Pictured: Hollywood.
Why do we keep remaking things?
Not to sound like my Dad right now - a man who will really only watch movies that: 1) have dead actors; 2) or are about a historical event (preferably from the turn of the 20th century through the late 1960s); and 3) definitely do not involve Nicolas Cage or Sean Penn (though he did warm to Sean Penn's portrayal of David Kleinfeld in Carlito's Way) - but why do we keep remaking things?
And why do we let John Leguizamo be in them?
I just saw the trailer for The Girl With The Dragon Tattoo ("TGWTDT"). For those that don't know, this is the filmed adaptation of Stieg Larsson's very popular posthumously-published book of the same name (translated from the Swedish ("Man som hatar kvinnor") it means, "Men Who Hate Women." No joke there.).
It is also a remake.
See, the Swedes already made a movie adaptation of this book back in 2009, and it was pretty damn popular. It was like a Swedish blockbuster, if you can imagine such a thing!
Oh, I can imagine it alright....
It made a ton of money (or kroner, I guess), and had a pretty good international release to boot. So, despite the Swedes making the whole trilogy (the last one was just released, in fact) into movies and raking in the kroner, what does America do? Do we let them have their entry into psychological thriller-dom? Do we sit idly by and accept that Scandinavians might have something to offer the rape-revenge genre of movies other than the US and Korea?
Nope. We buy the rights, and remake that shit.
And here it is:
If you can't see it, it is likely that Youtube took it down for copyright infringement reasons. It looked like it was bootlegged in a theater anyway, but I will say that those iPhones sure have upped the quality of former in-theater bootleggings.
Now, this version of TGWTDT does have some things that make it appealing:
- Daniel "I'm obviously not gay, I'm James Bond" Craig as the investigative journalist hero.
- Relative unknown (unless you saw The Social Network, the remake of A Nightmare on Elm Street from 2010, or some show called Women's Murder Club...which, with a name like that, should be remade) Rooney Mara as the dragon-tattooed lesbian/not lesbian/tough-as-nails-yet-shy-and-vulnerable computer hacker main character.
- David Fincher at the helm.
- Steve Zaillian writing the screenplay. Here's hoping it turns out better than Jack the Bear.
- That title sequence and Trent Reznor cover of The Immigrant Song which makes it look more like Se7en than The Curious Case of Benjamin Button.
Pictured: Scandinavian irony. Not pictured: Vikings.
Further, The Immigrant Song itself was written and performed by a band of notorious pillagers: Led Zeppelin. If you had a song laying around in the 1970s you better lock it up because Page and Plant and going to snatch it, remake it into a hit, and snort the proceeds faster than you can say, "I'm a fan of traditional American blues music."
"Plagiarism never tasted so sweet." - Jimmy Page
But all that aside...Hollywood is remaking a movie that's two years old. Two years! That is simply not long enough before you jump into remake territory. It smacks of two things Hollywood has long been known for:
- the naked cash-grab;
- a sense of entitlement
Examples? Gladly:
1. THE NAKED CASH GRAB -
Harrison Ford's expression says, "I know you're mad, but there's nothing I can do. Did you see that divorce settlement I got slapped with?"
I know it's easy to take jabs at George Lucas, but seriously - he's been nakedly grabbing cash off this franchise for a generation.
Some cash-grabs are more smash-and-grabs, but they are naked, nonetheless.
2. A SENSE OF ENTITLEMENT -
When actors decide to direct and have success (regardless of how overly-lauded that film was in reality (read: Braveheart)), sometimes they take their already inflated egos too far...by making an entire film in maya yucateco - a language spoken only in the Yucatan peninsula - that is enjoyed by no one.
Other times, actors choose to direct a project that is so near and dear to them, that they quite literally become the character. Kevin Spacey is a great actor, sure, but you can't decide to make a Bobby Darin movie, direct it, star in it, sing all the songs, and then actually GO ON TOUR with a full orchestra to sing the forgotten songs of Bobby Darin! And you wonder why you haven't seen Kevin Spacey in any movies lately.
And then sometimes one's own hubris becomes so all-encompassing that you believe that the public "must" have the last chapter to your saga. But you are wrong, notwithstanding Robert Duvall's absence. See also Back to the Future, Part 3 (1990); The Two Jakes (1990); Ghostbusters II (1989).
So, while it may make no sense that Hollywood is hell-bent on remaking a very popular and very recent movie, it is not surprising. Remember, Hollywood is the same place that convinced you Tom Cruise can act and that you really do like Cameron Diaz.
You do not like them together, however.
Hollywood will go back to the well as often as they can, so long as it means butts in the seats, money in the bank, and cocaine on the credenza.
Surely you saw that coming?
