Are Audiences Tired of Remakes & 3D Movies?

Published 4 years ago by , Updated August 24th, 2011 at 8:20 pm,

3D Movies Remakes Discussion Are Audiences Tired of Remakes & 3D Movies?

When you’re immersed in the movie business as deeply as we movie bloggers are, it can be hard to stay in tune with the shifting attitudes and opinions of the general movie going public. Of course it’s also hard getting an accurate reading on public opinion because, frankly, the attitudes of the public are often finicky and unpredictable.

So in that sense, it’s easy to understand why sometimes it’s hard not to be skeptical when movie fans complain about trends in cinema – sometimes they are voicing legitimate concerns or objections – other times, people are just parroting a popular buzz word or phrase that has taken on a certain connotation. A perfect example of this is the word “remake” and its current dirty-word connotation in the movie fan community.

Movie remakes are nothing new (Siskel and Ebert were complaining about them way back in 1976), but since the world economy has become a battlefield of increasing uncertainty, Hollywood has tried to wrestle some sense of security and certainty from the jaws of chaos, by focusing on movies that feature familiar titles and brands. The theory is that fan nostalgia is its own brand of effective marketing – though that theory is getting more and more questionable with each new movie season.

As stated, “remake” has become something of a dirty word, these days. Doesn’t matter if upset fans are using the word in proper context or not, since connotation often overrides the legitimacy of logic and accuracy. Case in point: David Fincher’s upcoming adaptation of The Girl With The Dragon Tattoo, which is continuously bemoaned for being an “Americanized remake,” even though it is NOT a remake of the Swedish film by Niels Arden Oplev, but rather its own, separate, interpretation of author Steig Larsson’s bestselling novel. Though Fincher’s film looks to have great potential (check out the hip teaser trailer), there is already a certain negative perception of it, since it’s thought of (incorrectly) as ‘just another stupid Hollywood remake.’

Movie Remakes Discussion Are Audiences Tired of Remakes & 3D Movies?

Another dirty word that is currently being tossed around by movie fans, is “3D.” Director James Cameron dragged the stereoscopic format out of obscurity with his revolutionary movie Avatar, and he hoped (at least for awhile) that the bar he set for the use of 3D would be the high standard amongst Hollywood’s creative visionaries. What we’ve mainly gotten instead is a return to the use of 3D as a cheap gimmick (Clash of the Titans, Alice In Wonderland, Green Lantern), with few notable exceptions (Transformers 3, Final Destination 5) and even fewer 100%  enjoyable 3D movie experiences (….um, can you think of an example?).

Here’s the thing about buzz words, though: it’s often hard to tell when people have a legitimate gripe with the topic being referenced, or if that buzz word/phrase is simply the issue du jour to complain about. Despite the objections that instantly crop up when people hear the words “remake” and/or “3D” mentioned in conjunction with a new movie, it’s hard to know which films fans will ultimately avoid and which they will embrace. (This question looms large over upcoming films like Romancing The StoneShort CircuitDirty Dancing, Shark Night 3D, Underworld: Awakening 3D, A Very Harold & Kumar 3D Christmas.) Strange as it seems (sarcasm), sometimes, a movie fans have complained about at great length still manages to make a disgusting amount of money (the “Transformers Paradox”).

However, recently two 3D remakes – Fright Night and Conan The Barbarian – had the distinct advantage of being the only major new releases in the later summer lineup – and both 3D remakes fell flat on their faces at the box office.

conan barbarian fright night tv spot Are Audiences Tired of Remakes & 3D Movies?

Two very different 3D remakes, both box office flops.

Now don’t get me wrong: no one was expecting these two films to be major money-raking blockbuster hits. Fright Night is a remake of a campy ’80s movie that didn’t do well at the box office back in the ’80s, but found second life as a cult-classic on home video – while Conan The Barbarian is a movie that did alright at the box office, but really gained second life as a cult-classic Schwarzenegger flick. It’s not like either film had much of a bankable nostalgia factor to coast on, and as of right now, the Fright Night remake has earned a staggeringly bad worldwide gross of just $8 million (against a $30 million budget), while the new Conan is limping around with $16 million in pocket (against a bafflingly-high $90 million budget). Suffice to say: both films are flops.

