[OT] Ebert gives Avatar 4/4
Static Void
http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?
AID=/20091211/REVIEWS/912119998
It looks like my prediction a few months back (just from watching the
trailer) for this film turning out to be an Epic Turd have not come to pass
if Mr. Ebert is really and freely speaking his mind in this review.
This is one time where I'd love to be proven wrong because although the
premise of the movie looked very interesting, the CGI and animation didn't
quite seem to be up to par. We'll see.
Mark Morrison
wrote:
I'm looking foward to it - I'll be seeing the 3D version on Wed, when
it opens here in the UK.
Shawk
Booked tickets for the 3D version for the 27th. I'm looking forward to it
Vincenzo Beretta
A lot of reviews out there are using superlatives after the UK premiere. I
was on the fence, but I'm looking forward to it, now.
Schrodinger
"Static Void" <s...@ticvoid.com> wrote in message
news:hg16nj$cn7$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
The Guardian in the UK gives it 2/5. Too preachy and too flabby.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/film/2009/dec/11/avatar-james-cameron-film-review
The way people go on about him, you would think he was up there with Stanley
Kubrick, Francis Ford Coppola or Ridley Scott.
Of the films he's done, Aliens and Terminator 2 are the only ones I would
actually watch if given the option and to be fair Aliens was hardly ground
breaking.
I hated Titanic so perhaps it won't be the film for me in any case...
Vincenzo Beretta
> actually watch if given the option and to be fair Aliens was hardly ground
> breaking.
I like the original Terminator over T2. It actually has more stuff going on
in it with a fraction of the budget. It is amazing, just to give an example,
to see the "post-holocaust" world more fleshed out in the C-budgeted first
part than in the ubercostly T2.
"Aliens", OTOH... The first time I saw it, as a kid, I was stunned by the
sheer adrenaline rush. Now, after seeing it over and over for twenty
years... I'm still stunned by the adrenaline rush.
A masterpiece, IMHO, up there with the original "Alien" (no wonder that
everyone can point to one of them as his favourite: they complement each
other perfectly). And one of the most quotable movies ever: "Game over, man!
Game over!" "Hey, maybe you haven't been keeping up on current events, but
we just got our asses kicked, pal! ", and "I say we take off and nuke the
entire site from orbit. It's the only way to be sure." are the staple of
every tabletop RPG group with an ounce of self-respect :^D
Nostromo
Domini:
Now I know you're smoking the wrong weed Schro! Aliens broke ground in oh so
many ways in its genre that I wouldn't know where to begin lol! Did you see
it in its day, or much later perhaps? *boggle*
T2 also still remains the best of the lot imo. Here we have the rare case of
the sequel being a better, more *entertaining* movie than the original,
which is a rare thing indeed.
>I hated Titanic so perhaps it won't be the film for me in any case...
True Lies wasn't bad at all, for what it was. I liked Solaris, which he
produced. I don't know what the upcoming Sanctum & Battle Angel are but just
the names pique my interest (ditto for Terminator 5, Forbidden Planet &
Fantastic Voyage).
I haven't seen Strange Days but it generally gets a good rap. Dark Angel was
damn good at its best - damn shame it got canned (almost as big a travesty
as Firefly!). Titanic we won't talk about any further ;).
Ok, so he's not a Coppola, Spielberg, Lucas (at his best - THX/AG/SW),
Scott, Ron Howard or even an Eastwood for my tastes. I generally detest all
the self-aggrandising arty-farty shit directors like David Lynch or Kubrik
spew out onto the screen - they can take their rich brain chemistry
imbalances to their therapist afaic! ;)
Though Kubrik had a shining moment (sic) of normality with FMJ, which is
still one of the all time great war movies imo. Remember, I'm talking
*entertainment* value here, not how many little gold statues someone has
given them, meh.
--
Nostromo
Nostromo
Anno Domini:
>I've been banished to the world of Pagan.
