PDA

View Full Version : Twilight and the future of Hollywood



mario_c
06-03-2009, 08:30 AM
Now that I have your attention... :D A great article from Variety about the economic crunch's affect on script sales, how Will Smith beat Brangelina on the A List, and why those pesky sparkle crazy kids may represent a new wave of young starpower:
Stars No Longer Ensure Box Office Profits (http://www.variety.com/article/VR1118003344.html?categoryid=3620&cs=1)


"They played roles that audiences around world really responded to. There was an emotional interaction between the audience and those actors, and that interaction traveled around the world."

dgiharris
06-03-2009, 11:25 AM
Twilight???

I admit, I have not seen it yet, no real desire since it will be a typical angsty vampire film.

But it is WAYYY too soon to say that the actors from Twilight will be the future.

If I made a list of all the actors that stared in a mega-hit that were one hit wonders, the list would be very very long.

Before 'they' start speculating that Twilight stars will one day be up to Will Smith status, those actors need to put a few more years into the business and generate at least $1B which is no easy feat. The public is a fickle fickle bunch that can turn on you like a pack of starving wolves.

Mel...

Zoombie
06-03-2009, 12:00 PM
The Twilight film is like beating your head against the wall.

Its one of the single worst films I've seen in centuries.

The fact that these actors have a future is mostly due to...the crack cocaine that SM was handing out alongside her copies of Twilight?

I dunnkow...

pixydust
06-03-2009, 12:13 PM
The Twilight film is like beating your head against the wall.

Its one of the single worst films I've seen in centuries.

The fact that these actors have a future is mostly due to...the crack cocaine that SM was handing out alongside her copies of Twilight?

I dunnkow... Apparently you haven't seen LOST BOYS 2 :D

Well, the girl who plays Bella is a fairly well-known actress. The trouble is most of the people who went to see TWILIGHT went because they'd read the book. The movie in itself wasn't anything that would have attracted anyone. Slow-moving, weak acting, all in a very dreary setting. And I really wasn't a fan of the FX.

Anyway, that movie doesn't really work, cause it wasn't about the movie, it was about the books.

STAR TREK had lesser known actors in it and it was an excellent movie.

childeroland
06-03-2009, 03:01 PM
The future of Hollywood is reboots, like they're rebooting Scream now. Scream. In five years they'll probably reboot Twilight anyway.

BenPanced
06-03-2009, 07:30 PM
Twilight hasn't even moved into "classic" status yet. It hasn't shown any legs as far as the standard Test of Time goes.

Cyia
06-03-2009, 07:55 PM
Twilight is a bad movie - not because of the content but because of the way it was made.
(and it's not a typical angsty vampire movie, either.)

Had a decent screenwriter taken the twilight story and fleshed it out a bit, it could have been a very good movie (the trailer made me think they'd done this with the action heavy sequencing, but alas...) The movie is mostly a chain of micro-scenes (maybe 1-2 minutes long) strung together by smash cuts.

They're in the woods. No, they're in the kitchen. No, they're in school - broody look - no, they're in the ballet studio.

And it does that for hours. If that's the new standard, I think I'll try watching radio.

BenPanced
06-03-2009, 08:31 PM
The future of Hollywood is reboots, like they're rebooting Scream now. Scream. If five years they'll probably reboot Twilight anyway.
Total Recall is going to be remade. (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/8080966.stm)

The script is being written by the guy who wrote the remake of The Thomas Crown Affair.

Maybe they can get the director who did the remake of Dr. Doolittle

pixydust
06-03-2009, 08:35 PM
Holy crap, can't they think of anything new? I can't believe they're remaking TOTAL RECALL! Very scary.

Cyia, I agree with you about the movie. It could have been so much better. They had a really cool opportunity with that movie and they just didn't take it. Oh well.

dgiharris
06-03-2009, 09:00 PM
remaking Total Recall?

Isn't there a rule that you can only remake hugely successful films and powerful storylines.

Yes, I liked Total Recall, but don't consider it a 'classic' worthy of a remake. WHy not just make another Mars movie?

I dunno, I predict a flop.

Mel...

James81
06-03-2009, 09:11 PM
The future of Hollywood is reboots, like they're rebooting Scream now. Scream. If five years they'll probably reboot Twilight anyway.

:roll:

Jesus. I liked the Scream movies, but a remake? This soon?


Total Recall is going to be remade. (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/8080966.stm)

The script is being written by the guy who wrote the remake of The Thomas Crown Affair.

Maybe they can get the director who did the remake of Dr. Doolittle

Total Recall starring The Rock and Rachel MacAdams (with Johnny Depp! as the alien who yells "Quaid").