The question at hand is: Are movie fans doing more than just reciting buzz words now? Are they truly tiring of high-priced 3D gimmicks and rehashed remakes to the point that they’re making a clear and distinct statement with their wallets? We won’t mention any names, but we’ve been hearing increasing word from the Hollywood sector that seems to indicate as much – and the box office numbers are there to analyze and interpret, for anybody curious. You may be surprised at how much these 3D films aren’t making.

In our Fright Night review we deemed the movie to be one of the few worthwhile remakes, even if the 3D wasn’t necessary; our Conan The Barbarian review deemed that movie to be wholly unnecessary on all fronts. So there was a difference in the quality of the respective films, in our opinion: one deserved viewers’ ticket money, the other didn’t. But both failed to draw an audience.

3D Movie Slogan Are Audiences Tired of Remakes & 3D Movies?

Maybe it was the subject matter (vampires are a worn out trend, too) or the ineffectiveness of the marketing (nothing in the trailers or TV spots for either film was particularly enticing). But maybe, just maybe, it’s simply the case that audiences are tired of seeing movies they’ve already seen before (and still remember fondly). Maybe audiences are also tired of being forced to pay considerably more for an often unsatisfying effect gimmick. As much as I enjoyed the film, my $17 Fright Night 3D experience would’ve been better as a $10 2D experience.

We now pose the question to you guys: Let us you know where you currently stand in regards to the issue of movie remakes and 3D. Who knows, maybe somebody in Hollywood will actually listen to what it is you have to say…

Image Sources: Header Image courtesy of EZ Mode Unlocked; Movie Remakes image courtesy of Red Carpet Refs

Get our free email alerts on the topics and author of this article:


Post a Comment

GravatarWant to change your avatar?
Go to and upload your own (we'll wait)!

 Rules: No profanity or personal attacks.
 Use a valid email address or risk being banned from commenting.

If your comment doesn't show up immediately, it may have been flagged for moderation. Please try refreshing the page first, then drop us a note and we'll retrieve it. Keep in mind that we do not allow external links in the comments.

  1. I also think the surprise failure of both films is demographic itself. But perhaps with the top two films being only in 2D- one being aimed at the female section of the populace- I also wondered if there is something to it.

    As for Fright Night, I thought the 3D was worth it…but the 2D version had one showing only (about noon) and all the rest were in 3D at times which were more flexible in the schedule. I can’t say the same for other folks.

    We’ll know something’s up for sure this weekend when Don’t Be Afraid Of The Dark opens.

  2. Bottom line is too many movies are just boilerplate. Regardless of remake or 3D, generations get older and tired of them. Movie makers keep churning them out because there’s always a newer younger crowd they can regurgitate on.

  3. Yes, audiences are tired of 3D movies and remakes. While some original films are on tap (YES!), the overflow of un-original crap has definitely had it’s effect. Among the backlash and negative response, audiences are voting with their wallets. Like the 3D fad, we can only hope that it doesn’t last and some actual original ideas make their way to the big screen.

  4. As long as the remakes are good I don’t mind remakes ore reboots or sequels or any of that.

    3D however is just useless. It’s nothing but a crap gimmick that takes more away from the experience and your wallet than it adds. As long as I have a 3D and a 2D option I can deal with it. If a movie comes a long that is 3D only that I want to see I’ll just skip it and wait for the DVD. Luckily that’s never happened yet.

  5. Also my personal feelings aside I don’t think it’s a matter of audiences being tired of either. I think it’s more a matter of they simply were not interested.

    Most people I knew thought Conan looked bad or mediocre to begin with. The original wasn’t a huge hit to begin with.

