and the remakes continue

[PennLady]

It's nowhere as simple as book=smart, movie=stupid, though, is it? Certainly 2001 and Blade Runner are among the awesomest movies of all times, while the stories on which they're based aren't anything special and owe their fame precisely to the movies.

No, it's certainly not that simple. You can have both a good (or bad) movie based on a story that have little resemblance. I think of "The Lawnmower Man," which I thought was a decent movie (as was "The Running Man"). However, it was so far removed from Stephen King's original story that King got his name taken off of it.

I'd disagree on the source material for "Blade Runner" but then I'm partial.

I heartily agree with having it up to here of remakes, though. Not that I'm very conscientious about going to the movies anyhow, but it’s getting increasingly hard even to feel bad about it.

I think that studios just don't give audiences enough credit. You need to be a big name, like Scorsese or Speilberg, to get something "new" in, if you're lucky. This is not to say good films aren't getting made outside the main studios, but it's harder to see them because studios are iffy about what they pick up for distribution.

Layers of reality is one thing. No one in the movie has any motivations to do any of the things that happen in that movie. From start to finish, none of the story (in the movie) makes any sense.

Well, then, you've hit on PK Dick. No, that's not entirely true, of course. I remember I had to have it pointed out to me in TR that it could be that the entire movie, after the implant, was the memory experience (I'm kind of a linear thinker). In that case, I guess, if it's sort of a dream, you may not need people to have clear motivations. Still, it is very different from the short story, as I recall.

I think I read that another Dick book, "Ubik," is in development as a film and that ought to be interesting.

 

[Verdad]

No, it's certainly not that simple. You can have both a good (or bad) movie based on a story that have little resemblance. I think of "The Lawnmower Man," which I thought was a decent movie (as was "The Running Man"). However, it was so far removed from Stephen King's original story that King got his name taken off of it.

A. I. was quick to come to my mind, too. Spielberg put altogether too much sap in it for it to be a great movie, but anyone who’s read Brian Aldiss’ short story—an okay but unremarkable piece—couldn’t possibly make an unfavorable comparison.

I'd disagree on the source material for "Blade Runner" but then I'm partial.

Oh, don’t get me wrong; I was making a point but I too love Philip K. Dick. I probably won’t be able to resist the new Total Recall even if I’ll loath myself for it. (Don’t tell Thee but I quite liked the first one, too. )

I think that studios just don't give audiences enough credit.

I agree and keep hoping the audiences will punish them for it, but are there any signs of it?

 

[jomar]

...
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.

Yes, the industry is a business and profit it the ultimate goal, but generally the people crafting the movie want to make ART and we can name all sorts of movies that are fantastic, though on a smaller scale I've certainly seen actors phoning in their performance and find myself thinking they must have a yacht payment due. Having said that, some movies are pushed out just to make money and remakes like these are fairly safe bets...that's what I mean by cash runs either from the actor or by the studio. And in the big picture, the cash runs probably help subsidize the chancier movies.

Tom Cruise
See him in Magnolia and Tropic Thunder...good stuff even if you hate him. He was also funner than I expected in Knight and Day. I am pissed he's playing Reacher in One Shot (6'5" Reacher does not equal 5'6" Cruise), but they did a similar thing when they had Wahlberg star in Shooter...if you haven't read the book/series you don't know the difference and a wider audience is exposed. Sucks for the true fans, though.

WOTW
Jeff Wayne's 1978 musical version of WOTW was pretty good as I recall.

 

[PennLady]

A. I. was quick to come to my mind, too. Spielberg put altogether too much sap in it for it to be a great movie, but anyone who’s read Brian Aldiss’ short story—an okay but unremarkable piece—couldn’t possibly make an unfavorable comparison.

I did not care for A.I. Some of that is just me -- I hate "kid in trouble" situations. That aside, there was just too much in it for me to like the whole thing, but I did like pieces. Like many people, I also thought it was too long. I haven't read the story, though.

Oh, don’t get me wrong; I was making a point but I too love Philip K. Dick. I probably won’t be able to resist the new Total Recall even if I’ll loath myself for it. (Don’t tell Thee but I quite liked the first one, too. )

Haha, your secret is safe with me. I actually enjoyed TR just fine for what it was -- a fluffy action movie. It had nifty effects and some humor, just don't go looking for much science fact, I guess. I should go read my PKD books again...