ChunkyC
06-03-2009, 09:17 PM
Twilight did as well as it did because the fans of the book (tweens) wanted to see their heartthrob on the big screen and they got their wish. The script didn't matter, vampire-boy was uh-mah-gawd-gawgeaous and the poor little dears at the show I reviewed nearly wet themselves every time he appeared on screen. He didn't even have to say anything.

And this they believe is the future of Hollywood?

The Mayans may have been right and the world is coming to an end in 2012.

Cyia
06-03-2009, 09:24 PM
:roll:

Jesus. I liked the Scream movies, but a remake? This soon?



Total Recall starring The Rock and Rachel MacAdams (with Johnny Depp! as the alien who yells "Quaid").


Up next -- "Not Another Re-Made Movie" or "ReBoot: The Motion Picture" -- which will take a *cough* hilarious look at all of these remakes by satirizing them in a tongue in cheek style. Stars of the original films will play a mish-mash of themselves and their replacements and thereby get the last laugh. (at least until the film hits YouTube and people laugh at them for all the wrong reasons)

Kitty Pryde
06-03-2009, 09:33 PM
Total Recall is going to be remade. (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/8080966.stm)

The script is being written by the guy who wrote the remake of The Thomas Crown Affair.

Maybe they can get the director who did the remake of Dr. Doolittle

The thing is that Total Recall is 100% perfect in every way, so why bother remaking it? It's a masterpiece, alien conspiracies and 3-breasted hookers and Ah-nuld grunting his way through every scene. 'Start the reactor!'

This was also my problem with 'The Day the Earth Stood Still', 'How the Grinch Stole Christmas', 'Mr. Deeds' etc. Like, who is so conceited that they think they can improve upon a perfect work of art? And then, to produce not merely a lousy copy, but a massive flaming ball of poo instead? WTF? I'm just glad Robert Rodriguez backed out of remaking Barbarella because he had a fight with his mistress or whatevs.

Remake movies that could stand to be improved! Planet of the Apes, for example, COULD HAVE been improved, but that failed too.

clockwork
06-03-2009, 09:45 PM
Total Recall is going to be remade. (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/8080966.stm)

The script is being written by the guy who wrote the remake of The Thomas Crown Affair.

Maybe they can get the director who did the remake of Dr. Doolittle

Dude, they're even remaking, sorry, "rebooting" Cliffhanger (http://www.variety.com/index.asp?layout=festivals&jump=story&id=1061&articleid=VR1118003577&cs=1) with a young pack o' kids.

Cliffhanger! Yeah, it was a hit and it's camp and shamelessly entertaining but does it really need to be remade?

It's gonna be like Fast & Furious & Carabiners.

Zoombie
06-03-2009, 09:56 PM
Chummon Kohaagan! Jew have vhat khoo vant! GIVE DEES PEEPOLE AHUR!

James81
06-03-2009, 10:13 PM
Up next -- "Not Another Re-Made Movie" or "ReBoot: The Motion Picture" -- which will take a *cough* hilarious look at all of these remakes by satirizing them in a tongue in cheek style. Stars of the original films will play a mish-mash of themselves and their replacements and thereby get the last laugh. (at least until the film hits YouTube and people laugh at them for all the wrong reasons)

Ha ha, sad thing is, I can REALLY see that happening.

I give it 5 years before we see this movie.

Cyia
06-03-2009, 10:15 PM
Ha ha, sad thing is, I can REALLY see that happening.

I give it 5 years before we see this movie.

Give me 5 hours and I'll write it ;)

ChunkyC
06-03-2009, 10:29 PM
Just my opinion, but Total Recall exemplifies everything that is wrong with Hollywood's take on science fiction. But it was kinda fun in a ridiculous, over the top way. But a remake? What's next, remakes of the Ed Wood catalogue?

Plan Nine from Outer Space, the re-imagining: starring Jason Statham as the expressionless zombie ... typecasting, I know. ;)

James81
06-03-2009, 10:31 PM
I'm waiting for a Back to the Future reboot personally.

Kitty Pryde
06-03-2009, 10:33 PM
I'm waiting for a Back to the Future reboot personally.


You ought to be banned from the internet for even joking about that.

robeiae
06-03-2009, 10:40 PM
Remake movies that could stand to be improved! Planet of the Apes, for example, COULD HAVE been improved, but that failed too.
Insanity. You can't remake it and improve it. The cat's already out of the bag. I think people forget that the ending was--in its day--a shocker. It would be like remaking The Crying Game.

robeiae
06-03-2009, 10:43 PM
Just my opinion, but Total Recall exemplifies everything that is wrong with Hollywood's take on science fiction.
See, I think Total Recall is exactly the opposite. Take a small sci-fi idea--implanted vacation memories--and build a film around it.

James81
06-03-2009, 10:44 PM
You ought to be banned from the internet for even joking about that.