    Fright Night is essentially the same thing. The first film was pretty much a flop as well and only made money on DVD which could be the case for this one as well. The advertising also wasn’t exactly great. Movie looked ok at best and it was really only the names of the people involved that held my interest and a lot of people I knows interest.

    I think it’s less about 3D and Less about Remakes and more about people simply not being interested in these two films. Doesn’t help that Conan wasn’t great and while Fright Night has great reviews the original isn’t exactly a classic in the same sense that Star Wars is. It has a small cult following and I mean very small. The original was basically a failure in theaters and the advertising sucks. If people like it it may hold over well, but with the weak opening it won’t save it. However, if it’s good it could play out like most good films that flop in the box office it could end up with a solid take on DVD and Blu Ray.

    A famous film maker once said that DVD sales is where the money is. He said a lot more films lose money during their box office run than you think, but that DVD sales are mostly all profit because they cost so much, lots of people buy them, and the theater release took care of the most of the budget typically.

  6. Which Conan the Barbarian made more money Arnolds in the 80s or this one?

  7. By the way Arnolds did open #1.

    • You’re right pawn65 – after accounting for inflation the original would’ve opened much better than this one, but still at a loss.

      I’ve re-worded the post to be more accurate. Thanks.

    • That’s only because it had no competition worth mentioning it’s opening weekend. It still wasn’t a hit and made very little cash even accounting for inflation.

    • But that was in the 80’s when everyone popped a huge boner for action flicks. This day and age, people (everyone I know anyway) care more for the story and characters than how many people get stabbed or blown up.

      And so many action movies with big special effects have come out in the last 10 years that you have to offer something other than special effects to sell a crowd. Conan obviously didn’t do that, and neither did Fright Night.

      I personally enjoyed the Fright Night remake, but that could be because it’s good to see someone give Vampire’s their balls back, you know, after Stephanie Meyer unceremoniously cut them off in “Twilight.”

  8. I love remakes as long as they reinvent and reimagine the original works. If its entertaining then I’m all for it. 3D isn’t bad either as long as it is done correctly. That’s why I always check the reviews for 3D before I see it (especially after I got screwed over with airbender; that movie blew even without the 3d).

    What I hate is how the studios are trying to profit from franchise by making 5 sequels or more to everything. The movies end up sucking after that long. Just stick to the trilogy structure and give us movies we’ll love forever.
    I’m tired of waiting for the stories to my favorite movies to come to an end.

  9. Most remakes are usually worthless wastes of celluloid. However, one example of an excellent remake does stand out, and that is John Carpenter’s The Thing, a superb movie! I could also give an honorable mention to the Donald Sutherland version of Invasion of the Body-Snatchers, which had several good moments. And I am hoping Don’t Be Afraid of the Dark will give me a couple minor chilling moments. That’s about it of all the ones I can think of off the top of my head right now.

    • Goldilocks you seem to have a thing for Horror lol. I can’t agree or disagree with you I’m not a fan of horror so didn’t really care for the films I’m not exactly unbias on it though.

      For me examples of great remakes would be movies like True Gritt or 3:10 To Yuma. I don’t dislike or like remakes in general I dislike bad movies and like good movies. If they are good that’s all that matters to me. As long as they are more like True Grit in quality and less like Psycho in quality lol that was one of the worst remakes ever.

  10. Honestly I don’t even understand the complaint of to many remakes. There really havn’t been some huge amount of them. There are more remakes in the pipeline either being made or being considered than there have been actually made recently. We get like what one remake every other year? Some times one each year. That’s hardly a huge amount. Same goes for reboots. People talk like they are sick of these things, but they don’t happen as much as we allow our selves to believe.

    I think the biggest problem is here on the net we see every film being talked about or considered so to us there are too many reboots and remakes. However, very few of them actually happen so the general public IMO doesn’t really see it all that often.

