To somewhat elaborate. The Thing is a remake of The Thing from Another World. (1951) That stared a lot of basically B movie stars who had long careers but mostly in TV. James Arness was The Thing. Kenneth Toby was in a lot of monster type pictures and did TV for decades going back to WhirlyBirds. Directed by Christian Nyby to give him a credit. Went on to do a lot of TV including a lot of Gunsmoke episodes. Supposedly really directed by Howard Hawks.
The remake by Carpenter was much closer to the original story. The remake of that one was more of a prequel. So not really a remake.
In a sense modern movies have become more like TV shows rather than movies from the Golden Age with the various Star Wars, Indiana Jones, Marvel sequels more akin to episodic TV shows.
Remakes are nothing new. The Maltese Falcon with Bogart is the second remake of the movie. There were series of B movies with the same characters and most of the time the same actors playing the same roles. Perry Mason is an example. There were a series of movies with Warren Williams playing him. And somewhat closer to the books then the Raymond Burr version.
TV didn't exist at the time so these B movies took the place. Some of the actors became very well know and had long careers but they weren't "Stars".
I think these remakes just take the place of what use to be called B movies. Though a lot more expensive to make and probably not as profitable.
Read that Carpenter is thinking about remaking The Thing.
I'm waiting for a good one with Ben Grimm.
By the way I like your stuff, and will upgrade to paid. Much better then The Ankler. Much, much better.
Thank you, I really appreciate you taking the time to write all this and for the hiuge compliment. I actually did know that there was a previous version, it actually runs on a TV in the background of another John Carpenter movie, HALLOWEEN... it just slipped my mind for some reason. "Original" was the wrong word to use there.
I don't think this is all hollywood's fault. Just like with other audiences, audiences for movies have become more segmented. It's why basically all the blockbusters are lowest common denominator, big explody movies or comic based movies. For pretty much everything else, there is so much content available, that is so specialized, that it's hard to generate the audiences that create stars (and that can justify big budgets).
Could good creatives create lower budget movies that are worth seeing in movie theaters and still make big money? Certainly, and they should do that instead of the constant spinoffs/reboots and the occasional "original" script that is an hour and a half, on-the-nose lecture at audiences. But even if they did that, I'm not sure that would create new stars that could drive ticket sales basically by themselves. Just too much competition out there for people's attention now.
Yeah like I said in the piece there are a milion reasons why there are fewer stars now and a segmented audience is a big one. I focused on the streaming aspect of it because I think that streaming, by its very nature, seeks to segment the audience into smaller and smaller slices so it can program to them based on each viewer's specific interests
Streaming held such promise to expand the scope of the two-hour movie with the "limited series" model, as well as shows like "Bosch" and the like. It'll be interesting to see how product sorts itself out among the various pipelines to consumers.
I think it can still be that, I've just always thought it was a mistake for Hollywood to tell its audience that movies were no longer something special that required them to get up, get dressed and go out to the theater to see them, and I think the industry is starting to agree with me. You might enjoy this piece I wrote about that last year. https://thecontinentalcongress.substack.com/p/the-slow-death-of-the-theatrical
very interesting read. My 2 cents would be that with this new streaming era disrupting "going to the movies" as a thing, that Hollywood needs to somehow go back to the old time studio system . Or look to the Korean K-pop business. Which seems to churn out a steady supply of in-house stars, some of whom do make it to world wide success, others to a B tier, but either way, everyone is invested, with the talent spending many years training before their "debut". Behind the scenes creative talent, PR and so forth all moving forward in house. Talent contracts expiring, and they may sign with a different company.
I recall this "back to the future" idea being mentioned last year, and it give everyone involved incentive to build stars (and develop creative talent). with the current dynamics wouldnt this be win-win long term?
I suspect much of that would be precluded by guild rules, but maybe you’ll see new companies appear and try to make a go of it online with non- guild talent in the way you’re suggesting. They’d have to endure nasty boycotts from guild artists though and that wouldn’t be much fun.