>
>No one here knows of the "Avatar." ;^)
Philistines, everywhere I turn! Or was it Galatians or Cretins
perhaps...hmmm...:-/
--
Nostromo
Vincenzo Beretta
> produced. I don't know what the upcoming Sanctum & Battle Angel are but
> just
> the names pique my interest
Battle Angel should be based on "Battle Angel Alita", a *very* good Japanese
manga/anime. It is about a cyborg, looking like a little girl, but actually
with the combat power of a Terminator (these are the "battle angels"). The
original story is set in a grim future world where Earth is a giant
scrapyard, and the sky is dominated by a mysterious and technologically
advanced floating city. A doctor finds the remains of a battle angel,
restores them and names the "girl" Alita. She has no memories of her past,
Jason Bourne-like, and the plot unfolds from here.
Cameron wanted to do this movie since way back (he actually had Natalie
Portman in her "The Professional/Heat" years in mind as the lead). And he
often stated that he choose to do "Avatar" over "Alita" first because
"Avatar" allowed him to develop the technology needed to do the latter movie
in a proper way. One can only hope.
> I haven't seen Strange Days but it generally gets a good rap.
It is quite derivative but really good.
> I generally detest all
> the self-aggrandising arty-farty shit directors like David Lynch or Kubrik
> spew out onto the screen - they can take their rich brain chemistry
> imbalances to their therapist afaic! ;)
Er... I agree that Lynch is an acquired taste (even if "The Straight Story"
and "The Elephant Man" are as "normal" movies as it gets). But Kubrick did
some of the very best genre movie out there: "Paths of Glory", "Dr.
Strangelove", "A Clockwork Orange", "The Shining"... You do not *need* to go
deep to enjoy them.
> Though Kubrik had a shining moment (sic) of normality with FMJ, which is
> still one of the all time great war movies imo. Remember, I'm talking
> *entertainment* value here, not how many little gold statues someone has
> given them, meh.
Well, Dr. SL and ACO are *very* entertaining. And no one ever gave a little
gold statue to either Kubrick or Lynch ^_^
rochrist
Abyss was a pretty damned good film too.
Schrodinger
"rochrist" <roch...@charter.net> wrote in message
news:q8tVm.57208$ky1....@newsfe14.iad...
I just remember it being a bit too long and the only clip you ever see is
the watery snake thing.
Adam Russell
I remember it being an underwater action movie with ET tacked on the end.
Michael Cecil
It had good parts but it was far too preachy. Nations of the world behave
or the aliens will destroy you? That's like telling the man with the gun
to this head to put the gun down or you'll shoot him.
--
Michael Cecil
mac...@gmail.com
rochrist
And yet, everyone seems to regard The Day the Earth Stood Still as a
classic.
Florian Schaetz
> Battle Angel should be based on "Battle Angel Alita", a *very* good Japanese
> manga/anime. It is about a cyborg, looking like a little girl, but actually
> with the combat power of a Terminator (these are the "battle angels").
Hm, if I remember correctly, "Battle Angel" is never actually used as a
term for a specific type of robot. As bodies are exchangeable in the
setting, Alita doesn't "start" with a very good one. She later gets some
better bodies, but thing that makes her really different are her
abilities, not just the body.
So imho the comparison to Terminator isn't a good one - most cybernetic
bodies in the setting (especially the combat ones) are very different
from each other, with everyone having an individual body.
> The
> original story is set in a grim future world where Earth is a giant
> scrapyard, and the sky is dominated by a mysterious and technologically
> advanced floating city. A doctor finds the remains of a battle angel,
> restores them and names the "girl" Alita. She has no memories of her past,
> Jason Bourne-like, and the plot unfolds from here.
To be more exact, he gives her a new body (or at least, many new parts)
- only later she gets her first combat body from hin.
> One can only hope.
Agreed.
Flo
Werner Punz
> True Lies wasn't bad at all, for what it was. I liked Solaris, which he
> produced.
Sorry but Solaris should never have been redone, the original version of
Tarkovskij was a masterpiece. This was like like redoing Citizen Kane.
There are movies which stand on their own and should never been redone.
Although Lem hated both versions ;-)
Nostromo
Domini:
Weeeeeell...I've decided to drop my rose-coloured glasses for older movies.
Anything over 50 years old is not so out of date, both with our culture &
language, as to be almost unwatchable, except as a historical curiosity. I
can't think of one movie from before the 50s or so that has stood the test
of time (I know I'll have older people here jumping on me like a ton on
bricks, but that's my story & I'm stickin to it! ;).
