So are they just going to remake all their movies into live action now? I'm really curious to see how they'll do Mulan and everything, and how much the fuckup influence the Chinese government is going to have on it.
Jungle Book was good, although I got to say, while you can make Baloo singing Bare Necessities work, you can't try to have Louie come off as serious and then abruptly break into I Wanna Be Like You, that's just jarring.
>>45990 It just comes off as musical-y after they went to great lengths to make Bear Necessities come off naturally. To the point where when Mowgli and Baloo sing it together they are tripping over each other cacaphonously like two buds singing together would instead of perfectly harmonizing with each other like a musical number
>>46001 >>46002 Again, pretty sure that was the point, in that scene King Louie is an evil asshole awkwardly pretending to be friendly and nice to a kid he despises. The reprisal during the crefits is much more natural and silly like in the animated movie.
Cineplex pre show can be so silly sometimes. "Ratchet and Clank are a pair of unlikely heroes! Here's a montage of unlikely heroes from movies!" And then it's mostly okay, but Man of Steel is in there too. Because everyone knows Superman is the most unlikely hero of them all.
>>46263 >As for Karl Urban - he doesn't even ride a bike in the movie, he just asked me to use a picture of him on one for the poster. He emailed me saying "hey i look cool, don't i? put that in" so I did in the little corner there.
He wants to find the dog a home. He has a huge platform with which he can spread the story of this dog and hopefully find it a home. If he can simultaneously get a little press for his movie...well, what's the harm in that?
>Comcast hopes to breathe new life into Shrek and crank out as many as four animated movies a year following its acquisition of DreamWorks Animation.
Cute they want to compete with Disney. I mean its not like that is what got Dreamworks in this current state, oh wait.
>Comcast hopes to breathe new life into Shrek.
No, for all that is good in the world. Just no.
Difference between Disney acquisitions and this is that Disney already had a standing with the companies it brought in and setup groups to spearhead their pushes in both cases enhancing what already existed.
All I hear from these guys in this and other articles on this topic is a whole lotta wants but no clear understanding of how to generate that plan for success.
I don't see it working at all as smoothly as they think it will. Regardless that insane notion "We bought it because we could afford it and we've still got plenty of money."
My biggest fear is that they'll destroy what Netflix has worked with Dreamworks to build which is what it sounds like NBC/Universal wants to do. But since its not theirs and they have no want or understanding of streaming and it'll all be destroyed.
Numerous times TV executives in general have been myopic as hell talking about Streaming as if it was just a fad. "They'll come back to us, and we'll be waiting."
People have been cord cutting at increasing numbers for nearly a decade now. Its not going to stop. People don't want to be tethered to a network schedule nor their couch for entertainment.
And from what I've read they still don't get it so I don't think this will go any better.
And in sports
>The company lost about $150 million from the 2010 Winter Olympics in Vancouver, but expects to “make a lot of money in Rio” with the Summer Olympics in August. Indeed, he believes NBC will to beat the record audience from the 2012 London games “because this is a live Olympics.”
>“America for 17 days basically puts other things aside and falls in love with the Olympics,” Burke says.
Yea its not like a virulent outbreak that could take out a number of the teams and will cause the withdraw of some countries could affect coverage. Nah nothing like that.
Just came back from watching The Conjuring 2. It wasn't as subtle with its daemons as the first (or as much as I can recall the first being subtle), but still worth the price of admition. Surprisingly good children actors and top-notch clothing and other setting props n background stuff.
>Director Genndy Tartakovsky (DEXTER’S LABORATORY, STAR WARS: CLONE WARS), who returns to helm this brand new adventure, says, “I thought I was done exploring the world of HOTEL TRANSYLVANIA after the first two films, but while I was away from the franchise finishing my TV show SAMURAI JACK, an idea sparked that I got really excited about and made it irresistible to return and helm myself this third adventure."
Good I want to see him continue to get work and get Animators on the radar. Not happy that Sandler is Executive Producer but just gotta deal I guess.
