CapNColostomy Posted December 22, 2005 Share Posted December 22, 2005 inferior to the original - remake. I realize of course you're just stating your opinion, so there's no right or wrong answer, and you certainly don't have to justify your opinion, I'm just curious. Inferior in what way? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lynk Former Posted December 22, 2005 Share Posted December 22, 2005 @ txa1265: But it is, I mean just look at all those different versions of various shakespeare works. The original will always be "better" but that's not gonna stop people from trying to do another take on something. So XP to you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
txa1265 Posted December 22, 2005 Share Posted December 22, 2005 Inferior in what way? I guess 'adds nothing' and 'totally unnecessary' are more important descriptors. For me, the basic 'litmus test' for a remake is that it needs to justify its' existance, to 'add value' to be worth anything. So while this film isn't like the one I saw in theaters as a kid - the 1976 version - in that it isn't a bad movie. It is actually a great spectacle, by an auteur of grand spectacle. But it adds nothing other than a re-do with new effects. It loses itself in those effects, and feels unfocused and self-indulgent at times. By allowing himself so much extra time he wallows in his own greatness rather than the greatness of the source material, and comes off with a decent popcorn flick that only serves to remind us that 'they don't make 'em like they used to'. Mike Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
txa1265 Posted December 22, 2005 Share Posted December 22, 2005 @ txa1265: But it is, I mean just look at all those different versions of various shakespeare works. The original will always be "better" but that's not gonna stop people from trying to do another take on something. So XP to you. How many XP do I get ... I just got 100XP for killing a Swampgas Drone in Gothic II Gold? Anyway, comparing Shakespeare and Kong is not really valid - one is prose for the stage, the other is a completed visual work. Shakespeares stagings have always been open to interpretation, and work well in their flexibility to original ideas - that's why they are hailed as some of the greatest works of the ages. Kong is a classic horror flick with a pretty basic story line and fairly thin characters with grans spectacle at its' base - it is not a great work with richness and depth at its' core. Therefore remaking it - which is what was done - is going to be at best a prettier carbon copy, with perhaps better or worse characterizations. So these are nice toss-aways (I'm sure that by next year the *real* Wonka will still be selling steadily and 'Charlie' will be long since forgotten), but reflect a lack of vision, creativity and risk taking by movie studios, and the fact that audiences continue to reward such behavior and not innovative or original thinking (Firefly/Serenity thread?) only further emboldens studios to churn out this unnecessary stuff ... and good or bad, this is wholly unnecessary. Mike Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lynk Former Posted December 22, 2005 Share Posted December 22, 2005 Firstly... don't double post I can see where you're coming from, there was a rumour a long time ago that a live-action version of Akira was going to be made and back then I thought "what's the point of making a movie out of A MOVIE?" but these days I think if you think you can create a different interpretation of something, go ahead and try, if the people don't like it, then that's that. If they do then woohoo. Hollywood and the videogame industry are at this point where everything is being rehashed, but there are still those few who strive to create original things. This is just a phase in the entertainment culture and soon they'll all move onto better things which everybody will critisise anywayz lol. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
txa1265 Posted December 22, 2005 Share Posted December 22, 2005 Firstly... don't double post Couldn't help it - your reply came while I was already replying, so I didn't see it. but these days I think if you think you can create a different interpretation of something, go ahead and try, if the people don't like it, then that's that. If they do then woohoo. Of course you are right, but when the industry becomes consumed with these 'safe bets' to the degree that the overwhelming majority of production and marketing money goes there, and the ability of small shops to actually get something independant and creative produced and recognized shrinks ... Look at games - the biggies for the year will be things like Madden Ad Nauseum and Quake IV, while gems like Psychonauts and Freedom Force vs. The Third Reich languish on shelves ... so that next year fewer small shop games will be made, and shelf space will be more directed to making sure there is room for NBA '07 for PC/PS2/XBOx/XBox360/PS3/Revolution/GameCube/GBA/NDS & PSP. Mike Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pie™ Posted December 22, 2005 Share Posted December 22, 2005 I'm glad hollywood can keep making "popcorn-flicks", so I can choose between them and the sometimes very slim independent movies. And if I'm totally uninterested in seeing one of these brainless big productions, I can always save my money or go see an independent production instead. I'm going to see the Kong remake this evening, but I think I'll first rewatch the original, just to refresh my memory of that. And Mike, instead of bitching about popular culture, why not find some kind of movies that appeal to you and stick to them? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
