• TalkBass has been independent since 1998. Add your voice.
    Create a free account to reply to discussions, view embedded media, and browse with fewer display ads.
    Join free Log in
    Want zero display ads or expanded classifieds tools? Compare plans.

WHY? WHY? WHY? WHY? WHY? WHY? WHY?

#21
Bloodhammer said:
The original, the remake, or the upcoming re-remake?

I thought the David Lynch movie was as accurate as it could be for its running time, but to really do the book justice, it should have been six hours long. Too much had to be left out to make it into a movie.
Click to expand...


Agreed, it does about as well as an adaptation can do in that frame and the movie certainly has plenty of its own charm.

Going through the list: I'm grumpy about some, but I'll actually go see Cleopatra and The Great Gatsby with some semblance of hope for decent entertainment.

I'll go watch Excalibur just because I watch every Arthurian film that comes out and they all get compared to Boorman's Excalibur which IMO is simply the best ever made.
 
#25
Both of "The Thing" movies are based on a 50's science fiction short story called "Who Goes There". The Kurt Russell version (John Carpenter actually) follows the book quite closely - both are fabulous pieces of science fiction horror IMHO.

The written story was a psychological thriller dealing with a group of isolated people who are never quite sure who's real and who's the monster. The gross bits in the movie are quite accurate to the written story but the visual impact in the movie diminishes the psychological aspects of the written story. I recommend enjoying both the written story and the John Carpenter version if you get the chance.
 
#26
Another thing that is missing in many new films are grown-ups. There are male & female actors who are adults, in many adult situations, acting much more like children. The result, a overlong Friends remake.

Little class, little maturity, and the humor or horror is pretty repetitive. I am drawn more and more to low-budget foreign stuff just because it is much more human and so much less like a sitcom.

I enjoyed the taking of chances that movie makers used to employ. The result was rarely a perfect movie. Heck, I am only looking for an original, or new plot line. Today's pop music suffers the same trend-spotting replicated formulas.

We must suffer or ignore it I guess.
 
#28
P. Aaron said:
Another thing that is missing in many new films are grown-ups. There are male & female actors who are adults, in many adult situations, acting much more like children. The result, a overlong Friends remake.

Little class, little maturity, and the humor or horror is pretty repetitive. I am drawn more and more to low-budget foreign stuff just because it is much more human and so much less like a sitcom.

I enjoyed the taking of chances that movie makers used to employ. The result was rarely a perfect movie. Heck, I am only looking for an original, or new plot line. Today's pop music suffers the same trend-spotting replicated formulas.

We must suffer or ignore it I guess.
Click to expand...

Indeed. Formulaic, predictable and uninspired.
+1 on the foreign stuff.
But there are at least a few good movies a year.
 
#29
It doesn't look like a remake to me. The original Thing was one of my favorites and if you remember it was the Norwegians who found the creature first. This looks to be from their perspective. However they all talk in American English so they might've said "**** it" and combined the whole thing.
 
#30
I totally forgot to hit the post button when I left for rehearsal!

Agreed. I don't really watch American movies anymore unless its pointless ******** and I'm in the mood for a laugh. There are some good ones though. I saw Paper Man recently and I thought it was good in that indie movie sorta way.

Some of the movies posted really puzzle me. Why remake Girl with the Dragon Tattoo? It came out only about a year ago! :(
 
#34
I saw the original from 1951 ("The Thing from Another World") in the late '50s. It had James Arness as the thing. I also saw the 1982 version, which was much gooier. I read an interview with one of the producers, and they asked him how they did the special effects. He said, "I can't tell you exactly, but I'll just say we used a lot of mayonnaise."

I don't really see how they can make it any scarier than the 1982 version.
 
#35
hbarcat said:
A Star Is Born Wasn't this already a remake? Maybe a few times?
Akira
Child’s Play Bleh
Cleopatra
The Crow
The Dambusters
Daredevil can only get better (he says optimistically)
Das Experiment
Death Note
Dune
The Evil Dead I wonder if they'll use food to do the special effects this time, too.
Excalibur This will be a great disappointment...and yet I'll go.
Fantastic 4 Reborn I'm ashamed to admit I'll probably watch this one, too. I watch MOST comic book movies.
Footloose Seriously
Frankenstein
The Girl With The Dragon Tattoo I'm actually looking forward to this one. I LOVED the books.
Godzilla Again?
Ghost In The Shell
The Great Gatsby
Highlander Noooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo!
Judge Dredd sucked last time. It'll suck this time, too.
The Lone Ranger Yes. Go ahead. Rape my childhood.
Oldboy
RoboCop Why?
Short Circuit
Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles
Point Break Again, why?
Tell No One
The Thin Man
The Three Musketeers
Tinker, Tailor, Soldier, Spy Actually looking forward to this one
Timecrimes
The Three Musketeers has been done millions of times. What's one more?
Total Recall again, why?
The Warriors Say it isn't so! It's going to be ruined. I know. But how will they ruin it?
Click to expand...
.
 
#36
Remakes are not always a bad thing.

Granted, 99% of the time they are just a grab for cash without having to actually write a new story, but a lot of remakes really have a lot of potential.

The hate shouldn't be on remakes, the hate should be on the commercialised heap of crap modern mainstream film has become whereby it is acceptable and profitable to take an old film, whack in some big name actors and a few hundred millions dollars and reap the rewards.
 
#37
Is it more a testament to theater going being more a social exercise than an entertainment one? Is it too much for younger generations, in the age of instant access to just about everything online, to search out the original versions, or they truly need to be fed the modern update? I don't have the answer or the perspective, but the few times I'd shown my Daughter the remake of something, and then the original, she has said it didn't make that much of a difference to her, like the original didn't seem dated (save for fashion / music, etc)...maybe that's all it is. Music and fashion. And CGI.

With all the money being bandied about on study this and study that in society (for "science" studies of course) shouldn't this be on the list for studies?
 
#38
Bloodhammer said:
The original, the remake, or the upcoming re-remake?

I thought the David Lynch movie was as accurate as it could be for its running time, but to really do the book justice, it should have been six hours long. Too much had to be left out to make it into a movie.
Click to expand...

Well, I have seen the D Lynch one about 15 times, so I can't say I don't like it. The SciFi(?) chaqnnel miniseries had potential, but ended up kinda "Meh".

So, I'll wait for this, and judge it on it's own merits.
 

Latest posts

Top Bottom
Back