>• HOTEL TRANSYLVANIA: THE TELEVISION SERIES is targeted for a 2017 airdate. The animated television series, produced in partnership with Corus Entertainment’s Nelvana, will focus on the teenage years of Mavis, Dracula’s daughter, and her friends. It will be airing on the Disney Channel worldwide.
>• CLOUDY WITH A CHANCE OF MEATBALLS is slated for its television series incarnation airdate in 2017. The 2D animated small-screen series, produced in partnership with DHX Media and commissioned by TELETOON in Canada, will expand on the adventures of the computer-animated feature films and will air on Cartoon Network in the U.S. and Turner channels across EMEA, APAC and Latin American markets.
Like, I'm one who's willing to defend a lot of these dumb licensed Hollywood movies with insane sources (like Monopoly, or Stretch Armstrong) but Tetris, as a game, has so little narrative built in that it just seems idiotic.
>>46489 Or just from a surrogate mother. Maybe she'll still be named Demora. Like the article said it's just going to be treated as a normal thing, so probably he'll call his husband and daughter to say goodbye before heading out or look at a family photo of them together.
>>46488 Didn't Sulu have a girlfriend at some point in the original series? And the reboot versions are supposed to be the original cast just younger right? Either he was that deep in the closet or he's technically Kinsey-5 bisexual but called gay for the convenience.
>>46497 I get his point, in the same way I think it's usually better to introduce original characters like Rey, Finn, and Poe who were always belonging to underrepresented groups, than to rely on hand-me-downs for representation by Xwashing preexisting characters, like recasting Luke or Han in later adaptations with black actors. On the other hand Sulu had like one female love interest ever and it didn't even work out. He's not vigorously heterosexual the way Kirk is (no matter how much rabid Kirk/Spock shippers insist homophobic studio execs put in Uhura as a beard to "cover up" his canon gayness for Spock). So I don't think a whole lot of vision is really being changed there.
>>46498 >On the other hand Sulu had like one female love interest ever and it didn't even work out. He's not vigorously heterosexual the way Kirk is (no matter how much rabid Kirk/Spock shippers insist homophobic studio execs put in Uhura as a beard to "cover up" his canon gayness for Spock). So I don't think a whole lot of vision is really being changed there.
Hell, make him bi and you don't even really have to change or explain anything. The fact that you dated a girl at one point doesn't mean you're straight. Still get LGBT representation, and for one of the least well represented groups around (bisexual men), but don't have to do any retcons to make it sensible.
In fact, if you don't have him specifically use the phrase "I'm homosexual" or something, people who have a problem with him having dated a girl in one continuity can headcanon the explanation however they want--bisexuality, midpoints on the Kinsey scale, "If it's you it's okay" (in either direction), or whatever else floats their boat. Point is just that he's romantically involved with a man.
Their was talk about the next or one after that James bond being a "Jane Bond". Reason I call this similar is would it be easier just to write a female Super Spy as a lesbian rather than have her seduce countless men. Not talking anything about titillation but just the perception of her character.
James has always been a bit of a sleaze when it comes to seducing women and I don't know if that attitude toward the opposite sex would work coming from a woman to a main stream audience.
Hence my question of making her a lesbian as that's not something that has been brought up in talks yet.
Be interesting. Mainstream Movie Action Female openly seducing women. Be the only one to my knowledge since that trait was scrapped from the Lara Croft reboot.
It's sadly funny how far film and television will let a lesbian or gay character go in something that isn't a comedy before someone dies. Heard this past year was particularly brutal in drama shows with gay and lesbian characters. Person of Intrest Root being one of the most recent I think.
I think Legend of Korra was one of the scant few to get it across the finsh line without killing one of them, which I find oddly humorous.
>>46517 >>46522 >lesbian They're bi. Sorry but I get kinda triggered when people call Korra and Asami lesbians because too many fans of the ship are honest-to-god bisexual haters who insist that the two are 100% lesbian and that Mako was a beard instead of someone they were genuinely attracted to at some point, and if you claim otherwise you're a "lesbophobe", even though Bryke explicitly said they're bisexuals and not lesbians.