Solaris was a fine movie & stands on its own. There are many remakes which
are as good or better than the original, simply because they are presented
in more modern, relevant settings with current, up to date language, etc.
And if I'm finding movies 50+ years old to be too hard to stomach and/or
comprehend, then I can only imagine how the average 18-30yr olds respond to
them.
--
Nostromo
Nostromo
Anno Domini:
>Thus spake Werner Punz <we...@gmx.at>, Sun, 20 Dec 2009 00:19:04 +0100, Anno
>Domini:
>
>>Nostromo schrieb:
>>
>>> True Lies wasn't bad at all, for what it was. I liked Solaris, which he
>>> produced.
>>Sorry but Solaris should never have been redone, the original version of
>>Tarkovskij was a masterpiece. This was like like redoing Citizen Kane.
>>There are movies which stand on their own and should never been redone.
>>
>>Although Lem hated both versions ;-)
>
>Weeeeeell...I've decided to drop my rose-coloured glasses for older movies.
>Anything over 50 years old is not so out of date, both with our culture &
^^^
NOW (farking spell-checkers, grrrrr!)
Werner Punz
> Solaris was a fine movie & stands on its own. There are many remakes which
> are as good or better than the original, simply because they are presented
> in more modern, relevant settings with current, up to date language, etc.
> And if I'm finding movies 50+ years old to be too hard to stomach and/or
> comprehend, then I can only imagine how the average 18-30yr olds respond to
> them.
>
Solaris or generally the movies from Tarkovskij, Kurosawa, Bergman
etc... are different in this regard, everyone who tries to redo them has
to face the fact that compared to their versions the remake is utter
garbage. So normally no one even tries. Well they tried with Solaris but
the outcome was to be expected!
I only can think of 1-2 living directors who reach the quality of those
guys and none of them is an american, and none of them tries to do a
remake of a masterpiece, they try to do their own!
Justisaur
> Thus spake Werner Punz <we...@gmx.at>, Sun, 20 Dec 2009 00:19:04 +0100, Anno
> Domini:
>
> >Nostromo schrieb:
>
> >> True Lies wasn't bad at all, for what it was. I liked Solaris, which he
> >> produced.
> >Sorry but Solaris should never have been redone, the original version of
> >Tarkovskij was a masterpiece. This was like like redoing Citizen Kane.
> >There are movies which stand on their own and should never been redone.
>
I never saw the original, I'll have to dig it up somehow. I loved the
recent one. Only one of my friends to do so though.
> >Although Lem hated both versions ;-)
>
> Weeeeeell...I've decided to drop my rose-coloured glasses for older movies.
> Anything over 50 years old is not so out of date, both with our culture &
> language, as to be almost unwatchable, except as a historical curiosity. I
> can't think of one movie from before the 50s or so that has stood the test
> of time (I know I'll have older people here jumping on me like a ton on
> bricks, but that's my story & I'm stickin to it! ;).
I just watched Cecil B. Demille's Cleopatra from 1934. I'd never seen
it before and it was quite good. Historically very inaccurate, but I
think much more entertaining than the Mankiewicz version with
Elizabeth Taylor. It seems like something you'd like.
I haven't seen them in awhile but I'm sure I'd still like the "Thin
Man" series, and current "The Day The Earth Stood Still" while
visually stunning couldn't hold a candle to the original. Most
Hitchcock movies stand the test of time, and I've even seen some
silent movies that were very good, such as . I can't stand the
majority of Shakespeare updates.
> Solaris was a fine movie & stands on its own. There are many remakes which
> are as good or better than the original, simply because they are presented
> in more modern, relevant settings with current, up to date language, etc.
> And if I'm finding movies 50+ years old to be too hard to stomach and/or
> comprehend, then I can only imagine how the average 18-30yr olds respond to
> them.
Some of them are good and some are bad, just as with anything else.
Most just don't capture what was great about the originals though.
- Justisaur
David Lamb
> I
> can't think of one movie from before the 50s or so that has stood the test
> of time (I know I'll have older people here jumping on me like a ton on
> bricks, but that's my story & I'm stickin to it! ;).
