Basically that's what they did with Ocean's 11. The original Frank Sinatra version was shit. But it was a good idea, a crew of super cool dudes get together to rob a casino.
They remade it and it was very successful.
The Thing has a similar origin.
But it's rare things like that happen because Hollywood execs usually need an existing property with good numbers to greenlight a movie.
For a second I thought you were trying to say that The Thing (2011) is a better remake of The Thing (1982), but then I remembered that 1951 version exists.
The one from the 50's, good as it was for the time, is now overshadowed in the popular consciousness by Carpenter's. Ironically, it seems like the former did quite well at the box office whereas the latter bombed and only over time has it grown in popularity.
I would consider Carpenter's to be a sequel of sorts. It takes up after another crew has been already destroyed by The Thing. It gels well with the idea that the 50s movie is about post WWII paranoia (kill everything that looks different on sight). While Carpenter's, while being a bit closer to the source material, is about cold war paranoia. Everything, even those who you trust the most, could be a shapeshifting monster. The movie even ends on a cold quiet unresolved and presumably eternal face-off.
Ghost in the Shell was an unnecessary remake of a fantastic original animation that was improved by the series that followed it. There was never a need for a live action version.
Ghost in the shell was decent. They paid incredible attention to the art direction and casting ranged from perfect to acceptable. I can’t remember a single scene but their rendering of 90s retrofuturism sincerely blew me away. Maybe modern cinema has tainted me but it really wasn’t terrible.
It could have been an acceptably decent movie if it wasn't trying to be part of the GitS franchise. As a GitS fan I hated it, but I wonder if it could have been more fun to watch if I was unfamiliar with the series. I remember thinking the same with a lot of movies based on books I hadn't read like Percy Jackson, the movie became a lot worse after reading the source material.
Absolutely, there's a lot of stories that would have been better received as their own original IPs. Unfortunately, it's a lot safer to make a sequel so you can count on sales from the pre-established fanbase.
Another good example I always go to is the Thief video games, where I got my username. The reboot dramatically changed all the mechanics and ditched a lot of what made the first games so engaging, very little aside from a few proper nouns has any resemblance to the original. It could have been a decent stealth game if it sold itself on its own merits(it certainly wasn't terrible) but as a Thief game, it justifiably got fans upset.
tbh I would have loved a well done live action version of GITS. With a Japanese cast, international subtitles, and a new offshoot plot that expands upon the original film. Bring in a remastered version of the original animation's impeccable soundtrack. I absolutely think it's possible, but it's far outside the realm of "make cheap movie make big money" that the majority of film studios operate on today
Movies are being made to mitigate risk. Take a polar thing and just do that again, that'll suck people in right???
God forbid they do something new and interesting with the material, that can't possibly work.
The only time I can think of where a remake ended up working out was with the recent planet of the apes movies. Where, you know, they took the premise and did something new and interesting with it. But even THEN, there was a completely different remake that failed to innovate outside of the last few minutes and those were confusing are best.
I mean, shit on production companies all you want.. but if I was selling a product and people were finding easier and easier ways to simply copy it for free then I might get a bit... risk averse..
Didn't read the books and can't remember much of the movie but one thing.
The way the zombies moved as a fluid.
That was the best depiction of horde behavior I have seen. The thought that they climb over obstacles by climbing over each other was brilliant and scary.
I only read the book afterwards. Leaving the theater I thought, “Wow, what a shit zombie movie, what's with the zombie tower. Anyways I want ice cream.”
After reading the book I thought, “Wow, this makes the movie seem even worse than I thought, adapting this would've been way better. They didn't even follow the same in-universe rules!”
Nah, the book is great, definitely one the best zombie fictions out there. It even spawned a pretty great fan fiction that addressed one of the hanging plot threads.
I didn't buy everything from it but it's best to just consider them as separate properties and judge them on their own merits.
Counterpoint: Game of Thrones. The studio would have been happy to give them a few more seasons to develop a better ending. It's the creators who gave up and phoned in the ending we got.
LOTR was based on a trilogy that was finished looking before the movies were made. Starting a TV show and hoping the source material would be finished in time for the end was a, um, bold move.
Even ignoring that, Martin was helping them continue it without a book to base the story on and was pushing for 10 sessions, the show creators wanted to move on and start working on another project instead and we got what we got...
George RR Martin was a consultant on seasons that had not yet been written as books. He told the writers where he wanted the story in the books to go, and where to take the story in the show. I doubt it's true, but a lot of fans were speculating that he made the end deliberately bad (Arya kills the Night King, Denarys goes crazy, Cersei and Kingslayer reunite to be crushed by the collapsing Red Keep, Bran becomes king) because he wanted the show to be worse than his next two books. @
No man, that specific ending can be made to work. But you need good writers, several more seasons and good taste to do that. Martin gave DandD a finish line, but they had to figure the trail and make the run. They just suck at that so bad that it almost killed their entire careers, got them dropped from the job they had lined up and poisoned everything they touched for 5 years. Netflix just gave them the “3 body problem” adaptation. I'm sure it will be good because the thing is already written, and they are usually good at coloring between the lines. Just not good at coming up with new original or creative stuff.
He said in interviews that he was pushing for 10 seasons, I don't think he intentionally fucked up, I think he did what he could with two showrunners that were tired of doing their job and couldn't accept that someone else would take the reins.
The creators were in constant touch with GRRM. They knew where he intends to go. The ending we got could be done better if things were fleshed out over a longer period of time.
We know he has a specific destination in mind. It's well established that he had an outline for what was originally a trilogy. It's why the first book is heavier with hints of (for example) Jon's lineage than the others.
How to get there has clearly changed, and GRRM might not know how anymore.
Also, low bugets makes the directors extra creative. They need to make the most of what they have. In my opinion, a well written plot trumps special effects every time.
I kinda disagree with the writing being the ultimate decider on what makes a good story) movie. Directing and editing matters just as much, if not more so. Those two brings to life what is written on the page because sometimes it's hard to imagine what is described on the page.
For all the bad you hear about studios though, there are plenty of stories of movies that were saved by the studio because the director was off the rails and had no idea what to do. Here's a list with a couple:
Most of these are a stretch. They didn't like psycho so they underfunded it. Hitchcock finances the movie, takes a pay cut along with the actors. Somehow this is positive interference....
LotR also is going to stand out from now on, because at the time it was made, CGI was ok, and getting to be good, but they didn't trust it for crowds yet. SW Ep. 1 came out at about the same time, and the CGI crowds don't hold up. LotR had PJ directing and he wanted to use as many real people and real sets as he could, so that when they had to use CGI it wouldn't be noticable. You can see the difference looking at The Hobbit movies.
I can't remember who it was, but there was a producer credited for greenlighting several classic movies in the 1960s and 70s. We're lucky if a producer or executive is good at spotting what makes a good story and have dependable crew to make it.
Yeah, there are so many movies based on media with a deeper and richer source material than can be presented well in a 2-hour movie format. For example, the Ender's Game novel spent a significant amount of time on the progression of Ender's career at the Battle School and the movie only spent as much time as was necessary to show that he was good. A TV series could tell the parallel story of Ender's Shadow as well in the same season.
A counterexample is that sometimes the TV series may over milk the source material and drag out which should be a shorter story. The first season of American Gods was awesome, but they kept dragging out the series way too much by stretching out the stories of minor characters and fumbled in the end.
In that vein, I would go even farther. Cinema is a defunct, dinosaur medium, with built-in limitations. Anything worth making at all is worth making into a high-quality, high-production-value series.
You know what's hilarious about that, though? The first people who would start shrieking that I'm going too far...you know who those people are? Film directors and obsessive fans of film directors. And yet, if I'm not VASTLY mistaken, directors always want to make a cut of every movie that's, like, 50 hours long.
Motherfucker, that's a series. Make a series. This is the 21st Century. We all have perfectly good screens in our houses. Let go of your popcorn fixation and just do everything as a series. ESPECIALLY if you're adapting a comic book series or a novel, or series of novels.
If we just assume, from the get-go, that everything will be a "TV" series (even the word "television" is a stupid dinosaur word, but I'll use it for convenience), we can also finally convince studios that they should MIX THE FUCKING AUDIO FOR PEOPLE TO HEAR IN THEIR HOUSES, WITH 2-CHANNEL SPEAKER SYSTEMS, RATHER THAN 872 CHANNEL THEATER SETUPS.
I'm fucking tired of having to turn on closed-captioning for every goddamn thing I watch.
I'm too lazy to comment on all the other stuff, but you can get your bog-standard 2.0 stereo from any encoded track. Strikes me as kind of funny to argument with future vs. past and then stick to 1930s stereo tech for film when it's become more easy than ever to set up a decent 5.1 system.
Why not? All screen media is divided into the era before Breaking Bad and the era after Breaking Bad.
Movies are obsolete. Period.
They're like troubadours, after the spread of the printing press. They used to be the state-of-the-art in storytelling, but they have become nothing more than a silly novelty, from a bygone era.
All screen media is divided into the era before Breaking Bad and the era after Breaking Bad.
No lol. The Shield, if anything, but that's still irrelevant to your argument.
Film and TV serials are two completely different mediums. Do you think that The Wall should've been a painting? Or that The Weeping Woman would be best as a 9 part Netflix special?
I personally don't think you're wrong, but I also feel like Hollywood execs are no longer interested in the type of stories that make good movies. Movies are tight, self contained stories delivered in a couple of hours. Most of the good ones (Critically acclaimed) don't get that many sequels. Those are infinite cash cows, which is what execs prefer.
Premium series are infinitely expandable and are readily able to adapt larger narrative works. They're potentially endless wells of money. Seems like the industry wants to move in that direction.
Film and TV serials are two completely different mediums
Different, yes. But not as different as your example of a painting vs a TV series.
The modern scripted series IS the evolution of and replacement for the obsolete, way-too-short traditional movie. My analogy of the troubadour being replaced by the printing press is simply correct. We were only saddled with pathetically short movies, because people had to physically go to the theater, and still have time to get home and cook dinner.
Those days are over, and good riddance to them. The paradigm has shifted. There is no longer any reason to fuck around with arbitrarily far-too-brief motion pictures. Of course, there will always be people who cannot let go of the past, and insist that the limitations of obsolete media are somehow features, rather than bugs. Lots of people still unironically insist that black-and-white photography is somehow better, more serious, more artsy.
That's just nonsense. The page has turned. Technology has moved forward. Longer IS objectively better than shorter. Color IS objectively better than black and white. More IS better than less. Every child knows all of this. We only begin to deny facts like these, when we grow old enough to become insecure, and in need of things to brag about, show how "sophisticated" we are, etc.
We don't have to accept the limitations of yesteryear, unless we insist on it, for reasons of hipsterism.
I'm not sure I completely agree with your premise, but you're articulating your point well and I value your passion towards the topic.
Many discussions need to be spread over multiple comments on a post instead of being crammed into an over-long single post that still doesn't capture the point of view of the author as they intend.
Furthermore, often times people come back and edit their single comments into massive pages long diatribes and people just TLDR it, when they should have been part of a multi comment back and forth between the poster and their audience, and I think you're doing the latter well.
I will admit that I'm over-egging the whole concept. However, I truly believe in the basic concept of what I'm saying. I think it's fair to say that at least a huge percentage of motion pictures have been more harmed by their limited scope than they were helped by it.
Note, as I mentioned in another comment, that directors themselves have ALWAYS chafed under the length restrictions of traditional cinema. They're always reined in by the moneyed interests, but if they had their way, even Syd Field's supposedly gospel paradigm of the three-act structure would be thrown out, in most cases.
And I can't disagree with the directors. The greatness of cinema has never been tied inherently to the runtime of a traditional movie. The things that are inspirational and beautiful about cinema all exist, whether the piece is a 45 minutes episode of a series, a 110 minute standard feature, or an epic 5 hour director's cut. The things that really define filmmaking are the photography itself, composition and lighting, acting and screenwriting, the subtle magic of the editor, the subtle-to-not-so-subtle magic of effects artists.
