"I hope they never make that movie" --why?

If I think something is bad or will be bad, I not only don't want to see it, but I don't want to hear about, see advertisements for it, hear other people talking about it, etc. In short, I don't want it to exist.

There are certain things whose mere existence should bother you. If Uwe Boll announced that he acquired the rights to Casablanca and was going to direct a sequel, wouldn't that trouble you? Would you be content to just not see it, or would you feel the need to vehemently denounce it?

I think sometimes, at least for me, I find it depressing when Hollywood make bad movies that should never be made simply because they are taking money away from good films that are worth watching. If money is going to be used to make a movie, I would rather it was used to make a movie that was worth watching.

For instance, as a Terry Gilliam fan, I find it depressing that he constantly struggles to get the financing to get his films made (watch Lost In La Mancha to see what I mean), while at the same time the studios have no hesitation in throwing money at films that are just a waste of time, films like the new Rocky.

Some people wanted Michael Jordan to comeback.

Then there were those like me who think he shoulda retired with his last shot being the game winner to win his 6th NBA championship. We did not want to see him coming back as an aged shadow of himself for a sorry Wizards team whose definition of a successful season was making the playoffs or having a winning record.

Sometimes part of the perfection of the experience is how it left you wanting more. Once that urge is gone then do you feel the same way about the orginal again?

I think people generally feel that way because they think these sequels (or follow ups) will tarnish the quality or greatness of the original films. I don't personally agree on the whole. While many think the Star Wars prequels are generally...well...less than fantastic, does that really diminish the greatness of Empire Strikes Back? I don't think so.

People just have an aversion to cheap knockoffs, or films they feel don't require any follow up. I think it's human nature, in a way. To think "There's no way this movie's gonna be good."

Although I'm being a bit of a hypocrite here. I didn't think Kevin Smith should have made Clerks II either. But then again, that's because I think he needs to move on from his Jersey Trilogy. Which is now...what...5 films? So while I generally disagree with this notion, I certainly understand it in a lot of instances, and hey - it's people just sounding off on their distaste of some decisions made in Hollywood.

This happened to the Halloween series for me. I was actually entertained by parts 4 & 5, but after seeing 6, 7, and 8 I can't bring myself to watch any of the series after the first sequel (Part 2).

Unfortunately, I have to mention the Terminator series. T3 was the complete opposite of what I "wanted" and "expected". I even gave the new director a chance hoping that he would be able to hold my interest. Now, everytime I think about the first two films, I can't help but to recall T3. I hope the studios don't kill it by making another installment.

Sometimes we also don't want a film to be made because it can detract or take away from the original source material.

Case in point: The Lord of the Rings.

First off: I like Jackson's movies, so everybody chant with me "flame off!"

That said, I (and quite a few people) think that this novel is among the greatest written in the english language. Several respected literary sources have named it Novel of the Century. Now, with Hollywood's spotty track record of adaptations (for every 1 good adaptation they churn out dozens of bad ones) it is a really scary proposition for a lot of the novel's fans to see them adapt this book.

Our fear would have been (before seeing PJ's product) that such a horrid rendition would be made that people would actually think less of the original novel, or not bother to get into it. New LoTR novel fans were made every day, because people bother to pick up the book because of word of mouth. But if three (or if Miramax/Disney had their way one) bad movies were made, the amount of people discovering the novel for the first time would have taken a hit because they'd be dissuaded by a sub-par product.

So that's one reason why I sometimes hope certain films are not made--because I love the source material so much and to see it potentially slaughtered on film may do the original material harm in the sense that people may stay away from it based on the initial exposure to a bad film. Luckily PJ did a good enough job, but it just as easily could have been botched.

It takes resources to mount a movie - sometimes tens or hundreds of millions of dollars, and more vitally, time in which one or many talented people are not working on anything else.

In the case of these films, I think it's just the sheer desperation of needing a hit for the main star that detracts from being excited. Neither Ford nor Stallone have exactly set the world on fire in the past 10 years. Yes, these were sucsesful films, and yes they were decent enough films, what 16 years ago, with 2 of those three movies (Rocky and Rambo) generally being despised at the time they came out. It just seems a little late to be saddling up the horses for these dead franchises. I'd rather watch the originals than see a lame attempt at recreating them.


In Batmans case I think it was just dread based on what had happened with the franchise in the 90's, but quickly changed when word got out on Nolans direction for the relaunch. Superhero movie genre had been such a waste for so long (films like Steel & Captain America for example) that people hated thinking about what would be done to their favorite character, similar to what Carlo talks about LOTR.

The films I don't want to be seen made are remakes of previous films and TV shows with a new hip cast, 13 kids, "extreme" new humor and action, a nu-metal sound track and a "Unrated Super Naughty boys Edition" DVD (with 30 seconds of added footage). It's just so F**Kin' LAZY for the studios to make these films, and just plain SAD that these movies make money in the theaters and DVD release.

