OT: Make the bad men stop!
Amy Guskin
by the absolutely awesome needcoffee.com guys. It refers to how Hollywood
doesn't understand and frequently ruins genre projects, and it was basically
an hour-long gripe session about recent and upcoming projects. When you read
the following, you'll know why that's the phrase that IMMEDIATELY sprung to
my mind:
http://entertainment.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=09/01/28/1355238
Oy!
Amy
--
Ten Thousand Questions Blog:
A Question a Day for Journaling, Self-Discovery, and Transformation
"2009 is the Year of Questions"
tenthousandquestions.com
Dave Hayslett
> The subject is a nod to a panel I used to regularly attend at DragonCon, run
> by the absolutely awesome needcoffee.com guys. It refers to how Hollywood
> doesn't understand and frequently ruins genre projects, and it was basically
> an hour-long gripe session about recent and upcoming projects. When you read
> the following, you'll know why that's the phrase that IMMEDIATELY sprung to
> my mind:
>
> http://entertainment.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=09/01/28/1355238
>
> Oy!
Eh. I'm of the "Then don't watch it" camp. Highlander 2 (which I've never
seen) in no way impacts my enjoyment and appreciation of Highlander (though
I do enjoy saying "there should have been only one!" :-) ). Alien
Resurrection doesn't impact the first 3 (yes, I'm one of the 17 people who
liked Alien 3). Etc, etc.
Meanwhile, who knows ... they might actually make a good movie. (Yes, I
understand the odds, but it's still possible).
--
Dave (1/28/2009 3:33:28 PM)
Actual movie description:
Godzilla and Jet Jaguar meet big cockroach and black chicken.
Amy Guskin
<tax9k2rb...@hayslett.sc.rr.com>):
> On Wed, 28 Jan 2009 16:32:27 GMT, Amy Guskin wrote:
>
>> The subject is a nod to a panel I used to regularly attend at DragonCon,
>> run
>> by the absolutely awesome needcoffee.com guys. It refers to how Hollywood
>> doesn't understand and frequently ruins genre projects, and it was
>> basically
>> an hour-long gripe session about recent and upcoming projects. When you
>> read
>> the following, you'll know why that's the phrase that IMMEDIATELY sprung to
>> my mind:
>>
>> http://entertainment.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=09/01/28/1355238
>>
>> Oy!
>
> Eh. I'm of the "Then don't watch it" camp. Highlander 2 (which I've never
> seen) in no way impacts my enjoyment and appreciation of Highlander (though
> I do enjoy saying "there should have been only one!" :-) ). Alien
> Resurrection doesn't impact the first 3 (yes, I'm one of the 17 people who
> liked Alien 3). Etc, etc.
>
> Meanwhile, who knows ... they might actually make a good movie. (Yes, I
> understand the odds, but it's still possible). <<
Oh, I totally agree that the original won't be ruined by it. But I always
lament where that budget COULD have gone when I hear about something like
this. Also, what particularly worries me was this comment: "Travis said he
intends to write a script 'with or without anyone's blessings.' " I dunno.
It just sounds like a really bad idea!
Dave Hayslett
"Paul Blart: Mall Cop" is the #1 US movie for the second week in a row. By
comparison ... how bad could it be, really? :-) Actually, I don't know
this Travis guy from Adam, but I hope his determination is because he's a
fan of the original and will treat it well, though I may be engaging in
wishful thinking. And if it gets picked up, it seems unlikely that the
script would survive contact with a studio unscathed anyway.
*shrug* I just don't see anything there to get excited about yet.
--
Dave (1/28/2009 6:46:01 PM)
"...I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one
fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all
the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours."
Stephen F. Roberts
Amy Guskin
<q79cssez...@hayslett.sc.rr.com>):
And to think, I was proud to be an American again for about a week there.
Wow, that was a short run.
>> By
> comparison ... how bad could it be, really? :-) Actually, I don't know
> this Travis guy from Adam, but I hope his determination is because he's a
> fan of the original and will treat it well, though I may be engaging in
> wishful thinking. And if it gets picked up, it seems unlikely that the
> script would survive contact with a studio unscathed anyway.
>
> *shrug* I just don't see anything there to get excited about yet.<<
He has an extremely short resume, which consists of having written "Eagle
Eye." I never saw it, but Rotten Tomatoes gives it a Tomatometer ranking of
27%. Very rotten.
Gregory Weston
Amy Guskin <ais...@fjordstone.com> wrote:
> The subject is a nod to a panel I used to regularly attend at DragonCon, run
> by the absolutely awesome needcoffee.com guys. It refers to how Hollywood
> doesn't understand and frequently ruins genre projects, and it was basically
> an hour-long gripe session about recent and upcoming projects. When you read
> the following, you'll know why that's the phrase that IMMEDIATELY sprung to
> my mind:
>
> http://entertainment.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=09/01/28/1355238
For what it's worth, there have been multiple official sequels to "Do
Androids Dream of Electric Sheep?" I knew about one, but it appears that
it's now a tetralogy. All 3 sequels were written by the same author, a
friend of PKD, who also wrote a vaguely interesting trilogy of novels
about Boba Fett a decade ago.
--
"Harry?" Ron's voice was a mere whisper. "Do you smell something ... burning?"
- Harry Potter and the Odor of the Phoenix
Gregory Weston
Dave Hayslett <hays...@sc.rr.com> wrote:
> On Wed, 28 Jan 2009 16:32:27 GMT, Amy Guskin wrote:
>
> > The subject is a nod to a panel I used to regularly attend at DragonCon,
> > run
> > by the absolutely awesome needcoffee.com guys. It refers to how Hollywood
> > doesn't understand and frequently ruins genre projects, and it was
> > basically
> > an hour-long gripe session about recent and upcoming projects. When you
> > read
> > the following, you'll know why that's the phrase that IMMEDIATELY sprung to
> > my mind:
> >
> > http://entertainment.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=09/01/28/1355238
> >
> > Oy!
>
> Eh. I'm of the "Then don't watch it" camp. Highlander 2 (which I've never
> seen) in no way impacts my enjoyment and appreciation of Highlander (though
> I do enjoy saying "there should have been only one!"
That was the headline on the first review I read of Highlander 2.
You have to understand, though, that Highlander 2 - while it was never
going to be a work of high art - was crippled by interference from
non-creative sources. I haven't seen the "renegade edition" but I'm told
by people whose opinions I trust that it goes flying over the low bar of
"better than the theatrical version."
G
David E. Bath
Dave Hayslett <hays...@sc.rr.com> writes:
> On Wed, 28 Jan 2009 16:32:27 GMT, Amy Guskin wrote:
>
>> The subject is a nod to a panel I used to regularly attend at DragonCon, run
>> by the absolutely awesome needcoffee.com guys. It refers to how Hollywood
>> doesn't understand and frequently ruins genre projects, and it was basically
>> an hour-long gripe session about recent and upcoming projects. When you read
>> the following, you'll know why that's the phrase that IMMEDIATELY sprung to
>> my mind:
>>
>> http://entertainment.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=09/01/28/1355238
>>
>> Oy!
>
> Eh. I'm of the "Then don't watch it" camp. Highlander 2 (which I've never
> seen) in no way impacts my enjoyment and appreciation of Highlander (though
> I do enjoy saying "there should have been only one!" :-) ). Alien
> Resurrection doesn't impact the first 3 (yes, I'm one of the 17 people who
> liked Alien 3). Etc, etc.
>
> Meanwhile, who knows ... they might actually make a good movie. (Yes, I
> understand the odds, but it's still possible).
I know from direct conversations with the orginal producer that he has
been working on a sequel project since at least 2005. Didn't get a
chance to discuss the direction he was going in.
David Williams
"Amy Guskin" <ais...@fjordstone.com> wrote in message
news:0001HW.C5A6509D...@news.verizon.net...
