VHS and Betamax You Have Recently Rented

[lanky316]

50 minutes ago, BomberPat said:

I haven't watched the new one, but it felt like a bit of a benchmark for me in terms of what movies are now, because a mate went to see it, and when I asked him if it was any good, he just rattled off all the ways it was "accurate" to the series, or all the references to the original series, rather than whether it was actually, y'know, a good film. 

This to me is one of the most frustrating part of films now. I agree about the seeming creative bankruptcy and the cheap "nostalgia pop" or sequels rather than taking inspiration from and making your own thing. From announcement to release, the older fans are going over in fine detail for "authenticity" to my toy franchise and the makers are seemingly trying to appeal to them rather than a new audience. This doesn't really help either side, you try and cater to the old fans, as it's not perfectly like the rose tinted glasses showing things as high art are lukewarm to it if you're lucky and the newer fans who're watching it fresh aren't going to be going nuts because "OMG THEY GOT TOMMY AND KIMBERLY BACK!" or regular "Billy did that thing he did in episode 8 of the first series!" and unless the film works in its own right it won't really work out and is still dead on arrival as seems to have happened with the Power Rangers reboot for a new generation.

For all it's many, many flaws making it unwatchable for me, the female rebooted Ghostbusters did one thing right, it didn't try to be the original. It was louder, brasher and more in your face (not that I'm pretending the original was high art and very sophisticated in any way) and personally could have done without trying to "appeal" to the older fans with cameo roles.. Getting in Dan Aykroyd to say "I ain't afraid of no ghost" wasn't going to win certain people over and didn't need to happen. Counterpoint to Afterlife which the first time I saw it I loved it from start to finish and bawled my eyes out at the end, which on further viewings didn't have the same response and I'd put down as fine trying to look at it objectively with a decent family adventure but what had on first viewing really hit me about the ending was largely down to the nostalgia pop. The first of the two recent films would have much better been "off brand" and played out as an original film with obvious inspiration that no doubt reviewers would mention but it wouldn't have come chained with all the bullshit, I wouldn't want to predict trends as to whether things would have turned out better "as a franchise" or not. It's a good example of what you mentioned in the rest of your post in that rather than something taking inspiration from they just decided "let's try and reboot this cool franchise of yesteryear".

For me, Power Ranger dragged, the first half is relatively slow and it ramps up to a decent ending and that's where it's flaws were. It took too long to really get going, which is fine, it's the start of a story after all so you're expected to be introduced to it all and have the backstory and so on shown before things kick in. Older fans disliked this because they just wanted to see the rangers morph, get the zords out and wreck shit up. Newer audiences seemed to just find it a bit dull, so by the time that sort of thing happened they'd lost interest for the most part. I used to be good friends with someone a fair bit younger than me and we'd go to the cinema quite often. The reactions to the stinger sum it up. Mid 30s Lanky is watching and the rangers are in detention (again), teacher does the register and we get a Ferris Bueller type "Tommy Oliver?". Old fan smiles thinking of them "wheeling out the hits" and moving on to "Green with Evil". Early 20s friend raises an eyebrow and asks "is that meant to be the sequel hook?" Cool you've popped the fans but after sitting through perhaps an overlong slow film newer fans aren't going to give a shit about that. In the end neither sides of the audience are particularly happy and your reboot is gone before it's really started. Objectively I didn't think it was bad film but overall I can see why we didn't get that sequel with disappointing box offices and lukewarm responses for the most part.

This ended up being more tangental and rambly than I anticipated when I started typing. Apologies for the blob of text.

[BomberPat]

33 minutes ago, lanky316 said:

From announcement to release, the older fans are going over in fine detail for "authenticity" to my toy franchise and the makers are seemingly trying to appeal to them rather than a new audience.

This is the other side of it that I meant to mention - these are "kids' films", that aren't actually aimed at kids, they're aimed at blokes in their 30s and 40s who were kids when the original came out.

When I was a kid we had a ton of reboots of old Hanna Barbera cartoons from the '60s and '70s, but they were marketed towards children. They weren't making a new series of The Jetsons and marketing it to the 30/40-somethings who watched the original. 