I know that she is its just that any other show if she's paried up earlier the finish line would likely have been a solo run or she'd rebounded to Mako, which was a fake out at their last episode (and something his VA kept trolling with).
>>46529 http://bryankonietzko.tumblr.com/post/105916338157/ >(Despite what you might have heard, bisexual people are real!) Biphobic people might keep trying to twist it around to say Bryke didn't specifically mean Korra and Asami so they can keep insisting they're exclusive lesbians, but it's pretty obvious in context who they're talking about here.
>>46530 Korra is still one of my favorite Superhero stories. She's got near godlike power she wants to do good and struggles with finding out how that works in the world she's in. She doesn't always do it right and its not always perfect but she keeps trying.
Get a lot better Superman vibe out of her than Snyder's take.
Demystifying Jason with a shitty origin story would've been awful. The other long-rumored idea swirling around this project - a "found footage" film - would've been equally as shitty. A period piece with no real attempt at an origin story for Jason is probably as good an idea as they'll get without going for a self-aware Jason X-style approach again.
That's to be expected. Maybe his post could go to an Orion or Andorian bot races have a similar temperaments to humans. An Orion Male would be an interesting addition as that's not one I believe has shown up much in Star Trek.
Also be a humorous moment. Kirk thinks he's getting a new Orion lady playmate and its some big broad shouldered military minded fella. The Worf of his time I'd say to be to the point.
Paramount promoting Beyond as a generic action movie really hurt the film. The mixed reception to Into Darkness probably didn't help Beyond either. Disappointing, since everyone says this is the best modern Star Trek film yet.
Trek 4 is still a go and the film will be a financial success regardless, but I hope Paramount doesn't do anything stupid with the franchise to try and make Marvel money.
Kinda want to see Klingons get more into this. Not something that sets them as the opposition as that was done a bit too much. But something that effects them enough to send an emissary to the Federation to serve on its flagship.
Ship a cross between Federation and Klingon tech judging by the design. Really hope they just stick it on the network since the fall slate is pretty barren and I don't know if anyone will subscribe to their digital service just for one show. Really should have just let Netflix run with it since they know how to handle serialized shows and they won't get twitchy like network executives are bound to do.
2009 Trek has to be watched, arguing otherwise is kinda ridiculous. The film establishes the new setting and the changes to the continuity, plus the passing of the torch between Spocks is pretty great.
Into Darkness is 100% avoidable, nothing of importance happens there other than being a very poor attempt to redo Khan (SPOILERS: Kirk dies instead of Spock, but he gets revived five minutes later so who gives a shit). Hell, I actually think NuTrek works better jumping from the first film to Beyond.
Most superhero movies didn't really start doing very well until about twenty years ago at the most. Batman movies were an exception, but they were also often seen as campy nerd faire rather than serious blockbusters.
I know Rowling isn't as great of a writer as people claim she is, and part of what made the books popular was the way it mixed imagination and whimsy with occasional relatable adolescent drama. But still I expected the person who wrote Prisoner of Azkaban to be able to make something more coherent, and to not bring back the damn Time Turner.
>You may disagree with me; I’m sure many of you probably do, violently. But if you had a different reaction than I did, that doesn’t mean I’m wrong. And my dislike isn’t proof that you’re wrong either. Responses to art aren’t something we win. There isn’t an objective truth out there to be discerned.
That was the whole argument about “the blockbuster bubble” mentioned in >>46807 — with so many “blockbusters” and tentpoles crowding around each other’s release dates admist the ongoing decline in theater attendance, all those films will soon eat into each other’s box office takes in a way that will ultimately break Hollywood’s reliance on tentpoles (if not Hollywood itself).
Various reports say Jason Momoa, best known as the guy WB thinks will make Aquaman less of a joke, is now attached to the long-cursed remake of The Crow. (I say “long-cursed” because the pre-production of said remake has lasted for years and had numerous directors, writers, and lead actors attached to it for varying amounts of time.)
