|
|
|
|
|
 |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |
| |||||||||||||||
Date: 12/11/2003 1:42:00 PM
From Authorid: 53052
hollywood has consntatly been doing remakes for YEARS you listed a bunch of remakes but some of those varry a good 5 years inbetween, you also missed a ton, your also missing a ton of great movies, yes there are remakes out there but the new ourweigh the old, i've met many people who won't pick up the origal because it's black and white(what is sad i have to admit!)  |
|
Date: 12/11/2003 1:43:00 PM
From Authorid: 53052
the new one "love don't cost a thing" is also a remake of an 80's movie |
|
Date: 12/11/2003 1:45:00 PM
From Authorid: 53052
there is no way to get around making remakes some people just have no ideas, it's also the recycling of storylines... if you look at pearl harbour from a non patriot view it is actually just full of the "things that work" from movies all rolled together reformatted and tossed out on the market |
Date: 12/11/2003 2:38:00 PM
From Authorid: 53909
I think that some remakes were good but most of them bad, in my opinion. Maybe they're running out of ideas with movies, so they want to do remakes? LOL! They just better not do a remake on Lord Of The Rings years from now.   |
Date: 12/11/2003 2:54:00 PM
From Authorid: 45684
Hmm...The way i feel about remakes is that sometimes they are a kick in the face of the original, sometimes they are like an homage, and sometimes they are better. It's like with music remakes- I usually end up liking both, but sometimes, I just want to kick whoever make the remake.  |
Date: 12/11/2003 4:20:00 PM
From Authorid: 47218
I don't know, some REALLY great films have been remakes...I think the appropriateness of the remake depends on the situation-- sometimes the original film is so perfect that it doesn't need to be remade, or the creators of the remake don't veer much from from the original and have nothing new to add so the remake is virtually pointless, or you get inept producers and directors that botch the project and only serve to help you appreciate the orginal, or the original wasn't all that good in the first place and wasn't screaming for a remake. In these cases, it would be better if filmakers listened to their better judgment (if they have any). I think you have your finger on something. Mainstream Hollywood hates to take risks. Personally, I think the most annoying scourge in Hollywood is sequels. Any time something performs reasonably well at the box office, it seems that they have a part II in the works, which is usually just a rehash of the first film, and it ends up sucking and no one goes to see it, because moviegoers have more intelligence than they give us credit for, and they lose a bunch of money. If it's not a continuing story line (like the Godfather) then why bother? What's the point of making the same film that you did two years ago? Why not just take the original (which is always better) and put a part II on it and call it a sequel? sheesh.  |
|
Date: 12/11/2003 5:07:00 PM
From Authorid: 53052
actually LOTR is technically a remake |
Date: 12/11/2003 5:28:00 PM
From Authorid: 51070
That's why I rarely go to the movies anymore.  |
Date: 12/11/2003 5:56:00 PM
From Authorid: 62367
'Fraid the Bourne Identity had never been made into a movie before this stinker. It was a TV mini series with Richard Chamberlain. Just read the book. Its fantastic.  |
|
Date: 12/11/2003 8:16:00 PM
From Authorid: 47218
I thought the Bourne Identity was pretty good. I admit that I am not familiar with the book nor said miniseries. |
Date: 12/11/2003 11:00:00 PM
From Authorid: 57232
Oh man the Dawn of the Dead remake looks terrible. First of all they made them all younger, well assuming it's a fab 4 plot again, which it doesn't look like, it seems like from the commercial all they are doing that's the same is sticking zombies in a mall w/ random humans and that's about it. I wrote a post awhile ago about recasting it for 'today' but I'd never believe that they made what looks to be that flaming piece of crap. But then again, they always will get the curiousity dollar, I guess that's why they get made, I'm curious what they are going to do. The only thing that I hope that they will redo or at least put on TV more is Don't Be Afraid of The Dark....and oh yeah Salem's Lot was remade and that will be on TV soon....  |
Date: 12/13/2003 10:36:00 AM ( From Author )
From Authorid: 47166
First off- Midnightly, I know I missed a LOT, but these are the only ones I could think of off-hand. Also, I have to disagree, if your omnly option is to make a shoddy remake of TCM, then you should find yourself a new line of work. Thanks for your comments, though.  |
|
Date: 12/13/2003 10:41:00 AM ( From Author )
From Authorid: 47166
Mollycat- I agree with you completely, except for the fact that most big name sequels ("Charlie's Angels Full Throttle," "Tomb Raider 2," Bad Boys 2," etc.) Do quite well at the box-office and in retail sales, even though they have no substance. Thanks for your insightful reply. |
|
Date: 12/13/2003 10:47:00 AM ( From Author )
From Authorid: 47166
And two quickies- 62367, I just saw the original mini-series on a DVD in a rental store, so I assumed it was an actual movie. Thanks for the info. And, B.Monkey13, I agree about the "Dawn" remake, in the preview, when you see the zombie appear to jump, I punched myself in the face. Hard. Also, technically the "remakes" of Stephen King-inspired movies ("The Shining" and this new version of "Salem's Lot"  aren't remakes, they're Stephen King's versions (I don't know about S.L., but the original "Shining" hardly followed King's tale at all. >it was still the better version, though< |
Renasoft is the proud sponsor of the Unsolved Mystery Publications website.
See: www.rensoft.com Personal Site server, Power to build Personal Web Sites and Personal Web Pages
All stories are copyright protected and may not be reproduced in any form, except by specific written authorization
