Please don't do that! Sequels and Remakes you did not see coming... (1 Viewer)

[Winston T. Boogie]

TONI ERDMANN -the recent Academy Award Oscar nominated for Best Foreign Film is about to be remade with Jack Nicholson in the leading role. Why do have to continually endure remakes of highly acclaimed Foreign movies?The USA are doing the same with TRAIN TO BUSMAN-the hugely acclaimed and most successful Korean film from last year.The Koreans are already planning a sequel.

Well, I believe Toni Erdmann is getting a remake specifically because Nicholson decided he wanted to do it and he has not worked in so long they were happy to get him back up there on the big screen. The main reason they do this though is because foreign films are not widely watched in the United States so when they do a remake in English the story is basically new to most of the audience. Much if not most of the English speaking world does not like to read subtitles so highly likely that if there is a really good foreign film it will be a prime target for a remake in English.

 

[TJPC]

We often have hilarious French Canadian comedies re-made as English language films in Canada. (La Grande Seduction). I don't know why they do it however, because they invariably fall flat and audiences that were falling out of their chairs reading subtitles are sitting in stony silence in the English version.

 

[Josh Steinberg]

What market are you in that it costs $27.00 for a movie ticket? I mean I've been to a movie in many different places across the country but I do not believe I have paid that much. $24.00 maybe for an IMAX showing but I think $16.00 is about the average and I believe that is even what I pay in downtown Manhattan.

NYC. The Lincoln Square just raised their IMAX 3D price to $26.50 which I rounded up to $27. IMAX at other locations here is $21-24, RealD is $20, 2D is $16.

I think even $16 is too high. One movie ticket is now equivalent to one new release disc purchase. It used to cost a lot more, relatively speaking, to buy a copy of a new movie than to see it once in a theater and that's changed big time.

 

[TravisR]

The last really big films I saw with a huge mixed audience were The Force Awakens and the most recent Star Trek film but in neither case did I have any issue. I did get run into by a giant person in a Wookiee costume at the Star Wars showing but took that as more a comic moment that added to the entire experience.

I saw the seven movie SW marathon when I first saw The Force Awakens and there were a few lightsabers but oddly enough, there were no costumes. I guess it was because it could be a pretty big hassle to wear a costume for 17 or 18 hours.

I like seeing a film with a crowd because often I end up in conversations with strangers and I enjoy seeing and hearing their reaction. It has led to some hilarious moments such as when I saw No Country for Old Men and a crowd of angry viewers gathered outside the entrance to the theater that were discussing how horrible the film was--"Worst film I have ever seen!"--and were discussing going as a group to management to demand a refund and I was asked as I exited by them what I thought of the film.

"Best film I have seen in years!" I said as they all looked at me with disgust.

"Well, we want our money back that was terrible!" a woman said to me.

"That's idiotic." I said "You paid to watch a film and you watched it. Why should they give you your money back? They don't guarantee you will like the film you paid to see. You don't deserve your money back."

I thought they were going to collectively spit at me they looked so full of rage and disgust but instead they all stormed off together. I guess to lynch the manager.

I saw Green Room last year and walked out of the theater thinking "That was a really cool little genre movie" but as I was leaving, a guy told an usher "That was the worst movie I've ever seen in my life!" That made me like the movie more.

 

[Winston T. Boogie]

I didn't mind that people did not like No Country, I mean I understood their issue...

Spoiler: SPOILER

They felt that there needed to be a showdown between Sheriff Bell and Chigurh and when that did not happen and the film ends with Bell just retiring and Chigurh drifting off from an accident scene...well...they felt cheated by not getting the resolution they expected. However, I think dramatically the film makes a much bigger and more interesting statement by not providing the traditional western showdown. In reality the film tips you off right at the start about how Bell feels when he talks about the sheriffs of the past. The story is not about a big showdown and the Coens make a point of avoiding that for the most part. One of the things I like about the violence in the film is that it is used to tell us things about characters. So, it is not just done for the sake of shooting an action scene. In fact the final shootout for Llewelyn Moss is not even shown. We basically just see the aftermath. I think the fact that there is no showdown between Bell and Chigurh is very important to this story.

...but I think they kind of missed what the film was all about.

 

[Winston T. Boogie]

NYC. The Lincoln Square just raised their IMAX 3D price to $26.50 which I rounded up to $27. IMAX at other locations here is $21-24, RealD is $20, 2D is $16.

I think even $16 is too high. One movie ticket is now equivalent to one new release disc purchase. It used to cost a lot more, relatively speaking, to buy a copy of a new movie than to see it once in a theater and that's changed big time.

Well, I do agree that $27.00 is too high for a movie ticket and that is a cost that I can see would turn people away. I think that makes the expense of purchasing a blu-ray of the film a great bargain though even at full price because for the cost of a single admission ticket...and really in most cases for $7.00 to $10.00 less...you can own the film and show it to as many people as you want as many times as you want.

I can also sort of see though why a theater in Lincoln Square needs to charge that price as the rent they pay is likely crazy and their expenses are higher. So, it is rough to operate a movie theater there. I know for a fact that economically a parking garage in the city can generate far more revenue at a far lower cost than a movie theater can. This is sad but true.

 

[Winston T. Boogie]

I see modern franchisees (don't you just hate that word!) as similar to 1930/40's serials. Instead of weekly instalments the next film follows on in a few months. Similar content and characters. People prefer the familiar, that is what they will pay for, and that is what they get.

I don't think it is a good comparison because those serials were churned out on the cheap to fill out a theater bill. They did not care much about them and they were only made to add value to going to see whatever the feature film was. Today's sequels and remakes are the "A" pictures that the studio is betting their entire fiscal year on.

