Customer Discussions > action discussion forum

Which films should NOT be rebooted?


Sort: Oldest first | Newest first
Showing 101-125 of 174 posts in this discussion
In reply to an earlier post on 16 Nov 2013 06:50:36 GMT
Last edited by the author on 16 Nov 2013 07:28:09 GMT
I apologies Avatouir, irony is sometimes hard to read on a forum like this. I didn't mean it accusingly or anything, it's just a term I knee jerk react to, so my bad.

In reply to an earlier post on 18 Nov 2013 11:55:14 GMT
Not as bored as I get of this pointless 'Alien' defence team whirring off their usual shtick, forgetting that if it was a "masterclass in build-up, suspense, introduction and finale" that would actually transfer from the screen, which of course it doesn't, but what's worse is your pitiful attempt to box someone up as unable to connect with a film when it's the film's fault, and far from being an action fan, films with "explosions, guns etc" usually put me off for that reason alone, a bit rich considering your an Indiana Jones fan, and I bet you dig tonnes of others where this is the norm. Don't give mt that crap, I've liked tonnes of films that build up atmosphere, have decent acting, storytelling and a decent finale-'Jaws', 'The Birds' and 'The Omen' and 'Black Christmas' are four classics from the 70s but 'Alien's' continued pull for so many continuously befuddles me, as does the silly attitude that accompanies it.

Just thought I'd leave you on a happy note-rumours are now afloat that Indiana Jones IS being developed for a reboot/remake, and I am pleased to add that 'Batman Begins' man Christopher Nolan is being touted to helm it, though Joel Schumacher and a few other names are also being dropped. As for Indie himself, how does the omnipresent perma-pumped, charmless, bubble-bodied waxwork barbie-boys Matthew McConaughey and Channing Tatum sound to you? It's even possible they may want to recast Indie as a little less "long in the tooth"-Zac Efron, Smallville moron Welling and Supernatural twit Jensen Ackles are listed as very likely-the biggest laugh comes from Hollywood Reporter in a small article concerning this likely reboot where it stated that "if Indie is to be younger, Ackles is clearly to Ford what Chris Pine was to William Shatner". Hope that thrills and chills you in equal measure, Indie fan.

They still haven't touched ye olde faithful 'Alien', and I can't help but feel a reboot might at least keep me awake. It'll certainly have better FX, but the cast will probably all be a very convincing under 25s band of astro-noughts, but in space no one can hear them preen. Or yawn, perhaps.

Do feel free to let me know if I've half devastated you with my 'Indiana Jones' news, even more than my fondness for "explosions, machine guns"-being used to blast away all memories of 'Alien', but what with my posts being too long for you"-strange for someone who actually can stay riveted to said movie in the first place, don't feel you need to record your display, I certainly don't intend to live by it.

Posted on 18 Nov 2013 12:06:54 GMT
Last edited by the author on 18 Nov 2013 12:08:11 GMT
wow mate - you really take things too personally and take this board too seriously.

anyway - the possible indy reboot - chris nolan is a brilliant director, and even though i don't think he's ideally suited to i.jones, i'm sure he'd still do a fine job. it would of course be better left well alone, and the fourth film be forgotten about all together, but if it's remade then so be it.

matthew mcConaughey - god please no! i don't know enough about channing tatum to have an opinion, but i actually wouldn't mind zac effron too much. he's grown up a lot recently, and has some decent charisma.

In reply to an earlier post on 18 Nov 2013 12:07:15 GMT
So nice to see someone bring up 'Dark City'-all the way through Christopher Nolan's 'Inception', I kept thinking what a weak and dull attempt it was to redo it. It's the sort of thing I do with 'Vamp'-without which, the piece of trash otherwise known as 'From Dusk Till Dawn' wouldn't have ever got rolling without it, and that's an even more blantant steal, despite lacking cohesion, immediacy, connection, atmopshere, frights and fun. Definitely 'Dark City' was one of the showstoppers of 1998, and, like most really good films to "inspire" others, remains little-known, whereas those pilfering from it become big hitters. Life's never fair, right.

In reply to an earlier post on 18 Nov 2013 12:15:08 GMT
Last edited by the author on 18 Nov 2013 12:16:50 GMT
I'm not really that rigid, just feel that love 'Alien' thing never lets up. If Christopher Nolan does indeed helm Indie, it will work out a lot better than it could, but it's always the same isn't it? These things are never needed, but they crack on anyway. God how people went mad when 'Jaws 2' got made, but at least in 1978, sequels were rare things and the term reboot wasn't even something exisiting to make one shudder. Now it seems Hollywood can't function without looking at everything big over the last few decades and thinking that's what they'll redo next as if the future of film threatened to unwind forever without such a movement.

If Indie is a success, the second will follow in an instant. I share your horror at Mahogany Mattheugh, but the trouble is, I don't think there's any way he won't do it if the money's there. Tonnes better people out there of his age, but that's not what studios look for. Maybe a young Indie is the way to go, and Efron would be more welcome than those other two named. The younger Hemsworth's a possibility too, so Hollywood Reporter said.

