Do all of these remakes help in getting OAR video releases of the original films? - Page 2

Re: The Taking Of Pelham 1-2-3, anamorphic?

I'm curious why you always repeat this, Michael, when we've discussed a zillion times that it's because remakes have never been this much out of control as they are today. People are always trying to defend it by going on and on about "well there have always been remakes", but you have to admit these days the overwhelming number of films seem to be redos and Hollywood's trying to play it safe by rebooting older familiar material. Everywhere you go today, people from all walks of life - young and old - are asking "what will they remake next? What's the deal with all these remakes lately? Don't they EVER make an original movie anymore??" -- And there are constantly newspaper and magazine articles with titles like TODAY'S REMAKE EPIDEMIC. Over at the CHFB forum there was an article by a screenwriter these days who was saddened over the fact that nowadays, when he's commissioned to write something, he is told to scour the IMDB and other sources for candidates ripe for a remake! It's now the rule, rather than the exception.

I'll save you the usual trouble of now adding "well, if people didn't pay to see them then they'd stop making them" -- because people can only go to see what they're offered on the menu. If the menu is often remakes, then that's what they'll see when they want a night out at the theater. So I say "if Hollywood stops making them, people will stop paying to see them".

(Oh, and I could easily see remaking a lost 1890s short movie updated for 1925, or even a 1925 movie upgraded with the advent of sound or color... but you can't tell me there is any artistic sense in remaking a 1980s movie in the 2000s, or remaking a gritty 1970s New York picture like PELHAM 123 for now. It's not the same necessity as it was redoing the silent 1925 BEN-HUR for 1959.. and CGI is no excuse).

Re: The Taking Of Pelham 1-2-3, anamorphic?

When are we gonna see remakes of '90's stuff? I want to see the following get remade:

Ghost
Contact
What Lies Beneath

and that movie with John Travolta playing a dreadlocked alien or something that, like, 6 people saw in theaters.

Just kidding. I'm not against remakes, especially those handled by capable directors: The Thing and The Fly are excellent remakes. The problem is that the studios hand over the reins to untested music video vets who are trying to get their foot in the door. The biggest drawback to these remakes is the MTV-style editing and heavy metal soundtracks that they think are needed to grab the attention of their core audience of 12-year-olds.

Re: The Taking Of Pelham 1-2-3, anamorphic?

There seems to be too many posts about complaining about someone else's opinion. The world is much more interesting when people have different opinions of something. If everyone like the same thing - that would be poor. It is not a matter of poor taste or standards. One should respect the other views. I love classical music and always amazed how people sometimes have opinions that are completely opposite.

Re: The Taking Of Pelham 1-2-3, anamorphic?

I'd be surprised if very few people know about the original. It is a classic-archetypal 1970s New York crime drama. A great film.

The best i think we can hope for from a remake is something like Denzel Washington's "Manchurian Candidate" from a couple years back: A good film that doesn't match the great original.

Re: The Taking Of Pelham 1-2-3, anamorphic?

Geheimnis des blauen Zimmers (1932)
Secret of the Blue Room (1933)
The Missing Guest (1938)
Murder in the Blue Room (1944)

Our beloved Universal was quick to remake a film and they weren't ashamed to remake it twice more in a very short span. Now that is what I call out of control. Not remaking something after 30+ years.


There are hundreds of original movies released each and every year. I'd ask which ones you've seen but I do know you and I can see your viewed list each month. I'm sure even mods Robert and Michael could give you plenty films to check out from the past decade. Check out this years 2009 thread where Michael has reviewed plenty of great, original films.


You're always fine with remakes whenever you either don't know their a remake or when you don't enjoy the original film. Hell, your favorite film of all time is a remake. I could go to your list and pull up a handful of remakes you've watched over the years when you hadn't even seen the original. I know you're a fan of DAWN OF THE DEAD but then you go on the notion that it's not a remake.

I often bring up the three different version of DR. JEKYLL AND MR. HYDE that was released in 1920 and not to mention the seven previous versions as well as the two sound versions by 1942. You always say this is okay because they are working with literature or a novel. Well, that's exactly what they're doing here. PELHAM is a novel so even the original movie wasn't an original piece of work.

Re: The Taking Of Pelham 1-2-3, anamorphic?

Seriously, you're comparing movies made from novels like PELHAM to movies made from classic literature like DR. JEKYLL AND MR. HYDE???!!!!!

I'm surprised you didn't mention all the remakes of HAMLET

Re: The Taking Of Pelham 1-2-3, anamorphic?

