another unnecessary remake

[skippercollecto]

There is going to be a new film version of "The Honeymooners" starring Cedric the Entertainer as Ralph Kramden. My brain hurts just trying to envision it....
Mary

[braxiss]

why would they ruin one of the best shows ever made???

[Trotsky]

No.

The continued remakes shows they are out of ideas. The Honeymooners?! WTF? Hollywood is so lame nowadays that good ideas are seemingly hard ot come by, pretty sad if you ask me.
Now some will say "But BSG is a remake", yes, yes it is. But it is a good remake, a re-imaging as people around here have said. There really are not that many around that can be considered good, or even "I'll watch that 2 months from now". It's just kinda sad that Hollywood has to copy from the past.

/Rant done

[Bojay]

Wait till you see the ads for the new Kojak

[Darrell Lawrence]

I about threw up from laughing so hard at the new Kojak promo.

[Gemini1999]

Wait till you see the ads for the new Kojak

I did and I'm not going to bother......

Not because it's a remake, but it's yet another cop show (there are too many already) and I was never a big fan of the original show. Although, I thought that Telly Savalas was made for the part, or vice versa?

Best,
Bryan

[amberstar]

I agree the creative flame died in Hollywood.......to many remakes and re vamping old classic shows.
Given some have been good.... while most just suck the life out of it.

[bsg1fan1975]

I did and I'm not going to bother......

Not because it's a remake, but it's yet another cop show (there are too many already) and I was never a big fan of the original show. Although, I thought that Telly Savalas was made for the part, or vice versa?

Best,
Bryan



You got this one right Bryan! He did fit it better!

I can't believe that Hollyweird took the classic film "Guess who's coming to dinner" and turned it from a drama to a comedy! Sidney Poitier was in the film and turned out a very good performance. Why mess with such a good classic film and turn it to something that will probably bomb?

[cranky1c]

In other remake news. Read some of the stuff about the American remake of "The Office." Sounds similar to some of the points raised here.

[bsg1fan1975]

I think Amberstar is right, creativity has died!

[Trotsky]

Good point, another cop/lawyer show, another Medical show. I am kinda sick of all the stuff they think will entertain us. That's why I like BSG so much, along with certain other shows that transends network TV. :bg04:

[Gemini1999]

I can't believe that Hollyweird took the classic film "Guess who's coming to dinner" and turned it from a drama to a comedy! Sidney Poitier was in the film and turned out a very good performance. Why mess with such a good classic film and turn it to something that will probably bomb?

Egads!

I just saw the ad in the movie section of the paper today.... I'll never go see this! I loved the original film with Heburn, Tracy and Poitier. It's one of my favorite films from the late 60's.

As for the "creativity died" comment - I'm not so sure that it's died, it's just that Hollywood has lost it's focus. They've forgotten that the entertainment industry is about art and creativity, while making money at the same time. What's happened is that now, they focus on the making money. Art and creativity have taken a back seat (more like stowed in the trunk). Hollywood is out for a "sure thing" and doesn't know how to take chances anymore.

It's a very sad thing to happen, but at least there's almost 70 years of the good stuff before it all turned to crap...

Best,
Bryan

[Dawg]

There's an important difference, though, in this new "Guess Who's Coming to Dinner" reimagining.

It's not called "Guess Who's Coming to Dinner".

:blink:

;)

I am
Dawg
:warrior:

[Fragmentary]

As for the "creativity died" comment - I'm not so sure that it's died, it's just that Hollywood has lost it's focus. They've forgotten that the entertainment industry is about art and creativity, while making money at the same time. What's happened is that now, they focus on the making money. Art and creativity have taken a back seat (more like stowed in the trunk). Hollywood is out for a "sure thing" and doesn't know how to take chances anymore.
I think it's due to the fact that all of the studios are now owned by massive corporate parent companies. So the guys who used to be able to greenlight a picture just because it was a great film, no longer can. Now they have to answer to the business men above them who in turn have to cater exclusively to stock holders who only care about their return.

Hollywood, like so much of the rest of America, is just a result of a handfull of big companies buying up more and more little ones.

[Senmut]

I think Amberstar is right, creativity has died!


True, but it's more than that. These parasites, and I call them that because they create nothing new, just steal and mutilate the work of others, do what they do in order to keep themselves employed. They have no new ideas. They can't even remake something in a decent way. 90% of their "re-imaginings" are El Puke-o, but with their bloated egos, they don't truly care. After all, it's that, or go and find a real job.

[julix]

I think it is really sad that there is this trend to remake classics with "new twists" and it just totally destroys the original.....most of the time. I think everyone hit the nail on the head with money and bussiness and stock holders, being the reason.......
no one wants to seem to take a chance anymore. where is Huges when we need him ....lol His big budget film was a big chance that paid off (can't think of the name....had lots of planes in it-maybe a war movie)

[Gunstar Aries]

I agree the creative flame died in Hollywood.......

Amberstar does indeed nail it right there.

