RE: Big anticipated films you predict will suck (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Film Forums] >> Movie Musings



Message


chris kilby -> RE: Big anticipated films you predict will suck (28/8/2012 3:48:09 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Rgirvan44

quote:

ORIGINAL: Deviation

The Robocop remake backlash is a bit unfair, it's made by a director who has made two (out of three, with Elite Squad 2 being The Wire in two hours set in Brazil) excellent films in his CV and is as much an unorthodox choice for the film as Verhoeven was. It could be good, especially as Elite Squad 2 had three excellent action sequences and a hell load of politics going on, and it still did them superbly well.




This is my thinking - and also it is hardly like the Robocop franchise was any great success outside of the first film.

If two bad sequels, two kids shows, a live action kid friendly TV show and four really bad low budget TV movies couldn't destroy the first film, this remake won't affect it much either if it turns out bad.


My feeling exactly. I don't have a particular problem with duff sequels or remakes. (Or cover versions, for that matter.) You can always ignore them. I can happily watch the first two Godfathers without thinking about the third - which wasn't that bad, just nowhere near as good as the other two. It's not like they round up and burn every copy of the original. Er, like wot used to happen during the silent era, apparently...




chris kilby -> RE: Big anticipated films you predict will suck (28/8/2012 3:49:22 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Rgirvan44

quote:

ORIGINAL: elab49

quote:

bit
quote:

ORIGINAL: Deviation

The Robocop remake backlash is a bit unfair, it's made by a director who has made two (out of three, with Elite Squad 2 being The Wire in two hours set in Brazil) excellent films in his CV and is as much an unorthodox choice for the film as Verhoeven was. It could be good, especially as Elite Squad 2 had three excellent action sequences and a hell load of politics going on, and it still did them superbly well.




Away and boil yer heid. IMO  Bus 74 is a very self-conscious doc, Elite Squad was dreadful. The only reason 2 was better was in comparison.



You are speaking in Scots more and more elab. I am concerned you are morphing into Boaby.


As long as she isnae morphin' intae a boaby!

(Speaking of which...)




homersimpson_esq -> RE: Big anticipated films you predict will suck (28/8/2012 3:53:36 PM)

Oh, I think I see what is coming now.




vad3r -> RE: Big anticipated films you predict will suck (28/8/2012 3:55:25 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: horribleives


quote:

ORIGINAL: vad3r


quote:

ORIGINAL: horribleives


quote:

ORIGINAL: vad3r

The Hobbit -

Looks absolutely dire is putting it mildly. As a huge fan of LotR this is the EXACT OPPOSITE of those films. Where's the darkness? Why is Aragorn son of Arathorn, Legolas and Sean Bean now a bunch of annoying dwarves and hobbits? Why is there jokes and dwarf 'comedy'?
Please do not give me the 'but it's a kids book and not LotR''. Make it an adult film then. Why put EXACTLY what's in the book on film. Have some balls and makes changes for a film adaptation of a book made 75 years ago.



But, erm, it is isn't it?


And? Why should that stop a film being something entirely different?

I for one and pretty much everyone else doesn't want to watch a Middle Earth kids film.


Erm, because the director and writer love the book and want to make a faithful adaptation of it? I can understand why you personally don't want to watch it (me neither to be honest as LOTR has never particularly floated my boat) but I'm baffled as to why you think the filmakers have a responsibility to completely alter what (I'm presuming) the fans of the book love about it in the first place.
Unless you just want a dead hobbit in the cellar? [;)]


It's always amazed me how filmmakers feel they have to copy a book meticulously and put it on the screen. Critics even mark films down for any detail that's not 100% faithful to the book.
What's the point of it all? No book is perfect and the author has nothing to do with the film. Why not put a Jedi in The Hobbit? Why not have a black Superman? Why make a film knowing there is a clear, obvious improvement that can be made from something in the book and do nothing about implementing it? Why having read a book would you want to watch an identical translation on film? Would you not be more excited knowing a filmmaker has his own interpretation of the source material?




Deviation -> RE: Big anticipated films you predict will suck (28/8/2012 4:01:40 PM)

I kinda agree with you on the second point, yet not on the reasons for this adaptation. The Hobbit was a kid's book written for kids. LOTR was darker but still close to the book in many areas, like the tone. It's only expected that Jackson would stay close to the tone to The Hobbit like he did with LOTR, something he was very accliamed for. Considering the plot of The Hobbit, it's probably a good thing.

