Big Trouble in Little China remake

[Veil1]

One of my main questions is, Is the Rock going to be able to go against type? Can the Rock let himself play a bumbling, oafish, incompetent, blow-hard. With the original, the suits didn't understand what Carpenter and Russel were doing with the character. They thought Burton should be more of a traditional hero. I just wonder if the Rock will play Jack as just another run of the mill action hero. This reboot just sounds like a bad idea from start to finish.

 

[cilantropants]

Who gives a ****? Just ignore it. But I'm sure the loudest whiners will pay to see this multiple times just so they can justify their impotent rage without possible dismissal through ignorance when it comes out. And they'll completely ignore the irony of giving money to something they hate the idea of, giving studios a green light to remake some other thing they hold dear.

What does this harm? Answer that and maybe your (generally speaking without pointing to any specific individual, because it seems that disclaimers are necessary for a lot of things here) argument can be taken seriously. Otherwise, you're just a baby having a tantrum.

 

[RavenEye]

40 years and still no JAWS remake... Seems nostalgia still exists.

 

[Veil1]

Who gives a ****? Just ignore it. But I'm sure the loudest whiners will pay to see this multiple times just so they can justify their impotent rage without possible dismissal through ignorance when it comes out. And they'll completely ignore the irony of giving money to something they hate the idea of, giving studios a green light to remake some other thing they hold dear.

What does this harm? Answer that and maybe your (generally speaking without pointing to any specific individual, because it seems that disclaimers are necessary for a lot of things here) argument can be taken seriously. Otherwise, you're just a baby having a tantrum.

I do agree that the best way to get studios from doing things like this is to ignore the movie altogether. But that won't happen unfortunately.

 

[The Clown Prince of Crime]

we'll be seeing rumors of First Blood starring Jai Courtney as an Iraq war vet who goes toe to toe with the local law enforcement in a small town in West Virginia.

I love Rambo, he's my favorite movie hero/character of all time, and I wouldn't mind a remake after Stallone makes Rambo 5. I wouldn't mind a prequel with a young actor playing the role in Vietnam or in a story that takes place in the ten year gap between 1973(end of Vietnam war) and 1982 (First Blood). Having said that, **** Jai Courtney. I'll take Miles Teller as Rambo.

 

[cilantropants]

40 years and still no JAWS remake... Seems nostalgia still exists.

What the **** is this supposed to mean? And what kind of argument does it support?

 

[batfan08]

I love Rambo, he's my favorite movie hero/character of all time, and I wouldn't mind a remake after Stallone makes Rambo 5. I wouldn't mind a prequel with a young actor playing the role in Vietnam or in a story that takes place in the ten year gap between 1973(end of Vietnam war) and 1982 (First Blood). Having said that, **** Jai Courtney. I'll take Miles Teller as Rambo.

I was initially going to use "Oscar Isaac," but then I thought "****, that might actually be good."

 

[RavenEye]

What the **** is this supposed to mean? And what kind of argument does it support?

Means if JAWS gets remade we definitely know that Hollywood and a original idea has died.

 

[The Clown Prince of Crime]

I was initially going to use "Oscar Isaac," but then I thought "****, that might actually be good."

Yeah, he's a good choice! Can he get in Rambo shape though? Miles Teller can.

It's for a boxing film.

 

[Veil1]

What the **** is this supposed to mean? And what kind of argument does it support?

Wow, you are angry today. I just think he means that Hollywood still has some creative integrity. Some films are too classic even in Hollywood's eye to reboot/remake. Jaws, Casablanca, Citizen Kane, The Godfather... just to name a few.

 

[batfan08]

Who gives a ****? Just ignore it. But I'm sure the loudest whiners will pay to see this multiple times just so they can justify their impotent rage without possible dismissal through ignorance when it comes out. And they'll completely ignore the irony of giving money to something they hate the idea of, giving studios a green light to remake some other thing they hold dear.

What does this harm? Answer that and maybe your (generally speaking without pointing to any specific individual, because it seems that disclaimers are necessary for a lot of things here) argument can be taken seriously. Otherwise, you're just a baby having a tantrum.

I'll tell you who it's hurting, if you can tell me why it's necessary to remake a thirty year old box office bomb.

 

[batfan08]

Yeah, he's a good choice! Can he get in Rambo shape though? Miles Teller can.

It's for a boxing film.

****, now I'm thinking that First Blood might not be a bad choice, all things considered, if they went the True Grit route and made one that was closer to the novel (which pretty much means that it wouldn't be a new start to the "Rambo" franchise, so much as a one-off).

 

[The Clown Prince of Crime]

Wow, you are angry today. I just think he means that Hollywood still has some creative integrity. Some films are too classic even in Hollywood's eye to reboot/remake. Jaws, Casablanca, Citizen Kane, The Godfather... just to name a few.

