Your are viewing a read-only archive of the old DiS boards. Please hit the Community button above to engage with the DiS !
or at least be put into forced retirement. there's no two ways about it, this has gone on long enough.
but I'm pretty sure he will. After he and George destroyed Indiana Jones my expectations are very low.
I'm just worried about this motion capture/CGI stuff. Fingers crossed though! So long as we get to see Haddock go "Billions of blue blistering barnacles!" then I'll probably be happy.
But I can't remember the last Spielberg film that I actually liked.
I see no problem with this. Move along, nothing to see here.
they're both untouchable classics.
and as for Kane, it really is only a matter of time.
Ask yourself this: In what way any director could possibly improve on this film in a way that justifies a remake costing millions upon millions of dollars, while original screenplays lie gathering dust in some fucknut executive's office?
Or maybe you're just super eager to see a giant CGI rabbit, I dunno...
it's almost definitely going to have a giant CGI rabbit, isn't it? :0(
I can't wait for this film.
Most remakes are shit too admittedly but this idea that there's fuckloads of wonderful scripts that could be made into brilliant films if only film producer's would open their minds to them is bullshit. Every film producer I've ever met has been desperate for someone to send them something original, non-derivative and semi-decent but finds it never happens.
about most original music, most original novels, etc and so forth. There's always far more good than bad in any artform. This is just a fact, surely?
Jesus. Too much coffee.
I mean to make even a relatively low-budget film would cost upwards of a million - probably between 2 and a half to ten million. Obviously upwards of ten times that for a big budget film.
And also persuade someone to invest that kind of money, knowing that most films won't make anything like thier budget back.
So, whereas with books or music you can put stuff out on the basis it's quite good and has potential and maybe some people'll like it or maybe the band/author will get better with time, it's much harder to do that with films due to the costs involved of just getting it to an audience in the first place.
a) have a modicum of taste
b) aren't just covering for the fact that they are, indeed, shit.
Even most of the stuff by writers with agents is mediocre at best. The unsolicited scripts scrape absolulely unbelivably barrels of appallingness.
I mean to be honest most of it is just an inferior facsimile of some other film or a fairly poor example of a particular genre. But every now and then you get a howlingly bad script. But very few that are even "quite good", let alone undiscovered gems.
The 'slush pile' is always good for a laugh
Let's just use the scripts that aren't shit, then. It would take a lot of blood and toil, but I think someday we could pull it off. Together.
Not just him. We need a moratorium on remakes of films that EVERYONE knows and reboots of decades old franchises that were fucking shit to begin with and which lead inevitably to shit films.
WTF? Have they done anything that wasn't hugely disappointing since the first Matrix Film? If you're going to get rid of Singer because his film was overlong and boring do you really want to pick the people that gave us The Matrix: Reloaded? Fuck me...
THERE WAS ALREADY A SUPERMAN REBOOT LIKE, LAST YEAR! WHAT THE FUCK!
it might have looked dreadful in the trailers, but the film itself is fantastic
Or Will Ferrell, with Vince Vaughn in the James Stewart role.
The Wild Bunch and An American Werewolf in London.
Two of my all-time favorite films. We can't let Hollywood get away with this shit. It's gone on long enough.
on them changing the story so that Elwood P Dowd has a son, that he's neglected through years of alcohol abuse, never came to his baseball games and so on, and Harvey will help them to reconcile before disappearing.
2a) Fucking woo. b) Will it though? No.
3. It's not a question of reworking stories and letting them evolve over hundreds of years. It's remaking entire films, often practically scene by scene (hello Gus Van Psycho!), sometimes less than a decade after they were first made. There have always been remakes, sure, but not at this volume. It's done for money and money alone. GET SOME NEW FUCKING IDEAS HOLLYWOOD.
the movie was made entirely by Jimmy Stewart's performance. Even if Tom Hank's could pull off a similar level of charm whilst making us believe he has a 6ft invisible rabbit by his side, he won't be allowed to. We'll see the rabbit. Spielberg and subtlety had a messy divorce over a decade ago.
1) Hardly anyone who watches the Spielberg version will be tempted to seek out the original.
3) The modern hollywood remake blatantly isn't a vehicle for the advancement of the English Language or cinema as an artform. I'd be keen to hear any argument to the contrary.
which is (relatively speaking) pretty recent, widely available, and well loved.
