Red Letter Media

Favorite recurring character? (Select 4)

  • Jack / AIDSMobdy

    Votes: 225 23.7%
  • Josh / the Wizard

    Votes: 66 7.0%
  • Colin (Canadian #1)

    Votes: 416 43.8%
  • Jim (Canadian #2)

    Votes: 204 21.5%
  • Tim

    Votes: 354 37.3%
  • Len Kabasinski

    Votes: 190 20.0%
  • Freddie Williams

    Votes: 245 25.8%
  • Patton Oswalt

    Votes: 22 2.3%
  • Macaulay Culkin

    Votes: 474 49.9%
  • Max Landis

    Votes: 52 5.5%

  • Total voters
    949
"And people want to go to a concert to see The Foo Fighters" - Mike's dementia is setting in and he thinks it's 1994.

"It's prestige TV!" Mike's dementia continues and he thinks it's 2004.
The Foo Fighters were an idea scrawled out on a cocktail napkin in 1994, they didn't even release their first album or book their first show until the next year. They weren't selling out the kinds of stadium shows Mike was talking about until the late 90's/early 00's.
 
Maybe you can differ things like Forrest Gump, where the book is both obscure and a completely different animal from the movie, but really movies have been bringing books to the screen for so long you might as well classify them as separate things from the IP monsters like comic book movies and franchises that have been going on for decades.

EDIT: To add to my point, there has been an Academy Award for screenplays adapted from previously existing material since the first ceremony in 1929. I think it's fair to categorize them as "original," as least as something distinct from Marvel Corporate Slops Chapter 38 or Indiana Jones and the Escape From Green Grove Retirement Community.
Agreed. First Blood (the Rambo film) was also book based. And the Princess Bride.

I could be mistaken but off the top of my head it strikes me that much of the prestige, art films are generally based on something while it's often schlock, lower grade movies which are wholly original.

At least until we get into stuff like whether Terminator or Indiana Jones were ripping off other works.

Maybe we should kill all humans just because you all make things so messy.
 
Agreed. First Blood (the Rambo film) was also book based. And the Princess Bride.

I could be mistaken but off the top of my head it strikes me that much of the prestige, art films are generally based on something while it's often schlock, lower grade movies which are wholly original.

At least until we get into stuff like whether Terminator or Indiana Jones were ripping off other works.

Maybe we should kill all humans just because you all make things so messy.

I've been pondering this dilemma, partly because I don't like disagreeing with my favorite murderbot, but mostly because I understand why something like Twilight feels different than something like The Godfather, and I think I figured it out (beyond the obviously different audiences each one was geared toward).

When something like Twilight or Harry Potter becomes a movie, it's entirely expected that it's going to be not merely a film but a multimedia franchise, with video games and online components and amusement parks (if it's big enough or owned by Disney). The first step, of course, is multiple films: you're not just going to do book one of The Self-Insert Who Got Doubleteamed by a Hot Vampire and a Stud Werewolf, you're going to do all five books, with maybe a prequel or two and maybe splitting the last book in two (or three!) parts. It's expected at this point because of the success of Harry Potter and, sad to say it, Lord of the Rings. But this is a recent-ish phenomenon: plans for multiple installments usually fell on their face until Lord of the Rings managed it. Look no further than '89 Batman, where they laid the groundwork for Billy Dee Williams as Two-Face only to have that crash and burn. That was no simple cameo or shout out -- he was contracted to play Harvey Dent/Two-Face in any sequels, and when they cast Tommy Lee Jones in Forever they had to pay Williams off anyway.

Hell, just look at Lord of the Rings itself -- the 1978 cartoon is billed as Part One, but Part Two never materialized, unless you count the batshit insane Return of the King cartoon ... and you really can't, because that was different people making it, a different aesthetic, and did I mention it's batshit insane?

And sometimes these anticipated franchises still fall on their face. Chronicles of Narnia has been stuck at three installments for, what, 15 years? I think there's even a new attempt at it being made now. His Dark Materials made it all of one film and has already been remade or is about to. A Wrinkle in Time, The House With a Clock in Its Walls, and The Dark Is Rising are all the first installments of multi-book series, and all of them are dead in the water right now.

Anyway, just food for thought. May your logic circuits never falter and kill us all.
 