Here's jumpin' on you, kid: -- Casablanca (1942) allusion.
Miracle on 34th Street (1947)
It's a Wonderful Life (1946)
Wizard of Oz (1939)
Obviously it's a matter of taste, but I'm fairly sure these four are
still watchable/popular in their own right, not just curiosities. My
kids (now 15, 20, and 22) enjoyed the latter three when they were
younger. I have to admit they couldn't cope with Casablanca, so I could
be wrong about that one. Also, I suppose they're not all *that* long
before the 50's, so maybe it's covered by your "or so."
Xocyll
porn spammer to utter "The Augury is good, the signs say:
>Thus spake Werner Punz <we...@gmx.at>, Sun, 20 Dec 2009 00:19:04 +0100, Anno
>Domini:
>
>>Nostromo schrieb:
>>
>>> True Lies wasn't bad at all, for what it was. I liked Solaris, which he
>>> produced.
>>Sorry but Solaris should never have been redone, the original version of
>>Tarkovskij was a masterpiece. This was like like redoing Citizen Kane.
>>There are movies which stand on their own and should never been redone.
>>
>>Although Lem hated both versions ;-)
>
>Weeeeeell...I've decided to drop my rose-coloured glasses for older movies.
>Anything over 50 years old is not so out of date, both with our culture &
>language, as to be almost unwatchable, except as a historical curiosity. I
>can't think of one movie from before the 50s or so that has stood the test
>of time (I know I'll have older people here jumping on me like a ton on
>bricks, but that's my story & I'm stickin to it! ;).
Wizard of OZ, they're still broadcasting the 1939 version, despite many
remakes.
>Solaris was a fine movie & stands on its own. There are many remakes which
>are as good or better than the original, simply because they are presented
>in more modern, relevant settings with current, up to date language, etc.
>And if I'm finding movies 50+ years old to be too hard to stomach and/or
>comprehend, then I can only imagine how the average 18-30yr olds respond to
>them.
Ha they'd be lost with '80's movies.
Xocyll
--
I don't particularly want you to FOAD, myself. You'll be more of
a cautionary example if you'll FO And Get Chronically, Incurably,
Painfully, Progressively, Expensively, Debilitatingly Ill. So
FOAGCIPPEDI. -- Mike Andrews responding to an idiot in asr
Vincenzo Beretta
> comprehend, then I can only imagine how the average 18-30yr olds respond
> to
> them.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RKanPsUjP7w&annotation_id=annotation_211174&feature=iv
Werner Punz
> On Dec 19, 7:44 pm, Nostromo <nos...@forme.org> wrote:
>> Thus spake Werner Punz <we...@gmx.at>, Sun, 20 Dec 2009 00:19:04 +0100, Anno
>> Domini:
>>
>>> Nostromo schrieb:
>>>> True Lies wasn't bad at all, for what it was. I liked Solaris, which he
>>>> produced.
>>> Sorry but Solaris should never have been redone, the original version of
>>> Tarkovskij was a masterpiece. This was like like redoing Citizen Kane.
>>> There are movies which stand on their own and should never been redone.
>
> I never saw the original, I'll have to dig it up somehow. I loved the
> recent one. Only one of my friends to do so though.
>
audience, because it follows a different flow of time and it takes 3 hours.
The movies of Tarkovskij are very european/russian, and very slow, you
have to get into them by sitting through the first half hour which is
there to get you into the mood, but once you have finished the movie
it is almost like a religious experience.
I am not sure if the average american who is used to a fast flow of time
can grasp it, but if you can it is absolutely amazing.
(Almost any movie of Tarkovskij is in this regard, I heavily also can
recommend Stalker)
Werner Punz
>>
> Solaris or generally the movies from Tarkovskij, Kurosawa, Bergman
> etc... are different in this regard, everyone who tries to redo them has
> to face the fact that compared to their versions the remake is utter
> garbage. So normally no one even tries. Well they tried with Solaris but
> the outcome was to be expected!
>
> I only can think of 1-2 living directors who reach the quality of those
> guys and none of them is an american, and none of them tries to do a
> remake of a masterpiece, they try to do their own!
