A CASE OF THE RE’S: THE REBOOT, REMAKE, & REIMAGINING 2.0 Comments - Mania.com



COMMENTS AND RESPONSES

Showing items 31 - 40 of 88
<<  <  1 2 3 4 5 6 7 >  >>  
SarcasticCaveman 4/17/2012 8:27:32 PM

hanso - apparently Tom Cruise's craziness doesn't piss people off nearly as much as James Cameron's ham-handedness...I know, I can't believe it either.  Seriously though, I guess Avatar just didn't appeal to me because aside from the first Terminator, I'm really not a fan of Cameron's work, hence I bag on it.  That's about it.

jsmulligan - good call on the Star Trek thoughts.  I wonder if they're going to try an ongoing series any time soon.  At one time there was a 26th century cartoon series that was proposed and actually sounded somewhat interesting, but never panned out.

RodThunderBalls 4/17/2012 9:23:50 PM

Someone said that they only like a Re-do if it's done right, well duh, that's like saying I only like a cookie if tastes good.

A movie version of a show does not shit on the cannon of previous entries because you don't have to let it be part of your experience. If you don't like it, keep it out of your collection, or label it "Alternate Reality Version" on the case. The fact is, what you remember and enjoy is still there. Besides, if you didn't like it, they'll probably re-do it again anyway.

And as a long time Trek fan, the new Trek was great! The only thing I had a problem with was the size of the Romulan mining ship. Why is a mining ship that effing huge and that well armed? I mean it was like 100 x's bigger than the Enterprise. In any case, still a great movie.

So, I'll still shell out my ducats to find that lump of gold in the steaming mess that are Re-do's, because I love movies and watching crap is part of the deal.

 

keithdaniel 4/18/2012 12:28:24 AM

Jarret, I have to disagree strongly with you stating that the original Fright Night and Conan weren't that great to begin with.  Both not only did reasonably well at the box office at the time but also have an even stronger following over the years and are seen as classics of their respective genres!

Violator and Monkeyfoot, I think you guys are missing something about the concept of plot ideas.  It's not that it's wrong to keep using general ideas that have been used before, but Avatar has failed to put enough of a "spin" on the concepts of it's already cliched story devices, especially when that's been done much better before in past movies.  Sarcastic Caveman is very right in many ways about Avatar.  It had too many similarities to Dances with Wolves which he's pointed out in detail.  However, despite it's similarities,  I think Dances with Wolves was a much superior film, with much, much better writing and with much better direction.  The reason I say this is because even though Dances with Wolves's plot wasn't totally original itself, it was the "spin"  that Kevin Costner and his writers put on that idea that made it great.  Like the relationship between the John Dumbar character and the Mary McDonnoll character Stands with a Fist, it was much better believable and acted, as was the rest of the cast throughtout that movie, including his friendship with Graham Greene's character Kicking Bird.  A big part of their relationship was of Dumbar's need to develep a friendship with the Sioux (as well as his reluctance to tell KB about the coming white settlers whom he knew would eventually take over the lands) while KB wanted to know more about Dumbar as well as his need to know about those same settlers.  Another was the way we saw how lonely Dumbar was during the first act of the movie, especially the scenes at the fort.  From there, we had a deep seeded rooting interest that made us want to see that character not only succeed in his quest to establish contact with the Sioux tribe but also to befriend them.  Avatar never gave us such rooting interest nor did it give us interesting enough characters.

Hanso, although I sometimes agree with many critics on many movies, I also disagree with many of them on many movies.  For example, did you know that Psycho wasn't well received by critics at the time?  Certainly not as well as it's seen now.  Blade Runner also wasn't well received by the majority of them when it came out either, yet both went on to become all-time classics!  As for the Academy Awards, don't make me laugh my ass off!!  Last time I checked not only do they rarely reward comedy, but there's no end to their snotty snubbing!!  Excalibur wasn't nominated for anything other than cinematography, Blade Runner (likely because it was so much ahead of it's time) was only nominated for set direction and visual effects, and TDK wasn't nominated for any of the major awards like best director and best picture!!  Not to mention the slew of actors and actresses that it snubbed over the years who are too many to name.  

Mind you, I enjoyed Avatar, just not nearly as much as some others here have.  I think Shac is right, it had a very weak script from Cameron who should've written a much better story, especially after not having directed a movie for so long, I was expecting much better from an extremely talented director like himself.  Avatar borrowed way too much from other movies without placing enough of it's own spin on it, and that to me is why it has failed or disappointed me creatively in a big way, even though I still enjoyed other aspects of it which still lead me to recommend it overall.

Concerning remakes or reboots, I agree with virtually everything that Eagle has said.  They are rarely done right and should be done only if there's another way to creatively spin it so it'll stand on it's on.  Hollywood is obviously too lazy to create it's own ideas because of many reasons.  They're not run by creative people but by marketing and money people as well as those who ascended to their positions politically.  Another reason is that it's easy to already go with ideas from past movies that have proven to have been successful.  The latter reason is the more justified of the two.    

hanso 4/18/2012 3:59:39 AM

Sarcastic , if u don't like Avatar that's cool, u got ur own stuff going on,likes and dislikes etc.  I don't got no prob with who don't like a flick for whatever reason, my problemis with the mindless hating bastards who have to hate on it cause it'd was successful.  So many soulless summer blockbusters deserving of true hate but those get a pass and get the old "it ain't Shakespeare, turn your brain off"excuse.

Keith, regardless of ur take on critics, awards, etc, what I was trying to get at is that u can't suck and be this whole unoriginal thing that audiences, critics and the people making flicks agree that it's good.  