Also, why would that be wrong anyway? There are things that are worrying me about it (oh now you're are splitting it into three?) but the tone is only expected. Also what on Earth makes you think that keeping it dark and horror will still keep it good? Remember, dark and gritty is not always good.




horribleives -> RE: Big anticipated films you predict will suck (28/8/2012 4:02:35 PM)

I'm all for changing things - you could make Superman a mackem for all I care - but I don't see the benefit in turning a kids' book into an adult film, thus depriving the people it was intended for the freedom to see it.




elab49 -> RE: Big anticipated films you predict will suck (28/8/2012 4:02:50 PM)

You know, I'm guessing you've never actually read Lord of the Rings given you don't seem to know what differences there actually were in transference to the screen.

I'm guessing you haven't read The Hobbit either (beyond a Wiki glance) - but as long as you can keep digging it's a good film to go with..




Deviation -> RE: Big anticipated films you predict will suck (28/8/2012 4:07:03 PM)

Only the fools miss Bombadil or descriptions of nature which on screen would even be found excessive by Malick and Bela Tarr.




horribleives -> RE: Big anticipated films you predict will suck (28/8/2012 4:09:49 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: vad3r


quote:

ORIGINAL: horribleives


quote:

ORIGINAL: vad3r


quote:

ORIGINAL: horribleives


quote:

ORIGINAL: vad3r

The Hobbit -

Looks absolutely dire is putting it mildly. As a huge fan of LotR this is the EXACT OPPOSITE of those films. Where's the darkness? Why is Aragorn son of Arathorn, Legolas and Sean Bean now a bunch of annoying dwarves and hobbits? Why is there jokes and dwarf 'comedy'?
Please do not give me the 'but it's a kids book and not LotR''. Make it an adult film then. Why put EXACTLY what's in the book on film. Have some balls and makes changes for a film adaptation of a book made 75 years ago.



But, erm, it is isn't it?


And? Why should that stop a film being something entirely different?

I for one and pretty much everyone else doesn't want to watch a Middle Earth kids film.


Erm, because the director and writer love the book and want to make a faithful adaptation of it? I can understand why you personally don't want to watch it (me neither to be honest as LOTR has never particularly floated my boat) but I'm baffled as to why you think the filmakers have a responsibility to completely alter what (I'm presuming) the fans of the book love about it in the first place.
Unless you just want a dead hobbit in the cellar? [;)]


It's always amazed me how filmmakers feel they have to copy a book meticulously and put it on the screen. Critics even mark films down for any detail that's not 100% faithful to the book.
What's the point of it all? No book is perfect and the author has nothing to do with the film. Why not put a Jedi in The Hobbit? Why not have a black Superman? Why make a film knowing there is a clear, obvious improvement that can be made from something in the book and do nothing about implementing it? Why having read a book would you want to watch an identical translation on film? Would you not be more excited knowing a filmmaker has his own interpretation of the source material?


But a couple of pages ago you were praising the original LOTR movies for being faithful to the books. Now you're saying you'd rather filmakers tore up the blueprint. Cool, by that rationale I can assume you wouldn't have had any problems if Jackson and co. had ditched the darkness first time round and filmed the entire trilogy as musical starring cuddly puppets voiced by Britney Spears and Justin Timberlake?




Deviation -> RE: Big anticipated films you predict will suck (28/8/2012 4:15:14 PM)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YdXQJS3Yv0Y




vad3r -> RE: Big anticipated films you predict will suck (28/8/2012 4:17:09 PM)

Like I said in my first post, I understand The Hobbit IS a kids book. My point is that if it was altered into something more sinister and dark like LotR it would be so much more appealing to adults and it's fan base than the light hearted Narnia-eque family fantasy/screwball dwarf comedy that we have now.
If only instead of Jackson and Walsh (Tolkien's no.1 fans) we had a fearless director like Aronofksy/Fincher/Winding Refn and Del Toro as a producer to collaborate with.
And like someone else mentioned, Martin Freeman? Woeful miscasting.




Harry Tuttle -> RE: Big anticipated films you predict will suck (28/8/2012 4:18:18 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Deviation

Only the fools miss Bombadil or descriptions of nature which on screen would even be found excessive by Malick and Bela Tarr.


Agreed.

