Print Page | Close Window

More Movie Remakes

Printed From: Commercials I Hate!
Category: Commercials You Hate!
Forum Name: Television Related Rants
Forum Description: That awful stuff between the bad commercials.
URL: http://www.commercialsihate.com/forum_posts.asp?TID=10609
Printed Date: 28 Mar 2024 at 2:09pm
Software Version: Web Wiz Forums 11.04 - http://www.webwizforums.com


Topic: More Movie Remakes
Posted By: Tiz
Subject: More Movie Remakes
Date Posted: 17 Jul 2011 at 10:35pm
A 'new' Planet Of the Apes and  The Thing. I've seen a lot about the Apes redo, but caught just one ad for The Thing.
The '82 John Carpenter's "The Thing" is a great movie. Wonder how they'll muck it up by adding a woman in the new one. Not to mention, no one survived in the '82 version.
  http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0905372/ - http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0905372/




Replies:
Posted By: msmadz
Date Posted: 18 Jul 2011 at 2:55pm
The commercial for Planet of the Apes scares the living daylights out of me.
 
Monkeys and apes in general scare the crap out of me. I think it all started with those freaking flying monkeys in The Wizard of Oz.


-------------
The artist formerly known as Madawee





Posted By: Thor
Date Posted: 18 Jul 2011 at 3:50pm

I think The Hathaways might've shaped my love of chimps.  The Hathaways was a sitcom way back when, and I'm probably the only person here who remembers it...which proves what an indelible mark it left on my life.

They should make a movie out of it.  I'm sure everyone's clamoring for it.


Posted By: IronKnight
Date Posted: 17 Aug 2011 at 7:08pm
The Thing movie is actually a prequel and its called Prometheus now. I don't think it even is related to the Thing anymore.


Posted By: Hootman
Date Posted: 17 Aug 2011 at 9:03pm
Originally posted by Thor Thor wrote:

I think The Hathaways might've shaped my love of chimps.  The Hathaways was a sitcom way back when, and I'm probably the only person here who remembers it...which proves what an indelible mark it left on my life.

They should make a movie out of it.  I'm sure everyone's clamoring for it.


Alas, Peggy Cass and Jack Weston are dead....probably most of the apes as well. 


Posted By: insanity213
Date Posted: 17 Aug 2011 at 9:06pm
These scumbag director wannabe's in Hollywood better leave Carpenter's Prince of Darkness out of the remake trend .. I can only imagine all the different ways they could (and would) f**k that one up.




Posted By: PaWolf
Date Posted: 17 Aug 2011 at 9:15pm

Believe it or not, I think they've just remade "Straw Dogs".

Can only be an insult to the original.



-------------
X               <sig.nature>
"What we do for ourselves dies with us, What we do for others is and remains immortal." - Albert Pike


Posted By: insanity213
Date Posted: 17 Aug 2011 at 9:28pm
Originally posted by PaWolf PaWolf wrote:

Can only be an insult to the original.


Kinda like the case with The Omen.

That's just one of many more examples, too.  I heard they were gonna do a remake of Rosemary's Baby, but thankfully decided to scrap the project.


Posted By: PaWolf
Date Posted: 17 Aug 2011 at 10:04pm
Originally posted by insanity213 insanity213 wrote:

...I heard they were gonna do a remake of Rosemary's Baby, but thankfully decided to scrap the project.
They could do 'Rosemary's Great GrandBaby' and maybe get a few fans.
Maybe they could get Sally Struthers to play Ruth Gordon's role.


-------------
X               <sig.nature>
"What we do for ourselves dies with us, What we do for others is and remains immortal." - Albert Pike


Posted By: Yutolia
Date Posted: 18 Aug 2011 at 1:10am
Yeah, they'd better leave Big Trouble in Little China alone too. Don't you even think about it, Hollywood!!!

-------------
"Xbox Live is an online homophobia club for pre-teen Tourette’s sufferers." - Brockway, Cracked.com


Posted By: jeroboam
Date Posted: 18 Aug 2011 at 1:18am
Actually The Thing prequel is the Thing again :) and is about the Norwegian camp finding said "Thing", which by the way, the Carpenter one was a remake in of itself. Prometheus is a prequel to Alien but now is more an expansion of the Alien universe regarding the "space jockey" creature in the "chair" that the Nostromo crew finds at the beginning of Alien.


Posted By: jeroboam
Date Posted: 18 Aug 2011 at 1:25am
Rise of the Planet of the Apes also is in a sense a prequel. Hell the Planet of the Apes franchise has no real integrity, it has been so watered down and bastardized over the years that even Tim Burton's mess was a noble little endeavor.
I am a little worried about the new Conan. I know that Ahnoldz Conan while awesome in its own right, was pretty far from Howard's original vision. After seeing Jason Momoa tearing out a man's throat in Game of Thrones, I think he may do well as our beloved Cimmerian warrior


Posted By: MrCleveland
Date Posted: 18 Aug 2011 at 2:17am
What will Hollywood remake next?..."Gone with the Wind"?!

Many remakes suck and yet...they keep remaking films!

For the TV to Film Movies, this should be the next feature..."Test Pattern"!...


The sound will be dubbed by George Lucas so you get that THX Sound, and Sally Struthers is that annoying beep itself...and it goes on like this for 2 hours!

My other option for this was to have the Test Pattern just yell "f**k" for 2 long hours and it'll sound like "Fuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuucccccccccccccccccccccccck"!


-------------
Thank God for kids who love Obscure Things.

Lee Hazelwood (1929-2007)


Posted By: insanity213
Date Posted: 18 Aug 2011 at 3:21pm
Originally posted by MrCleveland MrCleveland wrote:

My other option for this was to have the Test Pattern just yell "f**k" for 2 long hours and it'll sound like "Fuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuucccccccccccccccccccccccck"!


Quite frankly I'd be much more entertained by that than about 99.9999999999% of the sh*t directors come up with these days.



