Lord+Master wrote:Laughed at the poster for Robin Hood, Maximus in the forest...
Doubtless it'll be a case of Crowe saying "Son of a murdered Father, Citizen of a betrayed land, Loyal Servant to the true King of England...and I shall have my revenge in this life or the next! A Pox upon you Sheriff *spits* and upon Prince John".
As if we needed another Robin Hood film, there's gotta be loads of cool hero stories and myths instead.
Prince of Persia looks good.
Will Russell Crowe+ Ridley Scott=Leonardo Di Caprio+Martin Scorsese or Johnny Depp+Tim Burton?
jay_a2j wrote:hey if any1 would like me to make them a signature or like an avator just let me no, my sig below i did, and i also did "panther 88" so i can do something like that for u if ud like...
I'm still pissed they remade Transformers and GI Joe (from the cartoon movies of the same name). Stupid bullshit knock-offs... grumble... stupid kids get off my lawn.
thegreekdog wrote:I'm still pissed they remade Transformers and GI Joe (from the cartoon movies of the same name). Stupid bullshit knock-offs... grumble... stupid kids get off my lawn.
The original Transformers: The Movie was great when I was a kid. And in what kind of crazy world can you get Orson Welles, Eric Idle, Leonard Nimoy, Judd Nelson, and Weird Al Yankovich together in a film based around a toy franchise? I still remember all the best lines:
"They're in our way! Wrong, they're our way in!"
"Coronation, Starscream? This is bad comedy"
thegreekdog wrote:I'm still pissed they remade Transformers and GI Joe (from the cartoon movies of the same name). Stupid bullshit knock-offs... grumble... stupid kids get off my lawn.
The original Transformers: The Movie was great when I was a kid. And in what kind of crazy world can you get Orson Welles, Eric Idle, Leonard Nimoy, Judd Nelson, and Weird Al Yankovich together in a film based around a toy franchise? I still remember all the best lines:
"They're in our way! Wrong, they're our way in!"
"Coronation, Starscream? This is bad comedy"
thegreekdog wrote:I'm still pissed they remade Transformers and GI Joe (from the cartoon movies of the same name). Stupid bullshit knock-offs... grumble... stupid kids get off my lawn.
The original Transformers: The Movie was great when I was a kid. And in what kind of crazy world can you get Orson Welles, Eric Idle, Leonard Nimoy, Judd Nelson, and Weird Al Yankovich together in a film based around a toy franchise? I still remember all the best lines:
"They're in our way! Wrong, they're our way in!"
"Coronation, Starscream? This is bad comedy"
Sure, re-makes themselves aren't necessarily bad, but when you get, as in the last few years, a big budget industry devoted entirely towards remakes, adaptations of already popular novels and video games, and sequels to established franchises, then it's a bit depressing.
There's always plenty of room for re-imaginings, and there's room for experimental cinema too. They're all competing for a limited audience though.
With Jackie Chan and Will Smith's son, Jaden. Please note, film will not actually contain karate.
In all seriousness, Hollywood lost their originality about six years ago.
Six? I've been watching the same typical movie from them for decades now...
But at least they had the humility to change the god-damn names of the movies. That's not even bothered with any longer.
No seriously, remakes have existed since the beginning.
I recognize that, but it wasn't a ridiculously high percentage of the new movies coming out (never mind television series, as well).
...I prefer a man who will burn the flag and then wrap himself in the Constitution to a man who will burn the Constitution and then wrap himself in the flag.
The Italian Job......why??? It was a fucking travesty and an insult.
And also, why does Robin Hood need to be an American or Australian. If I remember my mythilogical history correctly neither country had been discovered at the time?
Woodruff wrote:
I recognize that, but it wasn't a ridiculously high percentage of the new movies coming out (never mind television series, as well).
At first it was mostly remakes of plays.
jay_a2j wrote:hey if any1 would like me to make them a signature or like an avator just let me no, my sig below i did, and i also did "panther 88" so i can do something like that for u if ud like...
Woodruff wrote:
I recognize that, but it wasn't a ridiculously high percentage of the new movies coming out (never mind television series, as well).
At first it was mostly remakes of plays.
True, but let's face it, there's a huge number of movies coming out at the moment that rely on the popularity and commercial success of another product. That can be a previous movie, a book, a character, or a TV Series, rather than originality.
Woodruff wrote:
I recognize that, but it wasn't a ridiculously high percentage of the new movies coming out (never mind television series, as well).
At first it was mostly remakes of plays.
True, but let's face it, there's a huge number of movies coming out at the moment that rely on the popularity and commercial success of another product. That can be a previous movie, a book, a character, or a TV Series, rather than originality.
That's true, but some of the best films were adaptations of already published works. The Godfather Trilogy for example. James Bond was based on a series of novels, and that's endured up until now. There's definitely a market for adaptations. Otherwise, the Harry Potter films wouldn't have been so successful.
Woodruff wrote:
I recognize that, but it wasn't a ridiculously high percentage of the new movies coming out (never mind television series, as well).
