Page 4 of 7

PostPosted: Thu Mar 22, 2007 12:32 pm
by brainiac
Well, Kurt certainly has his panties in a twist! I hope some of his Hollywood buddies counsel him to cool off and back down because right now he sounds like a whiny bitch to me. And I like the guy and love EFNY.

Butler can do an American accent -- check out his St. Louis accent in The Game of Their Lives (retitled Miracle Match by Disney) and the upcoming Butterfly on a Wheel - both using American accents. Butler usually hires a dialog coach and throws himself so totally into a role that moviegoers who didn't grow up with Russell as Plissken will love the character as played by Butler and think he is Snake.

So, remakes are gonna stop? I doubt it and sometimes they are better than the original (KING KONG anyone?).

Maybe that's really what Russell is worried about?

PostPosted: Thu Mar 22, 2007 12:41 pm
by Doc Holliday
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 :lol:

PostPosted: Thu Mar 22, 2007 12:43 pm
by Cpt Kirks 2pay
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 :lol:


AND Tombstone.

AND that Elvis film.

PostPosted: Thu Mar 22, 2007 12:50 pm
by Doc Holliday
And Escape From L.A.

PostPosted: Thu Mar 22, 2007 1:23 pm
by brainiac
Like someone said earlier, it's not like they are going to burn every DVD/VHS of EFNY. It will still be there for all to see.

And movies are an adaptive medium anyway (other than original screenplays). Books, comics, TV shows, plays, and yes, old movies and foreign movies are all fodder for Hollywood. So this was bound to happen and especially with Carpenter's OK, it will move forward and probably be a fun film despite carping from Russell and everyone else who is bent out of shape right now.

So call me fanboy/girl, loin-cloth lover or what ever -- it's rather like the pot calling the kettle...etc.

/rant

PostPosted: Thu Mar 22, 2007 1:26 pm
by The Vicar
Fanboy/girl.
Nah nah nee nah nah.

PostPosted: Thu Mar 22, 2007 2:13 pm
by Chairman Kaga
brainiac wrote:So, remakes are gonna stop? I doubt it and sometimes they are better than the original (KING KONG anyone?).

Neither Dino's nor Jackson's are close to surpassing the original. You should have gone with something like LotR, Ben-Hur etc.

PostPosted: Thu Mar 22, 2007 2:44 pm
by The Vicar
The major difference, that I liked, in the story of Kong as done by PJ was that someone up on the screen actually gave a shit about the poor ape. That was what was lacking in the original, in my view - everyone in the film wanted to exploit or fear Kong. Having someone in the film care gave the chance for the audience to do something other than be afraid.

PostPosted: Thu Mar 22, 2007 2:54 pm
by Chairman Kaga
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.

PostPosted: Thu Mar 22, 2007 5:59 pm
by Lady Sheridan
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...


Just as long as no one can tell by looking...I'm safe... ;)

PostPosted: Thu Mar 22, 2007 7:44 pm
by Doc Holliday
brainiac wrote:it's rather like the pot calling the kettle...etc.

/rant


Actually, its rather like a simple riff on "Music Lover" from TOMBSTSONE, but I guess the reference got lost in all that red mist :P

PostPosted: Thu Mar 22, 2007 8:09 pm
by The Vicar
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.


I can buy that.
I just think doing it the other way makes for a more interesting film.
But each film is definately a product of it's time, nu?

PostPosted: Thu Mar 22, 2007 8:13 pm
by Bob Samonkey
As long as Pam Grier returns as the tranny from the second movie...I am THERE!!!

PostPosted: Thu Mar 22, 2007 8:37 pm
by Nachokoolaid
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.

PostPosted: Thu Mar 22, 2007 8:39 pm
by Lord Voldemoo
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.

PostPosted: Thu Mar 22, 2007 9:16 pm
by The Vicar
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.


Hollywood would grind to a virtual halt.
Independent films might take off,
but the studios would starve for oxygen, like a perch on the landing.