Posted By: Thor
Date Posted: 18 Aug 2011 at 3:48pm
Originally posted by Hootman Hootman wrote:

Originally posted by Thor Thor wrote:

I think The Hathaways might've shaped my love of chimps.  The Hathaways was a sitcom way back when, and I'm probably the only person here who remembers it...which proves what an indelible mark it left on my life.

They should make a movie out of it.  I'm sure everyone's clamoring for it.


Alas, Peggy Cass and Jack Weston are dead....probably most of the apes as well. 
 
While I'm now distraught over the deaths of these legendary actors and chimps, I'm glad to know that someone else here remembers this show.
 
Wikipedia references a critic having called it "possibly the worst series ever to air on network TV", and who remarked on its "total worthlessness".  I dunno.  Sounds like a recipe for success, considering "The Kardashians" and "Jersey Shore".
 


Posted By: Hootman
Date Posted: 18 Aug 2011 at 4:23pm
Originally posted by Thor Thor wrote:

Originally posted by Hootman Hootman wrote:

Originally posted by Thor Thor wrote:

I think The Hathaways might've shaped my love of chimps.  The Hathaways was a sitcom way back when, and I'm probably the only person here who remembers it...which proves what an indelible mark it left on my life.

They should make a movie out of it.  I'm sure everyone's clamoring for it.


Alas, Peggy Cass and Jack Weston are dead....probably most of the apes as well. 
 
While I'm now distraught over the deaths of these legendary actors and chimps, I'm glad to know that someone else here remembers this show.
 
Wikipedia references a critic having called it "possibly the worst series ever to air on network TV", and who remarked on its "total worthlessness".  I dunno.  Sounds like a recipe for success, considering "The Kardashians" and "Jersey Shore".
 
I could watch "The Hathaways".  I can't be in the same room when those other two shows are on. 
 
My wife told me that some clothing company actually offered a "star" of the "Jersey Shore" show money to quit wearing their clothes.  How's that for bad representation!


Posted By: Thor
Date Posted: 18 Aug 2011 at 4:57pm
I heard about that, Hoot.  It was Abercrombie & Fitch.  Not sure who exactly their market is, but I think their ads are known to feature lots of nearly-naked teens writhing around with each other.  So, I'm not buying that the clothing line has something against the Jersey Shorers.  Maybe it's a publicity stunt. 


Posted By: Tiz
Date Posted: 18 Aug 2011 at 11:38pm
Originally posted by jeroboam jeroboam wrote:

Actually The Thing prequel is the Thing again :) and is about the Norwegian camp finding said "Thing", which by the way, the Carpenter one was a remake in of itself.  
Judging from the trailer, I believe you're right. A few things like the dog scene and use of flamethrowers were used in Carpenter's version.
Too bad they had to use a woman in the lead role. I still would like to see it.



Posted By: MrCleveland
Date Posted: 08 Sep 2011 at 10:18pm
I'm going to school now to work on my Bachelors Degree in Arts and I'm doing a Research Paper on Movie Remakes and how it's destroying originality in Hollywood.

Any good webpages and articles about film remakes and the destruction of Hollywood?


-------------
Thank God for kids who love Obscure Things.

Lee Hazelwood (1929-2007)


Posted By: insanity213
Date Posted: 08 Sep 2011 at 10:29pm
Originally posted by MrCleveland MrCleveland wrote:

I'm going to school now to work on my Bachelors Degree in Arts and I'm doing a Research Paper on Movie Remakes and how it's destroying originality in Hollywood.

Any good webpages and articles about film remakes and the destruction of Hollywood?


Without thoroughly reading (I'm going to after posting), this article here looks like it may offer some good insight for your paper as to why remakes in the horror genre are loathed by fans of the originals:

http://thedamngoodmovieclub.com/movie-news/why-most-horror-movie-remakes-suck/ - http://thedamngoodmovieclub.com/movie-news/why-most-horror-movie-remakes-suck/



Posted By: orion70
Date Posted: 09 Oct 2011 at 10:54pm
Originally posted by Madawee Madawee wrote:

The commercial for Planet of the Apes scares the living daylights out of me.
 
Monkeys and apes in general scare the crap out of me. I think it all started with those freaking flying monkeys in The Wizard of Oz.


OMG, I thought I was the only one.  Especially the screaming ones.  *shudder* And the small ones that everyone else seems to think are oh-so-cute creep me out because there's something too "human" about them. 


Posted By: PaWolf
Date Posted: 10 Oct 2011 at 1:07am
WinkMy brother, the MensaWolf, saw the new Planet of the Apes and said it was REALLY, REALLY GOOD - worth every penny and then some. This comes from a Wolf I VERY much listen to when it comes to movies.
Now...the fact they are making 'The Thing' for - what? The 3rd or 4th time?! I just can't see it...doesn't seem right. 


-------------
X               <sig.nature>
"What we do for ourselves dies with us, What we do for others is and remains immortal." - Albert Pike


Posted By: insanity213
Date Posted: 10 Oct 2011 at 3:40pm
They cannot be serious:

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1068242/ - http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1068242/

Dead

I guess they're running out of horror classics to f**k up remake, so now it's on to a new genre.  I'm half expecting next up on the horizon to be  Flashdance or The Sound of Music.




Posted By: PaWolf
Date Posted: 10 Oct 2011 at 5:38pm
Dead....unbelievable!
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1495731/ - http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1495731/


-------------
X               <sig.nature>
"What we do for ourselves dies with us, What we do for others is and remains immortal." - Albert Pike


Posted By: insanity213
Date Posted: 10 Oct 2011 at 5:51pm
Originally posted by PaWolf PaWolf wrote:

Dead....unbelievable!
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1495731/ - http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1495731/





Posted By: msmadz
Date Posted: 10 Oct 2011 at 6:09pm
Originally posted by PaWolf PaWolf wrote:

Dead....unbelievable!
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1495731/ - http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1495731/
 
OH COME ON! Patrick Swayze must be doing grave spins.
 
The only way this would be remotely acceptable would be if it was some porn spinoff.
 
I said REMOTELY acceptable.