  11. I’m tired of 3d, mainly because it’s mostly a gimmick (especially after seeing the mind blowing 3D shows at Universal Studios Hollywood). Avatar had great 3d, but it feels like most other movies are trying to leave off it’s success. And speaking of Avatar: despite being a critical and financial success as well as not really being based on any previous franchise (remake, book adaption, sequel), it is THE movie that people gnash their teeth at and b**** ad nauseum about as being a rehash (i have barley been able to mention to liking that movie without getting the third degree). And yet it did well. But what can Hollywood do? Ideas and concepts obviously run thin after 100 years of cinema.

    • That’s because Avatar in general was nothing but a visual spectacle with poor acting and a very unoriginal rip off story. It was a very visually stunning Pocahontas. Of course that’s just my opinion.

      It made lots of money for the same reason most movies that makes lots of money do. It was a brainless movie that had cool effects. transformers makes money hand over fist but the films are not good they just have good CGI and big explosions.

      • case in point…

  12. I have been a movie for many years, all kinds of movies, and I don’t think most people have a problem with some remakes in general if done well and not too frequently(like they are now). I think the main reasons for the ever decreasing movie attendance, especially for SCI-FI, is the extreme overuse of CGI(with poor story/character content), the “3D gimmick”(simply to increase profits), ever increasing ticket prices, lack of original movie concepts, too many sequels, and of course new at home media options(DVD, Big Screen TV/high tech sound systems). I love SCi-FI but hate the gross overuse of CGI instead of more live-action characters. Over-bearing CGI/special effects dimishes the movie experience(such as “2012” and Conan). Why buy tickets for 90 minutes of nothing but special effects? Re-think moive making!

    • I disagree. Most people in my experience love CGI. Heavy CGI films are the top grossing films these years. No matter how bad the film is IE Transformers they make lots of money if they have lots of big CGI special effects. I do see a link with CGI and low attendance.

      I agree with you on 3D I think it does hurt tickets but CGI is a boost to sales not a negative. At least for the average movie goer.

    • I agree with Daniel.

      Its not that CGI is being overused, it’s the simple fact that movie makers can’t rely on it anymore to carry a film. It was a great gimmick and the “new thing” but CGI is now so mainstream that we movie watchers are once more demanding a REAL story to go with those FX.

  13. more observation – Hollywood movie concepts have become much too “star driven” and “demographically influenced.” Instead of just trying to make “good movies” with wide demographic appeal, they seem target every film at a specific demographic group(usually 18-35 year olds, children, by “star appeal,” all women or all men). By disecting audiences like that you eliminate everyone who does not fit into a specific category, and limit ticket sales to one demographic. Brilliant marketing!

  14. I dont mind the remakes, if they are in need of them or if there done right but 3D gots to go already. Drop the 3D already.

  15. Reboots, remakes and the like CAN be worthwhile but they should be done sparingly. There is absolutely no need to remake or reboot something if the original movie was good and the FX still work.

    The two examples cited; Conan and Fright Night are excellent for comparing.

    Fright Night – The original is still good and highly entertaining even today so imho a remake was a mistake. Re-imagining it as a more dark version is just not enough to justify another version.

    Conan – I can still watch the original and be entertained by it but it does show its age. This was one movie that could have worked IF it was done correctly but alas it was not. It needed the right actor, a brilliant script up to date FX and to do what the original did not…….follow the Conan from the books. While it did manage to succeed at achieving some of those goals, it had to match ALL of them to pull it off. You can’t just toss some cool looking CG monsters and FX at us and expect us all to flock to see it! That worked 15 years ago when CGI was just getting started but we now want MORE, the whole package. If you can’t manage to have both a stellar script to go with those visuals you might as well not bother.

    With any hope Hollywood might be catching a clue that remaking a known title isn’t as safe as they once thought. They just need to hire some Execs who have the vision and balls to see a good script and make it into a movie.