>
Actually there is one director I would regard as high as those guys who
is american, that is Clint Eastwood, he handles very similar themes in
his late movies as Tarkovskij did although with a different flow of time
and background, so I have to revert that statement.
I recently watched million dollar baby, excellent movie.
David Lamb
> The movies of Tarkovskij are very european/russian, and very slow,
Pacing is an issue with older American movies, too. My kids enjoyed
Forbidden Planet fairly well, but we had to warn them in advance that
its 1950's pace would be quite different from modern science fiction.
Justisaur
> Nostromo wrote:
> > I
> > can't think of one movie from before the 50s or so that has stood the test
> > of time (I know I'll have older people here jumping on me like a ton on
> > bricks, but that's my story & I'm stickin to it! ;).
>
> Here's jumpin' on you, kid: -- Casablanca (1942) allusion.
Never saw the allure of it.
> Miracle on 34th Street (1947)
Fine for a kid's movie, but that's about it. You could put almost
anything in front of children and they'll like it so it's no
criteria.
> It's a Wonderful Life (1946)
Awful, awful movie. Total flop during it's time, it was royalty free
to play on the networks due to some legal issues which let the
networks play it repeatedly, the cheap bastards.
> Wizard of Oz (1939)
Wonderful movie. At least there's one on your list I agree with.
- Justisaur
Lars Haugseth
>
> Nostromo wrote:
>> I
>> can't think of one movie from before the 50s or so that has stood the test
>> of time (I know I'll have older people here jumping on me like a ton on
>> bricks, but that's my story & I'm stickin to it! ;).
>
> Here's jumpin' on you, kid: -- Casablanca (1942) allusion.
>
> Miracle on 34th Street (1947)
> It's a Wonderful Life (1946)
> Wizard of Oz (1939)
Metropolis (1927)
Modern Times (1936)
Rebecca (1940)
And several other movies from that era by the same directors (Lang,
Chaplin, Hitchcock.)
--
Lars Haugseth
Spalls Hurgenson
<nj...@larshaugseth.com> wrote:
>* David Lamb <dal...@cs.queensu.ca> wrote:
>>
>> Nostromo wrote:
>>> I
>>> can't think of one movie from before the 50s or so that has stood the test
>>> of time (I know I'll have older people here jumping on me like a ton on
>>> bricks, but that's my story & I'm stickin to it! ;).
>>
>> Here's jumpin' on you, kid: -- Casablanca (1942) allusion.
>>
>> Miracle on 34th Street (1947)
>> It's a Wonderful Life (1946)
>> Wizard of Oz (1939)
>
>Metropolis (1927)
>Modern Times (1936)
>Rebecca (1940)
Let's add:
King Kong (1933)
Duck Soup (1933)
Fantasia (1940)
Nostromo
Domini:
>Werner Punz schrieb:
>
>>>
>> Solaris or generally the movies from Tarkovskij, Kurosawa, Bergman
>> etc... are different in this regard, everyone who tries to redo them has
>> to face the fact that compared to their versions the remake is utter
>> garbage. So normally no one even tries. Well they tried with Solaris but
>> the outcome was to be expected!
>>
>> I only can think of 1-2 living directors who reach the quality of those
>> guys and none of them is an american, and none of them tries to do a
>> remake of a masterpiece, they try to do their own!
Bah humbug!!! ;-p
>Actually there is one director I would regard as high as those guys who
>is american, that is Clint Eastwood, he handles very similar themes in
>his late movies as Tarkovskij did although with a different flow of time
>and background, so I have to revert that statement.
>I recently watched million dollar baby, excellent movie.
Yes, his most depressing movie ever (if not one of THE most
slash-your-wrists-after-watching flicks of all time!). Masterpiece, yes
(kind of like Requiem For A Dream, bletch), but _entertainment per se...?
--
Nostromo
Nostromo
(PST), Anno Domini:
>On Dec 19, 7:44�pm, Nostromo <nos...@forme.org> wrote:
>> Thus spake Werner Punz <we...@gmx.at>, Sun, 20 Dec 2009 00:19:04 +0100, Anno
>> Domini:
>>
>> >Nostromo schrieb:
>>
>> >> True Lies wasn't bad at all, for what it was. I liked Solaris, which he
>> >> produced.