I genuinely believe the balance between all these factors is difficult enough, without having to fight about which scenes get cut, in order to fit in a singular feature length time constraint. Certainly, that shouldn't be seen as some kind of end-all, be-all, defining feature of motion picture art. I was being pushy and pithy about it earlier, but I really do believe that movies are only the length they are, because people only had a few hours to spend going to and from the theater.
I think so many directors of the past, if they'd had their choice in the matter, would ALWAYS have preferred to make a high quality series, rather than a limited movie. Especially if they didn't have to choose an objectively inferior picture quality and aspect ratio, as early television was lumbered with.
I think the final point is related to that, too. I think we're all still laboring under the prejudices of the early era of TV. Television was cheesy. Television was ugly. Television was cheap. Those attitudes are hard to shake off, even after we've all seen the current apex of the "small screen," and what it's capable of showing.
I really am not much of a movie fan, but the serialisation of everything is already so tiring.
I liked watching "a man called Otto" and have a think about it afterwards. I don't want a mini series of Otto providing unnecessary backstory or sideplots, coupled with intense social media discussion and memefication.
Stand alone movies are still a very good medium, see Oppenheimer. Just because Marvel and DC basically serialise everything doesn't mean the medium doesn't hold validity.
Serialization doesn't mean eternal serialization. Mini series exist. I'm currently watching the 80s Shogun adaptation. That thing aired originally as a 5 part mini (VHS) covering each of the 5 volumes of the original book, but TV syndication usually broke it into 30 minutes chunks (it does have some nice natural points of fade to black every that often). The version I have is 3 blu-rays but the whole thing paces like a 10 hour movie. Who cares, it's the same story, it has a start and an end, and several breakpoints you can choose. Even the concept of perpetual TV presence with endless seasons is stupid and makes no sense in a world of video on demand. It continues to exist because production pipelines are still designed to work in seasons. But the important part should be to tell a story and tell it well in the time frame it takes.
but the serialisation of everything is already so tiring
Frankly, that sounds like a you problem. Good storytelling is not at all tiring to me. You find complex stories to be challenging and exhausting, for some reason. I'm not making any specific judgments on that point. It just is what it is.
For the rest of us, the obsolete traditional movie medium is just too simplistic. Even Oppenheimer is a perfect example. The actual story of the Manhattan Project is FAR too complex and complicated to tell in a single sitting, to the point that I don't even have any interest in seeing some ludicrously compressed, dumbed-down film version of it. No matter how hard they tried to make it good, it'll inevitably just boil down to "hat man make big bomb."
I'm just not interested in that.
It would undeniably be better as a series. As would everything worth making, which was my original premise.
Oh good to hear, I just acquired his dark materials, but haven’t seen it yet.
There are so many poorly executed great ideas. I’d love to see them redone, whatever format (tho complex stuff does tend to be better serialized… limitedly - end the story when it’s done, not when people give up on it because it fell apart)
This is how we've ended up with 17 different attempts at the fucking Fantastic Four. Each one is shit, and EVERY director thinks that they've got the chops to make it work.
Hollywood...please....fucking stop. It doesn't get better. It's a cursed movie. Stop fucking trying to get the Fantastic Four to work. Just....put the poor thing out of its misery and let it sleep peacefully.
Ehh, some of them were to maintain Fox license from Marvel. They were contractually obligated to put out a movie every X years or they lost control of it. Mostly they just wanted something cheap or weird out of the door.
Now that Fox entertainment and Marvel have been gobbled by the mouse, it may not be a problem anymore. They sure got Reid Richards right in that doc strange film, even if he got obliterated on alternative earth.
Krasinski played him with the right attitude of earned arrogance to my eye. The stretching power looked fine enough too, but yeah, that's always going to look weird in live action.
Krasinski was fine, and I didn't mind the way she spaghettified him, because hex magic does not obey physics. The problem always is that Mr. Fantastic's powers aren't magic, he's just able to elongate and stretch himself. It's barely shown in the movie, as the only time he uses his power is to jump into the frame and reach out to try to grab Wanda after she murders Black Bolt. It is the briefest moment and yet it still doesn't look right, because his arm doesn't thin as it stretches out, and he leans forward when physics would suggest he lean back to counterbalance the shift in his center of gravity.
Every movie featuring Reed Richards has gone out of the way to avoid showing his powers.
The best example I can think of was that one ridiculous scene where Ioan Gruffud fought The Thing, and you can tell they cropped half the fight out of the frame to avoid showing more terrible CGI. Like you just see their heads bobbing around while their arms fight each other off camera, and then it awkwardly pans out to reveal Reed has Ben all tied up.
Oh yeah, go full 1960's Batman Camp. Not sure who could play Mr. Fantastic, but whomever is picked should be told to emulate Adam West's complete deadpan delivery.
How do you put random bs like pugs and heart plugs in the greatest space epic of all times? I respect Lynch for his other work but his Dune is a fucking joke from my point of view.
I will die on this hill I legitimately like Mr. Mayor and Picard better than the new one. It took me like 4 tries to get through the new one it is so slow and full of itself. I'm not sure what the line is for me between good slow and being a slog but the new one is so hard for me to pay attention to. I'd rather scroll through spaceship still shots with some space music in the background
It’s adapting a book where sometimes a chapter is two people meeting in a room and having a short conversation, and you get to know what one person is thinking about the conversation at length, and then the same thing from the other person’s perspective, and then they leave the room.
I couldn't get through the book either... Like I said I'm not sure what that line is for me because I've definitely watched and read slow things but Dune can be so off the charts slow it hurts me. LotR is slow and half the movies are spent watching people running through fields but both the books and movies captured my attention (I know this is an imperfect comparison just first example I thought of). I'm excited you all can enjoy the new movie but I'll take the old one
I read the Hobbit, flew through it one of my favourites. I had to force myself to finish fellowship. It's so obtuse. Dube however. One again flew threw it, even though it's massive. I just could not put it down. Genuinely became my all time favourite book.
The pacing of the new film is great. But I'm the kind of person who wants to stay and linger on aspects of the world and really get to know what's going on. So I like "slow" films like Blade Runner 2049. But to me they never feel slow. The film ends and im still there wanting more, watching the credits to the very end just to eke out every little bit out of the film.
I'm a big Dune fan but I was miffed at how unsatisfying and clipped the first movie was. It's not a complete movie on its own, it really needed to finish with the acceptance ritual of the Fremen and then that would allow movie 2 to start by playing with what happens during the time jump in the latter half of the book. I loved the ambience and the attention to detail in the movie, but tons of the little details lost their meaning and their payoffs without more context. (The bullfighter metaphor, the palms for example). I would have preferred the details to be cut or saved for an "extended version" rather than just be used as Easter eggs. I'm really counting on movie 2 to bring it all together so I can just treat it like one epic movie.
Yeah, I do think it was a weird decision ended it where they did. To me it feels like they started the first act of the next movie but only got part way through. I feel like they must've done it purely just so they can fit more in the next one. Cause a more satisfying ending would be ending it where "Book 1" ended in the book and go all out on the vision scene. The vision scene in the movie was a big let down for me. I still love the movie overall, but that's the thing I was so excited to see all the way through and then it's just a standard flash forward sequence.
I don't care what anyone says, the worldbuilding that was done for the 1990s Super Mario Bros. movie was awesome and if the movie had lived up to it, it would have been great.
Remember that when the movie was made, Mario was a plumber that jumped on mushrooms and turtles to save a princess and he had a brother named Luigi that did the same thing. That was pretty much the entire storyline they had to work with.
We had studios seeing green with franchises that had significant canon (remember, SMB, Street Fighter, Mortal Kombat all had significant backstory in their manuals, but writers/directors who knew nothing of them except that it was something their kids/nephews were obsessed with.
MK was the only one to actually use a good portion of that canon, and it was by far the best of the three. Though the soundtrack did a lot of work for it too.
Super Mario Brothers would’ve been a fun movie if they didn’t try to tie it in with the game. It wasn’t canonical at all, and 8-year-old JasonDJ was quick to realize it.
I’m more optimistic of video game movies now, now that the Gen X and Millenials that were molded by video games are in the directors chairs, and these are now major franchises with significant investment.
Super Mario Brothers would’ve been a fun movie if they didn’t try to tie it in with the game.
That is very likely, although I still think it would have had big problems. John Leguizamo isn't exactly a terrific actor. Funny guy, not a great actor.
But the worldbuilding they put into it was pretty damn impressive and they had some great ideas. The whole parallel world where dinosaurs didn't die out but evolved into what look like humans but aren't quite idea was pretty cool. Or at least I thought so.
I’m just saying there was more to work with. Super Mario World was out by 1993 and all the previous SMB games were available with all their manual content. Mario had been a plumber, a doctor, a race-car driver, an athlete, a construction worker, a teacher, a
painter, and a dinosaur tamer by that point.
Okay, fair enough. I wasn't very steeped in Nintendo lore at the time, I just played the games. I'm guessing that was the norm.
The movie was definitely a big mess. Most of the people involved were very talented, but it suffered from severe executive meddling. What interests me most about it is that it was directed by Annabel Jankel and Rocky Morton, who brought the same cyberpunk aesthetic to the film as they brought to Max Headroom. It was what got them brought in to direct the film in the first place. If you haven't seen Max Headroom, both the British and U.S. versions (which Morton and Jankel both were responsible for) are really good.
Anyway, the script they wanted to direct was more adult and not intended for kids and definitely would not have followed what Nintendo had in mind for Mario et al, but that script apparently was what convinced Bob Hoskins and Fiona Shaw to do the movie. I'd love to have read it. Then the producers brought in Ed Solomon to do a two-week rewrite and give it a lighter tone. Solomon is a good writer. He co-wrote the Bill and Ted movies amongst others. But two weeks was not enough time and they had the wrong directors in place to do a movie with a lighter tone.
Would Nintendo fans have enjoyed the movie they wanted to make? Probably not. But I think it also might have been a good movie as opposed to the end result.
Battlestar Galactica is a great example of something mediocre that was made great by a remake, but also something that might be greatly improved by another remake because the second half was so flawed.
Whoever said, lets do whip zooms and shaky cams with tribalesque war drums for space combat was a genius. First two seasons of the show the feeling of dread was so good.
Then they had a weird second half, an ending that explained nothing and left so many plots open and closed with a movie that was called "the plan" that revealed the cylons had anything but. I'm still mad just thinking about it.
I heard a rumor that Stephen King gave Mike Flanagan the greenlight to do Dark Tower. Here's to hoping. That's one of the few things I want to see as a show rather than movies
Should be a TV series. Start with The Gunslinger and work your way through the books, but also split up Wizard and Glass into small chunks to use as episode openers so there isn't suddenly a season long flashback with different actors.
Funnily enough the movie they made was supposed to be the intro to a TV show.
Trying to expand Gunslinger to bring in more backstory (and reeeeeeeally messing up the backstory) killed both the movie and the planned TV show. It's crazy how well their plan could've worked if they hadn't tried to fold too much into the "prequel". Dark Tower even has the built-in "out" that this is a different turn of the wheel.
They were going to run out of material way too fast the way they did the movie. They condensed The Gunslinger, The Drawing of the Three, Wolves of the Calla, and Song of Susannah into ninety minutes. They could have done the rest of Drawing, but then that just leaves The Waste Lands, The Dark Tower, and an excessively long flashback with Wizard and Glass. They would have needed to just not adapt more book content in order to have more than a couple seasons of material.
yeah it can't be a movie. Unfortunately my favorite character will never be accurately adapted and will lose her badassery. Better we wait for another time
Stanley Kubrick never really had an original screenplay. His movies are based from an already existing story. He reasoned that it's better to adapt a story that is good but not considered classic, because it means there is plenty to improve from such story.
