Hollywood's original ability may decline and remake fried rice into a "money-making" routine

Yesterday, the first live-action version of Tarzan in 30 years returned to the big screen. Does Hollywood like "fried rice" or do we like to watch "cold rice movies"? This is a problem. If we relax the concept of "fried rice" a little bit, among the top 10 films at the North American box office in 2015, only two were truly original-one of them was an animated film.

yesterday, the first live-action version of Tarzan in 30 years returned to the big screen. This is also the third time in four years that Warner has chosen to remake classic children's literature. Not only Warner, Disney has also remade "Sleeping Curse" and "Cinderella" in new bottles of old wines in the past two years; Universal's "restart" of "Jurassic World" last year not only made Chris. Pratt suddenly jumped to the front line, which also made the company's box office popular throughout the year.

"A sequel to a remake of a restart series" has become a new joke for many people to ridicule the current trend in Hollywood. But I have to admit that many stories of "fried rice" can still sell at the box office. For example, Disney's live-action version of "Cinderella" was in the top 10 box office in North America in 2015, and a sequel with a slightly renovated look like "Jurassic World" won the second spot in the box office of the year.

Why does Hollywood love remakes so much? How quickly do people in the entire movie market get money? Or is Hollywood exhausted and can only repeat itself? Anyway, since the beginning of the new century, there have been few original films that have made money, and adapting them from novels is already a conscience discovery in Hollywood. This year, there are also a number of movies from the 1980s, such as "The Seven Dragons" and "Ghostbusters", waiting for cucumbers to be painted green to collect money again on the big screen.

A number of movies from the 1980s such as "Ghostbusters" are waiting for cucumbers to be painted green and collected again on the big screen.

Serialization of classic remakes does not require Hollywood to brainstorm

. Why is Hollywood so keen on new stories? One of the reasons is of course the serialization of many classic stories. Take the recently released "The Return of Mount Tai: Dangerous Battle in the Jungle" as an example. Although this story of Mount Tai is most familiar to everyone as the image of a half-naked man wandering around in the jungle, you must know that there are actually 24 original novels written by Mount Tai, all of which are from the same author.

In these 24 novels, we see Tai Shan using his jungle skills to save his fiancee from villains in Africa, Russia and other places over and over again. In the last novel, Mount Tai, who joined the Royal Air Force, fell into Japan-occupied Southeast Asia, and had to compete with enemies during World War II.

In 1912, British writer Edgar Rice Burroughs created this image of an ape who grew up in the jungle. Over the next 100 years, in addition to eight silent films, six actors made 30 films based on these novels; Disney made three animated films for him, and 15 films and cartoons based on this character's image. The derivative benefits brought by the character of Tai Shan are simply a jungle version of 007. Warner has invested heavily in remaking the live-action version this time. Naturally, it has the ambition to create a classic character series after getting this character.

With the support of so many novels, there is no need to think about the prequel and sequels at all. Even if all the novels are filmed, it will be easy to make up a new story. It is nothing more than giving Mount Tai an enemy hero to save the beauty. To put it bluntly, the most basic remake technique is that Hollywood is unwilling to use its brains.

Compared

with those adapted films supported by a large number of original works, many films with only one original naturally test the ability and tricks of film companies and directors to explore other characters in the story. There are really not many movies like "Cinderella" that can tell classic stories in a regular manner. What is popular now is to view the French Revolution from the perspective of upper-class society or to tell the story of the tragic artist in "Rent a House" from the perspective of a landlord.

This technique of telling stories to other characters in the story has become common. Disney is certainly a good player. Among the animated films in the early years, there were "Timon and Pumbaa" derived from "The Lion King";"Peter Pan" had filmed too many episodes, so a series of animations were made for the wonderful fairy who especially stole the show;"The Sleeping Curse" is still the story of the Sleeping Beauty, but this time the cold witch is the protagonist, telling the story of a flesh-and-blood and charming female villain.

When the adaptation of classics reached Warner's hands, it became more down-to-earth. Last year we saw how a World War II version of Peter Pan avoided the London air raid. This year we waited for Tai Shan, the jungle revolutionary who fought against the Belgian invaders during the raze of dividing up Africa in the late 19th century. Instead of simply telling the same story from the perspective of different characters, what Warner is doing now is to be more far-sighted and try to allow these classic stories to be re-projected into the current trend of thought. Of course, whether the audience can realize the concern of the film company for the country and the people is a different matter.

