Can This Really Be Classified As a Remake?

[RealBronco]

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1155076/

The character's name are different, meaning they're different people. This is merely a sequel or a movie with a similar story line trying to bank off the original franchise...

[McSmashie]

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1155076/

The character's name are different, meaning they're different people. This is merely a sequel or a movie with a similar story line trying to bank off the original franchise...

How about cheap knock-off?

Or box office disaster?

[RealBronco]

it will fail. and horribly. no one wants this to be made. no one wants most of these remakes to be made, but hollywood never listens. hollywood is its own world and economy and government, they don't care what their prospective victi--i mean viewers think.

i mean look at the drivel they've been churning out over the past few years.

i think everyone who green-lit that damn Chihuahua movie should be drug into the streets and tarred and feathered. what a waste of money... and yet somehow it made #1 at the box office 2 weeks in a row and it was up against supposedly good movies.

this only leaves one thing left:

you are all to blame America.... you go see this crap in the first place, which gives Hollywood the false reality that Americans actually like their horrible ideas. And then you flock to the theaters to see a campy remake of who knows what...

Hollywood just makes me sick, and the people who go out and watch its crap like cattle or lemmings makes me even more sick.

[LordTrychon]

I blame RB for writing about it. It gives them the false sense of interest.

[McSmashie]

i think everyone who green-lit that damn Chihuahua movie should be drug into the streets and tarred and feathered. what a waste of money... and yet somehow it made #1 at the box office 2 weeks in a row and it was up against supposedly good movies.

Hollywood is out to make money. If they made a $10 million dog money that makes $50 million at the box office, well.....CHA-CHING!

But for ever 15 of those, there is one Cinderella Man that cant scratch up a dime at the box office.

That is why they do it.

The nature of American entertainment. Reduce everything to the low possible denominator and sell the crap out of it.

Look at all the reality shows. And American Idol. They arent creating real musicians, just looking for whoever they can sell the most records of. It is about what is marketable, not good.

[ebsoria]

Hollywood is out to make money. If they made a $10 million dog money that makes $50 million at the box office, well.....CHA-CHING!

But for ever 15 of those, there is one Cinderella Man that cant scratch up a dime at the box office.

That is why they do it.

The nature of American entertainment. Reduce everything to the low possible denominator and sell the crap out of it.

Look at all the reality shows. And American Idol. They arent creating real musicians, just looking for whoever they can sell the most records of. It is about what is marketable, not good.

How 'bout Waterworld?? Or Eddie Murphy's crapfest(I can't even remember the name)?!?!?! Both considered worthy of being called worst ever box office draws.

[jetrazor74]

How 'bout Waterworld?? Or Eddie Murphy's crapfest(I can't even remember the name)?!?!?! Both considered worthy of being called worst ever box office draws.

Actually Waterworld did better than average at the box office. It just cost so much to make that it lost money in the end. I can't remember the numbers, but say a cheap piece of crap movie cost 5 million to make, but then pulls in 15 million at the box office. It's considered a success, despite being a box office flop.

Now take a movie like Waterworld. Cost 100 million (or something) to make, but made 80 million (or something) at the box office. It's considered a failure, despite doing very well at the box office.

Please don't quote me on the numbers. I remember seeing them at one time and wondering why it's always called a flop, despite it's decent box office numbers.

Subsequently, it's always had a terrible rep, despite being a moderately decent action flick.

[RealBronco]

Actually Waterworld did better than average at the box office. It just cost so much to make that it lost money in the end. I can't remember the numbers, but say a cheap piece of crap movie cost 5 million to make, but then pulls in 15 million at the box office. It's considered a success, despite being a box office flop.

Now take a movie like Waterworld. Cost 100 million (or something) to make, but made 80 million (or something) at the box office. It's considered a failure, despite doing very well at the box office.

Please don't quote me on the numbers. I remember seeing them at one time and wondering why it's always called a flop, despite it's decent box office numbers.

Subsequently, it's always had a terrible rep, despite being a moderately decent action flick.

you were close Jet. Waterworld had a $175 mil. budget and only made $88 mil. back.

yeah it's a sad world. good movies fail and horrible movies prosper.

but WHY do people go see crap?