Is Avatar perfect? No.  But it also ain't what The haters be out there trying to make peeps believe.

Wiseguy 4/18/2012 7:01:10 AM

Agree with most of what hanso said except that the TDK hate is more played out than the Avatar hate, not so. The TDK hate is mild by comparison, it's only a few of us that really don't dig TDK and like I've always maintained for me it's the realism part of it. If I want a crime/drama I'll watch that. I want my Batman fully immersed in all the DCU goodness and folklore. The Avatar hate is just people hating Cameron and the fact that he owns the 2 biggest films ever and despite all the hate he keeps succeeding and across different genres too

And yeah let's reiterate the point of all the same folk bitching about lack of original material yet never rewarding the risks. Excellent point with Cabin in the Woods but it's one that can be made most weeks. I go to the movies probably around 50xs a year, I'll put my money where my mouth is.....most of the time
 

violator14 4/18/2012 9:07:01 AM

Hanso- Going gangster yo!!!! I love it! lol

Keith-I agree with what you said about Dunbar's relationships with 2 Indians were good "spins" and well written. But remember when i said on my last post "OH and from what I remember, Dances with Wolves, didn't have crazy ass creatures, giant robot suits, amazing glowing plant and wildlife that can communicate with each other, floating mountains, riding flying dragons, spaceships, other crazy sci-fi stuff, and a GIANT EPIC battle in the end........ well from what i remember. So ya, to me, the 2 movies were pretty different. haha" ....... i enjoyed those  "SPINS" on the story much more than Dunbar smoking with Kicking Bird.... haha

 

keithdaniel 4/18/2012 9:30:51 AM

Wise, I don't want to get into another Batman debate again but I see where you're coming from in regards to Nolan's Batman.  As much as I love his overall take on the franchise, the ultra-realism part of it I don't think was neccessary.  So yeah, we agree that Batman should belong in the DC Universe.  However, that doesn't mean that a character like Batman can't still be done well outside of that as Nolan, IMO, has proved.  I think your condemning of his Batman because of one aspect of his vision that we don't agree with is being quite hard, although you're entitled to it.  I still think Nolan had many other aspects to his Batman movies that make them more than worthy of viewing.  The Burton Batman had a terrific "fantasy" element to them yet I think suffered way too much in it's lack of story, miscasted actors, and hurried pace.  His Batman concept seemed more made to entertain with it's overall spectacle rather than with it's story and characters and also could've been taken much more seriously without losing it's fantasy or DCU appeal like the Batman animated series from the 90's.  IMO, if Nolan had kept his Batman in the DCU it would've been the perfect Batman franchise and we would've been able to see it continue in the future after TDKR with others taking over like they have with the James Bond series.

Overall, Avatar was very entertaining no doubt about it.  It had amazing visuals, fascinating creatures, exotic backgrounds, some terrific action sequences, and some very interesting ideas.  However, I still maintain that a lot more could've been done to spin the story into something much better than what we ended up having and he also could've done much more with the one-dimensional characters.  A very entertaining ride overall, but one that could've been so much better had Cameron taken the time to develop his script.  As a result, I believe Avatar was also made to entertain with it's overall outside spectacle rather than from within it's story and characters.  BTW, Cameron is being sued by someone who claims he stole his idea.

shac2846 4/18/2012 9:41:40 AM

 I guess that's what I was trying to say too  Wise I also put my money where my mouth is and it's sad that like Hanso said Three Stooges beat out Cabin this week. Cabin in the Woods is a genre fans geek dream and it almost never saw the light of day even when the financial BS with MGM got worked out because execs were too afraid people wouldn't get it. I took some friends too see it with me friday who didn't know anything about it and were really skeptical. They left wanting to go back and see it again. Like I said if something like Cabin got even a small fraction of the notice something shitty like GI Joe gets it would make some execs stand up and take notice. 

And I still love me some Avatar. I can't wait for 2 and 3, I was just saying I thought maybe it was one of Cameron's weeker scripts. But Cameron's weaker script is still better than most of the $@!t that comes out in a given year. Hell most of the stuff that comes out in a decade as is proof by how hungry the movies were for him to come back. It made a billion, that's billion with a B!

keithdaniel 4/18/2012 10:06:15 AM

Violator, the way I see it, Dances with Wolves didn't need any sci-fi or big action aspects to be a great movie.  It also didn't need an enormous or insane budget the likes of which Cameron is responsible for in a big way.  His history has shown that he's pushed big budgeted films to the limit making him a careless spendthrift, The Abyss (budget 70 million), Terminator 2 (budget 102 million), True Lies (budget 100 million), Titanic (budget 200 million), and Avatar (budget 250-300 million) all we're either among the biggest or the biggest budgeted movies of their time.  He needs to revisit history to see that not only have other films been made for much less and still became great but he's also done the same thing with both Terminator (budget 6.5 million) and Aliens (budget 18.5 million).  He needs to be reminded of the fact that it's not how much money you have in a movie budget but what you do with what you have.  Art is best created when you're forced to be creative, especially when you have financial restraints.

violator14 4/18/2012 10:21:55 AM

Keith-Are we talking about accounting and budgeting here, or what we enjoyed in movies??? Cuz im talking about the latter. I could care less if they spend $100 or 100 million on a movie as long as I enjoyed it.

Oh and i have 2 words for your precious Kevin Costner and his low-budget-forced-to-be-creative directed films..... "The Postman". Nuff said.... LOL

 

<<  <  1 2 3 4 5 6 7 >  >>  

ADD A COMMENT

You must be logged in to leave a comment. Please click here to login.