Posted on 18 Nov 2013 13:10:42 GMT
Last edited by the author on 18 Nov 2013 14:28:40 GMT
i think hemsworth is actually possibly too buff. indy is an archeologist who gets into scrapes, but he's no body builder/male model. i quite like hemsworth, and again think he has good charisma - which is essential for the indy role, but i just don't see him doing it.

massive shame about river phoenix, as he's *brilliant* as young indy at the start of TLC, but i'm imagining effron playing that role, (albiet effron is older now than river was then) and i can see it tbh.

Posted on 18 Nov 2013 14:13:52 GMT
Last edited by the author on 18 Nov 2013 14:18:39 GMT
Scott Paul, I know you don't like Alien and that's fair enough. My problem with any kind of remake would be like most remakes these days. It'll have no individual vision and become just generic pap. They'd ditch the Giger imagery, make EVERYTHING CGI, and cut and past shots from other sci-fi films. The crew would all be too attractive and unable to act. And the script would cut bits and pieces from the original and try desperately to make something individual with the rest but fail terribly. Just what's the point? So yeah, give the role of Indiana Jones to Zac Effron or one of the cast of Glee. Ditch the Archaeology facade because after the first film they barely bother with it anyway. Besides it's not really Archaeology, real Archaeologists sit in ditches for years sifting through dirt. Give the directing job to Michael Bay, at least it would be as subtle as a brick and as shallow as a puddle of water, rather than all the pretense that seems to follow Nolan around these days. If his name was tagged onto a live action film of My Little Pony everybody would be chattering away all excited to see what he might bring to the project.

In reply to an earlier post on 18 Nov 2013 16:39:37 GMT
"Just thought I'd leave you on a happy note-rumours are now afloat that Indiana Jones IS being developed for a reboot/remake"

I'm struggling to see how an Indy remake/reboot is a happy note? Nolan or No Nolan!

In reply to an earlier post on 21 Nov 2013 12:56:36 GMT
J.B. Taylor says:
Considering they chose Keeanu Reeves over Will Smith I think they made the right choice. I too think Reeves is a very underrated actor.

In reply to an earlier post on 21 Nov 2013 12:58:14 GMT
J.B. Taylor says:
The synopsis of Dark City is: A man struggles with memories of his past, including a wife he cannot remember, in a nightmarish world with no sun and run by beings with telekinetic powers who seek the souls of humans. How is that even remotely close to The Matrix

Posted on 21 Nov 2013 14:16:17 GMT
Last edited by the author on 21 Nov 2013 14:16:37 GMT
false memories, world with no sun, beings who use humans to survive - similar themes, (i've not seen dark city btw)

In reply to an earlier post on 21 Nov 2013 15:03:26 GMT
Last edited by the author on 22 Nov 2013 08:54:56 GMT
"false memories, world with no sun, beings who use humans to survive - similar themes"

This plus ^^ ... a fake world made to fool its in habitents, a protaganist who learns to control said world ...

Add some Leather trench Coats, Nokia product placement and a crap script and it is The Matrix !!

In reply to an earlier post on 21 Nov 2013 15:15:55 GMT
Last edited by the author on 21 Nov 2013 15:17:51 GMT
It was meant with the sourest sarcasm, which I hoped might be obvious? But come on, it was bound to happen, and it's possible the rather ill-advised fourth one made barely a few years ago turned tinseltown's attention to the possibility a bit quicker than it would have.

Posted on 21 Nov 2013 15:20:52 GMT
I heard recently that the Monty Pythons are getting back together for a live show. They're like some aging rock band, ready to beat those old songs for a bit of money. God bless them. Anyway I recon it's about time The Life of Brian and The Holy Grail were remade, the former preferably by Judd Apatow with Jason Segel as Brian.

In reply to an earlier post on 21 Nov 2013 17:00:10 GMT
Nothing is obvious with you Mr Scott Paul.

i suppose it was inevitable, I reckon old Shelia Boboof was being groomed for the next Indy in no. 4, i guess didnt really work out that way lol

Posted on 22 Nov 2013 08:30:15 GMT
fruitloops says:
Couldnt give a monkeys. If its rubbish, watch the original. If its ok watch em both. If they get a new generation to watch the original, then it cant be a bad thing. People moan over owt these days.

Posted on 22 Nov 2013 08:43:55 GMT
anyone seen/looking forward to the carrie remake? the trailer looks pretty decent tbf.

In reply to an earlier post on 22 Nov 2013 09:42:59 GMT
Last edited by the author on 22 Nov 2013 09:43:47 GMT
Yep, it looks pretty decent. I think Julian Moore playing the mother is a great bit of casting but I'm not convinced by ChloŽ Grace Moretz. Not because she' can't act (because she can), but Sissy Spacek looks kind of weird in the original, I could imagine she'd be that person people in school ignore and thinks weird, but ChloŽ Grace Moretz I'm not so sure.
The thing is I'd like to see a film version of Carrie that plays more with the ideas of the book and not the film. The book is like Dracula, it's put together with a epistolary structure, which granted is harder to do through film but that would be the challenge. Also the book is set in the future (granted only five years or something) and that would also have been interesting to play with. It's such a simple premise and short story then why not interpret it in an interesting way. To create a more linear translation you just end up with another version of the 1976 film but in a modern setting, it kind of begs the question, what's the point?

