Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Movies, Books, TV & Media' started by KnightBrolaire, May 8, 2017.
What did you think the hole in the DVD was for?
Marshall is saying that the reboot is going to be a hard r-rated horror film.
No idea what you mean, wanker, remember English is not my first language.
I don't get it.......Del Toro and Pearlman have said they wanted to make a third installment for donkey's years now but no studio wanted to invest because the first 2 weren't commercially successful enough.
Now a studio is investing and they just bypass those 2......seriously, WTF?!?
analize instead of analyze. one makes people think of butt sex and the other doesn't.
really? young minds, in my language you can do it too if you take the effort to think in that sense instead of a cognitive interpretation, obviously.
Oh, I thought it was, given your english is twice as good as many of the posters from english-speaking countries.
It's just a funny near-pun. Analyze is a word, the other is like, a constructed verb that would imply "DO ANAL TO" Mainly only depraved nerds would read it that way, and everyone normal would just think you made a spelling error. Though, if you google search "analize," check out the results you get for porno movies! There is actually one from 2004 which is called "Analize this" and is a porno parody of "analyze this"!
English is a weird language. Too many polite words are the same or similar to impolite words. I guess other languages do that as well, but the fact that English is such an odd mixture of oversimplification and overly complex rules, just makes it worse.
But I agree that Hollywood is going to likely analize this movie really hard. The end result might be a wreck, or it might be a popcorn flick, but I'd bet dollars to donuts that it's not going to end up being what I would consider a worthwhile piece of cinematic art.
I was a huge fan of Del Toro. Chronos, the Devil's Backbone, and Pan's Labyrinth are three of my top twenty favourite films. Hellboy is up there, too. I even thought Pacific Rim was way better than critics said... and I love the Strain. I'm not sure what happened with the Hobbit, but, well, other than trying to fit 300 pounds of .... in a ten pound bag, I thought it was done quite well. Expectations after the LotR trilogy were set fairly high, and Del Toro really didn't have that much control in the end.
Anyway... I think Ron Perlman could still pull off Hellboy in 2017, or 2018...but probably not much after that. The first film was what, 11 or 12 years ago now? But the idea of a "reboot" is lost on me. But then again, I'm sooo sick of "reboots" in general. [rant]Now I have to refer to every damned film by the title and the year it came out. It was confusing enough when I was a kid and they reshot Night of the Living Dead in colour and completely changed the ending, missing out on the entire artistic point of the film. But nowadays, the big movie studios are doing it on a monthly basis.
My question is "does this film need to be remade?" If there's nothing new to say, and they just want to put whichever flavour-of-the-moment actor's face on the film and update the CGI, there's no point. Because, by the time the film comes out on DVD or bluray or is on HBO or Netflix or whatever, the actor is going to be less relevant and the CGI is going to be dated once again. It's like running out and buying an entire new computer every time they come out with a new graphics card. It's trendy and excessive and dumb.
Hollywood just doesn't want to admit that they are a bunch of stuffy old men who are afraid of new ideas, and we, the consumers, are too easily distracted by explosions and boobs to tell them that we won't excuse their laziness.[/rant]
So...I get their number. Let the Right One In was an awesome movie. It had so much going on in it, that you could watch it three times and still have something to think about. Immediately after it came out, production started up on Let Me In, the same movie, but set in the good ole USA and starring Chloe Grace Moretz and with several times the budget. I felt the remake missed a lot of what the original did, and didn't really have new nuances to replace the complexity. They couldn't even capture the spirit of the name with the new name. It wasn't a bad flick, but it was just gratuitous. Most folks I know who saw both and had anything good to say about the second one were focused on the pesky subtitles in the original....
So...this could go a lot of different ways. Maybe Hellboy (2019) will have something new to say. But...more likely it will merely try to capitalize on the recent trend in vapid scripting and playing on nostalgia for old things that were cool years ago, with a little bit of explosions and a small PG-13 sized side of T&A.
