Remakes, Reboots, Re-Imaginings, REDICULOUS! (Op-Ed Assignment)

I know I am not the only person out there who is fed up with Hollywood lately. The concept of "originality" has packed up its bags of fresh ideas and left the film studios. Now, the movie-going public is being served old leftovers of remakes, sequels, prequels, and films based on videogames, toys, or old television shows.

Hollywood executives and producers like churning out remakes for the same reason mothers like serving leftovers to their kids. IT'S EASY!

Here's the recipe for a remake:

First, you snatch the original film that's been lovingly stored within the memory bank of the public. Next, you add a dash of inexpensive actors who know how to look good on screen and well...that's pretty much all they know how to do. Then, drench the film in a hefty coating of computer generated visual effects to mask its stale flavors like the butchered storyline, acting, or directing. Finally, you serve up the film with fancy words like "new vision," "re-imagining," "reboot," or whatever label the producers want to slap on it other than "remake."

As long as people keep consuming remakes, other classic films will enter the Hollywood kitchen looking like filet mignon and leave it looking like mystery meat.

Believe it or not folks, we will soon be treated with remakes of classic films such as A Nightmare on Elm Street, The Birds, Footloose, and even The Karate Kid, which will be renamed The Kung Fu Kid with Will Smith's son, Jaden Smith, set to star in the role that was originally made famous by Ralph Macchio. Jackie Chan will also take over the role that was iconically portrayed by Pat Morita as the young boy's mentor, Mr. Miyagi.

You will never be Mr. Miyagi to me, Mr. Chan.

As I previously mentioned, not only are remakes polluting theaters, but also films that are based on things that didn't have an actual story to begin with. For instance, in 2011 we will see the release of two films that are based on popular board games. Yep, that's right...board games. Director Ridley Scott (Alien, Blade Runner, Gladiator) will be directing a live action version of Monopoly and Director Peter Berg (Hancock, The Kingdom, Friday Night Lights) will be bringing Battleship to the big screen.

Granted, sometimes board games can make decent films. 1985's Clue was an alright movie for what it was. Then again, at the other end of the spectrum you have films like 2000's Dungeons & Dragons, which makes you wish you could get back the 107 minutes of your life you wasted watching it.

My point is that good, original films are hard to come by these days. Why is this? Well, the main reason is that producers are often afraid to take risks on original story ideas by upcoming screenwriters. There is less of a risk when it comes to remaking classic films because there is already a built-in audience who enjoyed the original film and will go to the theater to see the remake simply because of that fact. Essentially, many producers believe it doesn't make sense to put so much time and effort into a brand new story when you can retell an old story in minimal time and with little or no effort.

One studio executive said it best when describing why studios are so eager to spit out remakes: "If you're trying to get a movie made now, you can push the rock up a mountain or you can push it on flat ground. And most of us would rather push it on flat ground."

Yes, a good lesson indeed boys and girls. Always take the easy path. With such great wisdom coming out of Hollywood it's amazing California is able to function properly. Oh wait, scratch that last sentence.

The bottom line is that most remakes or "reboots" are either garbage or mediocre films at best. Notice how I said MOST remakes. There have been exceptions with the most recent one being the reboot of Star Trek. In the nerdy debate of Star Trek vs. Star Wars I always believed the Star Wars Universe was superior. But even I was won over by J.J. Abrams' awesome vision of the first voyage of the crew of the Starship Enterprise.

Films like the newest Star Trek give me a small glimmer of hope for remakes. But then as soon as a great film like Star Trek is released, I hear about the announcement of a Cliffhanger remake and I immediately slam my head down. Why anyone would think this 1993 Sylvester Stallone action flick warrants a remake is beyond me. It was an entertaining, mindless action film and nothing more. But some individuals seem to think the story could be explored further. According to producer Neal Moritz, "Just as they rebooted Star Trek, we're going to do the same with Cliffhanger."

Aside from the terrible remake idea, putting Cliffhanger on the same level as Star Trek is just insane. Maybe Mr. Moritz should listen to what was said to Mr. Billy Madison when he tried to sound intelligent to an audience...

Unfortunately, remakes are here to stay and there are plenty more coming. All I can advise anyone who is reading this to do is to allow yourself to see more original, creative, thoughtful films like Up, 500 Days of Summer, or The Hurt Locker and skip the effortless, recycled films made from the faded memories of Hollywood classics.