A tweet from MovieBob got me to thinkin’, though: Why must the film be remade with a guy in the lead role? Why not give us a hot goth chick kicking ass in the name of personal vengeance? No remake of The Crow will ever recapture the “magic” of the original film—the aesthetic is too ’90s and the death of Brandon Lee only adds to the film’s somber tone—so trying something “new” with the franchise and showing us how a woman handles being “The Crow” might be worth more of a glance than a straight-up remake.
And hey, if nothing else, we’d get a new hot goth chick to fawn over.
>>46871 I'm still wondering what the Hollywood obsession with remakes is and calling things Remakes when its clearly stated not to be.
Rocketeer Sequel they keep calling a remake even though its stated to not be one. That female lead Ocean's Eleven spinoff/sequel Ocean's Eight (Which is going to end up with its own set of problems being numbered that way and so many will be thinking it's a prequel or something.) But that one also keeps getting labeled a Reboot/Remake.
>>46871 That's not as crazy an idea as all that. I have a sequel comic to The Crow in my collection called The Crow: Flesh and Blood, featuring a female Crow called Iris Shaw. It's got a more "American Gothic" feel to it in line with Preacher or True Detective, being set out west in the wilderness.
I've also just now learnt of a BD spinoff series called The French Crow, which had multiple female Crows throughout its run. A spinoff movie set in Paris would definitely have an interesting vibe, could take advantage of the juicy tax incentives they use to pump out all those Liam Neeson movies.
Alien: Covenant is the sequel to the 2012 film Prometheus coming out next month. Hope you guys can hold down more shitting on alien franchise. Oh boy I am. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alien:_Covenant http://www.imdb.com/title/tt2316204/
Pete’s Dragon is one of Disney’s best live-action films. It’s a little cliché and predictable, sure, but for films like this, the execution of tropes matters more than the tropes themselves. My only real problem with it: Karl Urban’s character gets no real characterization or motives for what he does, making him a rather flat villain. In any case, I’d recommend seeing it if you’re sick of all the cynicism and “feel-bad” cinema coming out as of late.
>>46894 Glad to hear it wasn't a total wash. But I kinda wanted to see some of the more crazy bits updated. Crazy murderous hillbillies, potion selling conmen. But overall glad to hear not as bad as I thought it could have been given remakes of late.
The new film came off as more of a re-imagining than a remake, since it cut out the various sidestories (and musical numbers) from the original and kept only the barebones story intact. That approach sidelined the three major adult characters in terms of characterization, but it also narrowed the film’s focus into a singular narrative throughline—Pete’s journey back into society—and heightened the emotional impact of Pete’s relationship with Elliot.
The film also accomplished something special: Rather than hitting on nostalgic “greatest hit” homage shots and relying on “needledrops” (songs not written for a film but intended to invoke memories of a specific time), Pete’s Dragon used intentional anachronism to invoke nostalgia for a certain period of life—as Birth.Movies.Death’s Devin Faraci puts it, “a time when you were open to awe, when your imagination was boundless and when the world was maybe just a little more frightening than you were willing to admit”. When Pete gets to the town outside of the forest, it feels like a place out of step with modern America; no cellphones, computers, or other “screens” show up in the film. (A record player even shows up at one point!) But that intentional anachronism both avoids dating the film and helps with the “nostalgia for one’s youth” feeling.
Pete’s Dragon never once felt like some cheap attempt to cash in on the kind of nostalgia that drove, say, Jurassic World or Ghostbusters. It didn’t lean anywhere near any form of cynicism, but it avoided going overboard with the optimism and sincerity of its emotion. Everything about it just felt…right. And I loved that the film made me feel so damned happy when I walked out of the theater.
>>46911 You could always try and work for Kyoto Animation over in Japan. I hear they treat their animators better than anybody else over there. Not to mention they also pay their tweeners like humans, instead of that per page bullshit that tweeners normally get in the anime industry.
