:Hollywood is a rip-off; that's how they make money.

Some people claim there are only five kinds of movies:

1) Character vs. Character
2) Character vs. Society
3) Character vs. Self
4) Character vs. Nature
5) Character vs. Fate

Others would go even further and claim that there are only two:

1) Fish out of Water.
2) The Jesus Story.

I think that's the mentality that allows Hollywood to just produce crappy remake after crappy remake over and over again. There's no story that hasn't been told, so they produce crappy remakes of books, old movies and celebrity biographies because those are cheaper.

Ink · Post by **Ink** » Tue Jan 23, 2007 1:21 am

Terastas wrote:
Ink wrote:Hollywood is a rip-off; that's how they make money.
Some people claim there are only five kinds of movies:
...
Others would go even further and claim that there are only two:
...
I think that's the mentality that allows Hollywood to just produce crappy remake after crappy remake over and over again. There's no story that hasn't been told, so they produce crappy remakes of books, old movies and celebrity biographies because those are cheaper.

You can take conflicts and put them into genres and specify them until they are an iota big. Or we can super-generalize them until there isn't much room but for Something Vs. Something (which Hollywood, I believe, has flung themselves into).

Some movies coming out of Hollywood, honestly, have no conflict. It's $9.99 for six hours of your life that you will never get back. Ever.

Other's have a multitude of plot work, interior conflicts, and a madness that stretches into 'between the lines' kind of stuff.

The fact remains that Hollywood investors these days (independent and contractual) chain Hollywood to a safety network that will bring in the bucks. Their narrow minded belief, which you've probably illustrated, will probably keep them rich though.

All morality set aside, why does everyone think the Dakota Fanning rape scene was such a momentary scandal? Such content terrified investors away (as reported). It's about the popularity of a subject that will allow investors to at least break even - that's their safety net - and when you're filling budgets as big as these guys do, it's a frightening festivity to make sure you will break even and have some butter left over for everybody who pooled into the pot.

I do think there's a definite lack of trust with the expectation of story conflict. So you are very right, at least in my mind, pointing out that it's cheaper in the long run for Hollywood to make remakes.

Though, I hope it kicks them in the a**... even if it's a safe move on Hollywood's part to somehow maintain some integrity.

Terastas · Post by **Terastas** » Tue Jan 23, 2007 9:56 am

Exactly. Don't get me wrong, I'm not justifying Hollywood's complete lack of originality. I'm just trying to explain how they justify it.