Dragonball Evolution was so shit that it drove Akira Toriyama out of retirement, which led to Battle of Gods, Resurrection F, Broly, Super Hero and an entirely new anime/manga series titled Dragon Ball Super.
It even technically is leading to Dragon Ball Daima, which looks like a serious effort to try and do the whole 'Goku is a kid again' concept that Dragon Ball GT fucked up 25 years ago.
I decided a few years ago to simply stop watching anything that was a remake, reboot, update or 'franchise'. Too many of them have used nostalgia and familiarity to compensate for shortcomings in storytelling. Even more cynically, leveraging intellectual property is all about money and business, whereas for me storytelling and art are about the human experience and spirit, so it's no wonder these IP films are usually so poor.
It's also that Disney own almost all the known IP, and will roll it out time and again as a safe bet with predictable returns - art by focus group simply isn't a thing.
Some older movies that come to mind:
Enemy Mine. Great sci fi premise that was ahead of its time. Just plagued with bad effects and limitations.
The Last Starfighter Not bad even for the day but I think it's a solid enough concept that could use a refresh. Set in the 80's to get the retro video game vibe. I think it could even be a multiple movie property.
Masters of the Universe It was a goofy premise with some interesting characters that were wasted. Even the updated animated series didn't do great. Or even go off in a space Western and do a Rio Blast movie.
Krull was really missing the visual elements to tell the story and it ended up cheesy and stilted (still holds some nostalgia for me though). It could still be a fun space fantasy.
The Last Starfighter Not bad even for the day but I think it’s a solid enough concept that could use a refresh. Set in the 80’s to get the retro video game vibe. I think it could even be a multiple movie property.
If it were a Netflix production they could have little easter eggs in it like the arcade being the one in Hawkins (Stranger Things).
Ironically capitalism does not like to take much risk, nor do the large companies who are best able to take them. It also sucks that many things are switching to being ads supported, so there is further limiting of creativity. For example, Love, Death, and Robots is a really awesome animated anthology. It is something that does not try to have the broadest appeal; however, the customers are now advertisers who may not want to run ads on something with a narrower audience. Oddly it seems Netflix will be going down the path of YouTube battling that to keep the content adverts will buy space for, and YouTube trying to be independent of it with its premium. Strange world.
I would love a proper remake of Eragon. That movie felt so rushed, like they just chopped the meat out of the story and gave us the bloody mush instead of the whole thing.
The live action GitS? It was aight, but could've been better. As a huge fan of the story I wasn't that upset. I just didn't like what they did with Major (made her weak), and also didn't like that Section 9 was getting cucked, no one cucks section 9
The casting for the Major was just horrifying. She's supposed to look strong, capable, and no-nonsense at first glance, then you look again and realize her robot form is also conventionally attractive. In the 2017 movie, they flipped it around, entirely backwards. Obviously, your first impression of Scarlett Johansson is that she's attractive and feminine. Then you have to look closer and realize she's capable of fighting.
That works for Black Widow. That's exactly what you want for Black Widow. It's not what you want for Motoko Kusanagi.
Yeah, it was not the original major at all. She was more like a helpless child. In all of the other iteration she is a lethal tactical genius and a hardened war veteran.
She was more like a helpless child. In all of the other iteration she is a lethal tactical genius and a hardened war veteran.
But with a helpless child inside her, at the core of her personality, because her traumatic transition into a brain in a robot body robbed her of the chance to actually grow up. That's the whole point of the character. She's psychologically stunted, despite her military capability. She can't lower her defenses and interact on a normal social level, as a result. At the same time, she's also never quite comfortable in her own mind and body, for the same reasons.
Batou is the only person in the story who comes even close to understanding this, which is why they have a unique bond.
Jodorowsi'sLynch's Dune was great in its own fever dream kinda way - don't get me wrong, I'm over the moon we have the new movie, and prefer part 1, but the older movies are a thing.
Jodo’s Dune was never made though, a fact that makes me sad everytime I am reminded of it. However, we have The Incal, The Meta Barons and The Technopriests which is great.
The original Dredd was better. It's meant to satire cops, not just be an uncritical action flick about a badass cop. If you strip Judge Dredd of its silliness and satire you're left with dust colored post apoc action, and Fury Road did a better job of that.
I'll take your word on the intentions of the original Dredd, but the point still stands, Dredd was good. Not as good as fury road good, but good is all that matters. I'd like to see more Dredd with that kind of action, even if it's not true to soruce material.
Can we have good action flicks that aren't at the expense of good stories? It seems like the only reason to use the IP at that point is for cynically bankable nostalgia.
Nostalgia for what, though? It was a 'duo go into a tower and kill everyone' movie that happened to be called Dredd. I liked it for what it was and I didn't go in with any nostalgia. I feel your anxiety, but, I wonder if action movies by their nature can't really be deep meditations on the human condition. What story can be told at the muzzle of a gun or the end of a fist that hasn't already been told?
I kind of feel like action movies are at their best when they operate in a space that is far away from the frontal cortex, invite us to a more libidinal place. Even 'thinker' action movies like The Matrix, kind of strike me as philosophically shallow harangues interspersed with cool fights.
I donno, maybe I'm wrong, or not steeped enough in the genre, or just have normie preferences. Out of curiosity, what action movies have a good story & are worth checking out, in your opinion?
If I call a movie Animaniacs and it happens to be a heartfelt tear-jerker about a 1600s Russian peasant, would you say the same thing? Nevertheless, the original Dredd was a fun action film in its own right, you can definitely do both. I don't know what we're supposed to gain by expecting less.
To answer your question (did I miss that or was it edited in?) I'd recommend Fury Road straight away if you've not seen it, then going back for Ip Man, Guns Akimbo, Kung Fu Hustle, Psycho Goreman, Black Magic M-66, and of course the original action film, Seven Samurai. Not all pure "action" flicks, but all are examples of action packed cinema that don't leave any storytelling by the wayside.
I’m assuming you’re talking about the live action movie and I would agree. I had such high hopes for it and they (Hollywood) dropped the ball. I think it’s also a lack of understanding the source material and trying to adapt something to have a wider audience and western audience. When you involve those two things you know you’re going to be kind stepping in it. That being said I do think the props and effects done by Weta Workshop really were definitely highlights of that movie. They far exceed the casting and story. I would love to have it redone but Hollywood is gonna Hollywood and at the end of the day they (Hollywood) will shit all over source material if they think it’ll make them a buck.
I too would like to see Event Horizon made with today's technology but I'm also 100% sure that it wouldn't be as good as the original. I'd still pay to watch it in the theater, probably twice, but the original was perfect.
And give it time! I don't want a do-over of a failed movie just a couple years later. The Ghost in the Shell movie was a disappointment, but don't just keep plugging away at it until something works.
I think they’re talking about the live action version (2017) version. But I agree the 1995 Ghost in the Shell animated movie is a fantastic movie. Funny thing is in 2008 they did Ghost in the shell 2.0 which add some cg to the original, it’s been a while since I’ve watched it, so I don’t know if they reuse the same animation from the 95 version or animated new stuff I really don’t remember to be honest. But ya oh 1995 animated Ghost in the Shell is amazing I was actually planning on rewatching it this week. (I did rewatch it and it’s exactly as good as I remember it.)
The biggest issue of most videogame adaptation flops is that they're not really inspired in the source material. But usually are a different original script with a paint coat of franchise. As a result they fail at being good as part of the franchise, but they also fail at being good as something original because they're dragged down by the expectations and precedent of the franchise the script is being forced upon. Halo being the biggest example, the writers and show runners even bragged how proud they were they didn't played the original games.
Counter example, the Warcraft movie is actually good fun because the scriptwriters really knew the lore and understood what makes up WoW's essence. Part of the problem is producers don't take videogame as a serious art medium. Similar to the problem that animation has, where some producers don't think of animation as real cinema.
Something based on Bioshock, either the first or the second, would be amazing as a movie, not just visually but because there's quite a human side to the story, from the tragedy that beffel those in what was supposed to be utopia and what was done to those who became Little Sisters and Big Brothers to the megalomania of its maker and even the whole wiff of Fascism in the politics of the place before it fell.
A few months ago, I got the idea of looking for scripts of some movies I watched, liked the concept or some part of it, but disliked the overall execution, and doing a revamp of it. I have no idea of where to post my scripts, or if anyone would be interested in reading them, but your meme made me rethink and reconsider this idea. Thank you.
I think instead of this they should just start doing more high profile versions of what they already do sometimes, where they bring back movies that were already in the theater once for another go around, instead of just remaking everything all the time. I'd also give this a +2 if it was a movie that was old, and you have to rent instead of just being able to watch on some service. Like Legend (1985), or maybe Brazil (1985). Maybe there are some other movies from 1985, I dunno.
Rent? Watch on a service? This is Lemmy. We’re pirates ‘round here.
I can get you nice digital copies of laser disk, VHS, 35mm, DVD, Blu-Ray, or web. Why on earth would I wait for Hollywood to tell me when I can watch the Mouse and the Motorcycle again?
I think a lot of people kind of hate the theater because it's still being used in such a way that it's resting more on it's laurels, than on it's merits. "Be the first to see the movie, without a stupid cam rip from a southeast asian country with subtitles and a watermark", sort of thing. Part of the experience of a theater is that, when you go and watch the new pop cultural phenomena, everyone oohs and aahs. Part of the theater experience is that you can go an watch a horror movie and hear the people in the audience scream and cackle about how stupid the characters are. I think that's a good part of the theater experience, in combination with all the dumb HDR IMAX high dynamic range 3D live active rumbling seats and scented perfume garbage they have sometimes. I would say, in many ways, we've kinda been hamstrung by a pretense that every movie has to be like, a big A24 arthouse scorsese film that makes you deeply ponder the nature of being. That is not a movie best watched in theaters. Best movie watched in theaters is gonna be something like john wick 4, or meals on wheels, or maybe even clue, something like that.
Especially as cinema and the experience of theaters have evolved out of stage plays. The advantage of the medium of stage plays is that it's live, it can actively respond to the audience, play off of their reactions, and it can be different every time, with every troupe presenting a different interpretation of the source material. Cinemas, theaters, take that same format, and substitute the live performance for a pre-recorded tape. It's not impossible to strike at those same appeals, but it takes a lot of work on the filmmaker's part to really hit those same notes, and we're at the point where most filmmakers would rather not bother, and so audiences won't either.
Basically, I'm just saying that movies, in the cinema, need to be seen as a more casual experience, I think that would help with the experience.
Also the popcorn is a good appeal except like 90% of the time that sucks and is just a cheap vehicle for salt, to be paired with the drinks. Extortionist prices don't help either on that front, that shit needs to be gas station price at least, or else I'm gonna smuggle stuff in, and we all know the margins on popcorn and soda have to be insane anyways, so they should be able to charge like maybe five bucks for a medium soda and bag of popcorn.
Interestingly, I have the exact opposite opinion. Arthouse style movies are pretty much the only ones I will go see in theaters—if every frame is a masterpiece, it is enhanced by being in a big format, and the audience tends to be quiet.
I don’t go to the movies to hear other people, and I dislike when that happens. Alamo Drafthouse does a pretty good job keeping things quiet, and these days I pretty much refuse to go anywhere else. I don’t want to deal with other people’s noise taking me out of the zone you can get into with a really good movie.
I feel the same about plays too. Generally speaking, the best plays are when you can hear a pin drop during most of the scenes, with brief applause when appropriate.
If I wanted a bunch of audience input, I’d choose a show that was heavily geared towards that such as standup comedy or improv. Otherwise, it’s just a distraction from the artist I came to see.