Indeed. Your observations bring to mind the old SNL crews. Ghostbusters, etc. I shake my head, but as the saying goes, nothing ever stays the same, as well as the only true constant in the universe is change, not always for the better, but who knows. Another saying goes, or maybe a belief, that everything happens for a reason. Apologies for any mis-quotes... ;)
No I totally agree. I try to make these essays fun to read but I do worry that my melancholy sneaks in sometimes, because I’ve built my entire adult life around the movie business and it feels like it’s going away
We are of an age. But as my husband is fond of saying, the theater of the mind is the best. We are, and will remain, grateful of that. Good times can always be had there! So love reading you. We love Kurt too, and so glad you posted on his Locals, otherwise may never have found you. Please keep up the good work!
Broadway musicals, movies, radio, broadcast TV, and cable all had their heyday. All of them had a moment where they were the primary factory of stars, popular songs, what we now call memes.
But if you're under 25 today, video games play a massive role in your cultural life. They started out as an entirely different form of entertainment, like a hugely upgraded sort of card game, but today they represent a lot more. Many of the biggest games have a huge narrative component, and younger people identify heavily with the characters and plot lines.
And the thing is, today these narrative elements are sort of laughable because they're basically glorified IVR systems, like a CYOA book. But generative AI has the potential to make all these game elements orders of magnitude more engaging. Today we can make a video game with graphics that look close to a scene from The Godfather. Now imagine that in five years, you can walk up to Michael Corleone, and instead of having three buttons to choose, you actually talk to him, like a human, and he talks back, like Michael Corleone would. The end result is going to be everything a blockbuster movie offers in terms of visual spectacle, but *you* will step into the world yourself. This is going to make movies feel as old-fashioned as TV made listening to The Shadow on the radio feel.
Before the end of the decade, VR is going to offer a superior visual experience to an IMAX screen. At that point, the only unique value prop theaters will have left is getting out of your house. Theaters will exist almost entirely for the teen market, and seeing a grownup movie in a theater will be like going to see a live broadway show, something you do in larger cities only.
I think the cause of new stars is lack of good Hollywood content. A great movie will make someone a star. But those great movies seem to be impossible to make anymore. Whether because of political correctness, CGI effect reliance, or whatnot - there just isn't any good content out there. We need fresh original stories not re-boots. Is anyone courageous enough to make a good funny movie anymore?
Yeah I agree... I made the point in the piece that there's an old argument about whether the movie makes the star or the star makes the movie. I think the answer is probably not one or the other but rather the star and the material combine to make something that is better than the sum of its parts. Anyway thanks for reading
Not star-related but this twitter thread points out what I think is an underrated reason movies feel like landfill content -- in the digital streaming world they all look cheaply lit and fake compared to even mercenary 80s studio product:
I think that is true in a lot of cases but there may also be a techincal reason for that... one you can fix. Most of the big screen TVs we buy nowadays ship to you with settings that make movies shot on film look like they were shot on video. I don't know how to fix it personally, but my brother in law is a DP and he fixed all my settings so I'm no longer getting that weird pan-and-scan effect anymore. It's worth doing, even if there's nothing you can do to fix the quality of modern filmmaking.
I know what you're talking about (motion smoothing). This is more about the quality of how current stuff is shot (and lit) on digital. It looks fake, feels cheap and makes movies look like TV used to look. Hell that's even an unfair knock on old TV, I've watched a bunch of episodes of Colombo recently and even the parts shot on sound stages had more verisimilitude than most features I come across today.
Was thinking about this comment last night while re-watching CLOSE ENCOUNTERS... Spielberg, in his early movies, was so good at adding background action that made you feel like the movie was happening in the real world. JAWS is the same way, as is POLTERGEIST (which he produced)... you watch a Marvel movie and it feels like everything you see on screen is fake, and not just the effects. It feels like it's not happeneing in the real world.
Something Tarantino understood in "Once Upon A Time In Hollywood".
Video Killed the Radio Star!
To somewhat elaborate. The Thing is a remake of The Thing from Another World. (1951) That stared a lot of basically B movie stars who had long careers but mostly in TV. James Arness was The Thing. Kenneth Toby was in a lot of monster type pictures and did TV for decades going back to WhirlyBirds. Directed by Christian Nyby to give him a credit. Went on to do a lot of TV including a lot of Gunsmoke episodes. Supposedly really directed by Howard Hawks.
