Post reply

Warning: this topic has not been posted in for at least 120 days.
Unless you're sure you want to reply, please consider starting a new topic.
Name:
Email:
Subject:
Message icon:
Verification:

shortcuts: hit alt+s to submit/post or alt+p to preview


Topic Summary

Posted by: Jack
« on: August 03, 2018, 05:07:21 pm »

I wanted to address the issue of remakes for a moment.

At the San Diego Comic Con, it was announced that there is going to be a remake of Buffy the Vampire Slayer.

While I'm sure I'll give the new show a shot, to me, this is the ultimate example of something that doesn't need to be done (well, one of them anyway).

Buffy was an incredible TV show.  It wasn't perfect, but it was still great in so many ways.  Not only did the characters progress in time, but each of the main characters grew as people.  They reacted as people.  And, while they occasionally got bogged down, they also did some incredible storytelling - from the Gentlemen (a near speechless episode), to Angel's turn, to Buffy running away, to her Mom's ultimate resolution, to Willow in season 6, to the ultimate end of the story.  There were so many great episodes, and, 15 or 20 years later, it still stands up. 

The other thing is, the only real way to do this is as a complete relaunch.  Joss Whedon has official comics that continue the story past the TV show.  We know Buffy is the last Slayer for a couple of hundred years or so.   We also know what happened to Vampires.  I suppose they could ignore all that and declare it unofficial at all, but you'd still be in a world where Buffy had untold stories.  While they could set it in the past, before Buffy became the Slayer, we'd still know what ultimately happens.

That leaves us with two options - re-tell the story they did with Buffy, in which case, why?  Else they can take it in some totally different direction, in which case, why even call it Buffy? 
Posted by: Zyngaru
« on: July 29, 2018, 12:54:36 pm »

Quote from: Jack on July 29, 2018, 04:47:04 am


The single worst thing that ticks me off about the Transformer movies is I can't tell what's going on during the action scenes.  They came up with some way of having the robots change, so you end up with all these metallic moving parts flashing around on screen, and I can't even tell who's supposed to be who.  It frustrates me, and I won't go see a Michael Bey movie anymore.

Oh!  I so agree.  When all that metal gets to fighting, each other, WHO IS WHO?

Simple fix.  Make the good guys in bright flashy colors, and the bad guys in drab gray and black.

I have the same problem with some human battle scenes when the uniforms all look alike.  At least the British were kind enough to wear bright red.  Easy to find and pick out in any battle.
Posted by: Jack
« on: July 29, 2018, 09:00:40 am »

Quote from: afinch on July 29, 2018, 07:29:05 am
I think this is a very rare case where the stage adaptation is much better than its source material.

I don't know how often it happens, but I think one has to admit that stage, screen, and novel (even television) are different mediums, and require different approaches.  What works for one might not work for another.

Quote from: Zac on July 29, 2018, 06:20:28 am
This leads onto a problem I have with Skyfall, and other films/dramas where this device is used, I just found very hard to beleive that an expert like Q would have a computer from a very dubious source turned on with access to the network? Why wasn't it quarentined? At least not physically connected to the network and better still somewhere where wireless connection was prevented? But of course, the plot needed it. [Sorry for the rant but been wanted to get that point off my chest ever since I saw the film]

I understand that perfectly.  I remember making that exact point during the movie.  There are things that often happen only because a character in the movie suddenly becomes extremely incompetent exactly when the script calls for it.

Quote from: Zac on July 29, 2018, 06:20:28 am
Similarly, still with Bond, if you watch Goldfinger carefully, you realise that he almost a complete failure in it. He gets almost everyone he meets killed, spends a about the final third of the film as a prisoner, and he is clueless about who to deal with bomb which is eventually, an unnamed character who finally, and with beautiful simplicity, stops it going off. The whole plot relies on the day being saved by **** Galore having a change of heart after a role in the hay with Bond. 

Another movie that's considered great where this same thing happens is Raiders of the Lost Ark.  If Indy hadn't interfered, the Nazis would have got the amulet, found the ark, opened it, and they would have all been killed.  Indiana Jones literally had no effect to how the events played out, except in the US recovering the ark.


Quote from: Zac on July 29, 2018, 06:20:28 am
Something occurred to me after reading the summary of our discussion is that is often these 'safe' films which make the money for studios that allow the more experimental, different, risky, original films to be made.