Let Me In had a few improved aspects - the scene with the car crash is GREAT and is not drawn from anything in the original, there are no CGI cats, and I like the (possibly too blunt) parallels between the old dude and Oscar (or whatever he's called in the remake). That caretaker character is more sad than the original, where he still carries tinges of the source material, where he turned into a zombie with a boner that was trying to rape Eli for the rest of the story (no joke!!). It also looked good. The original is in my top 3 favorite movies, which all alternate depending on my mood, but I REALLY liked the remake when I saw it. I haven't watched it again since, though, so maybe it doesn't hold up. I saw some of one of the scenes on TV and was pretty annoyed by the CGI monster-girl effects with Chloe Moretz jumping around, and I did hate that they
made her a girl
and thought that destroyed one of the main ideas of the original.
According to neil marshall the film is going to be r-rated, focusing on the action/horror elements from the comics and downplaying the whole snarky buddy cop vibe of the 1st movie.
I will say that Let The Right One In is excellent and the american version infuriates me largely due to how it apes so many of the shots. There are parts where it's exactly the same, shot for shot. I felt it never nailed the camraderie that eli and oscar had in the original. The kids had way better chemistry in that version. Same thing with Girl With The Dragon Tattoo, I greatly preferred the original. Fisher's version nails the darkness of the premise but doesn't really improve on it as far as I'm concerned.
That's one of my problems with the american version, it loses the subtlety of the original. I liked that Eli was androgynous and it was hard to tell if she was actually a girl, same with the subtext between her and the caretaker. The crappy CGI only cemented my hate for it, it was completely unnecessary.
Del Toro didn't do the Hobbit. He was supposed to, but left the project like 2 years into pre-production and they were forced to start over because of it. Peter Jackson ended up doing everything himself with only like 3 months of pre-production left just so his New Zealand production crew wouldn't get laid off. The behind the scenes make you really hate the way Hollywood is run these days for that trilogy (only intended to be a 2-part initially, hence why the 3rd felt drawn out).
Any failures of those films can be blamed on a set release date BEFORE the films even started shooting.
oh, man, I'll never make that spelling mistake again
I rather enjoyed the original film trilogy starting with The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo, and I was immediately skeptical about a big budget remake. But I rented it out of a RedBox for a buck anyway. I almost turned it off during the opening credits, since it seemed so...hmm, I don't know the word for it. I guess it strongly came off as trying too hard to be everything it was not intended to be. Overall, the remake film wasn't ultimately as bad as I thought it was going to be, but still completely unnecessary.
The Hobbit would have been much better as a two-part series, IMO. Your comment about how Hollywood is run these days really resonates with me. It seems like 99.9% of the work done there is so contrived. I miss when a film was just a film, not the opening act for a trilogy. Just make the damned film, and make it a good film. If people like it, then worry about the sequel. If people like the sequel, then make it a trilogy. If your film is based on a book, and you title the film the same or basically the same as the book, then stick to the spirit of the source material. Don't make a thriller book into a comedy movie, etc. Also, if you can't think of any books to film, nor any original ideas, stop turning films that came out last year into new films to come out next year. I just don't get why people pay $14 to go to a theater to see a movie that is a remake of a movie they didn't go see two years prior.
And, for the love of god, if a movie has a cult following, don't reboot it. Just don't do it. It's a money grab and everybody knows it is. Take, The Texas Chainsaw Massacre, it certainly has a strong cult following, and it's respected by some for its unconventional themes. So why remake the film? I dunno, it doesn't seem like it needs to be remade, yet... it was, in 1995, and then again in 2003, and then again in 2006, and then again in 2013. WTF?
I feel silly for already hating Hellboy reboot, but it's a film with a cult following that did a lot of things that were unconventional at the time, and ended up having a huge impact influencing films since then. How can any remake live up to that?!
Comics reboot all the time, movies are just doing the same thing. Reboots/remakes have been made by hollywood since they started making movies, it's just that they seem to be exceptionally prevalent within the last 17 years. Sometimes reboots are better than the original. In Texas Chainsaw Massacre's case though, I'd argue that all the remakes are terrible and somehow lack the disturbing qualities of the original (seriously watch the scene where they pick up the hitchhiker and he starts cutting himself, it's intense). Martyrs (a french horror film) is a great and disturbing film but the american remake is terrible. There are plenty of good remakes though. Cape Fear is a good example, the original was made in 1962, then a remake in 1991 and it was better than the original. Same with The Fly or The Thing, they were remakes/reboots and are superior to the originals imo. Same with Scarface and Insomnia (Robin williams was creepy af in that and Photo booth).
