The Shining REMAKE

skaterboy

Nooooo,no,no,no,nooooo this cant be happening!! theres rumours going around that there gonna remake the shining!! noo they'll ruin a perfect classic!

phasers

tenner bets that Will Smith will star

Rowley Birkin QC

Can anyone put forward any legitimate reason for a remake of any film other than generating revenue???

MikeC101

bigkev49 wrote: »

Can anyone put forward any legitimate reason for a remake of any film other than generating revenue???

Well, in fairness it's hard to put forward a legitimate reason for making a (commercial) film other than generating revenue - films are funded by studios with the intention of generating profit.

But I take your point, generally a remake is nothing more than a cynical lazy attempt to make money without having to put the effort in of original ideas and concepts.

I'd say remakes usually work best when they take a movie that may have had a strong concept, but poor execution, maybe due to budget constraints or special effects, and there is a decent amount of time between the original and the remake.

Might help to think of a few remakes that were better than the original..in my opinion:

Cronenburgs remake of the Fly is better than the original.

The Thing .

3.10 to Yuma.

Maltese Falcon (the Bogart version is a remake)

A Fistful of Dollars - this is debateable.

The Departed.

Ben Hur (a remake from the 20s, didn't know that)
erh....*googles*

http://www.onlygoodmovies.com/blog/movie-megalists/50-best-movie-remakes/ Some highly contentious stuff there.

Remakes are at their worst when they do it simply because Hollywood executives are convinced Americans won't watch foreign language movies cos they don't want to read subtitles. (Hero should have proved that wrong, no?)

Oldboy - Will Smith and Steven Spielberg are interested
GOD NO. Please don't let this happen.

Quarantine was a way inferior version of Rec.

siobhank

but Stephen King got it remade to suit his book about 10 years ago... another remake when two takes have already been done on it?
Very disappointed. No way would I go see it.

Regarding Quarintine, I actually think that it did a very good job. While it's not as good as the original it's not half bad. The extended run time also helps things along and fleshes out the characters a lot more.

MikeC101

Deleted User wrote: »

Regarding Quarintine, I actually think that it did a very good job. While it's not as good as the original it's not half bad. The extended run time also helps things along and fleshes out the characters a lot more.

To be fair it's not that bad at all - I watched it very soon after seeing Rec, which may have clouded my judgement somewhat, but I just felt it really lacking in comparison - the tension just wasn't there for me like it was in Rec. Also, don't they leave out the

demonic possession aspect of the virus in it?

mike65

I fancy its the only Kubrick film anyone would have the balls to remake (no I don't count Lolita as that was a fresh adaptation of the book, not the film). As for the Shining, I have to admit to not having seen it except in bits 'n pieces but clearly its still pristine and current enough to not need a luke warm remake.

arcade1

NO NO NO.
The Shining is perfect as it is!!
It is actually one of the most amazing films of all time.
no could direct it better and no one could play the parts better.
Kubricks use of steady-cam was ground breaking.
(steady-cam was invented for rocky and the shining was only the second film to use it.)

][cEMAN**

I was just thinking about Kubrick and the Shining the other day...

...I think the idea was good, the film was ****. The only thing that saved it was Jack. He did such a great job in the lead that it MADE the film.

So I think, without him, the film would fall flat on his face. I don't like Kubrick - over rated, hyped up wannabe

flanree

' wrote:

[cEMAN**;61284859']I was just thinking about Kubrick and the Shining the other day...

...I think the idea was good, the film was ****. The only thing that saved it was Jack. He did such a great job in the lead that it MADE the film.

So I think, without him, the film would fall flat on his face. I don't like Kubrick - over rated, hyped up wannabe

Exactly who did Kubrick wannabe? Do you think 2001 or A Clockwork Orange were jumping on any cinematic bandwagons?

Neo#

My favorite horror of all time. Ive no doubt it will be a disaster if its remade.

mike65

Kubrick as "wannabe", heard it all now. He was him and thats that

Auvers

' wrote:

[cEMAN**;61284859']don't like Kubrick - over rated, hyped up wannabe

:rolleyes:

as for remakes I couldnt really give a sh1te, I will just choose not to watch it

humanji

I think that it was Kubrick and Jack Nicholson that made the Shining great. The woman was terrible (and dog ugly to boot!), the kid annoyed the hell out of me, and Scatman Crothers always creeped me out (but that's my problem, I guess).

