Chef Jim Posted October 23, 2009 Posted October 23, 2009 We've bagged on Hollywood for years (and I've lead the charge) that they suck and have run out of ideas. But if you think about it very few original ideas have ever come out of Hollywood. Look at some of the classics: Gone with the Wind...from a book, Wizard of Oz.....from a book, Grapes of Wrath...from a Book, Casablanca......from a book, Dracula....from a play based on a book, All Quiet on the Western Fron.....from a book. And these are just off the top of my head.
RayFinkle Posted October 23, 2009 Posted October 23, 2009 Delving back to Dallas is no surprise since "Melrose Place" or one of those effing shows was remade. I don't even know if that's still on. The new Melrose Place didn't stand a chance without Johnny Chase.
Acantha Posted October 23, 2009 Posted October 23, 2009 We've bagged on Hollywood for years (and I've lead the charge) that they suck and have run out of ideas. But if you think about it very few original ideas have ever come out of Hollywood. Look at some of the classics: Gone with the Wind...from a book, Wizard of Oz.....from a book, Grapes of Wrath...from a Book, Casablanca......from a book, Dracula....from a play based on a book, All Quiet on the Western Fron.....from a book. And these are just off the top of my head. Authors today suck!
Cugalabanza Posted October 23, 2009 Posted October 23, 2009 We've bagged on Hollywood for years (and I've lead the charge) that they suck and have run out of ideas. But if you think about it very few original ideas have ever come out of Hollywood. Look at some of the classics: Gone with the Wind...from a book, Wizard of Oz.....from a book, Grapes of Wrath...from a Book, Casablanca......from a book, Dracula....from a play based on a book, All Quiet on the Western Fron.....from a book. And these are just off the top of my head. I believe Casablanca was an original screenplay. Again, it's not that writers are running out of ideas. It's that douchey executives won't greenlight anything that isn't a pre-packaged cliché.
Chef Jim Posted October 23, 2009 Posted October 23, 2009 I believe Casablanca was an original screenplay. Again, it's not that writers are running out of ideas. It's that douchey executives won't greenlight anything that isn't a pre-packaged cliché. Based on Everyone Comes to Ricks an unpublished play so I guess you could say a screenplay.
WellDressed Posted October 23, 2009 Posted October 23, 2009 next week's episode: Who Stole J.R.'s Walker??
WellDressed Posted October 23, 2009 Posted October 23, 2009 Why bother coming up with creative, intelligent ideas when the public is always willing to lap up any recycled crap that is put on the screen? I don't see a lot of 'new ideas' on this list: Top grossing movies for 2009 in the USA Gross..........Movie 399,416,040 Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen (2009) 294,258,075 Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince (2009) 289,639,811 Up (2009) 270,237,753 The Hangover (2009) 256,673,273 Star Trek (2009) 198,255,437 Monsters vs Aliens (2009) 193,250,211 Ice Age: Dawn of the Dinosaurs (2009) 179,863,544 X-Men Origins: Wolverine (2009) 176,461,908 Night at the Museum: Battle of the Smithsonian (2009) 160,154,402 The Proposal (2009) I haven't seen any of these films. Hangover gets a BD/DVD release in early December though
Chef Jim Posted October 23, 2009 Posted October 23, 2009 It seems that today if you told a director to come up with a movie that had zero special effects they'd come back 20 minutes later with: "Sorry, man, I got nuthin'"
Steely Dan Posted October 23, 2009 Posted October 23, 2009 We've bagged on Hollywood for years (and I've lead the charge) that they suck and have run out of ideas. But if you think about it very few original ideas have ever come out of Hollywood. Look at some of the classics: Gone with the Wind...from a book, Wizard of Oz.....from a book, Grapes of Wrath...from a Book, Casablanca......from a book, Dracula....from a play based on a book, All Quiet on the Western Fron.....from a book. And these are just off the top of my head. Movies based on books, IMO, are original ideas because the author had an original idea.
Chef Jim Posted October 23, 2009 Posted October 23, 2009 Movies based on books, IMO, are original ideas because the author had an original idea.
John Adams Posted October 23, 2009 Posted October 23, 2009 Reality TV and remakes are big money makers. You don't need a writer and you don't pay a big star and you don't pay much for sets. Even if the ratings aren't great and the advertisers aren't top notch, the operating costs are so low that these shows are profit-centers. It's not an indictment of the writers. There are plenty of great writers. And there are some spectacularly-written shows now. You need to leave the networks for some of them but shows like Mad Men and many of the HBO and Showtime dramas are excellent.
