Sign up for SKILLSHARE: https://skl.sh/screenprism23 | [NO 2018 SPOILERS] The new A Star Is Born (starring Bradley Cooper and Lady Gaga) is the 4th version of this movie, so we have to ask: why does Hollywood keep remaking it? What's so timeless about this story? Support ScreenPrism on Patreon: https://www.patreon.com/user?u=7792695
Sign up for exclusive updates: http://bit.ly/2oVVB1Q
If you like this video, subscribe to our YouTube channel for more.
Like ScreenPrism on Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/screenprism
Follow ScreenPrism on Twitter: http://twitter.com/screenprism
Visit ScreenPrism.com: http://screenprism.com/
Sign up for SKILLSHARE: http://skl.sh/screenprism23
Support ScreenPrism on Patreon: https://www.patreon.com/user?u=7792695
Subscribe to keep up with our latest videos, and let us know what you want to see next!
I actually think this movie should be remade every twenty years because at the core of the story it’s still the same. Woman are still judge for the way they look, the way the act, and what they sing and men still hide away their feelings and sometimes that leads to depression and in other cases drugs and drinking leading to a path of suicidal thoughts. It is a story that needs to be told and I like the fact that it is updated to go with the times. Yes the story changes but the core is the same and that is the important part. That is the part that needs to be told over and over again because it might help one person and sometimes that is enough.
The Judy Garland version was delayed because Warner Brothers decided that after much of the movie had been filmed, it had to be scraped in order to do it over in CinemaScope.
The movie was well liked by audiences, and with much critical acclaim. However Jack Warner didn't like the running time, being 3 hours, and cut it so it would have more showings in a theater per day. And that killed it. But you can now see the restored version.
When Grace Kelly got the Academy Award for best actress instead of Judy, Groucho Marx called it, "The biggest robbery sine Brink's."
I'm torn with this new movie. Part of me doesn't want it to do better than the 1954 version. Because Judy and the movie itself, got robbed. The other part of me wants it to get an Academy Award so they will finally stop making this movie again.
The 1937 version was fine. It holds up. The Devil is in it's details. The 1954 version I can understand, it's practically Judy's life story. She lived every moment. She could have written the script. The 1976 version is so bad it's painful to watch. Its just one big mess. I'll have to see this new version at some point to compare. I do like Lady Gaga. I would be more enthusiastic about it if, the woman played the heavy this time. That would be interesting, at least something new. Something the other versions either didn't consider or were to scared to attempt.
I, for one, am not upset at the remakes. It captures more audiences. I have seen, I think, the two first ones, and I can say that the story is very emotionally stimulating. It is very upsetting, but I think people need to see it. However, I don't think many people would pay it any attention if it weren't remade. Some people like remakes because they don't know that there is an original or refuse to watch it because the production value is not up to their standards, at least with videos like this, maybe some people will even recognize it as a remake. I guarantee you many people will think this is an original film, just as they do with covers of songs. Am I upset that people don't recognize some songs and movies as remakes? Yes, yes I am. However, at least people get to read the lyrics or watch the movies and feel a similar emotion to those that other people felt when they saw the original. Crappy reboot that doesn't have the same emotions or commentary? Trash it. Remake that evokes even the slightest bit of emotion as the original? Totally okay. It would be a problem if it were the same story like every 5 years, but the last one of these was in the 70s.
They keep re-making it. Because every generation likes a version of its own. That is about cost of a dream vs. love , watch out " La La Land ". Of course , if you are like me , why can't the lovers have both ?
So although the movie has been remade a lot, the story still expresses a realistic side of fame, showbiz and it's relationship among the characters that can be adapted to any time no matter how old it gets so far the passion and determination is there. Or Hollywood is just being lazy again( Just kidding)
She is not insecure, she is honest with herself. Her nose is big and she is rather ugly and obnoxious. She should try being honest with the public for once and stop with the fake and fairly debunked narrative of the struggling waitress who achieved fame. She went to the same school as Paris Hilton for fuck's sake. She's a fucking phony.
When I think Garland I kinda think (a very lil bit) Streisand and when I think Streisand I kinda think Gaga(/Joanne/...Germatti?) ...in terms of talent ...and the times -of course. The original actress gives an old Judy vibe as well but I think it's just me.
Because its the same old trope that women love. A successful man comes and rescues a damsel who isnt appreciated in her lower class.
Women feel they are continually undervalued and are always looking to climb up that social ladder. The film would never work if it was a burned out female superstar lifting up a lowly man to superstardom.
Its a Cinderella story pure and simple and women eat it up.