-------------
The artist formerly known as Madawee





Posted By: Thor
Date Posted: 10 Oct 2011 at 8:21pm
Originally posted by Madawee Madawee wrote:

Originally posted by PaWolf PaWolf wrote:

Dead....unbelievable!
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1495731/ - http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1495731/
 
OH COME ON! Patrick Swayze must be doing grave spins.
 
The only way this would be remotely acceptable would be if it was some porn spinoff.
 
I said REMOTELY acceptable.
 
Then they could call it Reeeally Dirty Dancing or Filthy Dancing or something. 
 
Maybe it's just because I'm so darned old, but the 80s doesn't seem long ago enough to justify remakes.  Well, they've remade Beverly Hills 90210, and that was the 90s, so...
 
 
 
 


Posted By: insanity213
Date Posted: 10 Oct 2011 at 8:52pm
http://screenrant.com/romancing-the-stone-overboard-remakes-80s-films-niall-37303/ - http://screenrant.com/romancing-the-stone-overboard-remakes-80s-films-niall-37303/

I think it's safe to say it's not gonna end until they've remade every single movie from the 80's, and by then it will be time to get started on the 90's.








Posted By: TeamEdward1976
Date Posted: 14 Oct 2011 at 6:56am
They're also remaking Footloose!WTF?

-------------
Julie


Posted By: regulus
Date Posted: 14 Oct 2011 at 9:50am
Corporate Greed. Angry The Scripts are already written, so they don't need to pay the writers as much as they would to make na movie from scratch. This is why we are seeing remade Movies at the Theatre and "Unscripted" TV Shows at home. Ouch

-------------
Poiuyt Power!!!


Posted By: Grant
Date Posted: 14 Oct 2011 at 2:11pm
Footloose? I'll say it again - why remake a story where a preacher comes off as a fanatical idiot? That's already about the biggest cliche in the world!


Posted By: Thor
Date Posted: 14 Oct 2011 at 2:42pm
Originally posted by Grant Grant wrote:

Footloose? I'll say it again - why remake a story where a preacher comes off as a fanatical idiot? That's already about the biggest cliche in the world!
 
Ha!  I just watched Carrie last night on AMC.  The 1976 one, not the remake.
 
 
 
 


Posted By: insanity213
Date Posted: 14 Oct 2011 at 3:16pm
Originally posted by Thor Thor wrote:

Originally posted by Grant Grant wrote:

Footloose? I'll say it again - why remake a story where a preacher comes off as a fanatical idiot? That's already about the biggest cliche in the world!
 
Ha!  I just watched Carrie last night on AMC.  The 1976 one, not the remake.
 
 
 
 


I know they remade it as a TV movie about 10 years back, but they have yet another one in the works:

http://www.comingsoon.net/news/movienews.php?id=77777 - http://www.comingsoon.net/news/movienews.php?id=77777


Posted By: Thor
Date Posted: 14 Oct 2011 at 5:39pm
Originally posted by insanity213 insanity213 wrote:



I know they remade it as a TV movie about 10 years back, but they have yet another one in the works:

http://www.comingsoon.net/news/movienews.php?id=77777 - http://www.comingsoon.net/news/movienews.php?id=77777
 
Great.  Probably much heavier on the special effects.  I'm sick of special effects.
 
It'll probably be one of those movies that goes directly to DVD or On Demand, and no one ever remembers it.  It'll star one of the current pop "sensations", whose name most people have never even heard, and who'll be completely forgotten by next year...maybe one of the lesser characters on Gossip Girl or Vampire Diaries or some such similar teen melodrama.
 
 


Posted By: orion70
Date Posted: 14 Oct 2011 at 6:07pm
I read somewhere today that Steel Magnolias is getting a revamp.  


Posted By: msmadz
Date Posted: 14 Oct 2011 at 6:47pm
Originally posted by orion70 orion70 wrote:

I read somewhere today that Steel Magnolias is getting a revamp.  
I was watching Steel Magnolias a few months ago. Wow - Julia Roberts is so over-acting - andd badly - that it's kind of comical. The scene where she's telling her mother that she's pregnant and she says some line like "I'd give up (whatever) for 1 special (whatever)"  is like she failed Acting 101.

-------------
The artist formerly known as Madawee





Posted By: msmadz
Date Posted: 14 Oct 2011 at 7:02pm
Here's the over-acted line:  I would rather have thirty minutes of wonderful than a lifetime of nothing special.

-------------
The artist formerly known as Madawee





Posted By: regulus
Date Posted: 14 Oct 2011 at 9:47pm
Speaking of remakes:
 
Charlie's Angels got the axe today! Dead


-------------
Poiuyt Power!!!


Posted By: Tiz
Date Posted: 14 Oct 2011 at 10:23pm
Tsk, tsk. After what? 3-4 episodes. I can't wait for Pan Am to nose dive also.
Anyone for a 'white' Tonto? That's right boys & girls, a new and improved Lone Ranger.Ermm  
http://blog.zap2it.com/pop2it/2011/10/johnny-depps-lone-ranger-movie-back-on.html - http://blog.zap2it.com/pop2it/2011/10/johnny-depps-lone-ranger-movie-back-on.html


Posted By: Thor
Date Posted: 14 Oct 2011 at 11:05pm
I see they're now doing a remake of The Thing.
 
 


Posted By: Tiz
Date Posted: 15 Oct 2011 at 10:30pm
The Thing is out in theaters this weekend. 


Posted By: EMCEE
Date Posted: 18 Oct 2011 at 3:20am
Originally posted by Tiz Tiz wrote:

The Thing is out in theaters this weekend. 


This is the one that pisses me off the most.  Carpenter's remake of the 50s classic was absolutely perfect.  Leave it alone. 


-------------
Reader, suppose you were an idiot. And suppose you were a member of Congress. But I repeat myself.

