Remakes and reboots

[Loki]

If you're suggesting that Bay is some sort of action movie hack whose films are relentless slogs lacking in any subtlety or pacing, then... you're right. I hate Michael Bay, which is embarrassing as at the moment I'm working for an employer who thinks the sun rises and sets from his rectum, and wants to make video games JUST LIKE HIS MOVIES.

 

Which ignores that that's what most games are generally like anyway.

[Chest Rockwell]

I just took a wander over to IMDB to see if he'd done anything I like. As Gladstone mentioned earlier, it appears that The Rock and Bad Boys are his only good films. And the whole Transformers franchise sucks so much balls.

[Astro Hollywood]

I saw a piece of IMDB trivia once that so summed up the shitness of Michael Bay and the worst side of Hollywood that I had to save it for future generations.

 

[Burchill's Buddy]

I just took a wander over to IMDB to see if he'd done anything I like. As Gladstone mentioned earlier, it appears that The Rock and Bad Boys are his only good films. And the whole Transformers franchise sucks so much balls.

He did direct the video for Meatloaf's "I'd Do Anything for Love (But I Won't Do That)" though. Which makes Transformers almost forgivable. Almost.

[chokeout]

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.

 

Seven Percent Solution is about as off beat a Sherlock Film as you can get using the original character

[Chris B]

Point taken on that one. I found it somewhat less so because I saw "The Secret of Sherlock Holmes" when I was very young, which plays around with Moriarty as a semi-fictional construct as well. Despite the fact it was years later, I found it much easier to accept.

 

Mind you, I've not seen it since I was about eleven or twelve, and would now love to rewatch it since I have more of an understanding of Freud, and I barely knew who he was at that point in time. I'll have to check out if it's available on DVD.

[mikey]

If you're remaking the Godfather, you can fuck right off.

 

Why, though? Obviously it doesn't need to be done just like the Psycho remake didn't need to be done, for reasons of quality and the fact that you couldn't really see how those stories could be effectively reinterpreted.

 

But if Albert Pyun suddenly announced a remake tomorrow and a few months down the lines it inevitably turns out to be shite, what's changed about the original? Nothing. Its legacy remains intact.

 

Although now I really want an Albert Pyun version of The Godfather. With Kevin Sorbo as Don Vito Corleone.

 

Sacrilege really. Some things are so good and so defining that they should be just left as they are. I didn't necessarily have a problem with remaking Psycho, it's not Hitchcock's best work and it was more a strange, arthouse shot-for-shot remake that just had cash thrown at it by idiot movie execs. I was more offended by the remake of Rear Window, which is one of Hitchcock's best films, especially as it considerably changed the plot for no good reason. Disturbia showed how to update the story better.

 

If that barrier has already been destroyed and it's just another character, then I'm OK with it. For instance, you can't really fuck Batman up anymore than the campy 60's series and the Joel Schumacher movies and thus whatever they come up with doesn't really matter. If it's good, it's a bonus.

[chokeout]

Point taken on that one. I found it somewhat less so because I saw "The Secret of Sherlock Holmes" when I was very young, which plays around with Moriarty as a semi-fictional construct as well. Despite the fact it was years later, I found it much easier to accept.

 

Mind you, I've not seen it since I was about eleven or twelve, and would now love to rewatch it since I have more of an understanding of Freud, and I barely knew who he was at that point in time. I'll have to check out if it's available on DVD.

 

I watched it online on Stagevu about a year ago, should still be on there to download/stream

[gmoney]

I just took a wander over to IMDB to see if he'd done anything I like. As Gladstone mentioned earlier, it appears that The Rock and Bad Boys are his only good films. And the whole Transformers franchise sucks so much balls.

 

Con Air is great fun as well,I'd say. But it ends there.

[chokeout]

I just took a wander over to IMDB to see if he'd done anything I like. As Gladstone mentioned earlier, it appears that The Rock and Bad Boys are his only good films. And the whole Transformers franchise sucks so much balls.

 

Con Air is great fun as well,I'd say. But it ends there.

 

Con Air was Simon West wasnt it?

[gmoney]

So it is! Well blow me down. My point still stands, but it's now irrelevant.

[Devon Malcolm]

Sacrilege really. Some things are so good and so defining that they should be just left as they are. I didn't necessarily have a problem with remaking Psycho, it's not Hitchcock's best work and it was more a strange, arthouse shot-for-shot remake that just had cash thrown at it by idiot movie execs. I was more offended by the remake of Rear Window, which is one of Hitchcock's best films, especially as it considerably changed the plot for no good reason.

 

That was a crappy TV film, no-one should have been under any illusions about how it was going to turn out. Rear Window's been aped and 'remade' in loads of places - that 2 Point 4 Children episode and the Simpsons episode, for a start.

 

Rear Window's one of my favourites of all time. When I found out they were remaking it I just ignored it and watched the original. Outrage didn't ever consider entering the equation.

[andrew "the ref" coyne]

I think a lot of people have missed the point about Moffat being annoyed with the US version of "Sherlock", but mainly because that article didn't reveal the full story.

 

The story is that after the success of Sherlock in the UK (and if you havn't seen it, please do, I thought it was great), they attempted to sell it to the US and were showing it around to a number of networks.

 

When CBS saw it, there response was basically to say "well fuck you, we're stealing your idea and making our own version."

 

Rightfully Moffat is annoyed by this. Hes trying to sell his show to a US tv network, only for one of them to completely undermine him and cost him the opportunity to sell the show. After all, why would a US network buy Sherlock if CBS are doing their own? Hence it cheapens the brand.

 

Legally I would of thought Moffat would have a case if CBS went through with this, but I'm not sure.

 

On a side note, Elementary wouldn't be a remake a of Sherlock... it would be entirely independant and just happens to exist alongside ANOTHER modern day take on the Sherlock Holmes stories.

[Chest Rockwell]

He says the opposite of that in his statement. He says they wanted to buy it but he was all like 'no way'. Somewhere in between sounds plausible though. ie he tried to sell it, no one wanted it, he got butthurt and made up some bullshit and went off on one.

 

And no, legally he has nothing. He doesn't have universal rights to the Sherlock Holmes character, so they were right to tell him to do one (in this possibly fictional account that I've fabricated).

[GalaxyV.2]

Not true Rockwell, the show has already done well over there, and has been seen by a lot of main players in Hollywood (hence Benedit Cumberbatch's sudden ascent) The show has generated a lot of interest, this is just opportunism to steal that. The BBC show would no doubt have continued doing well in the US (probably gone on to bigger things with the two main stars being in huge films next year) I can understand Moff's anger at all this.