At first it was mostly remakes of plays.
True, but let's face it, there's a huge number of movies coming out at the moment that rely on the popularity and commercial success of another product. That can be a previous movie, a book, a character, or a TV Series, rather than originality.
That's true, but some of the best films were adaptations of already published works. The Godfather Trilogy for example. James Bond was based on a series of novels, and that's endured up until now. There's definitely a market for adaptations. Otherwise, the Harry Potter films wouldn't have been so successful.
Personally, I don't mind adaptations from books to movies or television to movies (or even movies to television, really). It's from movies-to-movies and television-to-television that REALLY piss me off.
...I prefer a man who will burn the flag and then wrap himself in the Constitution to a man who will burn the Constitution and then wrap himself in the flag.
Woodruff wrote:
Personally, I don't mind adaptations from books to movies or television to movies (or even movies to television, really). It's from movies-to-movies and television-to-television that REALLY piss me off.
The Lord of the Rings was not only a remake of a book; it was also the remake of an animated movie... which had also been a Rankin Bass cartoon. In its case, I'm GLAD they did the remake, the animated sucked; they should've stuck with the Rankin Bass cartoon (Leonard Nimoy sings about Bilbo in the Rankin Bass cartoon) rather than make the animated LoTR tragedy.
the fact that dumb arse fuckers pay money to go and watch a remake only keeps the remake industry in business. Don't blame the film makers - blame the paying customers who make it all worthwhile for the film makers.
Lock Stock?
Bend it like Beckham ?
Brassed off?
Trainspotters?
No remakes, no sequels. Just good original films made on a small budget, no special effects.
Special effects nowadays leave me cold. You can make a computer generated dog cheaper than to train a dog.
Sequels I can live with as long as they continue the story in a relevant way- Godfather 2 being the trump card.
Remakes I can live with as long as they go further than just being the same film in a different language. Kurosawa's movies getting remade into westerns... I can live with that.
Books made into movies, I can live with that too.
I have an issue with poorly thought out sequels that just seek to repeat a formula.
I have an issue with remakes that add nothing to the original, and don't even attempt a different take on the overall meaning.
I have an issue with movie adaptations that just cash in on a book's success.
On that last point, I think I should say that I found the Lord of the Rings adaptations kinda boring. The book was pretty boring, but fun in places. Same with the movies. They really are a nine hour long blur. Fun and spectacular, sure. Interesting? Only for those who really loved the book. Still- an effective way to relieve people of the better part of ten pounds (It's three hours long- popcorn is required).
Symmetry wrote:Sequels I can live with as long as they continue the story in a relevant way- Godfather 2 being the trump card.
Remakes I can live with as long as they go further than just being the same film in a different language. Kurosawa's movies getting remade into westerns... I can live with that.
Books made into movies, I can live with that too.
I have an issue with poorly thought out sequels that just seek to repeat a formula.
I have an issue with remakes that add nothing to the original, and don't even attempt a different take on the overall meaning.
I have an issue with movie adaptations that just cash in on a book's success.
On that last point, I think I should say that I found the Lord of the Rings adaptations kinda boring. The book was pretty boring, but fun in places. Same with the movies. They really are a nine hour long blur. Fun and spectacular, sure. Interesting? Only for those who really loved the book. Still- an effective way to relieve people of the better part of ten pounds (It's three hours long- popcorn is required).
Symmetry wrote:Sequels I can live with as long as they continue the story in a relevant way- Godfather 2 being the trump card.
Remakes I can live with as long as they go further than just being the same film in a different language. Kurosawa's movies getting remade into westerns... I can live with that.
Books made into movies, I can live with that too.
I have an issue with poorly thought out sequels that just seek to repeat a formula.
I have an issue with remakes that add nothing to the original, and don't even attempt a different take on the overall meaning.
I have an issue with movie adaptations that just cash in on a book's success.
On that last point, I think I should say that I found the Lord of the Rings adaptations kinda boring. The book was pretty boring, but fun in places. Same with the movies. They really are a nine hour long blur. Fun and spectacular, sure. Interesting? Only for those who really loved the book. Still- an effective way to relieve people of the better part of ten pounds (It's three hours long- popcorn is required).
11 hour drool fest with the extended version!!
Sure, and I was only counting seeing one movie in the cinema. See all three and buy the dvds, then you're down what, nearly 50 pounds? You can pick up the book for 5.
Ever seen the original Drunken Master? From before Jackie came to Hollywood. It's actually pretty good considering I can't understand a word they're saying even with subtitles.
Maxleod wrote:Not strike, he's the only one with a functioning brain.
Ever seen the original Drunken Master? From before Jackie came to Hollywood. It's actually pretty good considering I can't understand a word they're saying even with subtitles.
Yeah- it's great. Jackie Chan really is at his best in that movie. Almost a perfect mix of martial arts and comedy. And yeah- the translation is irrelevant, the physical comedy says enough.