> Oh, I totally agree that the original won't be ruined by it. But I always
> lament where that budget COULD have gone when I hear about something like
> this.
Agreed. Many times, the story that is told in the first film is whole and
complete. There really is nothing more to be "said" with the character(s).
In such cases a sequel can't add anything, it can only detract.
Examples that always bothered me:
High Noon, Part II: The Return of Will Kane - Huh? Why?
Scarlett (miniseries sequel to Gone With the Wind) - Alexandra Ripley
should have found her own damn subject to write about...
Rocky parts 2-? - The original film is a masterpiece. Everything after it
was sloppy hero worship.
Rambo, parts 2-? - The first film told the story of a disturbed Nam vet.
Again, pretty good movie, followed by a series of films of more sloppy hero
worship and nationalistic nonsense, in which the character is transformed
into, basically, a mass-murderer.
David Williams
> lament where that budget COULD have gone when I hear about something like
> this.
Agreed. Many times, the story that is told in the first film is whole and
Bill
> Examples that always bothered me:
>
> High Noon, Part II: The Return of Will Kane - Huh? Why?
>
> Scarlett �(miniseries sequel to Gone With the Wind) - Alexandra Ripley
> should have found her own damn subject to write about...
>
> Rocky parts 2-? - The original film is a masterpiece. �Everything after it
> was sloppy hero worship.
>
> Rambo, parts 2-? - The first film told the story of a disturbed Nam vet.
> Again, pretty good movie, followed by a series of films of more sloppy hero
> worship and nationalistic nonsense, in which the character is transformed
> into, basically, a mass-murderer.
IMO, Hollywood has been suffering "sequelitis" ever since the monster
success of the Star Wars franshise. So the suits seem to have it in
mind that *any* successful movie absolutely requires a sequel. Sadly,
they haven't figured out that Empire and Jedi succeeded in large part
because they were good movies on their own instead of merely
derivative and inferior copies of the original.
Bill
Kurt Ullman
<86b7949d-caee-4120...@l38g2000vba.googlegroups.com>,
Bill <feline...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> IMO, Hollywood has been suffering "sequelitis" ever since the monster
> success of the Star Wars franshise. So the suits seem to have it in
> mind that *any* successful movie absolutely requires a sequel. Sadly,
> they haven't figured out that Empire and Jedi succeeded in large part
> because they were good movies on their own instead of merely
> derivative and inferior copies of the original.
>
What they missed is that the SW group was, from the getgo, a whole
entity. Not something that made money and now we need to graft on
something so we can get another two or three movies out of it.
John W. Kennedy
> IMO, Hollywood has been suffering "sequelitis" ever since the monster
> success of the Star Wars franshise.
It would be nearer the mark to say that Hollywood's traditional
"sequelitis" was temporarily interrupted by the introduction of
television, but was restored after "Star Wars".
voxwoman
wrote:
There are probably a handful of examples of sequels that are as good
or better than the original, but the only one that comes to my mind is
"Toy Story 2"
I am discounting films that were split into 2 or 3 releases but shot
together (such as the Salkind brother's "3 & 4 Musketeers" and "Lord
of the Rings" )
And "remakeitis" is as bad or worse than sequelitis. IMO, of course :)
-Wendy
Anthony Nance
> On Jan 30, 1:46B pm, "John W. Kennedy" <John.W.Kenn...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>> On 1/30/09 12:49 PM, Bill wrote:
>>
>> > IMO, Hollywood has been suffering "sequelitis" ever since the monster
>> > success of the Star Wars franshise.
>>
>> It would be nearer the mark to say that Hollywood's traditional
>> "sequelitis" was temporarily interrupted by the introduction of
>> television, but was restored after "Star Wars".
>
> There are probably a handful of examples of sequels that are as good
> or better than the original, but the only one that comes to my mind is
> "Toy Story 2"
When I've seen this come up in other places, the ones that get
mentioned the most (in no particular order) are "Godfather Pt II",
"Aliens", "The Road Warrior", "Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan",
"Evil Dead II", "Toy Story 2", and"The Empire Strikes Back".
I'm surely forgetting a few. Oh - "Superman II", too.
I agree there aren't many.
Tony
Dan Dassow
Sometimes Hollywoods requires a few attempts to get an adaption right.
The Wonderful Wizard of Oz (1910)
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0001463/
Wizard of Oz (1925)
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0016544/
The Wizard of Oz (1933)
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0024779/
The Wizard of Oz (1938)
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0138195/
The Wizard of Oz (1939)
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0032138/
Although they should have stopped when they got it right.
Dan Dassow
John W. Kennedy
> The Wonderful Wizard of Oz (1910)http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0001463/
Very short, and scarcely resembles the book at all.
> Wizard of Oz (1925)http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0016544/
Resembles the book even less. (Has a character named "Rastus" played
by an actor credited as "G. Howe Black".) Apparently confuses Oz with
Graustark.
> The Wizard of Oz (1933)http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0024779/
Very peculiar cartoon short. A classic in its own way, but, again,
scarcely resembles the book.
> The Wizard of Oz (1938)http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0138195/
A Canadian cartoon that is unknown to me. I gather it has nothing to
do with the book.
> The Wizard of Oz (1939)http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0032138/
The one we all know.
> Although they should have stopped when they got it right.
They haven't gotten it right yet. The 1939 movie is a lovely thing,
but it takes great liberties with the story and the characters.
But the plain fact is that gazillions of movies are remakes, and
always have been. Did you know that Frank Sinatra starred in a version
of "Room Service" made only six years after the version starring the
Marx Brothers?
Kurt Ullman
<8282a2ef-1f64-4235...@l33g2000pri.googlegroups.com>,
"John W. Kennedy" <John.W....@gmail.com> wrote:
> But the plain fact is that gazillions of movies are remakes, and
> always have been. Did you know that Frank Sinatra starred in a version
> of "Room Service" made only six years after the version starring the
> Marx Brothers?
How does one classify the cross cultural remakes. The "flagship" of
that particular group is probably 7 Samuri-Magnificent 7.
Gregory Weston
<kurtullman-35F31...@70-3-168-216.pools.spcsdns.net>,
Kurt Ullman <kurtu...@yahoo.com> wrote:
Or, although it's less direct, Star Wars as inspired by The Hidden
Fortress? Apparently (just noticed this) there's been a kinda-sorta
remake of The Hidden Fortress within the last year.
Have to say, I generally enjoyed Kurosawa's takes on Shakespeare, even
if the cultural differences led to some gratuitous-to-me story changes.
voxwoman
> In article
> <8282a2ef-1f64-4235-a05e-42a15f5f9...@l33g2000pri.googlegroups.com>,
> "John W. Kennedy" <John.W.Kenn...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > But the plain fact is that gazillions of movies are remakes, and
> > always have been. Did you know that Frank Sinatra starred in a version
> > of "Room Service" made only six years after the version starring the
> > Marx Brothers?
>
> How does one classify the cross cultural remakes. The "flagship" of
> that particular group is probably 7 Samuri-Magnificent 7.
those are the exception. I think I've enjoyed every version of 7
Samurai, including "Battle of the Planets" (if only for its camp
value).
I don't know if I consider the cross-polinization of Sege Leone
"spaghetti westerns" - Kurasawa Samurai films - B-SF films (all of
them have been remade into SF films, I think) "remakes" per se, not in
the way that, for example, "The Day the Earth Stood Still" was remade.
-Wendy
Amy Guskin
<8282a2ef-1f64-4235...@l33g2000pri.googlegroups.com>):
>
> But the plain fact is that gazillions of movies are remakes, and
> always have been. Did you know that Frank Sinatra starred in a version
> of "Room Service" made only six years after the version starring the
> Marx Brothers? <<
That's the most ridiculous thing I ever heard.