Ha ha, well, I know they are going to screw it up, but come on, you know it's eventually going to happen. I might as well look forward to it.

dgiharris
06-03-2009, 10:45 PM
I'm waiting for a Back to the Future reboot personally.


You ought to be banned from the internet for even joking about that.

I shit you not, I would riot in the streets if they did that.

And then I would follow the chain of emails and memos that led to such a horrid idea and if they come back to this thread, then James, sorry, but you must pay for what you have inadvertantly done.

Back to the Future was so 'perfect'. All three of them were incredible. How could you even think that? I mean, come on. There are some things that you just don't joke about.

Like juggling babies or lighting kittens on fire. Uh uh, no no, not funny!!!

Mel...

Smileycat
06-03-2009, 10:57 PM
There is a lot of brouhaha about the new Twilight trailer, but I think I expected more when I saw it. Morphing into a wolf was the little kid from SharkBoy and Lavagirl, Taylor Lautner in the role of Jacob.

I kept picturing him with shark teeth. Almost!!! :hooray:

I was also not that impressed with the original movie. Teen flick!

Kitty Pryde
06-03-2009, 11:00 PM
Just my opinion, but Total Recall exemplifies everything that is wrong with Hollywood's take on science fiction. But it was kinda fun in a ridiculous, over the top way. But a remake?


See, I think Total Recall is exactly the opposite. Take a small sci-fi idea--implanted vacation memories--and build a film around it.

Yup. There's a lot of explosions and muscle-flexing and cheesiness going on, but the plot is quite intellectual. I've seen it like 30 times, and every time I marvel at how well they constructed the ambiguity of the MC (is he really evil, but now choosing to be good? or is he really evil, and finally getting to complete his mission? you can never figure it out! and neither can he!) I also think it's a great use of neat sci-fi tropes like mars, colonies, 'gritty' future, conspiracies, aliens, superstructures, cabals of evil, etc.

Also, the Kuato cameo in the South Park episode 'Asspen' nearly caused me to pee my pants.

triceretops
06-03-2009, 11:01 PM
Hah, Logan's Run is slated for a 2010 remake. Now that just tears it.

Twilight wouldn't have anything going for it as a stand-alone script without the preceding book and hoopala that raised the ruckus.

Tri

Cyia
06-03-2009, 11:08 PM
So when are they overhauling the 6th Sense?

Zoombie
06-04-2009, 12:09 AM
Kitty: Do you think that it was all a dream?

I think it was all a dream (Total Recall that is).

pixydust
06-04-2009, 12:23 AM
I'd like to know why they still haven't made CHIPS into a movie. :D We had DUKES OF HAZARD and STARSKY AND HUTCH. :p

Kitty Pryde
06-04-2009, 12:29 AM
Kitty: Do you think that it was all a dream?

I think it was all a dream (Total Recall that is).

Well, there's no implication anywhere that it's a dream. Do you mean, do I think it's a falsely implanted spy vacation memory? No, there's evidence that it's not (like his nightmares beforehand, and his construction buddy). Do I think it really happened? No, there's evidence that it didn't really happen (like him choosing the hot chick he wants at Rekall). The beauty of the movie is that, like Quaid, I have no way of knowing what really happened to him.

Zoombie
06-04-2009, 12:30 AM
:D

I know, tis awesome!

Paul Verhoven is one of my all time favorite directors EVER.

ChunkyC
06-04-2009, 01:48 AM
See, I think Total Recall is exactly the opposite. Take a small sci-fi idea--implanted vacation memories--and build a film around it.

Yup. There's a lot of explosions and muscle-flexing and cheesiness going on, but the plot is quite intellectual. I've seen it like 30 times, and every time I marvel at how well they constructed the ambiguity of the MC (is he really evil, but now choosing to be good? or is he really evil, and finally getting to complete his mission? you can never figure it out! and neither can he!) I also think it's a great use of neat sci-fi tropes like mars, colonies, 'gritty' future, conspiracies, aliens, superstructures, cabals of evil, etc.
The idea was great. After all, it was based on a Philip K. Dick short story, and PKD was a genius. I just hated the silliness with the tri-boobies, Arnie pulling a golf ball sized gadget through his left nostril, and the bug-eyed nonsense when outside on the Martian surface, all that typical " 'wouldn't this look cool' and then trying to shoehorn it into the story " crap.


Kitty: Do you think that it was all a dream?

I think it was all a dream (Total Recall that is).
That would make all the stuff I object to in the film more palatable since in a dream anything can happen. :)

I'd like to know why they still haven't made CHIPS into a movie. :D We had DUKES OF HAZARD and STARSKY AND HUTCH. :p
NOW you're talking! Hmm, who has enough teeth to play Ponch?