  16. Why theatres offer you both 3d and 2d screenings, you still have the choice to choose if u don’t want to pay extra for just extra gimmicks, but in some other countries you don’t have these choice as the theatres have started to convert their screens and all going digital ; so if let say transformers 3 is being played you only get to see in 3d even u don’t want which IMO is a total ripoff

  17. Why theatres offer you both 3d and 2d screenings, you still have the choice to choose if u don’t want to pay extra for just extra gimmicks, but in some other countries you don’t have these choice as the theatres have started to convert their screens and all going digital ; so if let say transformers 3 is being played you only get to see in 3d even u don’t want it you still have to go for the 3d

  18. Fright Night isn’t even out in the UK (I didn’t even know it was in 3D!). I expect it to do quite well as people will be wanting to see how David Tennant copes in a Hollywood movie.
    I think the main reason this failed in the States is because it wasn’t released over Halloween. Talk about stupid release dates!

    • Ditto.

  19. It’s a matter of “does it need to be?”

    Dance movies – do they need to be in 3D? NO.
    Jonas brothers concerts – do they need to be in 3D? NO.
    Documentaries about the ocean – do they need to be in 3D? YES.

    films from the 200s – do they need to be remade? NO.
    already great franchise movies (star wars, lotr, etc) – do they need to be remade? NO.
    good 1940s movies that audiences today haven’t seen – do they need to be remade? YES.

    • *2000s

    • The question isn’t do they need to be. None of them NEED to be 3D or remade.

      The question is “Is there a larger enough audience that would support it.”

      If it was need you could simply say

      Does anything NEED to be in 3D or remade ? No.

      Nothing needs to be in 3D or remade there may be somethings that YOU personally want in 3D or remade, but that doesn’t mean that everyone would agree. Personally I’d say that none of them should be in 3D and i’d personally support it no longer being used at all.

      As far as remakes go I’m in general not against anything being remade I don’t care if it’s from the 2000’s or Star Wars. If good people are attached and it turns out good than I support it. Honestly I’d rather see a Star Wars remake over any 1940’s movie remake.

      • I don’t even think there were any GOOD movies from the 1940’s…

        • Casablanca is a great film IMO and is 1942. Other than that I pretty much agree. However there are a lot of films in the 1940’s that for what ever reason people like despite the acting that today would be considered horrendous and the cheesy dialogue that may of been acceptable then, but again today people would run from the theaters screaming.

          People like to grade on a curve when it comes to movies. With excuses like “it was the 40’s times were different” yes they were, but that doesn’t change the fact that this is not the 40’s. It may of been the peak of cinema in the 40’s, but today it wouldn’t even get a direct to dvd release.

          I don’t grade on a curve. Regardless of the year it was released regardless of the genre I judge films on quality. Just because it’s good in the 40’s does not make it just as good as anything from 2008.

        • I watched the old Alfred Hitchcock film “Rebecca” a while back and that was from 1940. It was really something rather special but I doubt many people would ever see it. Whether it was special because of the time it was set in or not I’m not sure.
          It would be interesting if a) someone remade it set in the same time period, or b) someone “updated” it. I wonder what would be the better of the two? Probably neither but it would definitely up the profile of the original
          Win-Win situation :)

        • The movie that most critics say is the greatest movie is from the 1940’s: Citizen Kane.

  20. Kofi, you have opened a huge can of worms with your post.
    On first glance this is about remakes/3d and Fright Night/Conaan. In actuality this is about the moral bankruptness of Hollywood and “Screen Rant” collusion in that bankruptcy.
    This site is called “Screen Rant”, but you can only rant according to Vic’s rules…because it is his house. You censor yourself accordingly…but it is still censorship.
    I point this out because, your article seems like a sounding board for Hollywood execs scratching their heads wondering “what the hell has gone on?”
    I name it collusion because I feel that “Screen Rant” is so close to Hollywood that you can’t see the “Wood from the trees” anymore.
    “Screen Rant” is disassociated…you as much as said the same yourself.

