ENTERTAINMENT

Screen | Where everything old is still old

Todd Hill
Reporter

Everything actor Bradley Cooper touches turns to gold.

That's certainly the perception right now, with the actor coming off three straight Oscar nominations for Best Actor, not to mention producing and starring in the 2014 box-office champion "American Sniper," which is STILL playing in theaters.

It came as no surprise, therefore, to see Cooper's name attached this week to yet another high-profile film project when it was announced that he will make his directorial debut with a fourth version of "A Star is Born." Cooper is slated to star opposite the singer Beyonce.

"A Star is Born" is the quintessential Hollywood story – a young actress finds fame as her beau loses his – so maybe that explains its staying power, but really, a fourth version?

Frederic March and Janet Gaynor starred in the first "A Star is Born," released in 1937, followed by a far superior 1954 remake that featured Judy Garland and James Mason. The property was then cheapened, although evidently not irretrievably, by a tacky 1976 version that starred Kris Kristofferson and Barbra Streisand.

Bad as that movie was, it won Streisand a Best Song Oscar for a tune called "Evergreen," which people of a certain age still remember even though they likely haven't heard it for 30 years.

I don't want to turn this into another column about the lack of originality in Hollywood. I go there about twice a year and it's getting old. After all, this year shows every sign of being the most profitable year for the movies on record, thanks to a slew of blockbusters lined up like Boeing 747s coming in to land at a major metropolitan airport.

And the year will get there with film franchises. We're a week away from the release of "Furious 7," for instance, the seventh in the "Fast and Furious" franchise, and if you don't think that's going to debut with an opening weekend north of $100 million then you're like me before the release of the sixth title.

Far be it from me to trash a movie that an enormous amount of people clearly want to see. Nevertheless, this is yet another column about the lack of originality in Hollywood, because I've just spent some time running through the titles in the production timeline, and came away shocked by the sheer number of movies I won't be making an effort to see.

I've no interest in superhero movies, so I won't be trekking to catch "Avengers: Age of Ultron" or the next "Avengers" films in 2018 and 2019, or "Batman v. Superman: Dawn of Justice," or "X-Men: Apocalypse." Or the third "Wolverine" flick, or the coming movies starring Sandman, Aquaman, Spider-Man, Ant-Man, Wonder Woman, Captain America, Thor, Green Lantern, Cyborg, Shazam, The Flash, Gambit, Doctor Strange or Black Panther. Or all those new "Guardians of the Galaxy" films. Or the new "Justice League" franchise either.

I'm sorry if I left any superhero movies out, but I'm sure I'm did.

Will the big Hollywood studios have any money – or weeks on the calendar – left to release anything else? Oh, you bet.

How about a follow-up to "Jurassic Park?" Or a new "Blade Runner?" Or another "Ghostbusters?" Or yet another "Terminator" title (yes, Arnold Schwarzenegger is back, after of course saying he'll be back for the umpteenth time)? Three more "Avatar" flicks are on the way. "Mad Max" is returning, as are National Lampoon's "Vacation" comedies. And did I mention the reprise of "Poltergeist," and the "Alien" franchise, and a second "Frozen" and a second "Top Gun" and a fourth "Toy Story" and a fourth "Beverly Hills Cop" and a fifth "Pirates of the Caribbean?"

There's genuine excitement about the new batch of "Star Wars" motion pictures coming out in December, in 2017 and 2019, I'm assuming from fans who remember and cherish the "Star Wars" films of 1977, 1980 and 1983. Myself, I'm still trying to get the dead-on-arrival ones from 1999, 2002 and 2005 out of my consciousness.

But here's what really floors me – a May 2016 sequel to "Alice in Wonderland," that Tim Burton/Johnny Depp train wreck from five years ago. I understand that a movie doesn't have to be great to generate a sequel, but where is it written that it needs to be that awful?

I'm sure some of the coming movies I've mentioned – perhaps even quite a few – will be worth seeing. Many more than that will generate solid box-office returns. But studio coffers, as well as weeks in the year, are finite, and every retread takes the place of something original, and is another step backward for the art form that is cinema.

thill3@nncogannett.com

419-563-9225

Twitter: @ToddHillMNJ