Options

Signs that the End is Near [Hollywood Edition]

124

Posts

  • Options
    RitchmeisterRitchmeister Registered User regular
    edited March 2010
    Slider wrote: »
    I'm watching a few British television comedies, but they only seem to be sketches, rather than, I don't know, stories.

    Is this a popular thing in England? Seems like a lot of the same Monty Python stuff to me.

    Try The Inbetweeners and Peep Show.

    Ritchmeister on
  • Options
    FencingsaxFencingsax It is difficult to get a man to understand, when his salary depends upon his not understanding GNU Terry PratchettRegistered User regular
    edited March 2010
    Slider wrote: »
    I'm watching a few British television comedies, but they only seem to be sketches, rather than, I don't know, stories.

    Is this a popular thing in England? Seems like a lot of the same Monty Python stuff to me.

    Blackadder, Red Dwarf, Jeeves and Wooster, to name a few.

    Fencingsax on
  • Options
    NumiNumi Registered User regular
    edited March 2010
    It is hard to beat Yes Minister/Prime Minister when it comes to political comedy, probably some of the best stuff ever made.

    Numi on
  • Options
    frandelgearslipfrandelgearslip 457670Registered User regular
    edited March 2010
    Inter_d wrote: »
    White people should really just retaliate by remaking black movies with white people! You could do,........Malcom X, and many more!

    Considering that MTV was crucified for doing a sketch of a white Malcom X I doubt anyone would have the guts to do a whole movie.

    frandelgearslip on
  • Options
    CptHamiltonCptHamilton Registered User regular
    edited March 2010
    Quid wrote: »
    Apothe0sis wrote: »
    Hustle

    vs.

    Leverage

    The latter is broken, so broken.

    As far as I know Leverage is not based on Hustle. And in fact, the only real similarity is "Likable group of con men con bad people" which didn't exactly start with Hustle. But either way both are good shows.

    Burn Notice is one of these shows as well.

    I haven't seen Hustle, but I find Leverage incredibly annoying. It reminds me of CSI.

    Leverage is an okay show. But I get the feeling they're not going 'far enough' with the concept. The pilot episode was pretty good, but then the tone kind of changed and it feels...wimpier...somehow. As if they're too hamstrung by the 'bad guys being good guys' thing.

    Have you watched all of it? The end of Season 2 goes a good deal further out. I thought, anyway.

    Yes, I have thanks to the wonder that is Netflix streaming. I like the show, but it's...lacking. Sending Nate back to the drink wasn't exactly 'edgy'. I'm still wondering exactly how these nobodies know where to find this group of con-men.

    Plus, the nature of their getting paid seems to be glossed over or ignored because it might potentially make them out to be 'bad guys' for getting paid.

    And the fact that both seasons end with the same basic premise... It feels desperate somehow. A kind of artificial drama that a show somewhat on the bubble doesn't need. If they keep doing it, one year it'll backfire horribly.

    The pay and finding clients bits I just grant it as the conceits of the show; I have more problems with Hardison's 1-click-interface computer than either of those, really. But I agree that Nate going back to drinking was basically pointless. The whole false sense of invincibility thing could have played better if he was sober while he was doing it. I appreciate that the end of both seasons was basically a breakup of the group. If season 3 hadn't been greenlit I wouldn't be left on a cliffhanger or wondering what happened to everybody; in both cases you're left with the assumption that they just went their own ways.

    CptHamilton on
    PSN,Steam,Live | CptHamiltonian
  • Options
    TrippyJingTrippyJing Moses supposes his toeses are roses. But Moses supposes erroneously.Registered User regular
    edited March 2010
    See, now I really want to find a recording (or something) of Othello as played by Patrick Stewart.

    TrippyJing on
    b1ehrMM.gif
  • Options
    Santa ClaustrophobiaSanta Claustrophobia Ho Ho Ho Disconnecting from Xbox LIVERegistered User regular
    edited March 2010
    Quid wrote: »
    Apothe0sis wrote: »
    Hustle

    vs.

    Leverage

    The latter is broken, so broken.

    As far as I know Leverage is not based on Hustle. And in fact, the only real similarity is "Likable group of con men con bad people" which didn't exactly start with Hustle. But either way both are good shows.

    Burn Notice is one of these shows as well.

    I haven't seen Hustle, but I find Leverage incredibly annoying. It reminds me of CSI.

