Remakes and reboots

[LaGoosh]

It doesn't really bother me. Remakes of movies like The Fog, The Omen, Nightmare On Elm Street and The Thing come and go. No one remembers them and no one gives a shit about them. The remakes are meaningless and forgotten within moments of release.

 

The only thing about them that bothers me is the money studios waste on them. There are countless talented and creative people who could make fucking great films with the money flushed down the shitter on remakes. Studios just see the remakes as an easy way to make a quick buck. When really films like District 9, Insidious, Paranormal Activity, The Last Exorcist are all examples of movies made on relatively small budgets that made a TON of cash (you may not like them, but they were original properties is my point). The studios should be putting money into investing in movies like that as it's clear that audiences WANT to see exciting new things, not just cash ins on "brands".

[Devon Malcolm]

It doesn't really bother me. Remakes of movies like The Fog, The Omen, Nightmare On Elm Street and The Thing come and go. No one remembers them and no one gives a shit about them. The remakes are meaningless and forgotten within moments of release.

 

The only thing about them that bothers me is the money studios waste on them. There are countless talented and creative people who could make fucking great films with the money flushed down the shitter on remakes. Studios just see the remakes as an easy way to make a quick buck. When really films like District 9, Insidious, Paranormal Activity, The Last Exorcist are all examples of movies made on relatively small budgets that made a TON of cash (you may not like them, but they were original properties is my point). The studios should be putting money into investing in movies like that as it's clear that audiences WANT to see exciting new things, not just cash ins on "brands".

 

I think I would agree that this is my only real beef with them, too. Not a single one of the remakes of Asian horror films we've seen over the last decade have been worthwhile, for instance, but many of them have contained and been made by talented people that would have been better employed elsewhere. It's just really lazy.

 

But let's face it, remakes can also do originals a favour. How many more DVDs did the original Ocean's 11 shift when the remake came out? Just how many people had even heard of The Taking Of Pelham 123 before Tony Scott crapped out his lazy remake? Remakes can certainly open people's eyes to originals they may not have been aware of. It's not always a good thing, of course - no-one should have been reminded of the original The Crazies, for example. But they have their place, I think.

[Chris B]

I think the problem with the remake of Sherlock is more to do with the fact that it's competition. The channel tried to buy the rights to remake Sherlock, and having failed, they're doing their own - that's kind of a shitty thing to do.

 

Sure, they're both obviously based on the same source material, but the modern updating is unusual, and makes it a little more its own creation. It hasn't happened that often (since the 40s, and without using cryogenics or something).

 

Sherlock does, I believe, air in America on BBC America, so Elementary is nicking the concept and going into competition with Sherlock. I think that's a bit different to Moffatt just whining because it won't be as good.

[Devon Malcolm]

Sure, they're both obviously based on the same source material, but the modern updating is unusual, and makes it a little more its own creation. It hasn't happened that often (since the 40s, and without using cryogenics or something).

 

It really isn't that unusual, there have been modernisations of the characters on TV and film quite a few times down the decades.

[DJ Kris]

The main reason I have to care that the Turtles remake will most likely be shit is because I have enjoyed most of the incarnations of it that there's been over the years. It's not that I'm precious about it, but rather that I would prefer it be good.

This is my thinking. I'd rather like a Turtles movie to be made, but I'd like it to be good, I'm not saying it'll be shit, but he's changing a very key point here and I really don't get why.

[Chris B]

Sure, they're both obviously based on the same source material, but the modern updating is unusual, and makes it a little more its own creation. It hasn't happened that often (since the 40s, and without using cryogenics or something).

 

It really isn't that unusual, there have been modernisations of the characters on TV and film quite a few times down the decades.

 

Really? The last ones I remember were the two 'Return of Sherlock Holmes' TV movies in the 80s and 90s, both of which were around Cryogenic freezing, and before that, the Rathbone ones.

 

Which are you thinking of?

[Devon Malcolm]

Those, plus The Private Life Of Sherlock Holmes, The Seven Per-Cent Solution, Sherlock: Case Of Evil - off the top of my head. They've been playing around with the character for years. They even did a musical called Baker Street with the characters. I don't know what the Guy Ritchie films did with Holmes but I would imagine they weren't exactly faithful to the original texts. Moffat isn't doing anything that hasn't been done before many times.

[Chest Rockwell]

I know it's Guy Ritchie, which is off-putting, but the first film from a couple years back was really enjoyable. It's worth a watch. Haven't seen the second yet.