So that's -- what, --- ONE film example? Compared to how many today?

And don't forget that in those early days there was no TV or VHS or DVD, so if a movie was made 5 or even 10 years ago, it was difficult to get a hold of and see... so the original(s) got easily forgotten. Unless you were lucky enough to get it playing at a revival house or something. Today movies like the 1974 PELHAM are easy to see on TV or on Home Video -- no need to revisit.


Doesn't matter; the point is, the amount of remakes are still in a sick out of control ratio compared to new films, and moreso today than ever before. Remakes are the Rule, no longer an Exception.


Right. And I do have a wife to consider, and I have a young niece. She wanted us to take her to see that MALL COP film, and some other lightweight features. I don't always make the choice as to what we're going to see.

Regardless of the "2009 Thread", there are still way too many needless remakes in proportion to new movies.


Not always true at all. I knew MIGHTY JOE YOUNG 1998 was a remake when I saw it, and I already loved the original very much. I knew the 1953 WAR OF THE WORLDS when I went to see the 2005 Spielberg film, and I liked them both.


WESTWORLD is a remake?? (Well, no - but it will be remade soon ) .. Oh, wait .. you mean BEN-HUR (1959), don't you? Well, get it straight for once that the 1959 BEN-HUR is what I consider to be the Greatest Movie Ever Made. It is not my "favorite film of all time", however; these are two different things. You tend to always make mistakes like this. And need I tell you for the umpteenth time that I don't think there is anything wrong with "remaking" a silent film for SOUND? I have come to enjoy many silent movies, but I'd always say that remaking them in sound was a "sound" idea. Not the same thing as remaking DEATH RACE 2000 or ROLLERBALL today.


So? Is there a point in there somewhere? If it makes you feel any better I'm making it more of a conscious effort to avoid remakes on sheer principal these days, if I know they're remakes (can't help it when I don't know though). My wife and her girlfriend begged me to see the new LAST HOUSE ON THE LEFT with them, but I refused on principal.


I'm no big fan of it, but I'll stand by that. The 2004 film called DAWN OF THE DEAD is just another generic zombie invasion film, with extra-speedy infected people running around, and it's nothing like the 1978 Romero movie. It might as well have been called 28 WEEKS LATER, or something like ATTACK OF THE ZOMBIES. The only thing it really has in common with the Romero movie is that it uses the same title to make $$$$$, and there is time spent hiding in a mall. It need not have even been a mall, it could have been any building.

Hell, you think EVERYTHING is a remake of something or other... you even thought HARDCORE (1979) was a remake of THE SEARCHERS!


Classic literature, m'boy. Classic literature - that's the difference. JAWS is a novel and so is THE EXORCIST -- but I'd never be caught dead seeing a "remake" of either of those! Whatever became of that OMEN remake nobody remembers?

And I'll tell you something else ... while I have always excused many remakes of classic literary works, even THEY are getting too redundant! For example, since you've mentioned JEKYLL & HYDE I'll tell you there is talk of yet a new Jekyll and Hyde starring Keanu Reeves! But I've had my fill of Jekyll and have many versions to keep me happy. You can go and see the new Keanu flick and find out if he poses any competition to Barrymore, Tracy, or March... or even Jack Palance or Kirk Douglas!

P.S> -Just watched THE STING (1973) yet again yesterday. One of my all-time favorites, a great film. ANd oh yes, I'm sure there'll be some who'll even go to see THAT inevitable remake one day! But I won't be one of them.

Re: The Taking Of Pelham 1-2-3, anamorphic?

A remake is a remake but those against them always want to come up with rules as to what a remake is. If you want to make your vision of what HAMLET is, fine. If McQ wants to make his vision of what THE EXORCIST is, go for it. The source can be a magazine article, a screenplay, a novel, a play or a suicide letter written on the carpet of a $5 motel, as long as the movie is good that's all that matters.



Life is so important and time is so few, looks like you'd have a principal to quite wasting time talking about them whenever a new one is released. You're obviously not a fan so I'm not sure why you waste time with it. That would be like me going into a DVD review just to say something negative when I'm not even interested in the film being reviewed.

You keep talking about everything being unoriginal and you're tired of this and that yet you don't seem to be interested in anything that is original so it seems like you're just going to have one disapointed after another. You refuse to see unoriginal remakes and you don't really visit your local arthouse so I'm not sure what would make you happy. Perhaps the needless remakes? We got plenty of them coming over the next few years, which is just going to take even more away (like the remakes). I find it sad that PROM NIGHT makes more in three days than certain Best Picture noms make in their theatrical life but that's the way it goes.