And Senmut, you're right, they are parasites. Why do you think they're doing all the comic book movies? Because comic books are the last source of original material that these vultures haven't picked over yet. And not just the 'known' comic commodities like X-Men and Spiderman, but Men In Black and Sin City were also comics.

Past that, all Hollywood does is look at what's already been done, then think, "Well, I can do it better..." which usually just means more politcally correct than that previous version. TNS fans look away but I'll cite MooreRon and his little project as a prime example.

Only the independents have any originality. Gibson put his own money at stake to make the Passion, becuase he believed in the project. None of these studio types would/are willing to have that kind of commitment...

Regards all,

G A

[gmd3d]

I agree with the "fact" that Hoolywood has no Creativity left in it . I far more enjoy whats coming out of europe These days. even in languages I don't understand .

GONE are the day when the Days when the Director ruled the set . now the lead actor can tell the man with the vision to pack his bags and get lost ..

[bsg1fan1975]

Just to let you guys know parts of the remake of "War of the Worlds" was filmed near where I live. I wish the studios and the suits would see what they are doing to movies today. I mean even though "Phantom of the Opera" was taken from a musical bearing the same name, not much was lost in the translation to film.

[cranky1c]

I disagree. It's not lack of creativity but an over reliance on brand marketing. There are no shortage of good stories to be told; but why take a chance on a new story when you have a sure bet by embellishing on a known story. Doing new things means making a bet which you can lose. Granted commerce has driven art for a long time, but the prendulum has swung so far in the direction of the safe bet that riskier, and potentially more entertaining, ventures don't seem to make it to the screen.

[bsg1fan1975]

why are classic movies being killed off by remaking them as is being done today. Its not right and in a way its like tearing down an old church to put up a shopping mall!

[skippercollecto]

It's 2035 (thirty years from now), and the following movies are in production or are being released this year:
1. The live-action version of the PowerPuff Girls.
2. Everybody Loves Raymond, starring a multi-ethnic cast.
3. The Matrix, starring Lindsay Lohan as Neo.
4. ER, the musical.
5. Law & Order, starring Malcolm David Kelley, Brittany Snow and Gregory Smith as Lennie Brisco (read a teen magazine if you don't know who they are).
The screenwriters, producers and bankers in Hollywood (who in 2005 are in their 30s, and the above programs are things they loved growing up or in their young adulthood) will have no right to complain when their generation's sacred cows are tampered with.

Mary

[amberstar]

why are classic movies being killed off by remaking them as is being done today. Its not right and in a way its like tearing down an old church to put up a shopping mall!

Well said my friend :D

[Senmut]

It's 2035 (thirty years from now), and the following movies are in production or are being released this year:
1. The live-action version of the PowerPuff Girls.
2. Everybody Loves Raymond, starring a multi-ethnic cast.
3. The Matrix, starring Lindsay Lohan as Neo.
4. ER, the musical.
5. Law & Order, starring Malcolm David Kelley, Brittany Snow and Gregory Smith as Lennie Brisco (read a teen magazine if you don't know who they are).
The screenwriters, producers and bankers in Hollywood (who in 2005 are in their 30s, and the above programs are things they loved growing up or in their young adulthood) will have no right to complain when their generation's sacred cows are tampered with.

Mary


Shouldn't that be Law & Order: Geriatric Victims Unit?

[skippercollecto]

A remake of "Yours, Mine and Ours" is due to be released in November. I suppose this is due to the popularity of the remake of "Cheaper by the Dozen."
The original 1968 film was one of my top 10 favorite childhood movies.
I have read "Cheaper by the Dozen" and "Belles on Their Toes" which were biographies of a large, real, family in the 1890s. I have also read "Who Gets the Drumstick?," the biography on which "Yours, Mine and Ours" is based.
The original theatrical versions of both "YMO" and "Cheaper" were set in the actual time periods in which they took place, and they kept all of the children's real names. The new remakes updated both stories for the 21st century, and changed all the children's names to be "trendy."
ARRRGGGHHH!
If I were a member of these families I would be really, really insulted.

Mary

P.S. I will be so glad when Hollywood gets out of the remake business. Last year I decided I am no longer seeing any movies based on comic books, old movies or TV series, and except for Revenge of the Sith, haven't seen any sequels. This means I am not seeing most of the major Hollywood films anymore.

[cobrastrikelead]

You could do a remake of Dukes of Hazzard which was irreverant to start with, and probably if done right, come up with pretty good movie. But the Honeymooners was/is a benchmark, and a remake will pale in comparison. What next? A re-imagining of Friends??

[martok2112]

Right now, the only thing attracting me to this movie is Jessica Simpson in cutoffs. (Acting abilities, not a consideration.) :D

[captmiloman]

It's 2035 (thirty years from now), and the following movies are in production or are being released this year:
1. The live-action version of the PowerPuff Girls.
2. Everybody Loves Raymond, starring a multi-ethnic cast.
3. The Matrix, starring Lindsay Lohan as Neo.
4. ER, the musical.
5. Law & Order, starring Malcolm David Kelley, Brittany Snow and Gregory Smith as Lennie Brisco (read a teen magazine if you don't know who they are).
The screenwriters, producers and bankers in Hollywood (who in 2005 are in their 30s, and the above programs are things they loved growing up or in their young adulthood) will have no right to complain when their generation's sacred cows are tampered with.

