Get a grip people, if SRS was serious about the Nexus 6 thing which Im positive he was not, big deal. Such a thing would have to be explained and I would be fascinated to see it. No one wanted a bar of this movie when it came out and now its in the untouchables section along with Bonzai.... Bahhh.
We are dealing with movies that we all love as they are set in different, vast universes. A universe is a big thing to explore last time I checked.
Was joking on the BR man... Relax.Mr Webber said:
Its hard to tell whos joking and whos not i guess, some people have their fingers crossed on a BR sequel and three posts later they think its a bad thing.
A touchy one for sure! I don't mind it but I sincerely hope they leave a little mystery to Ford's character. That said I doubt he'd be in it. Let's get a whole new story in that world.Mr Webber said:
No, but knowing Vader is really just a whiny b!tch does.JD said:
The thing with remakes is that they really serve to re-introduce stories to markets that may not have seen them.
Some people don't watch foreign movies. Perhaps they don't like reading subtitle. Some people don't like watching a dubbed film. Sometimes the storytelling paradigms of foreign cultures don't translate well across international boundaries.
Some younger people don't watch black and white films. I personally never got into silent films.
This same principle applies to making books into movies. A survey from about ten years ago said that only about 20% of the population reads for recreation. So, you figure a popular book still doesn't reach 80% of the population.
YOU'VE GOT MAIL was a remake of SHOP AROUND THE CORNER. Great job there.
Remaking PSYCHO? Not so much. But I welcomed 2008's THE INCREDIBLE HULK as it helped remove the memory of the Ang Lee's HULK of 2003. However, rebooting of Spiderman so soon, I really didn't get very excited about that. It just seemed like Hollywood recycling material to squeeze another dime out. (The same could be said about BLUES BROTHERS 2000, or CONEHEADS THE MOVIE.)
It's a mixed bag for sure.
That is INSANE...Dexter2999 said:
Everything Hollywood does is to make a buck.Dexter2999 said:
Sure there are some very rare exceptions - like when a producer/director finally "makes it" and has a project that they can finally do. But, most films that we see is all about the almighty dollar.
There are too many focus groups, too many people meddling with trying to perfect a film into their little specific categories to appeal to the masses.
But, one might also say every story has already been told and everything we watch/read is just a variation on a theme or combination of themes that we've already seen.
But, that doesn't mean that a prequel/sequel/remake/reboot can't be a great film experience.
Here's my take.
Remakes/Reboots
In general, those films don't affect my enjoyment of the original material because they don't "change" the original material for me. It's like a different continuity, different universe. So, in regards to the original product, not a big deal to me.
What bothers me about remakes and reboots is that it is far often more about pure marketing than about actually good content. Sometimes it works out great, but much of the time it's just slapping a brand name on otherwise ho-hum material.
If I could convince Hollywood producers to think like this, here's what I'd say: If you're thinking about doing a remake, stop and ask yourself whether, if you removed the branded material, your movie would be worth a crap. If the answer is "not really, no," then don't make that movie.
Sequels/Prequels
These I have a problem with. I've tried to explain it before, but my bet is that if you don't get what I'm about to say...you just won't get it. It'll never make sense.
For me, a bad sequel or prequel CAN ruin an original, if only because, as OB described, it "fills in the blanks" or tells me "What happened next?" Moreover, I can't put the bad sequel/prequel out of my mind when I'm watching the original. I know what happens next now or what happened before, and so I'm thinking about that while watching the original. If those sequels or prequels are lame, then the disappointment I feel at those bleeds into the original for me.
Sometimes I can get enough distance from them to still enjoy the originals, but often I can't. This is the reason why I haven't popped the Matrix into my player in probably five years. Maybe more. I just have no desire to watch it, because while I'm watching it, I'll be thinking of how I think the next two movies just suck. With other movies, I can sometimes come back to them years later, if the originals are good enough and stand well enough on their own, but the experience will never be as enjoyable to me as it was before I saw the next entry.
I know this is a weird thing about me. I don't understand it, myself, even. And in many cases I WISH I didn't function this way. I'd love to be able to watch a bad prequel or sequel and be like >shrug< whatever. Doesn't bother me any, but if it's a movie I really really love, I know that's not gonna happen. I've learned this the hard way. It's happened with too many franchises for me. So, now I just...opt out. I don't bother watching sequels/prequels if I'm worried they're gonna suck, particularly about favorite film franchises. I wish I didn't have to, because sometimes I'm curious about a film, but I know that if it sucks, I'll just end up enjoying the originals less. Or at least that there's a chance for that to happen, so...I avoid 'em.