>> >Sorry but Solaris should never have been redone, the original version of
>> >Tarkovskij was a masterpiece. This was like like redoing Citizen Kane.
>> >There are movies which stand on their own and should never been redone.
>>
>
>I never saw the original, I'll have to dig it up somehow. I loved the
>recent one. Only one of my friends to do so though.
There you have it :).
>> >Although Lem hated both versions ;-)
>>
>> Weeeeeell...I've decided to drop my rose-coloured glasses for older movies.
>> Anything over 50 years old is not so out of date, both with our culture &
>> language, as to be almost unwatchable, except as a historical curiosity. I
>> can't think of one movie from before the 50s or so that has stood the test
>> of time (I know I'll have older people here jumping on me like a ton on
>> bricks, but that's my story & I'm stickin to it! ;).
>
>I just watched Cecil B. Demille's Cleopatra from 1934. I'd never seen
>it before and it was quite good. Historically very inaccurate, but I
>think much more entertaining than the Mankiewicz version with
>Elizabeth Taylor. It seems like something you'd like.
Unlikely, unless there's a X-Rated version...? ;-p
>I haven't seen them in awhile but I'm sure I'd still like the "Thin
>Man" series, and current "The Day The Earth Stood Still" while
>visually stunning couldn't hold a candle to the original. Most
>Hitchcock movies stand the test of time, and I've even seen some
>silent movies that were very good, such as . I can't stand the
>majority of Shakespeare updates.
Cat got yer tongue back there Just? ;)
What about Shakespeare In Love!? *duck*
>> Solaris was a fine movie & stands on its own. There are many remakes which
>> are as good or better than the original, simply because they are presented
>> in more modern, relevant settings with current, up to date language, etc.
>> And if I'm finding movies 50+ years old to be too hard to stomach and/or
>> comprehend, then I can only imagine how the average 18-30yr olds respond to
>> them.
>
>Some of them are good and some are bad, just as with anything else.
>Most just don't capture what was great about the originals though.
My beef is with pretentious gits who assume because it's 50+ years old
and/or B&W it MUST be better than anything that's come out, or, heaven
forbid, any remake! (present company excluded...unless the show fits <G>)
--
Nostromo
Nostromo
-0500, Anno Domini:
>Nostromo wrote:
>> I
>> can't think of one movie from before the 50s or so that has stood the test
>> of time (I know I'll have older people here jumping on me like a ton on
>> bricks, but that's my story & I'm stickin to it! ;).
>
>Here's jumpin' on you, kid: -- Casablanca (1942) allusion.
>
>Miracle on 34th Street (1947)
>It's a Wonderful Life (1946)
>Wizard of Oz (1939)
>
>Obviously it's a matter of taste, but I'm fairly sure these four are
>still watchable/popular in their own right, not just curiosities.
Heh, funny then that only one of those is not a 'fantasy' type movie out of
the four ;-p (though I still contend that young people watching most of
those will see them as dated & irrelevant to today's society, as well as
probably very cheesy & boring even)
>My kids (now 15, 20, and 22) enjoyed the latter three when they were
>younger. I have to admit they couldn't cope with Casablanca, so I could
>be wrong about that one. Also, I suppose they're not all *that* long
>before the 50's, so maybe it's covered by your "or so."
Well, it depends on the person of course, but I'm just throwing it out there
as an observation based on younger ppl's feedback & general appreciation (or
lack thereof) of the older movies. How many ppl do you know that prefer &
laud movies 20+ years older than when they were born as 'better than
anything made today/recently'...?
--
Nostromo
Nostromo
(PST), Anno Domini:
>> Wizard of Oz (1939)
>
>Wonderful movie. At least there's one on your list I agree with.
Still doesn't mean that it's not badly dated or that a modern remake
couldn't be better/more relevant/more entertaining to modern audiences that
aren't too old & set in their ways. Me, I'm looking forward to a complete
re-make of Star Wars in my lifetime! :) Anyone catch the new Star Trek
movie? Can you honestly say it wasn't 'better' in almost every way
imaginable than the original series or even movie from 1970 (& the series is
a bit less then 50 yrs old)...?