    As far as your argument goes….who are you talking to?
    Most people under the age of 24 don’t even know a film is a remake! So you are talking to seasoned cinephiles like me. according to your description.
    I generally do not like remakes, as my previous posts attest to. However , I make exception for exceptional directors.
    David Fincher will make an excellent presentation of “Dragon”, because he is an exceptionally gifted director. I do not accept your premise of interpretation over remake. I will accept a re-interpretive remake of the hit movie “Dragon”.
    Hollywood is a microcosm of hell.
    The evilness, and nakedness of ambition there is unbound. It is a vile industry, calculated and unsympathetic. I know at least one studio that is using algorithms in their production possibilities.
    Genuine art in Hollywood is only possible through the kindness of benefactors or the tenacity of directors.
    Genuinely original films are made by a collection of circumstance, intelligence, forward thinking producers, directors, actors and writers…and even then they are beholden to distributors.
    Everybody knows that most Hollywood productions are complete and utter s***. Hence we marvel at originality and rail agaist rubbish, remakes, re-imaginings and naked greed and contempt for consumers.

  21. I’m more of a sequel guy so yes, normally I despise remakes, especially if they can’t spawn any more sequels. Look at “Halloween”…the remake series dead after two movies…”Friday the 13th” dead on arrival…I would have loved to see a third “Conan” flick based upon the two originals. The remake is superfluous as long as it doesn’t serve as a starting point for more movies to be made (which this one certainly doesn’t)…

    As for 3D…Stop it! Please! I hate to be forced to watch every other movie in 3D (or to wear 2D glasses to get rid of it)…In our area, they don’t show most 3D movies in 2D anymore and that is one heck of a nuissance…

  22. Do it in full 3D imaging or don’t do it at all. Half ass 3D movies makes me want to F#$K the people behind it until they are fully SMURFED. Remakes? Don’t mess with the classics if they were declared something great in film history. If you remade “Schindler’s List”, i think Schindler would be pissed (sorry “Family Guy”, i had to use the line)and i’d be pissed too.
    Sound of Music, Gone with the Wind, A street Car Named Desire to John Hugh’s, Alfred Hitchcock, Stanley Kubrick, and many many more… So, i say that if you make a remake, please don’t mess wit the great classics.

    • Yes to Justin Timberlake. WHO IS BEHIND HIS MOVE INTO MOVIES!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! The guy is a complete JERK!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

      • I agree about Justin Timberlake.

        How interesting that his careed did nothing but soar after his willing participation in “Nipplegate” at the Super Bowl, and Janet Jackson’s did nothing but plummet. It still hasn’t recovered, and it likely never will.

        Like all Hollywood power moves, there’s something that really stinks about Timberlake’s ascension to near god-like status in Hollywood. He’s not even that good of an actor, but I know full well by now Hollywood stardom is often not even about acting ability.

    • “Do it in full 3D imaging or don’t do it at all. Half ass 3D movies makes me want to F#$K the people behind it until they are fully SMURFED. Remakes? Don’t mess with the classics if they were declared something great in film history.” – VERY bluntly put, but I agree 100%.

  23. 3-D movies don’t really bother me as much, depending on the film that is. Remakes is one thing, Rebooting franchises is another people are tired of aswell.

  24. I don’t mind remakes as long as their quality can justify their existence. The problem is that most of the time, this doesn’t happen. A couple examples of “good” remakes are:

    Nosferatu the Vampyre (1979)
    Insomnia (2002)
    True Lies (1994) – remake of the French film La Totale!
    The Departed (2007) – remake of the Japanese film Infernal Affairs
    The Fly (1986)
    The Thing (1982)

    • Man, you hit the nail with The Fly! The remake was simply awesome.

    • Internal Affairs was a Korean Film, just like Oldboy. It’s also worth noting that most if not all those remakes definitely had director power coupled with originality vs rehashing for a new age/nation etc.

      • Infernal Affairs is a Hong Kong film.