Someone once told James M. Cain (author of The Postman Always Rings Twice among other novels) it was a shame Hollywood had ruined his books. He pointed to the bookshelf where all of his novels in several editions and a number of languages were displayed. "They're not ruined. They're just the same as they always were."

A bad film adaptation of a good book, or a bad sequel to or remake of a good film cannot "ruin" the original, except in the minds of those who somehow can't watch the original without obssessing over the bad movie. And that, frankly, is not the movie's problem.

That said I really hope someone pulls the plug on the just-announced remake of Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid with Matt Damon and Ben Affleck. Not only does everything with Affleck in it immediately turn to crap (he has such a crap force-field going he even managed to make his wife's show start to suck its way to premature cancellation) but there is simply no reason for such a film to exist. Some stories are told so well the first time that there's really no reason to do them again. Nobody thinks to write new versions of old novels. Why do people think we need a "new" version of Psycho or Casablanca or (Heaven forbid) Citizen Kane? Butch Cassidy, like Patton, The French Connection and a few other Fox films from right around the same time period, is a near-perfect work of art that simply can't be improved upon. And the original films exist. They aren't like plays that have to be staged anew, or adapations from other media that are getting new life in a new form.

Regards,

Joe

This is like what John waters talks about on the "Wizard Of Oz" DVD. Why are people always remaking GOOD movies? Remake the shitty movies. I'm not the biggest fan of Butch and Sundance (I hate that "Raindrops" bike scene, and others parts that most love the film for) but this remake just screams shit!

Carlo, buddy, I've known you for years and respect your posts. I am, however, an editor and journalist and a former English major (and winner of a few scholarships based on merit), and I've never heard of any literature professor or literary critic refer to the Tolkien works as any sort of barometer of novelistic excellence.

"Novel of the Century"? Really? Compared with, oh, the works of William Faulkner? Hemingway? How on Earth can the Lord of the Rings novels compare with, say, Light in August or A Farewell to Arms? Seriously!

(I'm qualified to comment. I slogged through the Tolkien things way back in 1969 -- just to impress a girlfriend who was obsessed with Tolkien. Frankly, I felt as if I had wasted my time. I just didn't like the novels. And I do not have a high opinion of fantasy, either.)

Luckily, Jack, I am neither a literary professor or critic

When I wrote that post, I was referring to the press that, admittedly, the publishers wrote for the novel itself. Those awards are probably from fans and readers circles and not, as you say, literary professors and critics. I wasn't specific in my original post so I do apologize for the confusion.

I will say that a buddy of mine took an LoTR class in college (I forgot where he went so I'll have to ask him when I see him again) so at least one university-level english level professor sees Tolkien as university-level material.

By the way, as an aside, I had your same reaction to LoTR to some Faulkner and Hemingway so I guess there's no accounting for taste

But the point of my post was not to tout the novel, but to show why fans of such things may in fact dread movie adaptations.
Ah, I was wondering how long until that response was given. To which I would answer: I never said it would ruin the original novel.

However, if a film is sufficiently bad, it can dissuade people from ever picking up the book and reading it, and that the potential harm that I would rather avoid if it can be helped.

It can just as easily inspire people to read the original to see what was lost in translation. (I speak from personal experience.)

In general, I suspect that people who can be dissuaded from reading a book simply because they saw a bad film adapation were unlikely ever to pick up the book in the first place.

M.

To which I would answer: I never said you did, nor was I addressing your post. Not every reply in this thread is a reply to you.

Other people in the thread made the general point that some other people feel that way:



Or that they themselves have, at least to some degree and at least in some cases:





Regards,

Joe

I generally don't mind about remakes or sequels. Take "Dawn of the Dead" for example: I'm a fan of the original and I've never had any desire to see the remake. I'm not opposed to it, it's just not something that interests me. It did, however, interest a lot of people and it led to the first real GAR zombie movie coming out in nearly two decades. Many people cried "blasphemy" when the movie came out and while it may be blasphemous, it's presence was a good thing overall. I don't think something like a fourth "Indiana Jones" movie could necessarily be particularly beneficial to anything but the movie itself (and the obvious mountain of merchandising) but if it turned out to be completley, mind-blowingly awful, it wouldn't have any effect on the previous three films. They're the same movies, no matter how a fourth movie would stack up. Of course, there are cases where a movie can actually be detrimental to it's predecessors, though the films themselves still remain untouched. The best example of this would be "Alien vs. Predator". They took two franchises, both of which were on thin ice, and not only pounded the final nail into the coffin of them both, they completely robbed the "vs." concept, a concept widely embraced by fans across practically every medium BUT film, of all credibility. Now, because of one crappy "Alien vs. Predator" movie, we'll most likely never see a good "AvP" movie or *any* individual "Alien" or "Predator" movies ever again.

I dont think we could ever go lower than a pg13 remake of The Fog, but my pick would be The Warriors remake theyve talked about on and off for the past few years.

Theres also been talk of a remake of Ikiru.