[Hannibal Scorch]

Just a heads up that Rye Lane is now on Disney +

Edited May 3, 2023 by Hannibal Scorch

[bAzTNM#1]

Hi there. Want to start getting into the film watching again with "Predator" and "Predator 2". Is there any sort of chronological order I should be following after those two? Thanks.

[Hannibal Scorch]

1 hour ago, bAzTNM#1 said:

Hi there. Want to start getting into the film watching again with "Predator" and "Predator 2". Is there any sort of chronological order I should be following after those two? Thanks.

Prey is set hundreds of years prior to Predator. The Predators is god awful I’d skip that entirely 

[Devon Malcolm]

1 hour ago, bAzTNM#1 said:

Hi there. Want to start getting into the film watching again with "Predator" and "Predator 2". Is there any sort of chronological order I should be following after those two? Thanks.

No. Just watch them in order of release. Except the Alien vs Predator films because they're all shit.

[Lorne Malvo]

Every franchise ever should be watched in release date order. I've never been one for this 'watch the prequels first' stuff, prequels are made with the expectation that you've seen the original. 

[Devon Malcolm]

12 minutes ago, Lorne Malvo said:

Every franchise ever should be watched in release date order. I've never been one for this 'watch the prequels first' stuff

And in the case of Star Wars, you shouldn't watch the prequels ever.

[SuperBacon]

7 minutes ago, Devon Malcolm said:

And in the case of Star Wars, you shouldn't watch the prequels ever.

100% this. I did once when I watched them all when the 9 were finally on streaming but life is way too short, and I say that as someone who very much likes order and completism (not a word, whatevs) when watching films/TV etc.

They are just utter, utter shit.

[Frankie Crisp]

Tried to watch Bullet Train. It’s just awful. Not in a way that’s discrediting to the actors; they did their best. It’s just really crap. 

Gave up an hour in.

Edited May 8, 2023 by Frankie Crisp

[Devon Malcolm]

2 hours ago, Frankie Crisp said:

Tried to watch Bullet Train. It’s just awful. Not in a way that’s discrediting to the actors; they did their best. It’s just really crap. 

Gave up an hour in.

It doesn't get much better although Michael Shannon does make an appearance.

[Rossman]

Can't find the Talking Pictures thread so here will have to do.

They were showing cult British 50's film Hell Drivers this afternoon. Stanley Baker plays an ex-con who has to take a job, lorry driving at a gravel haulage company to pay the bills. He comes up against Patrick McGoohan's character who's a nasty bastard who stops anyone from muscling in on his crime racket.

The subcast is a who's who of British actors

Sid James (pre Carry on)

William Hartnell (pre Dr Who)

Sean Connery (pre James Bond)

Directed by Cy Endfield who went on to direct Zulu, with Stanley Baker starring.

 

[Keith Houchen]

11 minutes ago, Rossman said:

Can't find the Talking Pictures thread so here will have to do.

They were showing cult British 50's film Hell Drivers this afternoon. Stanley Baker plays an ex-con who has to take a job, lorry driving at a gravel haulage company to pay the bills. He comes up against Patrick McGoohan's character who's a nasty bastard who stops anyone from muscling in on his crime racket.

The subcast is a who's who of British actors

Sid James (pre Carry on)

William Hartnell (pre Dr Who)

Sean Connery (pre James Bond)

Directed by Cy Endfield who went on to direct Zulu, with Stanley Baker starring.

 

It’s here, and you’re right. An absolute belter of a film!

 

[Loki]

Hell Drivers is fantastic.  Stanley Baker in everything I've seen him in just looks perfect for Hollywood.  Was he ever in the running for Bond I wonder?  He never seemed to quite make the jump over the Atlantic, and then died so young.  I imagine him being around for spots in Star Wars, or as the British bad guy in the 80s.  A real "what if" for me.

[CleetusVanDamme]

Congo is super fun. I've been lied to, not just by everyone saying it was terrible, but also every bit of marketing I ever saw for it making it look like a trashy horror. I can't believe I've robbed myself of an adventure movie with apes, treasure, lasers and a volcano for 28 years, ffs. Tim Curry and Ernie Hudson know exactly what this is and are both wonderful at it. It's class.

I need one of these now!