Shouldn't that be said about any movie being made and not just remakes?Solo4114 said:
If there absolutely IS a reason to do a remake - the script writer or the director or the producer coming up with an interesting new take on the piece and not just carbon copying the best parts of the original and hoping it'll be a success, then I really have no problems with remakes.
Let the Right One In / Let Me In was mentioned earlier. I just felt the American adaption didn't really add much, but just copied what the Swedish one had done, only making the peripheral characters younger, and adding more cheesy horror effects, instead of going with the mysterious: "wtf did I just see?" that the original had. I like both, but prefer the Swedish one for the simple reason of the ambiguous and subtle effects where you are not really sure what just happened, giving you that weirded out sensation absolutely required for that kind of movie. The American one was too much in-your-face with the vampire stuff. I really want to read the book but it has been absolutely INSANE trying to find it here in DK - all discontinued! .(
If a movie has a good story, with good characters and an emerging plot, then it really doesn't matter if it is a remake or reboot. Good stories are worth my time, bad ones will quickly be forgotten.
Regarding Star Wars. Well, if a director went back to the original script that is basically what we know as ANH and the latter half of RotJ but with Wookies instead of Ewoks and made that into a movie, then that might be pretty interesting to me. Since the Star Wars from the creator's hand has gone more and more towards a younger and younger audience, then this new one could go in the opposite direction to set it apart. However... without the John Williams score... it may turn out to be a seriously bad idea as that score... well... you can't really have Star Wars without that score. So, if this has to be done, then Hans Zimmer would probably be my bet to make things different. With the technology available today... Star Wars would be a completely different experience with far less human characters than in the originals, and more alien diverse as the original script that Lucas broke up to make his movies.
Last edited by Too Much Garlic; Oct 14, 2012 at 10:31 AM.
In general, yes, when you're talking about branded properties. The one I keep coming back to is the first G.I. Joe movie (the live-action one, I mean). That movie...should not have been made. It was one of the most transparent and BAD uses of branding I've seen. And I guarantee you that if you did nothing more than change the names of the characters and organizations involved -- just that -- it would have flopped. It SHOULD have flopped because it's just a lousy film, but because of the name, people went to see it.Too Much Garlic said:
Yes, but that begs the question of why bother using the old name at all? Why bother doing a remake instead of doing a separate film that can stand on its own two feet? Once you get so far away from the original material, what's the point in having it be a remake at all? Why bother? Why not just do a new thing? At a certain point, you're not "introducing a new audience to the material." You're just doing new material, but stamping it with an old brand to make it more familiar and approachable. It's a marketing strategy and I hate that it works.If there absolutely IS a reason to do a remake - the script writer or the director or the producer coming up with an interesting new take on the piece and not just carbon copying the best parts of the original and hoping it'll be a success, then I really have no problems with remakes.
That said, sometimes remakes are good. In spite of my disappointment with the ending, the Galactica remake was pretty damn awesome. But more often remakes are just a good brand cloaking an otherwise crappy film.
Oh... yeah, I see your point. To a degree, with that comment, I was talking about remakes that are basically new adaptions of a book. Should have made that more clear.
When doing a new adaption, don't copy the earlier movie, but do your own version of the book. Sure, you are telling somewhat the same story as the previous movie, but there are usually more things in the book than there are even in the previous adaptions.
I started watching Galactica and though it started out somewhat strong, I just quickly lost interest because of the lousy mystery structure and the fact that it just seemed to take itself WAY too seriously.
Too Much Garlic said:
Wow. To say I disagree with your comments here is simply an understatement.Too Much Garlic said:
I think both Let Me In and Battlestar Galactica (which I've previously mentioned in this thread) are shining examples of why remakes are very important. And both for very different reasons...
Let Me In brings this great story to an American audience. Yes, the Swedish version was fantastic - but, how many American's are truly going to watch the dubbed or subtitled version? Yes, it had a cult following and I'm sure the American version had more viewers here and in English speaking areas. There's a few of us, myself included who feel the remake surpassed the original.