    Leverage is an okay show. But I get the feeling they're not going 'far enough' with the concept. The pilot episode was pretty good, but then the tone kind of changed and it feels...wimpier...somehow. As if they're too hamstrung by the 'bad guys being good guys' thing.

    Have you watched all of it? The end of Season 2 goes a good deal further out. I thought, anyway.

    Yes, I have thanks to the wonder that is Netflix streaming. I like the show, but it's...lacking. Sending Nate back to the drink wasn't exactly 'edgy'. I'm still wondering exactly how these nobodies know where to find this group of con-men.

    Plus, the nature of their getting paid seems to be glossed over or ignored because it might potentially make them out to be 'bad guys' for getting paid.

    And the fact that both seasons end with the same basic premise... It feels desperate somehow. A kind of artificial drama that a show somewhat on the bubble doesn't need. If they keep doing it, one year it'll backfire horribly.

    The pay and finding clients bits I just grant it as the conceits of the show; I have more problems with Hardison's 1-click-interface computer than either of those, really. But I agree that Nate going back to drinking was basically pointless. The whole false sense of invincibility thing could have played better if he was sober while he was doing it. I appreciate that the end of both seasons was basically a breakup of the group. If season 3 hadn't been greenlit I wouldn't be left on a cliffhanger or wondering what happened to everybody; in both cases you're left with the assumption that they just went their own ways.

    My complaints are mostly just the 'it bugs me' variety. But the 'breakup' thing still annoys me. This is the third time they've done that in three seasons and always because they're not sure if they're going to be picked up for broadcast. It's getting a bit old after just 28 episodes.

    And the 'will they, won't they' crap is also old. He's not Sam, she's not Diane, this isn't 1983. Writing Sophie out to cover Bellman's pregnancy was fairly clever and filling her 'part' with Jeri Ryan was an interesting swerve, but having her film bits in front of blue screens to keep her part of the show felt out of place.

    Like I said, some things just kind of bug me about the show, as good as it is.

    Santa Claustrophobia on
  • Options
    CptHamiltonCptHamilton Registered User regular
    edited March 2010
    Quid wrote: »
    Apothe0sis wrote: »
    Hustle

    vs.

    Leverage

    The latter is broken, so broken.

    As far as I know Leverage is not based on Hustle. And in fact, the only real similarity is "Likable group of con men con bad people" which didn't exactly start with Hustle. But either way both are good shows.

    Burn Notice is one of these shows as well.

    I haven't seen Hustle, but I find Leverage incredibly annoying. It reminds me of CSI.

    Leverage is an okay show. But I get the feeling they're not going 'far enough' with the concept. The pilot episode was pretty good, but then the tone kind of changed and it feels...wimpier...somehow. As if they're too hamstrung by the 'bad guys being good guys' thing.

    Have you watched all of it? The end of Season 2 goes a good deal further out. I thought, anyway.

    Yes, I have thanks to the wonder that is Netflix streaming. I like the show, but it's...lacking. Sending Nate back to the drink wasn't exactly 'edgy'. I'm still wondering exactly how these nobodies know where to find this group of con-men.

    Plus, the nature of their getting paid seems to be glossed over or ignored because it might potentially make them out to be 'bad guys' for getting paid.

    And the fact that both seasons end with the same basic premise... It feels desperate somehow. A kind of artificial drama that a show somewhat on the bubble doesn't need. If they keep doing it, one year it'll backfire horribly.

    The pay and finding clients bits I just grant it as the conceits of the show; I have more problems with Hardison's 1-click-interface computer than either of those, really. But I agree that Nate going back to drinking was basically pointless. The whole false sense of invincibility thing could have played better if he was sober while he was doing it. I appreciate that the end of both seasons was basically a breakup of the group. If season 3 hadn't been greenlit I wouldn't be left on a cliffhanger or wondering what happened to everybody; in both cases you're left with the assumption that they just went their own ways.

    My complaints are mostly just the 'it bugs me' variety. But the 'breakup' thing still annoys me. This is the third time they've done that in three seasons and always because they're not sure if they're going to be picked up for broadcast. It's getting a bit old after just 28 episodes.

    And the 'will they, won't they' crap is also old. He's not Sam, she's not Diane, this isn't 1983. Writing Sophie out to cover Bellman's pregnancy was fairly clever and filling her 'part' with Jeri Ryan was an interesting swerve, but having her film bits in front of blue screens to keep her part of the show felt out of place.

    Like I said, some things just kind of bug me about the show, as good as it is.