The remake by Carpenter was much closer to the original story. The remake of that one was more of a prequel. So not really a remake.
In a sense modern movies have become more like TV shows rather than movies from the Golden Age with the various Star Wars, Indiana Jones, Marvel sequels more akin to episodic TV shows.
Remakes are nothing new. The Maltese Falcon with Bogart is the second remake of the movie. There were series of B movies with the same characters and most of the time the same actors playing the same roles. Perry Mason is an example. There were a series of movies with Warren Williams playing him. And somewhat closer to the books then the Raymond Burr version.
TV didn't exist at the time so these B movies took the place. Some of the actors became very well know and had long careers but they weren't "Stars".
I think these remakes just take the place of what use to be called B movies. Though a lot more expensive to make and probably not as profitable.
Read that Carpenter is thinking about remaking The Thing.
I'm waiting for a good one with Ben Grimm.
By the way I like your stuff, and will upgrade to paid. Much better then The Ankler. Much, much better.
Thank you, I really appreciate you taking the time to write all this and for the hiuge compliment. I actually did know that there was a previous version, it actually runs on a TV in the background of another John Carpenter movie, HALLOWEEN... it just slipped my mind for some reason. "Original" was the wrong word to use there.
I don't think this is all hollywood's fault. Just like with other audiences, audiences for movies have become more segmented. It's why basically all the blockbusters are lowest common denominator, big explody movies or comic based movies. For pretty much everything else, there is so much content available, that is so specialized, that it's hard to generate the audiences that create stars (and that can justify big budgets).
Could good creatives create lower budget movies that are worth seeing in movie theaters and still make big money? Certainly, and they should do that instead of the constant spinoffs/reboots and the occasional "original" script that is an hour and a half, on-the-nose lecture at audiences. But even if they did that, I'm not sure that would create new stars that could drive ticket sales basically by themselves. Just too much competition out there for people's attention now.
Yeah like I said in the piece there are a milion reasons why there are fewer stars now and a segmented audience is a big one. I focused on the streaming aspect of it because I think that streaming, by its very nature, seeks to segment the audience into smaller and smaller slices so it can program to them based on each viewer's specific interests
Just a side note. 1982's "The Thing" wasn't the original. It was a reboot of 1951's "The Thing From Another World", featuring James Arness.
You’re right, I should’ve mentioned that. It’s actually playing on a TV in the background of another Carpenter movie HALLOWEEN
Streaming held such promise to expand the scope of the two-hour movie with the "limited series" model, as well as shows like "Bosch" and the like. It'll be interesting to see how product sorts itself out among the various pipelines to consumers.
I think it can still be that, I've just always thought it was a mistake for Hollywood to tell its audience that movies were no longer something special that required them to get up, get dressed and go out to the theater to see them, and I think the industry is starting to agree with me. You might enjoy this piece I wrote about that last year. https://thecontinentalcongress.substack.com/p/the-slow-death-of-the-theatrical
very interesting read. My 2 cents would be that with this new streaming era disrupting "going to the movies" as a thing, that Hollywood needs to somehow go back to the old time studio system . Or look to the Korean K-pop business. Which seems to churn out a steady supply of in-house stars, some of whom do make it to world wide success, others to a B tier, but either way, everyone is invested, with the talent spending many years training before their "debut". Behind the scenes creative talent, PR and so forth all moving forward in house. Talent contracts expiring, and they may sign with a different company.
I recall this "back to the future" idea being mentioned last year, and it give everyone involved incentive to build stars (and develop creative talent). with the current dynamics wouldnt this be win-win long term?
I suspect much of that would be precluded by guild rules, but maybe you’ll see new companies appear and try to make a go of it online with non- guild talent in the way you’re suggesting. They’d have to endure nasty boycotts from guild artists though and that wouldn’t be much fun.