Zoombie
06-04-2009, 01:55 AM
The bugged stuff and the triboobs were like the third best part of the movie!

ChunkyC
06-04-2009, 02:10 AM
We're gonna have to watch stuff together sometime, it'll be a riot razzin' each other about what we do and don't like about a film. :)



Third best? :roll:

Zoombie
06-04-2009, 02:11 AM
You'd have to bring the popcorn!

katiemac
06-04-2009, 03:53 AM
As others have mentioned, the success of the Twilight movie had nothing to do with the cast. Fans of the book would see it anyway, so I see this as a very poor example for the article to choose.

Now, let's see what happens when The Hangover comes out on Friday. That's going to have a great box office and the most well-known cast member is Ed Helms (The Office/Daily Show). Maybe then we can talk about a movie that truly does well despite the relatively unknown cast.

The reason "star power" isn't a big deal anymore is because a lot of Hollywood has degenerated to the tabloids. There just aren't any superstar actors out there. No one has stepped into Julia Roberts' or Tom Hanks' shoes yet, and current audiences don't really care if they're in movie or not.

And let's not forget: Reboots and remakes are different things. Not that I'm really happy original content is getting shoved to the wayside, but Scream, for example, is a reboot - not a remake.

mario_c
06-04-2009, 10:49 AM
What Katie said. Reboots are IMHO a wonderful thing - original and outrageous takes on genres that look like they have run out of ideas, be it sports movies (The Wrestler) or vigilante movies (Gran Torino) or superhero action (Watchmen* or Dark Knight).
Remakes are a different matter. And remakes, I'd like to point out, are not inherently evil. Nosferatu was a gem of the silent era and old school horror in general...and the 70s Herzog / Kinski version was a masterpiece too. Invasion of the Body Snatchers has been remade 4 times - FOUR! - and version #2 will probably stand the test of time. There are remakes as well that make a unique spin on the original material, such as Guess Who flip-flopping the original incendiary interracial drama for a modern day audience (I haven't watched the movie, so I don't know how it turned out) or The Stepford Wives turned into a big gay nightmare of life in Connecticut. :ROFL:
If the source material is horrible, the remake will be horrible. If there is no effort to creatively remold the material - same as any crap spec or WIP, the results will be crap.

*I know, it was written in the 70s. But it still stands.

christinalbarr
06-04-2009, 11:16 AM
I'm not a big fan of the Twilight series. Actually, after I read Twilight, I got the complete confidence to write my novel. I didn't get a lot of subsistence from it, but I guess I do owe it a little bit.

But I kind of thought the movie was a decent interpretation of the book. I know they cut out a lot of stuff, but Bella didn't even think about vampires until like chapter ten. I really wasn't motivated to watch Twilight if it had been longer than what it was.

I did like Edward. It wasn't like I imagined, but it was cute and very funny to me. I did not find him attractive though.

The fight scene at the end was like a push, but it was more than what we read in the first book so I guess that was kind of a plus.

I was not impressed with the acting and I'm not sure what the cast of Twilight plans to do with so many impressive actors joining the cast of New Moon. I think they might be screwed.

robeiae
06-04-2009, 11:20 PM
And let's not forget: Reboots and remakes are different things. Not that I'm really happy original content is getting shoved to the wayside, but Scream, for example, is a reboot - not a remake.
Eye of the beholder, no?

They're all remakes, to me. A real "reboot" was jettison everything, making it a completely different movie and making the comparison pointless.

This "reboot" stuff is just a transparent attempt to get a around the automatic negative associations of a remake, imo.

brainstorm77
06-04-2009, 11:24 PM
I enjoyed the book. I finally got around to reading it and while the writing wasn't the best and I found it dragged at times I liked it. I did however dislike the movie.

James81
06-04-2009, 11:25 PM
Eye of the beholder, no?

They're all remakes, to me. A real "reboot" was jettison everything, making it a completely different movie and making the comparison pointless.

This "reboot" stuff is just a transparent attempt to get a around the automatic negative associations of a remake, imo.

I think the difference is apparent enough to merit mentioning though.

A reboot is essentially saying "Ok, we're going to use the characters (or the ones we like best) to make an entirely new and different story."

A remake is essentially saying "We're going to take the original script, modernize it a bit, and change a few other things but try to follow the original story as closely as we deem necessary."

Subtle difference, but different enough to warrant two different terms.

James81
06-04-2009, 11:27 PM
Plus, I think that a reboot is more likely to have sequels than a remake.

robeiae
06-04-2009, 11:30 PM
I think the difference is apparent enough to merit mentioning though.

A reboot is essentially saying "Ok, we're going to use the characters (or the ones we like best) to make an entirely new and different story."

A remake is essentially saying "We're going to take the original script, modernize it a bit, and change a few other things but try to follow the original story as closely as we deem necessary."