    She was pregnant? That was my guess as to why they wrote her out like that but I didn't see mention of it on wikipedia and didn't bother digging any deeper than that.

    To go back to the topic, though: What is up with the glut of remakes lately? I mean, I know that there have always been remakes and the current period isn't special, but it really seems like every other movie that comes out is either a remake or a franchise reboot. And the ones that aren't are based on popular novels or comics (which isn't new either, but the density seems high).

    CptHamilton on
    PSN,Steam,Live | CptHamiltonian
  • Options
    Kipling217Kipling217 Registered User regular
    edited March 2010
    We live in a post-modern age, we don't do "new shit for the sake of new shit" anymore. We do "old shit in new ways". We take stories and stuff and try to put a new spin on it.

    Sometimes you get great stuff out of it and sometimes you get tired rehashes of old stuff that wasn't funny the first time.

    Kipling217 on
    The sky was full of stars, every star an exploding ship. One of ours.
  • Options
    CptHamiltonCptHamilton Registered User regular
    edited March 2010
    Kipling217 wrote: »
    We live in a post-modern age, we don't do "new shit for the sake of new shit" anymore. We do "old shit in new ways". We take stories and stuff and try to put a new spin on it.

    Sometimes you get great stuff out of it and sometimes you get tired rehashes of old stuff that wasn't funny the first time.

    I don't know about all that. There's plenty of new shit for the sake of new shit out there. I suspect it's more to do with Hollywood realizing that even though sequels usually did worse, financially, than the first installment in a franchise, there is some built-in audience provided that the original was popular, which you don't have at all in a new property. I mean, if you want to blame post-modernism... the original Death At A Funeral is 3 years old. Did we become Post-Modern sometime in 2008?

    CptHamilton on
    PSN,Steam,Live | CptHamiltonian
  • Options
    Santa ClaustrophobiaSanta Claustrophobia Ho Ho Ho Disconnecting from Xbox LIVERegistered User regular
    edited March 2010
    Kipling217 wrote: »
    We live in a post-modern age, we don't do "new shit for the sake of new shit" anymore. We do "old shit in new ways". We take stories and stuff and try to put a new spin on it.

    Sometimes you get great stuff out of it and sometimes you get tired rehashes of old stuff that wasn't funny the first time.

    I don't know about all that. There's plenty of new shit for the sake of new shit out there. I suspect it's more to do with Hollywood realizing that even though sequels usually did worse, financially, than the first installment in a franchise, there is some built-in audience provided that the original was popular, which you don't have at all in a new property. I mean, if you want to blame post-modernism... the original Death At A Funeral is 3 years old. Did we become Post-Modern sometime in 2008?

    What's a movie pitch usually boil down to? It's like (Blank) with (Blank).

    This glut of remakes and sequels and reboots and whatever is just part of the cycle. It takes longer to develop a new property (even one inspired by but not directly derived from existing work) than it does to take an existing piece and just re-cast it.

    And never underestimate the need for the audience to enjoy what is familiar. People gravitate toward what they know rather than take many risks on something new. Why should the money men in Hollywood be any different? It's not your $100million being spent.

    Santa Claustrophobia on
  • Options
    Kipling217Kipling217 Registered User regular
    edited March 2010
    We have been post modernistic for a long time. The Death At A Funeral remake is only an extreme outlier in a much larger trend.

    Take all the re-imagined stuff out there. Take all the attempts to subvert genre expectations or play them ironicaly. It comes form people knowing the tropes of earlier works and taking them in a new direction. Take Scream. A postmodern take on horror that gets its main thrill from people knowing the tropes of horror films and how it at times fucks them over. Its basicaly Halloween with a Scream Mask.

    Take BSG, A silly space adventure, reimagined as a gritty survival story. Got the same back story for the most part. Only difference is that one plays it straight all the way.

    Remakes and Reimagines are attempt to add new things to old properties. There is original stuff out there, but much of it owes a debt to earlier stuff.

    I am not passing judgement that its good or bad, I am just saying thats the age we live in.

    Kipling217 on
    The sky was full of stars, every star an exploding ship. One of ours.
  • Options
    SliderSlider Registered User regular
    edited March 2010
    Slider wrote: »
    I'm watching a few British television comedies, but they only seem to be sketches, rather than, I don't know, stories.

    Is this a popular thing in England? Seems like a lot of the same Monty Python stuff to me.

    Try The Inbetweeners and Peep Show.