I remember being a bit annoyed that the whole Weathertop sequence was significantly different in the film than in the book (which was unavoidable due to the omission of Bombadil and the Barrow-wight) but otherwise none of the changes really bothered me that much.




vad3r -> RE: Big anticipated films you predict will suck (28/8/2012 4:18:31 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: horribleives


quote:

ORIGINAL: vad3r


quote:

ORIGINAL: horribleives


quote:

ORIGINAL: vad3r


quote:

ORIGINAL: horribleives


quote:

ORIGINAL: vad3r

The Hobbit -

Looks absolutely dire is putting it mildly. As a huge fan of LotR this is the EXACT OPPOSITE of those films. Where's the darkness? Why is Aragorn son of Arathorn, Legolas and Sean Bean now a bunch of annoying dwarves and hobbits? Why is there jokes and dwarf 'comedy'?
Please do not give me the 'but it's a kids book and not LotR''. Make it an adult film then. Why put EXACTLY what's in the book on film. Have some balls and makes changes for a film adaptation of a book made 75 years ago.



But, erm, it is isn't it?


And? Why should that stop a film being something entirely different?

I for one and pretty much everyone else doesn't want to watch a Middle Earth kids film.


Erm, because the director and writer love the book and want to make a faithful adaptation of it? I can understand why you personally don't want to watch it (me neither to be honest as LOTR has never particularly floated my boat) but I'm baffled as to why you think the filmakers have a responsibility to completely alter what (I'm presuming) the fans of the book love about it in the first place.
Unless you just want a dead hobbit in the cellar? [;)]


It's always amazed me how filmmakers feel they have to copy a book meticulously and put it on the screen. Critics even mark films down for any detail that's not 100% faithful to the book.
What's the point of it all? No book is perfect and the author has nothing to do with the film. Why not put a Jedi in The Hobbit? Why not have a black Superman? Why make a film knowing there is a clear, obvious improvement that can be made from something in the book and do nothing about implementing it? Why having read a book would you want to watch an identical translation on film? Would you not be more excited knowing a filmmaker has his own interpretation of the source material?


But a couple of pages ago you were praising the original LOTR movies for being faithful to the books. Now you're saying you'd rather filmakers tore up the blueprint. Cool, by that rationale I can assume you wouldn't have had any problems if Jackson and co. had ditched the darkness first time round and filmed the entire trilogy as musical starring cuddly puppets voiced by Britney Spears and Justin Timberlake?


I certainly did not. Quote please?




elab49 -> RE: Big anticipated films you predict will suck (28/8/2012 4:18:44 PM)

Have you read LOTR? Do you think it's a literal translation to the film? 




Prophet_of_Doom -> RE: Big anticipated films you predict will suck (28/8/2012 4:20:30 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: vad3r


quote:

ORIGINAL: horribleives


quote:

ORIGINAL: vad3r


quote:

ORIGINAL: horribleives


quote:

ORIGINAL: vad3r

The Hobbit -

Looks absolutely dire is putting it mildly. As a huge fan of LotR this is the EXACT OPPOSITE of those films. Where's the darkness? Why is Aragorn son of Arathorn, Legolas and Sean Bean now a bunch of annoying dwarves and hobbits? Why is there jokes and dwarf 'comedy'?
Please do not give me the 'but it's a kids book and not LotR''. Make it an adult film then. Why put EXACTLY what's in the book on film. Have some balls and makes changes for a film adaptation of a book made 75 years ago.



But, erm, it is isn't it?


And? Why should that stop a film being something entirely different?

I for one and pretty much everyone else doesn't want to watch a Middle Earth kids film.


Erm, because the director and writer love the book and want to make a faithful adaptation of it? I can understand why you personally don't want to watch it (me neither to be honest as LOTR has never particularly floated my boat) but I'm baffled as to why you think the filmakers have a responsibility to completely alter what (I'm presuming) the fans of the book love about it in the first place.
Unless you just want a dead hobbit in the cellar? [;)]


It's always amazed me how filmmakers feel they have to copy a book meticulously and put it on the screen. Critics even mark films down for any detail that's not 100% faithful to the book.
What's the point of it all? No book is perfect and the author has nothing to do with the film. Why not put a Jedi in The Hobbit? Why not have a black Superman? Why make a film knowing there is a clear, obvious improvement that can be made from something in the book and do nothing about implementing it? Why having read a book would you want to watch an identical translation on film? Would you not be more excited knowing a filmmaker has his own interpretation of the source material?


