Murder on the Orient Express (2017) (1 Viewer)

[Edwin-S]

That is the most likely reason. It would just be nice to see them adapt a different Poirot story instead of constantly remaking the same story over and over. Of course, I'll probably go see this, so I'll be guilty of contributing to the continuation of the mindless adherence to redoing the same films over and over.

 

[Matt Hough]

But with a mystery, the surprise of whodunit should be paramount, and for a case as famous as Murder on the Orient Express, many folks are going to know its surprise revelation long before they enter the theater. The other versions have been out and available for a long time. A different Poirot mystery which only has one TV version available - Five Little Pigs, for example, could have an all-star cast and allow many more people interested in a mystery to play the game of whodunit.

Of course, if this one is successful, maybe we can hope they'll choose a lesser known work and do a lavish, all-star version of it. (Just don't let it be Death on the Nile, Evil Under the Sun, or Appointment with Death).

 

[Josh Steinberg]

Is this any different than NBC bringing back the live musical to TV, and then exclusively choosing shoes that had already been made into movies, were readily available, and unchallenging to an audience?

I agree that it would be cool to do a book that's lesser known. But probably the only reason a period piece got greenlit for a franchise budget production is because everyone knows it.

 

[Edwin-S]

One of the things about Christie's mysteries is that they were never whodunits in the purest sense of the word. Christie used to cheat the reader, who was trying to figure out the culprit, by always resorting to a cheap ploy of Poirot gaining a piece of information from left stage that never gets revealed until the drawing room climax. A person could never figure out whodunit until Poirot revealed it: at least, I couldn't.

In fact, that ploy was one of the things I found most annoying about her writing. It always felt like you were cheated as a reader.

 

[Bob Cashill]

Branagh's SLEUTH remake was dire, but maybe he's learned his lesson. There are good actors in this one, but "all-star" it's not. Perhaps stardom isn't what it used to be.

If it's a hit, maybe we'll get an "Agatha Christie Universe," with all her detectives teaming up to solve drawing room mysteries.

 

[Josh Steinberg]

I think I read the book when I was ten and I've never seen any of the adaptations. I don't remember anything other than liking it. So I'll be at least one guy who won't see the ending coming.

 

[Bob Cashill]

I'm looking forward to this, and I like what I'm seeing from the trailer. The modern song at the end of the trailer doesn't work at all, however. Yet another trailer trend that I'm not fond of.

http://screencrush.com/list-of-trailers-with-imagine-dragons-songs/

 

[Matt Hough]

One of the things about Christie's mysteries is that they were never whodunits in the purest sense of the word. Christie used to cheat the reader, who was trying to figure out the culprit, by always resorting to a cheap ploy of Poirot gaining a piece of information from left stage that never gets revealed until the drawing room climax. A person could never figure out whodunit until Poirot revealed it: at least, I couldn't.

In fact, that ploy was one of the things I found most annoying about her writing. It always felt like you were cheated as a reader.

Well, we're all entitled to our own opinions, but I disagree that she brought out unknown clues to spring at the last minute. I can't think of a single one of her mysteries in which she did that. She may not attach any importance to the clues when they're first presented, but that's part of the game. It's up to the reader to use what's there and run with it to a solution before the detective reveals the answer.

 

[Joel Fontenot]

http://screencrush.com/list-of-trailers-with-imagine-dragons-songs/

Well, that explains a lot.

 

[Tino]

Loved the trailer. Loved the song.

Gonna read the book before seeing.

 

[Edwin-S]

Well, we're all entitled to our own opinions, but I disagree that she brought out unknown clues to spring at the last minute. I can't think of a single one of her mysteries in which she did that. She may not attach any importance to the clues when they're first presented, but that's part of the game. It's up to the reader to use what's there and run with it to a solution before the detective reveals the answer.

I guess we will have to agree to disagree. I liked her Poirot novels well enough, but there was always a piece of information that she held back from the reader, until the denouement, that made it very difficult to impossible to determine the culprit ahead of time.

 

[Ryanlion]

Looks great.

 

[DP 70]

I hope we get a 70mm print in London.

 

[Tino]

I hope we get a 70mm print in London.

Was in shot in 70mm?

 

[DP 70]

Yes it was shot in Panavision Super 70 (65mm).

 

[SamT]

It's a good question to ask. Why did they make this? I mean this is not a previous blockbuster and it is not going to make a lot of money. So why they chose this particular story to remake? A story that has been filmed before. Now that they want to spend money, why not make one of the other stories that has not been filmed yet?

 

[Josh Steinberg]

It's a good question to ask. Why did they make this? I mean this is not a previous blockbuster and it is not going to make a lot of money. So why they chose this particular story to remake? A story that has been filmed before. Now that they want to spend money, why not make one of the other stories that has not been filmed yet?

Because right now, studios are placing a premium on familiar intellectual properties. The one Christie story that's been adapted a few different times is, theoretically, more familiar than the ones that have never been adapted.

It's the same reason that so many other films are being remade. It's the same reason why so many older TV shows are now being adapted into movies that may or may not have any relationship to the original property beyond the title.

Just about every filmmaking studio and television network is owned by another company that does a lot of other things too. The stockholders want to get a regular return on the investment in the same way that they do with easier to predict products. They don't like the uncertainty of the filmmaking business, so they're trying to remove as much of that as possible by focusing on known properties.

There is also an assumption that a paying audience is less willing spend money on something they're unfamiliar with. This may be true. I believe the studios are misreading the reasoning behind this, though. I believe this is due to an unprecedented skyrocketing of movie prices happening at the same time that television offerings are better than ever, happening at a time when TV sets are bigger and cheaper than ever. But I don't think the solution is simply to make things that have familiar titles. Paramount just made a "Baywatch" movie that had absolutely nothing to do with the original show, in the hopes that people would be more likely to see the movie because they recognized the same. However, the opening weekend results would suggest that the familiar name wasn't enough.

This is not a comment on whether or not I think this is a wise strategy, but it is their strategy.

 

[SamT]

The familiar intellectual property is Agatha Christie here. It's not Star Wars to remake where you are sure you make money. I would say that a murder mystery is the worst kind of movie to remake when everyone knows what happens beforehand.

 

[AshJW]

... a murder mystery is the worst kind of movie to remake when everyone knows what happens beforehand.

But that would mean it's not worth to watch it a second time when you know the outcome?!

I can watch the '74 movie over and over again because it is so well made in every aspect. Don't you (apart from your opinion that Finney is miscast )?

 

[Josh Steinberg]

The familiar intellectual property is Agatha Christie here. It's not Star Wars to remake where you are sure you make money. I would say that a murder mystery is the worst kind of movie to remake when everyone knows what happens beforehand.

I don't disagree with you -- but in the studio's eyes, "Agatha Christie" in and of itself isn't enough. These days, "Stephen King" in and of itself isn't enough, so if the world's current bestselling author's name isn't enough to make a studio want to invest, what hope does a deceased author have?

The title "Murder on the Orient Express" is familiar. Not everyone might recall why it's familiar, and may not have read the book or seen one of the earlier versions, but they've heard the title.

Again, I'm not saying I agree with or endorse this way of thinking, but that's what the studio's thinking is - it's a familiar title. They feel that this is the title of hers most likely to generate a large opening weekend and word of mouth.