At least they're trying to go a different direction with this iteration of hellboy and not try to make a carbon copy of the original. That's part of why I hated Let Me In and the american version of Girl With the Dragon Tattoo, they didn't really add anything substantial or original to the premises.
A comic that comes out once a month or similar is more understandable. It's like a television show. And, for whatever reasons (I think we can both guess the same thing), when they remake a 30 year old movie, my reaction to hearing about it is totally different than when I hear about a remake of a three year old movie.
The Thing is a weird situation where someone decided to film a prequel to the original and give it the same title. The two films almost seamlessly tie together, though.
Another example that's excusable is Batman. There were the original Batman films, which are pretty much forgotten. I've only seen bits and pieces of them on youtube. When Adam West came along to be Batman, it was for a television programme, which was successful, and ended up becoming a movie. That totally makes sense. Then, many years later, Tim Burton wanted to make a grittier darker Batman movie. There was a purpose behind it and the film was good. As those sequels went on into silliness, and people attached to the first film of the series were no longer even tangentially involved, and no one really wanted to be involved in continuing, well, it made sense to reboot, and Batman Begins was good. Now that Nolan is no longer interested in doing Batman movies, it makes sense to do it again, if they come up with a good piece of source material.
Hellboy has less source material from which to draw, has a film-maker still interested in finishing a third installment, and has fewer tie-ins with other material than Batman.
IDK, hopefully I'm wrong, but "rebooting" Hellboy at this point in time seems cheap, to me.
The age of the original, how well known it is, how much of a cult following it has, what ideas the new team has to make an interesting films, etc., all factor into how a remake will come off.
TCM was a mistake to reboot, in every case, IMO. Even though it was an aging film, and not that widely known, it has a huge cult following and the remakes just didn't have enough originality to stand out.
The Fly was pretty old when it was remade, and the original didn't really have a big following. It was well known to fans of old drive-in thrillers, but not to the general public. The film makers also came up with a lot of ways to make the newer film unique and interesting on its own.
Now Scarface is generally considered a remake of the 1932 film with the same name, but, hmm, well, they have a lot in common, but the details are all completely different: the ethnicities of the characters, the location, the time period, the political stuff going on in the background of everything and how it mingles with the plot...but all of these elements are almost mirror images...so, well, IDK, it's an interesting film and I thought they did a good job making an interesting film that recycled a lot from the original but is almost a completely different film. Plus, it was fifty years between them.
The Thing Prequel was such a missed opportunity. I'm a big FX guy and I watched all of the behind the scene stuff for the practical effects, of which the original is legendary for as well. The studio cut ALL of it out because they thought they'd have to build a CGI version anyhow to fix holes in the plot, so they figured they'd just only use CGI (no faith in the film, and only looking out for the profit margin). So they moved all of the pre-production budget to the post-production and you get something that totally missed the point of the original in the process. The practical effects looked amazing and definitely looked far superior to the video game quality CGI we ended up with in the end. Yet another reason why I hate Hollywood.
Personally I find the amount of time between remaking a film irrelevant, all that matters is if they do something different enough to make it worth watching.
I have hope that Marshall will deliver something very different to what Del Toro did. He's sticking in his wheelhouse by making it a horror film, and to me, that's a good thing.
In my previous post I wasn't really talking about the latest remake of the Thing, I was talking about Carpenter's version, which is actually a remake of an older 50's film. But anyways, the SFX on The Fly and The Thing (1982 version) are so awesome.I love practical effects. The ribcage mouth/spider head is one of my favorite pieces next to the werewolf transformation in American Werewolf in London or the brundlefly. I remember seeing videos of the practical fx they made for the 2012 thing and they looked really good, it was such a waste to not use that version of the monster.
CGI is fine when used intelligently imo, the problem is that it doesn't feel "real" on screen like it does when they use practical fx. A great example would be the Hobbit vs Lord of the Rings. The goblin fight scene in the first hobbit movie felt too "fake" since it was all green screened, versus when Boromir and the fellowship fight the Uruk-hai, it felt much more "real" since it was stuntman in makeup/masks.