The simple answer is - they don't. You're taking one example and making a sweeping generalisation across all and every adaptation. Jackson loves Tolkein and therefore wants to be faithful. But was Sneider faithful to Watchmen? Was Coppola faithful to Heart of Darkness? Was Weitz faithful to His Dark Materials? No, no and no.

What you have to remember is as often as not it's not just about the film maker - it's about the screenwriter who makes the decisions, or a producer making decisions based upon whether or not he wants to appeal to a guaranteed fanbase.




Deviation -> RE: Big anticipated films you predict will suck (28/8/2012 4:21:43 PM)

Narnia still managed to appeal to adults, as did Harry Potter. Dark and gritty does not mean quality nor adult. Put this in your head.

Also, the idea of a Fincher, Refn (whose last voyages in the more fantasy stuff weren't great) and Aronofsky's LOTR is on the level of Gaspar Noe's Peter Pan on the level of silly choices of directors. Del Toro wouldn't probably have made anything much darker either, remember Hellboy and Hellboy 2? How dark and gritty was that?





homersimpson_esq -> RE: Big anticipated films you predict will suck (28/8/2012 4:23:00 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Deviation

Narnia still managed to appeal to adults



No it didn't. It was shit. Narnia the books are amazing. The films are soulless and horrid.




Harry Tuttle -> RE: Big anticipated films you predict will suck (28/8/2012 4:23:47 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Deviation

Narnia still managed to appeal to adults, as did Harry Potter. Dark and gritty does not mean quality nor adult. Put this in your head.

Also, the idea of a Fincher, Refn (whose last voyages in the more fantasy stuff weren't great) and Aronofsky's LOTR is on the level of Gaspar Noe's Peter Pan on the level of silly choices of directors. Del Toro wouldn't probably have made anything much darker either, remember Hellboy and Hellboy 2? How dark and gritty was that?




A pox on you and your family [:D].

Valhalla Rising is a great film.





Deviation -> RE: Big anticipated films you predict will suck (28/8/2012 4:24:40 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: homersimpson_esq


quote:

ORIGINAL: Deviation

Narnia still managed to appeal to adults



No it didn't. It was shit. Narnia the books are amazing. The films are soulless and horrid.


And I still know adults who like them and want to watch them. [:D]

Even if the third one was the only one I came close to quite liking.




vad3r -> RE: Big anticipated films you predict will suck (28/8/2012 4:24:58 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: elab49

Have you read LOTR? Do you think it's a literal translation to the film? 


I haven't read the books bar snippets, no. It wouldn't change my love for the films in the slightest if I read them and they were either identical or completely different to the films. I judge films of it's own merits not it's source.




Deviation -> RE: Big anticipated films you predict will suck (28/8/2012 4:26:07 PM)

quote:



A pox on you and your family .

Valhalla Rising is a great film.


Half of it is a great film, yes indeed.




horribleives -> RE: Big anticipated films you predict will suck (28/8/2012 4:26:22 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Deviation

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YdXQJS3Yv0Y


Aww how cute, I only ever saw that once and totally forgot about the songs. I hope there's some good 'uns in The Hobbit. [;)]
They're not wrong either (about the whole 'whip' and 'way' thing).




elab49 -> RE: Big anticipated films you predict will suck (28/8/2012 4:26:48 PM)

So you aren't aware that they aren't a literal translation of the books?

In which case I wonder why you're making such a big song and dance about the same people making The Hobbit -given they've already clearly shown they don't literally translate.





giggity -> RE: Big anticipated films you predict will suck (28/8/2012 4:27:52 PM)

okay i know i haven't been on this board long but i'm convinced Vad3r is either a troll or 13 years old. Someone correct me if i'm wrong.

Anyway, on the subject of Robocop remake, I would like to keep an open mind but after reading this script review http://collider.com/robocop-remake-script-review/188614/

and then reading this article
http://collider.com/jose-padilha-robocop-remake-hell/191494/

I really think we're in for a dud, it could have been something interesting but now my expectations are very low.




Prophet_of_Doom -> RE: Big anticipated films you predict will suck (28/8/2012 4:29:33 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: homersimpson_esq


quote:

ORIGINAL: Deviation

Narnia still managed to appeal to adults



No it didn't. It was shit. Narnia the books are amazing. The films are soulless and horrid.


Have you read them recently hse? I was quite surprised ... the film prompted me to go back and read them and I thought the writing was terrible. I mean, embarrassingly bad! Whereas I can read Fantastic Mr Fox (or at least force it upon my baby daughter) and still think "that's brilliant!"




