Red Mosquito

LoathedVermin72 wrote:

a great example of how I agree that not all cash grabs are useless. There are examples of how they can be great artistic pieces made by passionate people.

But seriously, I think we just disagree about how often this happens. I'm just glad to see you say it DOES happen, and I would suggest that the amount of on-screen passion that translates to you, someone who admits he is somewhat suspect when it comes to a lot of big studio properties and might have different aesthetic interests than many mainstream filmmakers, isn't necessarily indicative of the amount of artistic passion those filmmakers have for the projects.

durdencommatyler wrote:

Kaius wrote:Wait, I thought LV was pro-remake and durd was anti-?

In general I'm anti-remake because the vast majority of them are unoriginal, uninspired cash grabs, yes.

At the end of the day, I agree with vermin. I just want good movies. But I'd prefer good original content. Failing that, remakes are fine, if they're good. Problem is, most aren't.

durdencommatyler wrote:

LoathedVermin72 wrote:

a great example of how I agree that not all cash grabs are useless. There are examples of how they can be great artistic pieces made by passionate people.

But seriously, I think we just disagree about how often this happens. I'm just glad to see you say it DOES happen, and I would suggest that the amount of on-screen passion that translates to you, someone who admits he is somewhat suspect when it comes to a lot of big studio properties and might have different aesthetic interests than many mainstream filmmakers, isn't necessarily indicative of the amount of artistic passion those filmmakers have for the projects.

Um... I'd argue that you're aesthetic is vastly different from the majority of the movie going public.

LoathedVermin72 wrote:

durdencommatyler wrote:

LoathedVermin72 wrote:

a great example of how I agree that not all cash grabs are useless. There are examples of how they can be great artistic pieces made by passionate people.

But seriously, I think we just disagree about how often this happens. I'm just glad to see you say it DOES happen, and I would suggest that the amount of on-screen passion that translates to you, someone who admits he is somewhat suspect when it comes to a lot of big studio properties and might have different aesthetic interests than many mainstream filmmakers, isn't necessarily indicative of the amount of artistic passion those filmmakers have for the projects.

Um... I'd argue that you're aesthetic is vastly different from the majority of the movie going public.

I didn't say anything about the moviegoing public, Joey.

durdencommatyler wrote:

Kaius wrote:Wait, I thought LV was pro-remake and durd was anti-?

In general I'm anti-remake because the vast majority of them are unoriginal, uninspired cash grabs, yes.

At the end of the day, I agree with vermin. I just want good movies. But I'd prefer good original content. Failing that, remakes are fine, if they're good. Problem is, most aren't.

durdencommatyler wrote:

LoathedVermin72 wrote:

durdencommatyler wrote:

LoathedVermin72 wrote:

a great example of how I agree that not all cash grabs are useless. There are examples of how they can be great artistic pieces made by passionate people.

But seriously, I think we just disagree about how often this happens. I'm just glad to see you say it DOES happen, and I would suggest that the amount of on-screen passion that translates to you, someone who admits he is somewhat suspect when it comes to a lot of big studio properties and might have different aesthetic interests than many mainstream filmmakers, isn't necessarily indicative of the amount of artistic passion those filmmakers have for the projects.

Um... I'd argue that you're aesthetic is vastly different from the majority of the movie going public.

I didn't say anything about the moviegoing public, Joey.

And I never said there wasn't a level of artistic passion in mainstream filmmakers.

LoathedVermin72 wrote:

durdencommatyler wrote:

Kaius wrote:Wait, I thought LV was pro-remake and durd was anti-?

In general I'm anti-remake because the vast majority of them are unoriginal, uninspired cash grabs, yes.

At the end of the day, I agree with vermin. I just want good movies. But I'd prefer good original content. Failing that, remakes are fine, if they're good. Problem is, most aren't.

Honestly I'm not really sure this is true. I'm not saying most remakes are as good or better than the films they're remakes of, but I don't think the bad-to-good ratio is any worse than all other movies. And like I said, I don't care if incidental things like subject matter are "original" or not - I only care about the quality of the film itself.

durdencommatyler wrote:

LoathedVermin72 wrote:

durdencommatyler wrote:

Kaius wrote:Wait, I thought LV was pro-remake and durd was anti-?

In general I'm anti-remake because the vast majority of them are unoriginal, uninspired cash grabs, yes.

At the end of the day, I agree with vermin. I just want good movies. But I'd prefer good original content. Failing that, remakes are fine, if they're good. Problem is, most aren't.

Honestly I'm not really sure this is true. I'm not saying most remakes are as good or better than the films they're remakes of, but I don't think the bad-to-good ratio is any worse than all other movies. And like I said, I don't care if incidental things like subject matter are "original" or not - I only care about the quality of the film itself.

Sure. I get that. But for me the quality takes an automatic hit by being a remake. The remake has to work harder on me from the get-go by virtue of it's retread.

