Doc Holliday wrote:Nope - he did pretty much create the character as opposed to just turn up and speak his lines. And his criticism is directed at 'the actor who is currently in the frame for the role', not a personal attack on Butler himself. I'm pretty sure Russell would have said the exact same words if it had been, say, Clive Owen in the frame. Calm down Loincloth-lover! Butler is above this film anyway.
The far more accurate observation - made earlier on thsi thread - is Russell missing the point that his own THE THING is itself a remake
brainiac wrote:So, remakes are gonna stop? I doubt it and sometimes they are better than the original (KING KONG anyone?).
Keepcoolbutcare wrote:Lady Sheridan wrote:I don't want to look like some weird fangirl...
oh, there's no way you look like one.
sounding like one, on the other hand...
brainiac wrote:it's rather like the pot calling the kettle...etc.
/rant
Chairman Kaga wrote:I agree but I think the original character's attitudes were pretty accurate for the time period. Empathy for animals/conservation has blown up in the years since and thus in the minds of your average Americans.
Nachokoolaid wrote:Sort of in response to braniac's post from above...
I somewhat agree that remakes will always happen, but why not remake obscure films with great concepts, not films that are generally loved/respected/or at least well known. There are so many great films, hell, even going back to the silent era that would kick ass as a remake, but instead studios would rather do something so recent. I just don't understand it.
Lord Voldemoo wrote:Nachokoolaid wrote:Sort of in response to braniac's post from above...
I somewhat agree that remakes will always happen, but why not remake obscure films with great concepts, not films that are generally loved/respected/or at least well known. There are so many great films, hell, even going back to the silent era that would kick ass as a remake, but instead studios would rather do something so recent. I just don't understand it.
Agreed 100%
There should be a federal law that prohibits remakes of movies less than 40 years old...seriously.
Lord Voldemoo wrote:Nachokoolaid wrote:Sort of in response to braniac's post from above...
I somewhat agree that remakes will always happen, but why not remake obscure films with great concepts, not films that are generally loved/respected/or at least well known. There are so many great films, hell, even going back to the silent era that would kick ass as a remake, but instead studios would rather do something so recent. I just don't understand it.
Agreed 100%
There should be a federal law that prohibits remakes of movies less than 40 years old...seriously.
Nachokoolaid wrote:Sort of in response to braniac's post from above...
I somewhat agree that remakes will always happen, but why not remake obscure films with great concepts, not films that are generally loved/respected/or at least well known. There are so many great films, hell, even going back to the silent era that would kick ass as a remake, but instead studios would rather do something so recent. I just don't understand it.
brainiac wrote:loin-cloth lover
/rant
Nachokoolaid wrote:Sort of in response to braniac's post from above...
I somewhat agree that remakes will always happen, but why not remake obscure films with great concepts, not films that are generally loved/respected/or at least well known. There are so many great films, hell, even going back to the silent era that would kick ass as a remake, but instead studios would rather do something so recent. I just don't understand it.
Doc Holliday wrote:You'd be amazed at how many people think the Pacino SCARFACE is the original, for example....
DinoDeLaurentiis wrote:Doc Holliday wrote:You'd be amazed at how many people think the Pacino SCARFACE is the original, for example....
Yes... just a the other day, I was a talking to a the young putz who dinna realize that a the Peter Jackson's Kong, she was a the remake of a the Dino's Kong, eh?
unikrunk wrote:
I would, however, like to see someone take on Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep?
Nachokoolaid wrote:unikrunk wrote:
I would, however, like to see someone take on Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep?
Wasn't that the basis for A.I. ???
Or some film? I remember that title being tossed around in relation to some film a while back.
Lady Sheridan wrote:Nachokoolaid wrote:Sort of in response to braniac's post from above...
I somewhat agree that remakes will always happen, but why not remake obscure films with great concepts, not films that are generally loved/respected/or at least well known. There are so many great films, hell, even going back to the silent era that would kick ass as a remake, but instead studios would rather do something so recent. I just don't understand it.
No kidding. Think of some of those forgotten 30's comedies remade now--or at least borrowed and revamped. Or build on the success of "Brick" and redo some noir...ah, what films we'd have.
And think of all the awesome books that haven't been optioned. Hollywood has touched what, 5% of the sci-fi section at a local Barnes and Noble?
