The Cinematic Motion Picture News Thread

[Strat]

Look, are they remaking Leprauchan 3 yet or not?

You're way behind, Strat. They made 7 of those movies.

yea but I want the third one to be remade

[epilogue]

Look, are they remaking Leprauchan 3 yet or not?

You're way behind, Strat. They made 7 of those movies.

yea but I want the third one to be remade

Is that the one with Jennifer Aniston?

[tommymtcom]

Look, are they remaking Leprauchan 3 yet or not?

You're way behind, Strat. They made 7 of those movies.

yea but I want the third one to be remade

Damn, I pulled a Joey and misread your post.

[LoathedVermin72]

I do think we're just getting our wires crossed, Joey. I know what you're saying is true. But you did make it sound like it was 100%, which is what I don't think is true. But you admitted it's not 100%, so I think we're on the same page? All I'm really saying is that remakes are not artless and I think people put an inordinate focus on flinging their complaints about film culture at remakes/reboots/sequels. Film culture is in a catastrophic state right now, but it's for much bigger, deeper reasons than just original vs. brand and it's infected all arenas of filmmaking, not just Hollywood. Frankly, these days I think blockbusters are generally in better shape than indie movies.

[epilogue]

Look, are they remaking Leprauchan 3 yet or not?

You're way behind, Strat. They made 7 of those movies.

yea but I want the third one to be remade

Damn, I pulled a Joey and misread your post.

None of us is above mistake making, friend.

[tommymtcom]

Look, are they remaking Leprauchan 3 yet or not?

You're way behind, Strat. They made 7 of those movies.

yea but I want the third one to be remade

Damn, I pulled a Joey and misread your post.

None of us is above mistake making, friend.

I hold myself to a very high standard, Joey. I'm probably going to do some cutting later because of this.

[LoathedVermin72]

Look, are they remaking Leprauchan 3 yet or not?

You're way behind, Strat. They made 7 of those movies.

yea but I want the third one to be remade

Damn, I pulled a Joey and misread your post.

None of us is above mistake making, friend.

I hold myself to a very high standard, Joey. I'm probably going to do some cutting later because of this.

you mean flossing

[E.H. Ruddock]

joey you are the one who originally said "there you have it"

I don't.... what?

I don't know. I thought you posted something but it was LV. If you guys are sharing passwords I WILL find you.

[LoathedVermin72]

joey you are the one who originally said "there you have it"

I don't.... what?

I don't know. I thought you posted something but it was LV. If you guys are sharing passwords I WILL find you.

the quote formatting just fucked up so it looked like he said it

[epilogue]

I do think we're just getting our wires crossed, Joey. I know what you're saying is true. But you did make it sound like it was 100%, which is what I don't think is true. But you admitted it's not 100%, so I think we're on the same page? All I'm really saying is that remakes are not artless and I think people put an inordinate focus on flinging their complaints about film culture at remakes/reboots/sequels. Film culture is in a catastrophic state right now, but it's for much bigger, deeper reasons than just original vs. brand and it's infected all arenas of filmmaking, not just Hollywood. Frankly, these days I think blockbusters are generally in better shape than indie movies.

The artfulness of anything is subjective, as you point out so often. So I can't address that other than to disagree. Maybe you can help me, but I struggle to think of a single remake that improved upon the original version in any substantial way. I'm sure there are some. But I'd have to argue that it's maybe 7-10%. But again, subjective.

The rest of you post I basically agree with. Other than I would still argue that the lack of new "original" content is the biggest issue facing Hollywood today. I'll concede this may not be true outside of Hollywood.

When you say Blockbusters are in better shape do you mean from an artistic standpoint? From a general audience standpoint? From a monetary standpoint? What exactly do you mean.

[epilogue]

joey you are the one who originally said "there you have it"

I don't.... what?

I don't know. I thought you posted something but it was LV. If you guys are sharing passwords I WILL find you.

Please, Ruddo. What kind of RMer do you think I am?

[epilogue]

joey you are the one who originally said "there you have it"

I don't.... what?

I don't know. I thought you posted something but it was LV. If you guys are sharing passwords I WILL find you.

the quote formatting just fucked up so it looked like he said it

I'm going fast and furious 7 over hrrrr. It's possible I'm doing everything wrong. But I stand by everything I've said.

[LoathedVermin72]

I do think we're just getting our wires crossed, Joey. I know what you're saying is true. But you did make it sound like it was 100%, which is what I don't think is true. But you admitted it's not 100%, so I think we're on the same page? All I'm really saying is that remakes are not artless and I think people put an inordinate focus on flinging their complaints about film culture at remakes/reboots/sequels. Film culture is in a catastrophic state right now, but it's for much bigger, deeper reasons than just original vs. brand and it's infected all arenas of filmmaking, not just Hollywood. Frankly, these days I think blockbusters are generally in better shape than indie movies.

The artfulness of anything is subjective, as you point out so often. So I can't address that other than to disagree. Maybe you can help me, but I struggle to think of a single remake that improved upon the original version in any substantial way. I'm sure there are some. But I'd have to argue that it's maybe 7-10%. But again, subjective.

The rest of you post I basically agree with. Other than I would still argue that the lack of new "original" content is the biggest issue facing Hollywood today. I'll concede this may not be true outside of Hollywood.

When you say Blockbusters are in better shape do you mean from an artistic standpoint? From a general audience standpoint? From a monetary standpoint? What exactly do you mean.

There are plenty of good remakes out there, but I think if you go into a remake looking for it to "improve upon the original version" you are fundamentally approaching it from a bad perspective. I don't think the goal of most remakes is to improve, just to do something different. I go into them with the same attitude I would go into any other movie with. Source material should not affect how one evaluates the quality of a film.