I watched 2001 for the first time this weekend. Fuck me, that movie is fucking TERRIBLE! I can understand why it was so significant back then what with the space race and the psychedelic movement, but I can honestly say that anyone praising this movie to this day is full of fucking shit.
>>46919 >Okay, so…why do you think it’s terrible? If you’re going to share an opinion like that, you can at least give us a little justification for it.
Not that poster, but I'll chime in since I pretty much agree. The cinematography is obviously amazing, and every frame's a painting just like people always say about Kubrick. Music's great too. But actually *watching* the movie is unbearably dull. Nothing happens for pretty much the entire movie.
As art, it's great, but as entertainment it's terrible.
Thing is, I happen to agree with you. (I tried to watch it on two separate occasions, but I never made it more than a half-hour in.) I just wanted to see the other poster at least justify their opinion, though I imagine they’ll do a quick “THIS”-type post. Not that I’d begrudge them such a post; if someone can articulate an opinion I hold and do it better than I could, I’d go “THIS” at it, too.
Just this year Disney, Dreamworks, and Sony got that class-action antitrust lawsuit (the one about the "gentlemen's agreement" to fix wages and not to hire each other's employees) thrown out purely based on statue of limitations.
In 2010, the DOJ discovered evidence of conspiratorially meetings going to at least 2007. The judge decided the four-year statue of limitations thus ran out in 2011, and the case could only go through if there was evidence that it had continued even more recently.
>>46924 Original complainer here. The things that happen could be told in half an hour, instead of making people sit through a 2 hour snore fest. Because the way this movie tries to build tension is through establishing shots, which is fine in principle, but after the second or third time we see an object move slowly through space for ten minutes they become utterly redundant and a waste of time. Like, I get it, dude. Things take time in space. And don't even get me started on the fucking ending. It's like the most pubescent pothead fucking "deep" garbage imaginable. "Like, there's this dude. In a totally white room. And he sees himself age. And then he becomes a fetus again. Circle of life, duuuude!" The entire movie is just Kubrick masturbating. It's the In A Gadda Da Vida of movies. Notable for the spectacle, but a fucking chore to sit through.
>>46928 Can't criticise a piece of art by separating it from its context, bruh. I get you don't like it as a thing to pop into the dvd player and expect to be entertained, but I wouldn't call it an objectively crap piece of film because of it.
>>46930 To quote my first post: >I can understand why it was so significant back then what with the space race and the psychedelic movement What I'm trying to say is that the movie doesn't hold up without the context and isn't really worthy of much praise from anyone who didn't watch it back when it would've been relevant.
>>46931 >I can understand why it was so significant back then what with the space race and the psychedelic movement Not even really why it was important, but you don't even need to go as far as to have lived in that time to really get its cultural impact. That takes way too much effort nowadays.
Just doing some simple reading up on how it was percieved at the time is enough. If you don't do even that, don't even go near Dr. Strangelove cus that one's gonna sail right over you, man.
>>46934 I love Dr. Strangelove. It had meaning and a message. 2001 was just masturbatory. You can tell during every single shot of the movie that the impetus for making it wasn't "let's make a good movie", but rather "let's show everyone how good I am at making movies".
Hmmm, being "entertained" is a nebulous thing, there are people who find fun in waiting hours freezing in a rural road just to watch a Rally car speeding by for a couple of seconds. I do get entertained by watching 2001, it is indeed a movie I watch from time to time and find myself satisfied. Shit, I think I have rewatched 2001 more than say, Die Hard or Jaws. The film just thoroughly works for me, it's super-comfy, I find meaning in it, and it's often just beatiful to look at.
I have no problem if somebody doesn't agree with that and finds the movie too slow and weird, but this:
>but I can honestly say that anyone praising this movie to this day is full of fucking shit.
>>46930 >Can't criticise a piece of art by separating it from its context, bruh. That's the modernist belief. But the post-modern belief is that not only can you separate a piece of art from its context, but that you have no business considering the context in the first place.
It's not the Tick as we know it, but I think that's fine. Tick's a parody, and supers have changed since he was last in the game. So instead of just more Tick, they've decided to "ground" the series to take on the MCU style dramas of today like Daredevil.