Counterpoint: the most pandering, girliest, unnecessarily sequelized film of all time, High School Musical has that exact plot. The burnt out actress drama teacher gets the pretty boy ingenue to pursue his dreams of acting and symbolically dies via him graduating from school. Or those dumb Twilight movies (which are arguably even more pandering) have the once-happy girl move away from home (away from popularity/fame and comfort) and meet an attractive, yet socially ostracized man and save him from the pressures of his society with the power of love which gains him popularity and acceptance. And then you have stuff like the James Bond movies (which were traditionally marketed towards men) that ALWAYS have the older, world-weary man rescue some chick and lift her up into luxury and agency.
What's even worst: young Judy Garland and other stars were suffering for the production of Wizard Of Oz. No wonder why film-makers prefer to use CGI nowadays because they thought using traditional film-making was dangerous back then.
The 1937 version is not like that. It has something the other versions lack. It's short, sharp, and concise. It's not a musical. And because it was made in 1937 the man killing himself because he doesn't want to be his wife's butler makes it more believable.
Yeah, you captured exactly why Coopers and Gagas promotional campaign is so exhausting. They are so overly earnest in how they are trying to associate the movies theme to their own relationship. It ends up feeling insincere and cynical.
madonna doesn't support the idea of a man (a Svengali) "creating" a female popstar, and has said that for years. at least she plays in original films and tries to experiment with film direction. gaga only seems to be able to be successful in paying homage or re-doing what's already been done. it's easier to "act" when you got four examples to look at and just copy it
Wow, and she didn't even get a nose job! Luckily a manly man was able to make her a success anyways!
If I see any more of these saintly men save the "ugly duckling" stuff I'm gonna puke. This video could have used more of a critical viewpoint. Especially regarding the very exploitative nature of this woman-needs-a-man narrative. Yes, so very timeless.
She honestly didn’t deserve that Golden Globe she ruined the American Horror Story Resume smh
I watched and was underwhelmed, they gave it to her for shock value and fashion only, not bare talent.
Also this new version is just a new version of the old one.
Just saw the newest version. It's absolutely amazing. The chemistry that Gaga and Bradley have with each other and that ending... wow. Incredible incredible incredible.
I've only otherwise seen the Garland version but I'm excited to dig back to the other two.
If you're talking about these remakes, Glitter and Up Close and Personal are absolutely still just Star is Born. The has been boyfriend/husband gets murdered instead of killing himself. Everything else is the same
Hollywood remakes anything and everything.
I wasn't meant for this world. Our society openly supports a large cult of people that use their influence to sway the popular opinion. And the more you worship these false idols, the bigger the "superfan" you are.
I've met enough guys who thought I was super talented and loved my work right until they found out I didn't want to date them that this story could never be endearing to me. I wish our society had changed enough for them to make a version where the big star is a woman and the rising star is a man, at least. The 'successful older man meets insecure younger woman and seduces her by liking her work (and her face)' trope is getting so old. Not to mention how closely it's connected to the whole mechanism of "I'll get you the part/contract if you put out".
Exactly why I'm so put off by this movie and the hype around it. I've seen this movie three times and I don't see how a fourth time will change anything. Especially when, as evidenced by this video, Bradley Cooper is out there pretending he discovered Lady Gaga as an actress and nobody believed in her before and that he made her feel confident and beautiful in her own skin. As much as I disliked Gaga's acting performances, there's plenty of people out there who do believe in her, enough to get her awards. Not to mention the movie is supposed to act like a mainstream pop singer is a sellout which is what Gaga is in real life??? I don't even know why she agreed to do this because that alone is an insult to her in my opinion. I really don't think we needed another movie about how a man saves a woman and makes her into what she is
The Genius Who Invented Economics Blogging Reveals How He Got Everything Right And Whats Coming Next.
Bill McBride, Calculated Risk The economics blogosphere was invented in early 2005 by a retired technology executive in Southern California named Bill McBride.
Thank God for that, because his blog, Calculated Risk, has been an invaluable and influential read for numerous reasons.
For one thing, its always been right. In its early days, when we all started reading it, it was way ahead of the curve in terms of warning about the housing bubble, horrible bank lending practices, and generally the economic collapse. From his perch in Newport Beach, CA he could see first hand the people taking out loans worth 10x their income, filling their Inland Empire garages with Harleys and Boats that they obviously couldnt afford.
But unlike many other bloggers who made a name during the crisis, he didnt stick with the doom and gloom message. He started making arguments for a GDP rebound in 2009.
Then in February of this year, he made his most important call: He announced: The Housing Bottom Is Here . McBride had officially come full circle from his days warning of housing collapse. Today, 8 months later, the housing bottom is becoming general consensus.
In addition to being correct on the economy, Calculated Risk has imparted the internet with other good practices, such as dutifully charting out the data, and examining data in an impartial, apolitical, non-hysterical manner.