They shouldn't happen, there........i saved everyone from watching skits.
[highlight](User was banned for this post ("Why reply" - icemaz))[/highlight]
[QUOTE=Source;52411967]They shouldn't happen, there........i saved everyone from watching skits.[/QUOTE]
No you didn't, this video has no skits in it
[QUOTE=Source;52411967]They shouldn't happen, there........i saved everyone from watching skits.[/QUOTE]
this is a remake
[t]https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/7/71/Scarface_-_1983_film.jpg[/t]
this is a remake
[t]https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/a/a6/The_Thing_%281982%29_theatrical_poster.jpg/220px-The_Thing_%281982%29_theatrical_poster.jpg[/t]
this is a remake
[t]https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/5/50/Departed234.jpg/220px-Departed234.jpg[/t]
IMO, I always found the idea that remakes are inherently bad is pretty ignorant. As Zukriuchen pointed out, there are a toooon of remakes that are considered classics and are much more loved than the originals.
Just because there are a lot of bad remakes too doesn't mean that every remake is going to be a bad cash grab and that because something is original or new doesn't always mean it's going to be inherently better.
It annoys me that people always crap on the newer Charlie and the Chocolate Factory movie when it's waaaaaaaaaaaay more accurate to the source material. I get that Gene Wilder was iconic, but his film was pretty far separated from what happens in the book.
[QUOTE=c:;52412126]It annoys me that people always crap on the newer Charlie and the Chocolate Factory movie when it's waaaaaaaaaaaay more accurate to the source material. I get that Gene Wilder was iconic, but his film was pretty far separated from what happens in the book.[/QUOTE]
I feel similar with how he mentioned The Shining. The later film isn't a remake, it's just a closer adaptation to the book. That being said, Kubrick's is still by far my favorite.
[QUOTE=c:;52412126]It annoys me that people always crap on the newer Charlie and the Chocolate Factory movie when it's waaaaaaaaaaaay more accurate to the source material. I get that Gene Wilder was iconic, but his film was pretty far separated from what happens in the book.[/QUOTE]
Being [I]more[/I] accurate doesn't make it not shit you know, sometimes being more accurate just doesn't translate well on the big screen.
[QUOTE=c:;52412126]It annoys me that people always crap on the newer Charlie and the Chocolate Factory movie when it's waaaaaaaaaaaay more accurate to the source material. I get that Gene Wilder was iconic, but his film was pretty far separated from what happens in the book.[/QUOTE]
Being accurate to the source material doesn't equate to a good film. It can, but it doesn't always. It's often better to change the story or the setting to suit the new medium. They're called adaptations for a reason, they're supposed to adapt.
Look at Ghost in the Shell. The original manga is fairly light hearted and jokey at times, and has a heavy focus on showing off Makoto's body (understandable since the artist draws a lot of porn). The Film was a heavily symbolic questioning on the nature of what makes a person in a world where every part of you can be replaced with technology. The Series is then an analytical view of how people react to their position in a world which seems more impersonal and disconnected all the time. None of these are any less 'Ghost in the Shell' than the others but they're all very different because they play to the strengths of their medium.
Just taking a book and using it as a pseudo-screenplay doesn't make a good film, you want to use the story of the original as a template or a guide and expand upon the story from there. Harry Potter and The Prisoner of Azkaban was a fairly dark book (and probably my favourite in the series), the film took this and played up the feeling of unease and paranoia by using its framing and camera work to give the impression that something is wrong in every scene. I think the film is better than the book because it took what the book had and amplified it in a way the book never could.
[QUOTE=Source;52411967]They shouldn't happen, there........i saved everyone from watching skits.
[highlight](User was banned for this post ("Why reply" - icemaz))[/highlight][/QUOTE]
Did you even watch the video?
rich evans said it best
[IMG]http://i.imgur.com/S1aNtO8.jpg[/IMG]
[QUOTE=Wii60;52413125]rich evans said it best
[IMG]http://i.imgur.com/S1aNtO8.jpg[/IMG][/QUOTE]
Hollywood is generally disconnected with reality. For the head honchos, it's all about the money. It doesn't matter if a movie is good as long as it sells well (domestically, but especially internationally, i.e. China). Transformers is a prime example of this. Despite being mediocre and dumb movies, they make enough to churn out more [poor] sequels.