Posted on 22 Nov 2013 11:00:37 GMT
"it kind of begs the question, what's the point?"

it looks decent, but yeah - there is that. i've read some stuff on imdb, and apparently it's perfectly competent(sp?) but adds very little, i.e. it's not a new spin on it. it does apparently have more focus on building carrie's character, and julianne moore is spot-on, but in reality, apart from more gore and some dodgy cgi it really isn't any different.

a lot of remakes are like that tho - they serve only to introduce a new generation to an old story. a lot of people would never see the original simply becuase it's 'old' so at least the remake appears to be pretty good so can introduce the story to a whole new audience. i don't have any problem with genuinley good remakes - it's when a remake is massively inferior to the original, and then when people refer to the film, they only know of the remake and think it's a terrible title, naive to the real brilliance - for example the wicker man. 70's version with christopher lee etc vs the nic cage version.

In reply to an earlier post on 22 Nov 2013 11:11:57 GMT
Last edited by the author on 22 Nov 2013 11:13:24 GMT
"it kind of begs the question, what's the point? "

Thats the million dollar question with all these remakes, whats the point? If you have something new to offer, if the original was pants and should be striken from history ... then yes I can put up with and even get behind a remake.

But mostly they are pointless, The Hitcher is good example? .. why? why remake it? what is the point ? ... how are you going to improve on that?

As for getting a new generation to appreciate it that just balls, if a new generation can not watch and appreciate a film that is before their years or that just doesnt have the flavour of the month actor then sod em, they should miss out.

Posted on 22 Nov 2013 11:16:44 GMT
i've only seen the newer hitcher with sean bean. i loved it :)

Posted on 22 Nov 2013 11:36:14 GMT
Last edited by the author on 22 Nov 2013 11:38:42 GMT
I honestly don't mind the idea of remakes in theory. It's like much of modern culture (culture in general really) it's all in continual process of reinvention. It takes stuff that influences the creator and brings a new interpretation to it via the lens of that creator and context of the time. Bands take their inspiration from say The Beatles, David Bowie, The Jam or whoever and then produce something original and new but you can still see that lineage. That's fine by me. It's why I have no problem with The Matrix and actually commend it. But if a band takes a Led Zeppelin song and reproduce it word for word, note for note, instrument for instrument then they're just a cover band imo and a bit unimaginative.
The problem IMO is that if a director made a film that actually was really creative with the source text and even called it something else (ie no reference to Carrie) loads of people would call it a rip off of Carrie and not very good. If they call it Carrie half the people automatically judge it negatively for being a remake (even before seeing it, just look at some of the posts in the Robocop reboot thread) and the other half will complain after seeing it that it's not as good as the original because their expectations already has an idea what the film should be (ie the original film).

In reply to an earlier post on 22 Nov 2013 12:52:58 GMT
It was ok Phil, just pointless if you have seen the original, if not then yeah I can see someone enjoying the story sure.

Rutger Hauer was better than Sean Bean tho i must say.

Posted on 22 Nov 2013 13:11:40 GMT
one does not simply be better than sean bean!

lol, yeah i know the original is a bit of a cult classic, but it's just something i've never got round to seeing. thoroughly enjoyed the remake tho. absolutely loved the main guys car, (70's oldsmobile) :D

In reply to an earlier post on 25 Nov 2013 11:58:12 GMT
Thanks, it's nice to be complicated up to a point. Sheila Boboof (cute, dude) is even more baby-looking than Zac Efron, he kind of resembles a gummi bear, so that clearly was never going to work. One thing regarding a reboot that went belly-up, I'm intrigued to report that classic 1980s whodunnit spoof of the boardgame Cluedo put to screen (i.e 'Clue') was going to redone by 'The Ring' debacle remake and 'Pirates Of Caribbean' man Gore Verbinski, but it apparently stuttered before it started. Apparently there are some things that just can't be retouched, and I doubt anyone will try (not that I'm asking to be held to it). After all, with Hollywood, the motto seems to be if it's been done before, and probably better, lets' do it again.

I didn't mind 'The Hitcher' remake, I think that's the thing with a number of them-they're decent, but don't compete with the original, but there are of ocurse cases where they do, and sometimes they even top a shoddy original, or do something the original couldn't because the existing technology didn't yet exist so.
[Add comment]
Add your own message to the discussion
To insert a product link use the format: [[ASIN:ASIN product-title]] (What's this?)
Prompts for sign-in
 


 

This discussion

Discussion in:  action discussion forum
Participants:  28
Total posts:  174
Initial post:  18 Jul 2013
Latest post:  23 Feb 2014

New! Receive e-mail when new posts are made.
Tracked by 1 customer

Search Customer Discussions