--
Nostromo
Nostromo
Anno Domini:
>>Solaris was a fine movie & stands on its own. There are many remakes which
>>are as good or better than the original, simply because they are presented
>>in more modern, relevant settings with current, up to date language, etc.
>>And if I'm finding movies 50+ years old to be too hard to stomach and/or
>>comprehend, then I can only imagine how the average 18-30yr olds respond to
>>them.
>
>Ha they'd be lost with '80's movies.
Heh, ain't that the truth!
--
Nostromo
David Lamb
> Me, I'm looking forward to a complete
> re-make of Star Wars in my lifetime!
Doesn't Lucas do that with each release for a new video technology? ;)
I think there was a poll a few years back after King Kong asking what
old movie Peter Jackson should remake next, and one of the high-ranked
choices was Star Wars I-III.
Sheldon England
>
> Anyone catch the new Star Trek
> movie? Can you honestly say it wasn't 'better' in almost every way
> imaginable than the original series or even movie from 1970 (& the series is
> a bit less then 50 yrs old)...?
Yes. After watching it I lamented for the future of our species.
To boldly go ... where we have already been.
If the younger generations are just going to re-mix every song and
re-imagine every story/TV show/movie then creativity will soon be
extinct. The cowardly executives who would rather issue more "safe and
recycled" crap instead of releasing inventive new stuff deserve part of
the blame.
I thought it was a very entertaining movie about heroic characters with
some exciting scenes and interesting developments. I don't see why they
had to re-write Star Trek and why they couldn't have just given the
characters new names, changed Star Fleet into another agency/entity, and
just made their own story. The alternate timeline excuse is getting old.
This is clearly intended to set up a new movie series featuring these
new/old characters.
When the movie was over I honestly wondered if I enjoyed it or not. When
the Star Trek OS was aired it broke all sorts or rules and pushed the
envelope of dramatic entertainment. Re-imaginings like this do the
opposite and try to milk the dead cow over and over and over with fresh
young irreverent faces.
I cannot think of a remade or re-imagined TV show or movie or song that
I have seen or heard that I thought added any value or improved on the
older. I just see and hear lazy, uninspired people trying to cash in on
the fame of other, actually creative people. Thankfully there are still
a few creative bands and writers and producers out there so this kind of
drek is not our only option ... yet.
Yawn.
- Sheldon, who probably should have just cut-and-pasted
someone else's clever post but decided to actually create my own
Michael Cecil
<sheldon...@netscape.net> wrote:
>I cannot think of a remade or re-imagined TV show or movie or song that
>I have seen or heard that I thought added any value or improved on the
>older.
I rather liked Peter Jackson's version of the Lord of the Rings a good bit
better than the Ralph Bakashi one. ;)
--
Michael Cecil
mac...@gmail.com
Sheldon England
> Sheldon England wrote:
>
>> I cannot think of a remade or re-imagined TV show or movie or song that
>> I have seen or heard that I thought added any value or improved on the
>> older.
>
> I rather liked Peter Jackson's version of the Lord of the Rings a good bit
> better than the Ralph Bakashi one. ;)
You mean the sort of animated, shadow-puppet oddity? It didn't even get
finished. Wasn't it only half the story or something?
As far as I know, Jackson was the only one to make an actual Lord of the
Rings movie and in his version he didn't re-imagine the characters to
make Legolas a hip, rebellious gangsta' D.J. who turned out to be the
father of Gandalf.
- Sheldon
Sheldon England
>
> As far as I know, Jackson was the only one to make an actual Lord of the
> Rings movie and in his version he didn't re-imagine the characters to
> make Legolas a hip, rebellious gangsta' D.J. who turned out to be the
> father of Gandalf.
Actually, on hindsight, I recall he did add some hip new twists for the
younger generations, having Legolas snowboard/skateboard down the stairs
on the shield, using Gimli as comic relief (there was no mention of
dwarf-tossing in the books). I also recall that these were the parts in
the movies that had me rolling my eyes and sighing.
- Sheldon, grumpy old man
Michael Cecil
Yeah, he could have had an unbeatable masterpiece instead of just the best
trilogy made so far. Oh well. Anyhow, I was just joking comparing the
two really. I'm sure we could think of remakes that are better, but I'd
rather be gaming.