And I'm not the only one who might think your opinion (which you're definitely entitled to) is a little off base (particularly those about the in your face vampire stuff). Roger Ebert summed it up with 3 1/2 stars and this line in his review: "Those hoping to see a "vampire movie" will be surprised by a good film." Even Stephen King hailed it and the Telegraph (and many others) called it better than the original.
...and well, BSG was highly regarded by many. Time magazine, a Peabody award. It's accolades were many, but sadly underappreciated by the Emmy Awards (which many theorized was due to the Sci Fi branding).
I think both of these properties are examples of remakes done very well and very much worth watching.
I think that's the whole point in a nutshell. American viewers.JD said:
But, the vampire stuff WAS in your face in Let Me In. The yellow eyes, the abnormal movements when going to CG and the overly gory stuff.
And as I said, I like both for very different reasons - they both tell a great story about growing up and friendship and the realization that the world is a scary place. I prefer the toned down and almost voyeuristic vampire stuff of the Swedish version to the more clearly shown stuff in the American version. And to be honest, I really don't feel some of the CG effects were that well executed and they could easily have saved the money on those and done it practically. Some prefer the less score in LTROI, but I actually like the score in LMI... but... I understand the point completely that too strong a score takes away from the realism of the piece and makes it more cinematic, if that makes sense.
I never got the sense that this could possibly be happening right next door to me with the American version, which I got out of the Swedish version.
With Battlestar... they just lost me with their going on and on and on and on and on... and never really getting anywhere and it absolutely did take itself way too seriously... and for me that just made it fall flat on its face.
This discussion reminded me that I actually liked the American version of The Ring better than Ringu. For me, the American version was a lot creepier and weirder.
The Ring 2, however, was HILARIOUSLY bad.
Having seen the original versions of LET THE RIGHT ONE IN and GIRL WITH THE DRAGON TATTOO, I didn't bother seeing either remake.
And to me Noomi Rapace will always be Lisbeth Salander.
We Americans do take a heavy hand on foreign films. And language is no excuse to be honest. There was no excuse for dubbing Mel Gibson's voice in MAD MAX. There was no reason to make TO WONG FOO LOVE JULIE NEWMAR, when PRICILLA QUEEN OF THE DESERT was a wonderful film already.
Hollywood figures they can just remake a movie (or TV show) that they target directly at American audiences and make a boatload of cash while demonstrating limited creativity. Let's be honest CONTENT IS KING IN HOLLYWOOD. Who has the next hot property? Even if you are a director, producers are asking if you have an idea for a movie. Well, if you are a new director anyway. Once you have made your mark, I'm sure it's not the same. Then again many successful directors and actors have their own production companies.
New ideas do get made. Many of them are low budget, independent films. This is because the Hollywood machine doesn't want to pour tens of millions into unproven ideas/unproven quantities (talent, directors, stories). When you are spending this considerable amount of money you have to be responsible in keeping the return on investment in mind. Or else you would find yourself out of a very prestigious, very well paying job.
And who wants to get kicked out of the cool club?
With the advanced pace of technology, especially CGI for sets and transformations and action sequences of ships/men/armor/weapons/beasts, its surprisingly cheaper for the industry to actually make films, so why not give all those untold stories a shot? Frankly, Im tired of seeing remakes, there are thousands, if not hundreds of thousands of stories that are originall and still, somewhat unique. Yes, reboots can turn out to be quite amazing, BSG was one of them. Captain America was done in film and tv and finally back to the big screen...simply amazing the amount of effort poured into it. Superman and other Heros rebooted as well, but what happened to the new and untried? I would really love to see INVINCIBLE hit into tv series as well as others. It all comes down to the quality of the production. GI JOE was just sad. So much more could have been done, but it is what it is. Money is the driving force. Im sure HALO and MASS EFFECT movies are a coming. Hell, even WARCRAFT. I guess in the end, you choose what version you want to associate with. Niether version is right or wrong, just a different perspective that is subject to interpretation by the masses. Sometimes it works, sometimes it doesnt.
Your loss. You missed out on some exceptional films due to your prejudices.Dexter2999 said:
It's too bad you doubt your conviction in the originals to see the remakes and (potentially) enjoying them for what they are. It's unfortunate your mind isn't open enough to see what might be different, better or worse.