I agree and keep hoping the audiences will punish them for it, but are there any signs of it?

I'd say there are at least small signs. For example, by all accounts Green Lantern was not a great movie (I haven't seen it), and audience reaction seemed to show it. Part of the problem is I bet some people will go see a movie "because it's there." I'm not criticizing, I'm just saying that if someone wants to see a movie in a theater, and they don't have much to choose from, they'll choose the "least worst."

Having said that, some movies are pushed out just to make money and remakes like these are fairly safe bets...that's what I mean by cash runs either from the actor or by the studio. And in the big picture, the cash runs probably help subsidize the chancier movies.

Yes, I've read this in a number of places, and even some actors will say they do more commercial stuff to allow them to finance and participate in the less-mainstream projects. Nothing wrong with that, and I'm sure not against blockbusters or anything like that. I'd just like to see good blockbusters.

See him in Magnolia and Tropic Thunder...good stuff even if you hate him. He was also funner than I expected in Knight and Day. I am pissed he's playing Reacher in One Shot (6'5" Reacher does not equal 5'6" Cruise), but they did a similar thing when they had Wahlberg star in Shooter...if you haven't read the book/series you don't know the difference and a wider audience is exposed. Sucks for the true fans, though.

WOTW
Jeff Wayne's 1978 musical version of WOTW was pretty good as I recall.

I saw Tropic Thunder and Cruise sure did break the mold there. Haven't seen Magnolia although I'd like to. Cruise is just one of those actors that will in fact turn me off from a movie; there has to be something to outweigh him in the movie -- the plot, the co-stars, the director, something.

As for height, well -- Mel Gibson is about 5'4" and played the 6'6" William Wallace in Braveheart. Many movie stars are on the short side, even the guys. Bogart had to stand on stuff in Casablanca, as he was shorter than Ingrid Bergman.

 

[rgraham666]

Personally I rather liked Total Recall and thought Starship Troopers blew big, meaty chunks. The whole point of the latter, what it means and what is required to be a citizen of a society, was buried under lots of explosions. Thppppppt!

 

[PayDay]

Leave Edward Neumeier Alone!!!!!

Layers of reality is one thing. No one in the movie has any motivations to do any of the things that happen in that movie. From start to finish, none of the story (in the movie) makes any sense.

Yeah, first two times I watched it, it was confusing, but after a few more views, it kept getting better, and better, and better.....

I do not think Starship Troopers needs a remake. At all. To me, that would be like remaking Jurassic Park because the dinosaurs looked more fake after you watched the 'making-of' special. Keep the original, and make a sequel worth a shit instead of the two low budget ones they have.

see Tron: Legacy

It seems to me like the three primary remakes in this thread are to shit on the styles of Edward Neumeier and his taste for cheap thrills and stoic violence.

Those three movies were made correctly. They fit the source material as best they could under the circumstances, and I do not see how they could 'make it better' than they already are. In fact, those movies would be hard to update for today's 'style' of action movie, since they fit better at the time of their production.

I do not mind if they re-use the ideas in a different context, but re-doing well done just makes burnt.

see Poseidon

If you can copy an idea, you can rewrite it with a different title and characters.

see Brain Donors

I think, more than anything, this all comes down to already owning the rights to something, but not all of it, and saving money while guaranteeing to make money from people like me who want to complain, or people who saw the original in passing and liked it.

"The original made money, why wouldn't a remake?"

Plus, royalty costs go down, since the new version 'takes over' marketing and they can re-sell more of the old version under new contracts or old agreements sans inflation.

Commercial cinema is now trying to buy my tastes, methinks, while selling them to everyone else in a 'OMFG it's NEW and TRENDY and CHANGED!! And it's GREEN to like it!!! It's the new iRemake!!!!' format, even though it just comes across as lazy.

Seriously, it's not like anyone needs a new iPhone3 to replace their perfectly good iPhone2, but Apple makes you think that you do. Remakes are a want of the studios, not a need for the story.

There is very little 'talent' involved in movies these days, just money and marketing values, case in point, look what happened to Cannes and Sundance...

Movies are a business, they always have been. I just don't have to like their practices.

I think someone else said it first, but: Remakes are the new Spaghetti Western.