Maybe they could do what Gus Van Sant did with Psycho and remake it in every detail. Then they can just edit in the new version of the wife, the son and Scatman Crothers (possibly Scatman John). It'd be like Kubrick directed it but with a better cast for the other roles.

speedboatchase

There are no sacred cows in the Horror genre, which is why it irritates me so much. The Shining is the only classic left un-remade and unless you can attract the calibre of director and actor as Nicholson and Kubrick (which considering the casts of horror films these days is impossible) you will fall completely flat on your face. I haven't heard these rumours myself but it would be a travesty if it were remade, certain films cultural impact should leave them completely untouchable for at least 50 years

KTRIC

Judge Dredd is being remade , the original was out in 95 as far as I remember and was quite bad.

jimbling

I didn't really think the shinning was that great to be honest. Jack was brilliant obviously, but other than that it wasn't the best.
In saying that, I did read the book before I watched the movie, so that probably had a big influence. The book is awesome...... and terrifying.

Auvers

KTRIC wrote: »

Judge Dredd is being remade

thats great news

uncleoswald

MikeC101 wrote: »

Might help to think of a few remakes that were better than the original..in my opinion:


The Departed.

Have to disagree on this one.

So are they going to be remaking Kubricks The Shining or is it going to be another adaption of Kings The Shining?

Karl Hungus

There is no Shining remake in the works, this is rubbish. "Rumours" means "Stuff I made up".

skaterboy

Karl Hungus wrote: »

There is no Shining remake in the works, this is rubbish. "Rumours" means "Stuff I made up".

no there actually is rumourshttp://www.movie-list.com/forum/showthread.php?t=13016

Karl Hungus

skaterboy wrote: »

no there actually is rumourshttp://www.movie-list.com/forum/showthread.php?t=13016

That's a joke... for gods sake, stop posting crap.

][cEMAN**

flanree wrote: »

Exactly who did Kubrick wannabe? Do you think 2001 or A Clockwork Orange were jumping on any cinematic bandwagons?

Wannabe an artist by itself.

2001 is always the example people use. Why? Are you going to tell me the music and shots moved you? Does that alone make a film?

OK this is my honest take on Kubrick - OTT. He just pushed it over the boundaries of film making, and not in the good way. 2001, a great score, and some great cinematography, and then you had a good story, but it was all too seperate. It was as if they all held up as outstanding art (music, picture), but not blending seemlessly. He made it TOO obvious.

Same with A Clockwork Orange. Yeah it got banned for years. The message was a good one. I think he just pushed it to get that across, and pushed it too far. I like the idea, but I feel the shock value is just too shocking to fit well with the film. Add to it the sets and costume emphasised something that didn't need to be.

I guess i'm wrong for having an opinion though. I mean after all art is really to do with the artists intent vs the observers perception of it. So for me 2001 would have been a great score on its own. It would have been a great photographic display on its own, moving or single shot capture. Thing is though, along with the story, they should compliment each other, not fight for the main pull on your senses.

But again, that's just my opinion. I should have stated it's my opinion that he wanted to be an artist too much (the wannabe comment), and a director secondly. So in my opinion a work of art doesn't necessarily make a good film.

Auvers wrote: »

:rolleyes:

And quite frankly, if this is the element of discussion on the matter or even an implied "You're talking out your ass, he's an accepted genius" (or any forms there of), then really your point has no more validity than mine. If you think he's great, and each of the films are, then please state why. Discussion can evolve, so by all means let it.

*EDIT* I've started a new thread herewith hopefully some discussion for and against Kubrick. Probably better to reply there on the subject than go off topic here *EDIT*

Auvers

I just found your statement that Kubrick was an "over rated, hyped up wannabe" a bit perplexing

I see you explained yourself in your latest post which is fair enough, while I dont agree with you I do respect your opinion.

But dont you think its great to see a bit of expermantion with movies that try to go beyond what is usually made?

and at least when you sat down to watch one of Kubricks movies you knew you were going to get something a little different.

skaterboy

Karl Hungus wrote: »

That's a joke... for gods sake, stop posting crap.

sorry:(...i thought it was real...

skaterboy

skaterboy wrote: »

no there actually is rumourshttp://www.movie-list.com/forum/showthread.php?t=13016

Oh sweet Jesus, that's your source for this.... I would post another face palm but at this stage I'm running out of them.

skaterboy

Deleted User wrote: »

Oh sweet Jesus, that's your source for this.... I would post another face palm but at this stage I'm running out of them.

ha lol

Karl Hungus

This thread has gone nowhere.