And I'll amend my comment to: the problem is, most of them aren't as good as the original and therefore, not worth the money it cost to make them.

LoathedVermin72 wrote:

durdencommatyler wrote:

LoathedVermin72 wrote:

durdencommatyler wrote:

LoathedVermin72 wrote:

a great example of how I agree that not all cash grabs are useless. There are examples of how they can be great artistic pieces made by passionate people.

But seriously, I think we just disagree about how often this happens. I'm just glad to see you say it DOES happen, and I would suggest that the amount of on-screen passion that translates to you, someone who admits he is somewhat suspect when it comes to a lot of big studio properties and might have different aesthetic interests than many mainstream filmmakers, isn't necessarily indicative of the amount of artistic passion those filmmakers have for the projects.

Um... I'd argue that you're aesthetic is vastly different from the majority of the movie going public.

I didn't say anything about the moviegoing public, Joey.

And I never said there wasn't a level of artistic passion in mainstream filmmakers.

Didn't you? You said most remakes are uninspired. Does that not indicate a lack of passion on behalf of the filmmakers?

LoathedVermin72 wrote:

durdencommatyler wrote:

LoathedVermin72 wrote:

durdencommatyler wrote:

Kaius wrote:Wait, I thought LV was pro-remake and durd was anti-?

In general I'm anti-remake because the vast majority of them are unoriginal, uninspired cash grabs, yes.

At the end of the day, I agree with vermin. I just want good movies. But I'd prefer good original content. Failing that, remakes are fine, if they're good. Problem is, most aren't.

Honestly I'm not really sure this is true. I'm not saying most remakes are as good or better than the films they're remakes of, but I don't think the bad-to-good ratio is any worse than all other movies. And like I said, I don't care if incidental things like subject matter are "original" or not - I only care about the quality of the film itself.

Sure. I get that. But for me the quality takes an automatic hit by being a remake. The remake has to work harder on me from the get-go by virtue of it's retread.

And I'll amend my comment to: the problem is, most of them aren't as good as the original and therefore, not worth the money it cost to make them.

Yeah, I just fundamentally disagree with this 100%.

durdencommatyler wrote:

LoathedVermin72 wrote:

durdencommatyler wrote:

LoathedVermin72 wrote:

durdencommatyler wrote:

Kaius wrote:Wait, I thought LV was pro-remake and durd was anti-?

In general I'm anti-remake because the vast majority of them are unoriginal, uninspired cash grabs, yes.

At the end of the day, I agree with vermin. I just want good movies. But I'd prefer good original content. Failing that, remakes are fine, if they're good. Problem is, most aren't.

Honestly I'm not really sure this is true. I'm not saying most remakes are as good or better than the films they're remakes of, but I don't think the bad-to-good ratio is any worse than all other movies. And like I said, I don't care if incidental things like subject matter are "original" or not - I only care about the quality of the film itself.

Sure. I get that. But for me the quality takes an automatic hit by being a remake. The remake has to work harder on me from the get-go by virtue of it's retread.

And I'll amend my comment to: the problem is, most of them aren't as good as the original and therefore, not worth the money it cost to make them.

Yeah, I just fundamentally disagree with this 100%.

I know you do, boo. We've been restating a version of it for like four pages now.

LoathedVermin72 wrote:

durdencommatyler wrote:

LoathedVermin72 wrote:

durdencommatyler wrote:

LoathedVermin72 wrote:

durdencommatyler wrote:

Kaius wrote:Wait, I thought LV was pro-remake and durd was anti-?

In general I'm anti-remake because the vast majority of them are unoriginal, uninspired cash grabs, yes.

At the end of the day, I agree with vermin. I just want good movies. But I'd prefer good original content. Failing that, remakes are fine, if they're good. Problem is, most aren't.

Honestly I'm not really sure this is true. I'm not saying most remakes are as good or better than the films they're remakes of, but I don't think the bad-to-good ratio is any worse than all other movies. And like I said, I don't care if incidental things like subject matter are "original" or not - I only care about the quality of the film itself.

Sure. I get that. But for me the quality takes an automatic hit by being a remake. The remake has to work harder on me from the get-go by virtue of it's retread.

And I'll amend my comment to: the problem is, most of them aren't as good as the original and therefore, not worth the money it cost to make them.

Yeah, I just fundamentally disagree with this 100%.

I know you do, boo. We've been restating a version of it for like four pages now.

Agree to disagree, I guess.

Even though you're wrong.

Kaius wrote:How do you guys feel about literary icons like Peter Pan or Dracula or Jesus being rebooted every generation or more? These well-established and quite popular stories that predate cinema that filmmakers can cash in on? Are these any better or worse than someone rebooting an original movie?

Kaius wrote:How do you guys feel about literary icons like Peter Pan or Dracula or Jesus being rebooted every generation or more? These well-established and quite popular stories that predate cinema that filmmakers can cash in on? Are these any better or worse than someone rebooting an original movie?