Yet another gender-swapped remake incoming - Cliffhanger!

[ianh]

As I've said a few times regarding remakes, I think there are only two reasonable ways to believe a remake is necessary:

a - The original was commercially bad and yours is better
b - You're telling a different take on the original story (like Total Recall remake stayed closer to the book than Arnies film)

However the recent obsession of remaking a film AND gender-swapping the lead role has ensured than none of these films has been better received (through the box office) than the films/franchises they're based on, so I wonder why Hollywood is still so adamant about "throwing away" money when that money could be used, in this case, for a stand-alone female climber film in the wilderness which doesn't "need" to cling to the coat-tails of Cliffhanger to try and be successful?

Are they saying that female characters are so badly performing that the only way they can succeed is if they use male roles which are recast?

Anyway, here's the press report - https://uk.movies.yahoo.com/femalel...ic-cliffhanger-is-in-the-works-114231703.html

 

[ianh]

Wasn't that the Million Dollar Girl film? Never actually watched it though I've heard it's rather good.

Thats a great example. It wasn't a "gender swap" film but instead a stand-alone film which didn't rely on any previous male-lead films for its success and it shows that there genuinely is the talent and money out there to make really great female lead films which don't have to be pale imitation gender swapped reboots if only Hollywood looked for them.

 

[ianh]

Who cares? Don't watch it if it gets your balls tied in knots. If they don't make money they won't make them, if they do they will. Some of you guys are really bent out off shape by this stuff.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA........................oh you're serious

Recent history has shown that despite the many box office "flops", they'll still making them regardless.

 

[ianh]

Then it's their money to lose. Who cares? What difference does it make to you or anyone else. Does it threaten some men's masculinity? I do wonder why so many guys get so bent out of shape about this stuff.

Not even in the slightest. I can't see why would you think that is a genuine reason, unless you believe a persons masculinity is somehow related to what movies they watch, which is an incredibly toxic belief in what masculinity is?

When you say "who cares" that, to me, shows you seem to lack empathy and fail to understand that people (male and female) attach an emotional bond to characters or films that they like, so arbitrarily changing the basics of what the character/film is can break that emotional bond they've created, which can be a painful process. That is why people "care" about these gender-swapped films, because not only does it tell people "there must be something wrong with that character/film you formed an emotional bond with as we're going to change it" but also that the sole reason Hollywood is doing this (again to a character or film you have formed an emotional bond with) is purely for a minimal at best financial gain, if any at all looking a box office for these type of films, which just isn't a good enough reason to justify breaking that emotional bond for most people.

Of course thats just my opinion on the subject and is not stated as fact for everyone, just myself but whether you agree or not with the reaction being shown, being empathetic means you at least understand "why" the reaction happens at the very least, which is why your comment of "who cares" seemed to show a lacking that basic understanding of "why", which this post may hopefully change, and also show why it has nothing to do with masculinity at all.

 

[ianh]

You've got a big emotional bond with Stallone in Cliffhanger have you? A man who's character name I can't even remember.

No, although I do with other films/characters. Although at no point have I suggested that I might have so I'm confused over the need for your question based on the part of my post you quoted (see spoiler).

Spoiler: For Vincent

I don't want to derail this thread into a "me vs you" back and forth which would just bore people, but I'd really appreciate it if you could explain what part of my posts explicitly made you want to ask me if I had a "big emotional bond with Stallone in Cliffhanger" based on what I'd written, as I haven't used "Stallone" or mentioned his character in any post and only mentioned "Cliffhanger" once in the OP, nor have I said that I even like the film or character anywhere, leading to my confusion with your post.

I think it'd be great for you to reply with that info is it'd really help me really understand "why" you think how you do about my posts and would lead to more clarity in them for the future.

 

[ianh]

The thread title and link in your op is literally about cliffhanger?!

Yeap, and nowhere does it say I like the film. I'm just reporting on the news of a remake.

Seriously? You feel an emotional bond to a film like Cliffhanger? Wow I've never heard anyone say that before about a film like Cliffhanger.

No and, as I have never said that I have any emotional bond to either Cliffhanger (or the main character) anywhere in this thread, your rhetorical question says to me that you haven't read and/or understand my posts very well.

And even if you do its not like anyone is forcing you to watch it so how is your emotional bond affected?

I'll pick a film I do have an emotional bond with to answer your question - Should Alien/Aliens be rewritten with Dwyane Johnson as "Edgar Ripley" I would not watch it but I would still feel annoyed that it was being re-made because it would feel like the new films are saying the old ones, which I have a bond with, are now not good enough or that the characters I feel a bond with are now not good enough, hence the need for a new gender-swap reboot. So it would then be understandable for fans (because thats what people who form a bond with entertainments are called) to vent that annoyance at what they (and I) would see as having an effect on their bond (by saying it's not good enough). Now is that a rational response, probably not, because it's an emotional response, which if anything makes it a stronger reaction, but that response will still be there, unless you're not a fan, in which case "who cares" apparently.

It has nothing to do with empathy or a lack of it, in fact I'd say you lack empathy for the fact that maybe women want to see these films remade with women on the lead roles, they do make up 50% of the population after all. If they do and are prepared to go to the cinema and so make these films profitable then good for them. If not then they will not continue to be made, it's as simple as that.

Yet women aren't clamouring for gender-swapped reboots, there is no vocal mass from 50% of the population asking for these films to be remade and re-gendered is there? Infact most prior attempts at re-gendered reboots end in either financial or critical failure or both so there is little female support even if they are made. So if there is little to no demand from women themselves for these re-gendered rebooted films, why are they being made rather than spending the time and money making new & fresh films instead which tell different exciting stories rather than rake over old ones? I mean I would have thought that bringing out a new female lead with an independant story would be "worth" more in the press rather than dealing with the negative press they'll get over rehashing the originals.