Artistically. I think the vast majority of indie movies out there these days are insufferable, samey crap. Filmmakers more concerned with making statements and looking impressive than making sensual, deeply felt works of art. Sanctimony and aesthetic conformity have co-opted depth, honesty, and insight. And the market is not as dissimilar from Hollywood blockbusters as people want to think. Richard Brody put it nicely: "The large-scale, mass-market demagogy of movies such as Transformers: Age of Extinction is no worse than the niche-market demagogy of, say, Obvious Child. Both movies appear tailor made to their target audience’s expectations and prejudices."

[epilogue]

There are plenty of good remakes out there, but I think if you go into a remake looking for it to "improve upon the original version" you are fundamentally approaching it from a bad perspective. I don't think the goal of most remakes is to improve, just to do something different. I go into them with the same attitude I would go into any other movie with. Source material should not affect how one evaluates the quality of a film.

I would sort of agree if they were using the same script. Like seeing a new production of Death of a Salesman.

But by creating a new script you're essentially saying that they have an idea on a way to improve upon the original. Why else spend the time/money? Fine, okay, do something different, but the better is silently implied.

Artistically. I think the vast majority of indie movies out there these days are insufferable, samey crap. Filmmakers more concerned with making statements and looking impressive than making sensual, deeply felt works of art. Sanctimony and aesthetic conformity have co-opted depth, honesty, and insight. And the market is not as dissimilar from Hollywood blockbusters as people want to think. Richard Brody put it nicely: "The large-scale, mass-market demagogy of movies such as Transformers: Age of Extinction is no worse than the niche-market demagogy of, say, Obvious Child. Both movies appear tailor made to their target audience’s expectations and prejudices."

Exactly. I guess I'm confused how, then, blockerbusters are fairing any better.

[Dev]

Is it just me or does Barely Lethal look like a Spring Breakers rip-off?

[epilogue]

I don't know what Barely Lethal is, nor have I seen Spring Breakers. So, I'm afraid I'm not much help, Dev. Sorry.

[LoathedVermin72]

I would sort of agree if they were using the same script. Like seeing a new production of Death of a Salesman.

But by creating a new script you're essentially saying that they have an idea on a way to improve upon the original. Why else spend the time/money? Fine, okay, do something different, but the better is silently implied.

How so? I'm not following the logic here. You yourself admitted remakes are often conceived as ways to capitalize on an existing property, which does not imply anyone is trying to improve on it. Then artists are brought in to write and direct it, and in most cases those artists are fans of the original. Rob Zombie wasn't trying to improve Carpenter's Halloween - he just did something new and different with concept. Alexandre Aja wasn't trying to improve Craven's The Hills Have Eyes - he just did something new and different with the concept. The filmmakers are very vocal about it, too. You don't set out to remake something you're a fan of with the goal of making it better; you just do your own thing and don't worry about how its quality relates to the original. You worry about making sure your specific vision is as good as it can be.

Exactly. I guess I'm confused how, then, blockerbusters are fairing any better.

It's just subjective preference. Generally, I am less trepidatious to watch a mainstream movie than an indie movie right now. And I think some of our most visionary filmmakers are working in the mainstream right now.

But perhaps I did overstate a bit. What I should say is that I think they're basically in equal states. People love to talk about how terrible Hollywood is right now, but I think "art movies" are just as bad or worse off.

[epilogue]

How so? I'm not following the logic here. You yourself admitted remakes are often conceived as ways to capitalize on an existing property, which does not imply anyone is trying to improve on it. Then artists are brought in to write and direct it, and in most cases those artists are fans of the original. Rob Zombie wasn't trying to improve Carpenter's Halloween - he just did something new and different with concept. Alexandre Aja wasn't trying to improve Craven's The Hills Have Eyes - he just did something new and different with the concept. The filmmakers are very vocal about it, too. You don't set out to remake something you're a fan of with the goal of making it better; you just do your own thing and don't worry about how its quality relates to the original. You worry about making sure your specific vision is as good as it can be.

I'm not sure how I can explain it any better than I have. I believe these movies are cash grabs. You don't. So, I was trying to move forward from your POV. If you're right and they aren't just cash grabs, then the "artists" involved should be trying to improve on the original because there's no other reason to re-make it.

If a fan is remaking something they love just to do it differently, that isn't art. That isn't even interesting. It's self-indulgent and masturbatory. I have zero interest in that. Make something new to honor those things you love so much. Or stay home and write fan fiction and leave me the fuck out of it.

And again, most of the people brought in to write and direct these big Hollywood remakes are no-names or people that can be controlled, people looking for a way to make the thing they want to make (sometimes it pays off. Didn't Murray only agree to Ghostbusters so he could make Razor's Edge? That turned out well for us). When these artists get excited and talk about not considering the original and making their version as good as it can be, I think, a lot of times that's code for "this thing is bullshit but we did the best we were allowed to do, so give us your money so I can make a different movie as a proven commodity with more freedom, kthanxbye!"

But perhaps I did overstate a bit. What I should say is that I think they're basically in equal states. People love to talk about how terrible Hollywood is right now, but I think "art movies" are just as bad or worse off.

In quality, perhaps. Again, subjective (let's agree to move forward knowing things are subjective and assume that from here on out so we don't have to keep repeating it). But at least the "art movies" are original or new. At least they're trying and failing on their own ideas. That will always take preference in my book.

[E.H. Ruddock]

I think a Dune remake would be a huge cash grab and they should go for it.

[epilogue]

I think a Dune remake would be a huge cash grab and they should go for it.

I need to see Lynch's movie. I watched that TV mini-series they did and I didn't like it one bit.