I don't agree with this statement 100%, but it goes big time into the idea of cinema as a business, and I just don't feel like starting that conversation this morning.  Instead, let's just say that I would argue that very few movies are 'safe', and that the risky movies can give the biggest returns, so it kind of makes you think about the terms that are being used.

Quote from: db105 on July 29, 2018, 05:49:54 am
Not that I don't agree with much of what you say, but I have to confess that when I pass by a multiplex theater that's on the way to my job the movie posters on display don't motivate me, because I do feel a large majority are all sequels, remakes, new entries in franchises... I'm even getting tired of the Star Wars franchise.

But that goes back to my original point.  Not that you don't have a right to be tired of it, but that this is NOT a new thing.  This has been going on literally almost since cinema started.

On the other hand, I would also argue/suggest that cream rises to the top.  The real problem we're having now is not that there aren't a lot of bad movies and remakes, etc.  It's that you remember 1939 as Citizen Kane, Gone with the Wind, and Wizard of Oz.  No one remembers the Return of Dr. X, Zenobia, the Mystery of Mr. Wong, or the Chicken Family Wagon.  Give it 80 years, and everyone might be talking about how 2010 was famous for Winter's Bone, Social Network, Inception, Black Swan, Scott Pilgrim vs. the World, and Shutter Island, and no one will remember Cats and Dogs: the Revenge of Kitty Galore, Grown Ups, Flipped, or Marmaduke.

Quote from: db105 on July 29, 2018, 05:49:54 am
Adaptations for me is not necessarily a bad thing. After all, if you are going to tell me a story you first need a good story to tell, and if there's one available in book form, why not tell it? I'm also OK with remaking an obscure movie, for the same reason. But remaking a very well-known great movie? What's the point?

I agree with this 100%.  Maybe 99%.

I have no problem with the idea of another story featuring  Robin Hood.  I think Robin Hood: Men in Tights was a better Robin Hood story than the Kevin Costner version, though I don't think KC's movie was horrible.  I'm looking forward to the upcoming version with Taran Egerton (23 Nov).  What disappoints me is when I read about the 2010 Robin Hood (with Russel Crow), where a script was bought for millions of dollars, and presented a unique (at least different) take on the entire story, but it was re-written and re-written and stuck in production hell, until it finally was released as just another version of Robin Hood with no real reason to be made.

I think the last thing I said really sums it up.  A movie should only be re-made if there's a reason to do it.  If you have a new story to tell, if an older movie was interesting, but badly executed, or if the state of the art has progressed in a way that would enhance the story - then I'm okay with re-telling it.  But remaking something like Charade or Psycho or Halloween or the Texas Chainsaw Massacre: Why?
Posted by: afinch
« on: July 29, 2018, 07:29:05 am »

Quote from: Jack on July 29, 2018, 04:47:04 am
Just for reference, Wicked is actually based on the book Wicked: the Life and Times of the Wicked Witch of the West, by Gregory Maguire.


Which is based on characters created by L. Frank Baum in The Wizard of Oz which is, itself, an allegory based on the Teapot Dome scandal.  And for the record, the only thing that Wicked, the musical has to do with Gregory Maguire's book is the title and the names of some of the characters--it is essentially a wholly new work.  The clever dialogue and made-up words are entirely Winnie Holzman's and don't appear in the book (which I found rather tedious).  I think this is a very rare case where the stage adaptation is much better than its source material.
Posted by: Zac
« on: July 29, 2018, 06:20:28 am »

Quote from: Jack on July 29, 2018, 04:47:04 am
The single worst thing that ticks me off about the Transformer movies is I can't tell what's going on during the action scenes.  They came up with some way of having the robots change, so you end up with all these metallic moving parts flashing around on screen, and I can't even tell who's supposed to be who.  It frustrates me, and I won't go see a Michael Bey movie anymore.
A line from Macbeth (at least I think it Macbeth, might be Hamlet) comes to mind:
"Full of sound and fury signifying nothing"

