headers
Thom Gladhill | 1 Dec 2003 01:27

RE: You should never, never doubt what nobody is sure about.

Lance McLain <lance@...> wrote:

>> I guess when I think about it, there isn't really a good
>> "principle",
>> it rather is I'm just wounded that someone would see a need to remake
>> something
>> that I already love.
>
>Just to repeat myself.

But what about the artists...I mean, maybe it's the fact that I grew up reading comic books, where different
artists and writers offer their own interpretation of "classic" heroes all the time...and as an artist I
love to draw my facortite characters in my own style.  It's not because I think I can do better, but because  I
love the story.  In some cases, you may have loved it, but a director might have disagreed and think they can
do better.  Just because I think it's good enough, doesn't mean it is or other people agree.  ;)
--

-- 
Thom
http://www.livejournal.com/users/thomwade/
http://www.in-one-ear.com
In One Ear Radio:
http://www.live365.com/stations/nezpop
Happy Fool Notions:
http://www.geocities.com/nezpop/
_______________________________________
"You can't find peace by avoiding life."~Virginia Woolf(Nicole Kidman), the Hours

"This love thing intrigues me...teach me how to fake it!"~Dr. Zoidberg

__________________________________________________________________
McAfee VirusScan Online from the Netscape Network.
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 2 comments |
headers
Lance McLain | 1 Dec 2003 02:07

RE: You should never, never doubt what nobody is sure about.

> >> I guess when I think about it, there isn't really a good
> >> "principle",
> >> it rather is I'm just wounded that someone would see a need to remake
> >> something
> >> that I already love.
> >
> >Just to repeat myself.
> 
> 
> But what about the artists...I mean, maybe it's the fact that I 
> grew up reading comic books, where different artists and writers 
> offer their own interpretation of "classic" heroes all the 
> time...and as an artist I love to draw my facortite characters in 
> my own style.  It's not because I think I can do better, but 
> because  I love the story.  In some cases, you may have loved it, 
> but a director might have disagreed and think they can do better. 
>  Just because I think it's good enough, doesn't mean it is or 
> other people agree.  ;)

Yes, at the root of it I'm sure is wounded pride.  But that feeling,
none-the-less is there.  Wrong as it may be.  Still, I can't help
but wonder how much of a _Willy Wonka_ remake is a desire to create
great art, or a desire to make money off of a theme that already
has a positive feeling amongst moviegoers.  Maybe it is both of those
things, and maybe that is alright.  Or maybe it will be like _The Cat
In The Hat_ and make the whole theme worse in the end.

regards,
-Lance
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
Marty B | 1 Dec 2003 02:18
Picon

RE: the cat in the hat (was: the haunted mansion)

lance@... wrote:
> 
> > Didn't you especially love the "S.H.I.T." joke, which was right up there
> > with the "Fook Yu" and "Fook Mi" sequence in the last _Austin Powers_
> > movie?  I'm still undecided as to whether or not this was worse than the
> > adultery humour that they put into Ron Howard's _The Grinch_.
> 
> Yes, I think so, because this was so blatant that I'm sure my 8 year
> old got most of it, I mean really, the part about cutting of his 
> "balls", 
> that was just way over the top.  I think _The Grinch_ was a little more
> subtle and easier overlooked by kids.

FWIW, the previews for this made me *not* want to see it. Mike Myers 
looks gross or something as the character - it just seemed so *wrong*.

I'm sorry to see that they've crude-ed up the story. Part of my problem 
with Myers is that I don't think he is very funny in teh first place.I 
liked the first Waynes World movie, but the first Austin Powers had a 
few laughs but it was baically a one-joke movie and they just repeated 
that joke with less and less subtlety in the remakes. What a waste.

MArtyB
Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
Marty B | 1 Dec 2003 02:20
Picon

RE: **spoilers** Gollum (for non readers?)


Andrew Irwin wrote:
> 
> ***spoilers if you have not read the books***
> 

Are the spolilers only for non-readers of the books or does this message 
give away part of the fun of the movie - either in the story or in the 
way Jackson tells it?

MartyB
Permalink | Reply | 501 comments |
headers
Johne Cook | 1 Dec 2003 02:19
Favicon

Re: You should never, never doubt what nobody is sure about.

Lance McLain wrote:

>Anyone up for a remake of _Gone with the Wind_.
>
>regards,
>-Lance
>  
>
Nah.  I didn't like the first one...  ;)
--

-- 

johne cook | grunion at charter dot net | wisconsin, usa
                       johne.cook at 3dgpu.com
ICQ: 23905735,  AIM: myriadphy, MSN: bio_phy@... 
--
Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
Lance McLain | 1 Dec 2003 01:56

RE: You should never, never doubt what nobody is sure about.


> I went back and 
> looked at the movies released in 2003...out of over 200 American 
> studio releases, less than 30 were sequels (and I included "kind 
> of Sequels" like Looney Tunes in the count) and less than twenty 
> were remakes.  

OK, perhaps so, but the trailers we saw today before _The Cat In The
Hat_ were _Peter Pan_, _Shrek 2_, _Cheaper By The Dozen_, and 
_The Haunted Mansion_.  

Can you see where one might think all hollywood is doing is cashing
in off of the ideas of others, more than trying to create something
new?  Trying to add to the artistry is one thing, but just slapping
a title on something so people will come based on reminenceses...reminin..
..er...memories, well, that is just plain greed.