Mary

Thirty years from now we will also see the following:
Star Wars(remakes of EP's 1-6 produced in chronilogical order, followed by EP's 7-9)
A "re-imagining" of the current Galactica series brought to the big screen which will basically tick fans of all incarnations off
Other TV shows to be remade into feature films will be:
Friends
The Job
Rescue Me
The Shield
Cop Rock
Malcom In the Middle

[captmiloman]

I wonder if anyone has the stones to remake the following:
I love Lucy
Bonanza
Gunsmoke
M*A*S*H

Which movie started this trend? My guess would be "Dragnet"(1987) from, you guessed it, Universal Studios. Although, that movie technically could be considered a continuation of "Dragnet '70" set seventeen years later(Joe Friday's nephew, who also carried the same name, Harry Morgan reprising his role as Bill Gannon, and Tom Hanks as a new character.)

[larocque6689]

P.S. I will be so glad when Hollywood gets out of the remake business. Last year I decided I am no longer seeing any movies based on comic books, old movies or TV series, and except for Revenge of the Sith, haven't seen any sequels. This means I am not seeing most of the major Hollywood films anymore.

Hollywood has been doing remakes as long as there has been Hollywood. Anybody who has scanned titles from the 1930s nd 1940s will see one, sometimes two remakes of films, some of which stretch back to the silent era. Another popular concept is to remake a foriegn flim for the domestic market. Again, very common.

Occasionally you will find a remake superior to the original. Based on most remakes I've from the past 30 years, I'm tempted to say "no" most of the time, though.

Has anybody seen the Billy Bob Thornton / Richard Linklater Bad News Bears remake? That has enough name value for me (I love Linklater's films) that I'm curious. (The original film was written by Bill Lancaster - son of Burt ! )

[LadyImmortal]

Nothing they do in Hollywood surprises me anymore.

NOTHING.

:)

[skippercollecto]

There have been numerous versions of Little Women, The Three Musketeers and Shakespeare plays, and probably close to a 1,000 versions of A Christmas Carol, including all those parodies on sitcoms. And since the 1940s, there have been a number of versions each of Batman and Superman. But this is what is different now, and this is what is so irritating:
1. These contemporary versions are remade to make them more "politically correct" when sometimes the point of the earlier versions is that they pointed out inequalities in life!
2. The new versions are being made because the old ones are "cheesy"--that is, the special effects and sets of the earlier shows used what was state-of-the-art-technology for their time and not 2005 computer technology. I think that calling a movie or TV series from the 1900s to the earlier 1990s "cheesy" simply because they weren't made with 21st century CGI is not only an insult to the original filmmakers and their fans but also shows a terrible lack of imagination on the part of the people doing the remakes.
Mary
P.S. Oh, and there's the quick moneymaking factor based on name recognition, but that topic's been discussed before.

[Tabitha]

Im still waiting for them to finally make a movie version of the Rama books. In my mind I can see the ships, I can see the equipment. I would go see it if they made a movie, just to get something to hold onto, like I did with Dune (Both the movie and the mini series). It seems to me all the remakes so far have been an effort to take a classic family show and infuse it with sex, violence, and cheap comedy.

tabbi

[Pegasus4]

I wonder if anyone has the stones to remake the following:
I love Lucy
Bonanza
Gunsmoke
M*A*S*H


shhh, don't give them any ideas ;)

There have been numerous versions of Little Women, The Three Musketeers and Shakespeare plays, and probably close to a 1,000 versions of A Christmas Carol, including all those parodies on sitcoms. And since the 1940s, there have been a number of versions each of Batman and Superman. But this is what is different now, and this is what is so irritating:
1. These contemporary versions are remade to make them more "politically correct" when sometimes the point of the earlier versions is that they pointed out inequalities in life!
2. The new versions are being made because the old ones are "cheesy"--that is, the special effects and sets of the earlier shows used what was state-of-the-art-technology for their time and not 2005 computer technology. I think that calling a movie or TV series from the 1900s to the earlier 1990s "cheesy" simply because they weren't made with 21st century CGI is not only an insult to the original filmmakers and their fans but also shows a terrible lack of imagination on the part of the people doing the remakes.

well said Skipper. that's what I think too. that's also why somebody did Special Editions (twice) of his first big movie because he couldn't stand to see its 1977 special effects anymore.

And I liked Batman Begins. Thought it was very faithful to the books.

Remember kids: Say No to Remakes

Statler and Waldorf doing their biweekly reviews of new movies at www.movies.com constantly bash the idea of remakes.

[bsg1fan1975]

What's next, making a classic movie like Ben Hur into a comedy? These people need to get their heads out of the sand where they buried them and see what this is doing to the theater revenues!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!