Next on the agenda: Pre-ruining the upcoming "Young X-Men" franchise, butcher another classic YA fantasy, then call it a day!
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
Posted by lobo (Member # 1761) on :
Are you upset because you think they are going to mess up a good movie or because the original was so bad you don't want to see it again?
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
Or perhaps because Hollywood execs. are such trolls they aren't willing to risk doing something that might be novel, interesting and really good.
If I want to see Romancing the Stone again, I can rent the video. There are hundreds of writers out there with new scripts and new ideas. Let us have some new stories rather than just rehashing old one.
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
Or, for that mater, how about excavating some of the old movies that were forgettable due to poor acting or direction or just poor timing and redo them?
Posted by Puffy Treat (Member # 7210) on :
Manos: The Hands of Fate is simply -screaming- for a big budget, glitzy remake.
Posted by blindsay (Member # 11787) on :
This is a perfect example of why Hollywood is not doing very well right now
Posted by SteveRogers (Member # 7130) on :
But Michael Douglas isn't dead yet?
Posted by Goody Scrivener (Member # 6742) on :
Okay, they really need to stop Lucasizing my childhood....
Posted by Sterling (Member # 8096) on :
quote:Originally posted by SteveRogers: But Michael Douglas isn't dead yet?
Nor Turner. Nor DeVito. But they're trying to kill 'em.
Here's an idea, guys: gather up the twenty best scripts you can find from all those waiters, taxi drivers, parking enforcement officers, and bellhops who have written screenplays. Give them to teams of graduates from UCLA's film school with five million dollars or so each. Turn them loose. The results could hardly be worse than doing another remake.
Posted by Nighthawk (Member # 4176) on :
Hey, it could be worse...
Posted by Puffy Treat (Member # 7210) on :
It is worse. Madonna is the person pushing for a Casablanca remake, with herself cast in the Ilsa role.
(Also, it won't be set -in- Casablanca. Which begs the question: Why not just make a completely new movie?)
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
Or, for that matter, allow Madonna to be a middle aged woman? I mean, she's 50 right? So how about a little dignity, and some nice dignified 50 year old roles that women actors are always saying don't exist. Madonna could probably make that happen. But no, she's gonna want to remake Casablanca, of course.
Posted by Wendybird (Member # 84) on :
Ick - Madonna in Casablanca? Why do celebs thing so highly of themselves that they think we want them to ruin classic movies? ugh.
And remaking Romancing the Stone? Thats just silly. Its a classic 80s movie that should remain in the 80s for crying out loud.
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
I don't really see that Romancing the Stone is of a stature that it's offensive to remake it. I think it signals desperation on Fox's part, though. I did think it was the best movie ever, when I was 14.
Posted by Sterling (Member # 8096) on :
It's not [of such a stature]. It's a perfectly fine adventure movie, and I sure enjoyed it when I saw it. But it definitely begs the question: aren't there any original perfectly fine adventure movies waiting to get made?
[ December 07, 2008, 12:06 AM: Message edited by: Sterling ]
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
Well, I'm sure they'll change it, just like they did Ocean's 11 and the Italian Job. And if you haven't seen the originals of these, you really owe it to yourself. Though I'll really feel foolish if it turns out they were remakes of silent black and white films.
That's the thing, Ben Hur with Charlton Heston was a remake. We were talking about it the other day, how a bunch of people died making the original original.
Posted by Sterling (Member # 8096) on :
True, but the original Ben Hur was a silent picture. A remake definitely gives the audience reason to ask and even demand that the remakers bring something new and better to the table. Obviously making a "talkie" is significantly different than a silent movie; what might be brought to a new "Romancing The Stone" is less clear. Particularly in light of the original having a rather good cast, one can't help but fear that the likely result of a new "Stone" is blander casting and a lot of heavily CGI-assisted stuntwork.
And there's just the question of whether 24 years is enough time past to justify a remake.
![[Wall Bash]](graemlins/wallbash.gif)