Donald Arseneau
> On Jan 30, 1:46 pm, "John W. Kennedy" <John.W.Kenn...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> There are probably a handful of examples of sequels that are as good
> or better than the original, but the only one that comes to my mind is
> "Toy Story 2"
Star Trek II
Godfather II
Aliens
Gregory Weston
<c1f60be4-dfeb-41cf...@v5g2000prm.googlegroups.com>,
Donald Arseneau <as...@triumf.ca> wrote:
Curiosity: Do you (collective to the people who've mentioned Wrath of
Khan) consider this movie to be a sequel to ST:TMP? It's clearly better
than that one, but I don't know if "sequel" is really the right term for
something that's just the next episode in a franchise. Sort of the
difference, I guess, between "continues the story" and "takes place
subsequent to that story and uses the same characters."
It *is* of course a sequel to an episode of the original series but I
think that was a fairly decent episode as well; I'm not sure if I
consider Kahn to be better or worse than Space Seed, or would even
bother making the effort to decide.
Matt Ion
> Curiosity: Do you (collective to the people who've mentioned Wrath of
> Khan) consider this movie to be a sequel to ST:TMP? It's clearly better
> than that one, but I don't know if "sequel" is really the right term for
> something that's just the next episode in a franchise.
That's probably the best way to describe it, really...
> Sort of the
> difference, I guess, between "continues the story" and "takes place
> subsequent to that story and uses the same characters."
Well, ST3: The Search for Spock, is very much a sequel to The Wrath of Khan.
The subsequent TOS-cast movies aren't direct sequels, but they do
reference back a bit: 4 starts off with preparations for the trial of
our friends for their actions in 3, but then goes in its own direction,
only to return to the culmination of that trial at the end. 5, as I
recall, picks up directly from there, but again continues on with its
own story.
Again, probably best thought of as "connected episodes".
> It *is* of course a sequel to an episode of the original series but I
> think that was a fairly decent episode as well; I'm not sure if I
> consider Kahn to be better or worse than Space Seed, or would even
> bother making the effort to decide.
I wouldn't bother. They're two parts of the same story, separated
mostly by years of film-making technology, and maybe a bit of franchise
drift :) Best to enjoy each for what it is, without trying to compare
the two.
Gregory Weston
Matt Ion <soun...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Gregory Weston wrote:
>
> > Curiosity: Do you (collective to the people who've mentioned Wrath of
> > Khan) consider this movie to be a sequel to ST:TMP? It's clearly better
> > than that one, but I don't know if "sequel" is really the right term for
> > something that's just the next episode in a franchise.
>
> That's probably the best way to describe it, really...
>
> > Sort of the
> > difference, I guess, between "continues the story" and "takes place
> > subsequent to that story and uses the same characters."
>
> Well, ST3: The Search for Spock, is very much a sequel to The Wrath of Khan.
>
> The subsequent TOS-cast movies aren't direct sequels, but they do
> reference back a bit: 4 starts off with preparations for the trial of
> our friends for their actions in 3, but then goes in its own direction,
> only to return to the culmination of that trial at the end. 5, as I
> recall, picks up directly from there, but again continues on with its
> own story.
Actually, I consider 2-4 to be a coherent whole, with Space Seed as the
root. In keeping with Trek's penchant for rebooting at the end of an
episode, I really don't see that story having anything to do with TMP,
and I thankfully can't recall 5 well enough to remember if there's any
meaningful continuity. 6, of course, did explicitly reference elements
from that cycle as part of its own story.
Maybe my notion of "sequelness" is embodied in a phrase in that last
paragraph. "Meaningful continuity."
The nearest dictionary I have at hand *seems* to support that. A sequel,
it says, continues or further develops the story. TMP and Kirk-vs-God
are different stories that happen to use the same characters.
mpvork...@hotmail.com
> In article
> <c1f60be4-dfeb-41cf-9954-8931fa309...@v5g2000prm.googlegroups.com>,
> Donald Arseneau <a...@triumf.ca> wrote:
>
> > On Jan 30, 12:34 pm, voxwoman <voxwo...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > On Jan 30, 1:46 pm, "John W. Kennedy" <John.W.Kenn...@gmail.com>
> > > wrote:
> > > There are probably a handful of examples of sequels that are as good
> > > or better than the original, but the only one that comes to my mind is
> > > "Toy Story 2"
>
> > Star Trek II
>
> Curiosity: Do you (collective to the people who've mentioned Wrath of
> Khan) consider this movie to be a sequel to ST:TMP? It's clearly better
> than that one, but I don't know if "sequel" is really the right term for
> something that's just the next episode in a franchise. Sort of the
> difference, I guess, between "continues the story" and "takes place
> subsequent to that story and uses the same characters."
>
> It *is* of course a sequel to an episode of the original series but I
> think that was a fairly decent episode as well; I'm not sure if I
> consider Kahn to be better or worse than Space Seed, or would even
> bother making the effort to decide.
No. It's really not a sequel. It's a reboot. It ignores the V'Ger fei
hua, which was a waste of film the way it was originally done. When
Wise got to actually fix the film twenty years later, then it all
worked. But TMP is, at core, a two-hour standalone film.
"The Wrath of Khan" and the rest of the Spock Trilogy are the best of
the movies. "Undiscovered Country" is a lovely farewell.
Of the NextGen movies, only "First Contact" really makes the grade for
me. And even it has its moments of lameness. "Insurrection" had a few
nice moments, plus Donna Murphy. But that's about it. Really, except
for FC, all the TNG movies feel like long series episodes.
My two farthings. Need coffee.
Mike
mpvork...@hotmail.com
> On Jan 30, 7:42 pm, Kurt Ullman <kurtull...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > In article
> > <8282a2ef-1f64-4235-a05e-42a15f5f9...@l33g2000pri.googlegroups.com>,
> > "John W. Kennedy" <John.W.Kenn...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > But the plain fact is that gazillions of movies are remakes, and
> > > always have been. Did you know that Frank Sinatra starred in a version
> > > of "Room Service" made only six years after the version starring the
> > > Marx Brothers?
>
> > How does one classify the cross cultural remakes. The "flagship" of
>
> those are the exception. I think I've enjoyed every version of 7
> Samurai, including "Battle of the Planets" (if only for its camp
> value).
>
> "spaghetti westerns" - Kurasawa Samurai films - B-SF films (all of
> them have been remade into SF films, I think) "remakes" per se, not in
> the way that, for example, "The Day the Earth Stood Still" was remade.
"Battle Beyond The Stars". Yes, low budget. But well acted, Bob Vaughn
plays the exact same role he had in Magnificent Seven, and then of
course there's Sybil Danning in her juicy prime. Add a John Sayles
script to it, and you've almost got lightning in a bottle. I dug it.
Oh, since we're talking sequels, Albert Pyun is finally making his
sequel to "The Sword and The Sorceror". And it looks like it might be
pretty good. With all the huge amount of crap Al has done over the
years, it was looking like Sword was more of a lucky accident than
anything else. This one looks really good, though. Scantily-clad
babes, sword-swinging warriors, all the sort of thing you'd expect to
see in a movie like this, and he's posting to the net every day about
how the shoot's going.
Mike
mpvork...@hotmail.com
> On Wed, 28 Jan 2009 16:32:27 GMT, Amy Guskin wrote:
> > The subject is a nod to a panel I used to regularly attend at DragonCon, run
> > by the absolutely awesome needcoffee.com guys. It refers to how Hollywood
> > doesn't understand and frequently ruins genre projects, and it was basically
> > an hour-long gripe session about recent and upcoming projects. When you read
> > the following, you'll know why that's the phrase that IMMEDIATELY sprung to
> > my mind:
>
> >http://entertainment.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=09/01/28/1355238
>
> > Oy!
