Are they so obsessed with ""surprising"" us with ""new things"" when Hollywood doesn't even bother to do this?

If you haven't noticed, the majority of releases in the cinema have being remakes, sequels or very late sequels to older movies, even remaking comic books, pop culture, cartoons, books, TV shows, into movies which has being done since the silver age of cinema.  3D movies has being around so long since the 1950's.

The highest grossing movie Avatar (well gone with the wind can be argued also), really doesn't do anything new which it gets compared to movies like Dances with Wolves.  Hollywood obviously gives what its audience what it wants, familiarity.  Which is why we always see usually the same actors in a lot of films and  films that still stick to the oldest formulas of protagonist, antagonist, love interest formula not only bankroll but go on to win Oscars.

Why doesn't Nintendo learn from Hollywood and give people what there familiar with in video games or there franchises?  Instead of trying to ""surprise"" us and just make games we are willing to pay for?  Isnt it there job to sell as many videogames as physically possible instead of ""surprising"" us? 

Except Nintendo have never said they would like to be like Hollywood.

You'll have to provide some links, because I don't know what the frig you're on about. Is this an allusion to the codenames for their custom chips?

You're acting like Nintendo's the only company to ever produce a remake...

God of War Collection, Sly Cooper Collection, Splinter Cell Trilogy, Prince of Persia Trilogy, Halo: Combat Evolved HD, Resident Evil Remake... Nintendo's not exactly isolated in this area.

Except Hollywood have never said that they would like to be like Nintendo, we get fresh stuff all the time, you just aren't paying attention.

Nintendo (in the past) tried to compete on the same values as other companies and, even though they were quite successful at satisfying those values, had significant problems in maintaining their market share. By focusing on different values than their competition they created an asymmetric market which ensured that they could grow their market share by facing little direct competition.

Part of the reason Nintendo (seems to) focus on surprising their customers is to ensure that their product will remain distinct in the market. If Nintendo announced the features of the 3DS a year earlier, by the time Sony announced the NGP they would have already copied most of Nintendo’s unique features and weakened Nintendo’s strategy; and if Nintendo continued with a carbon copy of the Wii strategy, or announced their next generation system a year ago, Sony and Microsoft would have time to create a response to their product before Nintendo even released it.

So why they telling us to get excited over watching 3D Movies/Trailers on there gaming handheld when they showed off the 3DS?  Even talk up netflix? 

Why is Nintendo pushing for 3D in gaming at all when the gaming market has always rejected 3D, yet cinema market hasn't? 

Why does Miyamoto always bring up Star Wars for his reason to ""surprise the audiance."" when its a movie, not a video game?

Nintendo even put on the back of Other M  box ""witness the cinamatic story of Samus Aran's past."" WTF?  Movies are an essential feature of a video game?

Why does a developer at Nintendo, argue with his bosses to keep in cinamatics in a mario game? 

Sounds and looks to me, like a game company is pushing real hard to bank on Cinema. 

Iwata is trying quite hard to challenge the idea that just because Nintendo are good at very specific things, their platforms cannot have wider appeal. He is attempting to create an eco-system where atypical features can be brought to Nintendo platforms via third parties (not just movies/trailers but also more action games and shooters etc) with successful results.

I can understand why this strategy generates a large amount of backlash, I myself am not sure it is worth pursuing either, but I guess the rationale behind it is once there is a "healthy" level of "ordinary" entertainment content on Nintendo platforms (ordinary=the stuff found on other consoles) then Nintendo can go back to being Nintendo and do their own thing.

Once again, this seems even to a laymen like myself as a very risky strategy, and not something the old Nintendo would have done. It's possible Iwata is going too far with his "kindness" and openness to new ideas, to the point where he may be undoing some of the good philosophies built under Yamauchi. I hope this isn't the case.

Another way to look at it is to say that Nintendo usually try to take on a small amount of "big" problems in the industry with each hardware generation. The DS and Wii were obviously aimed at the issue of expanding the audience, and countering the idea that graphics are everything while bringing back the value of traditional, simpler games.

The 3DS, among other things, can be seen as Nintendo's first serious attempt to halt piracy on its systems (which were a serious problem this gen on DS and Wii). The other "big" problem they could be tackling this upcoming gen is the big shift in gaming from Japan to Western markets. This is a huge issue for Nintendo since it basically means they have to cater to a whole new audience which they are less familiar with (same problem all Japanese companies are facing, essentially).

It would be foolish of them to think this won't involve some trial and error, and have the company go through some growing pains. That is why the timing for such a difficult move would be appropriate since Nintendo are currently sitting on huge piles of cash from this generation's massive success. This kind of thinking still seems conservative for a company like Nintendo, since it is a reactive move (reacting to the changing market) but hopefully I will be proven wrong on this, possibly as soon as E3. Either way, this isn't Kansas any more

Regarding the second point: Miyamoto and Star Wars?? wut? do you have a source on that?

 I guess afer GC, they feel the need to differentiate themselves not just in software but hardware as well.

GC says hi. So does N64.

Those two had great games but Nintendo was in dead last with them.

So hardware is important for them too, not just software.

Those two didn't have mainstream games. That was the problem. 3D Mario has empirically proven it can't be a killer app. Even Mario Kart isn't enough of a killer app series. Zelda hasn't really sold systems either, at least not recently. Wii Sports sells systems. Wii Fit sells systems. Classic Mario sells systems.

Not sure if you disagree with that. I was just clarifying why the games didn't help those systems, no matter how much many of us like those games.