I think most people would be of the opinion, or maybe I have just seen such an opinion more as a matter of a vocal minority or whatever, but I think most people would rather just watch those sorts of things from the comfort of their own home. Own TV, soundsystem, recliner, food, what have you. Ability to pause and go take a piss if you want, sort of thing. I mean, I don't think most people have a cinema setup that's going to really rival what a movie theater can put out, but I think the convenience and cost efficacy of it is really going to swing it towards home viewing for most. Even just being able to balance the audio how you want it to be balanced is kind of a big step up in a lot of ways.
That would be a great idea. Especially now, when theaters seem to go all or nothing with movies, there are too many times when I wait for the crowds to die down, it suddenly the movie is gone. There are too many times where there is nothing I’m interested in seeing, but they can spare a screen or slot for movies no longer in their prime
I had a friend who produced cinema festivals. This idea of theatrical re-runs would be great for all audiences, except all distributors are greedy cunts. They would charge exaggerated prices for the licenses to run old movies, and would nickle and dime organizers. They essentially had to charge mad entrance fees and make all sorts of stuff along with the screenings (market stalls, fancy food, hall entertainment, etc.) to make the fees worthwhile. Also, huge swaths of most of the big companies catalogs are not available, so you wouldn't be able to buy a run of certain films even if they own it.
The anime is great. The recent remake is flashy but lacks the souls of the original. It wasn't as bad as some critical and box office perform made out, but when a remake is worse than the original, what's the point?
I mean nothing is as good as the original Manga. But each has changed the story a little to make it interesting. The live action was above average in my book. Not talking Blade Runner levels but enjoyed it.
Thanks. I'm not very clever with stuff like this. Remakes have no surprising content. We know what's going to happen even if it's roughly the same story. So long as I have the happy to watch it again feeling then I say it's a good movie.
I beg to differ. After watching it again recently they used plenty of practical effects mixed with cgi. Hell it is a light year better than any recent Marvel or DC movies even. Few notes is the changes to the story. Which has been done each version away from the manga. The chief is amazing speaking only Japanese and fully rocking that roll. I hear many complain about the movie yet cannot sight actual examples that ruin the experience other than it is not like the anime. But if you have been following it like me since the original manga you know it is always been changed a little. But who would just want to keep watching the same thing over and over again in a different form.
Not interested in arguing with you. The box office, reviews, and general fan opinion disagree with you. It's perfectly okay to like something most others don't.
It's called debating not arguing. If you cannot back up your own personal statement then I suggest your go back to Reddit. Or at least try trolling better.
I agree with the premise, but your example is, like, spectacularly bad. The Ghost in the Shell movie you're thinking of, the recent one? THAT WAS A REMAKE THAT NEVER SHOULD HAVE BEEN MADE, IN THE FIRST PLACE.
The original is good. It didn't need a remake. You're literally talking about the opposite of your whole premise. They took a movie that was already good and made a remake of it, to make it suck, except for the fact that it had Scarlett Johansson in a very tight robot suit.
EDIT: nevermind! The title is an example of how it's currently done wrong. That makes so much sense, now that someone pointed it out.
I think the main thing here is that the original was such a flop that they don't want to repeat the error.
It's a hard sell to take an unsuccessful film (with admittedly a good underlying story/concept), and then convince the suits that this time will be different because reasons.
When they can remake an old hit, even if it's done poorly, most people will want to see it for themselves, if for no other reason than to join in on the chorus of hate. Those ticket sales are still sales. So whether people like it or not, they stand a good chance to turn a reasonable profit.
Meanwhile, films that did poorly, whether due to script issues, or poor execution of the underlying material or whatever, people will be more willing to let it pass them by unless they have it on his authority that it's good. Of course, not everyone will think this way, but it's the basis for judgement for most.
Additionally, by remaking a movie they can renew their copyright on the film, which is why, I believe that many of the older films are getting unnecessary remakes and sequels. Even if it's bad, it locks them in on copyrights for a while longer; so if they want to continue to profit from the property, whether through licensing, promos, merchandise, whatever, they can. The base point being: does anyone want to license this property? If not, the suits wouldn't care as much if the copyright expires.
Think about something like star wars. It had a pretty strong following at the first three films, even decades after the release, it was very likely that there were ongoing licensing deals. So to renew the copy rights, they remastered and rereleased it to theatres. Even if it flopped, it would have ensured they can continue their licensing deals for years to come. Since it didn't, they decided instead to expand the franchise and see if they can get more money from it, and they did. Which is how we ended up with the sequels and several spin off shows.
Simply put, it's just too risky to invest more money into properties to renew copyright when there's no interest in licensing the content in the first place. Many of the production companies are happy to let a property rot while they're collecting paycheques on licensing. It's all about the numbers.
Wonder Park was a bland, risk-averse animated film in 2019. A little girl's imaginary theme park (and coping mechanism for her grief) actually exists. Remake it as an ongoing animated series.
Forrest Gump is so much a story about the time period, this would be a vastly different movie. I'd say just make a unrelated movie inspired by Forrest Gump, instead of trying to make it a remake and thus give yourselve unecessary restraints.
Would new Forest live through the 90s-20s instead of the 50s-90s?
I'm not sure it'd make a good story. The technology is what changed the world in the past 30 years. The 1960s were a super tumultuous time and make a good sorry.
The events in Forest Gump reflect the book and run from 1951 to 1982.
A modern remake would be more like 82 to 2013 or so. So we can talk about what happened with AIDS, since that was a pretty big point in the first one. We’ve got Challenger, OKC, 9/11, Desert Storm, Afghanistan and Iraqi WMDs. Columbine, Station Night Club, GMO food, Clintons Blowjob, …list goes on.
Basicaly comparing Billy Joel’s “We didn’t start the fire”, with Fallout Boys.
A sequel to Forrest Gump was written by 9/11 happened the day before it was turned in. The writers felt like the movie would be pointless after what happened.
I always felt like Flowers For Algernon was such a compelling book and the only movie i know of is one of the worst things I've ever seen. You would think it was a comedy based on that movie.
I either want a remake of Stealth or a sequel. It wasn't terrible, but could have been much better and a desired franchise....by me at least. Guess I'll go re-watch Macross Plus again...
Basically that's what they did with Ocean's 11. The original Frank Sinatra version was shit. But it was a good idea, a crew of super cool dudes get together to rob a casino.
They remade it and it was very successful.
The Thing has a similar origin.
But it's rare things like that happen because Hollywood execs usually need an existing property with good numbers to greenlight a movie.
For a second I thought you were trying to say that The Thing (2011) is a better remake of The Thing (1982), but then I remembered that 1951 version exists.
Funn enough Ocean's X is also the opposite example since they didn't stop just making more of the same.
Original thing was pretty good.
The one from the 50's, good as it was for the time, is now overshadowed in the popular consciousness by Carpenter's. Ironically, it seems like the former did quite well at the box office whereas the latter bombed and only over time has it grown in popularity.
I would consider Carpenter's to be a sequel of sorts. It takes up after another crew has been already destroyed by The Thing. It gels well with the idea that the 50s movie is about post WWII paranoia (kill everything that looks different on sight). While Carpenter's, while being a bit closer to the source material, is about cold war paranoia. Everything, even those who you trust the most, could be a shapeshifting monster. The movie even ends on a cold quiet unresolved and presumably eternal face-off.
Carpenter's is closer to the original short story, too.
Ghost in the Shell was an unnecessary remake of a fantastic original animation that was improved by the series that followed it. There was never a need for a live action version.
Ghost in the shell was decent. They paid incredible attention to the art direction and casting ranged from perfect to acceptable. I can’t remember a single scene but their rendering of 90s retrofuturism sincerely blew me away. Maybe modern cinema has tainted me but it really wasn’t terrible.
It could have been an acceptably decent movie if it wasn't trying to be part of the GitS franchise. As a GitS fan I hated it, but I wonder if it could have been more fun to watch if I was unfamiliar with the series. I remember thinking the same with a lot of movies based on books I hadn't read like Percy Jackson, the movie became a lot worse after reading the source material.
Absolutely, there's a lot of stories that would have been better received as their own original IPs. Unfortunately, it's a lot safer to make a sequel so you can count on sales from the pre-established fanbase. Another good example I always go to is the Thief video games, where I got my username. The reboot dramatically changed all the mechanics and ditched a lot of what made the first games so engaging, very little aside from a few proper nouns has any resemblance to the original. It could have been a decent stealth game if it sold itself on its own merits(it certainly wasn't terrible) but as a Thief game, it justifiably got fans upset.
I loved that movie! I thought they did an excellent job, and it gave us more cyberpunk content, which there is not nearly enough of.
tbh I would have loved a well done live action version of GITS. With a Japanese cast, international subtitles, and a new offshoot plot that expands upon the original film. Bring in a remastered version of the original animation's impeccable soundtrack. I absolutely think it's possible, but it's far outside the realm of "make cheap movie make big money" that the majority of film studios operate on today
You mean take actual risks?????
No, none of that for my profit margin
Movies are being made to mitigate risk. Take a polar thing and just do that again, that'll suck people in right???
God forbid they do something new and interesting with the material, that can't possibly work.
The only time I can think of where a remake ended up working out was with the recent planet of the apes movies. Where, you know, they took the premise and did something new and interesting with it. But even THEN, there was a completely different remake that failed to innovate outside of the last few minutes and those were confusing are best.
But the remake doesnt make much money tho
All that Disney live action remake bullshit somehow makes money otherwise they would have stopped.
That said, I'm eagerly awaiting Netflix's take on ATLA
The superhero movies would say otherwise.
They make the studios a lot of money with a very similar formula.
I was talking about disney remakes. Anyway what are the super hero remakes ?
I know the Disney remakes are considered a flop by Disney standards but I thought they still pulled in a big chunk of change?
I mean, shit on production companies all you want.. but if I was selling a product and people were finding easier and easier ways to simply copy it for free then I might get a bit... risk averse..
Word War Z.
Have it actually be a mocumentary with interviews. Once people start talking switch to the scene. It is a collection of short stories. Would be fun.
Or make it a mini series.
Personally I thought the book was good, but I don't think an adaptation to a movie format is the right move. Maybe a mini series would be best.
Hmm, miniseries could work. I stopped reading the book because it felt like a screenplay. (And the movie is unrelated garbage.)
Yeah I've never read the book but I've heard the movie was literally just a generic zombie movie that had nothing to do with the book.
It wasn't even that it was a generic zombie movie, it was a particularly shit zombie movie.
Nah, it was fine for people that didn't read the book.
Didn't read the books and can't remember much of the movie but one thing.
The way the zombies moved as a fluid.
That was the best depiction of horde behavior I have seen. The thought that they climb over obstacles by climbing over each other was brilliant and scary.
The zombie ant hills are burned into my mind as well. So fucked up and terrifying.
I only read the book afterwards. Leaving the theater I thought, “Wow, what a shit zombie movie, what's with the zombie tower. Anyways I want ice cream.”
After reading the book I thought, “Wow, this makes the movie seem even worse than I thought, adapting this would've been way better. They didn't even follow the same in-universe rules!”
I thought it was a fantastic zombie movie! I just need to make sure to not read the book now. lol
Nah, the book is great, definitely one the best zombie fictions out there. It even spawned a pretty great fan fiction that addressed one of the hanging plot threads.
I didn't buy everything from it but it's best to just consider them as separate properties and judge them on their own merits.
District 9 with Zombies.
Please God yes
There definitely wasn’t nearly enough of people talking switch in the movie.
Virtually every single bad adaptation can be directly traced back to studio interference.
Movies like LoTR only happened because the studios thought it would be a colossal flop, and so left the directors and producers alone.
If you want great movies, the studios need to leave the producers and directors the hell alone.
Counterpoint: Game of Thrones. The studio would have been happy to give them a few more seasons to develop a better ending. It's the creators who gave up and phoned in the ending we got.
George RR Martin is the creator of game of thrones, not the show runners.