Quote
What drove me crazy with Skyfall, Captain America: Civil War, and (worst of them all) Batman v. Superman is that none of those stories should have happened. (Spoiler Warnings!)  Silva only escaped from Bond in the middle part of the movie by setting off a bomb that derailed a subway, which means he knew exactly when they'd be going through that area, which was only possible if he knew exactly when Q would plug in his laptop.
This leads onto a problem I have with Skyfall, and other films/dramas where this device is used, I just found very hard to beleive that an expert like Q would have a computer from a very dubious source turned on with access to the network? Why wasn't it quarentined? At least not physically connected to the network and better still somewhere where wireless connection was prevented? But of course, the plot needed it. [Sorry for the rant but been wanted to get that point off my chest ever since I saw the film]

Similarly, still with Bond, if you watch Goldfinger carefully, you realise that he almost a complete failure in it. He gets almost everyone he meets killed, spends a about the final third of the film as a prisoner, and he is clueless about who to deal with bomb which is eventually, an unnamed character who finally, and with beautiful simplicity, stops it going off. The whole plot relies on the day being saved by **** Galore having a change of heart after a role in the hay with Bond.

Something occurred to me after reading the summary of our discussion is that is often these 'safe' films which make the money for studios that allow the more experimental, different, risky, original films to be made.
Posted by: db105
« on: July 29, 2018, 05:49:54 am »

Not that I don't agree with much of what you say, but I have to confess that when I pass by a multiplex theater that's on the way to my job the movie posters on display don't motivate me, because I do feel a large majority are all sequels, remakes, new entries in franchises... I'm even getting tired of the Star Wars franchise.

Adaptations for me is not necessarily a bad thing. After all, if you are going to tell me a story you first need a good story to tell, and if there's one available in book form, why not tell it? I'm also OK with remaking an obscure movie, for the same reason. But remaking a very well-known great movie? What's the point?

But you are right that a lot of what I'm tired about is the formulaic storytelling style. The ubiquity of sequels, remakes and franchises is just a symptom of that routinary approach.

Not that I blame them too much, because as you say, the movie industry is a business, and people vote with their wallets. It's the same with superhero comic events and crossovers. They are formulaic and intrude in individual comic books' storylines, but people buy them.

As Lope de Vega (a great playwright of the Spanish Golden Century, nicknamed "The Phoenix of Wits") wrote to justify why he wrote popular plays instead of going for more elevated language and stories:
 
“Y escribo por el arte que inventaron
los que el vulgar aplauso pretendieron,
porque, como las paga el vulgo, es justo
hablarle en necio para darle gusto.”

Which would translate as something like (sorry for the loss of rhyme and elegance):

"And I write in the art that was invented
by those who aspired to popular acclaim,
because, since the rabble pays for them, it's fair
to dumb it down to give them pleasure."
Posted by: Jack
« on: July 29, 2018, 04:47:04 am »

Just for reference, Wicked is actually based on the book Wicked: the Life and Times of the Wicked Witch of the West, by Gregory Maguire.

And John Wick 3 is coming out next May.

To me, Kier, you hit the nail on the head.  The problem I have with movies is not that they re-do the same thing over and over, but that they don't seem to know how to make a good movie.

Let's look at the recent Tom Cruise vehicle, the Mummy.

In 1999, Brendan Fraser starred in a movie by the same name.  In my opinion, that was a great movie - it was fun, exciting, and it even had a couple of real shocks/scares in it.  Those were all things the 2017 movie was missing.  For some reason, even though there had been Mummy movies made before that, the 2017 movie was considered to be a sequel to the 1999 movie - probably because they were made so close together.

Universal didn't do anything to link the two movies together, but they didn't do anything to make them distinct from each other, either.  Instead of using the 1999 movie - one that is respected, well liked, and known, to get things running, they instead borrowed a lot of the same ideas, stuffed a movie full of a bunch of crap, half-baked ideas, and literary guest appearances that added nothing to the story, and then seemed shocked that not even Tom Cruise could save it. 

The single worst thing that ticks me off about the Transformer movies is I can't tell what's going on during the action scenes.  They came up with some way of having the robots change, so you end up with all these metallic moving parts flashing around on screen, and I can't even tell who's supposed to be who.  It frustrates me, and I won't go see a Michael Bey movie anymore.

What drove me crazy with Skyfall, Captain America: Civil War, and (worst of them all) Batman v. Superman is that none of those stories should have happened. (Spoiler Warnings!)  Silva only escaped from Bond in the middle part of the movie by setting off a bomb that derailed a subway, which means he knew exactly when they'd be going through that area, which was only possible if he knew exactly when Q would plug in his laptop.  Civil War only works if you ignore how the United Nations works, but I let that go because they often skimp on details about political stuff for the sake of story flow.  On the other hand, Zemo's plan depends on not just a ridiculous amount of timing, and.... No, it take too long to explain.  Let me sum up - Go watch the Honest Trailer and Cinema Sins movies for Batman V Superman and Civil War - they tear those things up much better than I ever could.