PostPosted: Thu Mar 22, 2007 10:16 pm
by havocSchultz
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.


Well aren't you some sort of justice cow...?

Make It So, Number One...

PostPosted: Fri Mar 23, 2007 1:46 am
by Lady Sheridan
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? :roll:

PostPosted: Fri Mar 23, 2007 1:51 am
by tapehead
I wouldn't mind if they would lay off Phillip K Dick's ideas for a while, however...

PostPosted: Fri Mar 23, 2007 1:55 am
by Lady Sheridan
What a coincidence, I was just watching Blade Runner tonight and idly wondering why no one has remade it...

PostPosted: Fri Mar 23, 2007 2:12 am
by tapehead
Oh no - I mean, why remaking an almost perfect film? 'A Scanner Darkly' has also already become one of my favorites, but for every one of those there's a Paycheck or a Total Recall - the latter of which is not a bad sci-fi actioner, but doesn't really give a great rendition of 'We can remember it for you Wholesale'

There's so much other Science Fiction to choose from.

brainiac wrote:loin-cloth lover
/rant


I read a quote from Bulter in this Month's Empire saying that it's not a loincloth - it's a cod-piece.

PostPosted: Fri Mar 23, 2007 5:01 am
by unikrunk
A remake of Bladerunner? Oh, that's a paddling.

That is my numero uno, top spot, and uncontested favorite movie since I was 11. And the theatrical cut is better, sorry, it just is. Except the last shot - the tracking shot from the Shining - that can go.

I would, however, like to see someone take on Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep?; Bladerunner is pretty divergent from the book, hence the name of the movie - I would not mind a fine director helming a faithful adaptation to bookend with Bladerunner.



/I like run-on sentences and typing while exhausted.

PostPosted: Fri Mar 23, 2007 5:18 am
by unikrunk
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.

PostPosted: Fri Mar 23, 2007 6:54 am
by Al Shut
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.


The point of doing remakes is not avoiding to come up with some ideas on their own but to do movies that the tudios think are safe bets. With very old or unknown movies the risk is higher.

PostPosted: Fri Mar 23, 2007 7:05 am
by Doc Holliday
Besides which, its a very human endeavour to look at what's been done before and try to improve upon it - genuine innovation is, almost by its very definition, quite rare. Its called progress people - and when it fails, we get to jeer. But there have been plenty of remakes that have actually been marked improvements over their precursors - its just that, like Kurt Russell, a lot of people don't even realise what is a remake and what isn't. You'd be amazed at how many people think the Pacino SCARFACE is the original, for example....

PostPosted: Fri Mar 23, 2007 9:54 am
by DinoDeLaurentiis
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?

PostPosted: Fri Mar 23, 2007 9:57 am
by Doc Holliday
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?


:shock:

No, really...

:shock: :shock: :shock:

But wait - because I am a gullible twat - so I just need to ask, before I completely fall off my chair in shock and despair.....

You


Are


Kidding


Me






.......Right?

PostPosted: Fri Mar 23, 2007 10:05 am
by DinoDeLaurentiis
About what, eh?

PostPosted: Fri Mar 23, 2007 10:16 am
by Doc Holliday
That some kid thought Jackson's Kong was an original. Unless that kid was under something like 12, that's just unforgiveable.

Or maybe I'm just old :cry:

Nope. Its unforgiveable - at the very least they should have been aware of the Jeff Bridges version, if not the 30's classic.

Oh wait a minute.

fuck.

You were being clever weren't you...ironic even.

If you need me, I will be sitting in a corner writing out "I am such a douche" no less than 500 times.

PostPosted: Fri Mar 23, 2007 10:21 am
by DinoDeLaurentiis
Doc Holliday wrote:You were being clever weren't you...ironic even.


Who, me?