They actually wanted to make a Casablanca remake with Denzel Washington years ago, but the project fell apart. I don't think any film should be off limits, but there should be some rules, like the film should be at least 25 years old, it should benefit from modern effects, and the story should benefits from a modern retelling, since the culture changes.

 

[Veil1]

They actually wanted to make a Casablanca remake with Denzel Washington years ago, but the project fell apart. I don't think any film should be off limits, but there should be some rules, like the film should be at least 25 years old, it should benefit from modern effects, and the story should benefits from a modern retelling, since the culture changes.

I guess I'm not opposed to remakes in general, but just the fast food way they do it. crappy writers and Directors to push out a movie for a quick buck. Some movies I just don't think can be improved on (effects not included, as that does not determine whether a film is good or not). Is Bruce the shark terrible by today's standards.... absolutely. Do I think anybody today could make Jaws a better film today... no.

 

[RavenEye]

I guess I'm not opposed to remakes in general, but just the fast food way they do it. crappy writers and Directors to push out a movie for a quick buck. Some movies I just don't think can be improved on (effects not included, as that does not determine whether a film is good or not). Is Bruce the shark terrible by today's standards.... absolutely. Do I think anybody today could make Jaws a better film today... no.

And that was back when Speilberg had production issues even then. .

 

[Veil1]

And that was back when Speilberg had production issues even then. .

Imagine what Jaws would have looked like if Spielberg didn't have to take short cuts because of production issues. Not seeing the shark until we did really made it a stronger and more tense film. Man, I love that movie.

 

[jrice73]

I love the fact that you pretty much said everything I wanted to as I was writing my post. Spot on analysis, sir.

Thank you. The magic of the original (just like Buckaroo Banzai or Repo Man) can never be duplicated or remade. That's why they're cult classics you know. With films like that, the planets align or lightning strikes in the right place only once. Can't be done again. And you're right. These films are always bombs, spit on by critics and audiences alike cause they are so "out there." Yet, they get shown at midnight at theatres or on cable tv, then people watch'em and realize, "holy ****. That's so ****ing crazy that it's cool." And the cult classic is born.

 

[batfan08]

I think it's just that contemporary remakes are so blatant and so ****ing cookie cutter that people hate them. A Fistful of Dollars is a remake of Yojimbo, yet both are awesome in their own respective ways. Hell, while we're on the subject of Carpenter, there would be no "The Thing," without "The Thing From Another World." Veil nailed it. They take something that was once unique and they turn it into something entirely generic.

I actually didn't mind Robocop. I'm a Keaton fan, so, it was nice to see him in something, but, after I saw it, I had no desire to ever watch it again. It wasn't even bad, it was just bland, and I felt the same way I did when I first heard they were making it: that it was completely unnecessary. It wasn't good enough that I can imagine it attracting the same sort of following from a new generation of viewers that the original did, and, as far as fans of the original go, we're always going to choose the original. It's just...redundant.

 

[Snake Plissken]

I am done with the Rock.

Been there for quite some time. Jack wasn't supposed to be some badass bodybuilder guy, he's just supposed to be a dumb truck driver that got by purely on dumb luck.

There are roughly 500 movies released each year in the US, and several thousand globally. Boy, what a crisis of creativity.

Who gives a ****? Just ignore it. But I'm sure the loudest whiners will pay to see this multiple times just so they can justify their impotent rage without possible dismissal through ignorance when it comes out. And they'll completely ignore the irony of giving money to something they hate the idea of, giving studios a green light to remake some other thing they hold dear.

What does this harm? Answer that and maybe your (generally speaking without pointing to any specific individual, because it seems that disclaimers are necessary for a lot of things here) argument can be taken seriously. Otherwise, you're just a baby having a tantrum.

What the **** is this supposed to mean? And what kind of argument does it support?

Wow, you are angry today. I just think he means that Hollywood still has some creative integrity. Some films are too classic even in Hollywood's eye to reboot/remake. Jaws, Casablanca, Citizen Kane, The Godfather... just to name a few.

All out of Prep H probably.

 

[devilof76]

Who gives a ****? Just ignore it. But I'm sure the loudest whiners will pay to see this multiple times just so they can justify their impotent rage without possible dismissal through ignorance when it comes out. And they'll completely ignore the irony of giving money to something they hate the idea of, giving studios a green light to remake some other thing they hold dear.

What does this harm? Answer that and maybe your (generally speaking without pointing to any specific individual, because it seems that disclaimers are necessary for a lot of things here) argument can be taken seriously. Otherwise, you're just a baby having a tantrum.

People have an opinion. Why don't you just ignore them instead of throwing a fit?