7/30    I'm tired of hearing people whine about sequel-itis in
        Hollywood yet support them with their box office dollars while
        skipping movies of original content.  Put your money where your
        mouth is.  For instance the top 20 movies (Yahoo Movies 7/30):
        -Sequels (10) =  $1.2M (i.e. Charlie Chocolate,War Worlds,Batman)
        -Originals (10) = $486K: (Mr Smith, The Island)
        \_ People are not supporting sequel-itis; income at movie theaters
           is down from last year, despite the continued rise in movie
           prices.
        \_ Charlie isn't a sequel.
           \_ No, it's a remake, which is even worse.
              \_ Considering that the first was a film adaptation of a book
                 that doesn't seem like that big of a deal.  Also this one
                 is tons truer to the source material.
              \_ Why?  Society has this irritating habit of evolving over
                 time.  After awhile, films tend to look dated, and to not
                 make much as much sense -- so the film gets remade with a more
                 contemporary style/script.  Just because it's new, doesn't
                 automatically mean it's bad.  It makes classic films more
                 accessible to a wider audience; I have a hard time
                 understanding why that's a bad thing.
                 \_ I support your idea.  I think we ought to print a new,
                    modern version of The Bible - but with a happier ending.
                    The original is such a downer, and modern audiences really
                    like an upbeat ending!
        \_ Batman wasn't a sequel. "The Island" was a remake of "Parts: The
           Clonus Horror" with a little "Logan's Run" mixed in.
        \_ People go to movies that their friends tell them are good.  The
           Island was obviously going to suck from watching the previews.
           Same thing for a bunch of others.  If you want sequels, think
           Star Wars.  Your list is really print-to-movie adaptations.
        \_ The "III" was dropped from "The Madness of King George" because
           test audiences kept assuming the film was the 3rd in a series.
           Since sequels consistently do better at the box office, I was
           surprised they didn't take advantage of the confusion.  Fine
           movie, btw.
           \_ Wot, wot!