- Mark Twain



Posted By: Ad nauseous
Date Posted: 18 Oct 2011 at 8:20pm
Originally posted by regulus regulus wrote:

Speaking of remakes:
 
Charlie's Angels got the axe today! Dead


ABOUT TIME!Clap


-------------
One good thing about TV-you could always turn it off


Posted By: Tiz
Date Posted: 18 Oct 2011 at 9:38pm
Originally posted by EMCEE EMCEE wrote:

Originally posted by Tiz Tiz wrote:

The Thing is out in theaters this weekend. 



This is the one that pisses me off the most.  Carpenter's remake of the 50s classic was absolutely perfect.  Leave it alone. 

This remake is supposedly a prequel to Carpenter's version. Meaning this one will lead us to before
Kurt Russell & gang battled it. But in that one, Norwegians dug up The Thing and it's spaceship.



Posted By: MrTim
Date Posted: 18 Oct 2011 at 11:15pm
Originally posted by Tiz Tiz wrote:

The Thing is out in theaters this weekend. 
 
Roseanne Barr made a movie?  No wonder people fled....  LOL


-------------
http://mrtim1k.blogspot.com/ - WKRP closing theme lyrics HERE!


Posted By: jeroboam
Date Posted: 19 Oct 2011 at 12:41am
They pay a lot of homage to Carpenter's movie, showing scenes that Mac and the rest come across in the Thing from 81, like when they find an axe in the wall, well in the new one they show the scene that explains that axe etc.. it is KIND of an necessary movie I think, as it is pretty clear what happened at the Norwegian camp. John Carpenter's Thing is pretty much the perfect movie. It is the greatest sci fi/horror film made. The funny thing is that it is almost an exact adaptation of the novella "Who Goes There?" Which the 50s Thing was only loosely based.

I give this new one a pass, and have heard it is decent. But again, not that necessary.


Posted By: Grant
Date Posted: 19 Oct 2011 at 1:47pm
Originally posted by Thor Thor wrote:

Originally posted by Madawee Madawee wrote:

Originally posted by PaWolf PaWolf wrote:

Dead....unbelievable!
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1495731/ - http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1495731/
 
OH COME ON! Patrick Swayze must be doing grave spins.
 
The only way this would be remotely acceptable would be if it was some porn spinoff.
 
I said REMOTELY acceptable.
 
Then they could call it Reeeally Dirty Dancing or Filthy Dancing or something. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
In a way that's already been done, in a really heavy-handed (IMO) Family Guy blackout. That doesn't mean it couldn't actually happen as a movie, though.


Posted By: Thor
Date Posted: 19 Oct 2011 at 2:59pm
Originally posted by Grant Grant wrote:

 
In a way that's already been done, in a really heavy-handed (IMO) Family Guy blackout. That doesn't mean it couldn't actually happen as a movie, though.
 
Now that you mention it, why hasn't Hollywood thought of making a live-action movie based on Family Guy?
 
 


Posted By: Asnotseenontv
Date Posted: 23 Oct 2011 at 11:18pm
The remake/prequel of Planet of he Apes is actually really good.

-------------
Coffee- The new opiate of the people.


Posted By: Thor
Date Posted: 24 Oct 2011 at 12:40am
Looks like there's going to be a remake of The Man from UNCLE.


Posted By: PaWolf
Date Posted: 24 Oct 2011 at 2:02am
Originally posted by Asnotseenontv Asnotseenontv wrote:

The remake/prequel of Planet of he Apes is actually really good.
Wink...that makes two, now...my brother said it was incredible and he is a real rough critic.


-------------
X               <sig.nature>
"What we do for ourselves dies with us, What we do for others is and remains immortal." - Albert Pike


Posted By: insanity213
Date Posted: 31 Oct 2011 at 4:01pm
Decided to watch the Halloween "remake" last night out of curiosity, and it was as bad as I thought it would be. 


Posted By: Thor
Date Posted: 31 Oct 2011 at 4:27pm
Not a movie, but...I see that In Living Color will be revived in the spring.  I used to like that show.  More consistently funny than SNL. 
 
 


Posted By: PaWolf
Date Posted: 31 Oct 2011 at 5:50pm
Originally posted by Thor Thor wrote:

Not a movie, but...I see that In Living Color will be revived in the spring.  I used to like that show.  More consistently funny than SNL. 
 
 
Yea. Two 30-minute specials - no cast announced, no idea if Foxx, Carrey, and JLo (original 'Fly Girl') will be joining.
 


-------------
X               <sig.nature>
"What we do for ourselves dies with us, What we do for others is and remains immortal." - Albert Pike


Posted By: Thor
Date Posted: 31 Oct 2011 at 7:18pm
From what I read, Pa, there'll be a whole new cast.  I could do without Carrey, but I liked the others. 
 
 
 


Posted By: insanity213
Date Posted: 31 Oct 2011 at 7:45pm
I liked Carrey's Vanilla Ice parody.  He looked a LOT like Vanilla Ice, too.





Posted By: msmadz
Date Posted: 31 Oct 2011 at 7:49pm
Head Detective! LOL

-------------
The artist formerly known as Madawee





Posted By: insanity213
Date Posted: 31 Oct 2011 at 7:57pm
Originally posted by Madawee Madawee wrote:

Head Detective! LOL


LOL

And the Buttman's LOL




Posted By: Tiz
Date Posted: 31 Oct 2011 at 11:01pm
I don't see it. The stuff they did back then wouldn't be tolerated nowadays. Like:


Posted By: musicman
Date Posted: 01 Nov 2011 at 3:01am
Where's my remake of Tennesee Tuxedo! LOL 


Posted By: regulus
Date Posted: 09 Nov 2011 at 3:49pm
DADALUP DADALUP DADALUP DADALUP DADALUP!!!
 
Are you ready for Another Remake? Confused
 
CBS has announced that they are going to revive the 1958 Western The Rifleman.
 
Post away, Meu Amigos!


-------------
Poiuyt Power!!!


Posted By: Thor
Date Posted: 30 Mar 2012 at 2:02pm
The Three Stooges!
 
