Film forum off topic/random chat thread

pixelburp

Tony EH wrote: »

It has this aura from some. But frankly it's a load of old pony. A few parents in America kicked up a fuss about it at the time and made a few headlines and it happened on the cusp of the PG-13 rating introduction.

'Raiders of the Lost Ark' has far more disturbing imagery than 'Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom' ever had. People's faces melt, for god's sake. How Mr. Playmount ever got that movie passed as a PG remains one of the wonders of the world.

Difference between then and now, is that the "fuss" was mostly letters sent to fanzines and publications: remember that was the era of Mary Whitehouse and her ilk. We didn't see the outrages because there was more curation; now with the "democratisation" of the internet every wingnut gets pushed to the forefront 'cos clickbait sells.

Tony EH

p to the e wrote: »

Didn't someone's heart get pulled out of their chest?

Yeh.

Which, actually diminished that scene for me.

Up until I bought the blu, I had only seen the BBFC cut version of the film where Mola Ram puts his hand on the guys chest and in the next scene he turns to the camera and there's a heart in his hand. So, you can kinda say that he was pulling a fas one for his followers and whipped a heart out of his pocket.

But, in the uncut blu, you see his hand enter the guys chest, which just makes the scene even more stupid.

But still...hearts < melting faces.

Tony EH

pixelburp wrote: »

Difference between then and now, is that the "fuss" was mostly letters sent to fanzines and publications: remember that was the era of Mary Whitehouse and her ilk. We didn't see the outrages because there was more curation; now with the "democratisation" of the internet every wingnut gets pushed to the forefront 'cos clickbait sells.

Oh no doubt.

But also, movie makers in general have sort of thumbed their noses up at the "it's too gory" crowd. Sure what's shown on TV now is often much worse than a lot of the so called video nasties of 1984. 'Zombie Flesh Eaters' gets banned in the 80's and in the 2000's there's a zombie show on the tele that granny watches.

These days, the irate are usually nerds getting upset because they didn't see the story they wrote in their heads unfold on the screen and they go into meltdown.

Dades

FunLover18 wrote: »

I don't mean to pick on you specifically Dades, your post just highlights a trend online of people suggesting that "wokeness" is hampering storytelling which I don't understand, if anything it's having the opposite effect where lazy stereotypes are being put to bed.

EDIT: I've just realised you might have been being sarcastic.

No sarcasm intended, but neither did I mean to suggest any about wokeness and storytelling. An innocent observation just.

p to the e wrote: »

Didn't someone's heart get pulled out of their chest?

Not to mention a lot of scenes of child slaves getting, whipped, beaten etc.

I love Temple, as it was the first Indy I was old enough to be mesmerised by.
But it's the one of the 'trilogy' I haven't shown my kids yet as it's not as fun as the others.

Stop moaning ffs

Slightly OT but an E.T. And Elliot reunion. It’s a (long) ad for what I’m not exactly sure but it’s cute

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pdgk3ERKdug

p to the e

Stop moaning ffs wrote: »

Slightly OT but an E.T. And Elliot reunion. It’s a (long) ad for what I’m not exactly sure but it’s cute

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pdgk3ERKdug

I really would have loved it to be a trailer for Always Ultra or something completely left field.

The Black Oil

Steve Martin linked to this. Hard not to miss both Candy and Ebert.

https://www.rogerebert.com/reviews/great-movie-planes-trains-and-automobiles-1987

Agent Coulson

The Black Oil wrote: »

Steve Martin linked to this. Hard not to miss both Candy and Ebert.

https://www.rogerebert.com/reviews/great-movie-planes-trains-and-automobiles-1987

And Hughes.

pixelburp

So looks like The Thing is being remade...

... but before anyone rolls their eyes, the couple of interesting points is that it's being produced by Blumhouse (and Universal), while it'll apparently be based off a recently discovered, novel length version of John W. Campbell's "Who Goes There?" (the short story on which the film was based)

https://bloody-disgusting.com/movie/3602436/universal-blumhouse-developing-new-version-thing-will-adapt-long-lost-original-novel/

Tony EH

Too late. My feckin eyes rolled out of my head.

El Duda

As great as John Carpenter's The Thing is, every time I watch it I can't help but think it would be greatly improved with more jump scares and CGI instead of practical effects.

pixelburp

El Duda wrote: »

As great as John Carpenter's The Thing is, every time I watch it I can't help but think it would be greatly improved with more jump scares and CGI instead of practical effects.

But that's what makes me think there's a small chink of light here; Blumhouse making this means the budget is likely to be respectable without allowing for CGI overkill, while their portfolio has shown enough variation and creativity to think this mightn't be an instant bust. Feels tentative...

p to the e

pixelburp wrote: »

So looks like The Thing is being remade...

... but before anyone rolls their eyes, the couple of interesting points is that it's being produced by Blumhouse (and Universal), while it'll apparently be based off a recently discovered, novel length version of John W. Campbell's "Who Goes There?" (the short story on which the film was based)

https://bloody-disgusting.com/movie/3602436/universal-blumhouse-developing-new-version-thing-will-adapt-long-lost-original-novel/

It was already remade.

Homelander

El Duda wrote: »

As great as John Carpenter's The Thing is, every time I watch it I can't help but think it would be greatly improved with more jump scares and CGI instead of practical effects.