Re: The Taking Of Pelham 1-2-3, anamorphic?

No, you seem to be the one who invents his own "rules" as to what a remake is. That's why you consider sequels remakes (they're not; they are just sequels, even though they may have elements of the first film), and whenever movies have similar themes you make a rule that these are actually "remakes". That's why you say that something like THE LAST HOUSE ON THE LEFT or MOTHER'S DAY are "remakes" of Bergman's THE VIRGIN SPRING, or that Paul Schrader's HARDCORE is a remake of THE SEARCHERS! There is a difference between movies with similar ideas and themes and being true, bonafide "remakes".


That's a matter of opinion. This is your opinion and I'm sure many agree with you , but it's not everyone's opinion. Especially when the original movie in question more often than not is already classic or very good, and already nails its subject matter perfectly, there is no need to "cash in" (and that's all it is - a cash-making ploy, not any kind of "artistic vision"). And what about those scene-for-scene copies like the remake of PSYCHO?


Time is not "wasted" in the mind of a person who feels a certain remake idea is stupid enough to warrant a comment against it. It's my business to decide if I'm wasting precious time on speaking out against it; not yours. And also, this relatively shorter span of time spent here writing against them is nowhere near as much wasted time as going to sit in the theater and actually watch them - and more often than not, coming out and realizing they're crap, they've got nothing on the originals anyway, and there go two hours of one's life wasted that they'll never get back!

But bear in mind that I usually just begin with a simple comment, and then it's all this back and forth rebuttal stuff that you harp on which begins to "waste a lot of precious time". Especially when you're wasting so much time trying to "show me the error of my ways" and it's not going to ever change my attitude about certain modernized remakes, and especially when you constantly bring up the same "points" about remakes over the century that I have already explained to you a zillion times, yet you keep bringing the same things up again.


Not a fan of what? Modernized remakes of already modern-enough movies which do not require updating? True, I am not a fan of those cash cow machines which have no artistic value. But I feel it's my right to speak up when I think it's a stupid idea, and not just sit there and take it. Maybe my voice isn't going to accomplish much, but it's better than just doing or saying nothing and just taking it.


In all the years I've known you online now, it never ceases to amaze me how you arrive at these sweeping conclusions, which are not true - and yet you keep saying them anyway. I certainly do go and see a new movie now and then, or rent one, which I feel is interesting or has a different idea which I haven't seen before. Do I see as many as you do? No - because movies are your life, but they're not mine, and I will not "just watch anything because it's on celluloid", that's for certain. I have no insecurity that I have to prove myself as some kind of "Resident Movie Expert". I am very happy seeing what I want, ignoring what I have no interest in, re-watching the same old favorites, occasionally discovering something new, watching an old classic for the first time that I haven't seen yet. It's not all there is to life for me though.


I do not have any "local arthouse" near me. And even if I did, why can't you get it through your head that not everyone on the face of this Earth cares, or is required, to see every film ever made or go to arthouses as if it's the most crucial thing in their life?


Well, horror has always been big, whether it's a remake or not. But I have to laugh (as always) when you throw out some random title like this and make all sorts of bizarre and exaggerated claims! So how much did the ROLLERBALL remake rake in? How about THE MOD SQUAD? THE LITTLE RASCALS? THE HONEYMOONERS? I could go on and on listing these things forever ... but you get the idea. No, I don't think that the remake of THE OMEN did more box office than SLUMDOG MILLIONAIRE.

You're trying to constantly claim that "new audiences want more remakes and go to see them, so that's why they keep making them", and that's a load of bull. Because then by your own admission you say that "most people don't even know these are remakes". So it's not like we have 18-year-olds saying "yo, dude - I hear they've got this really awesome remake of THE TAKING OF PELHAM 123 coming out... I love remakes, so let's go see it, bro!".

Re: The Taking Of Pelham 1-2-3, anamorphic?

Gee, I came back to this thread I started to see if there was any news. Between the remake arguments, I would guess that the answer to my original question is "No."

For the record, I like the original story enough and the main actors in the remake enough to go see the updated version. I do however ultimately hope for a nice, upgraded anamorphic DVD of the original.

Harry

Re: The Taking Of Pelham 1-2-3, anamorphic?

