|
the best remakes are the thing, bad lieutenant new Orleans and our Robocop
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2017 00:33
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 24, 2024 12:33 |
|
|
starkebn posted:I think it's pretty simple: That's not entirely true. You can also remake old movies that people forgot. I mean yeah old people remember plenty of John Wayne movies but kids sure don't. Like the trick to doing a remake is not have people realize it's a remake. You know, like the Thing. The 80s one. Or Ben-Hur. Also no, not the new one, the 1950's one. I also really liked Dredd, but again, it isn't quite a remake even though there was a Judge Dredd movie before. It's another adaptation of the source material, especially if the movie before deviated from it a lot. For the same reason, I dunno if you can consider the various Dracula and Frankenstein movies "remakes" as they're adaptions of the books, not the movies from the 1930s everyone knows. Well, except these new ones are based on the universal movies. And they're being done by Bob Orci and Alex Kurtzman. I swear it's almost like those two guys are on a mission to destroy everything I love
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2017 00:37
|
|
|
A GLISTENING HODOR posted:Magnificent Seven wouldn't count because it's a completely different genre with just a core idea at the center. See also: most spaghetti westerns. Course there also is an actual magnificent seven remake
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2017 00:39
|
|
|
Apparently there's a new dune in the works. I like Denis Villeneuve's work but I'm worried for his future career if the new blade runner is poo poo they may axe Dune.
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2017 00:44
|
|
|
Gammatron 64 posted:That's not entirely true. You can also remake old movies that people forgot. I mean yeah old people remember plenty of John Wayne movies but kids sure don't. Okay: Don't remake things that are still successful and popular
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2017 00:48
|
|
|
Just like on first attempts, when a re-do adaptation of a book goes closer to the source material, it gets better. Especially Dredd. The Stallone one and the Urban one are like they're from different dimensions. Something I thought would be neat before Jurassic World came out was how dope it would be to remake Jurassic Park like 20 years from now and stick to the book with Hammond being an evil prick who gets torn apart by compies and Robert Muldoon murking velociraptors with an RPG from a helicopter. Like lose a lot of the Spielberg geewhizz stuff (which is great and I love it) and doing it more like the man vs. technology vs. nature horror film it could be. And maybe in 6 or 7 years someone can actually do The Dark Tower right. (Eat a dick, Sony) (God, don't let "IT" be trash, too)
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2017 00:49
|
|
|
Gammatron 64 posted:I also really liked Dredd, but again, it isn't quite a remake even though there was a Judge Dredd movie before. It's another adaptation of the source material, especially if the movie before deviated from it a lot. If by "movie before" you mean the Stallone Dredd movie, then it was a hell of a lot closer to the source material than Dredd was. Dredd is certainly a better movie, but Stallones Dredd was spot-on super accurate to the original comics. Dredd was all lantern-jawed seriousness, when in reality the Judge Dredd comic book is one of the goofiest things ever put to paper.
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2017 00:49
|
|
|
Baronjutter posted:Apparently there's a new dune in the works. I like Denis Villeneuve's work but I'm worried for his future career if the new blade runner is poo poo they may axe Dune. I'm not super optimistic about Dune because while I like the book a lot, and I even like the David Lynch movie, the book is really loving weird and long and might be unfilmable as they say. I feel like Dune could work as a HBO series like Game of Thrones but making it into a two hour movie that average moviegoers will actually like would be a huge challenge. Like the David Lynch movie makes no sense and it's hard to enjoy or understand the context of everything without reading the book. Yes, I know it's a David Lynch movie and they never make sense but you get what I'm saying right? I can almost garuntee that the Dune remake will flop hard, average people will see it and say "what in the gently caress is this" and the only people who might actually like it are turbo nerds posting on internet forums like us
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2017 00:51
|
|
|
A GLISTENING HODOR posted:Just like on first attempts, when a re-do adaptation of a book goes closer to the source material, it gets better. It will be And The Dark Tower should be a TV series like Battlestar or Breaking Bad Just adapt the stuff well and better than what King wrote but with all the 'woah cool' poo poo in it, take your time with all the material and then it should be good. Basically have someone that likes the Dark Tower but can go 'ok I love this stuff but King's ideas suck here, here, here, here, and here so we'll do this' EDIT Like the turbo nerd above me suggests
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2017 00:52
|
|
|
Bloody Hedgehog posted:If by "movie before" you mean the Stallone Dredd movie, then it was a hell of a lot closer to the source material than Dredd was. Dredd is certainly a better movie, but Stallones Dredd was spot-on super accurate to the original comics. Dredd was all lantern-jawed seriousness, when in reality the Judge Dredd comic book is one of the goofiest things ever put to paper. Urban was an infinitely better Dredd. Yeah, the Stallone movie had some of the weird junk from the comics like the mutants, but Stallone wasn't even sorta like the character. He was just Stallone. Like imagine if you took Batman Begins and the world is very Batman-y, but Batman is played by like Seth Rogan. It's so loving far off point you might as well retitle movie and skip paying for intellectual property rights.