The new Stooges seem to do a good enough job imitating and looking like the real ones (Moe, Larry and Curly).  But I'm not sure how it'll come off in a modern setting.  Plus, I'm not sure about a full-length Stooges movie.  When I think of the Stooges, I think of their short films, not their movies.  Plus, it's in color.  Somehow, The Three Stooges seems like it should be in B+W.  But the trailer looks pretty good, so...
 
But one thing I'm glad about is that it's not a remake of something that came out 10 or 20 years ago.  That means it doesn't exist simply to showcase the latest CGI effects.
 
 
 


Posted By: Jimbo
Date Posted: 30 Mar 2012 at 2:41pm
Unfortunately, the plot will probably contain some social "message" & involve some "crisis" the Stooges will get involved in, like the orphanage being foreclosed on by the evil bankers, & they come to the rescue by via their basic sense of goodness & their uncanny knack for foiling bad guys while appearing to be, well.... stooges.
 
You just know they'll manage to make it sappy somehow.
 
But I do like the fact that Snookie gets the old Moe eye-jab.
 
Worth it just for that.
 
 
 


-------------
...the ads take aim and lay their claim to the heart and the soul of the spender
Jackson Browne - The Pretender

C'mon, man!
Joe Biden - 46th President of the United States


Posted By: Thor
Date Posted: 30 Mar 2012 at 2:47pm
A social message would suck.  I'd just want it to be incredibly stupid, as God intended.


Posted By: Papa Lazarou
Date Posted: 30 Mar 2012 at 4:53pm
I'll prepare to be brutalised.
 
I never cared for the stooges. I prefered Laurel and Hardy, The Marx Brothers, Our Gang, and even Chaplin as a kid.
 
I'm slightly interested in seeing how their format can be transferred over to a full length modern movie, since their routines were all fairly the same.


Posted By: DirtyD79
Date Posted: 01 Apr 2012 at 12:13am
Originally posted by Thor Thor wrote:

A social message would suck.  I'd just want it to be incredibly stupid, as God intended.
Exactly, the stooges weren't about thought provoking social commentary or deep plots they were about three guys whacking the hell outta each other. That's why I enjoy them. If I want a message I'll buy an answering machine.

-------------
Mind on My Money, Money on My Beer


Posted By: ThreadKiller
Date Posted: 01 Apr 2012 at 1:38am

I don't generally go to theaters to see movies, so I didn't catch the 2009 remake/prequel of Star Trek until just recently when it was on TV. It's pretty obvious from the posts here that Hollywood remakes and prequels are way more "miss" than "hit." However, J. J. Abrams hit a home run, and then some, with the Star Trek prequel.

Not only was it visually breathtaking, the casting and plot were near perfect. They captured the essence of the originial TV series and movies, but made it all fresh.
 
I'm eagerly awaiting the next installment, due out next year.


-------------
Hundreds of threads killed.


Posted By: Tiz
Date Posted: 04 Nov 2012 at 8:19pm
Been seeing commercials for a Red Dawn remake, coming this "turkey" day. How appropriate.

OK, the original was set in 1984 when the Soviet Union attacked us. Thank God those Wolverines saved us all.
Now, some 20 something years later, those baby boomer Wolverines are at it again. Saving us all from the North Koreans.LOL
Guess the producers didn't wanna piss off the Chinese. 


Posted By: sgtrock21
Date Posted: 04 Nov 2012 at 9:35pm
Originally posted by MrCleveland MrCleveland wrote:

I'm going to school now to work on my Bachelors Degree in Arts and I'm doing a Research Paper on Movie Remakes and how it's destroying originality in Hollywood.

Any good webpages and articles about film remakes and the destruction of Hollywood?
I would like to see the return of originality. That is art. Regurgitation is just lazy plagerism. I just saw the commercial. It looks like Red Dawn is the next victim.

-------------
EEEEts All so REEEdEEEculous


Posted By: Ad nauseous
Date Posted: 05 Nov 2012 at 3:44am
How long before they remake Citizen Kane? *shudders* Confused

-------------
One good thing about TV-you could always turn it off


Posted By: MrTim
Date Posted: 05 Nov 2012 at 5:04am
Quote
OK, the original was set in 1984 when the Soviet Union attacked us. Thank God those Wolverines saved us all.
Now, some 20 something years later, those baby boomer Wolverines are at it again. Saving us all from the North Koreans.LOL
 
The "invaders" were supposed to be the Chinese, but their gov't complained & the movie company changed the baddies.  It'd be a keeper if the NK's were all Kim Jong Il clones....  LOL
 
Quote How long before they remake Citizen Kane? *shudders* Confused
 
That is the first thing on Orson Welle's list after they revive his frozen head and put it on a robot body (that would be a movie right there!)  He even stored some wines so that they'll be as old as he is....  LOL
 
The 3 Stooges movie was actually good, but it was missing the obligatory pie fight.  At the end of the movie, the directors were explaining the props used (rubber hammers, etc.) & doing the safety spiel.  I wish I had been there for that.  I would have asked them "You know what your movie is missing?"
"No, what?"
<splat><splat>
"The pie fight."
That would have been a golden punch line....


-------------
http://mrtim1k.blogspot.com/ - WKRP closing theme lyrics HERE!


Posted By: Tiz
Date Posted: 05 Nov 2012 at 10:38pm
Originally posted by MrTim MrTim wrote:

Quote
OK, the original was set in 1984 when the Soviet Union attacked us. Thank God those Wolverines saved us all.
Now, some 20 something years later, those baby boomer Wolverines are at it again. Saving us all from the North Koreans.LOL
 
The "invaders" were supposed to be the Chinese, but their gov't complained & the movie company changed the baddies.  It'd be a keeper if the NK's were all Kim Jong Il clones....  LOL
  
Just nit-picking here. But the time frame and the fact that Russia invading(in the original) wasn't all that far fetched.
But China nor North Korea has an armada to get troops, supplies, material half way around the globe. They'll probably have a love scene in this one, too.  