Oh wait, the original example was lotr, which also was based on books lol. Nevermind me, carry on.
LOTR was based on a trilogy that was finished looking before the movies were made. Starting a TV show and hoping the source material would be finished in time for the end was a, um, bold move.
Even ignoring that, Martin was helping them continue it without a book to base the story on and was pushing for 10 sessions, the show creators wanted to move on and start working on another project instead and we got what we got...
And they promptly lost said projects.
Good
Got it
George RR Martin was a consultant on seasons that had not yet been written as books. He told the writers where he wanted the story in the books to go, and where to take the story in the show. I doubt it's true, but a lot of fans were speculating that he made the end deliberately bad (Arya kills the Night King, Denarys goes crazy, Cersei and Kingslayer reunite to be crushed by the collapsing Red Keep, Bran becomes king) because he wanted the show to be worse than his next two books. @
My head Canon is that that was the actual ending he planned and because it flopped so hard the last books will never happen
No man, that specific ending can be made to work. But you need good writers, several more seasons and good taste to do that. Martin gave DandD a finish line, but they had to figure the trail and make the run. They just suck at that so bad that it almost killed their entire careers, got them dropped from the job they had lined up and poisoned everything they touched for 5 years. Netflix just gave them the “3 body problem” adaptation. I'm sure it will be good because the thing is already written, and they are usually good at coloring between the lines. Just not good at coming up with new original or creative stuff.
He said in interviews that he was pushing for 10 seasons, I don't think he intentionally fucked up, I think he did what he could with two showrunners that were tired of doing their job and couldn't accept that someone else would take the reins.
The only problem is that GoT didn't have any more source material, as Martin didn't finish the story (think he still hasn't?).
The creators were in constant touch with GRRM. They knew where he intends to go. The ending we got could be done better if things were fleshed out over a longer period of time.
You're assuming GRRM knows where he intends to go. Or more importantly, how he intends to get there.
We know he has a specific destination in mind. It's well established that he had an outline for what was originally a trilogy. It's why the first book is heavier with hints of (for example) Jon's lineage than the others.
How to get there has clearly changed, and GRRM might not know how anymore.
Also, low bugets makes the directors extra creative. They need to make the most of what they have. In my opinion, a well written plot trumps special effects every time.
Writing is the only thing that matters. I point to "Everything Everywhere All at Once" and "Amsterdam". The latter of which had 4x the budget.
I kinda disagree with the writing being the ultimate decider on what makes a good story) movie. Directing and editing matters just as much, if not more so. Those two brings to life what is written on the page because sometimes it's hard to imagine what is described on the page.
Good writing, directing and editing are all necessary, and are not on their own sufficient.
Because a bad effect, actor, or shot can only ruin a moment. A bad script ruins the story.
I quite enjoyed amsterdam. It's not better than everything everywhere but it's still a good film
Well to be fair I had way too much weed beforehand but like. Ehhhhh. It felt like a circlejerk for random famous people. Also Taylor Swift cannot act.
Why not just read a book, then?
For all the bad you hear about studios though, there are plenty of stories of movies that were saved by the studio because the director was off the rails and had no idea what to do. Here's a list with a couple:
https://collider.com/10-movies-that-were-improved-by-studio-interference/#easy-rider-1969
Most of these are a stretch. They didn't like psycho so they underfunded it. Hitchcock finances the movie, takes a pay cut along with the actors. Somehow this is positive interference....
LotR also is going to stand out from now on, because at the time it was made, CGI was ok, and getting to be good, but they didn't trust it for crowds yet. SW Ep. 1 came out at about the same time, and the CGI crowds don't hold up. LotR had PJ directing and he wanted to use as many real people and real sets as he could, so that when they had to use CGI it wouldn't be noticable. You can see the difference looking at The Hobbit movies.
I can't remember who it was, but there was a producer credited for greenlighting several classic movies in the 1960s and 70s. We're lucky if a producer or executive is good at spotting what makes a good story and have dependable crew to make it.
I'd go one further. Do longer run remakes for good source material that ended up with a bad movie.
Golden Compass Movie = bad
His Dark Materials limited series = fantastic
Yeah, there are so many movies based on media with a deeper and richer source material than can be presented well in a 2-hour movie format. For example, the Ender's Game novel spent a significant amount of time on the progression of Ender's career at the Battle School and the movie only spent as much time as was necessary to show that he was good. A TV series could tell the parallel story of Ender's Shadow as well in the same season.
A counterexample is that sometimes the TV series may over milk the source material and drag out which should be a shorter story. The first season of American Gods was awesome, but they kept dragging out the series way too much by stretching out the stories of minor characters and fumbled in the end.
Just as long as we avoid giving money to Orson Scott Card...
We just have to wait for him to die first.
Works for me.
In that vein, I would go even farther. Cinema is a defunct, dinosaur medium, with built-in limitations. Anything worth making at all is worth making into a high-quality, high-production-value series.
You know what's hilarious about that, though? The first people who would start shrieking that I'm going too far...you know who those people are? Film directors and obsessive fans of film directors. And yet, if I'm not VASTLY mistaken, directors always want to make a cut of every movie that's, like, 50 hours long.
Motherfucker, that's a series. Make a series. This is the 21st Century. We all have perfectly good screens in our houses. Let go of your popcorn fixation and just do everything as a series. ESPECIALLY if you're adapting a comic book series or a novel, or series of novels.
If we just assume, from the get-go, that everything will be a "TV" series (even the word "television" is a stupid dinosaur word, but I'll use it for convenience), we can also finally convince studios that they should MIX THE FUCKING AUDIO FOR PEOPLE TO HEAR IN THEIR HOUSES, WITH 2-CHANNEL SPEAKER SYSTEMS, RATHER THAN 872 CHANNEL THEATER SETUPS.
I'm fucking tired of having to turn on closed-captioning for every goddamn thing I watch.
Chris Nolan is slowly putting on lipstick while he writes your name on his list...
This is somehow funnier without using the picture.
I'm too lazy to comment on all the other stuff, but you can get your bog-standard 2.0 stereo from any encoded track. Strikes me as kind of funny to argument with future vs. past and then stick to 1930s stereo tech for film when it's become more easy than ever to set up a decent 5.1 system.
That's a fair point. Although I'm pretty sure the encoded mixes don't really solve the dialogue-is-mixed-way-too-low problem.
You can easily downmix, and I feel most of the time movies dont actually use surround AT ALL. But actively mixing for stereo...
You know binaural audio is just stereo. This could be the default audio quality!
Imagine actually thinking this
Why not? All screen media is divided into the era before Breaking Bad and the era after Breaking Bad.
Movies are obsolete. Period.
They're like troubadours, after the spread of the printing press. They used to be the state-of-the-art in storytelling, but they have become nothing more than a silly novelty, from a bygone era.
No lol. The Shield, if anything, but that's still irrelevant to your argument.
Film and TV serials are two completely different mediums. Do you think that The Wall should've been a painting? Or that The Weeping Woman would be best as a 9 part Netflix special?
I personally don't think you're wrong, but I also feel like Hollywood execs are no longer interested in the type of stories that make good movies. Movies are tight, self contained stories delivered in a couple of hours. Most of the good ones (Critically acclaimed) don't get that many sequels. Those are infinite cash cows, which is what execs prefer.
Premium series are infinitely expandable and are readily able to adapt larger narrative works. They're potentially endless wells of money. Seems like the industry wants to move in that direction.
But The Wall is a painting…and a music album…and a live stage performance…and a theater play…
Different, yes. But not as different as your example of a painting vs a TV series.
The modern scripted series IS the evolution of and replacement for the obsolete, way-too-short traditional movie. My analogy of the troubadour being replaced by the printing press is simply correct. We were only saddled with pathetically short movies, because people had to physically go to the theater, and still have time to get home and cook dinner.
Those days are over, and good riddance to them. The paradigm has shifted. There is no longer any reason to fuck around with arbitrarily far-too-brief motion pictures. Of course, there will always be people who cannot let go of the past, and insist that the limitations of obsolete media are somehow features, rather than bugs. Lots of people still unironically insist that black-and-white photography is somehow better, more serious, more artsy.
That's just nonsense. The page has turned. Technology has moved forward. Longer IS objectively better than shorter. Color IS objectively better than black and white. More IS better than less. Every child knows all of this. We only begin to deny facts like these, when we grow old enough to become insecure, and in need of things to brag about, show how "sophisticated" we are, etc.
We don't have to accept the limitations of yesteryear, unless we insist on it, for reasons of hipsterism.
I'm not sure I completely agree with your premise, but you're articulating your point well and I value your passion towards the topic.
Many discussions need to be spread over multiple comments on a post instead of being crammed into an over-long single post that still doesn't capture the point of view of the author as they intend.
Furthermore, often times people come back and edit their single comments into massive pages long diatribes and people just TLDR it, when they should have been part of a multi comment back and forth between the poster and their audience, and I think you're doing the latter well.
Haaaaaaang on....
That's fair enough.
I will admit that I'm over-egging the whole concept. However, I truly believe in the basic concept of what I'm saying. I think it's fair to say that at least a huge percentage of motion pictures have been more harmed by their limited scope than they were helped by it.
Note, as I mentioned in another comment, that directors themselves have ALWAYS chafed under the length restrictions of traditional cinema. They're always reined in by the moneyed interests, but if they had their way, even Syd Field's supposedly gospel paradigm of the three-act structure would be thrown out, in most cases.
And I can't disagree with the directors. The greatness of cinema has never been tied inherently to the runtime of a traditional movie. The things that are inspirational and beautiful about cinema all exist, whether the piece is a 45 minutes episode of a series, a 110 minute standard feature, or an epic 5 hour director's cut. The things that really define filmmaking are the photography itself, composition and lighting, acting and screenwriting, the subtle magic of the editor, the subtle-to-not-so-subtle magic of effects artists.
I genuinely believe the balance between all these factors is difficult enough, without having to fight about which scenes get cut, in order to fit in a singular feature length time constraint. Certainly, that shouldn't be seen as some kind of end-all, be-all, defining feature of motion picture art. I was being pushy and pithy about it earlier, but I really do believe that movies are only the length they are, because people only had a few hours to spend going to and from the theater.
I think so many directors of the past, if they'd had their choice in the matter, would ALWAYS have preferred to make a high quality series, rather than a limited movie. Especially if they didn't have to choose an objectively inferior picture quality and aspect ratio, as early television was lumbered with.
I think the final point is related to that, too. I think we're all still laboring under the prejudices of the early era of TV. Television was cheesy. Television was ugly. Television was cheap. Those attitudes are hard to shake off, even after we've all seen the current apex of the "small screen," and what it's capable of showing.
I really am not much of a movie fan, but the serialisation of everything is already so tiring.
I liked watching "a man called Otto" and have a think about it afterwards. I don't want a mini series of Otto providing unnecessary backstory or sideplots, coupled with intense social media discussion and memefication.
Stand alone movies are still a very good medium, see Oppenheimer. Just because Marvel and DC basically serialise everything doesn't mean the medium doesn't hold validity.
Serialization doesn't mean eternal serialization. Mini series exist. I'm currently watching the 80s Shogun adaptation. That thing aired originally as a 5 part mini (VHS) covering each of the 5 volumes of the original book, but TV syndication usually broke it into 30 minutes chunks (it does have some nice natural points of fade to black every that often). The version I have is 3 blu-rays but the whole thing paces like a 10 hour movie. Who cares, it's the same story, it has a start and an end, and several breakpoints you can choose. Even the concept of perpetual TV presence with endless seasons is stupid and makes no sense in a world of video on demand. It continues to exist because production pipelines are still designed to work in seasons. But the important part should be to tell a story and tell it well in the time frame it takes.
Frankly, that sounds like a you problem. Good storytelling is not at all tiring to me. You find complex stories to be challenging and exhausting, for some reason. I'm not making any specific judgments on that point. It just is what it is.