>
> Eh. I'm of the "Then don't watch it" camp. Highlander 2 (which I've never
> seen) in no way impacts my enjoyment and appreciation of Highlander (though
> I do enjoy saying "there should have been only one!" :-) ). Alien
> Resurrection doesn't impact the first 3 (yes, I'm one of the 17 people who
> liked Alien 3). Etc, etc.
The Renegade Higlander 2 is actually okay. Not really that good, just
acceptable. The original is horrible.
I got thwacked by my girfriend when we saw Alien 3 in the theater.
After the big explosion, when they're picking up the bodies, just by
reflex I stagewhispered "Bring out yer dead..." and she reached over
and smecked me! I think I upset her...
Mike
mpvork...@hotmail.com
> >> On Wed, 28 Jan 2009 15:33:42 -0500, thus spake Dave Hayslett (in article
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Wed, 28 Jan 2009 16:32:27 GMT, Amy Guskin wrote:
>
> >> The subject is a nod to a panel I used to regularly attend at DragonCon,
> >> run
> >> by the absolutely awesome needcoffee.com guys. It refers to how Hollywood
> >> doesn't understand and frequently ruins genre projects, and it was
> >> basically
> >> an hour-long gripe session about recent and upcoming projects. When you
> >> read
> >> the following, you'll know why that's the phrase that IMMEDIATELY sprung to
> >> my mind:
>
> >>http://entertainment.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=09/01/28/1355238
>
> >> Oy!
>
> > Eh. I'm of the "Then don't watch it" camp. Highlander 2 (which I've never
> > seen) in no way impacts my enjoyment and appreciation of Highlander (though
> > I do enjoy saying "there should have been only one!" :-) ). Alien
> > Resurrection doesn't impact the first 3 (yes, I'm one of the 17 people who
> > liked Alien 3). Etc, etc.
>
> > understand the odds, but it's still possible). <<
>
> lament where that budget COULD have gone when I hear about something like
> intends to write a script 'with or without anyone's blessings.' " I dunno.
> It just sounds like a really bad idea!
No, the bad idea is Scott doing an umpteenth rehash of Huxley. A semi-
sequel to Blade Runner is an awful idea. And Rid should know better.
And I read somewhere that they're planning a remake of "The Thing".
Gods save us.Off the top of my head, I can think of a dozen known
properties in sf that would make great movies.
Beam Piper's novels, in particular "Space Viking", would do well
onscreen. I'd love to see "Cosmic Computer", although it'd need
tweaking. "Lord Kalvan" is your standard crosstime story, and needs
little work, although I don't think it could be done in two hours. And
"Little Fuzzy" would work, although the sequels should be avoided;
Beam did those because his publishers wanted them.
John Varley. "Press 'Enter'" and some of his short stories would adapt
well. Not "Titan". That one is too complex for Hollywood.
Leigh Brackett. "The Starmen of Llyrdis".
George RR Martin. As much as I dislike the man personally, he's one
hell of a writer. "The Plague Star."
Fred Pohl. "The Age of the Pussyfoot". "Gateway". "Homegoing".
Lois Bujold. "Memory". I'm playing with a spec script for this one.
Sterling Lanier. "Hiero's Journey".
And Hollywood wants to stick with bad adaptations of PKD.
Mike
Joseph DeMartino
> >> On Fri, 30 Jan 2009 18:11:23 -0500, thus spake John W. Kennedy (in article
> > But the plain fact is that gazillions of movies are remakes, and
> > always have been. Did you know that Frank Sinatra starred in a version
> > of "Room Service" made only six years after the version starring the
> > Marx Brothers? <<
>
> That's the most ridiculous thing I ever heard.
On Jan 30, 11:05 pm, Amy Guskin <aisl...@fjordstone.com> wrote:
> >> On Fri, 30 Jan 2009 18:11:23 -0500, thus spake John W. Kennedy (in article
> > But the plain fact is that gazillions of movies are remakes, and
> > always have been. Did you know that Frank Sinatra starred in a version
> > of "Room Service" made only six years after the version starring the
> > Marx Brothers? <<
>
> That's the most ridiculous thing I ever heard.
It gets a little less ridiculous when you realize that the Sinatra
film wasn't a remake, strictly speaking, and wasn't based directly on
the Marx Bros. film. <g>
The early Marx Bros. films were based on Broadway shows written for
and starring the brothers. The later ones were either based on Marx
stage shows or on screenplays written exclusively for the brothers.
"Room Service" was the only exception. It was a 1938 Broadway
production starred Sam Lavene and Eddie Alpert, and it closed after
about a year. (500 performances.) RKO bought the rights to the play
and had it substantially rewritten for the Marx Bros (Who then
further rewrote it as they usually did, improvising their way through
rehearsals.) The film debuted in 1938, the same year the play closed.
According to Hollywood legend Zeppo Marx, who represented the brothers
in the negotiations with RKO, threatened to rejoin the group if the
studio didn’t agree to their terms. <g>
The Sinatra film "Step Lively" (1944) was a *musical adaptation* of
the original stage play. I caught bits of it ages ago. It certainly
shared the basic plot of a theatrical producer trying to avoid
eviction from his hotel while raising money for his show with "Room
Service", but I'm not sure how much it even tried to specifically
resemble the Marx Bros. version, which was so tailored to their
talents. (Frank, Bing Crosby and Grace Kelly had an easier time in
"High Society" approximating the characters created by Jimmy Stewart,
Cary Grant and Katherine Hepburn in "The Philadelphia Story" than
anyone could have trying to "be" the Marx Bros. And I still can't
watch "High Society" <g>)
Regards,
Joe
Joseph DeMartino
> > But the plain fact is that gazillions of movies are remakes, and
> > always have been. Did you know that Frank Sinatra starred in a version
> > of "Room Service" made only six years after the version starring the
> > Marx Brothers? <<
>
> That's the most ridiculous thing I ever heard.
It gets a little less ridiculous when you realize that the Sinatra
film wasn't a remake, strictly speaking, and wasn't based directly on
the Marx Bros. film. <g>
While most of the early Marx Bros. films were based on Broadway shows
written for and starring the brothers, "Room Service" was an
exception. The 1938 Broadway production starred Sam Lavene and Eddie
Alpert, and it closed after about a year. (500 performances.) MGM
bought the rights to the play and had it substantially rewritten for
the Marx Bros. (Who further rewrote it during their usual "stage
preview" tour of the unfinished script.) The film debuted in 1938,
the same year the play closed.
The Sinatra film "Step Lively" (1944) was a *musical adaptation* of
the original stage play. I caught bits of it ages ago. It certainly
shared the basic plot of a theatrical producer trying to avoid
eviction from his hotel while raising money for his show with "Room
Service", but I'm not sure how much it even tried to specifically
resemble the Marx Bros. version, which was so tailored to their
talents. (Frank, Bing Crosby and Grace Kelly had an easier time in
"High Society" approximating the characters created by Jimmy Stewart,
Cary Grant and Katherine Hepburn in "The Philadelphia Story" than
anyone could have trying to "be" the Marx Bros. And I still can't
watch "High Society" <g>)
Later,
Joe
Charlie E.
And yet, while I have seen "The Philadelphia Story" with Stewart,
Grant and Hepburn, I saw it much later than I saw "High Society." For
me, I much prefer the musical version, and have it on my DVR with the
Keeper set on it.
Remakes, as such, are not really an anathema (SP?) just like seeing
different productions of stage shows can be really interesting. The
real problem is where the remake doesn't add anything, or is done
poorly. They it is appropriately laughed off the screen... 8-)
Charlie
Dan Dassow
> The Sinatra film "Step Lively" (1944) was a *musical adaptation* of
> the original stage play. I caught bits of it ages ago. It certainly
> shared the basic plot of a theatrical producer trying to avoid
> eviction from his hotel while raising money for his show with "Room
> Service", but I'm not sure how much it even tried to specifically
> resemble the Marx Bros. version, which was so tailored to their
... and speaking of adaptations ...
http://www.imdb.com/news/ni0662634/
Magnum Force The Musical?