You can complain about the Americanization of these but that appears to be the only way to get the masses to see these films. I don't blame Hollywood one bit for doing this. It makes them money and hopefully it might get some people to check out the originals.
I can't speak for Dexter, but for me at least, the phenomenon isn't a question of being open-minded, nor is it a matter of "conviction in the originals." For me, it's some kind of emotional tie that I have trouble describing, and which either lessens or goes away altogether when an entry in the series shows up that I don't like. And yeah, I actually really wish this wasn't the case for me. It sucks when you take a chance on a film, and it actually makes you like the original LESS as a result.JD said:
This isn't the case with remakes, usually. And I recognize that makes zero sense. Like, why would a remake of a movie I love not bother me as much as a bad sequel/prequel/side story about the same characters starring the same actors? I guess it's the continuity aspect and the fact that this is now the "official" story, whereas a remake is just the same film (or a similar one) with different actors.
I don't really buy into the "And they'll go watch the originals" argument much. I expect most people will ignore the originals altogether, particularly if they don't like the American version, and particularly if they're younger viewers. I mean, that's neither here nor there, of course. Whether they watch the original or don't doesn't really matter much to me. I just don't think it's the case that it happens all that often.You can complain about the Americanization of these but that appears to be the only way to get the masses to see these films. I don't blame Hollywood one bit for doing this. It makes them money and hopefully it might get some people to check out the originals.
Like, if someone did a movie about a hired gun who pits two rival crime families against each other, and set it in some futuristic sci-fi setting, I doubt you'd have a lot of kids going back and re-watching Last Man Standing, A Fistful of Dollars, or Yojimbo. Or if they did, they'd just be like "Dude, this is boring. There's no sploshuns!" (well, maybe not with Last Man Standing)
Anyway, side question here. For those who are in no way bothered by remakes, what would you think if, say, some absolute classic film was remade? Would it bug you? I'm talking Star Wars, Raiders of the Lost Ark, The Godfather, The Searchers, Citizen Kane, something like that. Would you be bothered by it? Or would you not care?
Personally, I'm on the fence about that. I'd be bothered at the hubris involved in remaking a classic, and I'd be bothered that it was money spent on something that did NOT need to be done rather than something else new and interesting....but otherwise, I don't know I'd care that much. It really WOULDN'T affect the original.
What you're describing is a lack of conviction.Solo4114 said:
If you like one film less because of another film, well... that's just a weak willed, lack of conviction.
You can not buy into it... but I've seen more more Let The Right One in DVDs after the release of Let Me In than I did before.I don't really buy into the "And they'll go watch the originals" argument much. I expect most people will ignore the originals altogether, particularly if they don't like the American version, and particularly if they're younger viewers. I mean, that's neither here nor there, of course. Whether they watch the original or don't doesn't really matter much to me. I just don't think it's the case that it happens all that often.
The only thing that hasnt sat well with me and thankfully, turned out to be only a fad was the colourisation nightmare that was all the go years back, terrible idea.
Alien was a remake of Dark Star, the purists disagree but if the writer of both films calls it a remake, i`ll go with him everyday of the week. The Cohen Brothers True Grit was a masterpeice in its own right. I know my cinema experience would be poorer without them.
Does anybody have a heart for Jaws fans?
Just look at Jaws: The Revenge compared to the original.
All anybody complains about is Star Wars and Alien even though Jaws fans fared much worse!
A poorly made sequel or prequel does not ruin my enjoyment of the original or any good sequels that follow. If that were the case I would never watch anything again. I dislike the SW prequels simply because I thought they were poorly made and targeted for a younger audience than the OT. Did they ruin my ability to enjoy the original theatrical version of the OT? Not at all. I think the phrase "George Lucas raped my childhood" was actually made up by those who like the prequels not those that dislike them.
As for remakes I will watch them just like any other movie although I usually don't run to the theater to see them. Just like sequels and prequels they do not ruin my ability to enjoy the original. If I don't like it I will simply not watch it again.
Doesn't bother me one bit, because my favorite movies will always be my favorite movies
Nothing will ever change the fact that Jaws is a terrific movie so who cares if Jaws 3 and Jaws the revenge sucked. Besides they're really funny so grab a beer and go all MST3K on them.Shadow345 said:
Reply with Quote