I'm not saying don't do remakes or sequels or old TV shows or whatever,
I mean, look at _The Count of Monte Cristo_ or the _LOTR_ trilogy, they
were great.  It is just, I don't know, if I go to another movie and 
see a trailer for _Gilligan's Island_ 
or _Survivor_ or something like that, I think I'm going to hurl.

regards,
-Lance
Permalink | Reply | 4 comments |
headers
Bruce Geerdes | 1 Dec 2003 03:30
Picon
Favicon

RE: the haunted mansion

On Nov 30, 2003, at 12:55 PM, Peter T. Chattaway wrote:

> if it's any consolation, the
> film *did* nudge _The Cat in the Hat_ off the top of the list.   
> (Really,
> would anyone have wanted that abomination to be #1 two weeks in a row?)

Maybe.

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=638&ncid=762&e=1&u=/nm/ 
20031130/en_nm/leisure_boxoffice_dc

'Cat' Reclaims Box Office Crown After Error

Sun Nov 30, 6:18 PM ET
By Dean Goodman

LOS ANGELES (Reuters) - Proving that felines do indeed enjoy multiple  
lives, the Mike Myers (news) comedy "The Cat in the Hat" claimed a  
narrow victory at the North American weekend box office on Sunday after  
a studio error earlier gave the victory to Eddie Murphy (news)'s new  
release "The Haunted Mansion."

"The Cat in the Hat" earned $25.6 million for the Friday-to-Sunday  
period to rule the box office for the second consecutive weekend, said  
an official at Universal Pictures, the film's distributor. It was  
followed closely by "The Haunted Mansion," a Walt Disney Pictures  
release, with $25.3 million.

Earlier in the day, Universal reported a three-day sum of $24.7 million
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
Thom Gladhill | 1 Dec 2003 04:00

RE: the cat in the hat (was: the haunted mansion)

Marty B <actstud@...> wrote:
 Part of my problem 
>with Myers is that I don't think he is very funny in teh first place.I 
>liked the first Waynes World movie, but the first Austin Powers had a 
>few laughs but it was baically a one-joke movie and they just repeated 
>that joke with less and less subtlety in the remakes. What a waste.

My mother would disagree(As would I).  She thinks Meyers is very 
funny...his movies on the other hand, are not.  My parents and I about 
wet our pants watching him on Inside the Actor's Studio.  I think it's 
telling that the funniest part of the Third Austin Powers film was the 
opening...which Meyers doesn't appear in.  Frankly, the stand out 
characters in all the movies for me were Doctor Evil and Scott Evil.  I 
was positively bored during the Austin Powers moments.  What frightens 
me is that, if I understand New Line correctly they are commited to at 
least seven films...I thought they exhausted the ideas by the first six 
minutes of AP2.

--

-- 
Thom
http://www.livejournal.com/users/thomwade/
http://www.in-one-ear.com
In One Ear Radio:
http://www.live365.com/stations/nezpop
Happy Fool Notions:
http://www.geocities.com/nezpop/
_______________________________________
"You can't find peace by avoiding life."~Virginia Woolf(Nicole Kidman), 
the Hours
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 1 comment |
headers
Thom Gladhill | 1 Dec 2003 04:12

RE: You should never, never doubt what nobody is sure about.

Lance McLain <lance@...> wrote:

>OK, perhaps so, but the trailers we saw today before _The Cat In The
>Hat_ were _Peter Pan_, _Shrek 2_, _Cheaper By The Dozen_, and 
>_The Haunted Mansion_.  

I don't doubt it.  But then, I've noticed that most of the remakes are 
"family fare"...and that was true of most of the remakes that came out 
this year(hey, the Texas Chainsaw Massacre is ALL about family!  ;)).

>
>Can you see where one might think all hollywood is doing is cashing
>in off of the ideas of others, more than trying to create something
>new?  Trying to add to the artistry is one thing, but just slapping
>a title on something so people will come based on 
>reminenceses...reminin..
>..er...memories, well, that is just plain greed.

Yeah. many hyped films have been remakes.  Believe me, you are not the 
first person to make this complaint. I had a guy tell me to fuck off 
when I pointed out how many films were original(he also didn't like that 
I said Memento was not an original story...oooo that made him mad...).  
I am not trying to put down the opinion, but rather show that it's 
perspective.  To use an example we have discussed on the list...the 
media reports much of the fighting still going on in Iraq, and some say 
that is unfair, that there has been much success that has not been 
talked about.  People focus on the most hyped movies, which the past few 
years have been sequels and re-makes.  It creates the illusion that 
Hollywood is just pumping out re-makes and sequels.  The truth is that 
not even half the movies released this year fell into that category.
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
Peter T. Chattaway | 1 Dec 2003 05:47
Picon
Picon

RE: You should never, never doubt what nobody is sure about.

On Sun, 30 Nov 2003, Thom Gladhill wrote:
> But what about the artists...I mean, maybe it's the fact that I grew up
> reading comic books, where different artists and writers offer their own
> interpretation of "classic" heroes all the time...and as an artist I
> love to draw my facortite characters in my own style.  It's not because
> I think I can do better, but because I love the story.

Exactly.  Plays are not performed multiple times just because we forgot to
videotape the previous performances.  We *expect* plays to be interpreted
more than once.  So why not films and other artforms?

--- Peter T. Chattaway ---------------------------
peter@... ---
Nothing tells memories from ordinary moments; only afterwards do they
   claim remembrance, on account of their scars. -- Chris Marker, La Jetee
Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |

Gmane