For the rest of us, the obsolete traditional movie medium is just too simplistic. Even Oppenheimer is a perfect example. The actual story of the Manhattan Project is FAR too complex and complicated to tell in a single sitting, to the point that I don't even have any interest in seeing some ludicrously compressed, dumbed-down film version of it. No matter how hard they tried to make it good, it'll inevitably just boil down to "hat man make big bomb."
I'm just not interested in that.
It would undeniably be better as a series. As would everything worth making, which was my original premise.
I immediately thought The Hobbit for some reason.
God that trilogy was so painful.
That doesn't count. There was a bunch of stuff in those movie that never happened in the source material.
I think remaking it with less.
I even watched the fan edit, and it was still too much.
Which one? I'm a fan of the cardinal cut, but that still ends up being over three and half hour long.
We have AI text to video, we can fix this, we have the technology!
Oh good to hear, I just acquired his dark materials, but haven’t seen it yet.
There are so many poorly executed great ideas. I’d love to see them redone, whatever format (tho complex stuff does tend to be better serialized… limitedly - end the story when it’s done, not when people give up on it because it fell apart)
This is how we've ended up with 17 different attempts at the fucking Fantastic Four. Each one is shit, and EVERY director thinks that they've got the chops to make it work.
Hollywood...please....fucking stop. It doesn't get better. It's a cursed movie. Stop fucking trying to get the Fantastic Four to work. Just....put the poor thing out of its misery and let it sleep peacefully.
Ehh, some of them were to maintain Fox license from Marvel. They were contractually obligated to put out a movie every X years or they lost control of it. Mostly they just wanted something cheap or weird out of the door.
Now that Fox entertainment and Marvel have been gobbled by the mouse, it may not be a problem anymore. They sure got Reid Richards right in that doc strange film, even if he got obliterated on alternative earth.
I still don't think he looked right, but I think it's impossible to make him look right.
Krasinski played him with the right attitude of earned arrogance to my eye. The stretching power looked fine enough too, but yeah, that's always going to look weird in live action.
Krasinski was fine, and I didn't mind the way she spaghettified him, because hex magic does not obey physics. The problem always is that Mr. Fantastic's powers aren't magic, he's just able to elongate and stretch himself. It's barely shown in the movie, as the only time he uses his power is to jump into the frame and reach out to try to grab Wanda after she murders Black Bolt. It is the briefest moment and yet it still doesn't look right, because his arm doesn't thin as it stretches out, and he leans forward when physics would suggest he lean back to counterbalance the shift in his center of gravity.
Every movie featuring Reed Richards has gone out of the way to avoid showing his powers.
The best example I can think of was that one ridiculous scene where Ioan Gruffud fought The Thing, and you can tell they cropped half the fight out of the frame to avoid showing more terrible CGI. Like you just see their heads bobbing around while their arms fight each other off camera, and then it awkwardly pans out to reveal Reed has Ben all tied up.
You know what would be a great Fantastic Four movie? A tongue-in-cheek film set in the 60s based on the original comics.
Oh yeah, go full 1960's Batman Camp. Not sure who could play Mr. Fantastic, but whomever is picked should be told to emulate Adam West's complete deadpan delivery.
Exactly! I would love that so much!
Hollywood: "Wellll ok...but we'll need to do just one more to
earn more proficlose out the story"They have. Dune would be one example.
Shut your pie hole! The original with Sting was amazing!
It was a solid B movie until the end. How do you decide to cut the fact that Paul becomes the emperor from the movie completely?
Now I have to watch it again, I swore he did become emperor in the end.
Irulan is escorted away before the final scene and never comes back.
How do you put random bs like pugs and heart plugs in the greatest space epic of all times? I respect Lynch for his other work but his Dune is a fucking joke from my point of view.
Lol
I will die on this hill I legitimately like Mr. Mayor and Picard better than the new one. It took me like 4 tries to get through the new one it is so slow and full of itself. I'm not sure what the line is for me between good slow and being a slog but the new one is so hard for me to pay attention to. I'd rather scroll through spaceship still shots with some space music in the background
It’s adapting a book where sometimes a chapter is two people meeting in a room and having a short conversation, and you get to know what one person is thinking about the conversation at length, and then the same thing from the other person’s perspective, and then they leave the room.
I couldn't get through the book either... Like I said I'm not sure what that line is for me because I've definitely watched and read slow things but Dune can be so off the charts slow it hurts me. LotR is slow and half the movies are spent watching people running through fields but both the books and movies captured my attention (I know this is an imperfect comparison just first example I thought of). I'm excited you all can enjoy the new movie but I'll take the old one
To be fair, I've read the books and love the newest film, but I can't read or watch LotR because to me, they drag on and on while moving nothing.
I read the Hobbit, flew through it one of my favourites. I had to force myself to finish fellowship. It's so obtuse. Dube however. One again flew threw it, even though it's massive. I just could not put it down. Genuinely became my all time favourite book.
The pacing of the new film is great. But I'm the kind of person who wants to stay and linger on aspects of the world and really get to know what's going on. So I like "slow" films like Blade Runner 2049. But to me they never feel slow. The film ends and im still there wanting more, watching the credits to the very end just to eke out every little bit out of the film.
I'm a big Dune fan but I was miffed at how unsatisfying and clipped the first movie was. It's not a complete movie on its own, it really needed to finish with the acceptance ritual of the Fremen and then that would allow movie 2 to start by playing with what happens during the time jump in the latter half of the book. I loved the ambience and the attention to detail in the movie, but tons of the little details lost their meaning and their payoffs without more context. (The bullfighter metaphor, the palms for example). I would have preferred the details to be cut or saved for an "extended version" rather than just be used as Easter eggs. I'm really counting on movie 2 to bring it all together so I can just treat it like one epic movie.
Yeah, I do think it was a weird decision ended it where they did. To me it feels like they started the first act of the next movie but only got part way through. I feel like they must've done it purely just so they can fit more in the next one. Cause a more satisfying ending would be ending it where "Book 1" ended in the book and go all out on the vision scene. The vision scene in the movie was a big let down for me. I still love the movie overall, but that's the thing I was so excited to see all the way through and then it's just a standard flash forward sequence.
The new movie is not slow compared to the book though, in fact it feels like the book shown in a time lapse.
Your aim: logic.
Their aim: capitalism.
:-(
I don't care what anyone says, the worldbuilding that was done for the 1990s Super Mario Bros. movie was awesome and if the movie had lived up to it, it would have been great.
Remember that when the movie was made, Mario was a plumber that jumped on mushrooms and turtles to save a princess and he had a brother named Luigi that did the same thing. That was pretty much the entire storyline they had to work with.
Video game movies in the 90s were always shit.
We had studios seeing green with franchises that had significant canon (remember, SMB, Street Fighter, Mortal Kombat all had significant backstory in their manuals, but writers/directors who knew nothing of them except that it was something their kids/nephews were obsessed with.
MK was the only one to actually use a good portion of that canon, and it was by far the best of the three. Though the soundtrack did a lot of work for it too.
Super Mario Brothers would’ve been a fun movie if they didn’t try to tie it in with the game. It wasn’t canonical at all, and 8-year-old JasonDJ was quick to realize it.
I’m more optimistic of video game movies now, now that the Gen X and Millenials that were molded by video games are in the directors chairs, and these are now major franchises with significant investment.
That is very likely, although I still think it would have had big problems. John Leguizamo isn't exactly a terrific actor. Funny guy, not a great actor.
But the worldbuilding they put into it was pretty damn impressive and they had some great ideas. The whole parallel world where dinosaurs didn't die out but evolved into what look like humans but aren't quite idea was pretty cool. Or at least I thought so.
Luigi isn't exactly a deep charter to act out. You don't need a Shakespearian actor for a character whose main line is "whaaaaaaaa!"
Ayeee Leguizamo is technically a Shakespearean actor lol. That gun was pretty lit in the adaptation.
Haha true and also true!
Oh, I agree with you there.
I’m just saying there was more to work with. Super Mario World was out by 1993 and all the previous SMB games were available with all their manual content. Mario had been a plumber, a doctor, a race-car driver, an athlete, a construction worker, a teacher, a painter, and a dinosaur tamer by that point.
Okay, fair enough. I wasn't very steeped in Nintendo lore at the time, I just played the games. I'm guessing that was the norm.
The movie was definitely a big mess. Most of the people involved were very talented, but it suffered from severe executive meddling. What interests me most about it is that it was directed by Annabel Jankel and Rocky Morton, who brought the same cyberpunk aesthetic to the film as they brought to Max Headroom. It was what got them brought in to direct the film in the first place. If you haven't seen Max Headroom, both the British and U.S. versions (which Morton and Jankel both were responsible for) are really good.
Anyway, the script they wanted to direct was more adult and not intended for kids and definitely would not have followed what Nintendo had in mind for Mario et al, but that script apparently was what convinced Bob Hoskins and Fiona Shaw to do the movie. I'd love to have read it. Then the producers brought in Ed Solomon to do a two-week rewrite and give it a lighter tone. Solomon is a good writer. He co-wrote the Bill and Ted movies amongst others. But two weeks was not enough time and they had the wrong directors in place to do a movie with a lighter tone.
Would Nintendo fans have enjoyed the movie they wanted to make? Probably not. But I think it also might have been a good movie as opposed to the end result.
You can read about the mess in this article- https://www.theguardian.com/games/2018/mar/22/super-mario-bros-movie-killing-fields-chariots-fire-video-game
Battlestar Galactica is a great example of something mediocre that was made great by a remake, but also something that might be greatly improved by another remake because the second half was so flawed.
Whoever said, lets do whip zooms and shaky cams with tribalesque war drums for space combat was a genius. First two seasons of the show the feeling of dread was so good.
So good. So damn good.
Then they had a weird second half, an ending that explained nothing and left so many plots open and closed with a movie that was called "the plan" that revealed the cylons had anything but. I'm still mad just thinking about it.
Looking at you, Dark Tower
I can't believe we're in the universe where there's a Dark Tower film with the incredibly talented Idris Elba and it was so stupidly bad.
Does he play Susannah?
No, he plays Jake.
I heard a rumor that Stephen King gave Mike Flanagan the greenlight to do Dark Tower. Here's to hoping. That's one of the few things I want to see as a show rather than movies
It is not a rumor.
https://ew.com/tv/mike-flanagan-dark-tower-stephen-king-adaptation-update/
Wow that's not what I was expecting at all.
Imagine the dude doing the Dune movies making Dark Tower.
I'm dreaming. But it's a wicked cool dream.
Should be a TV series. Start with The Gunslinger and work your way through the books, but also split up Wizard and Glass into small chunks to use as episode openers so there isn't suddenly a season long flashback with different actors.
Funnily enough the movie they made was supposed to be the intro to a TV show.
Trying to expand Gunslinger to bring in more backstory (and reeeeeeeally messing up the backstory) killed both the movie and the planned TV show. It's crazy how well their plan could've worked if they hadn't tried to fold too much into the "prequel". Dark Tower even has the built-in "out" that this is a different turn of the wheel.
They were going to run out of material way too fast the way they did the movie. They condensed The Gunslinger, The Drawing of the Three, Wolves of the Calla, and Song of Susannah into ninety minutes. They could have done the rest of Drawing, but then that just leaves The Waste Lands, The Dark Tower, and an excessively long flashback with Wizard and Glass. They would have needed to just not adapt more book content in order to have more than a couple seasons of material.
yeah it can't be a movie. Unfortunately my favorite character will never be accurately adapted and will lose her badassery. Better we wait for another time
THERE'S A MOVIE!!?
Yo, I am reading that series!
Don't get hyped, it's mid at best.
Awh
Stanley Kubrick never really had an original screenplay. His movies are based from an already existing story. He reasoned that it's better to adapt a story that is good but not considered classic, because it means there is plenty to improve from such story.