    I've seen both of those and am currently watching the last remaining episode of Spaced. It's a great series.

    The guys from Peep Show made a sketch series called, That Mitchell and Webb Look/Sound/Situation. It's not as funny.

    Slider on
  • Options
    SliderSlider Registered User regular
    edited March 2010
    Kipling217 wrote: »
    We live in a post-modern age, we don't do "new shit for the sake of new shit" anymore. We do "old shit in new ways". We take stories and stuff and try to put a new spin on it.

    Sometimes you get great stuff out of it and sometimes you get tired rehashes of old stuff that wasn't funny the first time.

    I don't know about all that. There's plenty of new shit for the sake of new shit out there. I suspect it's more to do with Hollywood realizing that even though sequels usually did worse, financially, than the first installment in a franchise, there is some built-in audience provided that the original was popular, which you don't have at all in a new property. I mean, if you want to blame post-modernism... the original Death At A Funeral is 3 years old. Did we become Post-Modern sometime in 2008?

    What's a movie pitch usually boil down to? It's like (Blank) with (Blank).

    This glut of remakes and sequels and reboots and whatever is just part of the cycle. It takes longer to develop a new property (even one inspired by but not directly derived from existing work) than it does to take an existing piece and just re-cast it.

    And never underestimate the need for the audience to enjoy what is familiar. People gravitate toward what they know rather than take many risks on something new. Why should the money men in Hollywood be any different? It's not your $100million being spent.


    Where did the Matrix idea(s) originate from? Terminator?

    Slider on
  • Options
    Kipling217Kipling217 Registered User regular
    edited March 2010
    Slider wrote: »
    Where did the Matrix idea(s) originate from? Terminator?

    Tron meets the Terminator.

    Kipling217 on
    The sky was full of stars, every star an exploding ship. One of ours.
  • Options
    Santa ClaustrophobiaSanta Claustrophobia Ho Ho Ho Disconnecting from Xbox LIVERegistered User regular
    edited March 2010
    Kipling217 wrote: »
    Slider wrote: »
    Where did the Matrix idea(s) originate from? Terminator?

    Tron meets the Terminator.

    Dragonball. They said themselves they wanted to make a live-action anime.

    Santa Claustrophobia on
  • Options
    GungHoGungHo Registered User regular
    edited March 2010
    The Cat wrote: »
    I kind of assumed white people would still be the majority audience

    like with the shittier end of hip-hop.
    No. The same folks who packed the goddamn Tyler Perry's Tyler Perry featuring Tyler Perry with special guest performance by Tyler Perry, a Tyler Perry joint production with Tyler Perry movies will be at this one, and those aren't all white folks. They also packed Showtime at the Apollo for years. It's their NASCAR.
    Lawndart wrote: »
    Also, a Caucasploitation version of Soul Plane would be the best thing ever.
    Airplane.jpg

    GungHo on
  • Options
    Page-Page- Registered User regular
    edited March 2010
    Well this thread has reminded me that Let The Right One In and Oldboy are being remade, and then added salt to the wound by telling me that someone wants to remake The Host.

    Suck.

    And yes, the UK version of The Office is just a better show. The American version can be an amusing distraction, but that's about it.

    Page- on
    Competitive Gaming and Writing Blog Updated in October: "Song (and Story) of the Day"
    Anyone want to beta read a paranormal mystery novella? Here's your chance.
    stream
  • Options
    KageraKagera Imitating the worst people. Since 2004Registered User regular
    edited March 2010
    Octoparrot wrote: »
    And Red Dawn was a terrible movie when it was released. It should not have a remake.

    You are Red WRONG!

    Kagera on
    My neck, my back, my FUPA and my crack.
  • Options
    KageraKagera Imitating the worst people. Since 2004Registered User regular
    edited March 2010
    Inter_d wrote: »
    Gary Oldman is Shaft, a hard rolling ex-cop who's trying to take the son of a wealthy real estate tycoon, played by will smith, who commits a racially motivated murder but escapes the country before he could be prosecuted.

    Jeff Bridges is Lazarus, a deeply religious farmer and former blues guitarist who chains a young lady played by Zoe Saldana and tries to help her deal with her life problems in White Snake Moan.


    -okay, i'm done.

    John Travolta is a blue collar working living paycheck-to-paycheck while battling racial discrimination and living in Compton.

    http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0114928/

    Shit, I did it wrong.