I do realize that this is a death that probably won't register for lot of people here, but yesterday a HUGE icon in the latin american musical scene died, Juan Gabriel, at 66. It's not hyperbole to say that for latin people everywhere, this is on the same level as Prince or Bowie dying. His music wasn't my thing, but right now just hearing his songs bring back a lot of childhood memories.
In a similar vein, pro wrestling’s Harry “Mr. Fuji” Fujiwara, who started out as an in-ring performer but later became one of the industry’s most infamous managers, died yesterday. Unlike a lot—and I mean a lot—of pro wrestling personalities, Fuji lived a damn long life, passing at the age of 82.
Other notable deaths from this year so far: David Bowie, Glenn Frey, Abe Vigoda (for real!), Umberto Eco, Nancy Reagan, Rob Ford, Garry Shandling, Patty Duke, Doris Roberts, Joanie “Chyna” Laurer, Prince, Alan Young, Muhammad Ali, Kimbo Slice, Gordie Howe, Anton Yelchin, Elie Wiesel, Garry Marshall, David Huddleston, and Kenny Baker.
>>47038 >>47040 I used to despair at the toll 2016 was inflicting on the celebrity world, but considering the shitshow this year has become internationally, I'm starting to think they decided to get out while the going was still good.
>47059 Actually the two films you are talking about have it swapped.
Shin is an Eldritch monster of the most fleshy nightmare SPOILERSHe is constantly evolving, eating people and transforming, his tail is a malformed second head that can fire atomic breath and at the end he begins to birth Godzilla like humanoid xenomorphs. His face even splits on the bottom jaw to accommodate his atomic breathe.
Zilla is a nuclear Avenger of Ancient times bound to restoring the natural order.
I could see a Jumanji remake being good if done by the right people. I know it's a movie that triggers nostalgia for a lot of people, but truth to be told it's kinda of a mess, and I am not even talking about the terrible CGI.
Of course, the "if done by the right people" is a pretty big "if" in itself.
A reboot generally tries to restart the entire canon of a franchise—think Ghostbusters (2016), RoboCop, or both The Amazing Spider-Man and Spider-Man: Homecoming. (The first two are what you can call “rebakes”—both a reboot and a remake.) Fury Road adds to the Mad Max canon, so while it brought back the franchise, it didn’t really reboot things.
If Marvel made a new Blade film that picked up where Blade: Trinity left off, it would be a sequel. If Marvel made a new Blade film that restarted Blade’s film canon—a film that acted as if the original Blade films didn’t exist at all—that would be a reboot.
>>47099 It's been said before by smarter people than I that the only worthwhile remakes are those of films that had strong concepts let down by lacklustre execution. Ben Hur and True Grit are two, but Ocean's Eleven, Cape Feare and D.O.A. are also good examples.
So going by that criteria, what movie would make a good candidate for a remake these days? It's kind of hard to pinpoint one without an encyclopaedic knowledge of old, shitty movies. For my money, it's been a good long while since the last attempted adaptations of '30s pulp, like The Shadow, Dick Tracey, The Rocketeer etc.
>what movie would make a good candidate for a remake these days?
Here’s the problem with this line of thinking: It implies that we need a remake of anything. Such an implication suggests we need remakes so “modern audiences” can appreciate the story told by the original. But why can’t we settle for what we have? The original Magnificent Seven (itself a remake of The Seven Samurai) withstands the test of time thanks to a strong script and solid acting from an all-star cast. The only reason for a studio to remake The Magnificent Seven is because they think banking on a form of nostalgia and name recognition will rake in the dosh. (“Hey, remember that old western about the seven guys who stood up to an army of bad guys? Now it’s being done with modern actors and modern technology! Surely it will be as good as the original, if not better!”) But even if the remake is good—which is no guarantee—there was simply no reason to do it other than some studio bigwig’s implicit hatred for older films and how they look/feel.