Here's the bottom line Joe. You've owed me $20 on a bet that you still haven't paid on in three years now. That shows your character but we can end that as well as this little remake issue that keeps running through your head. I'll throw in that $20 as well as buy you this upcoming DVD (if it's 16x9) as well as buy you an additional ten Blu-rays if you can prove that there are more remakes today than in previous decades. In fact, I'll let you name remakes from the 70's until 2009. I'll just get all the remakes from the 30's through 50's.

The bottom line is that there are far more remakes in the past than today. The only difference is that you know the remakes today because you've seen the originals whereas those older remakes, you don't know them because you don't know the originals. There's no debating it because it's a fact but I'm sure I could lay the proof right in front of your eyes and you'd still want to debate it.

You can keep going on these long posts or you can put up and prove your points. When you lose you won't have to return a thing to me because proving something to you once again will be satisfaction enough for me. If you don't want to try and prove me wrong then it's clear you want to add nothing except arguments to any thread you enter and from that point on you will simply be put on my ignore list. I hope you take the little bet and prove my theories wrong that you do just like to argue to give yourself something to do.

Re: The Taking Of Pelham 1-2-3, anamorphic?

No, it shows you're always moving and have different addresses (I presently have three different addresses for you) and your phone is often out of service at times when I've tried to call. But I've always paid my debts throughout my life and don't wish to stop now. Not sure this has anything to do with what we're discussing here, but PM me if you're finally at any permanent address now for any length of time and I'll send the $20 to you before the end of this week. Just drop me a word to let me know when you've received it okay.


You'd then also have to bet all the newspaper and magazine article writers in the world, plus every person on the streets, as well as the modern-day screenwriters who've said themselves that the remake epidemic these days is so out of control that they're now commissioned to seek out old movies on the internet to see what remakes they can try as their latest assignments today. It would not be possible to list each and every remake ever made throughout history, but I'm specifically referring to modernized remakes of movies that did not require to be remade. Not just silents being redone for sound, or movies remade when the originals were out of circulation, long before TV and Home Video made them easy to see. We're talking about two different breeds.

Re: The Taking Of Pelham 1-2-3, anamorphic?

Consider how long ago they were. And at that time, nobody was crying "oh no, not another remake!"

Re: The Taking Of Pelham 1-2-3, anamorphic?

Joe, I understand where you're coming from but my point remains. There are far more remakes in the past than today. You keep saying silent/sound. Teens in the 1950s didn't want to see a silent movie so that was a reason to update them. Teens today don't want to see something from the 1970s so that's why they're getting updated.

This is just from a small movie book of mine. I found these in less than an hour and this book is very small and doesn't feature many movies. These were just in "A" and "B". This is just a very select few and you'll notice how close they were made to one another. You have Oscar winners being remade in a short period. The bottom line is that Hollywood has always been unoriginal or willing to milk something to death in order to make a dime. Whereas in 1939 people would flock to "A" pictures, that's not the case anymore.