--
Michael Cecil
mac...@gmail.com
David Lamb
> I cannot think of a remade or re-imagined TV show or movie or song that
> I have seen or heard that I thought added any value or improved on the
> older. I just see and hear lazy, uninspired people trying to cash in on
> the fame of other, actually creative people.
My wife enjoyed the new Battlestar Galactica better than the original; YMMV.
Nostromo
-0500, Anno Domini:
Not surprised one bit!
--
Nostromo
Nostromo
11:54:36 -0800, Anno Domini:
Merry Christmas Sheldy!!! ;-p
--
Nostromo
Matt v3.3
[Re: the new Star Trek]
> Yawn.
What Sheldon Said [TM]
(With the exception of the already mentioned BSG which
I'm rather liking, but have yet to see the end)
--
};> Matt v3.3 <:{
Sheldon England
I'd heard good things about it but mostly, I notice, from people who
weren't even born yet when the original was released. The BSG movie was
pretty campy to begin with so I didn't expect much from the new TV
version. Nevertheless, I tuned in one day to check it out and within
four minutes saw that Starbuck had been re-imagined as a woman and
rolled my eyes then changed the channel.
I'm not suggesting that kids today should find older, dated movies or TV
shows entertaining. I'm suggesting that they should stop being so lazy
and write their own new movies and leave the old ones be. And they
should stay off my lawn. :p
- Sheldon
Michael Cecil
I liked the new series okay but it felt like a lot of build up without the
final payoff. I don't think they really thought out the last season of
the series too well.
Of course, the "original" series was just a cheap Star Wars knock off.
--
Michael Cecil
mac...@gmail.com
Vincenzo Beretta
> younger generations, having Legolas snowboard/skateboard down the stairs
> on the shield, using Gimli as comic relief (there was no mention of
> dwarf-tossing in the books). I also recall that these were the parts in
> the movies that had me rolling my eyes and sighing.
And still, strangely enough, they transformed Eowyn from the rebellious and
tormented girl she is in the books in a reassuring houswife. Eowyn is my
LotR favourite character and I really didn't like how she was portrayed in
the movies. It's ironic that the original would have had more appeal with
the younger audiences.
Werner Punz
There is a difference between entertainment hollywood style and real art
in many cases (not always but way too often).
And the first Solaris was Art the second one was a Cash in on a brand
name (and clooneys ass) with Corporate financers wanting to see their
money multiplied.
Werner
Werner Punz
Actually the Pacing of Solaris is way slower, more along the lines of
2001 although you really cannot compare those movies.
Werner Punz
>>> Solaris was a fine movie & stands on its own. There are many remakes which
>>> are as good or better than the original, simply because they are presented
>>> in more modern, relevant settings with current, up to date language, etc.
>>> And if I'm finding movies 50+ years old to be too hard to stomach and/or
>>> comprehend, then I can only imagine how the average 18-30yr olds respond to
>>> them.
>> Some of them are good and some are bad, just as with anything else.
>> Most just don't capture what was great about the originals though.
>
> My beef is with pretentious gits who assume because it's 50+ years old
> and/or B&W it MUST be better than anything that's come out, or, heaven
> forbid, any remake! (present company excluded...unless the show fits <G>)
>
There are lots of good movies done today (funnily most which comes from
hollywood is schema F cash in garbage, but neverytheless there is a load
of awesome movies coming out nowadays), but the Solaris remake is not
one of those and neither should it have been done. Ever Solaris version
will be measured artistically on Tarkovskijs version and then will
utimately fail!
Remaking Solaris, simply is like remaking 2001 and selling it over
Clooneys naked ass being shown!
Sorry but it is like that!
Nostromo
Domini:
To be fair, I haven't seen the original, so can only comment on this later
one. Another example - the US version of Ring - I thought much more
relatable & easier to watch than the Japanese cultural mish-mash (which was
laughable, whereas the Hollywood version actually gave me chills up my spine
2 or 3 times). OTOH, something like Nikita, which was later turned into the
Hollywood action-fest Assassin was almost unforgivable (though Bridgit Fonda
strutting across the screen is always a _good_ thing :).
--
Nostromo