NationStates Jolt Archive

For fuck's sake... (http://film.guardian.co.uk/news/story/0,,1791421,00.html)

Zhang Ziyi is in talks to star in the latest remake of Akira Kurosawa's The Seven Samurai. The Chinese star is reportedly interested in playing the part of a peasant girl who hides from bandits wearing boy's clothes. Kurosowa's martial epic, a perennial fixture of all-time best lists, has been re-made on numerous occasions before, most notably as Hollywood's The Magnificent Seven.

Bloody hell, when will they learn to leave well enough alone?

Couple of points--the remaking of stories has been taking place ever since the inception of language, so it won't stop anytime soon. Second, where did it say anything about Hollywood in that piece? Hollywood's not the only movie center in the world, you know.

For fuck's sake... (http://film.guardian.co.uk/news/story/0,,1791421,00.html)



Bloody hell, when will they learn to leave well enough alone?
Don't know who said it, some ancient Greek probably, but there are only 7ish storylines. Everything else is just rehashing.

For fuck's sake... (http://film.guardian.co.uk/news/story/0,,1791421,00.html)



Bloody hell, when will they learn to leave well enough alone?

I know. Hollywood needs to come up with original ideas. You can't make a good movie by remaking a Kurasowa film.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0054047/
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0058461/
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0076759/

Remeber when hollywood made orignal movies?


nope

Remember when Hollywood came up with original movies?...

Nope. Take A Star Is Born for example. Original made in 1937, remade in 1954 and then again in 1976. This is hardly a new phenomenon.

For fuck's sake... (http://film.guardian.co.uk/news/story/0,,1791421,00.html)



Bloody hell, when will they learn to leave well enough alone?

Because Hollywood is basically scraping the bottom of the barrel these days. Its a lot easier to rehash some old 70s TV show into a lame movie (See Starchky & Hutch, Charlies Angels, Mission Impossible) than to come up with an original script. As for remakes, the only one I have found acceptable was Martin Scorseses remake of Cape Fear. And they wonder why cinema revenues have dropped the last 3 years.

Hollywood seems to be on a remake crazy train, with The Omen being the latest crap to be churned out. What was wrong with the 1976 original??? Now that was a creepy movie. I would hate to see a Death Wish "adaptation" (thats the new code word for half ass remake in Hollywood) and we certainly don't need another Seven Samurai film.

Won't it be funny when they started doing remakes of modern (21st Century) movies?

I know. Hollywood needs to come up with original ideas. You can't make a good movie by remaking a Kurasowa film.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0054047/
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0058461/
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0076759/

Glad I checked those links before I launched my tirade against you there. Of course, whether you consider the last one you gave to be a good film or just a laughable piece of pantomime is still very much at issue.

Anyhoo: evidence against -

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0080421/

Remember when Hollywood came up with original movies?...
That was before I was born. I pity anyone born in 2000 up. There hasn't been a single original movie idea that made it big.

I LOVE remakes. Like House on Haunted Hill, wait.. nevermind..

Imagine this conversation taking place in Elizabethan England--"Can't playwrights ever come up with new stories? It's always this Romeo and Juliet or Henry the Fifth or Dr. Faustus or some other remake."

Won't it be funny when they started doing remakes of modern (21st Century) movies?
That won't be for another 30 years at least. But at such time we can all bitch about how much better the original remakes were.

Nope. Take A Star Is Born for example. Original made in 1937, remade in 1954 and then again in 1976. This is hardly a new phenomenon.
its time to make a new one.

im thinking brittney spears for the star and...... ricky martin for the male lead.

Bah... We've had remakes from the start... The first Remake was "The Great Train Robber" (1904) which was a remake of "The Great Train Robbery" (1903).

The problem with Hollywood is not the amount of remakes, its the amount of movies that AREN'T remakes that lack originality. Even an old story like Romeo and Juliet can be made into a new, original piece of art with a creative mind.

Like, say, Lloyd Kaufman, director of Tromeo and Juliet.

Meanwhile, the screenwriter of that Film, James Gunn, went on to make a movie that, while paying homage to many horror movies and having similarities, was a movie set apart from the rest. But you people ignored it. America in General ignored the movie "SLiTHER" and went on to bitch about the lack of original movies.

When you should be complaining about movies that aren't remakes being tired ideas without even a chance of life being pumped into them.

(actually, the movie SLiTHER lost alot of money because of people who haven't seen the movie claiming it's a remake of Night of the Creeps because both have killer slugs. So does the movie Slugs)

And while I am on this originality rant, Giant Killer Rabbits must have seemed original. Now, did people flock to the theaters in the seventies for the Giant Killer Rabbit film, Night of the Lepus? Oh, hell no. It lived into obscurity for those of us who enjoy bad movies.

Watch something from Troma. Watch something from Odessafilmworks. Originality? Jesus Christ Vampire Hunter.