Subtle difference, but different enough to warrant two different terms.
So, the Scream "reboot" might be a kids' flick about magic ponies?

No, it's more than just the characters that are retained. You'll have to draw a line in there, somewhere. Who gets to draw that line? I'll tell you: studio execs looking to utilize the concept to make money.

It's still arbitrary and still pointless, imo. They're all remakes. Another term does nothing for me.

James81
06-04-2009, 11:39 PM
So, the Scream "reboot" might be a kids' flick about magic ponies?

No, it's more than just the characters that are retained. You'll have to draw a line in there, somewhere. Who gets to draw that line? I'll tell you: studio execs looking to utilize the concept to make money.

It's still arbitrary and still pointless, imo. They're all remakes. Another term does nothing for me.

I dunno. In my mind, when I think "remake," I expect to see the same movie done over with different actors in maybe a more modern setting. (I'm think of The Time Machine as a good example of this)

When I think "reboot," I don't expect to see the same movie at all. I'm thinking Batman as the best example.

katiemac
06-04-2009, 11:39 PM
I think the difference is apparent enough to merit mentioning though.

A reboot is essentially saying "Ok, we're going to use the characters (or the ones we like best) to make an entirely new and different story."

A remake is essentially saying "We're going to take the original script, modernize it a bit, and change a few other things but try to follow the original story as closely as we deem necessary."

Subtle difference, but different enough to warrant two different terms.

Right. I'm not arguing the point of originality. Star Trek and Batman were a true reboots, and because of that, I think a lot of these remakes/reboots are going to attempt to get away with referring to their film as something more original (ie, a reboot) because of its success. TV is doing it, too, in Melrose Place and 90210. Those are true reboots.

But I mentioned the Scream movie in particular because it doesn't sound like a true remake. People are saying, "What, so soon? That's ridiculous." I completely agree, but since they're trying to bring back Courtney Cox and David Arquette it sounds, at the very least, like a delayed sequel.

robeiae
06-04-2009, 11:47 PM
Here are three movies:

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0029606/
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0047522/
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0075265/

They have some different characters, different locations, different scenes, and different dialogue, yet I've never heard anyone suggest that that second two were not remakes of the first.

You guys can call something a "reboot," if you are so inclined. But there's no true objective standard. So you can't say a reboot and a remake are different things. It's marketing, nothing more.

James81
06-04-2009, 11:52 PM
Here are three movies:

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0029606/
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0047522/
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0075265/

They have some different characters, different locations, different scenes, and different dialogue, yet I've never heard anyone suggest that that second two were not remakes of the first.

You guys can call something a "reboot," if you are so inclined. But there's no true objective standard. So you can't say a reboot and a remake are different things. It's marketing, nothing more.

I think that's where you are getting hung up. Remakes DO have different things in them, but they closely parallel the original storyline. Like in The Time Machine, you still had Morlocks in both movies, him travelling some ungodly distance in the future, and meeting the people who were afraid to fight, etc.

In Batman Begins, they threw out all the stuff from Batman 1989 and took it on a completely different tangent. There is nothing even remotely similar between Batman 1989 and Batman Begins (or The Dark Knight for that matter), except for a few of the characters being the "same" (name only, as they are completely different interpretations).

You're probably right about the marketing to a certain degree. When I hear "reboot," I immediately start thinking that there is going to be sequels. When I hear "remake," I don't expect a sequel at all.

katiemac
06-04-2009, 11:55 PM
They have some different characters, different locations, different scenes, and different dialogue, yet I've never heard anyone suggest that that second two were not remakes of the first.

You guys can call something a "reboot," if you are so inclined. But there's no true objective standard. So you can't say a reboot and a remake are different things. It's marketing, nothing more.

I agree with you. But my main point was with the new Scream "reboot." People were referring to it as a remake in this thread, which it isn't. It's more like a sequel. The studio is calling it a reboot, whatever that means to them marketing-wise, and I agree it doesn't matter much. But if it is a sequel, does that make it a remake? In the barest bones of what a remake is, sure, maybe.

It does make me wonder why they want to call it a reboot instead of a sequel if it includes the old cast - and that's where the marketing point comes in. Studios will jump on that title because it's the popular thing to do.

robeiae
06-05-2009, 12:04 AM
I agree with you. But my main point was with the new Scream "reboot." People were referring to it as a remake in this thread, which it isn't. It's more like a sequel. The studio is calling it a reboot, whatever that means to them marketing-wise, and I agree it doesn't matter much. But if it is a sequel, does that make it a remake? In the barest bones of what a remake is, sure, maybe.

It does make me wonder why they want to call it a reboot instead of a sequel if it includes the old cast - and that's where the marketing point comes in. Studios will jump on that title because it's the popular thing to do.
Fair enough. My bone of contention was the idea that a "reboot" was actually a real, objective thing, and different from a remake. It's not.