Speaking of reboots, damn, I really want to see how the story ends in Planet of the Apes. Now that's a reboot series I had absolutely no hope of being good (especially since they already tried and failed once to reboot it), and somehow managed to deliver great quality.
>>47106 I don't believe it's about having a "good candidate", it's about a remake/reboot meeting or exceeding the original film. That SHOULD be easy to do with all the experience the industry has after all this time.
Takethis youtube Boots to Reboots guy. I don't like his skits, but he makes good points on remakes.
>it's about a remake/reboot meeting or exceeding the original film. That SHOULD be easy to do with all the experience the industry has after all this time.
And yet evidence shows just how hard it truly is. Lots of remakes/reboots work under the “tangible details” theory: Rather than taking a deep understanding of what did and didn’t work about a film into the new version, creators of a remake/reboot often reach for the tangible details of the original movie and use them to trigger nostalgia (often as a disguise for piss-poor storytelling).
>>47117 Elba would be great. But that's got bizarre resistance about "no black scots" or something in the studio. Then we've got that faction that wants a woman Bond which leads to its own complaints and then rides us back around to "rest of the list is too unsure, lets just get Craig back for a bit longer."
Bring back Craig and we'll likely get two more rounds of Dead Letter tapes from Dame Dench about more people she screwed over and are prowling around for vengeance.
Elba has a good presence and that cool lethal demeanor that I recall most on Sir Connery.
>buy compressed music from an independent artist for years >okay, fine, not like I have a choice here >new song available exclusively on his website >sure, why not, more compressed music for my dollar >it's lossless >mfw
>>47135 Lets say post 2000s to really put a bead on it then. Ones coming out based more on Studios "Hey this was popular back in the day, lets remake it." Rather than the director and/or writer saying "I"d like to work on this as I think it has promise as a remake."
Yeah, most modern remakes (going with the “2000s onward” definition of that phrase) concentrate more on the iconography and what went right rather than focusing on what went wrong the first time, how to fix it, and how to best balance both the old and new takes (especially given modern aesthetics and FX abilities).
I’ve said it before, but Manos would be a film that I’d love to see an actual remake of. And that is not a joke—within that wretched slab of film lies a story idea that could be crafted into something so much better than Hal P. Warren could’ve ever dreamed. Practical effects and one- or two-set location shooting to keep costs down, a reworked script that would (amongst other “fixes”) give us more conflict between the married couple at the heart of the story so we'll care about their eventual fates, and a complete dedication to treating it like an actual horror film instead of a satirical pot-shot at the original…seriously, a Manos remake could actually work under the right conditions.
Could Manos work as say a "Found Footage" Film. I mean the setup is good for Some Dude in the modern era carrying around a camera on his family vacation and getting trapped in that bizarre place. Or better to be a tight cinematic piece.
Maybe have it in a straight up abandoned Theme Park which Manos has made his "Kingdom", plenty of those around.
>>47143 Games do that to avoid disrupting gameplay with intrusive cutscenes - you can ignore the audiologs and plough through shooting bad guys, or you can hang back and listen to the additional media so you get narrative context as to why you're shooting bad guys.
Films don't have "gameplay" for the recorded media to interrupt - films are recorded media, 100% through-and-through. If you're asking about the last movie to reveal some important plot point in a flashback delivered in-movie via a recording, I'm pretty sure there's a half-dozen films in the multiplex right now that do exactly that, but that's hardly "hybrid storytelling," it's a well-worn trope that goes back to Citizen Kane.
Random quest, but is the Independence Day sequel as dogshit as it first looks?
I'm hardly claiming the original as some sort of high quality feat of creative writing, but this just seems like an entirely pointless sequel released after all those years where they try to build shallow hype by raising power levels everywhere and is actually WORSE writing-wise than the original, if that can be believed.
>>47153 I did find it surprising because Mike hated the first ID4 precisely because it was dumb shlock, and Resurgence is even dumber and shlockier and somehow he loved it. I am not saying he sucks for it or anything like that, but it was supremely odd to hear him giving praise to the movie.