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2017 00:55
|
|
|
I liked both Dredds. The Karl Urban one is absolutely the better movie but the Stalone one seemed to capture the camp and don't-give-a-poo poo silliness of the comics, it's fun. Demolition Man is great too.
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2017 00:58
|
|
|
Why do people keep claiming the first Dune book was inscrutable and complex? The writing was pretty loving hard to follow but the actual characters and activities in the book are pretty straight forward boy's-own-adventure stuff
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2017 01:01
|
|
|
A GLISTENING HODOR posted:Just like on first attempts, when a re-do adaptation of a book goes closer to the source material, it gets better. If the trailers are anything to go by, 'It' will definitely be trash.
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2017 01:02
|
|
|
A GLISTENING HODOR posted:Just like on first attempts, when a re-do adaptation of a book goes closer to the source material, it gets better. Yeah, like The Shining and Trucks and
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2017 01:04
|
|
|
A GLISTENING HODOR posted:Just like on first attempts, when a re-do adaptation of a book goes closer to the source material, it gets better. I mean if you can tell from that thread I posted I'm a dinosaur nut and unsurprisingly Jurassic Park is one of my favorite movies. It's a classic but I've often wondered what it would be like if they made a new one that was closer to the book and had more up to date science. The biggest difference between the book and the movie is that in the movie, cloning dinosaurs seems fine and things only went bad because they didn't pay Newman from Seinfeld enough money. In the book they really go into just how hosed up and unethical it is to clone dinosaurs and how John Hammond has very little understanding of the animals and how to care for them or keep them under control. They only touch on that very briefly in the movie. In the book, many of the dinosaurs don't come out right and die, and they have version numbers like software which is messed up, and many of them even have difficulty breathing because they're too big for today's atmosphere. I mean nowadays we know you can't clone dinosaurs because the DNA is all gone but in the next couple decades we'll probably be able to reverse engineer birds into dinosaurs because their dinosaur genes are actually still there but turned off. But I'd let that slide and say you could clone them as long as they have feathers, T-Rex can see you standing still and they call the Raptors Utahraptors instead. At least the original Jurassic Park was pretty accurate for what we knew about dinosaurs in 1993 but they never updated them and Jurassic World makes the original look realistic by today's standards. I mean the freaking mosasaur was the size of a blue whale in it.
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2017 01:07
|
|
|
Oh poo poo gently caress me. I decided to read the youtube comments on their new plinkett video  Such a bad idea. I was so tempted to touch the poop.
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2017 01:14
|
|
|
A GLISTENING HODOR posted:Just like on first attempts, when a re-do adaptation of a book goes closer to the source material, it gets better. The Thing was retelling both the book and the movie, Carpenter loved the loving movie even more than the book, he just thought there was a lot of poo poo to be mined from both. It worked. Invasion of the Pod People is another great people forget about
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2017 01:14
|
|
|
corn in the bible posted:Yeah, like The Shining and Trucks and Exceptions exist to the source material rule, just like the better sequel exceptions, mr. smarty britches.  Mainly with Stephen King. No matter how many times they make IT I think it's best if we leave out the kid gangbang because ol' Steve is a little loving self indulgent sometimes. All King movies benefit from saying "no we're absolutely not going to do that, Stephen". Shame that Dark Tower went so far as to not even read the book.
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2017 01:16
|
|
|
Tarkovsky's Solaris was better even though it was farther from the source material than Soderbergh.
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2017 01:19
|
|
|
If you edit out Keanu Reeves then Dracula is one of the best movies ever. Fight me IRL.
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2017 01:25
|
|
|
Wizard of Oz 1939 was better than Wizard of Oz 1919
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2017 01:26
|
|
|
Bad Lieutenant isn't a remake, it's a Herzog/Cage movie that by total coincidence shares a name with a completely unrelated Harvey Keitel/Abel Ferrara movie.
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2017 01:27
|
|
|
Saw GotG 2, was mildly disappointed. There was some good in there but a lot of bad as well. The Ego half of the second act was really weak since it's the old deadbeat dad storyline that's been done to death when everyone knows it was just going to end with the Guardians killing him (they even joked about it at the beginning), even Mary Worth did a better deadbeat dad storyline. The other thing I hated was how it leaned too heavily on offhand set-ups for act 3 callbacks. Stuff like the Pac-Man thing, the suit hurting Drax's nipples and David Hasselhoff's cameo. Gammatron 64 posted:Like seriously Hollywood quit it with the remakes goddamn. There's been hundreds of remakes over the years and I'd be hard pressed to name 10 of them that were actually worth watching and weren't immediately forgotten. Maltese Falcon was a remake, ten years after the original adaptation.