Keeping the Watchdog on a Leash

We've all heard about how the press is supposed to be the watchdog of the government and society. But how can a news organization report what it feels to be true when it must keep in mind the interest of its sponsors?

In a digital world where the public has the ability to speak and write however they desire about an event, topic, or issue, the average news organization still walks on eggshells when it comes to digital reporting. Often times the press will offer the basic facts about a news story with little or no opinion to accompany it. News stories from news organizations within the online community are nothing more then the elementary "Who, What, When, Where, Why, and How" of a story because they are afraid of angering the corporations that keep them running.

More people are reading blogs now more than ever to find interesting opinions and perspectives on news stories rather than reading or hearing about the "WWWWWH." Unfortunately, as long as news organizations cater to their sponsors, the public will never see anything more than dry, standard news reporting from them.

From time to time, however, the watchdog will dig up a few fresh stories for the public. But most of the time even the watchdog knows it's not smart to bite the hand that feeds.

Journalism's Job: Changed or Unchanged?

At its core, the job of the working journalist is indeed still unchanged. Journalists must still strive to report important newsworthy stories to readers in a manner that is both credible and fair.

The only things that have changed in the field of Journalism are the means in which journalists communicate the news to people, the higher competition in reporting news stories, and the higher level of scrutiny they must face due to avid, opinionated, fact checking bloggers.

The biggest change in how journalists report stories to the public is the obvious jump from the newspaper page to the webpage. Many newspapers across the country are losing readers and shutting down at a rapid pace due to the ability to read newspaper stories online for free (See newspaperdeathwatch.com).

Therefore, journalists must unlearn what they have learned over the course of their careers and adapt their reporting style for the Internet. The Internet is a fast-paced environment and online journalists must be able to report their stories quickly and accurately or else they will run the risk of losing their audience to another news source or another entirely unrelated website. This is not to say that journalists did not have to worry about reporting their stories in a timely manner in the past, but now they must develop ways to hold their readers' attention even more so due to the countless distractions someone can encounter online.

These distractions help create a greater level of competition that journalists must endure to keep their readers coming back. Other news sites, Facebook, Twitter, Youtube etc. all have the potential to sway people away from journalists' stories. However, journalists must still maintain a code of ethics while gathering the news at a speedy and accurate pace. Unfortunately, some journalists fabricate stories in an effort to attract readers such as former New York Times reporter, Jayson Blair, or former reporter for The New Republic, Stephen Glass.

The possible inaccuracies, whether they are intentional or unintentional, within a journalist's article are more likely to be discovered in the realm of online news. Before many newspapers decided to publish stories online, the only fact checkers a journalist had were the ones who were employed by the newspaper. But at the present time when a journalist submits his or her story to be checked, not only is it checked by the newspaper's fact checkers, but it can also be checked by countless bloggers. Dan Rather, a long-time respected journalist for CBS News, was fired for presenting inaccurate information about former President Bush's National Guard service, which had been uncovered by bloggers. Journalists have been and always should be careful of what they present to the public as fact, but with the Internet's ability to give anyone with a computer and a connection a voice, journalists must be more cautious with their reporting.

At its core, the job of a journalist will always be the same. Journalists will continue to report the news in a fast and accurate manner. The only questions that will challenge every new generation of journalists are: How will they report the news? How will they maintain their code of ethics within the new technological era that emerges? And how many people will be reading and analyzing their stories?

Mass Comm. in the 90s vs. Mass Comm. Today

Looking back on the decade prior to the Millenium, it is quite amazing how far technological advancements in communication has come. For instance, in the 90s it was not vitally important for everyone to own a cell phone. For most people during that time, a cell phone was a big, clunky piece of equipment that stayed inside your car and was only used for emergencies. Now, however, everyone including children as young as the age of five have cell phones, which they constantly carry with them. Today's cell phones are smaller, more portable and have the capability to instantly connect you to anyone at any time in the world.

The Internet has come a long way as well. The one thing anyone who grew up in the 90s will tell you about the Internet is how unbelievably slow it used to be. But at the present time, a good Internet connection has the ability to access a webpage that would have taken the Internet of the 90s roughly five to ten minutes to load in less than a second.

From these two examples, the obvious trend in the evolution of Mass Comm. is its massive increase in speed. People are now conditioned to expect instant information or gratification from communication devices like cell phones, computers, mp3 players etc. The patience people may have had during the 90s for technology has vanished and has been replaced by a I-want-it-now mentality.