    Kagera on
    My neck, my back, my FUPA and my crack.
  • Options
    Inter_dInter_d Registered User regular
    edited March 2010
    Kagera wrote: »
    Inter_d wrote: »
    Gary Oldman is Shaft, a hard rolling ex-cop who's trying to take the son of a wealthy real estate tycoon, played by will smith, who commits a racially motivated murder but escapes the country before he could be prosecuted.

    Jeff Bridges is Lazarus, a deeply religious farmer and former blues guitarist who chains a young lady played by Zoe Saldana and tries to help her deal with her life problems in White Snake Moan.


    -okay, i'm done.

    John Travolta is a blue collar working living paycheck-to-paycheck while battling racial discrimination and living in Compton.

    http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0114928/

    Shit, I did it wrong.

    pack up your shit and leave!


    besides, that's a white movie where the black community is in charge. if you wanted something truly retaliatory it'd have to be an all white version of any tyler perry movie with kathy bates as madea.

    Inter_d on
  • Options
    Santa ClaustrophobiaSanta Claustrophobia Ho Ho Ho Disconnecting from Xbox LIVERegistered User regular
    edited March 2010
    Why would any movie with a mostly/all black cast need an all white version in retaliation?

    Santa Claustrophobia on
  • Options
    Santa ClaustrophobiaSanta Claustrophobia Ho Ho Ho Disconnecting from Xbox LIVERegistered User regular
    edited March 2010
    Quid wrote: »
    Apothe0sis wrote: »
    Hustle

    vs.

    Leverage

    The latter is broken, so broken.

    As far as I know Leverage is not based on Hustle. And in fact, the only real similarity is "Likable group of con men con bad people" which didn't exactly start with Hustle. But either way both are good shows.

    Burn Notice is one of these shows as well.

    I haven't seen Hustle, but I find Leverage incredibly annoying. It reminds me of CSI.

    Leverage is an okay show. But I get the feeling they're not going 'far enough' with the concept. The pilot episode was pretty good, but then the tone kind of changed and it feels...wimpier...somehow. As if they're too hamstrung by the 'bad guys being good guys' thing.

    Have you watched all of it? The end of Season 2 goes a good deal further out. I thought, anyway.

    Yes, I have thanks to the wonder that is Netflix streaming. I like the show, but it's...lacking. Sending Nate back to the drink wasn't exactly 'edgy'. I'm still wondering exactly how these nobodies know where to find this group of con-men.

    Plus, the nature of their getting paid seems to be glossed over or ignored because it might potentially make them out to be 'bad guys' for getting paid.

    And the fact that both seasons end with the same basic premise... It feels desperate somehow. A kind of artificial drama that a show somewhat on the bubble doesn't need. If they keep doing it, one year it'll backfire horribly.

    The pay and finding clients bits I just grant it as the conceits of the show; I have more problems with Hardison's 1-click-interface computer than either of those, really. But I agree that Nate going back to drinking was basically pointless. The whole false sense of invincibility thing could have played better if he was sober while he was doing it. I appreciate that the end of both seasons was basically a breakup of the group. If season 3 hadn't been greenlit I wouldn't be left on a cliffhanger or wondering what happened to everybody; in both cases you're left with the assumption that they just went their own ways.

    My complaints are mostly just the 'it bugs me' variety. But the 'breakup' thing still annoys me. This is the third time they've done that in three seasons and always because they're not sure if they're going to be picked up for broadcast. It's getting a bit old after just 28 episodes.

    And the 'will they, won't they' crap is also old. He's not Sam, she's not Diane, this isn't 1983. Writing Sophie out to cover Bellman's pregnancy was fairly clever and filling her 'part' with Jeri Ryan was an interesting swerve, but having her film bits in front of blue screens to keep her part of the show felt out of place.

    Like I said, some things just kind of bug me about the show, as good as it is.

    She was pregnant? That was my guess as to why they wrote her out like that but I didn't see mention of it on wikipedia and didn't bother digging any deeper than that.

    If it matters, I found that the word of god on Leverage has this to say about how the team finds work:
    @Barbara: I haven't read every question/answer ever posted, so this may be a repeat, but how do "clients" find the team???

    We discussed this back in S1. Hardison's put a bunch of proxy links out on legal aid websites, and also has newscrawlers trawling for possible victims. It's not so much the vics find Leverage, as Leverage finds the vics. Just like they might find you, the day you really need them.