Remember when Hollywood came up with original movies?...

When would that be?

When Cecil B. DeMille remade his own 1923 film The Ten Commandments 33 years later with Charlton Heston? Or the 1932 remake of Rebecca of Sunny Brook Farm from the 1917 original? Or The Phantom of the Opera, remade in 1945 from the 1925 version? How about The Last Days of Pompeii, originally made in 1913, then again in 1928? One of the earliest remakes has to be 1916's The Three Godfathers, which was originally made as Bronco Billy and the Baby in 1909.

Hollywood has always - will always - plagiarize itself.

Glad I checked those links before I launched my tirade against you there. Of course, whether you consider the last one you gave to be a good film or just a laughable piece of pantomime is still very much at issue.

Anyhoo: evidence against -

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0080421/

Well, I'm not a huge Star Wars fan...But it is a movie that is, well, better then your average Hollywood garbage. Please don't mistake me as a Star Wars fan because after wasting eight bucks on Revenge of the Sith I curse George Lucas's name...

Anyway, your evidence against only works if: It was intended to be a more serious movie then it was. If it was intentionally bad, then it did it's purpose and was therefore not a failure.

Roger Corman Produced the film, and he's done movies that were bad, and intentionally bad. So we can't use him as evidence. Remember, Little Shop of Horrors was intentionally Cheesey. However, the Wasp Woman was just plain pitiful.

However, it was written by: John Sayles. This is the guy who wrote a Jurassic Park 4 script that was about Dinosaurs that escaped the island, and to track these beasts down, scientists are using other "mecha" dinosaurs. John Sayles has an odd sense of humor that is for only some... He makes bad cheesey movies but is a talented writer and director.

Bah... We've had remakes from the start... The first Remake was "The Great Train Robber" (1904) which was a remake of "The Great Train Robbery" (1903).

Damn: I was trying to remember that one - the best I could do was recall that it was pre-Great War, but the name was eluding me completely.

They're remaking a Kuroswa?.....THEY SHALL DIE!!!!!!

They're remaking a Kuroswa?.....THEY SHALL DIE!!!!!!

Go watch Yojimbo and a Fistful of Dollars back to back.

Though it's debatable, I found a Fistful of Dollars to be superior.

REMAKES are OKAY!

I, personally, can't wait for the Battle Royale remake. Assuming they make it more then just a simple action film... I want it true to the original: A cheesey, darkly comic, vaguely political exploitation film (speaking of Roger Corman..... He's probably the only one who can do it right).

They have remade films since the beginning. Heck even Casablanca was remade :eek:

They make "original" films all the time.

They tend to be the ones with little or no advertising.

Two great films were Eule's Gold and Her Majisty Mrs. Brown.

Both lost out to that crap of a film Titanic (FX was decent though).

can i at least whine about how they remake CRAP and dont even do that well?

how may piss poor tv shows and cartoons are there left to make a movie out of? i suppose that once they run through them all we'll get remakes of "the brady bunch" and "scoobydoo"

Throne of Blood - Akira Kurosawa - Plot Outline: A ruthlessly ambitious lord, egged on by his wife, works to fulfill a prophesy that he would become Emperor.

OMG! Kurosawa is totally ripping off Shakespeare!:rolleyes:

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0050613/

can i at least whine about how they remake CRAP and dont even do that well?

how may piss poor tv shows and cartoons are there left to make a movie out of? i suppose that once they run through them all we'll get remakes of "the brady bunch" and "scoobydoo"
I used to love the old scooby doo cartoons. Never saw the movies though.

I used to love the old scooby doo cartoons. Never saw the movies though.


The new movies were handled lovingly by genuis screenwriter James Gunn. Despite this, the movie has the typical failings of a major studio film (i.e. Painful Product Placement, That fucker from American Idol for no reason).

I don't think anyone should complain about the movies. They were the best you can get with Live Action Scooby Doo. They manage to make the jokes that us older people make looking back on the cartoon, while simotaneously staying kid friendly.

While watching the Cartoon, even though the monsters were out to get them, you never felt they were in any danger. Scooby Doo 2 makes you realize "Holy shit, they could die."

Hollywood should make a movie based on the rpg "Rifts". That'd be original. High tech sci-fi, magic, and monsters all rolled into one.

HOLY FUDGE! Hollywood used to make original movies?!?!?

HOLY FUDGE! Hollywood used to make original movies?!?!?
No, that's just an urban legend.

Here's a remake that will not only be pointless, but will also entirely miss the point of the original 1973 film, starring Christopher Lee, Edward Woodward and Britt Ekland:

The Wicker Man (http://www.apple.com/trailers/wb/thewickerman/), starring (get this): Nicolas Cage & Ellen Burstyn, in what looks all too suspiciously like a disposable pseudo-Satanic piece of crap.

