MovieChat Forums > Total Recall (2012) Discussion > Why are studios still doing it?

Why are studios still doing it?

posted 9 years ago by gogoschka-1
3 replies | jump to latest

This might be slightly off topic, but I just don't get it. Even after the Ex3 disaster, the trailer for 'Terminator: Genisys' has PG-13 written all all-over. After every attempt to tame down franchises that originated in R-rated films have resulted in "products" that were clearly underperforming at the box office - why are studios still doing it?

My best guess is, studios keep making them that way because they just can't figure out WHY they're not successful. Hollywood is now being run by marketing people; they've analized every successful movie of the last 15 years, so they are now SURE they KNOW how to make a movie profitable. It's a winning strategy! It HAS to be because their analysis clearly indicates that the most successful films all were PG-13. It's just not LOGICAL that these wonderful, fun new versions of 'Expendables', 'Terminator' and 'Total Recall' and 'Robocop' and 'Die Hard' keep failing (could it be sabotage? It must be!).

The problem is, those marketing dudes just don't understand concepts like creativity, originality or the appeal of unexpectedness in film. And apparently, they also don't get that a PG-13 doesn't suit all kinds of material. As long as they're too thick to get just what made the original versions of all those films above so much exciting fun and so successful, they will keep failing. And I think it's just not in their DNA to understand the creative aspect of film.

So they stick to their mantra (PG-13, PG-13, PG-13) while experimenting with casts and scripts and directors. If you look at the trailer for 'Terminator: Genisys', it's striking how it desperately tries to incorporate EVERYTHING polls have shown to be popular among fans:
Bring Arnold back - check.
Bring back T-1000 - check.
See how Kyle Reese gets sent back in time - check.
Bring back the favorite catch phrases from the first two films - check.
Make it appeal to a younger audience (Emilia Clarke, Jay Courtney, PG-13 rating) - check
The corporate logic: "Surely - NOW they must like it," - it's almost as if a machine was trying to figure out how human taste works -"...we've put everything in it that they love!"

Sadly, as long as studios don't get that you first need a story worth telling (instead of a brainstorming among marketing dudes) as the basis for your film, they will keep ruining those once great "brands" and franchises. Yet as the on-going "golden age of TV" proves, there are many immensly talented writers out there and people who have a creative vision. So how about trying to make the new films about quality AND box office (instead of failing at the box office because the quality didn't matter).

A sure way to start to do that would be trying to find a good script by one of those talented writers, instead of hiring writers who have to work with a check-list from the marketing department that tells them what to include in the story (and when) and what not to. Of course, the new versions should be as bad-ass and exciting as the originals - and they should be able to bring something to the table that we haven't seen before. Otherwise - why make them? Just to see the latest special effects? Or to show how well Sly and Arnold and Bruce have aged?

I would very much like to see a new Terminator movie. But not one made for teenagers with a T-800 that's called "pops", looks like Santa Claus, raises orphans and flies through the air like a cheap Superhero imitation.

[–] ehpr 9 years ago

I think the studios always did it. When you invest that much money it's not to create art but to make more money. Nobody really knows the secret sauce to make a film a success at the box office and that's good.

I have to agree with you that a lot of film nowadays seem to think great cgi is all that is needed to make a good film. But script and story are everything in my opinion. Without that you have an empty shell.

The big miss in Total Recall 2012 is the lack of humor. They tried to make it more realistic and it could have been interesting if the script was not an unimaginative rehash of the first film. Everything they changed was for the worse. It's as if the 1990 version was perfect, there was many possibilities to improve the story.

[–] gogoschka-1 9 years ago

But script and story are everything in my opinion. Without that you have an empty shell.

That is exactly it. And even if they have (and sometimes film) a very good story, before they release it everything that could harm the film's chances for mass appeal gets cut out or left out of the script, and what you end up with is the empty shell you mentioned, consisting of (sometimes spectacular) action scenes and flat, cardboard-like characters that leave you entirely cold.

[–] avortac 8 years ago

"I think the studios always did it."

Always? Even before they existed? Did they do them with the first 10 movies ever made? How could they?

What do you mean by 'it', and what do you mean by 'always'? Without a clear definition of these words, your statement couldn't be less true.

" When you invest that much money it's not to create art but to make more money."

I know you use the word 'you' as a passive here, but in reality, that 'you' should only mean a very small amount of people - those, who ONLY care about money.

Regular people care about other things, and for a true human being, money is just a sidenote to get the actually desired / wanted things done / realised / created.

