Alphagaia wrote:We actually should let kids write more movies:
And they still came up with a better plot than what Feig and Dippold did!
JurorNo.2 wrote:No, that would be Star Wars fans. And Batman fans. And X-Men fans. And Spiderman fans. And now Power Rangers fans. Etc. Etc. Etc. Thankfully Trekkies are finally saying "Enough!" Lol.
ATC did something original. That is why it got attacked. Period.
Those aren't remakes, they're interpretations. ATC was basically a loose remake or as Paul Rudoff calls it 'a parody remake'.
JurorNo.2 wrote:Some have been better, some have not. And they're not made to be "better." This idea of competition only exists in fandom's minds, not the studios.
You're seriously blaming the quality of remakes on fandom?! Seriously?! Do you know how ridiculous that sounds?!
JurorNo.2 wrote:Wait a minute, first you make a sweeping statement that remakes are generally not better. Then suddenly your beef is about modern Hollywood. Which is it, are remakes in general bad or are current remakes bad?
Both but modern Hollywood is currently in a worse state when it comes to entertainment movies.
JurorNo.2 wrote:Wizard of Oz (1939) was a remake from an earlier silent film.
(facepalms)The 1939 film was not a remake of the silent movies. It was adapted from the original novel therefore an interpretation of what was written on page!
JurorNo.2 wrote:In order to get a new generation interested. Which they already did, btw, with RGB and GBII. Amazing what short and selective memories fandoms have.
Again those aren't remakes. Do you know what a remake is exactly? I'm sure you're having trouble telling the difference if you're saying a sequel and the animated series are remakes. Also my original point still stands: remaking films isn't most of the time necessary when the original was perfect.
JurorNo.2 wrote:They would do that if they thought it was profitable. But if the brand is already known for being bad, it's hard to turn that around for general audiences.
Meh, that's artistic creativity versus business integrity but even business should be setting some example and trying to think logically about how to approach movies.
JurorNo.2 wrote:And the franchise has weathered that too.
We will see.
JurorNo.2 wrote:You just said far more about yourself than me. None of it flattering.
What? That I don't like rubbish comedy movies?
JurorNo.2 wrote:At the rate this board is going, "we" may end up being just you and him, lol. I hope you're very happy together.
I'm sure you'll blame that on the fandom as well instead of the quality of the product.
Sav C wrote:I remember thinking that it was pretty good.
I found it very underwhelming.
Kingpin wrote:It's not Alpha, it's the studios being less willing to take a punt on something that's unknown.
A remake with a different slant isn't immediately an evil thing that needs to be shunned. I love Jumanji but I also enjoy Zathura. The same basic premise, but with a different spin (also see Battle Beyond the Stars/Magnificent Seven/Seven Samurai can sometimes be enjoyable and be able to stand on its own feet.
I totally get what you're saying but Hollywood is so scared to try something original they remake or reboot everything. It gets to the point where they start rebooting or remaking stuff that doesn't need that treatment. Zathura wasn't really a reboot so much as a semi-sequel/spin-off. Battle Beyond the Stars is different in that while influenced isn't a direct remake or uses the original name.
Alphagaia wrote:Also, did you not like remakes like Little Shop, The Thing, Let me in, True Grit, the Departed or Casino Royale? I personally loved those, and I know I'm not alone in this.
Occasionally a remake will be good, my point is that there's far too many of them today. There's no intention of trying something new and calling it something else. The fact that you like endless remakes or reboots is the type of audience Hollywood is making films for which we all unfortunately know is wrong.