Don't get me wrong.  I loved Skyfall and Civil War, and I didn't hate Batman v Superman.  I just think that a story which depends on the villain reading the script ahead of time might still need a re-write or two.   Which makes my basic point - how can Hollywood continue to produce all these movies year after year, and still not realize that the most important thing they can have - better than great actors, or marvelous CGI, or a John Williams score, is a good, solid, story?
Posted by: afinch
« on: July 28, 2018, 10:42:13 pm »

I have the same discussion RE: live theatre with passionate friends.  The issue isn't, or at least IMO shouldn't be, whether shows are revived, or new ones are adaptations of books, films, or TV shows.  The issue ought to be whether they are GOOD adaptations.  Friends scream about "jukebox musicals", but the original shows on Broadway, dating to the early 20th century were what are today called "jukebox musicals".  Whether I cared for it or not, Mamma Mia ran nearly 15 years, so someone did and was willing to pay for tickets.  Wicked is technically an adaptation of The Wizard of Oz, but it is a totally different take on that story, and has been a money printing machine for its creators since 2003.  Even Hamilton is based on a book, and most investors I know shook their heads and said no thanks when it was originally pitched.  And I'm sure they are now kicking themselves.
Posted by: Zyngaru
« on: July 28, 2018, 07:18:31 pm »

I agree with Jack on everything that he wrote.

I do wish I was on that chat.  Well probably not.  I'm not good with chats.  But I do have a comment about movies.  It's not really a comment about todays movies versus older movies, it's just about movies that attract me the most.

Yes, I love the series ones as long as the new one is good.  I look forward to them.

But my favorite movies are the one offs.  The brand new idea/concept.  Yes they come from books or theater or someplace. I mean they don't just pop up out of thin air.  But it is a movie like nothing I have seen before.  It's a movie that isn't following the age trusted formula for a movie.  Like the Marvel movies.  Let's take Black Panther for an example.  Yes, it is one of a series, but it is unique in that series.  I looked forward to it coming out, because it was going to be different.  Yes the Mission Impossible movies are a series, but each one so far have been new and different.

But the movies that grab me the most.  The ones that I actually buy the DVD.  The ones I will watch multiple times during the year.  Are the movies that are one of a kind.

Movies like "Ender's Game," "Avatar," "Dune," "The Last Sumarai,"  "B F G," "The Last Airbender," etc.  Each is different from other movies before them.  That is why "2001 A Space Odyessy," is a classic.  Now here is one that has been made over and over and over again, but yet this version is unique in that it includes a certain amount of history in it, even if that history is stretched.  "Dracula Untold."

I loved "Sixth Sense" and thought Haley Joel Osment should have gotten an Oscar for it.  It was totally different.

Those are the types of movies in my library.  "Harry Potter" was unique.  There was one in the series that I hated.  Not because of the story but because of the director they used, messed the story up so bad, I had no idea where I was until half the movies was over.

Were these movies risky making?  Probably.  I know even with so many people wanting the rest of the "Airbender" series to be made, there is no plans to make them.  Probably due to the money it didn't make.  They did finally make the rest of "Dune" but I bet most people don't know it exists.  If you are curious, it is "The Children of Dune."  It finishes the tale.

So in your chat, that is what I would have argued/debated.  I want more of the unique movies.  "Wick" was great.  I watch it over and over again.  "Wick 2" is just okay.  Will they make a "Wick 3?"  Who knows.  But the original was unique and wonderful.

Usually what I don't like is remaking an old movie.  It does seem to be a standard movie business decision that every 10 years/viewer generation, replace the old version with a new version.  I do have to say, occasionally the new replacement is better than the other versions.  Just putting that out there.

Okay.  I rambled enough.  You get the idea of what I like/want to see the movie industry to put out there for my viewing pleasure.
Posted by: Jack
« on: July 28, 2018, 05:55:35 pm »

In chat this past week, Beaver, Zac, and I had a discussion on movies, and it started with a complaint I seem to hear a lot lately.