Posted By: Theoted
Date Posted: 10 Nov 2012 at 12:19am
A"Psycho" remake coming to a theater near you! What a lack of creativity. Why not let writers do a remake of Gone with the Wind" the novel? Or rewrite Catch 22? Or try writing Mario Puzo's Godfather novel? Hollywood and film industry as a whole is trash and a sellout. Improve yourself .... go to the library n read a book!

-------------
The past does not influence me; I influence the past!


Posted By: Ad nauseous
Date Posted: 22 Nov 2012 at 8:24pm
Originally posted by Theoted Theoted wrote:

A"Psycho" remake coming to a theater near you! What a lack of creativity. Why not let writers do a remake of Gone with the Wind" the novel? Or rewrite Catch 22? Or try writing Mario Puzo's Godfather novel? Hollywood and film industry as a whole is trash and a sellout. Improve yourself .... go to the library n read a book!


Didn't they already do a "Psycho" remake in the 90's? Why remake it all over again? I hate when they remake a movie twice. They just recently re-remaked the Spiderman that came out in 2002. WTF? Hollywood's lost it!

Angry


-------------
One good thing about TV-you could always turn it off


Posted By: tvpirate05
Date Posted: 23 Nov 2012 at 9:42pm
Yeah..."Psycho" was remade back in 1998, and it was pretty much a flop. There's just some movies that are classic enough to where they should be left alone. That's one of them. The prequels to that one in the 80s didn't do that well either.

My problem is that movies are all about profit nowadays...the studios don't care about shelf life or if the movie will become iconic over time. Why? Because they don't have the patience for all that. Case in point...how memorable were the new "Friday the 13th" or "Nightmare on Elm Street" movies? How about "Footloose"?


-------------
The poster formerly known as producer757


Posted By: Papa Lazarou
Date Posted: 23 Nov 2012 at 9:56pm
In defense of the idea, the 1998 Psycho made the horrendous mistake of trying to be a shot-for-shot remake, offering absolutely nothing new to the story. Should a newer remake actually try to add or be different...

it'd still suck.

Honestly, I still would like either a biopic, or a remake of a Jeanette MacDonald/Nelson Eddie movie. None of their movies have been put on DVD, and the one REALLY good thing about remakes is that the original films seem to get a release out of it.

And I don't get why people are treating this like a NEW occurance. Smilin' Through had three versions. The first was a silent, the second was a talkie with Norma Shearer, and the third a colour film with Jeanette MacDonald. Rose Marie was another film like this. the latest remake being in the 50's. I believe the most famous version of State Fair is ALSO a remake of an ealier version.

Personally, I can take remakes, so long as there is something substantial to it. I.E., the three versions of Smilin' Through each took advantage of new technology AND the talents of their individual cast. A remake of Rose Marie filmed ON LOCATION in High Definition would be a good example. The scenery in the 1931 (?) version was BEAUTIFUL, and - were it to have been in colour - an amazing feat of the time.

At the same time, I could even tolerate a slight modernization of the music, so long as it is kept within the spirit of being an Operetta. When she sings 'pop' songs, modernize them, but leave the opera alone, as well as the Indian Love Call.

The short of it: I won't hate remakes as a whole, because they've been around FOREVER, and they can be okay as long as they add something new to the experience.


Posted By: PitLoad413
Date Posted: 24 Nov 2012 at 5:35am
That's just like the movie and film industry. They care more about profitability of a film rather than having some balls. They'll just ban the film in China not attack us while ending all exporting our cheap good to our local Target.  I mean American films are banned all the time overseas what's big deal. China isn't like the Middle East where they go apesh*t over a cartoon. So why would the Chinese go batty over a movie that probably sucks the chrome of a trailer hitch? 


Posted By: Thor
Date Posted: 24 Nov 2012 at 5:44am
Originally posted by PitLoad413 PitLoad413 wrote:

They'll just ban the film in China not attack us while ending all exporting our cheap good to our local Target.  
 
Come again?
 
 


Posted By: Ad nauseous
Date Posted: 24 Nov 2012 at 8:05pm
Originally posted by Codtaro Codtaro wrote:

In defense of the idea, the 1998 Psycho made the horrendous mistake of trying to be a shot-for-shot remake, offering absolutely nothing new to the story. Should a newer remake actually try to add or be different...

it'd still suck.

Honestly, I still would like either a biopic, or a remake of a Jeanette MacDonald/Nelson Eddie movie. None of their movies have been put on DVD, and the one REALLY good thing about remakes is that the original films seem to get a release out of it.

And I don't get why people are treating this like a NEW occurance. Smilin' Through had three versions. The first was a silent, the second was a talkie with Norma Shearer, and the third a colour film with Jeanette MacDonald. Rose Marie was another film like this. the latest remake being in the 50's. I believe the most famous version of State Fair is ALSO a remake of an ealier version.

Personally, I can take remakes, so long as there is something substantial to it. I.E., the three versions of Smilin' Through each took advantage of new technology AND the talents of their individual cast. A remake of Rose Marie filmed ON LOCATION in High Definition would be a good example. The scenery in the 1931 (?) version was BEAUTIFUL, and - were it to have been in colour - an amazing feat of the time.

At the same time, I could even tolerate a slight modernization of the music, so long as it is kept within the spirit of being an Operetta. When she sings 'pop' songs, modernize them, but leave the opera alone, as well as the Indian Love Call.

The short of it: I won't hate remakes as a whole, because they've been around FOREVER, and they can be okay as long as they add something new to the experience.


Agreed as long as they make a remake that gives something new to the experience I'm all for it. However what pisses me off about the "new" Spiderman remake is that they changed very little of the story, They change the actor playing Spiderman, they change the villain, and there's more computer graphics buy that's about it. WTF?

I think they're doing it for money nowadays and not bringing anything new to the screen! I HATE them for that!!!!


-------------
One good thing about TV-you could always turn it off


Posted By: tvpirate05
Date Posted: 29 Nov 2012 at 3:51am
There's a Great Gatsby remake coming out next month, with Leonardo DiCaprio in the title role. I like the Robert Redford version, but it came out in 1974...that's almost 40 years ago. That version was the 3rd or 4th remake as well.