I've been pondering this dilemma, partly because I don't like disagreeing with my favorite murderbot, but mostly because I understand why something like Twilight feels different than something like The Godfather, and I think I figured it out (beyond the obviously different audiences each one was geared toward).
Hey and you're my favorite murderpriest!

I don't think we're disagreeing but merely trying to sus out an odd pattern.

I would say Jurassic Park may be the demarcation line on this. Yeah it was popular but not like.... "auto adapt popular" iirc. (I need to rewatch SFDebris' background video again.) There was definitely no plan for a sequel until the movie blew up and them Spielberg and Chriton both are like... "well I guess we gotta make a sequel" even though both up to that point had never done sequels to their work.

So it strikes me as like almost an inflection point that kicked this all off. Though I think planned sequels were in the past. Didn't Disney hope to make Black Cauldron a whole thing?
 
So it strikes me as like almost an inflection point that kicked this all off. Though I think planned sequels were in the past. Didn't Disney hope to make Black Cauldron a whole thing?

Lots of movies teased sequels that never happened. I don't think Black Cauldron was one of them, because conflating the first two books the way it did kind of blew that idea up on the launchpad, but you seem to know a lot more about that adaptation than I do. I watched it once in college and was too irritated by the changes to the books to remember much.

I do remember Young Sherlock Holmes's stinger, which featured that movie's antagonist signing in at some Swiss hotel under the name Moriarty and then smirking at the camera. Such a thing was practically unheard of at the time, predating Nick Fury's post-credits appearance in Iron Man by over 20 years ... but here we are, almost 40 years later, and no Young Sherlock Holmes Vol. II.

Also, when are we getting Buckaroo Banzai vs. the World Crime League?

I don't think most studios took teased sequels very seriously because there was simply no guarantee any sequel would happen, no matter what the franchise was or how big a draw the stars or director were. Spielberg got himself locked into a fairly dopey setup for Back to the Future II by setting something up. It's why Marty's girlfriend spends most of her time in the future knocked out (or whatever, it's been a while, I just remember she's not a factor): they couldn't think of anything for her to do, but thanks to the setup they had to bring her to the future.

Bringing it back to the DEATH OF THE MOVIE THEATRE, I'm wondering how many of these planned franchises (planchises?) are going to be nixed in the coming years. Even Marvel can't guarantee successes, and offhand I can't think of any big YA novel series that cry out for an adaptation. I guess they might try with Dune, but I think that's iffy at best.
 
I do remember Young Sherlock Holmes's stinger, which featured that movie's antagonist signing in at some Swiss hotel under the name Moriarty and then smirking at the camera. Such a thing was practically unheard of at the time, predating Nick Fury's post-credits appearance in Iron Man by over 20 years
That scene caused my parents to stay at the end of the credits for literally every movie they just in case another movie did. On the rare occasion it happened before Marvel did it after every movie, they would lean over to me and say, "see, I knew we should have stayed."
 
Bringing it back to the DEATH OF THE MOVIE THEATRE, I'm wondering how many of these planned franchises (planchises?) are going to be nixed in the coming years. Even Marvel can't guarantee successes, and offhand I can't think of any big YA novel series that cry out for an adaptation. I guess they might try with Dune, but I think that's iffy at best.
Dune itself is a bit astroturfed too. Neither movie broke the billion dollar mark to get watershed status and book fans don't actually see Villeneuve's movies as faithful adaptations. MCU is out of good ESG-approved comics to adapt, which is why they're running on empty. Fury Road and its sequel was never big in the first place.

The future of theatrical runs--if there's going to be one at all--is the $50 million video game adaptation. Modestly budgeted with a recognizable IP.
 
I think there is a point to be made that part of the reason why people aren't going to movies anymore is because a lot of films are just going to be forgotten about overtime. Few will actually leave a mark or be looked at as classics in any form past their release. Seriously, think about how many movies have come out over the years. How many do you actually remember? How many of them get shown regularly on television? Go back even ten or fifteen years before Marvel really started taking over all of cinemas.
The only movies I remember seeing over the past few years would be John Wick, Marriage Story, Halloween (the new one) and Halloween Ends, and The Matrix (the new one). I only remember the new Matrix because of how thoroughly baffling it was. Part of this might be why the good movies from the 80's-90's are so well remembered today. They were not just good, but so good that they will never fade away from your mind. Part of this is that some movies from that era, even if they were initially unpopular like The Thing, had a clear vision behind its production that brought everything together thematically, visually, and structurally.
 