Clint Eastwood's classic action film Magnum Force is set to be given
an unlikely musical makeover. The Dirty Harry sequel, released in
1973, featured Eastwood as maverick cop Harry Callahan, and now cult
singer/songwriter Robyn Hitchcock is planning to produce an off-
Broadway musical based on the film.
He says, "It's a film that seemed to be on all the time when I was on
tour. By the fifth time (I saw it), I became addicted to it. It's
taken a very strange hold on my life."
Dan Dassow
voxwoman
Are you sure you're not talking about some unreleased "Simpsons"
episode? I mean, the Simpsons have turned "Planet of the Apes" and
"Streetcar Named Desire" into musicals (I now have battling earworms
of the Dr Zaius song and the song with the lyric "you can always
dePEND on the kindness of SRANGErs")
-Wendy
Dan Dassow
A "Simpsons" episode would make more sense. However, Robyn Hitchcock
( http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0386882/ ) has done some rather strange
productions in the past, so a "Magnum Force" musical is strange but
still possible.
Dan Dassow
Amy Guskin
<362e80f6-45d6-454c...@v18g2000pro.googlegroups.com>):
> On Jan 30, 11:05 pm, Amy Guskin <aisl...@fjordstone.com> wrote:
>>>> On Fri, 30 Jan 2009 18:11:23 -0500, thus spake John W. Kennedy (in article
>
>>> But the plain fact is that gazillions of movies are remakes, and
>>> always have been. Did you know that Frank Sinatra starred in a version
>>> of "Room Service" made only six years after the version starring the
>>> Marx Brothers? <<
>>
>> That's the most ridiculous thing I ever heard.
>
>
> It gets a little less ridiculous when you realize that the Sinatra
> film wasn't a remake, strictly speaking, and wasn't based directly on
> the Marx Bros. film. <g> <<
Aww, did you (and everyone else) really miss that reference? I mean, it's
fine that you expounded on the subject, but I didn't _actually_ think it was
particularly ridiculous: I was quoting Groucho.
It probably would have helped if you could have seen me miming the business
with the cigar... :-)
Amy
Amy Guskin
<90a6901e-4c60-4495...@l16g2000yqo.googlegroups.com>):
The only problem with the Simpsons version of Stop the Planet of the Apes, I
Want to Get Off, is that there isn't _more_ of it.
But as for this, I'm not surprised to hear that ANYTHING is being turned into
a musical anymore. I hit absurdity saturation point on that issue when they
made "Trainspotting" into a musical a few years ago.
Amy
Joseph DeMartino
> Aww, did you (and everyone else) really miss that reference? I mean, it's
> fine that you expounded on the subject, but I didn't _actually_ think it was
> particularly ridiculous: I was quoting Groucho.
>
> It probably would have helped if you could have seen me miming the business
> with the cigar... :-)
Also if you'd written it out phonetically in Groucho-ese:
"That's the most riDICulous thing I've EVER hoid." <g> What can I
say? I had some minor out-patient foot surgery on Friday and I'm
still on pain-killers.
Later,
Joe
Amy Guskin
<12c52593-6cca-4565...@v5g2000pre.googlegroups.com>):
> On Feb 1, 10:23 pm, Amy Guskin <aisl...@fjordstone.com> wrote:
>> Aww, did you (and everyone else) really miss that reference? I mean, it's
>> fine that you expounded on the subject, but I didn't _actually_ think it was
>> particularly ridiculous: I was quoting Groucho.
>>
>> It probably would have helped if you could have seen me miming the business
>> with the cigar... :-)
>
> Also if you'd written it out phonetically in Groucho-ese:
>
> "That's the most riDICulous thing I've EVER hoid." <g> <<
You mean you couldn't hear my impeccable impersonation? <g>
>> What can I
> say? I had some minor out-patient foot surgery on Friday and I'm
> still on pain-killers. <<
Oooh, lucky! I mean, poor you. How are you healing?
Chris Adams
>And Hollywood wants to stick with bad adaptations of PKD.
Yeah, it'd be one thing if they would make a _good_ adaptation of PKD...
--
Chris Adams <cma...@hiwaay.net>
Systems and Network Administrator - HiWAAY Internet Services
I don't speak for anybody but myself - that's enough trouble.
mpvork...@hotmail.com
> Once upon a time, <mpvorkosi...@hotmail.com> said:
>
> >And Hollywood wants to stick with bad adaptations of PKD.
>
> Yeah, it'd be one thing if they would make a _good_ adaptation of PKD...
I'm not even sure if you CAN make a good adaptation of PKD's work.
Quite honestly, the only sf writer I've run across who was weirder
than Phil was Rafe Lafferty. Even in a literary field noted for
strangeness, Rafe was stranger than most. And Phil ran a close second.
We're talking about a guy who used to be Tim Leary's roommate, and for
Lafferty to be odder than that takes doing.
I met Lafferty at a DeeepSouthCon one year. Nice old man who wouldn't
have been out of place anywhere; exceedingly ordinary. Walked around
with a gentle smile, drinking beer, saying little. But if you looked
in his eyes, you could see the wheels counter-rotating. He seldom
blinked.
He was a bit unnerving.
Mike
mpvork...@hotmail.com
> >> On Sun, 1 Feb 2009 18:05:34 -0500, thus spake voxwoman (in article
>
I hit it when they made "Evil Dead: The Musical".
You get the sublime and the ridiculous in musicals. I thought they
lost their minds when Eric Idle wanted to do Holy Grail as a musical,
but I have the soundtrack for "Spamalot!" and I was very pleased and
impressed.
"If you go to the West End theaters now, it's a graveyard. Lots of
musicals, they're cheerful. But the plays? God almighty." -- Peter
O'Toole
I suspect the same is true for most of the New York stage productions.
Mike
mpvork...@hotmail.com
> >> On Sun, 1 Feb 2009 10:46:16 -0500, thus spake Joseph DeMartino (in article
>
>
> > On Jan 30, 11:05 pm, Amy Guskin <aisl...@fjordstone.com> wrote:
> >>>> On Fri, 30 Jan 2009 18:11:23 -0500, thus spake John W. Kennedy (in article
>
> >>> But the plain fact is that gazillions of movies are remakes, and
> >>> always have been. Did you know that Frank Sinatra starred in a version
> >>> of "Room Service" made only six years after the version starring the
> >>> Marx Brothers? <<
>
> >> That's the most ridiculous thing I ever heard.
>
> > It gets a little less ridiculous when you realize that the Sinatra
> > film wasn't a remake, strictly speaking, and wasn't based directly on
> > the Marx Bros. film. <g> <<
>
> Aww, did you (and everyone else) really miss that reference? I mean, it's
> fine that you expounded on the subject, but I didn't _actually_ think it was
> particularly ridiculous: I was quoting Groucho.
>
> It probably would have helped if you could have seen me miming the business
> with the cigar... :-)
I caught the reference. How could I not? I've been a Marxist since I
was a kid. I think I started with "A Night In Casablanca" and worked
my way backward from there. At this point, the only movies of theirs
I'm missing are the four with Zeppo. They were released as a box set
some years back; Nashville Public has them.
Right around Christmas, my former neighbor showed up with gifties. One
of them was a box set of Marx Bros. movies with damn near everything
in it. I hereby nominate Jordan Lawhead for sainthood...
Mike
Gregory Weston
<64aa49a7-093f-442b...@v5g2000pre.googlegroups.com>,
mpvork...@hotmail.com wrote:
> On Feb 1, 10:12 pm, cmad...@hiwaay.net (Chris Adams) wrote:
> > Once upon a time, <mpvorkosi...@hotmail.com> said:
> >
> > >And Hollywood wants to stick with bad adaptations of PKD.
> >
> > Yeah, it'd be one thing if they would make a _good_ adaptation of PKD...