    Santa Claustrophobia on
  • Options
    Clint EastwoodClint Eastwood My baby's in there someplace She crawled right inRegistered User regular
    edited March 2010
    So are we allowed to complain about awful, unnecessary sequels in here?

    Because a sequel to Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid is being made.

    Clint Eastwood on
  • Options
    juice for jesusjuice for jesus Registered User regular
    edited March 2010
    Kipling217 wrote: »
    Slider wrote: »
    Where did the Matrix idea(s) originate from? Terminator?

    Tron meets the Terminator.

    Dragonball. They said themselves they wanted to make a live-action anime.

    Ghost in the Shell, probably. Someone sued saying they'd ripped off her short story, but that case doesn't seem to have gone anywhere.

    Even Arthur C. Clarke's first novel uses some of the same ideas found in The Matrix (humans captive of an, in this case benevolent, AI, "chosen one" who frees humanity, etc).

    juice for jesus on
  • Options
    OldSlackerOldSlacker Registered User regular
    edited March 2010
    Cloudman wrote: »
    So are we allowed to complain about awful, unnecessary sequels in here?

    Because a sequel to Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid is being made.

    What? How in the hell would that even work? Did they slow-mo kill the entire Bolivian army?

    I hope I won't have to break out the stinkbombs again.

    OldSlacker on
  • Options
    LawndartLawndart Registered User regular
    edited March 2010
    Cloudman wrote: »
    So are we allowed to complain about awful, unnecessary sequels in here?

    Because a sequel to Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid is being made.
    Eh, it's been done.

    Lawndart on
  • Options
    RobmanRobman Registered User regular
    edited March 2010
    Yeah any time you talk about an awful and unasked for sequel, you've got to remember that the reason you see so many of them is that they've been SOP for Hollywood since Day 1

    Robman on
  • Options
    AtomikaAtomika Live fast and get fucked or whatever Registered User regular
    edited March 2010
    Why would any movie with a mostly/all black cast need an all white version in retaliation?

    Given how just about every single "Black" movie is about extended family gathering over a holiday, airing personal drama, and somebody going to jail, I guess there would really only have to be the one movie.

    We just need to make sure all the parts are filled by B-list white actors, like Timothy Hutton and Delta Burke.

    Atomika on
  • Options
    AtomikaAtomika Live fast and get fucked or whatever Registered User regular
    edited March 2010
    Lawndart wrote: »
    Cloudman wrote: »
    So are we allowed to complain about awful, unnecessary sequels in here?

    Because a sequel to Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid is being made.
    Eh, it's been done.

    Sequel. Not prequel.

    Atomika on
  • Options
    President RexPresident Rex Registered User regular
    edited March 2010
    Fencingsax wrote: »
    Yes, but those at least have the excuse of different languages.

    That is such a weak argument. 'Yojimbo and A Fistful of Dollars are acceptable because of different languages. But Death at a Funeral isn't because the languages are the same.'

    I really, really, really don't want to dig any deeper into just why the 'new' Death at a Funeral is such a travesty of film making. Or even why it's somehow acceptable that the 'old' Death at a Funeral exists when there have already been so many other 'crazy shit at a wake/funeral' movies and TV episodes.

    This is a terrible argument from a flimsy position. 'It just is' isn't good enough.

    Presumptuously 'weak' argument or no, there's a wide portion of American audiences who are unwilling to sit through dubbed or (even moreso) subbed movies. Pan's Labyrinth being the only recent (semi-) exception (woo, $34M US domestic). This is patently untrue for other countries - particularly those whose first language isn't English (Pan's Labyrinth also happens to be in Spanish, which caters nicely to the second most spoken language in the US).

    A Fistful of Dollars made boatloads more money than a nationwide US release of Yojimbo could ever hope for.


    I'm not familiar with westerns or horror movies, so I'll have to pick submarine war movies. As a cross section of each film's domestic gross (straight to TV movies and older movies not included since information is unavailable):

    Das Boot (1982) - $11M
    Hunt for the Red October (1990) - $122M
    Crimson Tide (1995) - $91M
    U-571 (2000) - $77M

    Das Boot was played in theatres in primarily dubed from. Since all of the original actors spoke English and German every cast member did their own dubbing. It also happened to feature many of the most famous German actors at the time, but that only netted it $11M in the US (approximately $37.5M adjusted to 2010 dollars). The date is from Box Office Mojo, which uses the US theatrical release date. As one of the most expensive movies in German cinema history, it had no shortage of special effects or quality (they essentially replicated a German Type VII-C submarine (which was later used by George Lucas for Raiders of the Lost Ark)).