I watched the 2011 version over Christmas, it's honestly quite decent but they really should've used (some) degree of practical effects, the CGI cheapens it and a lot of it is completely unnecessary.

pixelburp

Homelander wrote: »

I watched the 2011 version over Christmas, it's honestly quite decent but they really should've used (some) degree of practical effects, the CGI cheapens it and a lot of it is completely unnecessary.

They actually had been using practical effects, loads of 'em; the original intention from the start with the 2011 version was to use puppets & animatronics, with only CGI to airbrush out the "joins". The way the heads of the FX department tell the story, the executives visited the set one day; they basically looked at the props, and went "that's no good, you can only see the monsters from one angle", then ordered the production to go fully CGI so the monsters could pounce and move about more freely. There's footage out there of the on-set monsters, they were spectacularly elaborate.

Tony EH

Homelander wrote: »

I watched the 2011 version over Christmas, it's honestly quite decent but they really should've used (some) degree of practical effects, the CGI cheapens it and a lot of it is completely unnecessary.

I haven't been as hard on the 2011 prequel as a lot of others. I thought it was alright, but I would have much rather have has a story that was entirely populated by Norwegians and obviously the CGI overlays were disappointing. But, it was watchable and MEW is easy on the eyes.

But, what I don't want...ever...is an actual remake. Because it WILL suck.

'The Thing' is one of those untouchable films for me. It should be left alone and not minimised by shitty remakes by lesser talent.

windbound

Is there any such Thing as a good remake of any film?

Tony EH

windbound wrote: »

Is there any such Thing as a good remake of any film?

'Ben Hur', 'The Maltese Falcon', 'Invasion of the body Snatchers', 'The Crazies'. A few off the top of my head.

In general, it doesn't work out.

El Duda

windbound wrote: »

Is there any such Thing as a good remake of any film?

The Fly and John Carpenter's The Thing are both remakes.

The Departed.

The Hills Have Eyes was decent.

pixelburp

The number of bad remakes probably & likely outnumbers the good, but that's not to say it's impossible. Just off the top of my head

Wizard of Oz (yes, that one. It was a remake of a previous film, I think)
Bram Stoker's Dracula (do Public Domain works count? In which case you can include all the good adaptations of any PD work)
The Thing
A Star is Born
Cape Fear
A Fistful of Dollars (remake of Yojimbo IIRC)
Oceans 11
12 Monkeys
Scarface
The Fly
Insomnia
True Lies (remake of a French comedy IIRC)
The Departed
Casino Royale
True Grit
Invasion of the Body Snatchers

CastorTroy

I remember there was talk of a remake of The Warriors, which is one of my favourite films.

I've said before that a lot of these remakes could be good films if they weren't remakes.
By being a remake they're hurting themselves right away.
Like by remaking The Warriors, it's instantly going to have critics. Then when it's released it will be compared to the original.
While if they make a film inspired by The Warriors with a completely different name it will have people interested that liked The Warriors.

windbound

I understand why they would remake a film that perhaps wasn't of the best quality but when they try to redo a classic its always going to be compared to the original of course. It's lazy and only done for the money I suppose and probably hoping that younger audiences wouldn't realise the film existed before. No need to remake Willy Wonka, Magnificent 7, True Grit. I hear they're remaking the Dirty Dozen next.

Dades

I doubt anyone goes out to make a bad remake of a movie, but ultimately they will be forgiven only if the movie is objectively (insofar as possible) good.

True Grit is an excellent example. 41 years later, it introduced a whole new generation to the story. But more importantly they did it right.

Also, as mentioned before, sometimes the acting in the originals just doesn't resonate with today's audience. For example I can't stand John Wayne. He's like the Pat Kenny of acting. Jeff Bridges however? That creep can roll act, man.

Bad example? Point Break. Too short a time gap, and you'll never better the original Johnny Utah and Bodhi so damn you for even trying.

CastorTroy

I'm trying to think of a bad film that could've been good if it had money behind it or better effects. So if it was remade today with modern technology it could actually be good. I guess those films usually become cult movies

UI_Paddy

I don't have a problem with remakes if they are well made and introduce a new generation to a classic they wouldn't have otherwise been exposed to. I never saw Willy Wonka & The Chocolate Factory as a kid, but after seeing Charlie & The Chocolate Factory in the cinema at 14 I decided to check it out and it became one of my favourite movies.

The Black Oil

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oNLDJp83YAQ

Oh man, thanks NPR. :cool:

Electric Nitwit

Not seen this mentioned here, a couple of teenage brothers made a stop motion (and live action) scene by scene remake of Toy Story 3. I've only watched a few scenes so far but it's very good...

https://twitter.com/thepixarist/status/1221815925357400072?s=19

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YfduDq5gLnE

TS3's director seems polite but uncertain...
https://twitter.com/leeunkrich/status/1223297319040253952?s=19

Agent Coulson

I came across New Jack City online and decided to watch it I hadn't seen it a long time and I must say he holds up really well 29 years after it came out.

p to the e

The Black Oil wrote: »

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oNLDJp83YAQ

Oh man, thanks NPR. :cool:

His score of "The Leftovers" is what turned me on to his work. Really enjoyed that.

Agent Coulson

Disney just paid Lin-Manuel Miranda $75m for the worldwide rights to his already filmed and finished Hamilton the movie with the original stage cast the movie is 2 hours and 40 minutes long and will be cinema released at the end of 2021.

It will go straight onto Disney+ once the cinema run ends.

The highest amount ever paid for a finished film.