>
> I'm not even sure if you CAN make a good adaptation of PKD's work.
> Quite honestly, the only sf writer I've run across who was weirder
> than Phil was Rafe Lafferty. Even in a literary field noted for
> strangeness, Rafe was stranger than most. And Phil ran a close second.
> We're talking about a guy who used to be Tim Leary's roommate, and for
> Lafferty to be odder than that takes doing.
I remember reading once that in college Peter Wolf (of J. Geils) was
David Lynch's roommate and DL eventually kicked him out because he was
too weird.
G
Gregory Weston
<7a449ffd-47a3-4f30...@u14g2000yqg.googlegroups.com>,
mpvork...@hotmail.com wrote:
> On Feb 1, 9:23 pm, Amy Guskin <aisl...@fjordstone.com> wrote:
> > >> On Sun, 1 Feb 2009 10:46:16 -0500, thus spake Joseph DeMartino (in
> > >> article
> >
> > <362e80f6-45d6-454c-bc39-5bc05ece3...@v18g2000pro.googlegroups.com>):
> >
> > > On Jan 30, 11:05 pm, Amy Guskin <aisl...@fjordstone.com> wrote:
> > >>>> On Fri, 30 Jan 2009 18:11:23 -0500, thus spake John W. Kennedy (in
> > >>>> article
> >
> > >>> But the plain fact is that gazillions of movies are remakes, and
> > >>> always have been. Did you know that Frank Sinatra starred in a version
> > >>> of "Room Service" made only six years after the version starring the
> > >>> Marx Brothers? <<
> >
> > >> That's the most ridiculous thing I ever heard.
> >
> > > It gets a little less ridiculous when you realize that the Sinatra
> > > film wasn't a remake, strictly speaking, and wasn't based directly on
> > > the Marx Bros. film. <g> <<
> >
> > Aww, did you (and everyone else) really miss that reference? I mean, it's
> > fine that you expounded on the subject, but I didn't _actually_ think it
> > was
> > particularly ridiculous: I was quoting Groucho.
> >
> > It probably would have helped if you could have seen me miming the business
> > with the cigar... :-)
>
> I caught the reference. How could I not? I've been a Marxist since I
> was a kid.
In high school I took a course called Comparative Religions which
probably wouldn't be allowed today. One day the teacher asked if anyone
knew Marx's famous quote about religion.
I raised my hand and offered: "Can my son go in the pool up to his
waist? He's only half Jewish."
The teacher appreciated it, the rest of the class looked blank and then
I acknowledged there was that other guy with his opiate reference.
wrrlykam
> That's the most ridiculous thing I ever heard.
That's no thing, that was my wife.
John W. Kennedy
> the four with Zeppo
Five.
Of course, if you really want to impress people, you call them "the
Paramount films", not "the ones with Zeppo".
John W. Kennedy
> You get the sublime and the ridiculous in musicals. I thought they
> lost their minds when Eric Idle wanted to do Holy Grail as a musical,
> but I have the soundtrack for "Spamalot!" and I was very pleased and
> impressed.
That's because he wasn't damfool enough to do "Monty Python and the
Holy Grail" as a musical. What he actually did was a spoof of musicals
that uses "Monty Python and the Holy Grail" as raw material. If Andrew
Lloyd Webber doesn't feel a frisson or two every time someone sings
"The song that goes like this", there is no justice in the world.
Wes Struebing
wrote:
>>> On Sun, 1 Feb 2009 10:46:16 -0500, thus spake Joseph DeMartino (in article
><362e80f6-45d6-454c...@v18g2000pro.googlegroups.com>):
>
>> On Jan 30, 11:05 pm, Amy Guskin <aisl...@fjordstone.com> wrote:
>>>>> On Fri, 30 Jan 2009 18:11:23 -0500, thus spake John W. Kennedy (in article
>>
>>>> But the plain fact is that gazillions of movies are remakes, and
>>>> always have been. Did you know that Frank Sinatra starred in a version
>>>> of "Room Service" made only six years after the version starring the
>>>> Marx Brothers? <<
>>>
>>> That's the most ridiculous thing I ever heard.
>>
>>
>> It gets a little less ridiculous when you realize that the Sinatra
>> film wasn't a remake, strictly speaking, and wasn't based directly on
>> the Marx Bros. film. <g> <<
>
>Aww, did you (and everyone else) really miss that reference? I mean, it's
>fine that you expounded on the subject, but I didn't _actually_ think it was
>particularly ridiculous: I was quoting Groucho.
>
>It probably would have helped if you could have seen me miming the business
>with the cigar... :-)
>
Then you needed to say, "...hoid!"
;-)
Kathryn Huxtable
Yep. He was a bit unnerving. I have a story collection of his, and the
stories are the *strangest* I have. And I like Howard Waldrop's stuff.
-K
Dennis (Icarus)
news:0001HW.C5ABD14E...@news.verizon.net...
>> On Sun, 1 Feb 2009 10:46:16 -0500, thus spake Joseph DeMartino (in
>> article
<362e80f6-45d6-454c...@v18g2000pro.googlegroups.com>):
> On Jan 30, 11:05 pm, Amy Guskin <aisl...@fjordstone.com> wrote:
<snip>
>>> That's the most ridiculous thing I ever heard.
>>
>>
>> It gets a little less ridiculous when you realize that the Sinatra
>> film wasn't a remake, strictly speaking, and wasn't based directly on
>> the Marx Bros. film. <g> <<
>
>Aww, did you (and everyone else) really miss that reference? I mean, it's
>fine that you expounded on the subject, but I didn't _actually_ think it
>was
>particularly ridiculous: I was quoting Groucho.
>
>It probably would have helped if you could have seen me miming the business
>with the cigar... :-)
>
>FWIW, I did get it :-)
Dennis
.
Matt Ion
>> Oh, I totally agree that the original won't be ruined by it. But I always
>> lament where that budget COULD have gone when I hear about something like
>> this.
>
> complete. There really is nothing more to be "said" with the character(s).
> In such cases a sequel can't add anything, it can only detract.
>
> Examples that always bothered me:
>
> High Noon, Part II: The Return of Will Kane - Huh? Why?
>
> Scarlett (miniseries sequel to Gone With the Wind) - Alexandra Ripley
> should have found her own damn subject to write about...
>
> Rocky parts 2-? - The original film is a masterpiece. Everything after it
> was sloppy hero worship.
>
> Rambo, parts 2-? - The first film told the story of a disturbed Nam vet.
> Again, pretty good movie, followed by a series of films of more sloppy hero
> worship and nationalistic nonsense, in which the character is transformed
> into, basically, a mass-murderer.
Highlander. "There can be only one." So how do they come up with three
movies and two TV series set AFTER the original?
Matt Ion
> On Jan 29, 11:03�am, "David Williams" <kosh...@comcast.net> wrote:
>> Examples that always bothered me:
>>
>> High Noon, Part II: The Return of Will Kane - Huh? Why?
>>
>> Scarlett �(miniseries sequel to Gone With the Wind) - Alexandra Ripley
>> should have found her own damn subject to write about...
>>
>> Rocky parts 2-? - The original film is a masterpiece. �Everything after it
>> was sloppy hero worship.
>>
>> Rambo, parts 2-? - The first film told the story of a disturbed Nam vet.
>> Again, pretty good movie, followed by a series of films of more sloppy hero
>> worship and nationalistic nonsense, in which the character is transformed
>> into, basically, a mass-murderer.
>
> success of the Star Wars franshise. So the suits seem to have it in
> mind that *any* successful movie absolutely requires a sequel. Sadly,
> they haven't figured out that Empire and Jedi succeeded in large part
> because they were good movies on their own instead of merely
> derivative and inferior copies of the original.
More to the point, each was a separate act in a larger story... like the
Lord of the Rings series, to use a more recent example.