I see you're emulating Kubrick's idea 😂
That just blew my mind.
Like Dune? Like Dune.
Dragonball Evolution was so shit that it drove Akira Toriyama out of retirement, which led to Battle of Gods, Resurrection F, Broly, Super Hero and an entirely new anime/manga series titled Dragon Ball Super.
It even technically is leading to Dragon Ball Daima, which looks like a serious effort to try and do the whole 'Goku is a kid again' concept that Dragon Ball GT fucked up 25 years ago.
I decided a few years ago to simply stop watching anything that was a remake, reboot, update or 'franchise'. Too many of them have used nostalgia and familiarity to compensate for shortcomings in storytelling. Even more cynically, leveraging intellectual property is all about money and business, whereas for me storytelling and art are about the human experience and spirit, so it's no wonder these IP films are usually so poor.
It's also that Disney own almost all the known IP, and will roll it out time and again as a safe bet with predictable returns - art by focus group simply isn't a thing.
Capitalism, baybee!
Is this the innovation I was promised?
Well they are taking another swing at Fantastic Four
Some older movies that come to mind: Enemy Mine. Great sci fi premise that was ahead of its time. Just plagued with bad effects and limitations.
The Last Starfighter Not bad even for the day but I think it's a solid enough concept that could use a refresh. Set in the 80's to get the retro video game vibe. I think it could even be a multiple movie property.
Masters of the Universe It was a goofy premise with some interesting characters that were wasted. Even the updated animated series didn't do great. Or even go off in a space Western and do a Rio Blast movie.
Krull was really missing the visual elements to tell the story and it ended up cheesy and stilted (still holds some nostalgia for me though). It could still be a fun space fantasy.
The last Starfighter, was supposed to be multiple movies. I loved the original, but I'd be down with a remake.
Krull was bad, but I still loved it!
Great post and right to the point of the OP!
If it were a Netflix production they could have little easter eggs in it like the arcade being the one in Hawkins (Stranger Things).
How are our corporate overlord supposed to know what a good story is other than the success of a movie based in them?
Ironically capitalism does not like to take much risk, nor do the large companies who are best able to take them. It also sucks that many things are switching to being ads supported, so there is further limiting of creativity. For example, Love, Death, and Robots is a really awesome animated anthology. It is something that does not try to have the broadest appeal; however, the customers are now advertisers who may not want to run ads on something with a narrower audience. Oddly it seems Netflix will be going down the path of YouTube battling that to keep the content adverts will buy space for, and YouTube trying to be independent of it with its premium. Strange world.
Love, Death + Robots is amazing and everyone should watch it.
Hell yeah, even the ones I didn't like were well done and I'm glad I watched them.
For real.
They can ask chatgpt :D
I would love a proper remake of Eragon. That movie felt so rushed, like they just chopped the meat out of the story and gave us the bloody mush instead of the whole thing.
They are doing a series right now.
They are?? How did I not know about this?
There were many news in summer that Disney is producing one for Disney+
Ah shit
They just make the same mistakes again or do something even worse, as proven by the Resident Evil 3 remake.
The live action GitS? It was aight, but could've been better. As a huge fan of the story I wasn't that upset. I just didn't like what they did with Major (made her weak), and also didn't like that Section 9 was getting cucked, no one cucks section 9
The casting for the Major was just horrifying. She's supposed to look strong, capable, and no-nonsense at first glance, then you look again and realize her robot form is also conventionally attractive. In the 2017 movie, they flipped it around, entirely backwards. Obviously, your first impression of Scarlett Johansson is that she's attractive and feminine. Then you have to look closer and realize she's capable of fighting.
That works for Black Widow. That's exactly what you want for Black Widow. It's not what you want for Motoko Kusanagi.
Yeah, it was not the original major at all. She was more like a helpless child. In all of the other iteration she is a lethal tactical genius and a hardened war veteran.
But with a helpless child inside her, at the core of her personality, because her traumatic transition into a brain in a robot body robbed her of the chance to actually grow up. That's the whole point of the character. She's psychologically stunted, despite her military capability. She can't lower her defenses and interact on a normal social level, as a result. At the same time, she's also never quite comfortable in her own mind and body, for the same reasons.
Batou is the only person in the story who comes even close to understanding this, which is why they have a unique bond.
We just ignoring Kuze?
Nah, you're right. Total oversight, on my part.
yeah personally i was hoping they'd give the role to margo martindale
You mean award winner and highly acclaimed Character Actress Margo Martindale?
I thought it was great. The whole trans racial angle really worked in the philosophy of the original. I loved it.
Also batou’s car holy shit that was rad
In the case of Dune that is just happening, which is an exception.
Jodorowsi'sLynch's Dune was great in its own fever dream kinda way - don't get me wrong, I'm over the moon we have the new movie, and prefer part 1, but the older movies are a thing.They were probably thinking of the David Lynch version.
David Lynch's is the best version, case closed
I was - I watched the Jodorowsi doco a while back and mixed it in with the Lynch version - thanks!
Jodorowski never got to make his Dune.
Jodo’s Dune was never made though, a fact that makes me sad everytime I am reminded of it. However, we have The Incal, The Meta Barons and The Technopriests which is great.
It's not a remake, it's another adaptation of the same source material.
If Denis Villeneuve is passionate about a story you let him make the movie, its pretty simple.
Well, there's Dredd.
Dredd was fucking awesome and didn't get the justice it deserved.
I'm not a comic book guy by any means but that movie is great.
Equally so is Constantine. (And the TV show!)
Either of them have reached the levels of the worst, most generic Marvel movie.
The original Dredd was better. It's meant to satire cops, not just be an uncritical action flick about a badass cop. If you strip Judge Dredd of its silliness and satire you're left with dust colored post apoc action, and Fury Road did a better job of that.
I'll take your word on the intentions of the original Dredd, but the point still stands, Dredd was good. Not as good as fury road good, but good is all that matters. I'd like to see more Dredd with that kind of action, even if it's not true to soruce material.
Can we have good action flicks that aren't at the expense of good stories? It seems like the only reason to use the IP at that point is for cynically bankable nostalgia.
Nostalgia for what, though? It was a 'duo go into a tower and kill everyone' movie that happened to be called Dredd. I liked it for what it was and I didn't go in with any nostalgia. I feel your anxiety, but, I wonder if action movies by their nature can't really be deep meditations on the human condition. What story can be told at the muzzle of a gun or the end of a fist that hasn't already been told?
I kind of feel like action movies are at their best when they operate in a space that is far away from the frontal cortex, invite us to a more libidinal place. Even 'thinker' action movies like The Matrix, kind of strike me as philosophically shallow harangues interspersed with cool fights.
I donno, maybe I'm wrong, or not steeped enough in the genre, or just have normie preferences. Out of curiosity, what action movies have a good story & are worth checking out, in your opinion?
If I call a movie Animaniacs and it happens to be a heartfelt tear-jerker about a 1600s Russian peasant, would you say the same thing? Nevertheless, the original Dredd was a fun action film in its own right, you can definitely do both. I don't know what we're supposed to gain by expecting less.
To answer your question (did I miss that or was it edited in?) I'd recommend Fury Road straight away if you've not seen it, then going back for Ip Man, Guns Akimbo, Kung Fu Hustle, Psycho Goreman, Black Magic M-66, and of course the original action film, Seven Samurai. Not all pure "action" flicks, but all are examples of action packed cinema that don't leave any storytelling by the wayside.
Kurosawa is a good counterpoint for sure. Haven't seen Guns Akimbo, Psycho Goreman, or Black Magic M-66. I'll keep my eye out for those. Thanks!
I don't consider it a remake. The story is totally different.
It's not a remake of the Stallone movie, it's a second attempt at making a movie based on the comics, which is exactly what OP is talking about.
I’m assuming you’re talking about the live action movie and I would agree. I had such high hopes for it and they (Hollywood) dropped the ball. I think it’s also a lack of understanding the source material and trying to adapt something to have a wider audience and western audience. When you involve those two things you know you’re going to be kind stepping in it. That being said I do think the props and effects done by Weta Workshop really were definitely highlights of that movie. They far exceed the casting and story. I would love to have it redone but Hollywood is gonna Hollywood and at the end of the day they (Hollywood) will shit all over source material if they think it’ll make them a buck.
They'll also shit all over the source material if they think it's beneath them. I'm thinking of the writers for Halo or The Witcher for example.
I still can't believe they tried to cancel Cavil for respecting the source material on Witcher lmao, no wonder people ignored them.
And now he's Henry Warhammer. The gods smile on him us.
Fantastic Four: nth Time's the Charm
nTH +1 judging by the actors they just picked
Event Horizon but I feel that it would be a lot more in your face horror if they made it today.
Excuse me? Event Horizon is perfect.
Please don't touch that movie. It is great as it is.
I too would like to see Event Horizon made with today's technology but I'm also 100% sure that it wouldn't be as good as the original. I'd still pay to watch it in the theater, probably twice, but the original was perfect.
Exsqueeze me they said Bad movie
I just wanna see more warp/chaos stuff tbh.
And give it time! I don't want a do-over of a failed movie just a couple years later. The Ghost in the Shell movie was a disappointment, but don't just keep plugging away at it until something works.
They did a sort of do-over for Suicide Squad relatively quickly and that was for the best.
And now they've given the keys to the DC cinematic universe to Gunn so he can do it with all the movies.
But the original Ghost in the Shell is perfect! I just rewatched it this weekend and it still looks amazing! Why remake that?
I think they’re talking about the live action version (2017) version. But I agree the 1995 Ghost in the Shell animated movie is a fantastic movie. Funny thing is in 2008 they did Ghost in the shell 2.0 which add some cg to the original, it’s been a while since I’ve watched it, so I don’t know if they reuse the same animation from the 95 version or animated new stuff I really don’t remember to be honest. But ya oh 1995 animated Ghost in the Shell is amazing I was actually planning on rewatching it this week. (I did rewatch it and it’s exactly as good as I remember it.)
Spider man, fantastic 4...
I'd like that
The dark tower
eragon
the hobbit
fantastic 4
The biggest issue of most videogame adaptation flops is that they're not really inspired in the source material. But usually are a different original script with a paint coat of franchise. As a result they fail at being good as part of the franchise, but they also fail at being good as something original because they're dragged down by the expectations and precedent of the franchise the script is being forced upon. Halo being the biggest example, the writers and show runners even bragged how proud they were they didn't played the original games.
Counter example, the Warcraft movie is actually good fun because the scriptwriters really knew the lore and understood what makes up WoW's essence. Part of the problem is producers don't take videogame as a serious art medium. Similar to the problem that animation has, where some producers don't think of animation as real cinema.
Something based on Bioshock, either the first or the second, would be amazing as a movie, not just visually but because there's quite a human side to the story, from the tragedy that beffel those in what was supposed to be utopia and what was done to those who became Little Sisters and Big Brothers to the megalomania of its maker and even the whole wiff of Fascism in the politics of the place before it fell.
The last of us was fucking perfect
Ghost in the Shell was good, change my mind.
Battle Star Galactica anyone?
Note: Without ruining the story in the process
Or yknow just come up with original material
A few months ago, I got the idea of looking for scripts of some movies I watched, liked the concept or some part of it, but disliked the overall execution, and doing a revamp of it. I have no idea of where to post my scripts, or if anyone would be interested in reading them, but your meme made me rethink and reconsider this idea. Thank you.
It's morbin' time
TV series too? Altered Carbon seasons 2 & 3 please!
Disney....if you're listening....The Black Hole... If you please
I think instead of this they should just start doing more high profile versions of what they already do sometimes, where they bring back movies that were already in the theater once for another go around, instead of just remaking everything all the time. I'd also give this a +2 if it was a movie that was old, and you have to rent instead of just being able to watch on some service. Like Legend (1985), or maybe Brazil (1985). Maybe there are some other movies from 1985, I dunno.