Even back in the day Hollywood was doing this. Now, some of that was due to the whole silent picture/talking picture revolution, but it came from the same idea: dolla dolla bill, y'all. There were multiple versions of The Wizard of Oz (1925, 1939), The Maltese Falcon (1931, 1941), and Ben-Hur (1925, 1959). Hell, Alfred Hitchcock damn near remade all of his silent movies as talkies once the technology was around. It was as if he got Hollywood to pay him for practicing movie-making.
So, while it's nothing new (get it?), it is disappointing. Not disappointing in an existential "there's-no-new-stories-to-tell-because-we're-living-the-same-life-cycle-over-and-over" or Nietzschean "eternal return" sort of way, but disappointing in that Hollywood is not attempting to try to create something new. Taking a common story and changing the characters, the setting, or the manner in which it is told is fine. In fact, it's what the art of storytelling is, right? But just lifting the same source material that was capably made into a hit movie by foreigners that already had all the trappings of an American action movie is just disappointing.
I guess I can understand the trend in Hollywood to reboot. This is the word they use to describe the process of taking a series that has been ridden so hard and putten away so wet (is that even a phrase?) that the only way they can get any more cash out of it is to start all over. The series is barren, so they must breathe new life into it from scratch. They had to, you see, for the ART! You've seen this happen to:
Batman
- In 1989, the first real cinematic attempt at getting Batman to the screen was a HUGE success (despite Tim Burton obviously never having read one single page of the comic book). A decent sequel followed. Two more were ordered. A new director takes over. All hell breaks loose and we are left with two awfully different Batmen (Batmans?) that are differently awful, the worst in costume design and art direction, and not one marquee actor cashing checks with their god-awful villainous one-liners but FOUR. Not to mention Alicia Silverstone. It is almost incomprehensible how that fourth one got made.
Alicia Silverstone - graduate of the Keanu Reeves School for Acting (1992, summa cum laude; B.F.A. in "Reactions").
- The reboot - Christopher Nolan takes over, hits reset with Batman Begins, takes a more serious tone (despite the addition of terrible female leads), and now people can't wait to see the third and final film. This is an example of rebooting that can work. They made a mint on the back of the bat, not once, but twice!
- Although it seems that reboots work best for superheroes, that's not dispositive. Just check out A Nightmare on Elm Street, the Halloweens, or the Screams. I sense a trend there.
- Anyway, Superman finally hit the big screen way back in 1978. This was a long time coming, too. It was huge! Flying Christopher Reeve, script by Mario "The Godfather, yeah that Godfather" Puzo, music by John Williams, and Marlon f-ing Brando! They knew it was such a bank-breaker that director Richard Donner was shooting the sequel at the same time. Superman was headed for the big screen!
- Like all good franchises, the Christopher Reeve Superman quickly went downhill. Superman III (which I seem to remember being played endlessly on HBO in the 1980s) had Robert Vaughn as a great villain, but the studio added Richard Pryor for comic relief (and to capitalize on the success of The Toy, maybe? or did he have some community service to do?). Now, I'm not some die-hard Superman nerd over here, but let's just say Pryor was a little out of place:
"My hat's too big." - Richard Pryor
- Then, the death knell was sounded with Superman IV: The Quest for Peace, where Superman fought a poor man's Dolph Lundgren (Mark Pillow as "Nuclear Man") on the moon. Awful.
Maybe more Harry Hamlin than Dolph Lundgren.
- The reboot: after many (like many - including one by Tim Burton and Kevin Smith starring Nicolas Cage (my Dad would HATE that!) that is hilariously recounted at the above link) attempts to get Supes back to the big screen, Warner Bros. decided to hand it over to Bryan Singer. At this point, he had had a little success with The Usual Suspects and the X-Men franchise (another example of these trends, in itself). The result was a no-name Superman in a forgettable movie. Well done.
- Either way, you're glad you didn't see that Tim Burton one get made:
Like, really glad.
And this rebooting trend is continuing. It's as if this is the new plan for Hollywood - take what the public already loves and sell it back to them, because times have changed and this product really needs to be updated so we can play on nostalgia for the original while introducing the same old thing to a new generation, paving the way for a third reboot 5 years from now!
Some reboots in the works:
- Total Recall - but this time with Colin Farrell. As if the plot wasn't confusing enough, now you've got Mumbles McGillicutty to watch for 2 hours.
- Teen Wolf - MTV is turning this into a TV show. Why? Were all the best elements of the story not mined in the 186 minutes that make up Teen Wolf and Teen Wolf Too?
- The Amazing Spider-Man - again, with the superheroes. The last entry in this series was 4 years ago. They've taken the Batman reboot doctrine and sped up the timeline considerably.
- Judge Dredd - maybe this one is ok. Judge Dredd might be an interesting character, but I think the stigma of the Sly Stallone/Rob Schneider shitstorm of 1995 is still looming.
- Footloose - because Hollywood hates your memories. Directed by Craig Brewer of Hustle and Flow fame.
But it's not like they have a complete lack of conscience, right?
Not pictured: restraint.