Matt Ion
>>> On Sun, 1 Feb 2009 22:39:48 -0500, thus spake Joseph DeMartino (in article
> <12c52593-6cca-4565...@v5g2000pre.googlegroups.com>):
>
>> On Feb 1, 10:23 pm, Amy Guskin <aisl...@fjordstone.com> wrote:
>>> Aww, did you (and everyone else) really miss that reference? I mean, it's
>>> fine that you expounded on the subject, but I didn't _actually_ think it was
>>> particularly ridiculous: I was quoting Groucho.
>>>
>>> It probably would have helped if you could have seen me miming the business
>>> with the cigar... :-)
>> Also if you'd written it out phonetically in Groucho-ese:
>>
>> "That's the most riDICulous thing I've EVER hoid." <g> <<
>
> You mean you couldn't hear my impeccable impersonation? <g>
Maybe if you had the eyebrows too... you know, to go along with the
moustache...
*garfc*
Matt Ion
Well I never...!
Amy Guskin
<gmnegc$d96$3...@reader.motzarella.org>):
Honey, after spending a bundle on laser hair removal some years ago, that's
one thing I do NOT have... My upper lip is as bald as a baby's bottom!
lizardgirl
> >> On Sun, 1 Feb 2009 18:05:34 -0500, thus spake voxwoman (in article
>
when my daughter was in elementary school a group came in to recuit
5th graders to sing in a musical adaptation of 'dead man walking.'
the kids were not allowed to 'see' the show. they waited outside and
were ushered in and out practically blindfolded with their fingers
plugging their ears.
lg
Bill
> Highlander. �"There can be only one." �So how do they come up with three
>
I know the answer to this one, straight from the mouth of a guy who
ran a Highlander fan group and who has spoken directly to Peter Davis
and William Panzer. Basically, Davis and Panzer bought the the story,
the rights, etc from Gregory Widen and tried to turn it into a cash
cow. The caveat here is that this guy *really* did not like Davis and
Panzer, at one point even outright calling Panzer a greedy drunk.
BTW, there were four movie sequels, three TV series (one animated).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Highlander#In_the_media
Bill
Matt Ion
> BTW, there were four movie sequels, three TV series (one animated).
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Highlander#In_the_media
Egads... "The Source"?? Missed that one... sounds like a good thing, too.
One of the best things about the original is that they DIDN'T try to
explain how or why the whole "immortal, off-with-his-head,
there-can-be-only-one" thing came about, they just accepted it as the
way things were. Seems since then, it's been a big deal to try to make
a story out of explaining the background... and thus destroying the
"fun", the "magic" if you will, of the whole concept.
mpvork...@hotmail.com
There was an unfilmed scene that I read the dialogue for, where Kurgan
kills the black guy that was talking with MacLeod at one point. But
for reasons unknown, they didn't film it, which was shame, because it
really broadens the whole story...
Basically, when Kurgan caught up with this guy, the dude refused to
fight. "We both know you're gonna kill me, and I'm tired of running
from you and everybody else who wants my head. I'm tired of killing.
So just take my head. I won't try to stop you."
"No! That's not the way it's done! You fight me, I kill you and take
the power, that's the way it always been! You won't cheat me of my
victory this way!"
The dialogue is reconstructed from memory, so I may have gotten it
wrong, but you get the general idea. The immortals had been doing this
so long that it had almost become ritual.
There was a lot that could have been done with the Highlander
material, and they never seemed to get it quite right after the first
movie. And I detested the animated series. God, that was dumb.
Mike
mpvork...@hotmail.com
Oh, this reminds me...
I found this on AICN, so you can take it with a few pounds of salt.
But the idea that Andy and Larry Wachowski might be taking over
Superman for Warner's is really cool to me, and considering who they
just got through working with, and his lifelong love of the last son
of Krypton...
***
Hi Guys,
Ballack here, its been a while since we last communicated, however, i
thought this time round I'd send you some info instead of our friends
at Latino Review. You may recall a few months back i broke the news of
Arnold's comeback in T4 at LatinoReview.
Anyways, here in Berlin i had the good fortune of watching a year in
review on RTL1. The show was about upcoming movies in 2009. There was
a segment on Ninja Assassin a film being directed by James McTeigue
and being produced by Hollywood heavy weight Joel Silver. McTeigue
spoke about filming in Germany and the many highlights of shooting in
a huge city like Berlin. The interviewer spoke about future plans and
James spilled the following tidbets!
- Ninja Assassin is locked and complete. Awaiting a suitable marketing
strategy and release from WB. Looking likely to be a late summer
release.
- Action scenes are absolutely brutal, unbelievable vision from the
Wachowski's in blocking the fights with the Hong Kong stunt team.
- Spoke about the benefits of tax breaks received from the German and
British Governments in making the film.
BRACE YOURSELVES FOR THIS....
- McTeigue confirmed that Plastic Man was the next project in the
pipeline for the Wachowski's and he had been signed on to provide
Second Unit support. Says the movie has been delayed indefinitely due
to a major shake up of projects at WB.
- Bryan Singer has refused to undertake a re-boot of the Superman
franchise and has left the Executives at WB with no choice but to take
a fresh creative direction.
This is it....
- He stated the Wachowski Brothers had been approached to re-boot the
franchise as a trilogy and they are currently reviewing their options
as its like being asked to take the final play in a superbowl final.
Says if they do agree, he will likely either succumb to providing
second unit support on the movie or will champion the directorship of
Plastic Man - He started to giggle as he stated its like a young child
for the Brothers and they wont give that up easily.
- Says, the very thought of the brothers making a Superman movie is
unbelievable as they have grown up in the world of comic books and
they would be ideal for the project.
- Stated that Bryan Singer is looking to move on to Logan's Run a
movie to be produced by Joel Silver.
***
Now, who do you think is possibly lobbying as we speak for the chance
to do a Superman movie script...?
Mike
Charlie E.
wrote:
Lobbying? I suspect that blackmail and bribery are involved... 8-)
Charlile
mpvork...@hotmail.com
> On Fri, 13 Feb 2009 21:03:04 -0800 (PST), mpvorkosi...@hotmail.com
I wouldn't be surprised if heavy particle weapons were involved.
Charlie, I only know of one guy who's as rabid a Superman fan as Joe,
and that's Jerry Seinfeld.
For my money, there are only a few guys fit to write superhero films.
I can count 'em off on one hand. And still have fingers left. JMS,
Peter David, and Geoff Johns. Anybody else is an also-ran. I have
Michael Chabon's script for Spider-Man 2, and while it's really good,
I don't think it's up to the level of what those three could do.
Mike
Dan Dassow
By no means do I discount JMS and Jerry Seinfeld being rabid fans of
Superman. However, Jim Hambrick, who founded and runs the Superman
Museum (http://www.supermuseum.com/ ) in Metropolis, Illinois is
totally and utterly obsessed beyond all superlatives that I could
transcribe. I visited the museum last fall on the way back from a
business trip and was amazed with the vast number of artifacts crammed
into the building. Mr. Hambrick told me that 3/4 of his collection are
stored in a warehouse because he cannot afford a place big enough to
display them. Unfortunately, I arrived half an hour before closing
time and with the battery on my digital camera nearly exhausted.
> For my money, there are only a few guys fit to write superhero films.
> I can count 'em off on one hand. And still have fingers left. JMS,
> Peter David, and Geoff Johns. Anybody else is an also-ran. I have
> Michael Chabon's script for Spider-Man 2, and while it's really good,
> I don't think it's up to the level of what those three could do.
Both JMS and Peter David have the writing talent, domain knowledge,
mastery of the subject and devotion to write a great, filmable script.
I cannot speak knowledgably about Geoff Johns or suggest anyone else
in the same league.
Dan Dassow
Matt Ion
The one thing that always bugged me was how Kastagir managed to last so
long, to be one of the last few... he seemed like such a weak boozer in
the couple of scenes we saw him...