Chef Jim Posted October 23, 2009 Posted October 23, 2009 Reality TV and remakes are big money makers. You don't need a writer and you don't pay a big star and you don't pay much for sets. Even if the ratings aren't great and the advertisers aren't top notch, the operating costs are so low that these shows are profit-centers. It's not an indictment of the writers. There are plenty of great writers. And there are some spectacularly-written shows now. You need to leave the networks for some of them but shows like Mad Men and many of the HBO and Showtime dramas are excellent. HBO and Showtime.....hmmmm, I have to pay extra for them right? No thanks. Now if they could just swap out HBO and Showtime with the 138 channels I don't watch either because I don't care about their content (QVC????) or don't speak the !@#$ing language that they broadcast in I might consider. But until then....nah.
Fezmid Posted October 23, 2009 Posted October 23, 2009 with the 138 channels I don't watch either because I don't care about their content (QVC????) Keeping shopping channels like QVC actually REDUCES your bill, as those stations pay the cable/sat companies to air them. So don't complain about it, and enjoy the fact that millions of people actually watch and spend their money on those channels for some reason.
Acantha Posted October 23, 2009 Posted October 23, 2009 Keeping shopping channels like QVC actually REDUCES your bill, as those stations pay the cable/sat companies to air them. So don't complain about it, and enjoy the fact that millions of people actually watch and spend their money on those channels for some reason. I bet if they had an "a la carte" billing service, I would save money only paying for the 15-20 channels that I ever watch (maybe 10 with any regularity). QVC and the like may benefit the current system, but that doesn't mean a better system couldn't be had.
Fezmid Posted October 23, 2009 Posted October 23, 2009 I bet if they had an "a la carte" billing service, I would save money only paying for the 15-20 channels that I ever watch (maybe 10 with any regularity). QVC and the like may benefit the current system, but that doesn't mean a better system couldn't be had. If they had an "a la carte" billing service, there probably wouldn't be 15-20 channels left.
Acantha Posted October 23, 2009 Posted October 23, 2009 If they had an "a la carte" billing service, there probably wouldn't be 15-20 channels left. Why?
Fezmid Posted October 23, 2009 Posted October 23, 2009 Why? Most networks would not receive enough viewers to be profitable. How many people do you think are going to pay for Game Show Network or SpikeTV, for example? Not enough to survive, I'd bet. In addition, costs for the popular channels would end up rising - because they're now getting money only from those who subscribe to their network, not from everyone who subscribes to cable/sat in general. Read this article - it explains it better than I can. http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/24/business...;pagewanted=all Take, for instance, ESPN, which charges the highest amount of any cable network: $3 per subscriber per month. (I'm borrowing this example from a recent research note by Craig Moffett, the Sanford C. Bernstein cable analyst.) Suppose in an à la carte world, 25 percent of the nation's cable subscribers take ESPN. If that were the case, the network would have to charge each subscriber not $3, but $12 a month to keep its revenue the same. (And don't forget: with its $1.1 billion annual bill to the National Football League alone, ESPN is hardly in a position to tolerate declining revenues.)
John Adams Posted October 23, 2009 Posted October 23, 2009 HBO and Showtime.....hmmmm, I have to pay extra for them right? No thanks. Now if they could just swap out HBO and Showtime with the 138 channels I don't watch either because I don't care about their content (QVC????) or don't speak the !@#$ing language that they broadcast in I might consider. But until then....nah. I watch about 9 shows. 6 of them are 12 show series on one of those stations. True Blood Curb Your Enthusiasm Mad Men Tudors Dexter Lost (I've just invested so much time...even though it's not that good anymore, I'm sticking with it) American Idol (a show the whole family enjoys together...hard to watch Dexter with a 7 year old) ... Hmm, running out of shows. Maybe that's it. Used to have Meet the Press in there but I lost interest post Tim.
Just Jack Posted October 24, 2009 Posted October 24, 2009 I also want to see Zombieland, but I'm not going to try to defend that one. I just like zombies and this movie looks fun to me. I saw Zombieland a few weeks ago - it was extremely funny. Go watch it, you won't be disappointed. I Saw Zombieland, I enjoy zombie movies and this one was definitely a fun ride and was pretty damn funny, although nothing can beat George Romero's zombie movies (Night of the Living Dead, Dawn of the Dead). I saw it also, go see it, it's worth it. Don't forget Family Guy getting canceled and then coming back because Fox didn't realize how great it was. Here's the first scene when it came back where Peter is naming all the shows Fox had cancelled since they went off the air.
Recommended Posts