As to marketing, remakes are made because they can be marketed as such, the idea being that people will want to see a newer version of a "classic." But as the movie industry has grown, the numbers of remakes have climbed. And the negatives of a remake--"they'll screw up a great movie," etc--are starting to outweigh the positives, I think. So someone came up with the term "reboot." Just marketing, nothing more.

robeiae
06-05-2009, 12:13 AM
I think that's where you are getting hung up. Remakes DO have different things in them, but they closely parallel the original storyline. Like in The Time Machine, you still had Morlocks in both movies, him travelling some ungodly distance in the future, and meeting the people who were afraid to fight, etc.

In Batman Begins, they threw out all the stuff from Batman 1989 and took it on a completely different tangent. There is nothing even remotely similar between Batman 1989 and Batman Begins (or The Dark Knight for that matter), except for a few of the characters being the "same" (name only, as they are completely different interpretations).You're shifting around, James. Just face it: a "reboot" has no solid definition. Ask twenty people to contrast it with a remake and you'll get twenty different answers.

And btw, there are very few similarties in the third A Star is Born, as comapred to the others. Have you seen these movies? Still, it's a remake.

There are plenty of other examples. Like The Front Page, His Girl Friday, and The Front Page...

As to Batman, you're way off. I pity you if Celia sees this. Batman Begins is based on different material than Batman from 1989.

ChunkyC
06-05-2009, 12:13 AM
In Batman Begins, they threw out all the stuff from Batman 1989 and took it on a completely different tangent. There is nothing even remotely similar between Batman 1989 and Batman Begins (or The Dark Knight for that matter), except for a few of the characters being the "same" (name only, as they are completely different interpretations).
I tend to agree with the idea of a reboot being different from a remake, though the robstinator is right about how easily blurred the line between the two can be and how, if reboot ever did have a chance of being a credible film 'type', that chance has been lost in the reimagining/reboot hype of the past few years.

My example of a proper, recognizable reboot would be the new Star Trek flick. It is not a remaking of any of the previous Trek films in any way. Rather, it is an entirely new film that makes radical changes in the canon that set the franchise on an entirely new course.

robeiae
06-05-2009, 12:15 AM
I'm a reboot of ChunkyC.

ChunkyC
06-05-2009, 12:18 AM
You're tall and skinny? ;)

robeiae
06-05-2009, 12:22 AM
My example of a proper, recognizable reboot would be the new Star Trek flick. It is not a remaking of any of the previous Trek films in any way. Rather, it is an entirely new film that makes radical changes in the canon that set the franchise on an entirely new course.
Why not call it what it is: a new Star Trek film? Why append needless jargon, apart from it sounding cool? ;)

ChunkyC
06-05-2009, 12:31 AM
You certainly have a point.

I think the key thing for using the term reboot is that there's an attempt to repair or revitalize a series that's associated with the term. There's an acknowledgment that the series has run its course and needs to have something drastic done otherwise it's all over. A reboot deliberately takes a big step away from the previous films.

On the other hand, a new film is just a new film.

Anyway, that's just how I happen to think the term should be used if it's going to have any merit. It ain't too likely, though, because the marketing department has already appropriated it and 'rebooted' it into something completely different. ;)

dgiharris
06-08-2009, 03:37 AM
Well,

So I finally saw Twilight. Thank god I waited for this to come out on DVD.

The movie was so-so. Not really a coherent story. Some cool elements in there but overall, it was more like a good idea than a good movie.

Mel....

robeiae
06-08-2009, 03:51 AM
But...but...but...the SPARKLES!

Cyia
06-08-2009, 03:59 AM
But...but...but...the SPARKLES!


What sparkles? He looked like someone smeared Vicks Vapo-Rub on his chest. The single biggest defining characteristic of the main character and they blew it.

BenPanced
06-08-2009, 05:05 AM
With all of robieeieoiaeiuoaeio's discussion on "remake" and "reboot", I have only one thing to say to him.

Reimagining.

*runs*

ChunkyC
06-08-2009, 06:16 PM
:roll:

robeiae
06-08-2009, 06:17 PM
Very funny, Dr. Jones...very funny...

DavidZahir
06-09-2009, 09:55 PM
Don't know why people are so up-in-arms about remakes.

The Maltese Falcon was a remake. Actually it was the third remake. Yes, I'm talking about the Humphrey Bogart film.

Dracula has been filmed how many times? Ditto The Hound of the Baskervilles or Pride and Prejudice as well as Richard III. For that matter, the classic Wizard of Oz was something like the tenth Oz movie (a previous one starred Laurel and Hardy). Frankly IMHO the best version of Peter Pan was not the Disney film but the live-action flick a few years back with Jason Isaacs and Rachel Hurd Wood.