(actually, the movie SLiTHER lost alot of money because of people who haven't seen the movie claiming it's a remake of Night of the Creeps because both have killer slugs. So does the movie Slugs)


When I saw the poster for it I a thought "Fuck, now they are remaking Shivers!"

I felt very stupid when I saw the trailer (and the film of course).

On topic.

I don't think it is a question coming up with something totally original. It is possible to remake or adapt something in an original way. A Fistful of Dollars might be a remake, but you cannot doubt it was done in an original way.

The annoying thing now is that many films either bastardise sources turning them into mindless drivel (a la I, Robot), simply flog film franchises for all they are worth with each installment just being more of the last, or just new ways to churn out the same old crap.

Here's a remake that will not only be pointless, but will also entirely miss the point of the original 1973 film, starring Christopher Lee, Edward Woodward and Britt Ekland:

The Wicker Man (http://www.apple.com/trailers/wb/thewickerman/), starring (get this): Nicolas Cage & Ellen Burstyn, in what looks all too suspiciously like a disposable pseudo-Satanic piece of crap.
I've come to the conclusion that Nicholas Cage is the most overrated piece of crap actor of our generation--worse than even Kevin Costner, because Cage still somehow manages to get work. I saw the trailer for "World Trade Center" last night before "An Inconvenient Truth" and I groaned when I saw that Cage was starring in it--not that I was interested in it before, but now I'm actively opposed to seeing it.

The Wicker Man (http://www.apple.com/trailers/wb/thewickerman/), starring (get this): Nicolas Cage & Ellen Burstyn, in what looks all too suspiciously like a disposable pseudo-Satanic piece of crap.

The trailer confirmed my worst fears. Oh my god it looks terrible.


And pointless. (Well I understand the point is to make money. I just wish the studios would be upfront it)

I can't wait till the they remake Logan's Run.:)

Well, one thing's for damn sure: they'll cop-out of the original film's climax. Not to mention dispensing with the Pagan underpinnings. So, what's left? Little enough that wrapping it all up in Satanist's clothing ought to put enough bums on seats down in the Bible belt that this ill-considered waste of celluloid'll probably break even before hitting the video store shelves.

I bet they won't even have all those great tunes to groove to, either. Or all the late-night fucking in the streets, either.

Meanwhile, the worthwhile story of the Silver Surfer (worthwhile IMO, of course) is being seconded to being the subplot of the sequel (http://www.comicbookmovie.com/news/articles/2762.asp) to the lacklustre Fantastic Four.

Meanwhile, the worthwhile story of the Silver Surfer (worthwhile IMO, of course) is being seconded to being the subplot of the sequel (http://www.comicbookmovie.com/news/articles/2762.asp) to the lacklustre Fantastic Four.


Honestly, I think this is pretty much the same thing as when Kirstin Dunst announced that Black Cat will be in Spiderman 2.

I.E. Hoax.

I know. Hollywood needs to come up with original ideas. You can't make a good movie by remaking a Kurasowa film.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0054047/
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0058461/
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0076759/

Then theres Yo Jimbo, which became last man standing and some clint eastwood movie i cant be bothered to look up. really, if they only did Kurosawa remakes it would be fantastic. for a while.

Honestly, I think this is pretty much the same thing as when Kirstin Dunst announced that Black Cat will be in Spiderman 2.

I.E. Hoax.
One can only hope.

There's comics that have sold well in spite of a really compelling backstory (I'll include the F.F. and the Avengers in this category), and then there's comics that - well, that really have a lot of good elements to work with, as far as on-screen adaptations go.

Norrin Radd, a man who must rise above all fears personal safety to try in some way to prevent the death of his planet at the hands of a force beyond concepts of Good or Evil; a man who sacrifices his humanity, his identity, his true love and his home to serve under that same force; who ultimately refuses to consign Earth to the same terrible fate that nearly befell his own world, and in refusing, is brutally punished for his transgressions.

Great stuff to work with, there. Great potential. I could think of all sorts of angles to exploit for film purposes. Not to mention the possibilities for gratuitous special effects.

Let's hope it is a hoax. Besides, Vin Diesel's (http://www.cinescape.com/0/editorial.asp?aff_id=0&obj_id=38210&this_cat=Movies) indicated he'd like to play Norrin Radd - and I think he's actually quite well-suited to do so.

Remember when Hollywood came up with original movies?...

Yes, I remember those times. It was a golden age of cinema, a time of creativity and artistic valor. During those days rich men flew around in zeppelins throwing pennies at the masses and dragons roamed the Earth...

REMAKES are OKAY!
Good remakes are okay. Unfortunately, we have an amazing crapload of manure.

I mean did we REALLY need a Dukes of Hazzard movie? Beverly Hillbillies? I mean, what the heck next?

Myself, I can't wait for BJ and the Bear. [/sarcasm]