 

[ianh]

I don't think that's really true, is it?

Ghostbusters is the obvious example, but are there actually any others?

There will be a few more I can't think of (they are still fairly rare) but here's a few -

Karate Kid 4 "The Next Karate Kid" - Terrible reviews and box office
What Men Want - Average of 50% positive reviews and made $70m so far vs the 65% positive and $370m (non adjusted) for the original "What Women Want" with Mel Gibson.
Overboard - This ones subjective TBF as it did better in the theatrical run than the original, which was a VHS hit rather than a box office one, but once out of theatres the remake has disappeared whilst the original is still well known and loved.

I don't include Oceans 8 in the list of re-gendered reboots because it's neither a reboot nor a gender swap film, however it's box office is the lowest of all 4 Ocean's films which sounds bad but it still made good money/reviews, it's just the other films were so much better. I've also left out "The Hustle" as it isn't out yet but I can guarantee it'll tank hard once it's released compared to the "Dirty Rotten Scoundrels" original, however time will tell.

When I look at female-lead stand-alone films I think it's a shame that for every "Bridesmaids", "Widows" or "Oceans 8" there is a pretty poor remake being made, taking money away from films which are potentially great stand-alone stories which'll never get made.

 

[ianh]

given the thread title using the word cliffhanger , like others I inferrred the movie, and by implication, stallone, was sacricant to op.

It's kind of difficult to create a thread if you don't mention what it's about in the title so other people know what the thread is about to be fair

However while I do like the film for a cheesy 90's action flick, like Vincent, I couldn't name the main character as I thought John Lithgow was the best bit of the film by far (still remember his characters name) but it's in no way sacrosanct to me. The main point of the thread, as per the OP, was to discuss the need (or lack of) for re-gendered reboots and this film just happened to be the latest one to be in the news, hence why I only mentioned the film once.

 

[ianh]

This is not a convincing set of arguments.

TBF neither are yours which are extremely subjective at best (and I admitted Overboard was subjective in my post ) but lets attempt to counter your arguments.

• KK4 - Age is irrelevant, it is still a re-gendered reboot which is the only thing we're discussing and it was a critical and box office failure.

• What Women/Men want - The reboots $20m budget to make $70m vs the originals $70m budget to make $375m, the reboot made much less even when measured as box office vs budget at just 3.5x vs 5.3x for the original, never mind the overall figure for the reboot still isn't "good money" when compared to the original which is, again, what this discussion is about. Plus the reviews you point to for the Original are 53% for both critics and fans on RT vs the re-gendered reboot with 43% critics & 31% fans - did you even look at either of these figures before posting that were "similar"?

• Overboard - The RT reviews for the Original are 45% critics & 73% fans vs the re-gendered reboot with 24% critics & 56% fans. However as I said in my post, the original bombed at the box office so the box office vs budget was $91m ($56m domestic) vs $12m for the reboot and the original was $26m domestic only (no foreign release) vs $22m budget - so exactly as my post said, the reboot did better at the box office but has all but disappeared once out of the theatres where as the original is still preferred looking at the reviews.

 

[ianh]

Wash your mouth out the original is a classic

My favourite scene of a largely forgettable but enjoyable movie - What a way to break up with someone

 

[ianh]

OP, yours, was talking about an apparent 'recent obsession', so age seemed pretty relevant, really.

Yeah that's a fair point there.

 

[ianh]

Op should get more upset by actual bad movies:

https://www.empireonline.com/movies/hustle/review/

I've also left out "The Hustle" as it isn't out yet but I can guarantee it'll tank hard once it's released compared to the "Dirty Rotten Scoundrels" original, however time will tell.

Way ahead of you

 

[ianh]

Oh and yeah, they remade this... https://www.imdb.com/title/tt7634968/?ref_=fn_al_tt_1

My problem with that particular film is they didn't understand what made the first one so good which, amongst things like great writing, charismatic actors etc was "why" he chose to change his attitude towards women by the end. However -

Original - They establish him to be a self obsessed sexist pig for the first 1/3 of the movie and make him even worse in the middle 1/3 when he initially gains his power as he only uses it for his own sexist needs like more power over women at work, get more women into bed etc, and then over the last 1/3 of the movie he finally learns to empathise with women, to understand them and himself better and becomes a better person for it.

Reboot - They establish her to be a self obsessed ball buster for the first 1/3 of the movie and make her even worse in the middle 1/3 when she initially gains her power as she only uses it for her own sexist needs like more power over men at work, get more men into bed etc, and then over the last 1/3 of the movie............nothing changes. She still feels no more empathy for men than she had at the start, she is unchanged by the experience and yet she still gets a "happy ending" in both her business and personal life which she hasn't earned...............and yes I watched it, as I really like the actress.

 

[ianh]

No, the remake. $70m box office on $20m production.

I think your use of "big" might be the cause for confusion. Making $30-40m after production and marketing is definitely successful but I wouldn't consider that to be a "big" success at all, where as say these following films are what most people (myself included) would consider to be "big" successes for small budget films - "The Conjuring", which made $318m on it's $20m budget, "Slumdog Millionaire" which made $377m on a budget of $15m or "The Kings Speech" which made $414m on a budget of $15m for example.

So really it's a just a simple definition issue on what different folks think could be considered to be a "big" success for a film.