Yeah, plenty of remakes are crap. But most movies are. So are most novels. The fact is, now and then Hollywood gets these fads of one kind or another. Right now they're trying to base a lot of movies on time-tested original material. For awhile there caper movies were all the rage. Such things come and go. It has its benefits and its drawbacks. And it isn't as if only one trend is going on at any given time.

Cyia
06-09-2009, 11:30 PM
Don't know why people are so up-in-arms about remakes.

The Maltese Falcon was a remake. Actually it was the third remake. Yes, I'm talking about the Humphrey Bogart film.

Dracula has been filmed how many times? Ditto The Hound of the Baskervilles or Pride and Prejudice as well as Richard III. For that matter, the classic Wizard of Oz was something like the tenth Oz movie (a previous one starred Laurel and Hardy). Frankly IMHO the best version of Peter Pan was not the Disney film but the live-action flick a few years back with Jason Isaacs and Rachel Hurd Wood.

Yes, but up until recently (say the 1970's) movie remakes served a different kind of audience. No one - when The Maltese Falcon or The Wizard of Oz came out - had a home collection of favorite films. You couldn't pop in a DVD (or VHS or BetaMax...) of something and watch it 20 times, you had to trek down to the theater and pay out some money to see it on the screen. The only comparison available was in the memory of people who may or may not have seen the last version.

Now, people have their favorites. Harrison Ford IS Indiana Jones and Han Solo. Period. Daniel Radcliffe IS Harry Potter. Elijah Wood IS Frodo. Anything altering those perceptions is going to be met with automatic doubt because of the availability of the defining versions.

James81
06-09-2009, 11:41 PM
Now, people have their favorites. Harrison Ford IS Indiana Jones and Han Solo. Period. Daniel Radcliffe IS Harry Potter. Elijah Wood IS Frodo. Anything altering those perceptions is going to be met with automatic doubt because of the availability of the defining versions.

I agree with you, but I have to point out something:

Up until a year ago, Jack Nicholoson WAS the Joker. :D

katiemac
06-09-2009, 11:52 PM
I don't have a problem with remakes, either, but it's getting tiresome because the sheer balance of remakes/reboots/reimagings vs. original content is out of whack.

I mean, let's look -- Up vs. The Hangover. Two original movies, both beat the crap out of The Land of the Lost this weekend. Obviously original movies can make money (and be made cheaply -- Hangover has no "big name" talent) so let's spend more time developing those. Way more interesting than another remake of Friday the 13th or Final Destination.

Cyia
06-09-2009, 11:56 PM
I agree with you, but I have to point out something:

Up until a year ago, Jack Nicholoson WAS the Joker. :D

Yeah, but he wasn't the best one ;). That's the difference in people being able to go back over older versions of a character. They don't have to "remember" what someone was like in a role, they can go back and re-watch it whenever they want. Then they can put the two side by side.

(Land of the Lost isn't a fair comparison. It was handicapped by having Will Farrel in it.)

Kitty Pryde
06-09-2009, 11:57 PM
I'm not up in arms about remakes at all. I'm just up in arms about lousy remakes. There are several things going on:

1. Movie/show so good it cannot be improved gets remade. Why? Why bother when you know what you end up with will be WORSE? For instance How The Grinch Stole Christmas. Perfect in every way. Remade starring Jim Carrey, into a giant barrel of flaming poop.

2. Movie/show with such wretched source material that, even if the remake is better, it will still suck. 'Land of the Lost' is pushing dangerously into this territory. A lot of people liked the show, or at least feel nostalgic about it, but it is itself a giant barrel of flaming poop. 'The Hills Have Eyes' is another good example of this. It's hard for me to judge which one is more awful, but I'm leaning toward the remake.

3. Decent movie that needs to be remade so it can be better and/or gain a wider audience. This barely ever happens! Why can't it happen more? The best example I can think of is the Evil Dead movies. Evil Dead Two is a higher-budget remake of Evil Dead, and Army of Darkness is a even-higher budget remake of Evil Dead Two. (It's possibly a debatable point, but 1 and 2 have the exact same plot, and AoD is more of exactly the same, with a larger scope and a better budget.) My point is that Raimi wanted to do better, and Evil Dead, as awesome as it is, could easily be improved upon. The Bird Cage is another example of a good movie getting remade to reach a wider audience.


Don't know why people are so up-in-arms about remakes.

The Maltese Falcon was a remake. Actually it was the third remake. Yes, I'm talking about the Humphrey Bogart film.

Dracula has been filmed how many times? Ditto The Hound of the Baskervilles or Pride and Prejudice as well as Richard III. For that matter, the classic Wizard of Oz was something like the tenth Oz movie (a previous one starred Laurel and Hardy). Frankly IMHO the best version of Peter Pan was not the Disney film but the live-action flick a few years back with Jason Isaacs and Rachel Hurd Wood.