    • 12 Monkeys was a great remake as well, through it was a total reinterpretation of La Jete.

  25. without sounding like an old git here but there is a higher demand for movies these days compared to my day (mid 80’s – early 90’s)back then you’d only get 4 or 5 big summer movies (i could be wrong here) compared to now when every week over a 4 month period a 100million + movie comes out every week. so it’s no wonder hollywood falls back on remakes and sequels.

    3d isn’t an issue for me as i chose not to see any film in 3d. when my cinema starts to show a film only in 3d to earn that extra couple of pounds from me then it’s a problem.

  26. Also, I would love to see Marvel take back the film rights for the Fantastic Four and do a reboot for that franchise (it has such great potential), but since the FF movies were VERY resent, it would probably be another few years until the audiences/general public will warm up to the idea.

    • If it were only as easy as “taking” back the rights, but it isn’t. Only Marvel and FOX know the specifics of each franchise contract but the general consensus is that FOX is required to put the franchise in question into production every 5-7 years or the rights revert back to Marvel. So that means FOX has between 1-3 years from now to do so with the FF franchise or they lose it. I know they have a reboot lurking in the darkness with plans to do Thing completely CGI (like Hulk) so they do have time.

      Coincidentally, it’s rumored that the reason why XMFC was so rushed was because of that very contract. They were close to their contract window deadline for a X-Men movie release so it was fast tracked so FOX didn’t lose it. Seems their last minute gamble paid off for that particular IP.

      The only other way Marvel will get FF (or any of it’s more iconic franchises back) back is if Disney buys them back. I couldn’t even begin to imagine the ridiculous price tag FOX would put on it so all we can do is wait and hope FOX decides it’s not worth the gamble anymore.

    • @ TheAvenger

      Id love to see Marvel take back the film rights for not just Fantastic Four, but all of them. Spider-Man, X-Men etc.

  27. OK, this is an easy one. 3D just plain sucks. I don’t want it and don’t need it. After a few minutes of seeing 3D, the effect is lost on me and I just want to take of the stupid glasses.

    As for remakes, there is a legitimate reason to remake classics and re-interpret them in a contemporary age. There’s also good reason to remake films that could benefit from new technology. But the current trend to remake everything from classics to camp to TV shows is just plain stupid. Producers should know when an idea is worthy of 90 minutes of film. Do we really need a remake of the original Highlander film?

  28. Finally, an article that I think most of us can agree on. Like they said, remakes have been around forever, but it’s like beating a dead horse with a stick. There’s a word called creativity that Hollywood has seemed to say “f#ck it” to. When was the last ORIGINAL movie that we have actually seen? Times up. If you can think of one, by all means, please prove me wrong. Sadly enough the future of the movie industry is now going to be comic book movies, board game movies (i mean really???), aliens, and the occasional spy movie that looks like a tv movie version of a Bourne movie. Heck they are even remaking TV shows like Charlies Angels and Dallas. Knight Rider ’08 failed because they stripped it’s soul and turned it into an hour long Ford commercial.

    And then they increase the prices to see a movie? $10 just for a 2D ticket. Uh, yeah guys, we can buy blu-rays for that price now or turn to redbox or netflix. Thanks for ruining the experience of going to a movie hollywood….in the words of Harrison Ford “f#ck you very much…”

    • Actually the last two or three Knight Rider episodes werent that bad til the messed up KARR

  29. The use of 3D doesn’t bother me too much because at the end of the day, I can decide if I want to see a 3D movie or not. I personally would only see movies like Transformers in 3D as opposed to a movie like Fright Night. My biggest gripe is the fact that they are remaking, rebooting, etc. old movies and franchises as opposed to finding new stories to make movies about. I actually miss the days when we only got a few blockbuster movies a year because that meant there was a lot of time put into a movie to make it as good both storywise and scriptwise to make it great. Now they’re churning out movies every two seconds and it’s no wonder that the quality has gone down!