Indeed. Your observations bring to mind the old SNL crews. Ghostbusters, etc. I shake my head, but as the saying goes, nothing ever stays the same, as well as the only true constant in the universe is change, not always for the better, but who knows. Another saying goes, or maybe a belief, that everything happens for a reason. Apologies for any mis-quotes... ;)
No I totally agree. I try to make these essays fun to read but I do worry that my melancholy sneaks in sometimes, because I’ve built my entire adult life around the movie business and it feels like it’s going away
We are of an age. But as my husband is fond of saying, the theater of the mind is the best. We are, and will remain, grateful of that. Good times can always be had there! So love reading you. We love Kurt too, and so glad you posted on his Locals, otherwise may never have found you. Please keep up the good work!
Thank you so much, I will!
Hollywood is dead, it just doesn't know it yet.
Broadway musicals, movies, radio, broadcast TV, and cable all had their heyday. All of them had a moment where they were the primary factory of stars, popular songs, what we now call memes.
But if you're under 25 today, video games play a massive role in your cultural life. They started out as an entirely different form of entertainment, like a hugely upgraded sort of card game, but today they represent a lot more. Many of the biggest games have a huge narrative component, and younger people identify heavily with the characters and plot lines.
And the thing is, today these narrative elements are sort of laughable because they're basically glorified IVR systems, like a CYOA book. But generative AI has the potential to make all these game elements orders of magnitude more engaging. Today we can make a video game with graphics that look close to a scene from The Godfather. Now imagine that in five years, you can walk up to Michael Corleone, and instead of having three buttons to choose, you actually talk to him, like a human, and he talks back, like Michael Corleone would. The end result is going to be everything a blockbuster movie offers in terms of visual spectacle, but *you* will step into the world yourself. This is going to make movies feel as old-fashioned as TV made listening to The Shadow on the radio feel.
Before the end of the decade, VR is going to offer a superior visual experience to an IMAX screen. At that point, the only unique value prop theaters will have left is getting out of your house. Theaters will exist almost entirely for the teen market, and seeing a grownup movie in a theater will be like going to see a live broadway show, something you do in larger cities only.
Probably true... sad to me because I'm such an enormous movie fan, but I guess you can't force other people to like what you like
I think the cause of new stars is lack of good Hollywood content. A great movie will make someone a star. But those great movies seem to be impossible to make anymore. Whether because of political correctness, CGI effect reliance, or whatnot - there just isn't any good content out there. We need fresh original stories not re-boots. Is anyone courageous enough to make a good funny movie anymore?
Yeah I agree... I made the point in the piece that there's an old argument about whether the movie makes the star or the star makes the movie. I think the answer is probably not one or the other but rather the star and the material combine to make something that is better than the sum of its parts. Anyway thanks for reading
uh, The Thing was originally made in1951
Not star-related but this twitter thread points out what I think is an underrated reason movies feel like landfill content -- in the digital streaming world they all look cheaply lit and fake compared to even mercenary 80s studio product:
https://twitter.com/JFrankensteiner/status/1657510244463919107?cxt=HHwWhoC-zaKy1IAuAAAA
I think that is true in a lot of cases but there may also be a techincal reason for that... one you can fix. Most of the big screen TVs we buy nowadays ship to you with settings that make movies shot on film look like they were shot on video. I don't know how to fix it personally, but my brother in law is a DP and he fixed all my settings so I'm no longer getting that weird pan-and-scan effect anymore. It's worth doing, even if there's nothing you can do to fix the quality of modern filmmaking.
I know what you're talking about (motion smoothing). This is more about the quality of how current stuff is shot (and lit) on digital. It looks fake, feels cheap and makes movies look like TV used to look. Hell that's even an unfair knock on old TV, I've watched a bunch of episodes of Colombo recently and even the parts shot on sound stages had more verisimilitude than most features I come across today.
Was thinking about this comment last night while re-watching CLOSE ENCOUNTERS... Spielberg, in his early movies, was so good at adding background action that made you feel like the movie was happening in the real world. JAWS is the same way, as is POLTERGEIST (which he produced)... you watch a Marvel movie and it feels like everything you see on screen is fake, and not just the effects. It feels like it's not happeneing in the real world.
I agree