James Absolon explains how this Pope-themed film, despite its risky premise, works
Alex Pollard reviews Hollywood's biopic of the controversial Margaret Thatcher
It looks like the Chinese may have got it wrong; 2011 is not the Year of the Rabbit but the Year of the Remake. It is undeniable that Hollywood is a business and thus financial success is one of its goals, some would say its sole goal. For decades now Hollywood has realised the value – with respect to financial profits – of sequels, remakes and increasingly reboots of already accepted franchises and classics. Yet it seems that they have taken this money-making scheme to a new and almost preposterous level.
Despite the recent financial success of original and critically-acclaimed films such as Inception and The King’s Speech, Hollywood has realised now more than ever that it’s far cheaper for them to avoid original ideas wherever possible and either reboot old franchises, remake previous classics or continue an already established film through yet another sequel. The fact of the matter is a remake, reboot or sequel is a “safe” project for Hollywood studios. They have an already established fan base, the script need not be completely re-written and more importantly, they are practically effortless to market. As the marketing for big budget films alone can easily cost up to $100 million, economically at least this strategy is sound.
Nonetheless when details of a deal for a series of remakes, sequels and reboots for 2011 and 2012 were announced by Harvey and Bob Weinstein, a collective groan from Hollywood critics and film lovers all over the world could be heard. And it is not surprising when the list for intended films is reviewed. Not only do film lovers have to deal with the customary sequels of Pirates of the Caribbean 4, Shrek 4 and the last instalment of the Harry Potter films, but they also have to endure the regurgitated, hackneyed concepts in another addition to the Bourne films, Shakespeare in Love 2, The Hangover 2, Sherlock Holmes 2, Centre of the Earth 2 and Happy Feet 2.
Yet if you think the idea of Shakespeare in Love 2 – insisted by the Weinsteins to be “better than 90% of the films out there” – is bad enough, wait until you hear about the reboots expected to hit your cinema screens over the next two years. From The Fantastic Four Reborn to Ghostbusters, Gremlins, Planet of the Apes (again), Robocop and – one that is guaranteed to cause more than a few eye brows to raise if they have not been raised already – Police Academy, it looks as if Hollywood is going ‘80s franchise crazy.
Glancing over the above list, it is quite likely that the majority of reactions will not be dissimilar. In fact, Tippi Hedren sums up most film critics’ responses in her astounded public statement against the remake of the classic Alfred Hitchcock film Birds in which she starred, when she said “why would you do that? Why? I mean, can’t [Hollywood] find new stories, new things to do?” And it is not just Hedren that is bewildered by Hollywood’s sudden burst of enthusiasm for flogging dead horses. Matt Damon categorically refuses to take part in another Bourne film, calling the next film ‘Bourne Redundancy’; Bill Murray declines to get involved with the reboot of Ghostbusters and original Gremlins director Joe Dante has previously expressed his fear of the remake of the ‘80s classic.
Nevertheless, Hollywood is disinclined to acquiesce the critics request. For as long as the public continue to pay to see half-baked, rake-ups from the past, these remakes and sequels will continue to make money. And as long as these unoriginal films continue to make money, why should Hollywood not continue to support their production?
You must log in to submit a comment.
