« Work | Main | Moving On »

An Interesting Day

November 29, 2005 07:15 PM

I got a call from a Scottish newpaper today, the Sun something, about the latest spate of remakes of old films. King Kong was on the reporter's mind, but another fact was that more than 15 remakes of old movies are slated for release. This is an increase, according to the reporter, over last year's production of about 10 remakes, and slightly less the year before. It seems there is a pattern here. Has Hollywood discovered that remakes are profitable? Maybe, according to some perceptions of studio executives.

If one remake was profitable a few years ago does that mean that 15 this year will be? Or are producers and studios hoping to ride on their perceptions of what King Kong might make? Who knows. Certainly they don't know. Don't expect some kind of model or analysis to indicate that remakes are profitable and that 15 in the market will pan out. It can't be true and there is no model. If one was highly profitable a few years ago, when it was the lone remake, how could it follow that more than one or two of 15 remakes will be?

Most of them will not succeed. What this pattern shows is an old pattern of Hollywood grasping at previous successes with no knowledge of how they will turn out in the future. We saw this recently after the success of Shakespeare in Love which was followed by serious pronouncements by Hollywood and media reporters that the next big thing for the studios is to make character-based movies with slightly flawed characters. Virginia Postrel wrote a great column for the New York Times about the "Next formula" that year using my research to show it was a faint hope for managing the profound uncertainly that the movies must always live with. There is no formula.

It now appears that Hollywood has run out of creative ideas that can be marketed in the blockbuster manner and is reaching for past successes for a repeat. It can't happen. Even a remake is a completely different movie in a different time and place. Nobody knows how it will do.

I also got a letter from Bud Selig, Commissioner of Baseball...

thanking me for my paper on home run hitting (check the Research link above). He, rightfully, is concerned about the health of baseball players and may be having to concede some ground to Congress lest they dictate the terms of MLB steroid policy. A halfway rational Supreme Court would void any attempt by Congress to legislate testing policy for MLB or permit the invasion of the lives and bodies of MLB players. I don't think this Court would shy away from finding invasive testing Constitutional. Funny, because they have protected an expanded notion of privacy in so many other areas where the health risks are far greater such as children not having to inform their parents about abortions or HIV positives from being identified.

In fact, there seem to be NO health risks of playing MLB, except the usual risks of being a celebrity and playing many games in a highly competive sport. There are no steroid poster players in MLB who have had serious health problems. Giambi's health problems were from a bacteria and unrelated to his acknowledge use of steroids. And there are no proven benefits of steroid use for MLB players. Of course, they all seek an edge and some may think that steroids are helpful. They are wrong, but for the ability of steroids to limit inflamation. But, in that case, prednisone is superior to any of the anabolic steroids like Winstrol.

Until there are serious health risks to players, let them manage their own careers. There have been no changes in MLB home run hitting for 40 years. The recent pace of records is just one of those things that happens when the planets align, given the wild uncertainty of home run hitting at the extremes of human performance.

· Everything ~ · Sports ~ · The Movie Business

Comments

Posted by: Flower Online [TypeKey Profile Page] at September 12, 2006 4:58 AM

I quite agree with you.


Best regards, Serg

Posted by: Serg [TypeKey Profile Page] at June 5, 2006 6:42 AM

Post a comment

Thanks for signing in, . Now you can comment. (sign out)

(If you haven't left a comment here before, you may need to be approved by the site owner before your comment will appear. Until then, it won't appear on the entry. Thanks for waiting.)


Remember me?