That scene caused my parents to stay at the end of the credits for literally every movie they just in case another movie did. On the rare occasion it happened before Marvel did it after every movie, they would lean over to me and say, "see, I knew we should have stayed."
I've seen other sites like this, and if my parents are in town, they want to go to the movies, so I plan ahead
 
  • Like
Reactions: Kit Marz
I think Jurassic Park was already slated for adaptation before Chricton even finished it.
You're thinking of the sequel. Spielberg bought the rights to adapt Jurassic Park after it spent a year atop the NY Times Bestseller list (back when that meant something).
Crichton had to be paid by the studio to write a sequel so they could make The Lost World, which is why in the books Ian Malcolm is resurrected for no reason after dying in the first book. Goldblum's version of the character was the most popular performance in the movie.
 
Last edited:
Bringing it back to the DEATH OF THE MOVIE THEATRE, I'm wondering how many of these planned franchises (planchises?) are going to be nixed in the coming years. Even Marvel can't guarantee successes, and offhand I can't think of any big YA novel series that cry out for an adaptation. I guess they might try with Dune, but I think that's iffy at best.
A lot of them I think will. A lot of studios over the last fifteen years wanted to build these cinematic universe to copy what Marvel did. But all of the ones that tried to have failed miserably and Marvel's sharp decline has to have executives realizing that the fad has passed.

Even with Dune they supposedly want to do more film adaptions based on other books in the Dune franchise. I cannot imagine that actually happening.
 
Lots of movies teased sequels that never happened. I don't think Black Cauldron was one of them, because conflating the first two books the way it did kind of blew that idea up on the launchpad, but you seem to know a lot more about that adaptation than I do. I watched it once in college and was too irritated by the changes to the books to remember much.
It's not that I know much about it, but once I was doing a dive into the rights and ran across a mega fan who DID know all about it (his blog).
(I need to finish that film too.)

I do remember Young Sherlock Holmes's stinger, which featured that movie's antagonist signing in at some Swiss hotel under the name Moriarty and then smirking at the camera. Such a thing was practically unheard of at the time, predating Nick Fury's post-credits appearance in Iron Man by over 20 years ... but here we are, almost 40 years later, and no Young Sherlock Holmes Vol. II.
Not just YSH (in 1985) but also Masters of the Universe had a stinger in 1987.

Also, when are we getting Buckaroo Banzai vs. the World Crime League?
Only in print.

You know what I just realized would be another big demarcation?

Toys.

Sure Godfather was a mega success, based on a book and all, but I don't recall it having any merchandise (back then anyway). Star Wars definitely changed that game. (I'm also not going to count later releases - like you can buy Jaws funko pops and board games now but I'm not sure there was much of it back when it released - though watch me be proven wrong here.)

Spaceballs made the joke but I think that could be our dividing line. Films which are made to be seen and make money from being seen vs films which are aiming to make their money off merchandising. What do the rest of the autistic meatbags here think?
 
Ticket prices are stupid-expensive these days but what really seals the deal are what they charge for inflated corn produce and watered down sodas. At-home streaming only made that point all the more evident.
Pre-screening commercials for whatever live events the theater was running bloating in runtime alongside the movies they were attached to did it in for me.
Pre and post-COVID I swear the amount of time dedicated to commercials, not trailers, after the lights went down more than doubled. Trailers are already largely pointless when they're posted on the internet the same day they show up in theaters, but after like 2 times I was done listening to AMC/Regal shill their corporate live conferences and limited time simulcast concerts.
 
Even with Dune they supposedly want to do more film adaptions based on other books in the Dune franchise. I cannot imagine that actually happening.
Oh dear God no. There's exactly two-and-a-half good books in the entirety of Dune, and the current adaptation is already through 60% of the way through that.
 
Pre-screening commercials for whatever live events the theater was running bloating in runtime alongside the movies they were attached to did it in for me.
Pre and post-COVID I swear the amount of time dedicated to commercials, not trailers, after the lights went down more than doubled. Trailers are already largely pointless when they're posted on the internet the same day they show up in theaters, but after like 2 times I was done listening to AMC/Regal shill their corporate live conferences and limited time simulcast concerts.
Remember when that shit was just slides before the lights went down? I sure do.
 
Back