and the remakes continue

[PennLady]

Total Recall, Robo-Cop and Starship Troopers -- slated to be remade. The oldest isn't even that old; it's younger than me. Good grief.

http://www.slate.com/blogs/browbeat/2011/12/08/paul_verhoeven_sci_fi_remakes_why_now_.html

 

[lovecraft68]

Total Recall, Robo-Cop and Starship Troopers -- slated to be remade. The oldest isn't even that old; it's younger than me. Good grief.

http://www.slate.com/blogs/browbeat/2011/12/08/paul_verhoeven_sci_fi_remakes_why_now_.html

Lack of creativity and originality send directors scurrying to see what can be copied to make a few bucks. In most cases very few.

What I'm waiting for is a true remake of the Exorcist. They have done sequels and a couple of prequels but never an actual remake. Perhaps Blatty won't give permission.

 

[Handley_Page]

Well, I for one am not looking forward to the remake of the "Dan Busters".
To re-name Gibson's dog is pandering to the protesters.

 

[PayDay]

Not cool.

Total Recall, Robo-Cop and Starship Troopers -- slated to be remade. The oldest isn't even that old; it's younger than me. Good grief.

http://www.slate.com/blogs/browbeat/2011/12/08/paul_verhoeven_sci_fi_remakes_why_now_.html

The original versions of those are some of the best movies ever made, well, at least some of my favorites.

They were all made by the same director. Are they trying to shit on his career?

Say it isn't so...

You think they would have learned their lesson with Poseidon...

 

[Handley_Page]

. . . . .

You think they would have learned their lesson with Poseidon...

Or maybe that remake of Tora Tora Tora ?

 

[SydneyBlake]

Lack of creativity and originality send directors scurrying to see what can be copied to make a few bucks. In most cases very few.

What I'm waiting for is a true remake of the Exorcist. They have done sequels and a couple of prequels but never an actual remake. Perhaps Blatty won't give permission.

Yes, I've been waiting on that one, too. We watched it back in October, but I admit, the Scary Movie spoof on this makes it hard for me to watch with a straight face now.

 

[PennLady]

Lack of creativity and originality send directors scurrying to see what can be copied to make a few bucks. In most cases very few.

What I'm waiting for is a true remake of the Exorcist. They have done sequels and a couple of prequels but never an actual remake. Perhaps Blatty won't give permission.

I follow some movie news, and for a while now, the consensus is that the big studios do not want anything "new" that is not a pre-known quantity that will bring a built-in audience, or at least built-in recognition. I read an article that quote the screenwriter for "The Usual Suspects" (one of my favorites) and he said he'd never pitch anything like that these days and that's only from 1995. They have already "rebooted" the X-Men movie franchise, and Superman and Spiderman are in the works as well.

To be fair, this is not a really new phenomenon. Hollywood has always adapted novels and such. Even "The Maltese Falcon," classic that it is, was the third version of that story within something like twenty years. However, I do think that these days there's a huge, huge fear that a movie won't turn a profit, and even that has a lot to do with the marketing campaigns anymore and not just the film budget.

For The Excorcist -- I don't know. I read the book and didn't think it was all that great, and although I enjoyed the movie, I wasn't scared. Of course that could have been because I read the book and so knew what was coming. I'd be leery of a remake unless they could really bring a new angle to it.

I like Total Recall and Robo-Cop but struggle with Starship Troopers. For one thing, ST was so far removed from the Heinlein source novel that it was nuts. For another, I just thought it was a crappy, campy movie -- which is just its appeal for other folks. Some parts of ST are okay, but I find it wears on me pretty damn quick.

 

[lovecraft68]

I follow some movie news, and for a while now, the consensus is that the big studios do not want anything "new" that is not a pre-known quantity that will bring a built-in audience, or at least built-in recognition. I read an article that quote the screenwriter for "The Usual Suspects" (one of my favorites) and he said he'd never pitch anything like that these days and that's only from 1995. They have already "rebooted" the X-Men movie franchise, and Superman and Spiderman are in the works as well.

To be fair, this is not a really new phenomenon. Hollywood has always adapted novels and such. Even "The Maltese Falcon," classic that it is, was the third version of that story within something like twenty years. However, I do think that these days there's a huge, huge fear that a movie won't turn a profit, and even that has a lot to do with the marketing campaigns anymore and not just the film budget.

For The Excorcist -- I don't know. I read the book and didn't think it was all that great, and although I enjoyed the movie, I wasn't scared. Of course that could have been because I read the book and so knew what was coming. I'd be leery of a remake unless they could really bring a new angle to it.