> There was a lot that could have been done with the Highlander
> material, and they never seemed to get it quite right after the first
> movie. And I detested the animated series. God, that was dumb.
The biggest problem was, they always tried to keep in going into the
future (well, present... future from the original timeline), which right
there ruins the whole "there can be only one" premise. If they'd put
all the stories in the past, when there were still a bunch of other
immortals running around, it might have worked (then again, we already
know how it ends, right? Titanic sinks, Apollo 13 makes it back, the
Trojans get wiped out, and Connor Macleod takes The Prize...)
I found the added scenes in the Director's Cut to very revealing and
they added a lot to the story as well... particularly the back-story on
how Macleod met Rachel and the nature of their relationship. The only
thing I really didn't like about it was the ham-handed way the extra
bits were edited in...
Thomas Field
mpvork...@hotmail.com wrote:
> On Feb 9, 9:36 am, Matt Ion <soundy...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>Bill wrote:
>>
>>>BTW, there were four movie sequels, three TV series (one animated).
>>>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Highlander#In_the_media
>>
>>Egads... "The Source"?? Missed that one... sounds like a good thing, too.
>>
>>One of the best things about the original is that they DIDN'T try to
>>explain how or why the whole "immortal, off-with-his-head,
>>there-can-be-only-one" thing came about, they just accepted it as the
>>way things were. Seems since then, it's been a big deal to try to make
>>a story out of explaining the background... and thus destroying the
>>"fun", the "magic" if you will, of the whole concept.
>
>
> Oh, this reminds me...
>
> I found this on AICN, so you can take it with a few pounds of salt.
> But the idea that Andy and Larry Wachowski might be taking over
> Superman for Warner's is really cool to me, and considering who they
> just got through working with, and his lifelong love of the last son
> of Krypton...
>
> ***
>
> [article snipped, don't vaporize me]
>
> Now, who do you think is possibly lobbying as we speak for the chance
> to do a Superman movie script...?
>
> Mike
>
Somewhat of a random chime-in from the shadows, but given how
franchise-crazy a certain studio tends to be, I wouldn't be surprised
if they dusted off the JJ Abrams' trilogy setup script.
http://www.aintitcool.com/display.cgi?id=13350
Remember the good old days when "Superman Lives" was going to be a Tim
Burton directed Nic Cage vehicle with a black-suited man of steel?
wrrlykam
>
> - Stated that Bryan Singer is looking to move on to Logan's Run a
> movie to be produced by Joel Silver.
> Mike
The more I hear about the Logan's Run project the more it sounds like
another hollywood hatchet job.
Maybe Joel Silver has nudged JMS towards it for a new script. I sure
hope they don't follow the 'leaked' synopsis from last year. While it
would have made an interesting film it wouldn't be Bill Nolan's
Logan's Run.
http://movieblog.ugo.com/index.php/movieblog/more/logans_run_script_review_exclusive/
Dave
Vince M Hudd
[...]
> The biggest problem was, they always tried to keep in going into the
> future (well, present... future from the original timeline), which right
> there ruins the whole "there can be only one" premise. If they'd put all
> the stories in the past, when there were still a bunch of other immortals
> running around, it might have worked
That was certainly my biggest misgiving about the series, when it started,
but after a while I managed to get past it and just (about[1]) enjoy the
series for what it *should* have been: A series based on the same idea,
rather than a part of/extension to the original.
[1] And I did enjoy it, mostly. It was often too cheesy and predictable, but
there were some nice ideas and good stories in places. Having said that, I
was quite a bit younger back then - I wonder if I'd see it in the same light
if I watched it again now?
--
Vince M Hudd
Soft Rock Software
Matt Ion
I did watch the first part of the pilot episode, where as I recall,
Connor Macleod shows up at the end of the ep... someone told me that he
then explains to Duncan how the whole timeline fits in this series, but
that was in the second half, which I never got to see...
I still think it's stretching, whatever the explanation was... although
it's gotta be better than H2's explanation of things (oooo was that
HORRIBLE!)
Bill
> I did watch the first part of the pilot episode, where as I recall,
> Connor Macleod shows up at the end of the ep... someone told me that he
> then explains to Duncan how the whole timeline fits in this series, but
> that was in the second half, which I never got to see...
>
Connor is actually a rather significant presence in the pilot episode.
And his "explanation" is almost a throwaway mention of his fight with
the Kurgan. More than a little disappointing actually. I would have
set the series before the first film and had frequent Connor guest
appearances. Then I would have ended the series with the Kurgan wiping
out the cast and regular guest stars, then leading directly into the
movie. Then again, what do I know?
Bill
Bill
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0457400/
oh ... good ... grief ... Why?!
Bill
Vince M Hudd
Easy. Because I haven't seen the previous offerings, which makes it
permissable. :)
lizardgirl
better then a remake of "the Fountainhead!" lol
lg
Support Autism Research!
Visit www.spicersevents.com for more information
& link to EvoCouture Event Registration.
Dan Dassow
... why, oh why cast Will Ferrell?
Dan Dassow
Amy Guskin
<371234c9-18e7-427c...@s36g2000vbp.googlegroups.com>):
> One more to add to this topic
>
> http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0457400/
>
> oh ... good ... grief ... Why?! <<
But...but... But Anna Friel's in it! I love her!
Matt Ion
>>> On Tue, 17 Feb 2009 10:19:56 -0500, thus spake Bill (in article
> <371234c9-18e7-427c...@s36g2000vbp.googlegroups.com>):
>
>> One more to add to this topic
>>
>> http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0457400/
>>
>> oh ... good ... grief ... Why?! <<
>
> But...but... But Anna Friel's in it! I love her!
I hadn't heard of her before, but having looked her up... I think I love
her too! ;)
Bill
saw a commercial for this last night.
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1075417/
I'm not sure who's the bigger lump of inanimate minerals, Dwayne
Johnson or the producer.
Bill
Amy Guskin
<b5e4f105-a734-4f45...@a12g2000yqm.googlegroups.com>):
I've _already_ seen this commercial so many times, I'm sick of it. What's
with the glut of cheesy, childish science fiction out there lately? Space
Chimps, Space Buddies, Race to Witch Mountain...there's got to be more I'm
missing.
Matt Ion
>>> On Fri, 20 Feb 2009 09:28:34 -0500, thus spake Bill (in article
> <b5e4f105-a734-4f45...@a12g2000yqm.googlegroups.com>):
>
>> Yet another entry into the "WTF Were They Thinking?" contest. I just
>> saw a commercial for this last night.
>>
>> http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1075417/
>>
>> I'm not sure who's the bigger lump of inanimate minerals, Dwayne
>> Johnson or the producer. <<
>
> I've _already_ seen this commercial so many times, I'm sick of it. What's
> with the glut of cheesy, childish science fiction out there lately? Space
> Chimps, Space Buddies, Race to Witch Mountain...there's got to be more I'm
> missing.
No... you're not missing anything... really you're not.
Wes Struebing
wrote:
>>> On Fri, 20 Feb 2009 09:28:34 -0500, thus spake Bill (in article
><b5e4f105-a734-4f45...@a12g2000yqm.googlegroups.com>):
>
>> Yet another entry into the "WTF Were They Thinking?" contest. I just
>> saw a commercial for this last night.
>>
>> http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1075417/
>>
>> I'm not sure who's the bigger lump of inanimate minerals, Dwayne
>> Johnson or the producer. <<
>
>I've _already_ seen this commercial so many times, I'm sick of it. What's
>with the glut of cheesy, childish science fiction out there lately? Space
>Chimps, Space Buddies, Race to Witch Mountain...there's got to be more I'm
>missing.
It was execrable the FIRST time. (yeah I've somehow pissed someone
off, so I've been forced to see it several times, too...)