2.but it will suck, and won't entertain nearly as much as just watching the original would.
3.but it will suck. you really can't compare remaking a film to the evolution of drama and literature over centuries. it doesn't work like that, and doesn't need to happen nearly so soon.
to which i would add
4.it's entirely unnecessary and done for the most completely cynical of reasons - i.e. cold, hard cash and the bottom line. to argue that any art form should be a slave to the bottom line in this way is pretty much the same as saying it has no value at all, and is on the whole pretty pointless. hence "lighten up" i guess. but sorry, my brain's not wired that way.
i'm just an old film geek who cared too much...
But it just feels like someones come into your house, killed your dog and replaced it with a bigger, more colourful dog, but one that bites you and shits all over your food.
"art forms made solely for cash are fine"
i think so.
remaking oldboy? but with will smith....
It's apparently going to be a fresh adaptation of the comic books though, not a remake of the film.
I don't know who came up with that. I've read the manga (well, about a third of it) and the only noticeable difference between it and the film is that the comic is about 3x as impenetrable to Western audiences.
Remaking a film that relies on such a powerful twist is likewise retarded.
doesn't have the whole incest subplot. Which would make a big difference.
Schindler's List - one of the most awful, cringe inducing, offensive, icky films ever made?
But replace 'Schindler's List' with 'Forrest Gump' and I might agree.
aside from the "let's make a arty film by shooting it in black and white and sticking some plaintive piano music in" aesthetic it has, which basically turns it into an art movie for people who can't deal with art movies.
it's deeply deeply offensive: Gentile thespians playing ineffectual Jews who are basically pawns in a story about Schindler's redemption (and he is NEVER depicted like that in the novel), aestheticising the Holocaust, sadistically SEXUALISING the holocaust, full of gigantic stereotypes of Jews, it's really really not a pleasant film.
as for 'Gentile thespians' - this is ridiculous. They're actors, you may as well slate any film based on a real-life event (especially one as horrible as the Holocaust) on those grounds. Is Meryl Streep in Sophie's Choice offensive for instance? You can argue that the film is too lenient on Schindler (and the one bum note in the film is his farewell at the end when he breaks down) certainly, but I think calling it actively unpleasant is pretty extreme.
And as for 'sexualising' the Holocaust, I must be missing something there.
the scene in the shower, one or two where thingy beats his maid.
These dudes explain it far better than I do: http://web.ics.purdue.edu/~felluga/holocaust/villagevoice2.html
when it's a film dealing with real-life issues of racism, the semiotics of using deracinated characters can be pretty dodgy. imagine a slavery film with the black characters portrayed by white actors blacked up. and to be fair, we're not THAT far away here, Kinglsey's character is far more a stereotype than he is depicted in the book.
I saw the last 10 minutes of AI
The Batman franchise
I mean, you could say they're all just different adaptations of the source material. Totally agree on The Departed, though. Easily stands on its own.
Invasion Of The Bodysnatchers (1978)
...the moral of the story is, if you're gonna do a remake that betters the original, make it a 50s b-movie remake and put Jeff Goldblum in it.
not a remake. Different story innit.
I agree with The Departed.
And I'm going to throw in Dawn of the Dead.
and remake 'E.T.', just to see the look on his face.
Then I will reboot the Star Wars franchise.
they're going to 'reboot' Stephen King's IT, which wasn't a film in the first place, it was a mini-series, and there was only ever one of it. how do you then 'reboot' it if it's not a series with numerous sequels (the implication being that it's failing and in need of a restart)?
You can only reboot a franchise, not a stand alone film.
As my own personal revenge I think I'll reboot the Indiana Jones franchise with Jack Black as Indy.
That'll show him.
I'm going to remake 'Jurassic Park' with Jack Black as the Sam Neil character.
"Rigga-gigga-goo!" *pokes fat kid in the stomach with velociraptor claw*
We'll call it Jack Blacksploitation.
"Rigga-gigga-goo!" *enters spaceship and returns home*
"Rigga-gigga-goo!" *shoots gas tank in sharks mouth*
"Rigga-gigga-goo!" *saves Jews*
i wonder if it will top the version starring Leslie Nielsen
What a swizz...