Yeah, plenty of remakes are crap. But most movies are. So are most novels. The fact is, now and then Hollywood gets these fads of one kind or another. Right now they're trying to base a lot of movies on time-tested original material. For awhile there caper movies were all the rage. Such things come and go. It has its benefits and its drawbacks. And it isn't as if only one trend is going on at any given time.

robeiae
06-10-2009, 12:04 AM
Yes, but up until recently (say the 1970's) movie remakes served a different kind of audience. No one - when The Maltese Falcon or The Wizard of Oz came out - had a home collection of favorite films. You couldn't pop in a DVD (or VHS or BetaMax...) of something and watch it 20 times, you had to trek down to the theater and pay out some money to see it on the screen. The only comparison available was in the memory of people who may or may not have seen the last version.

Excellent observations.

And don't forget, there was no HBO, Skinamax, Showtime, or even TNT and its "Charles Bronson Week," either. Sometimes, movies shown at a theater might not be seen again for years and years by the general public.

Zoombie
06-10-2009, 12:42 AM
Actually, Evil Dead 2 is NOT a remake. Its a sequel.

The first 10 minuets of the film were shot becuase they could not get the rights to the original film. It was supposed to be a recap showing scenes from the prior film and resuming right when Ash gets hit in the face by the CAM -O-EVIL. But, as they could not use stuff from the old film, they just shot a super quick recap.

Notice how the pace of the first 10 minuets is SUPER fast, but then it slooooooooows down once Ash has been hit by the CAM-O-EVIL? That's intentional. Its a sort of, "Hey, this is what happened last time, now here we GOOOOOO" sorta thing.

Then Army of Darkness was a direct sequel to Evil Dead 2.

So, Evil Dead is Ash's time in the house. Then Evil Dead 2 is him trying to survive another night there. Then Army of Darkness is his final battle with the Necronomicon in the past.

But, all together...they are...

GROOVY!

BenPanced
06-10-2009, 12:55 AM
The rate that movies are currently getting remade and what's getting done are what, I think, are also main sticking points. It just seems like a lot of these movies are getting cranked out like so much bad sausage meat, many times to the rallying cry "Did we even ASK for a remake of this?!" (Nobody I know has been hankering for a big screen edition of Land of the Lost, much less one starring Will Farrell.) Back in the day, you could count on the big screen version of something to just be an extension of the TV series currently on the air, though, which is what they did with Batman, but that was screamingly popular and still fresh in everybody's minds when they went to go see it.

Kitty Pryde
06-10-2009, 12:56 AM
Actually, Evil Dead 2 is NOT a remake. Its a sequel.

The first 10 minuets of the film were shot becuase they could not get the rights to the original film. It was supposed to be a recap showing scenes from the prior film and resuming right when Ash gets hit in the face by the CAM -O-EVIL. But, as they could not use stuff from the old film, they just shot a super quick recap.

Notice how the pace of the first 10 minuets is SUPER fast, but then it slooooooooows down once Ash has been hit by the CAM-O-EVIL? That's intentional. Its a sort of, "Hey, this is what happened last time, now here we GOOOOOO" sorta thing.

Then Army of Darkness was a direct sequel to Evil Dead 2.

So, Evil Dead is Ash's time in the house. Then Evil Dead 2 is him trying to survive another night there. Then Army of Darkness is his final battle with the Necronomicon in the past.

But, all together...they are...

GROOVY!

Like I said, it's debatable. But the plot of the first two are identical. And in Bruce Campbell's autobiography he basically says that Raimi wanted the chance to remake Evil Dead more the way he envisioned it, since he was constrained by an extremely low budget in the first one. And ditto for AoD. (Umm, I don't have his book here in the office with me, or else i would quote...)

Zoombie
06-10-2009, 02:41 AM
Hurm.

Well, both ways work.

The second one is my favorite...right mix of slapstick and BOO jump in your face horror.

K. Taylor
06-10-2009, 03:27 AM
"Splatstick".

ChunkyC
06-10-2009, 07:42 PM
"Splatstick".
Oh no, another Hollywood genre! :roll:

K. Taylor
06-11-2009, 04:53 AM
Blame Sam Raimi for that. It's mentioned in the special features. :D

mario_c
06-11-2009, 06:50 AM
Speaking of Splatstick (like!) how could I forget....The Fly! Stupid 50s monster movie (albeit with a freaky scary finale) put in the hands of the great David Cronenberg. Cerebral and high concept and gruesomely gory and romantic. Now that's how to remake a monster movie.

*goes off to rewrite The Brain That Wouldn't Die some more*