PostPosted: Fri Mar 23, 2007 10:25 am
by Doc Holliday
I doubt you even needed your ear trumpet to hear that particularly penny drop eh? told you....I'm a gullible twat :D

PostPosted: Fri Mar 23, 2007 11:10 am
by The Vicar
The fishing inna here, shes a good today, Dino, no?

Hooked a Doc...... ;)

PostPosted: Fri Mar 23, 2007 11:12 am
by Nachokoolaid
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.

PostPosted: Fri Mar 23, 2007 11:18 am
by DinoDeLaurentiis
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.


Hmmm... NOW who's a the fishing, eh?

PostPosted: Fri Mar 23, 2007 11:39 am
by Doc Holliday
*closes mouth tightly and swims past as fast as his little fins take him*

PostPosted: Fri Mar 23, 2007 11:54 am
by minstrel
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? :roll:


The amazing thing to me is that Hollywood really hasn't touched most of the real classic sci-fi. Heinlein, Asimov, Clarke and a few others. Why don't we have big-budget movie versions of the Foundation stories, for instance? And Lazarus Long is a character overdue for film treatment. Clarke wrote a lot more than just 2001, Hollywood.

And I, Robot just doesn't count.

Maybe I'm just looking for movies in which the heroes are engineers and scientists - I mean, in which engineers and scientists are portrayed as cool, competent, heroic, and not nerdy and socially awkward.

Seems I have a chip on my shoulder this morning. Sigh.

PostPosted: Fri Mar 23, 2007 11:58 am
by instant_karma
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!

PostPosted: Fri Mar 23, 2007 12:03 pm
by unikrunk
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!


IPAMPILASH!!

Misinformation is the new information, read it on the cover of Glamour.

/It also said that pointless existence is the new suicide, which came as quite a surprise to me.

PostPosted: Fri Mar 23, 2007 12:59 pm
by burlivesleftnut
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.


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![/quote]

Fuck yeah! That, Wolfen and Looker MADE the early 80s for me!

PostPosted: Fri Mar 23, 2007 2:57 pm
by The Vicar
Wolfen!
I really liked that flick - memorable now for Admiral Adama prancing naked in the Atlantic.

And Gregory Hines' "black moon over manhatten" scene.

PostPosted: Fri Mar 23, 2007 3:08 pm
by instant_karma
I really like Wolfen as well.

But then I like pretty much any film in the supernatural/ill advised urban planning genre, like Poltergeist and uh...

...damn.

PostPosted: Fri Mar 23, 2007 3:43 pm
by burlivesleftnut
Q!

PostPosted: Fri Mar 23, 2007 9:15 pm
by Lady Sheridan
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.


You should read Connie Willis' "Remake." In fact, you all should. But that is damn close to the plot of it.

PostPosted: Sat Mar 24, 2007 7:48 am
by unikrunk
Thanks for the heads-up, LS!

I will definitely check it out.

PostPosted: Sat Mar 24, 2007 7:55 am
by unikrunk
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.


Hey, Smarty-Pants McNachokoolaid - Scott's film was way off from the story, it would not suck to see someone with talent take a pass at it.

/I guess I should have written 'a faithful adaptation of'...

//I got nothing.

PostPosted: Mon Mar 26, 2007 2:48 pm
by brainiac
And it seems Kurt was "just kidding"?

SciFi Wire:
http://www.scifi.com/scifiwire/index.php?id=40753
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


Maybe he read my comments? 8)

PostPosted: Tue Mar 27, 2007 8:57 am
by DinoDeLaurentiis
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?

PostPosted: Tue Mar 27, 2007 7:59 pm
by tapehead
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.

PostPosted: Tue Mar 27, 2007 8:32 pm
by Lady Sheridan
That's Dino. He's always kicking it, old school, and keeping up the classy traditions of Hollywood's golden era. ;)

PostPosted: Tue Mar 27, 2007 9:29 pm
by Retardo_Montalban
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.



Kurt Russel wears an eye patch in grind house?