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2017 01:35
|
|
|
PostNouveau posted:Wizard of Oz 1939 was better than Wizard of Oz 1919 Where does "The Wiz" fit into this rating?
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2017 01:36
|
|
|
Bloody Hedgehog posted:Where does "The Wiz" fit into this rating? Some nerd in the 1970s: *grumble grumble grumble* Hollywood is out of ideas and remakes/reboots are unique to our time and I have super original opinions about how that should stop.
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2017 01:38
|
|
|
super sweet best pal posted:The other thing I hated was how it leaned too heavily on offhand set-ups for act 3 callbacks. Stuff like the Pac-Man thing, the suit hurting Drax's nipples and David Hasselhoff's cameo.  One joke the theater kinda groaned at when I saw it was the "It's not ripe" thing, it was sooooo loving obvious.
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2017 01:41
|
|
|
A GLISTENING HODOR posted:If you edit out Keanu Reeves then Dracula is one of the best movies ever. I dunno if I would go that far but it's definitely a pretty decent movie and definitely one of the best Dracula movies. For me its probably a toss up between that one, the 1930s one and Nosferatu. It's hard to beat those first two as they're so iconic, although the Francis Ford Coppala one is a little closer to the book. I'm more of a Frankenstein guy personally. Out of my top 10 favorite movies ever, two of them are Frankenstein movies - the Bride of Frankenstein and Young Frankenstein. Dr. Pretorious in Bride is loving amazing and steals the show and Mel Brooks needs no introduction. I've only met one person who hated Mel Brooks and if you don't like Mel Brooks then gently caress you. How can anyone not love Mel Brooks?
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2017 01:48
|
|
|
a bone to pick posted:
the nipple thing was funny.
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2017 01:50
|
|
|
Gammatron 64 posted:I'm more of a Frankenstein guy personally. Out of my top 10 favorite movies ever, two of them are Frankenstein movies - the Bride of Frankenstein and Young Frankenstein. Dr. Pretorious in Bride is loving amazing and steals the show and Mel Brooks needs no introduction. Two remakes? Disgusting. Obviously the 1910 Frankenstein was good enough; Hollywood should have just moved on to new ideas.
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2017 01:53
|
|
|
PostNouveau posted:Two remakes? Disgusting. Obviously the 1910 Frankenstein was good enough; Hollywood should have just moved on to new ideas. PERPETUAL DRIVEL!
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2017 02:00
|
|
|
Why is Amy Pascal such an ugly, depressing, awful person?
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2017 02:00
|
|
|
PostNouveau posted:Two remakes? Disgusting. Obviously the 1910 Frankenstein was good enough; Hollywood should have just moved on to new ideas. Shut up dumbass, I'm not saying all remakes are bad. Also Bride of Frankenstein is a sequel and Young Frankenstein is a parody
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2017 02:02
|
|
|
Gammatron 64 posted:Shut up dumbass, I'm not saying all remakes are bad. Also Bride of Frankenstein is a sequel and Young Frankenstein is a parody I'm just tired of hearing about how mad everyone is about remakes and reboots. It's like you're rebooting that opinion that everyone and their mother has had for the last decade. It's just like the hacks that make these cash grab remakes, but for opinions.
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2017 02:09
|
|
|
monster on a stick posted:Tarkovsky's Solaris was better even though it was farther from the source material than Soderbergh. this is true, but i also didn't hate Soderburgh's. but i've also never seen the 1968 TV-movie, so i dont know how that compares
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2017 02:11
|
|
|
Gonna stop in to Abanks Dive Lodge and buy pair of the softest sea-boots.
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2017 02:12
|
|
|
PostNouveau posted:I'm just tired of hearing about how mad everyone is about remakes and reboots. It's like you're rebooting that opinion that everyone and their mother has had for the last decade. It's just like the hacks that make these cash grab remakes, but for opinions. I realize it's tiresome, man. That said, all he superhero movies and shameless cash ins is also pretty triesome. I guess what I'm saying is gently caress movies *knocks over popcorn with a cane*
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2017 02:15
|
|
|
Had Mike watched Silicon Valley, he probably wouldn't refer to Zach Woods as "Gabe from The Office". I guess what I'm really saying is Silicon Valley is a good show.
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2017 02:16
|
|
|
Echo Chamber posted:Had Mike watched Silicon Valley, he probably wouldn't refer to Zach Woods as "Gabe from The Office". I'm sure it is a good show, mike judge can't disappoint. Can't say the same for actors though.
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2017 02:25
|
|
|
You guys, what if Untitled Han Solo Star Wars Anthology Film is actually the real, final title of the movie, and it's this super-meta Jodorowsky style arthouse deconstruction of SciFi blockbusters?
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2017 02:27
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 24, 2024 12:33 |
|
|
I think we need a new thread title.
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2017 02:28
|
|