I like Total Recall and Robo-Cop but struggle with Starship Troopers. For one thing, ST was so far removed from the Heinlein source novel that it was nuts. For another, I just thought it was a crappy, campy movie -- which is just its appeal for other folks. Some parts of ST are okay, but I find it wears on me pretty damn quick.

The thing about the Exorcist is not so much how scary it was to us. If you are with in ten years of me we saw it when it was already years old. You have to consider when the movie came out in the early 70's people had never seen anything like it. Now it gets laughs. But seriously think about it. To this day that scene with the crucifix is brutal picture watching it close to 40 years ago.

Comic books are doing the same thing. There has not been a significant new character created by Marvel in years it is reboot after reboot, modernizing and re telling origins of old characters and not bringing in new ones.

Same ole same ole. Like the cliches in many of the stories here. Some plot devices, plot bunny's have been beat to death, resurrected and beat again, yet people eat them up. I can write a mother catches her son jerking off story tomorrow and here comes 800 votes and a 4.7. Some people just like the same meal on the same day of the week all their lives.

 

[lovecraft68]

Yes, I've been waiting on that one, too. We watched it back in October, but I admit, the Scary Movie spoof on this makes it hard for me to watch with a straight face now.

If you want a better laugh rent "repossessed" it is a movie length spoof of the Exorcist starring Leslie Nielson and Linda Blair.

For the record? Linda Blair was fucking hot in her day (no, not in the Exorcist) but when she got older. I met her at Spooky world a few years ago. Red had a very rough night. She did however draw the line at spitting pea soup at me.

 

[LettersFromTatyana]

Don't forget American Psycho. That's one's in the works for a remake, too.

Good thing; the original is a whopping eleven years old. That's ancient!

 

[lovecraft68]

Don't forget American Psycho. That's one's in the works for a remake, too.

Good thing; the original is a whopping eleven years old. That's ancient!

All I can think of is "Thanks for the ride lady!"

Umm, that is from that movie right? Ugh, I hate having to concentrate.

I'm waiting for Natural Born Killers. Hopefully that never happens. That movie was a classic, but alas, nothing is sacred.

 

[SydneyBlake]

If you want a better laugh rent "repossessed" it is a movie length spoof of the Exorcist starring Leslie Nielson and Linda Blair.

For the record? Linda Blair was fucking hot in her day (no, not in the Exorcist) but when she got older. I met her at Spooky world a few years ago. Red had a very rough night. She did however draw the line at spitting pea soup at me.

Different people have different buttons. DH will not watch The Exorcist. First time I saw Linda Blair come down the staircase, my skin crawled. The movies that got me were The Ring and The Grudge. That shit, crawling up under the sheets, that's ok for Red, but not for dead chicks. That shit ain't right.

 

[lovecraft68]

Different people have different buttons. DH will not watch The Exorcist. First time I saw Linda Blair come down the staircase, my skin crawled. The movies that got me were The Ring and The Grudge. That shit, crawling up under the sheets, that's ok for Red, but not for dead chicks. That shit ain't right.

Yes that was a freaky scene. And well, I would be lying if I said that having a girl in really fucked up make up crawling up my body wasn't a turn on. It's amazing what I used to bring home from Club Hell back in the day.

 

[jomar]

...
I like Total Recall and Robo-Cop but struggle with Starship Troopers. For one thing, ST was so far removed from the Heinlein source novel that it was nuts. For another, I just thought it was a crappy, campy movie -- which is just its appeal for other folks. Some parts of ST are okay, but I find it wears on me pretty damn quick.

Yes, you just can't view ST as a movie about the book, you have to enjoy it on its own. In fact, it helps to see the movie first, I think. I thought the movie was terrific...the follow-ups not so...

And all remakes of this ilk smell like a cash run to me.

 

[PennLady]

I liked The Ring, haven't seen The Grudge. Although I like all kinds of movies, I'm kind of particular about which scary/horror ones I watch. And the one scary movie that I still don't like to watch alone is Night of the Hunter, from about 1951, with Robert Mitchum. Another more recent one I like is The Serpent and the Rainbow. Somehow I doubt either of those is a candidate to be remade.

 

[PennLady]

Yes, you just can't view ST as a movie about the book, you have to enjoy it on its own. In fact, it helps to see the movie first, I think. I thought the movie was terrific...the follow-ups not so...

And all remakes of this ilk smell like a cash run to me.