ABIE'S IRISH ROSE 1927 remade 1946
ACCENT ON YOUTH 1935 remade 1950 & 59
ADAM'S RIB 1949 remade 1956
ADMIRABLE CRICHTON 1918 remade 1919 & 57
ADVENTURE IN IRAQ 1943 remade 1958
ADVENTURE TOM SAWYER 1930 remade 1938, x2 in 73 (liter classic)
ADVICE TO LOVETOWN 1933 remade 1958
AFFAIR TO REMEMBER 1958 original 1938
AGAISNT ALL FLAGS 1952 remade 1967
ALGIERS 1938 original 37, remade again 1948
ALICE ADAMS 1923 remade 1935
ALOMA OF THE SOUTH SEAS 1927 remade 1941
ALWAYS GOODBYE 1938 original version 1934
AMAZING ADVENTURE 1920 remade 1936
AMERICAN TRAGEDY 1931 remade as A PLACE IN THE SUN
AND THEN THERE WERE NONE (countless)
ANIMAL KINGDON 1932 remade 1946
ANNA AND THE KING OF SIAM 1946 remade 1956
ANNA CHRISTIE 1923 remade twice in 1930
ANNA KARENTINE 1927, remade 35 & 48
ANNA LUCASTA 1949 remade 58
ANYTHING GOES 1936 remade 56
APRIL LOVE 1957 original 1944
ARIZONA TO BROADWAY 1933 remade 1944 by L&H
ASPHALT JUNGLE 1950 x3 remakes
AWFUL TRUTH 1925, 29, 37, 53
BABBITT 1923 remade 1934
BACHELOR MOTHER 1939 remade 1956
BACK FROM ETERNITY 1937 remade 1956
BACK STREET 1932 remade 41, 61
BACK TO GOD'S COUNTRY 1919, 27, 53
BAD LANDS 1930 remade 1934
BAD MAN 1923 remade 30, 37, 41
BARRETTS OF WIMPOLE ST. 1934 remade 57
BAT, THE 1915, 26, 30, 59
BEACHCOMBER 1938, 55
BEAST FROM HAUNTED CASTLE 1957 remade 60
BEAU BRUMMELL 1924 remade 54
BEAU GESTE 1926 remade 39 & 66
BEAUTY AND THE BOSS 1932 remade 34
BECKY SHARP 1923 remade 32, 35
BEHIND THE HIGH WALL 1939 remade 56
BEN-HUR 1925 remade 59 oh yeah 1907 as well
BERKELEY SQUARE 1933 remade 51
BETWEEN TWO WORLDS 1944 original 33
BIG DEAL ON MADONNA ST. 1958 (Larceny, Inc '42)
BIG OPERATOR 1942 remade 59
BIG STAMPEDE 1927 remade 32 & 37
BIG TREES 1937 remade 1952
BILL OF DIVORCEMENT 1932 remade 40
BIRD OF PARADISE 1932 remade 51
BITTER SWEET 1933 remade 40
BLIND ALLEY 1939 remade 45
BLONDES AT WORK 1938 original 35
BLOOD AND SAND 1922 remade 41
BLUE ANGEL 1930 remade 1959
BLUEBEARDS 8TH WIFE 1923 remade 38
BORN TO THE WEST 1926 remade 37
BROTHER DOUBLOON 1942 remade 47
BREAKING POINT 1947, 50, 58
BREWSTER'S MILLIONS (countless by 45 version)
BRITISH INTELLIGENCE 1925 remade 30, 40
BROADWAY BILL 1934 remade 50
BROADWAY MELODY 1929 remade 40
BROADWAY MUSKETEERS 1934 remade 38
BROKEN BLOSSOMS 1919 remade 1936
BROKEN LANCE 1954 original 49
BROTHER RAT 1938 remade 52
BUCCANEER 1938 remade 58
BULLETS FOR O'HARA 1939 remade 41
BUT THE FLESH IS WEAK 1932 remade 34

Re: The Taking Of Pelham 1-2-3, anamorphic?

Mike, you and I are not going to agree on the remake thing. When you say "there have always been remakes", that's just a technicality... yes, there always have been to some degree, but under what circumstances and why the need back then (other than like today's pure greed and bankable box office as the primary motivating factor)? At least there was some rhyme or reason artistically back then, not just for the money. How many of those earliest remakes really needed some fine tuning or upgrading? Most of them did, if not all of them. Why does something like THE TEXAS CHAIN SAW MASSACRE need to be redone now - and especially when it still takes place in the same decade it was originally made (the '70s)?

I think it's blatantly obvious that today is a remake epidemic, and everyone else seems to be aware of it too, and it's become the talk of the movie industry. It's become a running gag that everyone asks: "So what are they going to remake next??" This never happened to this degree before. Someone mentioned THE THING and THE FLY (and I'll also add THE BLOB and 1978's INVASION OF THE BODY SNATCHERS).... when these movies came out in the late '70s/1980s (I remember well, because I'm older than you - no offense), nobody felt like: "oh God - here we go again! MORE remakes?? What will they remake next??" It was still a relatively "offbeat" thing, not the rule.

That list you provided above only makes me more sure of it; your list is mostly of silent films that had to be revamped for sound, or movies from the 1930s which were out of circulation (no TV or DVD back then) and so got remade in the '40s or '50s. So listing silent movies which were either impossible to see, or lost, isn't the same thing as remaking something from the 1970s or 1980s today. I don't know where there is any list available of every single one of the more recent modern remakes, say from 1989 to 2009 --- but I'm sure if they could be listed, they would dwarf your above list, even in the past 20 years alone. And I'd say the "need" for these to be remade is much more unnecessary than it was in the 1920s-1950s.


I don't think movies were generally made "for teens" back then, though there were exceptions; I think the movies of 1920 - 1960 (and possibly even later) were mostly more geared to adults. This is another point - many more movies TODAY are made specifically with teens in mind, for a younger audience.

And in your quote here, I again think there's a huge difference in remaking obscure and hard-to-see old silent films for the later advanced sound era, and remaking something like PROM NIGHT or HALLOWEEN. That's just absurd.