[QUOTE=Wii60;52413125]rich evans said it best
[IMG]http://i.imgur.com/S1aNtO8.jpg[/IMG][/QUOTE]
I've always wanted to see a serious blockbuster attempt at remaking The Room.
I don't think there is an entity more utterly disconnected from reality than hollywood, to be honest
[editline]29th June 2017[/editline]
HolierthanthouWood is the biggest embarrassment of entertainment right now
[QUOTE=Destroyox;52413266]I've always wanted to see a serious blockbuster attempt at remaking The Room.[/QUOTE]
The room is already perfect thou
[QUOTE=J!NX;52413275]I don't think there is an entity more utterly disconnected from reality than hollywood, to be honest
[editline]29th June 2017[/editline]
HolierthanthouWood is the biggest embarrassment of entertainment right now[/QUOTE]
That's kind of always been the thing about Hollywood though. That is that it exists, almost fundamentally, detached from our reality. Producers, Studios, Stars, and even Writers themselves enter this kingdom where, not only do you not talk about the elephant in the room, you pretend it's a large and unfriendly table or armoire.
I'm resisting Alice In Wonderland, since it was referenced in the video and at the top of my mind, but really. Yeah. Alice In Wonderland. It's a place that works on curved logic and shortest-possible-path thinking. The cavalcade of crap remakes are trying to cash in on things that make ton of money in every other market, namely, brand recognition, brand loyalty, and nostalgia.
It makes perfect sense in a shortest-path-ignoring-all-obstacles way. "Well, people are still buying Ghostbusters DVDs and merchandise now days. They must want more Ghostbusters. The sequels didn't do well though, so maybe they want the stuff that did [I]really[/I] well, just again."
Even if the man on the street can tell you, quite loudly, "No, I don't want to see a new adaptation of the Ghostbusters, thank you," or, "Um, Universal Cinematic Monster Universe? Did you have a stroke?"
[QUOTE=Crazy Ivan;52413454]That's kind of always been the thing about Hollywood though. That is that it exists, almost fundamentally, detached from our reality. Producers, Studios, Stars, and even Writers themselves enter this kingdom where, not only do you not talk about the elephant in the room, you pretend it's a large and unfriendly table or armoire.[/QUOTE]
Hollywood has always had this weird environment / attitude about it I feel, where It just kind of exists as a film-elite. They've existed since film existed, they've just sorta always been there and have this 'superior' status. However the elite status is ultimately completely a facade and meaningless in the end of it all because they're still not immune to making complete shit. As far as I can remember this is how I've felt about it at least.
[editline]29th June 2017[/editline]
Like, people act like being a part of hollywood is the 'ultimate goal' of an actor
Last fucking thing I'd want to be is a hollywood actor
Here's what I don't get, why do people consider a new adaptation of a book that's been adapted a remake of the film?
Its a new adaptation of the source material, not a remake of the film 90% of the time. TASM and Spider-Man Homecoming aren't remakes of Raimi's Spider-Man. Charlie and the Chocolate Factory isn't a remake of the film, its a new adaptation of the book.
What mocks me is people that fear the american remakes. I know people who have seen the swedish tattoo girl film which don't want to glance at the fincher movie because 'fuck hollaywood'
[QUOTE=c:;52412126]It annoys me that people always crap on the newer Charlie and the Chocolate Factory movie when it's waaaaaaaaaaaay more accurate to the source material. I get that Gene Wilder was iconic, but his film was pretty far separated from what happens in the book.[/QUOTE]
I appreciate your point, but the Pendragon Pictures version of HG Wells's War of the Worlds is also basically word-for-word accurate to the book, and also the only film adaptation that's [I]actually[/I] set in late 19th century England to my knowledge, but it also wasn't very good.
This video proves how much more enjoyable his videos are without all the cringy skits.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
