|
|
Post by onethreetwo on Aug 1, 2020 22:43:55 GMT
And yes I know Flubber was a remake. It's been 23 years. What do you think? Would you like a remake? Would you watch a remake if it was made?
|
|
|
|
Post by spooner5020 on Aug 1, 2020 23:01:24 GMT
No. I didn’t think the first remake was all that great. The only good thing I can say about it is Robin Williams. Also what would they do with a remake today?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 1, 2020 23:03:12 GMT
I think some concepts are meant for a different time.
As science begins to advance and knowledge becomes more available. The sense of wonder dies. That kind of film doesn’t have the same meaning it did in the 1950s, 1960s etc... even 1990s.
I don’t think a remake would be good for the following reasons...
A) It would be a cheesy Disney corny script.
B) It would be a half-assed concept with low budget cgi. Not too high dollar stuff.
C) It wouldn’t reach audiences anymore. In our time, even little kids wouldn’t like it.
|
|
|
|
Post by spooner5020 on Aug 1, 2020 23:11:25 GMT
I think some concepts are meant for a different time. As science begins to advance and knowledge becomes more available. The sense of wonder dies. That kind of film doesn’t have the same meaning it did in the 1950s, 1960s etc... even 1990s. I don’t think a remake would be good for the following reasons... A) It would be a cheesy Disney corny script. B) It would be a half-assed concept with low budget cgi. Not too high dollar stuff. C) It wouldn’t reach audiences anymore. In our time, even little kids wouldn’t like it. Did kids even like Flubber? When people bring up Flubber it’s usually for Robin Williams and not the movie itself. If the only thing they can talk about is Robin it says a lot about the movie. |
|
|
|
Post by Catman 猫的主人 on Aug 1, 2020 23:42:48 GMT
They could make it a musical with a female scientist. Ella Hunt would be perfect for the role.
|
|
|
|
Post by lowtacks86 on Aug 1, 2020 23:53:28 GMT
Forgt it, it wouldn't make much money. The 90s film was an interesting concept for the time, but that's only because CGI was a relatively new gimmick.
|
|
|
|
Post by femalefan on Aug 2, 2020 0:01:31 GMT
No. A remake would be ruined by "woke".
|
|
|
|
Post by gw on Aug 2, 2020 0:09:30 GMT
Forgt it, it wouldn't make much money. The 90s film was an interesting concept for the time, but that's only because CGI was a relatively new gimmick. I see your point but who says that live action with CGI is necessarily the end of special effects? For one thing they could make the whole movie in photoreal CGI which is still futuristic when it comes to large casts of human characters. Or they could make it with animatronic characters which may be be the new direction that special effects go in after everything's been done already in CGI and they need some direction to develop in. |
|
|
|
Post by spooner5020 on Aug 2, 2020 1:22:58 GMT
Forgt it, it wouldn't make much money. The 90s film was an interesting concept for the time, but that's only because CGI was a relatively new gimmick. I see your point but who says that live action with CGI is necessarily the end of special effects? For one thing they could make the whole movie in photoreal CGI which is still futuristic when it comes to large casts of human characters. Or they could make it with animatronic characters which may be be the new direction that special effects go in after everything's been done already in CGI and they need some direction to develop in. The problem isn’t the cgi. The problem is that the story is just not that interesting. It worked in The Absent Minded Professor cause it was something new. It was a story never done before. Flubber didn’t do anything new with the story if I remember correctly. There’s just not much you can really do with the Flubber story. If you were to remake it today there’s still not much you can really do with it. |
|
|
|
Post by ck100 on Aug 2, 2020 1:25:17 GMT
I don't think there is enough love/desire for a remake.
|
|
|
|
Post by gw on Aug 2, 2020 1:40:14 GMT
I see your point but who says that live action with CGI is necessarily the end of special effects? For one thing they could make the whole movie in photoreal CGI which is still futuristic when it comes to large casts of human characters. Or they could make it with animatronic characters which may be be the new direction that special effects go in after everything's been done already in CGI and they need some direction to develop in. The problem isn’t the cgi. The problem is that the story is just not that interesting. It worked in The Absent Minded Professor cause it was something new. It was a story never done before. Flubber didn’t do anything new with the story if I remember correctly. There’s just not much you can really do with the Flubber story. If you were to remake it today there’s still not much you can really do with it. Good point. I've seen both versions a while back. I think that it could work if they took a risk and changed the game of basketball in the movie by having different unique courts. The home court could be skewed so that the hoop is higher on one side of the court. The home team could have the lower hoop in the first half but still be behind in points. Then the professor could somehow get the players out of the locker room, put the flubber on their shoes and then they could come back strong in the second half. I realize this is a bit silly of a way to make the movie good, but it's a silly concept for a movie anyways so it just might work. |
|
|
|
Post by politicidal on Aug 2, 2020 13:50:40 GMT
No. A remake would be ruined by "woke". What, you think they gonna give it boobs or something? |
|
|
|
Post by Ass_E9 on Aug 2, 2020 16:21:09 GMT
Does Dwayne Johnson need that much work?
|
|
|
|
Post by spooner5020 on Aug 2, 2020 18:27:44 GMT
Does Dwayne Johnson need that much work? Make that Kevin Hart. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 3, 2020 11:28:13 GMT
2021 Flubber:
A black, female scientist and her Transgender Pronoun lab partner create flubber. The mean white male dean who only got that title using his white make privilege is trying to steal the concept and make money for himself.
The basketball scene is replaced with a cheerleader competition featuring woke multicultural females, males, and trans students.
|
|
|
|
Post by Vits on Jan 1, 2021 12:02:28 GMT
THE ABSENT-MINDED PROFESSOR 5/10 SON OF FLUBBER 1/10 FLUBBER has better pacing than THE ABSENT-MINDED PROFESSOR, and the speed-up effects are kept to a minimum, allowing the viewer to enjoy the slapstick more. Both versions are comedies, but this one also has a lot of emotional moments. Neither approach is necessarily better or worse than the other, but it's enough to justify the remake's existance. However, there's a downside to this. You see, the original got away with how the protagonist kept forgetting his own wedding, because the wacky tone prevented us from taking the story seriously. Since this one has a more emotional tone, it's harder to root for Professor Philip Brainard and Dr. Sara Jean Reynolds (the main couple). Why does she put up with him? At the end, they finally get married... through a video call. Why is she OK with this, if she wanted a normal wedding (are they even legally married despite not being in the same place)? If she didn't, why didn't she or anyone else suggest doing something like this before? Why didn't anyone suggest having the wedding at his house? I can't believe that this movie has such a dumb ending while the farcical original does show real growth. In fact, there's a moment where he justifies this behavior as "I'm absent-minded because I'm love," which is bullshit! Despite these issues with the character, Robin Williams' performance is likeable enough (by the way, so was Fred MacMurray's, despite being less over-the-top). You'd think that changing the title to the invention's name would mean more protagonism for it, but it doesn't happen. Dammit! SON OF FLUBBER (the original's sequel) was also a deceiving title, but at least the advertising wasn't. Here? Watch the trailer. Hell, just look at the poster. And yeah, it's a living being now, but it's still only seen in very few scenes. By comparison, more time is dedicated to Weebo, a robot assistant who's in love with Brainard. Aside from having an arguably cooler design, she has a complete story arc, culminating in a pre-recorded message that almost made me cry! Why isn't the movie titled after her?! When Brainard sees Flubber for the first time, he grabs it (without gloves!) and puts it on his face to see if the shape will change. Does that count as a kiss? 5/10 ------------------------------------- You can read comments of other movies in my blog. |
|
|
|
Post by CoolJGS☺ on Jan 1, 2021 14:32:16 GMT
No.
It’s time to make a new movie about a science teacher inventing a new thing.
|
|
|
|
Post by Mulder and Scully on Jan 1, 2021 14:37:13 GMT
I love Flubber. It's a childhood favorite of mine and it never gets boring.
No remake is needed. Robin Williams is irreplaceable.
|
|
|
|
Post by Ransom on Jan 2, 2021 8:25:51 GMT
I really hated that movie. Another one of those too childish for children movies.
|
|
|
|
Post by Ass_E9 on Jan 2, 2021 18:56:40 GMT
Perhaps, if it was Flubber vs The Blob.
|
|
