disturbing trend?

POSTED BY: est120
UPDATED: Wednesday, July 14, 2004 21:43
VIEWED: 11818
PAGE 4 of 5

PREV PAGE 1 2 3 4 5 NEXT PAGE

INSIGHT SPINNER

Monday, July 12, 2004 3:58 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Ankhagogo:
Quote:
Originally posted by est120:
just a short list of released, rumored or confirmed "remakes":

Batman and Superman have been around forever, so they're exempt from my theory. Bewitched is as well.
Alot of the stuff listed isn't baby boomer stuff. It's Gen X, mid-70s -80s stuff. Everyone I know watched GI Joe, Spiderman, Speed Racer cartoons when we were younger,and let's not forget Justice League (Wonder Twin powers, activate!), and Scooby-Do, of course. If you sit through all the credits on both Spiderman movies, you get to hear a whole version of the cartoon theme song, actually, besides the fact that it's actually sung by people in the movies.
There's also the Hulk tv show and Starsky & Hutch,which everyone I know watched. Honestly,I don't know a single baby boomer who knows what Assault on Precinct 13 or Akira is (and WHY does Akira need to be remade?), though I'm sure there are some.
Willy Wonka as well is more a Gen X thing,the fact that it was a book first notwithstanding.
Plus, if you check out toys lately, you'll see that He-man, Transformers, and Strawberry Shortcake have all made a comeback.
I think there's two reasons for this - the marketing people have realized that a large chunk of Gen X now has kids, and is indirectly marketing to the parents through the kids (He-Man? I played with He-Man! My kids'll love it!), while directly marketing with stuff like Speed Racer movies.
Second - with movies, I suspect there are Gen-Xers pitching the ideas, and they're the ones gettin' a bit nostalgic. Frankly, I'm expecting an A-Team or Dukes of Hazzard movie any day now.

"You two are the two who are the two! I'm the other one!"

I beg to differ. The Baby Boom started post WWII, so most people point to the children born in the late 40s and early 50s as boomers. In fact, the Baby Boom continued until the early 1960s, '62 comes to mind, but I would have to look up the year. The largest cohort in the Baby Boom consists of those of us born in 1957. You guessed it -- that's my year. People always leave us out of the equation because there is a romantic fascination with the leading edge of the baby boom, as ther should be, because they are quintessential boomers born out of the prosperity of our returned heros-- yada, yada.

So what you state as Gen X is actually a blend with tail-o-the-boom. I already claimed several in my post above, and you mention several others above (speed racer, scooby-do, GI Joe, spidey cartoon, Willy Wonka (can't wait to see Johnny do this -- oh yeah!!) I would consider squarely part of the boomer past -- these are shows I tracked with my 1954-born brother. Not that this matters much (except to late boomers like myself). The point is that both generations are old enough to toss down the nostalgia dollars.

Sometimes it pays to be a young boomer and a demographer

insight spinner
__________

Just an object. It doesn't mean what you think....

ARGONAUTIKA

Monday, July 12, 2004 5:58 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Ankhagogo:

I think there's two reasons for this - the marketing people have realized that a large chunk of Gen X now has kids, and is indirectly marketing to the parents through the kids (He-Man? I played with He-Man! My kids'll love it!), while directly marketing with stuff like Speed Racer movies.
Second - with movies, I suspect there are Gen-Xers pitching the ideas, and they're the ones gettin' a bit nostalgic. Frankly, I'm expecting an A-Team or Dukes of Hazzard movie any day now.

I agree with you that it is very much the Gen X adults marketing the retro 80's pop culture franchises at the adult Gen X audience. They do have children now and those that don't want to relive a bit of their childhoods as the start to go through thier midlife crisis. It works with the toys, the movies and right on down to the comic books. I never dreamed I would see comic books for GI Joe, Transformers, Thundercats, or Battle of the Planets but they are all out there and each has a pretty good following. Is it a bad trend. No. It's a money making one. Isn't the phrase, "what goes around comes around"? Does that apply to cultural trends? GI Joe alone has been around forever. And every so decade or two he goes through a remolding. When my grandfather was a child GI Joe was a 12 inch action figure. When I was a kid he was 4.5 inches tall and now he's both to satisfy both markets. The question is not what a terrible trend this is but more to the point, when the current generation is my age and older, what pop culture craze will come back for their children to experience? In trying to look toward the future it is hard to imagine what will be the next My Little Pony or Care Bears. Will it be Bratz? Or will our society have to fall back on the Japanese icons of today like Yu-Gi-Oh and Gundam? It is interesting to think about. I am hoping for the tin robots and ray guns from the fifties. Bring back the simpler time.

I'm done rambling. Until my muse strikes me upside the head again with a big ol soapbox stick.

Jason

STICKS

Monday, July 12, 2004 9:29 AM

what about all the recent horror remakes, hollywood cant leave anything alone.

for example "texas chaisaw massacre" bigger budget lesser scares( if any)

dawn of the dead (2004) more like "yawn of the dead".

ringu(original japenese title) american version "the ring" the only decent thing in the remake was the scene with the horse.

and now the recent rumour is... a remake of "halloween"

hollywood/studios stop with the awful remakes and the soddin aimed at teens horror aka watered down horror.
ok thats my rant over.

ANOTHERFIREFLYFAN

Monday, July 12, 2004 3:05 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by howdyrockerbaby1:
Quote:
Originally posted by VearsTwin:

Charlie and the Chocolate Factory is directed by the same person who directed Edward Scissorshands. Which is one of the best movies 90's!!!

Tim Burton is bloody brilliant. Tim Burton and Johnny Depp together (yet again) even better!

Don't forget Danny Elfman! Musical genius.