 

[Winston T. Boogie]

I know I pick on John Wick (see what I did there) but the truth is if you want to see a great film that John Wick pretty much seems to heavily be borrowing from see John Boorman's Point Blank (1967). Boorman's film features a great story told in a unique manner, is stunningly photographed, and you get a tremendous performance from Lee Marvin.

 

[Winston T. Boogie]

I pretty much refuse to watch any remake. I caved and watched "The Magnificent Seven" remake and was left appreciating Sturges version even more ( and, yes, I know it was a remake itself). Basically todays climate is a combination of lack of creativity and fanboys in the movie business trying to reinvent the films of their youth.

I do think that one of the issues with a lot of remakes is that they tend to be remaking the film for the wrong reasons. I mean some remakes seem to totally miss what it was about the original material that people liked in the first place. And I mentioned it elsewhere but sometimes sequels tend to seem like they are more about remaking the film that was popular than actually making a new film.

 

[Aaron Silverman]

I didn't mind that people did not like No Country, I mean I understood their issue...

Spoiler: SPOILER

They felt that there needed to be a showdown between Sheriff Bell and Chigurh and when that did not happen and the film ends with Bell just retiring and Chigurh drifting off from an accident scene...well...they felt cheated by not getting the resolution they expected. However, I think dramatically the film makes a much bigger and more interesting statement by not providing the traditional western showdown. In reality the film tips you off right at the start about how Bell feels when he talks about the sheriffs of the past. The story is not about a big showdown and the Coens make a point of avoiding that for the most part. One of the things I like about the violence in the film is that it is used to tell us things about characters. So, it is not just done for the sake of shooting an action scene. In fact the final shootout for Llewelyn Moss is not even shown. We basically just see the aftermath. I think the fact that there is no showdown between Bell and Chigurh is very important to this story.

...but I think they kind of missed what the film was all about.

IMO

Spoiler: SPOILER

Bell arriving just as the climactic shootout is ending, which turned off all sorts of people, encapsulates the entire point of the movie. It goes along with the lack of a final showdown: the world has passed that romanticism by.

 

[Winston T. Boogie]

IMO

Spoiler: SPOILER

Bell arriving just as the climactic shootout is ending, which turned off all sorts of people, encapsulates the entire point of the movie. It goes along with the lack of a final showdown: the world has passed that romanticism by.

I agree with you, Aaron.

Spoiler: SPOILER

Also I think that bookends well with the fact that the Llewelyn story begins with him coming upon the aftermath of the shootout in the desert and ends when Bell comes upon the aftermath of the shootout at the motel. Plus the movie begins with Bell pining for the old days when some lawmen did not even chose to carry a gun. Bell is not a guy that wants to solve things with a gun and when he sees the violence and death toll continue to mount he knows it is becoming more and more likely that this will end violently. It does for Moss and he was the one guy in the whole mess that Bell wanted to save.

 

[Winston T. Boogie]

Here's the wax figure Bruce Willis in the remake of Death Wish directed by Eli Roth...

 

[TravisR]

I'd perfectly happy with Death Wish not being remade but since the New York City of 1974 isn't the New York of today, I think the remake COULD be a fairly different thing.

 

[DavidMiller]

I just saw today that they have announced a reboot of the Miami Vice TV show. Shake My Head...

 

[Alf S]

I just saw today that they have announced a reboot of the Miami Vice TV show. Shake My Head...

Perfect kind of show to utilize the HDR system everyone loves so much on their new TV's.

 

[Alf S]

Here's the wax figure Bruce Willis in the remake of Death Wish directed by Eli Roth...

View attachment 39545

Is this the world we are living in now??

People offended that a movie about a vigilante "white guy" is coming out during "these tough times" and it's "fascist", and majorly "alt-right" ..blah blah blah. I just wanna go all Death Wish on some of these nuts out there.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/life...twitter-calling-alt-right-eli-roth/536641001/

 

[Winston T. Boogie]

Well, I don't think there is any political statement to be made here this is just a bad film with a bad actor and bad director. It was a dumb idea to remake this.

 

[TravisR]

Well, I don't think there is any political statement to be made here this is just a bad film with a bad actor and bad director. It was a dumb idea to remake this.

Yeah, if anything, I think they will bend over backwards to make sure that they don't do anything that can be construed as a political statement.

Also, Cabin Fever and Hostel Part II are pretty good.

 

[Mike Frezon]

Is this the world we are living in now??
People offended that a movie about a vigilante "white guy" is coming out during "these tough times" and it's "fascist", and majorly "alt-right" ..blah blah blah. I just wanna go all Death Wish on some of these nuts out there.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/life...twitter-calling-alt-right-eli-roth/536641001/

This is not the kind of post we want here on the HTF. We will leave that kind of stuff to twitter and other sites. We can discuss the film (original and re-make) and whether they are good/bad, or even good/bad ideas. But we will NOT be responding HERE to others on other platforms who are making political comments. And even if your final sentence is an attempt at humor or hyperbole (and I'm guessing it is) we don't want that sort of thing here as it will open a Pandora's Box of posts that go way off the topic [which is planned sequels of films].

Well, I don't think there is any political statement to be made here this is just a bad film with a bad actor and bad director. It was a dumb idea to remake this.

Yeah, if anything, I think they will bend over backwards to make sure that they don't do anything that can be construed as a political statement.

Also, Cabin Fever and Hostel Part II are pretty good.

THIS is how it's done. We can discuss whether the filmmakers have a political motivation in their films...but not whether or not we think their politics is right/wrong and whether other's opinions on the politics are right/wrong.

Our policy on political comments/discussion are in our Rules and they are clear.

 

[TJPC]

I wonder if you should set up a forum section called "politics and film" like you have "after hours"