toms Posted December 22, 2005 Share Posted December 22, 2005 I actualy think (unlike a lot of recent remakes) King Kong was a valid target for a remake. The original is SO OLD that there are whole generations who will just NEVER watch it.. so redoing it modern style does open it up to a whole new audience. Its when they start remaking films from 5 or 10 years ago that I get annoyed. It could have done with some better editing to shorten it a bit, and it was a bit self indulgent, but on the whole it was a very good attempt. Everyone says that Kong is really expressive and you get really attached to him... but i didn't really feel that. MY memories of the original are very hazy, but i remember the kong in that being more expressive and emotionally engaging. Maybe that is nostalgia though. He was fine, but I can't say i was particularly sad when he died. I still think gollum was a better "complete" character... though of course he did have the advantage of being able to talk. Its one of the few remakes that isn't far worse than the original, so that in itself is a big acheivement. I'm not sure KK is much of a safe bet though... it's cost an absolute fortune, and i can't see it making that much profit. the length will put some people off, the hype hasn't been huge around it, at over 3 hours they can't get that many showings in. I went on the "bargain tuesday" which is usually sold out for every movie and expected it to be sold out due to the fact there weren't many showings... but the cinema was only about 1/2 full. Goblet of Fire, Narnia and LOTR were always sold out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
txa1265 Posted December 22, 2005 Share Posted December 22, 2005 And Mike, instead of bitching about popular culture, why not find some kind of movies that appeal to you and stick to them? Because the dumbing down of the world culture has people professing this stuff as art ... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
El Sitherino Posted December 22, 2005 Share Posted December 22, 2005 Since when was Kong not a popcorn flick? Damn that Peter Jackson and his remakes, first Lord of the Rings, then Kong. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
txa1265 Posted December 22, 2005 Share Posted December 22, 2005 Damn that Peter Jackson and his remakes, first Lord of the Rings, then Kong. I would say that the two are distinctly different - LotR falls into the 'shakespearean reinterpretation' category, whereas Kong is a retread. And the talk about Kong as high art comes from the assertion of many that the LotR is among the all time great cinema. Mike Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
El Sitherino Posted December 22, 2005 Share Posted December 22, 2005 I dunno, I just don't see a problem with him updating Kong. It could have been worse, it could have been Michael Bay, and we'd have a half-mecha Kong. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mike Windu Posted December 22, 2005 Share Posted December 22, 2005 GODZILLA 2000 V MECHA KONG! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jokemaster Posted December 22, 2005 Share Posted December 22, 2005 I thought it was a good popcorn flick, and a decent target for a remake, because, like toms said, the original is so old. I mean, it's one thing to make a remake of say, willy wonka, which came out less than thirty years ago, and remaking King Kong which came out over 70 years ago (let's ignore the 76 remake). I agree, it isn't art, but it IS a good movie. And I also agree that I'm ed that things like Serenity don't make it big, while retreads do, but that's why I'm giving people the DVD this christmas. So those people'll get hooked to the movie/tv show, then I'll explain it was cancelled, then they'll tell other people, and I'll start a small chain. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pie™ Posted December 23, 2005 Share Posted December 23, 2005 Well, I just saw it, and I must say that I had an enjoyable time. Didn't have the same feeling to it as the original, but it was good in its own way. Movie tickets here are going through the roof, but I must say that this was actually worth the 13-14$. All in all it was a good experience, even though there were some things that let me down (what was up with that Disney-like ice-"dance"?). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hermie Posted December 23, 2005 Share Posted December 23, 2005 ^What he said, cept I haven't seen the original. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Exlan Xendar Posted December 23, 2005 Share Posted December 23, 2005 what was up with that Disney-like ice-"dance"?. You remember when Ann was preforming her act for Kong back on Skull Island? Well thats his way of imitating her falling down. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CapNColostomy Posted December 23, 2005 Share Posted December 23, 2005 You remember when Ann was preforming her act for Kong back on Skull Island? Well thats his way of imitating her falling down. He's talking about the scene in the park at the end, where there wasn't anything like what you're talking about. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mike Windu Posted December 23, 2005 Share Posted December 23, 2005 I liked that part actually... >_> And Disney rocks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CapNColostomy Posted December 23, 2005 Share Posted December 23, 2005 I liked that part actually... >_> And Disney rocks. Agreed. The music really made that scene for me. Kinda sad. [/gay comments] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lynk Former Posted December 23, 2005 Share Posted December 23, 2005 So by the sounds of it, King Kong and others can only be "remade" once we get the cool holographic technology happening like in Star Trek. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Exlan Xendar Posted December 23, 2005 Share Posted December 23, 2005 He's talking about the scene in the park at the end, where there wasn't anything like what you're talking about. I know what part he's talking about. The part on the ice where Kong starts sliding all over the place with Ann in his hand and she starts laughing. It's really just to show how much they care for one another really. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pie™ Posted December 23, 2005 Share Posted December 23, 2005 I still think that the scene was unecessary and vomit inducing. I think most thinking people would have gotten the point by that scene anyways. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.