Rent? Watch on a service? This is Lemmy. We’re pirates ‘round here.
I can get you nice digital copies of laser disk, VHS, 35mm, DVD, Blu-Ray, or web. Why on earth would I wait for Hollywood to tell me when I can watch the Mouse and the Motorcycle again?
I think a lot of people kind of hate the theater because it's still being used in such a way that it's resting more on it's laurels, than on it's merits. "Be the first to see the movie, without a stupid cam rip from a southeast asian country with subtitles and a watermark", sort of thing. Part of the experience of a theater is that, when you go and watch the new pop cultural phenomena, everyone oohs and aahs. Part of the theater experience is that you can go an watch a horror movie and hear the people in the audience scream and cackle about how stupid the characters are. I think that's a good part of the theater experience, in combination with all the dumb HDR IMAX high dynamic range 3D live active rumbling seats and scented perfume garbage they have sometimes. I would say, in many ways, we've kinda been hamstrung by a pretense that every movie has to be like, a big A24 arthouse scorsese film that makes you deeply ponder the nature of being. That is not a movie best watched in theaters. Best movie watched in theaters is gonna be something like john wick 4, or meals on wheels, or maybe even clue, something like that.
Especially as cinema and the experience of theaters have evolved out of stage plays. The advantage of the medium of stage plays is that it's live, it can actively respond to the audience, play off of their reactions, and it can be different every time, with every troupe presenting a different interpretation of the source material. Cinemas, theaters, take that same format, and substitute the live performance for a pre-recorded tape. It's not impossible to strike at those same appeals, but it takes a lot of work on the filmmaker's part to really hit those same notes, and we're at the point where most filmmakers would rather not bother, and so audiences won't either.
Basically, I'm just saying that movies, in the cinema, need to be seen as a more casual experience, I think that would help with the experience.
Also the popcorn is a good appeal except like 90% of the time that sucks and is just a cheap vehicle for salt, to be paired with the drinks. Extortionist prices don't help either on that front, that shit needs to be gas station price at least, or else I'm gonna smuggle stuff in, and we all know the margins on popcorn and soda have to be insane anyways, so they should be able to charge like maybe five bucks for a medium soda and bag of popcorn.
Interestingly, I have the exact opposite opinion. Arthouse style movies are pretty much the only ones I will go see in theaters—if every frame is a masterpiece, it is enhanced by being in a big format, and the audience tends to be quiet.
I don’t go to the movies to hear other people, and I dislike when that happens. Alamo Drafthouse does a pretty good job keeping things quiet, and these days I pretty much refuse to go anywhere else. I don’t want to deal with other people’s noise taking me out of the zone you can get into with a really good movie.
I feel the same about plays too. Generally speaking, the best plays are when you can hear a pin drop during most of the scenes, with brief applause when appropriate.
If I wanted a bunch of audience input, I’d choose a show that was heavily geared towards that such as standup comedy or improv. Otherwise, it’s just a distraction from the artist I came to see.
I think most people would be of the opinion, or maybe I have just seen such an opinion more as a matter of a vocal minority or whatever, but I think most people would rather just watch those sorts of things from the comfort of their own home. Own TV, soundsystem, recliner, food, what have you. Ability to pause and go take a piss if you want, sort of thing. I mean, I don't think most people have a cinema setup that's going to really rival what a movie theater can put out, but I think the convenience and cost efficacy of it is really going to swing it towards home viewing for most. Even just being able to balance the audio how you want it to be balanced is kind of a big step up in a lot of ways.
That would be a great idea. Especially now, when theaters seem to go all or nothing with movies, there are too many times when I wait for the crowds to die down, it suddenly the movie is gone. There are too many times where there is nothing I’m interested in seeing, but they can spare a screen or slot for movies no longer in their prime
I had a friend who produced cinema festivals. This idea of theatrical re-runs would be great for all audiences, except all distributors are greedy cunts. They would charge exaggerated prices for the licenses to run old movies, and would nickle and dime organizers. They essentially had to charge mad entrance fees and make all sorts of stuff along with the screenings (market stalls, fancy food, hall entertainment, etc.) to make the fees worthwhile. Also, huge swaths of most of the big companies catalogs are not available, so you wouldn't be able to buy a run of certain films even if they own it.
How about 1984 (1984)?
Bro is in dear need of DRM-free media ownership
OH MY GOD YES. Let's see, They Live (I actually really liked that one), Re-animator, Howard the Duck, and grave encounters series
They said bad movies, not a fucking masterpiece.
Morbius
Careful you're gonna make me Morb out
Ant Man: Quantummania has all the essential elements to be considered a remake of Shark Boy and Lavagirl
What is wrong with Ghost in the Shell?
The anime is great. The recent remake is flashy but lacks the souls of the original. It wasn't as bad as some critical and box office perform made out, but when a remake is worse than the original, what's the point?
I mean nothing is as good as the original Manga. But each has changed the story a little to make it interesting. The live action was above average in my book. Not talking Blade Runner levels but enjoyed it.
Yes, it was better than I expected given the reviews and audience scores. It was quite pretty.
The (live action) movie sucked big time.
In what way?
In all of the ways, mostly. But most particularly in that it's neither authentic or enjoyable. It's just soulless cgi trash.
I liked it
Nothing wrong with being in the minority opinion on something.
Thanks. I'm not very clever with stuff like this. Remakes have no surprising content. We know what's going to happen even if it's roughly the same story. So long as I have the happy to watch it again feeling then I say it's a good movie.
I beg to differ. After watching it again recently they used plenty of practical effects mixed with cgi. Hell it is a light year better than any recent Marvel or DC movies even. Few notes is the changes to the story. Which has been done each version away from the manga. The chief is amazing speaking only Japanese and fully rocking that roll. I hear many complain about the movie yet cannot sight actual examples that ruin the experience other than it is not like the anime. But if you have been following it like me since the original manga you know it is always been changed a little. But who would just want to keep watching the same thing over and over again in a different form.
Not interested in arguing with you. The box office, reviews, and general fan opinion disagree with you. It's perfectly okay to like something most others don't.
It's called debating not arguing. If you cannot back up your own personal statement then I suggest your go back to Reddit. Or at least try trolling better.
I suggest you eat a dick, and go back to lurking incel subs shit head.
I agree with the premise, but your example is, like, spectacularly bad. The Ghost in the Shell movie you're thinking of, the recent one? THAT WAS A REMAKE THAT NEVER SHOULD HAVE BEEN MADE, IN THE FIRST PLACE.
The original is good. It didn't need a remake. You're literally talking about the opposite of your whole premise. They took a movie that was already good and made a remake of it, to make it suck, except for the fact that it had Scarlett Johansson in a very tight robot suit.
EDIT: nevermind! The title is an example of how it's currently done wrong. That makes so much sense, now that someone pointed it out.
OP was mentioning GITS as an example of how it's currently done (wrong). The "instead of remaking great movies" part
Oh...that makes perfect sense.
I think the main thing here is that the original was such a flop that they don't want to repeat the error.
It's a hard sell to take an unsuccessful film (with admittedly a good underlying story/concept), and then convince the suits that this time will be different because reasons.
When they can remake an old hit, even if it's done poorly, most people will want to see it for themselves, if for no other reason than to join in on the chorus of hate. Those ticket sales are still sales. So whether people like it or not, they stand a good chance to turn a reasonable profit.
Meanwhile, films that did poorly, whether due to script issues, or poor execution of the underlying material or whatever, people will be more willing to let it pass them by unless they have it on his authority that it's good. Of course, not everyone will think this way, but it's the basis for judgement for most.
Additionally, by remaking a movie they can renew their copyright on the film, which is why, I believe that many of the older films are getting unnecessary remakes and sequels. Even if it's bad, it locks them in on copyrights for a while longer; so if they want to continue to profit from the property, whether through licensing, promos, merchandise, whatever, they can. The base point being: does anyone want to license this property? If not, the suits wouldn't care as much if the copyright expires.
Think about something like star wars. It had a pretty strong following at the first three films, even decades after the release, it was very likely that there were ongoing licensing deals. So to renew the copy rights, they remastered and rereleased it to theatres. Even if it flopped, it would have ensured they can continue their licensing deals for years to come. Since it didn't, they decided instead to expand the franchise and see if they can get more money from it, and they did. Which is how we ended up with the sequels and several spin off shows.
Simply put, it's just too risky to invest more money into properties to renew copyright when there's no interest in licensing the content in the first place. Many of the production companies are happy to let a property rot while they're collecting paycheques on licensing. It's all about the numbers.
Wonder Park was a bland, risk-averse animated film in 2019. A little girl's imaginary theme park (and coping mechanism for her grief) actually exists. Remake it as an ongoing animated series.
There are some really good movies I wouldn’t mind a modern rendition of.
Forest Gump, I think, would be an absolute winner. Whole premise could be redone every 30 years (yes it’s been 30 years) with great effect.
Forrest Gump is so much a story about the time period, this would be a vastly different movie. I'd say just make a unrelated movie inspired by Forrest Gump, instead of trying to make it a remake and thus give yourselve unecessary restraints.
This movie has a pretty similar premise https://m.imdb.com/title/tt2113681/
Would new Forest live through the 90s-20s instead of the 50s-90s?
I'm not sure it'd make a good story. The technology is what changed the world in the past 30 years. The 1960s were a super tumultuous time and make a good sorry.
The events in Forest Gump reflect the book and run from 1951 to 1982.
A modern remake would be more like 82 to 2013 or so. So we can talk about what happened with AIDS, since that was a pretty big point in the first one. We’ve got Challenger, OKC, 9/11, Desert Storm, Afghanistan and Iraqi WMDs. Columbine, Station Night Club, GMO food, Clintons Blowjob, …list goes on.
Basicaly comparing Billy Joel’s “We didn’t start the fire”, with Fallout Boys.
Ok cupid?
Oklahoma City.
A sequel to Forrest Gump was written by 9/11 happened the day before it was turned in. The writers felt like the movie would be pointless after what happened.
How many goes have that had with the hulk and spider man movies?
In Time.
Downsized.
Actually use the cool idea of a dystopian future so expensive, it's more economical to shrink down to the size of a GI Joe and ditch the romcom shit.
I always felt like Flowers For Algernon was such a compelling book and the only movie i know of is one of the worst things I've ever seen. You would think it was a comedy based on that movie.
His Dark Materials was like this. The Golden Compass was poorly reviewed, and I'm glad that the TV series were made.
Ghost in the shell movie doesn't exist
I wasn't sure if rollerball was big or not at the time.
But in todays age that could do with a remake. Dystopian movie, with world run by the corporations and humanity is kept satisfied with entertainment.
https://youtu.be/yku2CXuKKiU?si=5Z5lMJPLjHN1cYhF
They're remaking it in real-time, all around you.
Alita: Battle angel is pretty much a rollerball remake.
I either want a remake of Stealth or a sequel. It wasn't terrible, but could have been much better and a desired franchise....by me at least. Guess I'll go re-watch Macross Plus again...
Sequels too. A perfect movie can't benefit from them, but shitty movies might be able to.
no game no life zero
What did they do to her face?
They're remaking Highlander
Im going to go out on a limb here and say something controversial.
I liked the remake of White Men Cant Jump and I want to see more. Remake Major League too.
Can we please get an actually good rendition of Battlefield Earth? The travesty that doesn't exist just...no.
So basically remaking every movie starring Nicolas Cage?
You shut your damn mouth. Nicolas Cage is perfect.
I love Nic for making movies I'd love to actually see, except for the fact that he's in them.
...DO YOU HEAR ME? A TASETLESS-
Pig is one of my favorite movies ever. I married a chef though so opinion may be biased
Maybe they could do a crossover where all the Cage movies get remade with Travolta and vice versa
Wow! Like some kind of face off.