Keep flying

FREAKYSINS

Monday, July 12, 2004 4:17 PM

Of the recent surge of remakes, I have to agree that it's more than likely not a creative choice, but a financial one, and that's pretty dismaying.

As far as the comics-to-movies surge, I'd say it has a great deal to do with how far special effects have come in the last 10 years or so. Comic-book superheroes are more difficult to make realistic-looking than, say, spaceships. With the advent of CGI technology, suddenly not only can powers be displayed vividly and believably, but entire characters can be rendered. Hulk can be FRIGGING HUGE and interact realistically whith his surroundings. Spiderman can fling himself effortlessly hither and thither and it looks like it's a stunt man doing some waaaaay incredible shit. I mean look at Godzilla (I know, not comic-book, but still...), I thought the actual creature in the movie looked awesome... he just didn't have a script that was worth a damn or decent direction .

Three cheers, I say. I'm glad as hell that my favorite comic book characters are appearing on the big screen.

Peace

FS

JACKSUSERNAME

Monday, July 12, 2004 5:18 PM

I think it'll be a trend til a lot of them start bombing or people just lose interest. Hollywood works off whatever else is working, so when X-Men was successful, many of the companies that already owned liscences got working on putting those to use.

Lets also not forget Blade...I think that broke the trend before X-men.

Anyways, just like the trend with historical/mythical epics right now.

Troy / King Arthur/ and now Alexander is coming out soon.

I'm hoping the trend dies down soon, I want some more originality in the biz.

CYBERSNARK

Monday, July 12, 2004 6:40 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by est120:
gi joe

Bwuh? Hadn't heard of this.

Though, you did miss the 80s remake I'm getting excited about: Transformers.

Yes, Hollywood movers & shakers are currently in talks about a live-action/CGI Transformers G1 movie. I'm hoping for John Goodman as Sparkplug.

Tough really, with the Beast Era, RiD, and Armada, Transformers never really stopped being cool. . .

-----
We applied the cortical electrodes but were unable to get a neural reaction from either patient.

EST120

Monday, July 12, 2004 6:51 PM

Quote:
Bwuh? Hadn't heard of this.

it is mostly a rumor, i think. check it out at this website.

http://www.cinescape.com/0/editorial.asp?obj_id=38424&aff_id=0&this_ca
t=Development+Heck

Quote:

Though, you did miss the 80s remake I'm getting excited about: Transformers.

Yes, Hollywood movers & shakers are currently in talks about a live-action/CGI Transformers G1 movie. I'm hoping for John Goodman as Sparkplug.

Tough really, with the Beast Era, RiD, and Armada, Transformers never really stopped being cool. . .

-----
We applied the cortical electrodes but were unable to get a neural reaction from either patient.

i did hear about this. i hope they do it with some good CGI. that would be pretty neat to see. there is a transformers playstation game that is supposed to be pretty cool, so that may be sparking more interest. i hope they use the characters from the original series. they were the best, although many of them perished in the movie.

"i can't comprehend the ways that i miss you, they come to light in my mistakes."
-neko case

KELLAINA

Tuesday, July 13, 2004 5:37 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by SouthernMerc:
est120 wrote:
Quote:
as i understand it, there is a dukes of hazzard movie in the works with a 2006 release date.

Yes, and this chills me to my very core, as it has been foretold in the Holy Apocalypse as the final sign of the undoing of the Dark One's prison. Weep for the future.

That's not the worst part... Daisy Duke is going to be played by none other than Jessica Simpson.

Why do all singers think they can act? Or rather, that they should act?

But on to the topic at hand...

I think part of the problem is that there is a perception that if a movie doesn't have a big opening weekend then it is automatically a failure. So studios have been trying to find ways to guarantee an audience and the easiest way is to give the audience something they know they'll like. We don't need to wait to read the reviews or hear what other people have thought of a movie if it's Starsky and Hutch or The Stepford Wives. We already know what it's about and whether we'll waste the 10 bucks to see it.

Anyway, that's just my 2 cents.

ANKHAGOGO

Wednesday, July 14, 2004 6:39 PM

Quote:
I beg to differ. The Baby Boom started post WWII...the largest cohort in the Baby Boom consists of those of us born in 1957. You guessed it -- that's my year. People always leave us out of the equation because there is a romantic fascination with the leading edge of the baby boom, as ther should be, because they are quintessential boomers born out of the prosperity of our returned heros-- yada, yada.
So what you state as Gen X is actually a blend with tail-o-the-boom. I already claimed several in my post above, and you mention several others above I would consider squarely part of the boomer past -- these are shows I tracked with my 1954-born brother. Not that this matters much (except to late boomers like myself).

Oh, I'm not gonna argue that "late boomers" get left out, because my friends and I have had discussions about that very thing, but we have also come to the conclusion that "late boomers" is not a good name for them. No,we don't have a better one, but they are a sandwich generation and therefore have big parts of two others, which makes them totally neither one. I will accept you saying the stuff I listed are part of the late boomer demographic, but I still think there needs to be a better designation for that group.
And don't even get me STARTED on the whole "18-35" demographic. I'm 35. What makes marketing people think that I'm going to be interested in the same things as most 18 year olds are? Are they insane? My favourite example is something I read calling "The OC" the most popular show in the 18-35 year old demographic. I don't know a single soul over the age of 22 who watches The OC (and yes, I do know 22 year old people. ) They need to divide that up a bit; say 16 or 17-22, then 23 to like 35.
Yes, I'm a micro managing freak, and this was not really meant to be a rant.
It just turned into one.
Sorry.

"You two are the two who are the two! I'm the other one!"

PREV PAGE 1 2 3 4 5 NEXT PAGE