With a story like that that's still read in high school classrooms, I could totally understand remaking it for today's crowd, every 30-40 years. Something like Sixteen Candles with Selena Gomez in Molly Ringwald's role*? Not as much.

*Just as an example. That movie is safe so far... Wink


-------------
The poster formerly known as producer757


Posted By: Papa Lazarou
Date Posted: 29 Nov 2012 at 4:07am
^Agreed. I admit one thing I DO like about remakes is seeing a different actor in the role. No one seems to complain when a play gets remade with a new cast, but movies are untouchable?

Admittedly, my mother and I both prefer the remake of The Parent Trap (She was a kid when the first came out, and hated it), and like BOTH versions of Miracle on 34th Street.

AH! Speaking of movies based on books, what about Pride and Prejudice? I can think of at least four movies, a few series.

We are both looking forward to the oft spoken of My Fair Lady remake, mainly because it won't suffer from the grotesque dubbing the original had.


Posted By: Thor
Date Posted: 29 Nov 2012 at 4:39am
Originally posted by tvpirate05 tvpirate05 wrote:

There's a Great Gatsby remake coming out next month, with Leonardo DiCaprio in the title role. I like the Robert Redford version, but it came out in 1974...that's almost 40 years ago. That version was the 3rd or 4th remake as well.

With a story like that that's still read in high school classrooms, I could totally understand remaking it for today's crowd, every 30-40 years. Something like Sixteen Candles with Selena Gomez in Molly Ringwald's role*? Not as much.

*Just as an example. That movie is safe so far... Wink
 
I don't really understand a period piece like The Great Gatsby being remade.  Have the 1920s changed that much since 1974?
 
 


Posted By: Papa Lazarou
Date Posted: 29 Nov 2012 at 5:28am
^ Implying that a period film hasn't been tainted by the current era it was made in?


Posted By: tvpirate05
Date Posted: 29 Nov 2012 at 2:20pm
Originally posted by Thor Thor wrote:

Originally posted by tvpirate05 tvpirate05 wrote:

There's a Great Gatsby remake coming out next month, with Leonardo DiCaprio in the title role. I like the Robert Redford version, but it came out in 1974...that's almost 40 years ago. That version was the 3rd or 4th remake as well.

With a story like that that's still read in high school classrooms, I could totally understand remaking it for today's crowd, every 30-40 years. Something like Sixteen Candles with Selena Gomez in Molly Ringwald's role*? Not as much.

*Just as an example. That movie is safe so far... Wink
 
I don't really understand a period piece like The Great Gatsby being remade.  Have the 1920s changed that much since 1974?
 
 
What I mean is that today's teens who are reading it in class could probably relate to it with today's crop of stars. I'm willing to bet $20 if you gathered 10 students, you wouldn't get more than 5 who know who Robert Redford is. Weird logic, but I could get why Hollywood would remake a movie like that.


-------------
The poster formerly known as producer757


Posted By: Thor
Date Posted: 29 Nov 2012 at 2:52pm
Originally posted by Codtaro Codtaro wrote:

^ Implying that a period film hasn't been tainted by the current era it was made in?
 
That's my problem with such period pieces.  They're usually slanted towards the bias of the era they were made in, rather than the era the story occurred in.  For example, there was a trend in movies starting in the 1960s which presented young outlaws from previous eras as the good guys (Butch Cassidy, Bonnie and Clyde, The Sting, etc.).  The "anti-hero".  That was a hip meme back then which, of course, required them to star hip actors.  While those were good movies, they mainly existed to reflect the spirit of the 1960s/1970s.  Prior to that, the "good guys" were presented practically as saints (John Wayne).  And, as I've mentioned here before, there've been plenty of TV shows which present a stereotypical version of the 1960s in which everyone was either a hippie or some stuffed suit (and usually an alcoholic).  That's what some people want to think about the 60s, so that's what they get.  Likewise, the 50s is all about Elvis and D.A. haircuts and poodle skirts and 55 Chevys, etc.
 
And then, there was Titanic, a vehicle for Leonardo DiCaprio and the music of Celine Dion, rather than a movie about the sinking of a ship.
 
If I want to know about the real past, I'd rather watch a good documentary or pull out my stack of ancient newspapers.
 
 


Posted By: Hootman
Date Posted: 29 Nov 2012 at 3:14pm
Originally posted by tvpirate05 tvpirate05 wrote:

 
What I mean is that today's teens who are reading it in class could probably relate to it with today's crop of stars. I'm willing to bet $20 if you gathered 10 students, you wouldn't get more than 5 who know who Robert Redford is. Weird logic, but I could get why Hollywood would remake a movie like that.


When Paul Newman died, my daughter wondered why everyone was getting so wound up about a guy who made salad dressing.  I immediately went out and rented "The Sting", "Butch Cassidy", "Cat On a Hot Tin Roof", and "Cool Hand Luke"....


Posted By: Thor
Date Posted: 29 Nov 2012 at 3:19pm
Originally posted by tvpirate05 tvpirate05 wrote:

What I mean is that today's teens who are reading it in class could probably relate to it with today's crop of stars. I'm willing to bet $20 if you gathered 10 students, you wouldn't get more than 5 who know who Robert Redford is. Weird logic, but I could get why Hollywood would remake a movie like that.
 
Yeah, I get that, too.  Still, it seems sort of like taking the easy way out.
 
Problem is, remakes usually seem like lesser versions of the originals.  They rarely ever become "classics".  Can you imagine a remake of The Wizard of Oz ever achieving the status of the original?  There might be some exceptions, but probably not many.
 
 


Posted By: Hootman
Date Posted: 29 Nov 2012 at 3:25pm
^  Only if there were vampires in it.  LOL


Posted By: insanity213
Date Posted: 29 Nov 2012 at 3:29pm
Originally posted by Thor Thor wrote:

  Can you imagine a remake of The Wizard of Oz ever achieving the status of the original?  There might be some exceptions, but probably not many.
 
