At The Cinema, Do You ever Get the Feeling You're Watching The Same Movie Over and Over?

[Judderman]

If feels empty.

Empty of emotion and feeling? I think that is a fair comment.

 

[BAYLOR]

Empty of emotion and feeling? I think that is a fair comment.

When I look at that clip, I see a computer game scene and not a film . I can't feel anything for the characters on screen no matter vivid and lifelike they might make them . They just empty CGI which the voice acting does nothing to uplift.

 

[KGeo777]

I saw the original on a tv and I was impressed by the environment-creating using CGI. But the story did little for me.
I heard that people were heckling the trailer for this.
The original had no fandom really--just the novelty of the 3d.
Isn't this one supposed to have a new 3d that doesn't require glasses?

 

[BAYLOR]

I saw the original on a tv and I was impressed by the environment-creating using CGI. But the story did little for me.
I heard that people were heckling the trailer for this.
The original had no fandom really--just the novelty of the 3d.
Isn't this one supposed to have a new 3d that doesn't require glasses?

I don't think this one has 3D. I could be wrong but , this time around , I doubt there is going to be an audiences for this sequel.

 

[CupofJoe]

I don't think this one has 3D. I could be wrong but , this time around , I doubt there is going to be an audiences for this sequel.

And the other three they are filming?

 

[BAYLOR]

And the other three they are filming?

If this film is not a success the box office , they're going to lose alot of money.

 

[CupofJoe]

If this film is not a success the box office , they're going to lose alot of money.

What's a $1Bn between friends...

 

[BAYLOR]

What's a $1Bn between friends...

Hm, good point.

 

[Ian Fortytwo]

Remakes always lack something of the original film. The Italian Job, being one example. The Day the Earth Stood Still, being another.

 

[Astro Pen]

I always think they should do a movie where an ordinary guy witnesses something go down to a long violin note and a staccato stabs, then he gets involved and has to go on the run with the romantic interest.
Then they track him down and there is a gunfight where he kills 17 experienced crooks from behind a corner in a corridor and another one in a stockroom where, from under a shelf, he can only see the baddy's feet walking slowly.
Followed by a car chase leading to car crashes where cop cars roll over then the bad guys crash in a ball of flame ( because the gas tank is inexplicably in the passenger compartment) then the ordinary guy kisses the romantic interest.
Credits roll to a banal 80's soft rock song that you don't like

( I'll write this for $500K and a rolling credit. )

What? Already done?

 

[JunkMonkey]

Remakes always lack something of the original film. The Italian Job, being one example. The Day the Earth Stood Still, being another.

Time to point out (as I always do at this point) that John Houston's 1941 Maltese Falcon with Humphrey Bogart was a remake, as was Stephen Soderberg's Ocean's Eleven, Cronenberg's The Fly, John Carpenter's The Thing. The list of remakes that are better than the original isn't long - but it does exist.

 

[CupofJoe]

@JunkMonkey You are right there are a few. Jest like sequels are rarely as good as the first film, there are a few exceptions...
A good remake will have something new to add to the story [even if that means following the original source more closely] and not just be an excuse to update the CGI. I think The Thing is a good example of this. Take a [for me] great film like The Thing From Another World with all its in jokes, witty dialogue and comic touches, strip it back and make it more brutal and visceral. a simpler and tighter film. Carpenter's revisioning worked! The 2011 prequal [also called The Thing - just to confuse the issue] was just more of Carpenter's film and didn't. I had seen it all before and done better.

 

[JunkMonkey]

@JunkMonkey You are right there are a few. Jest like sequels are rarely as good as the first film, there are a few exceptions...
A good remake will have something new to add to the story [even if that means following the original source more closely] and not just be an excuse to update the CGI. I think The Thing is a good example of this. Take a [for me] great film like The Thing From Another World with all its in jokes, witty dialogue and comic touches, strip it back and make it more brutal and visceral. a simpler and tighter film. Carpenter's revisioning worked! The 2011 prequal [also called The Thing - just to confuse the issue] was just more of Carpenter's film and didn't. I had seen it all before and done better.

Loads of classic (out of copyright!) books and stories have been filmed, made and remade with varying degrees of success. How many versions of Wuthering Heights, or adaptations of Austen does the world need? But they keep coming. Looking back at them they tell us more about the times they were made than anything. My touchstone from the SF genre in this respect is The Invasion of the Body Snatchers which has had four screen adaptations. All different. All of their time. I heard there was another remake in the pipeline - and I hope they don't follow the original source more closely because the ending of the book is crap.

 

[KGeo777]

If you are going to do a new version of a story, have a good reason to do it. Make it in color, have new special effects, star casting....

The 2011 Thing failed because there was no good reason to do it. They had nothing to say or contribute. And the lack of creative passion was obvious in the final product.

I feel the same of the 2005 King Kong. The only thing they had going for it was a CGI Kong on the Empire State Building. Otherwise, nothing else was so interesting to justify making it. Was the casting special? No. Why bother?
A paint by numbers attitude is more common now. The sense of just going through the motions.

I can't blame them. How can anyone be excited to make another Batman movie?

 

[BAYLOR]

If you are going to do a new version of a story, have a good reason to do it. Make it in color, have new special effects, star casting....

The 2011 Thing failed because there was no good reason to do it. They had nothing to say or contribute. And the lack of creative passion was obvious in the final product.

I feel the same of the 2005 King Kong. The only thing they had going for it was a CGI Kong on the Empire State Building. Otherwise, nothing else was so interesting to justify making it. Was the casting special? No. Why bother?
A paint by numbers attitude is more common now. The sense of just going through the motions.

I can't blame them. How can anyone be excited to make another Batman movie?

Hollywood plays it safe.

 

[Ian Fortytwo]

How many remakes of King Kong have there been and only the Faye Wray version is worth watching.

 

[KGeo777]

Hollywood plays it safe.

From their perspective maybe but it isn't really the case because they are using worn out brands and then inject so much non-traditional elements like a weak protagonist. I was reading about the new Dr Strange movie and as I KNEW they would, they have sidelined the male characters to ridiculous extremes. They can't help themselves because they have an agenda that goes against traditional story concepts.
And they don't care about losing audiences which is peculiar--that suggests they have unlimited money and no competition is possible.
How do you run a business where you want to alienate your consumer?

 

[JunkMonkey]

From their perspective maybe but it isn't really the case because they are using worn out brands and then inject so much non-traditional elements like a weak protagonist. I was reading about the new Dr Strange movie and as I KNEW they would, they have sidelined the male characters to ridiculous extremes. They can't help themselves because they have an agenda that goes against traditional story concepts.
And they don't care about losing audiences which is peculiar--that suggests they have unlimited money and no competition is possible.
How do you run a business where you want to alienate your consumer?

I would guess that they have the hope of finding another, larger audience.

 

[Rodders]

I think the cycle of "bigger" and "more" means that there is too much emphasis placed on action and not enough emphasis on set up or story.

 

[KGeo777]

I would guess that they have the hope of finding another, larger audience.

It's like putting a man on the cover of a women's swimsuit magazine which was done recently.
The audience for that is tiny. They lose more people than they can gain. And they don't care--which is the most intriguing part.
Disney didn't seem to care what families think about its political agenda coming into the open.
I don't feel making money is the motivation behind any of this.
It's control and suppression of variety.
It's like the Borg Collective except they also want to make you watch their Broadway musical "Resistance is Futile."
It's bad enough to be a drone, but their dancing and singing is just so awful and it is the only show in town.