I remember a few points that we hit on, but I don't remember for sure who said what, and there's always the chance I misunderstood what was meant at some point, so I'm not going to try to attribute points or represent the thoughts of either of the other two participants. Also, I believe Leti was there for the discussion, but I don't remember her having a lot to say about it.

The basic comment/complaint that started the discussion was something along the line of 'movies aren't original anymore: they're all re-makes, or adaptions, or sequels.'

I strongly disagree with that, and with the related argument that 'movies are risk adverse these days.'

Do I disagree with it because it's movies these days aren't risk adverse or that many of them are original?  No, largely I disagree with the idea that it's something new.

While some of the best movies of which I can think - North By Northwest, Citizen Kane, Casablanca, Star Wars - are original ideas (or hadn't appeared elsewhere before), many more were adapted from works in other fields - Wizard of Oz, Maltese Falcon, East of Eden, Jaws, the Omen, the Exorcist, Arsenic and Old Lace (the Maltese Falcon with Humphrey Bogart was the third version to appear in film in the 12 years since the book had been published!).

Remakes are a little harder.  I do know that the 1939 Wizard of Oz with Judy Garland was at least the third movie version of that book to be adapted to the screen, but it's hard to call it a re-make.  On the other hand, it's hard not to classify it that way.  Certainly the Bela Lugosi Dracula wasn't the first adaptation of that book, and the same is true of Frankenstein.  When someone decides to take a completely different approach to something that's already been adapted from another medium, is it really fair to call it a re-make?  (I'm looking at you, Spider-man: Homecoming).

I also think it's very hard to talk about sequels without discussing the definition a bit.  Was Empire Strkes Back really a sequel to Star Wars?  Sure, if Star Wars had bombed, we would have never seen Empire, but it was planned from the start, as far as I know.

I think we have to consider that 'sequel' may be used in too encompassing a way.  Maybe 'sequel' should be used to label a movie that happened because a previous movie was successful, but it wasn't really planned ahead of time.  While there are things that are definitely sequels by that definition that are actually good (like The Godfather II), most sequels suffer from being derivative of the first, and are usually inferior to the first installment.

If we define sequels in that way, I think we need to consider using the word 'series' to apply to a lot of what's done today.

It's interesting, because I was talking to a friend of mine a couple of days ago, and he said he was really looking forward to the new Mission: Impossible.  He said that one of the things he loves about it is that they 'keep using the same characters, so you don't have to keep learning about new ones.' 

Many movies that come out today aren't really sequels, by those definitions, but part of series - all of the Marvel movies, Mission Impossible, Fast and the Furious, Star Trek, Jurassic Park, and many animated films would all qualify. 

This isn't really a modern phenomena.  Back in the 1930s (and 40s?) film series were very common - Charlie Chan, Sherlock Holmes, Blondie, Thin Man, Ma & Pa Kettle, Andy Hardy, and probably a lot of others that someone more knowledgeable in film history (or just older) would be able to identify (one of my problems here is that many films were named after actors, like Abbot and Costello, making it hard to tell if they were really series or not). 

I think part of what happened is that, as television became popular and commercially available, series started to be seen as a television medium, and it became less common for series to be made as movies.  However, there are drawbacks to how television produces things (including cost and running time, from what I can see) that made movie series more attractive again.


I'm not trying to say that film isn't risk adverse - so are most of us.  It's a business, and making money is their first line.  If they spent all their money making risking films, it wouldn't be too long before they were making no films at all.

Along with that, we have to remember that making money means pleasing the fans, and I'd guess that a lot of people enjoy the Marvel movies, Mission: Impossible, Fast and Furious, and others.  Does that make them bad?  I don't think so.  Does that make them all boring or copies?  I'd argue that Iron Man wasn't much like the Avengers, was unlike Guardians of the Galaxy, Winter Soldier, Civil War, Thor: Ragnarok, Dr. Strange, Black Panther, or Infinity War.  Sure, there are some that reflect each other, like Iron Man and Ant Man, but it seems to me that it's hard to say that Marvel isn't still turning out original projects, even with the same characters continuing to appear in them.

Does that mean all series are good?  Obviously not.  What it does mean is that we shouldn't judge a movie just on it's source material, or if it's been made before, or if it's part of a series (or even an actual series) or even if it's popular.  Instead, we should consider judging each movie on it's own merits and trying to enjoy it for what it is.