Under such circumstances, as long as you change the angle, you can receive applause. "Snow White and the Hunter" and "Sleeping Curse" have become the way for Hollywood female stars who have suffered a mid-life crisis to save themselves; the same movies by these princess and prince have become Hollywood's fresh meat makers, providing all young men who are in urgent need of advancement. The most convenient channel for actors. Look at how you have met new male actors in recent years, in addition to superheroes?

Monster movies like "Godzilla" will be remade twice in just five years.

Hollywood's crisis is ushering in a decade of low creativity

. Do Hollywood like "fried rice" or do we like to watch "cold rice movies"? This is a problem. If we relax the concept of "fried rice" a little bit, among the top 10 films at the North American box office in 2015, only two were truly original-one of them was an animated film.

One of the most popular explanations for this reason is the decline of Hollywood's originality. In Hollywood in 2003, 52 of the 138 films were so-called "IP", accounting for 37% of the total; however, 10 years later, among the 115 films in 2013, there were only 57 originals, which means that More than half of Hollywood films have said goodbye to originality. Since 2001, many movie series have even spread for as long as 10 years, such as the "Harry Potter" series, the "Planet of the Apes" series and the "Speed and Furious Series". The last series can even rise from the box office list that year. It ranked 14th in the box office and soared to sixth in the world in the seventh film.

In fact, Hollywood's business model has always relied on so-called "blockbusters", or rather, selling concepts that audiences are already familiar with. In addition to sequels, restarts, and remakes, this model naturally also includes adaptations of novels. The reason for this is of course Hollywood's increasingly unable to afford to lose: after investing in movies, it naturally hopes to bring high returns. Sequel films are popular.

Compared with the golden 1980s and 1990s, today's Hollywood has long lost the sharpness of creation. Superhero movies have penetrated into every film company like a cancer. Look at all the remakes of movies-big special effects, stars, high investment, like a formula to export different themes into similar movies. "The Return of Mount Tai", the first real-life movie about Mount Tai in 30 years, is understandable, but why is the need for "The Fantastic Four", which has only been released for 10 years, to be remade into a bad movie that everyone complained about last year?

In today's Hollywood, the word "profit" is a sword, and the summer growth in the past 10 years has not made people happy. 2014 was the lowest point in nearly 10 years. Under such circumstances, Hollywood is increasingly resisting the risks brought by original films. In order to ensure profitability, it can only repeatedly bring movies that audiences are familiar with back to the screen.

The international market makes it easier to sell remakes in the world if it is heavy on it, but

among them, remakes is another phenomenon worth mentioning. Today's Hollywood is a place where even summer shit comedy is willing to remake. You can't tell whether the three-vulgar comedy "Holiday Adventures" in the summer of 2015 is a sequel from 32 years ago or a new song sung. Hollywood is so keen on cooking cold rice that it still can't help but hope to attract more attention. Most of the objects chosen to remake have the flavor of family fun. Although it seems a bit sinister to make enough money for three generations at once, it is of course a fact.

At a time when overseas markets are becoming increasingly important, it is safer for Hollywood to choose a remake. Most remake movies can basically be made overseas, especially in the China market. For example,"Cinderella", which was released simultaneously with the United States, also won a box office of 445 million yuan in March, the traditional off-season;"Jurassic World" was released two days earlier than North America, with a box office of 1.419 billion yuan, ranking seventh on the annual list. Hollywood has also seen huge potential for acceptance in overseas markets through remakes, and has even caused the phenomenon that monster movies like "Godzilla" have to be remade twice in just five years.

Therefore, frying cold rice itself is a craft with secrets inside the door. The sales of speculation are good, so it is naturally more expensive than the addiction to counting money; the speculation is a bit bad, and compared with developing original films, the loss is naturally smaller. After all, after a round in theaters, the copyright of derivatives and CD distribution is still in hand, which is another business.

Last year's summer season increased by only 9.9% compared with 2014, but on average, the income per movie was only US$1.77 million, 10,000 yuan less than in 2014. Such a growth rate makes people question whether Hollywood has the confidence to continue making original films. Maybe 10 years later, Hollywood will need to remake Harry Potter and the Lord of the Rings to save itself.

Editor: yvette