 


Apparently they're making a prequel ... looks like it's about when the Wizard landed in Oz via his hot air balloon.



Looks like yet another regurgitated CGI suckfest.


Posted By: Thor
Date Posted: 29 Nov 2012 at 3:30pm
Originally posted by -Hootman -Hootman wrote:

Only if there were vampires in it.  LOL
 
Lady Gaga could play the Wicked Witch.  Katy Perry, the Good Witch.
 
Taylor Swift would play Dorothy, and Toto would be a pit bull.
 
The Wizard might be Russell Brand.
 
 


Posted By: insanity213
Date Posted: 29 Nov 2012 at 3:35pm
Originally posted by Thor Thor wrote:

Originally posted by -Hootman -Hootman wrote:

Only if there were vampires in it.  LOL
 
Lady Gaga could play the Wicked Witch.  Katy Perry, the Good Witch.
 
Taylor Swift would play Dorothy, and Toto would be a pit bull.
 
The Wizard might be Russell Brand.
 
 


Tin Man will be a hip hop mogul played by 50 Cent, while the Lion will instead be a female lioness with "sex appeal."  


Posted By: Thor
Date Posted: 29 Nov 2012 at 3:36pm
Originally posted by insanity213 insanity213 wrote:

Originally posted by Thor Thor wrote:

  Can you imagine a remake of The Wizard of Oz ever achieving the status of the original?  There might be some exceptions, but probably not many.
 
 


Apparently they're making a prequel ... looks like it's about when the Wizard landed in Oz via his hot air balloon.



Looks like yet another regurgitated CGI suckfest.
 
It's this kind of thing that renders the original slow and boring and silly to young viewers.
 
 


Posted By: Thor
Date Posted: 29 Nov 2012 at 3:38pm
Originally posted by insanity213 insanity213 wrote:

Tin Man will be a hip hop mogul played by 50 Cent, while the Lion will instead be a female lioness with "sex appeal."  
 
And who better to play the Scarecrow than Ashton Kutcher?
 
Maybe Justin Bieber could play Dorothy.
 
 


Posted By: insanity213
Date Posted: 29 Nov 2012 at 3:42pm
Originally posted by Thor Thor wrote:

Originally posted by insanity213 insanity213 wrote:

Tin Man will be a hip hop mogul played by 50 Cent, while the Lion will instead be a female lioness with "sex appeal."  
 
And who better to play the Scarecrow than Ashton Kutcher?


Steve Buscemi, though he may not be hip enough anymore for the target audience.
 
Quote
Maybe Justin Bieber could play Dorothy.
 
 

LOL
Or maybe even Toto.


Posted By: tvpirate05
Date Posted: 29 Nov 2012 at 3:44pm
Originally posted by Thor Thor wrote:

Originally posted by tvpirate05 tvpirate05 wrote:

What I mean is that today's teens who are reading it in class could probably relate to it with today's crop of stars. I'm willing to bet $20 if you gathered 10 students, you wouldn't get more than 5 who know who Robert Redford is. Weird logic, but I could get why Hollywood would remake a movie like that.
 
Yeah, I get that, too.  Still, it seems sort of like taking the easy way out.
 
Problem is, remakes usually seem like lesser versions of the originals.  They rarely ever become "classics".  Can you imagine a remake of The Wizard of Oz ever achieving the status of the original?  There might be some exceptions, but probably not many.
I agree 100%. And that goes back to a point I made earlier in the thread. Hollywood no longer cares about whether a movie has a shelf life anymore. As long as it makes money for them, it doesn't really matter that no one will be talking about it in 10-20 years.

Someone once explained to me why they remade "Nightmare on Elm Street" a couple of years ago, and how it's just to give today's teens a version of their own to have. I get the reasoning, but if they're going to forget about it in 2 weeks, what's the point? Hollywood has never been creative, but at least in the 90s, they tried to make it look like they were. "Scream" and "I Know What You Did Last Summer" came out when I was in high school, and it was actually a fresh spin on the horror genre. Nowadays, it's all just crappy CGI and 70-80s remakes. It says a lot when "Carrie" from 1976 holds up better than the tripe in theaters now.

Long story short, I just hate the short attention span society we live in...nothing has a shelf life anymore, and we're too quick to declare something a "classic".


-------------
The poster formerly known as producer757


Posted By: Thor
Date Posted: 29 Nov 2012 at 3:51pm
^
 
Yep.  Carrie.  Other horror remakes were Night of the Living Dead, Last House on the Left and Texas Chainsaw Massacres.  All forgotten, with not even "cult status" to show for themselves.
 
 


Posted By: MrTim
Date Posted: 30 Nov 2012 at 4:26am
Originally posted by insanity213 insanity213 wrote:

Quote
Maybe Justin Bieber could play Dorothy.
 

LOL
Or maybe even Toto.
 
No, make him a flying monkey along with Gilbert Gottfried....  LOL


-------------
http://mrtim1k.blogspot.com/ - WKRP closing theme lyrics HERE!


Posted By: Thor
Date Posted: 30 Nov 2012 at 1:55pm
Originally posted by MrTim MrTim wrote:

Originally posted by insanity213 insanity213 wrote:

Quote
Maybe Justin Bieber could play Dorothy.
 

LOL
Or maybe even Toto.
 
No, make him a flying monkey along with Gilbert Gottfried....  LOL
 
Gottfried could also represent the Lollipop Guild.
 
 
 
 
 


Posted By: MrTim
Date Posted: 05 Dec 2012 at 5:09am
Coming soon, future remake material:  Dead
 
Ridley Scott's Monopoly -- The Movie of The Game


-------------
http://mrtim1k.blogspot.com/ - WKRP closing theme lyrics HERE!


Posted By: Tiz
Date Posted: 05 Dec 2012 at 10:07pm
Never knew there was a first.Confused
Break out the Grecian Formula, Depends and Ben Gay.



Print Page | Close Window

Forum Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 11.04 - http://www.webwizforums.com
Copyright ©2001-2015 Web Wiz Ltd. - http://www.webwiz.co.uk