What kind of a corporate-greedy logic is that anyway? (Interestingly, Total Recall was originally showing us the exact message that corporate greed is wrong and insane)

So if you have a small amount of money to invest, you can create art. But suddenly, magically, if the amount rises, you stop wanting to create art, and instead, just want more money.

How does that work? Do you think Tesla Motors would exist, if that was the case?

Why can't, and what stops people from investing 'that much money' to create art? Is it some kind of Cosmic Rule that every living thing must obey, that if you invest 'that much money', you can only have 'more money' as the goal, not anything to do with creating things (like art, for example)?

Where did you dig that statement out of? I wouldn't want to be too creative with the answer, now..

" Nobody really knows the secret sauce to make a film a success at the box office and that's good.
"

Films are not food.

There's no 'secret sauce'.

And everyone knows how to make movie good. Except people who fund movies / make decisions in hollyweird.

Look, it's not hard to see why certain movies are universally liked (I am deliberately avoiding your money-conscious focus, and not talk about 'box office success' - besides, aren't most offices shaped like a box anyway? I think we need some outside-box thinking here...)

If you look at movie classics that are universally loved, we usually see a few things in common. These things include:

- Exciting idea (Time travel / robots / space exploration / reality, etc.)
- Good and interesting story
- Told in an interesting, entertaining way
- Good atmosphere / 'feel' (hardest to explain, but 1980s movies often have it)
- Good acting performances
- Genuine attempt at doing something great
- Real passion for the project (from the director and actors at least)
- Desire to get the movie made (not because of money, but because of faith
in the movie needing to be made, and its premise/idea/story/etc.)
- Good script
- Sympathetic actors
- Something unexpected (not necessarily a tired 'plot twist')
- Uniqueness
- Originality

When the motivation is something more elevated than just the greedy lust for 'more moolah' so the demons of mammon could be served, then the 'goodness' can come out and shine.

If you look at movies like Back to the Future, The Terminator (1984), Alien, Robocop, Ferris Bueller's Day Off, Ghostbusters, Fletch, Innerspace or WarGames, you can easily see how at least most of those things are clearly a factor in making those movies.

But when you then glance at most of the modern movies, you can see how those things are missing.

Modern movies have these things:

- Famous actors (chosen for their popularity and appeal to target audiences)
- Gloomy, colorless, dark visuals (I never understood, why THIS became a thing)
- Tired rehash of an old idea, in slightly different packaging
- Told in a boring, monotonous way
- Ridiculous, unrealistic gimmicks that are sure to 'draw the audience'
- Endless pop-culture references and 'funny' one-liners
- Injected romance
- Calculated 'points' that are supposed to make it a financial success
- Aim for 'money', and sacrifice of anything else that gets in the way
- Lots of explosions or gore (or both)
- Bland / predictable / storyless / ridiculous story
- Agenda
- Political Correctness
- Misandry, so much misandry

In case of 'reboot' movies (or 'remakes', or whatever they should be called)..

- All the possible superficial crap from the originals they can cram in
(including one-liners, and other references)
- Without any of the ingenuity or originality or fun of the originals
- Confusion about whether it's a sequel or a complete remake

It's easy to make a good movie even with a smaller budget, but it doesn't mean that a bigger budget somehow DICTATES that you have to stop thinking about the movie in any other regard except how to make more money.

All you need is good story, good actors, then tell that story in an interesting way - and even if the visuals are lacking and effects are terrible and cameras are of bad quality and there are lots of obvious goofs - your movie will be a success. And I don't mean 'financial' success, but a 'Cosmic' one.

Back to the Future will always be remembered, regardless of its box office income. Long after all the money it 'made' has been completely eradicated from this planet (at least the exact bills and coins), somewhere in the Universe will still remember 'Back to the Future', a great movie from Terra's history.

When your aim is only money, it's not going to be a wonder that your movie is going to be a failure (even if it is a 'box office success'). No one will remember the movies made in 2015 or 2016 after their 'box office success/failure' has stopped being a topic of conversation, but just the name 'Ferris Bueller' still make people smile.

That is real success. And that's what should be the focus - just make good movies, regardless of the money it will bring you.

Heck, I'd do such a project without hesitation if I had the resources, even if I knew 100% sure that I won't get even 0.1 cents back from what I spent to making the movie, because in my opinion, and to me, the honor, the ability, and the privilege to be able to create a great movie is reward enough.

But not for hollyweird.. or the poster I am replying to, apparently.