[Chris B]

Those, plus The Private Life Of Sherlock Holmes, The Seven Per-Cent Solution, Sherlock: Case Of Evil - off the top of my head. They've been playing around with the character for years. They even did a musical called Baker Street with the characters. I don't know what the Guy Ritchie films did with Holmes but I would imagine they weren't exactly faithful to the original texts. Moffat isn't doing anything that hasn't been done before many times.

 

None of those are modernised, though. All three that you mention there are set at the time of the original series. It really hasn't been done that much before.

 

The Rathbone films updated them to the 30s/40s, and there were a few attempts over the years at either 'grandchildren of...' or 'cryogenically frozen fish out of water' kind of things, but updating Sherlock Holmes was generally seen as a lousy idea. Which was why it hadn't really been tried until the BBC did it.

 

The Guy Ritchie films are actually more faithful to a lot of the concepts than I expected. They're silly and over the top, but there's a lot there that's decent. Fantastic Moriarty in the latest one as well. Whoever did the trailer for the first one should have been shot.

[Devon Malcolm]

Those, plus The Private Life Of Sherlock Holmes, The Seven Per-Cent Solution, Sherlock: Case Of Evil - off the top of my head. They've been playing around with the character for years. They even did a musical called Baker Street with the characters. I don't know what the Guy Ritchie films did with Holmes but I would imagine they weren't exactly faithful to the original texts. Moffat isn't doing anything that hasn't been done before many times.

 

None of those are modernised, though. All three that you mention there are set at the time of the original series. It really hasn't been done that much before.

 

It depends on what kind of modernisation you are talking about. All of them were offbeat interpretations of the original characters - updates and reworkings, if you would. All Moffat's done is transplant them in the present. I'm not doubting the quality of what he's done because I haven't seen it, but it's not that much of a stretch to bung the characters in the present day.

[Loki]

The Sherlock films were great, and IMO a better use of the franchise than the Stephen Moffat series, which suffered a lot from being horrendously over-written and stupidly over-camp. I'm sure it's great being gay and all that, but when your lead character is intimated as being gay, your main antagonist pretends to be gay (and even when he isn't, is as camp as Butlins), and your main supporting character is regularly amusingly mistaken for being gay... perhaps you're writing your own obsessions too much into your scripts?

 

Ritchie's films on the other hand are exciting, well made, with really nice period detail and a cracking cast, not one of whom uses being camp as a character prop.

[Chris B]

Those, plus The Private Life Of Sherlock Holmes, The Seven Per-Cent Solution, Sherlock: Case Of Evil - off the top of my head. They've been playing around with the character for years. They even did a musical called Baker Street with the characters. I don't know what the Guy Ritchie films did with Holmes but I would imagine they weren't exactly faithful to the original texts. Moffat isn't doing anything that hasn't been done before many times.

 

None of those are modernised, though. All three that you mention there are set at the time of the original series. It really hasn't been done that much before.

 

It depends on what kind of modernisation you are talking about. All of them were offbeat interpretations of the original characters - updates and reworkings, if you would. All Moffat's done is transplant them in the present. I'm not doubting the quality of what he's done because I haven't seen it, but it's not that much of a stretch to bung the characters in the present day.

 

Well, I'm talking modernisation as in modern day. However, none of those were that offbeat. Private Life was as straight a Sherlock Holmes as you really got. Seven Percent Solution concentrated on his cocaine use, and Case of Evil was kind of a prequel. None of them were really that offbeat.

 

It may not be that much of a stretch to present modern day versions of the characters, but nobody had really done it for about seventy years. For another to come along within two years of a successful update is, at the very least, cheeky.

[LaGoosh]

This is my thinking. I'd rather like a Turtles movie to be made, but I'd like it to be good, I'm not saying it'll be shit, but he's changing a very key point here and I really don't get why.

 

Bay's opinion seems to be that by making them aliens it makes it more realistic.

 

But no one gives a shit if the Turtles are realistic. No one actually used to see four baby turtles walking through toxic waste, growing up to be talking giant humanoid ninjas that love Italian food and thought "That'd never happen!". If anything, the ridiculous origin of the Turtles makes them all the more loveable.

 

[Chris B]

By making them aliens, he gets to wank over military equipment and helicopters. I swear, that's the only reason for the change. I'm not pretending there was going to be a good Turtles movie, but Bay's fetishistic about this shit.

[LaGoosh]

And it also means he gets to fly the Turtles spaceship into a building and the building is all like CRASH! and there's fucking fire streaming everywhere and something goes BOOM! and the spaceship is going VROOOM in slowmotion while a 500 foot tall robot Shreeder is fucking going KEEERUUUNNNKK and stomping on tanks BLAM POW etc.