I agree on the first point. I'd done the opposite, of course, although I could tell going in it was hardly going to be heavy on the politics. I suppose I could watch it again and try to keep a more open mind. But I just thought the acting wasn't very good, etc., so aside from the book difference I just couldn't get involved. Still, I confess that if I find it on TV, I can get sucked in for a while.

A friend of mine makes a practice of seeing movies first and then reading the book -- he says he's always pleasantly surprised to find all the "extra" stuff.

Of course it's a cash run. That's the whole point. Entertainment choices are so much more varied than before and the movie studios, whatever you want to say about art and classics and a golden age, are business ventures that want to turn a profit. They always have been. Sometimes you get lucky and a "B" movie turns into a classic (Casablanca) or just stands out a little (like Tremors). But it's always been a business. I wish they'd take more chances, and give the audience a little credit, though.

 

[TE999]

H. L. Mencken said it best "No one ever went broke underestimating the taste of the movie going public" or something like that. In a nutshell, that's Hollywood. Most movies today cater to the 14-24 yo sex and violence crowd with plots so thin they make rice paper look like sheet steel. Computer special effects are excellent and make things seem real, but movies are so heavily dependent on them they've become a cliche'.

Short version: The studio bean counters run the show and innovation is out. When movies cost tons of money to produce, no one's going to take any risks.

 

[lovecraft68]

H. L. Mencken said it best "No one ever went broke underestimating the taste of the movie going public" or something like that. In a nutshell, that's Hollywood. Most movies today cater to the 14-24 yo sex and violence crowd with plots so thin they make rice paper look like sheet steel. Computer special effects are excellent and make things seem real, but movies are so heavily dependent on them they've become a cliche'.

Short version: The studio bean counters run the show and innovation is out. When movies cost tons of money to produce, no one's going to take any risks.

You're right. Tell you what the wife made me watch the Clash of the Titans remake with her Saturday night. It sucked. No fun, no spirit and although the effects were better, I really think Harryhausan's Kraken was better than the one in this soulless remake.

 

[SydneyBlake]

You're right. Tell you what the wife made me watch the Clash of the Titans remake with her Saturday night. It sucked. No fun, no spirit and although the effects were better, I really think Harryhausan's Kraken was better than the one in this soulless remake.

I saw that. It was <yawn> disappointing. Take her to see Immortals. Soft porn for women on the big screen. Oh, but hell, it's got one hellacious ball-busting scene that still makes me cringe.

 

[lovecraft68]

I saw that. It was <yawn> disappointing. Take her to see Immortals. Soft porn for women on the big screen. Oh, but hell, it's got one hellacious ball-busting scene that still makes me cringe.

Just for women? What no titties? awww jeez.

want soft/hardcore porn from that time? Sparticus Blood and Sand. Lucy Lwless totally nude and talking like a whore. Good stuff.

 

[SydneyBlake]

Just for women? What no titties? awww jeez.

want soft/hardcore porn from that time? Sparticus Blood and Sand. Lucy Lwless totally nude and talking like a whore. Good stuff.

Is that on Netflix?

If they show tits, it's only a brief second or two. They show an ass. The sex scene is brief. The one in 300 was better.

 

[PayDay]

Right?

The only remake I ever enjoyed, was Brain Donors as it was done as an ode rather than a remake. It was proof that the Marx Brothers would be funny forever, and the filmaker's and actor's love for the source material is evident.

Worth a look for cheap slapstick and Groucho'd comebacks.

 

[SydneyBlake]

The only remake I ever enjoyed, was Brain Donors as it was done as an ode rather than a remake. It was proof that the Marx Brothers would be funny forever, and the filmaker's and actor's love for the source material is evident.

Worth a look for cheap slapstick and Groucho'd comebacks.

Love me some Groucho. There's a series of letters that he wrote to MGM's lawyers when they were in a copyright dispute, and they are hilarious.

Another remake: The Thing. Anybody see that? Actually, it's not a remake per se, but a prequel, but the same gruesome goodness.

 

[lovecraft68]

Is that on Netflix?

If they show tits, it's only a brief second or two. They show an ass. The sex scene is brief. The one in 300 was better.

The one in 300 was awkward. I brought my daughters and the scene was just going on and on. I'm like "we get it, we get it, he's a god in bed, yeesh."

 

[lovecraft68]

Love me some Groucho. There's a series of letters that he wrote to MGM's lawyers when they were in a copyright dispute, and they are hilarious.

Another remake: The Thing. Anybody see that? Actually, it's not a remake per se, but a prequel, but the same gruesome goodness.

The thing was originally done in the fifties. Then there was the Carpenter remake in the 80's now another one. I have not seen the new one.