Rgirvan44 -> RE: Big anticipated films you predict will suck (28/8/2012 4:31:10 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: giggity

okay i know i haven't been on this board long but i'm convinced Vad3r is either a troll or 13 years old. Someone correct me if i'm wrong.

Anyway, on the subject of Robocop remake, I would like to keep an open mind but after reading this script review http://collider.com/robocop-remake-script-review/188614/

and then reading this article
http://collider.com/jose-padilha-robocop-remake-hell/191494/

I really think we're in for a dud, it could have been something interesting but now my expectations are very low.


Scripts get re-written all the time - who knows what draft that was?

And similar reports were coming out of Dredd - and that appears to have turned out ok.




elab49 -> RE: Big anticipated films you predict will suck (28/8/2012 4:32:12 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: giggity

okay i know i haven't been on this board long but i'm convinced Vad3r is either a troll or 13 years old. Someone correct me if i'm wrong.


Is that tumbleweed I see there?..........

Ditto Homer on Narnia films - shit

Not ditto Homer on books. [:)]




chris kilby -> RE: Big anticipated films you predict will suck (28/8/2012 4:33:49 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: homersimpson_esq

The plot holes one was the one that I commented in-thread on, and that was pre-tty negative. Affectionately picking holes in favourite films?


Fixed that for you.

If you have a problem with that particular thread, I suggest you take it up with EMPIRE. It was inspired by an article which appeared in the magazine ten years ago. It's Only A Movie, But... II, where such luminaries as Kim Newman - you've heard of him? - "laboriously picked holes" in their favourite films. But then, being a big, bad mod and all, you clearly know better than the likes of him.

If, on the other hand, you have a problem with me... Well, I suppose I'll just have to get over that, won't I?

Incidentally, subject of a joke/satire over here, target over there? Yes? No? The whole point of that Plot Holes thread which still bafflingly escapes your no-doubt rigorous attention and forensic mind (even though I spelled it out clearly in the OP) is that no film is perfect. All films, all works of fiction, have plot holes/flaws in them. Even the best ones. Including Shakespeare, Dickens and beyond. No work of fiction could ever hope to withstand the frankly tedious levels of scrutiny all movies are routinely subjected to online by uptight fanboys with way too much to prove. I realise you have bad reading habits (you told me yourself - does "tl, dr" ring any bells? Maybe if you'd actually bothered to read those instead of making a big show of not reading them - say, what? - you'd have a less biased impression of me than what you've gleaned from what were some rather glib and throwaway bits of nonsense.)

The subject of that thread was plot holes. The point of that thread (which I now suspect you are deliberately avoiding - maybe you're allergic or something) was the futility and pointless reductionism of endlessly pointing them out because, well, where's the fun in that? Unless the filmmakers are taking the piss, I don't get overly-excited about even egregious plot-holes - or I wouldn't enjoy The Dark Knight Trilogy so much, would I? I don't make a habit of pointing plot holes out to score points or feel superior in some way. No, I just do it for cheap laughs. You could say it's my motivation in life. I think there's more than enough po-faced seriousness to go round already, especially online. Don't you?

As you yourself so eloquently put it: fuck sake!

(It's ironic, but I think we are actually in broad agreement on this score, you and I. Which you would realise if you could stop grabbing the wrong end of the stick and beating about the bush with it for five minutes. It is entirely possible that you are completely wrong about me and have been wilfully misinterpreting everything I say. Playing to the gallery, perhaps? Some people must be very easily impressed. But that's OK, cos I seriously doubt I'm wrong about you. It's a shame, really. You and I probably could and should have been friends. If you weren't... well, you. Oh dear. How sad. Never mind.)




vad3r -> RE: Big anticipated films you predict will suck (28/8/2012 4:36:03 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Deviation

Dark and gritty does not mean quality nor adult. Put this in your head.


Like I said, it depends on the film. Would Toy Story benefit from an R? No. Would Terminator? Yes.

Dark and gritty does not = quality. They do however, have the power to make films more intriguing, unpredictable and unique if used correctly. I'd always prefer to watch something more adult orientated than be given a version to appeal to a broader range of people and not be in danger of offending anyone.




Rgirvan44 -> RE: Big anticipated films you predict will suck (28/8/2012 4:36:43 PM)

Teehee.




Page: <<   < prev  3 4 [5] 6 7   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
4.699707E-02