P.S. - You never sent me PM'd me your current address... I have the $20 ready.

Re: The Taking Of Pelham 1-2-3, anamorphic?

There's as many good movies today as there were 50 or 60 years ago.

Re: The Taking Of Pelham 1-2-3, anamorphic?

If you are comparing what the major studios were putting out then as compared to now, then I would have to disagree with you.

Re: The Taking Of Pelham 1-2-3, anamorphic?

There was a trend 5 or 6 years ago where Hollywood was re-making every Japanese horror movie into convoluted and watered-down Americanized versions. More recently, Sony rushed a remake of the Spanish horror "Rec" ahead of its release of the original. The Remake was a scene-by-scene affair ala 1998's Psycho and completely unnecessary. It's as if the studios have spies that go to foreign countries to "detect" or sniff out a possible future hit to remake. I hated Tom Cruise's remake of "Open Your Eyes". Now Wal-Mart is having a tough time getting rid of all those copies of Vanilla Sky. If people aren't willing to shell out six bucks for a movie than the studios should consider that a wake-up call: Stop making movies out of other people's movies.

Re: The Taking Of Pelham 1-2-3, anamorphic?

People shelled out over nearly $100 million at the box office alone in this country.

Re: The Taking Of Pelham 1-2-3, anamorphic?

But it's not all-inclusive. I've asked you about remakes like ROLLERBALL, THE MOD SQUAD, THE HONEYMOONERS, THE LITTLE RASCALS, THE AVENGERS ... did those make big bucks? Not all do, just because they're remakes.

You're making it sound like people go to the movies saying "wow, I love remakes so I can't wait to see this!" -- they don't go to see the movies solely BECAUSE they're remakes. Especially younger people who make up most of the box office; they don't even KNOW the movies are remakes 90% of the time; they just want to go see what's "new". That could just as well be original movies.

Re: The Taking Of Pelham 1-2-3, anamorphic?

Could you two please take your remake argument elsewhere? It's not going anywhere and it clutters up this thread, which should be specifically about THE TAKING OF PELHAM 123.

Harry

Re: The Taking Of Pelham 1-2-3, anamorphic?

Good point, Harry. But at the same time, there's nothing much else to say about this specific topic except "Yes, it would be nice to get an anorphic upgrade for the 1974 PELHAM". The thread isn't about the movie itself, per se, as it is about wanting it in anamorphic, right?

This thread hasn't seen this much traffic in 4 years. And that's all due to the remake, which is what started this "clutter".

Re: The Taking Of Pelham 1-2-3, anamorphic?

I count more than two.

Re: The Taking Of Pelham 1-2-3, anamorphic?

Listen - I'm not trying to be contentious. As a moderator on another Forum, I understand proper 'netiquette', and one of the things we strive for is to keep threads on track.

I'm fully aware that the new version of the film isn't out yet, that there's little or no news about any updated '74 PELHAM DVD, but that still doesn't excuse the thread drift into a rant on remakes - no matter who the participants.

I started this thread, and have had an issue with not receiving emails about it, so I wasn't even aware of the several-pages-of-remakes controversy. I only found the thread again after doing a search for it when I saw the trailer in the theatre, and wondered if there was any news. I was surprised to see that there was thread activity for which I was not receiving emails, and have contacted Packer Clark in the Forum Software Problems II thread. The problem still hasn't totally been solved, though I DID receive an email with the latest post.

I've asked nicely, and even used the word 'please', for the participants in the 'remakes' argument to go elsewhere, which would include the logical coourse of action of starting another thread about it, or perhaps using PMs to settle things like personal debts that are best left off of public forums. Yes, I used the word 'two', because I honestly hadn't read through the pages of arguments from when Mr. Crawford was participating - until late yesterday. From my perspective, it appeared to be solely and lately Mr. Karlosi and Mr. Elliott who were engaging in the arguments and rants. I might even want to participate in such a thread - just not HERE.

Again, I'm not trying to pick on anyone, nor be contentious. I'd simply prefer that the thread stay on topic, and have asked for such to happen. If that makes ME some kind of bad guy, then I guess there's nothing I can do about it except take my lumps and move on.

Am I being unreasonable?

Harry

Do all of these remakes help in getting OAR video releases of the original films?

Actually, you're not so for those that want to continue to this discussion about the effects of remakes on video releases of the original films or just remakes in general, here's your thread.






Crawdaddy