Nachokoolaid wrote:unikrunk wrote:
I would, however, like to see someone take on Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep?
Wasn't that the basis for A.I. ???
Or some film? I remember that title being tossed around in relation to some film a while back.
instant_karma wrote:Nachokoolaid wrote:unikrunk wrote:I would, however, like to see someone take on Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep?
Wasn't that the basis for A.I. ???
Or some film? I remember that title being tossed around in relation to some film a while back.
Uh, no. As we all know Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep is about a guy who has to hunt rogue robits.
It was made into this movie
Duh!
instant_karma wrote:Nachokoolaid wrote:[ quote="unikrunk"]
I would, however, like to see someone take on Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep?
Wasn't that the basis for A.I. ???
Or some film? I remember that title being tossed around in relation to some film a while back.
unikrunk wrote:Now ya got me thinkin', and y'all know how that always turns out.
Picture if you will a future, maybe 70 years from now, where the exponential growth of information has spiked, as well as the population of the USA - like - 500mil US citizens -
Things are so out of hand that films are remade before they finish their initial run, a remake and the original in theaters at the same time - in this time of insane growth, their are no longer any intellectual rights to ones work, no information is sacrosanct, all is open for use regardless of its nature.
Remakes of books that have just been released, different versions of a film by different directors playing at the same time, and newer more competitive breakfast cereals; this is the world of tomorrow.
/Someone better call Disney.
Nachokoolaid wrote:unikrunk wrote:
I would, however, like to see someone take on Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep?
Wasn't that the basis for A.I. ???
Or some film? I remember that title being tossed around in relation to some film a while back.
Escape's Russell Softens On Butler
Kurt Russell, who played Snake Plissken in the original Escape From New York, backed off his harsh criticism of Gerard Butler, who is slated to star in a remake, in comments to SCI FI Wire. "Oh, I don't know, I was just kidding around," Russell said in an interview while promoting Grindhouse in Beverly Hills, Calif., on March 25.
Russell added: "Listen, I've had a long career, I'm only happy to have had it. Good luck to everybody, and, yeah, see if you can keep up, cool."
In his interview with SCI FI Wire, Russell was philosophical about the remake. "A long time ago, John and I had a lot of fun making a movie. It was a John Carpenter creation, the Snake Plissken character, and how it's played was my creation. Our movie will always be there." Grindhouse, in which Russell plays a killer stuntman, opens April 6. —Patrick Lee, News Editor
DinoDeLaurentiis wrote:I gotta to tell a you, for a the while... the Dino, he co-own a the character of a the Snake, eh? Back inna the day, Johnny Carpenter anna Debra Hill, they make a the original film for a the Avco Embassy, no? Anna eventually, the Avco, she was a sold a to a the Dino, hehehe... anna so I hadda my share of a the character anna the profits, no? But eventually, the Dino, he sold a his a share to a the Canal Plus, anna so's a now they co-own a the character with a the Carpenter anna the Hill.
This a remake... she would have a NEVER happen under a the Dino's watch, eh?
BWAHAHAHAHAH!!! The Dino, he's a just a making with a the funny, eh? Holy crappa, iffa the Dino, he still own a the character, we would have a hadda the "Snake Plissken: Under a the Mullet" iffa the Dino, he hadda his a druthers, no?
tapehead wrote:DinoDeLaurentiis wrote:I gotta to tell a you, for a the while... the Dino, he co-own a the character of a the Snake, eh? Back inna the day, Johnny Carpenter anna Debra Hill, they make a the original film for a the Avco Embassy, no? Anna eventually, the Avco, she was a sold a to a the Dino, hehehe... anna so I hadda my share of a the character anna the profits, no? But eventually, the Dino, he sold a his a share to a the Canal Plus, anna so's a now they co-own a the character with a the Carpenter anna the Hill.
This a remake... she would have a NEVER happen under a the Dino's watch, eh?
BWAHAHAHAHAH!!! The Dino, he's a just a making with a the funny, eh? Holy crappa, iffa the Dino, he still own a the character, we would have a hadda the "Snake Plissken: Under a the Mullet" iffa the Dino, he hadda his a druthers, no?
No doubt there'd be a lawsuit going on right now for the way Russel and Tarantino seem to have co-opted the character for Grindhouse, as well.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests