|
Post by moviemouth on Nov 30, 2021 23:36:41 GMT
There has been original movies that have come out the last few years but people in mass arent interested in them. When they say they want something original, they mean the same thing but in a different coat of paint. Which is what this remake will be. I don't think most critics of remakes mean the box office needs to be filled with totally original, completely off the radar, groundbreakingly different movies...but when they remake relatively simple, easily copied sports comedies. They could just as easily call it "Street Hustle" and keep the cast the same and never allude to it being a remake and people will enjoy it just fine.
Or at least that's my belief. I just don't know whether it being a remake is gonna make a dent box office wise in this case. Other cases i could understand...long standing franchises or movies that have the potential to be so much greater, for example...but in this case I just don't see it. Exactly. They do this all the time and it has been done for a very long time. Though those movie usually get the harsher criticism of being a rip-off.
|
|
|
Post by Lux on Nov 30, 2021 23:37:28 GMT
Money Train is not a good movie though, so there would be more sense in remaking that. The point of remaking movies is almost always about making money, so to remake a movie that isn't popular doesn't make very much sense. True...but doesn't that suck tho? If any movies SHOULD be remade, its the ones that suck. Remake them better. But that's not how things go. But White Men can't Jump wasn't a particularly good movie either the fact I confused it with another movie says it all.
|
|
|
Post by moviemouth on Nov 30, 2021 23:44:23 GMT
Money Train is not a good movie though, so there would be more sense in remaking that. The point of remaking movies is almost always about making money, so to remake a movie that isn't popular doesn't make very much sense. True...but doesn't that suck tho? If any movies SHOULD be remade, its the ones that suck. Remake them better. But that's not how things go. Yes. I don't like to be too critical of remakes in general because there are plenty of remakes I like more than the originals, the problem is using remakes as a crutch. Every once in a while we will get a King Kong or The Departed (movies made by directors with ambition and talent that care about the quality of their movies), but those are few and far between. I do think there are plenty of good original movies being made still, but there are way too many remakes and sequels being made too.
|
|
|
Post by ck100 on Dec 1, 2021 0:29:27 GMT
A lot of these modern late-arriving sequels and reboots claim to do things new and differently, but really don't (or not much) - The Force Awakens, Ghostbusters: Afterlife, etc. Too much pandering to fans, using nostalgia, fan service, being too safe, familiar, and derivative, etc.
|
|
|
Post by Rey Kahuka on Dec 1, 2021 1:07:35 GMT
A lot of these modern late-arriving sequels and reboots claim to do things new and differently, but really don't (or not much) - The Force Awakens, Ghostbusters: Afterlife, etc. Too much pandering to fans, using nostalgia, fan service, being too safe, familiar, and derivative, etc. How can a sequel not be derivative? The very purpose of these movies is to pander to fans, and hopefully introduce a new audience to the franchise. Afterlife could certainly be accused of pandering too much (though I enjoyed it), while TFA tried to do the same thing and failed miserably. The SW sequels felt they had to tear down the mythos to prop up the new characters while Afterlife embraced what came before. It's a huge difference. I understand rolling your eyes at Afterlife even if I don't agree with that sentiment; but the Star Wars sequels were straight up offensive to longtime fans. There's also a huge difference between a sequel and a remake, though frankly I'd prefer a bad remake to a bad sequel, because at least I can ignore the bad remake and it doesn't affect the canon of the original work. They've been remaking films for as long as they've been making films. Ben-Hur (1959) was itself a remake. Even if I think the remake is pointless, I can respect the filmmaker for having the balls to try it, instead of pulling a Blade Runner 2049 or Star Trek: Into Darkness on us. Those are lousy films pretending not to be bad remakes of the original work.
|
|
|
Post by ck100 on Dec 1, 2021 1:24:30 GMT
A lot of these modern late-arriving sequels and reboots claim to do things new and differently, but really don't (or not much) - The Force Awakens, Ghostbusters: Afterlife, etc. Too much pandering to fans, using nostalgia, fan service, being too safe, familiar, and derivative, etc. How can a sequel not be derivative? The very purpose of these movies is to pander to fans, and hopefully introduce a new audience to the franchise. Afterlife could certainly be accused of pandering too much (though I enjoyed it), while TFA tried to do the same thing and failed miserably. The SW sequels felt they had to tear down the mythos to prop up the new characters while Afterlife embraced what came before. It's a huge difference. I understand rolling your eyes at Afterlife even if I don't agree with that sentiment; but the Star Wars sequels were straight up offensive to longtime fans. There's also a huge difference between a sequel and a remake, though frankly I'd prefer a bad remake to a bad sequel, because at least I can ignore the bad remake and it doesn't affect the canon of the original work. They've been remaking films for as long as they've been making films. Ben-Hur (1959) was itself a remake. Even if I think the remake is pointless, I can respect the filmmaker for having the balls to try it, instead of pulling a Blade Runner 2049 or Star Trek: Into Darkness on us. Those are lousy films pretending not to be bad remakes of the original work. I wouldn't call Empire Strikes Back or Godfather II derivative sequels. A good sequel should deepen the characters, go on a new adventure, raise the stakes, etc. Its goal isn't to pander or introduce to a new audience. If a filmmaker is trying to make a different sequel/reboot, then I don't believe they're trying to insult fans, be blasphemous to the previous film, etc. I think they just don't want to repeat the previous film, make a sequel that's a rehash/retread, be derivative, etc. I believe they love and respect what was done before, but the past is the past. Sure, what they do won't please everyone, but taking risks are what most good sequels/reboots do. If you just want what was done before, then go watch the original film again. I have more respect for what guys like Rian Johnson and Paul Feig did than for what J.J. Abrams and Jason Reitman did. And I like Blade Runner 2049 and wouldn't call it a remake or rehash or whatever.
|
|
|
Post by Rey Kahuka on Dec 1, 2021 4:01:22 GMT
How can a sequel not be derivative? The very purpose of these movies is to pander to fans, and hopefully introduce a new audience to the franchise. Afterlife could certainly be accused of pandering too much (though I enjoyed it), while TFA tried to do the same thing and failed miserably. The SW sequels felt they had to tear down the mythos to prop up the new characters while Afterlife embraced what came before. It's a huge difference. I understand rolling your eyes at Afterlife even if I don't agree with that sentiment; but the Star Wars sequels were straight up offensive to longtime fans. There's also a huge difference between a sequel and a remake, though frankly I'd prefer a bad remake to a bad sequel, because at least I can ignore the bad remake and it doesn't affect the canon of the original work. They've been remaking films for as long as they've been making films. Ben-Hur (1959) was itself a remake. Even if I think the remake is pointless, I can respect the filmmaker for having the balls to try it, instead of pulling a Blade Runner 2049 or Star Trek: Into Darkness on us. Those are lousy films pretending not to be bad remakes of the original work. I wouldn't call Empire Strikes Back or Godfather II derivative sequels. A good sequel should deepen the characters, go on a new adventure, raise the stakes, etc. Its goal isn't to pander or introduce to a new audience. If a filmmaker is trying to make a different sequel/reboot, then I don't believe they're trying to insult fans, be blasphemous to the previous film, etc. I think they just don't want to repeat the previous film, make a sequel that's a rehash/retread, be derivative, etc. I believe they love and respect what was done before, but the past is the past. Sure, what they do won't please everyone, but taking risks are what most good sequels/reboots do. If you just want what was done before, then go watch the original film again. I have more respect for what guys like Rian Johnson and Paul Feig did than for what J.J. Abrams and Jason Reitman did. And I like Blade Runner 2049 and wouldn't call it a remake or rehash or whatever. Sequels made many years later only exist to introduce the franchise to a new demographic. ESB and Godfather II were immediate sequels compared to the Star Wars sequel trilogy or Afterlife for example. And in the case of Afterlife, the filmmakers went out of their way to turn what was an all ages comedy into a fluffy kids flick with a wink to older fans. They didn't try to run it back with the same point of view characters. A storyline or character exists within a certain zeitgeist that's impossible to recreate so many years later. Die Hard 4 & 5, or Jason Bourne simply put the same characters in the same situations, but the moment had passed. Those films feel like what they are: watered down facsimiles of the original. They literally have no reason to exist because they add nothing to the story, and in fact you're better off watching the original trilogy again. The Last Jedi is absolute garbage. It doesn't take chances, it destroys canon. It hijacks Star Wars characters and storylines and turns it into a farce. It's Star Wars in name only. JJ tried too hard to please fans, Johnson tried too hard to piss them off. Both used terrible approaches that ultimately ruined the saga. If you don't respect the material, don't try to profit from its name. "I understand what people like about Star Wars, but I'm doing something original here." Then make your own Star Wars spoof like Mel Brooks did. Don't ruin the franchise under the guise of 'being edgy.' Rian Johnson did nothing interesting with the Star Wars mythos, and he took an already bland rehash in TFA and made it completely incoherent by retconning it on the fly. Then JJ retconned it back to a rehash in ROS. It's all garbage. I haven't seen Ghostbusters 2016 because it didn't look funny, I have no problem with it conceptually. And why you can respect that movie (which tries just as hard to recapture the basic formula of the original) and not enjoy Afterlife is beyond me. Afterlife is a reimagining of the original with kids instead of all women, as if the latter was any more clever. And again, at least Afterlife had the good sense to respect the original characters while not focusing on them, something JJ or Rian Johnson could never figure out. Blade Runner 2049 is absolutely a rehash. Same painstaking dedication to aesthetics and an ethereal sounding film score; it's always snowing instead of always raining; same exploration of the human experience as told through the eyes of non-humans (again, only lazier and completely uninspired). They tell the same story while reversing the basic plot elements. The detective (who is openly a replicant as opposed to secretly as with the original, and I cannot stress enough that Deckard being a replicant or not was never supposed to be a focal point of the original) is unwittingly unraveling the mystery of his own identity as he tries to stop a killer. Leto's character is an over the top caricature of the Eldon Tyrell type. Deckard assumed he was human until the very end of BR, K assumes he's unique until the very end of BR 2049. Jesus, K's death scene features the 'tears in rain' music! It's a rehash from top to bottom. Talk about derivative. I agree with you here: Couldn't agree more, which is why I think most sequels are unnecessary. But I'd also say this: If you want to 'do something original,' come up with your own fucking concept instead of hijacking an existing IP to sucker people into watching your lazy attempt at storytelling. If you're going to label it 'Star Wars,' 'Ghostbusters,' or 'Die Hard,' it better at least try to feel like something from that universe. Otherwise, why use the name? As film fans, we just need to accept the remakes and endless sequels at this point, because the well has dried up/studios want to play it safe/the best material will probably be streaming shows. It's going to keep happening whether we like it or not, all we can do is hope the material falls into competent hands.
|
|
|
Post by mstreepsucks on Dec 1, 2021 6:44:49 GMT
Is this the one with the train crash in a New York subway? That’s Metro. Similar cast tho. The metro is a song by berlin. It's actually probably their best song.
|
|
|
Post by ck100 on Dec 1, 2021 7:47:09 GMT
Other metros:
|
|
|
Post by politicidal on Mar 3, 2022 17:37:25 GMT
|
|
|
Post by politicidal on May 6, 2022 2:12:26 GMT
Lance Reddick, Teyana Taylor & Laura Harrier join the cast.
|
|