    Hunt for the Red October and Crimson Tide are more closely associated with Cold War war films, but I've included them in the comparison since they're big budget blockbusters. Red October is based on a Tom Clancy book and stars Sean Connery (because Scottish accents sound very Russian, you know). U-571 is the closest (big-budget, theatre released) movie that's analogous to Das Boot, but still performed much better (American cast; pro-American plot (although it should be noted Das Boot is not particularly a pro-German movie); no subbing or dubbing).


    In some cases remakes are a good way to introduce an old classic to a new generation with modern technology and direction influenced by contemporary film making. Remakes are also a good way to circumvent difficulties between language or culture.

    Since the 1970s there has been a new 20,000 Leagues Under the Sea movie about every 10 years (plus one from the 50s and one from 1916). Sometimes people like to pay homage to what they love by remaking it and introducing it to a new generation. There have also been numerous other movies ripping ideas straight out of the book (or earlier movies). Art builds on art.



    Of course, in other cases they're studio cash-ins designed to exploit contracts stipulating multi-movie deals and prequel popularity.

    President Rex on
  • Options
    LanlaornLanlaorn Registered User regular
    edited March 2010
    Kipling217 wrote: »
    Slider wrote: »
    Where did the Matrix idea(s) originate from? Terminator?

    Tron meets the Terminator.

    Dragonball. They said themselves they wanted to make a live-action anime.

    Ghost in the Shell, probably. Someone sued saying they'd ripped off her short story, but that case doesn't seem to have gone anywhere.

    Even Arthur C. Clarke's first novel uses some of the same ideas found in The Matrix (humans captive of an, in this case benevolent, AI, "chosen one" who frees humanity, etc).

    This was brought up in some DvD commentary or something and while they have a laundry list of inspiration sources, Ghost in the Shell is specifically mentioned with several scenes as homages. They even had an interview with Shirow Masamune in the feature, who thinks it's cool.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dB6KWuzb_TQ

    Lanlaorn on
  • Options
    Kipling217Kipling217 Registered User regular
    edited March 2010
    Lawndart wrote: »
    Cloudman wrote: »
    So are we allowed to complain about awful, unnecessary sequels in here?

    Because a sequel to Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid is being made.
    Eh, it's been done.

    Sequel. Not prequel.

    Considering how the first one ends I would like to know how they plan on justifiy one.

    It is the trope namer for Bolivian Army ending.

    Kipling217 on
    The sky was full of stars, every star an exploding ship. One of ours.
  • Options
    LanlaornLanlaorn Registered User regular
    edited March 2010
    Kipling217 wrote: »
    Lawndart wrote: »
    Cloudman wrote: »
    So are we allowed to complain about awful, unnecessary sequels in here?

    Because a sequel to Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid is being made.
    Eh, it's been done.

    Sequel. Not prequel.

    Considering how the first one ends I would like to know how they plan on justifiy one.

    It is the trope namer for Bolivian Army ending.

    No one could survive that?

    Lanlaorn on
  • Options
    jammujammu 2020 is now. Registered User regular
    edited March 2010
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s8VZs7aLJCo

    The prisoner remake sounds deliciously bad.
    Why oh why this even exists!

    jammu on
    Ww8FAMg.jpg
  • Options
    FencingsaxFencingsax It is difficult to get a man to understand, when his salary depends upon his not understanding GNU Terry PratchettRegistered User regular
    edited March 2010
    Lanlaorn wrote: »
    Kipling217 wrote: »
    Lawndart wrote: »
    Cloudman wrote: »
    So are we allowed to complain about awful, unnecessary sequels in here?

    Because a sequel to Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid is being made.
    Eh, it's been done.

    Sequel. Not prequel.

    Considering how the first one ends I would like to know how they plan on justifiy one.

    It is the trope namer for Bolivian Army ending.

    No one could survive that?

    No. They didn't.

    Fencingsax on
  • Options
    RobmanRobman Registered User regular
    edited March 2010
    Lanlaorn wrote: »
    Kipling217 wrote: »
    Lawndart wrote: »
    Cloudman wrote: »
    So are we allowed to complain about awful, unnecessary sequels in here?

    Because a sequel to Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid is being made.
    Eh, it's been done.

    Sequel. Not prequel.

    Considering how the first one ends I would like to know how they plan on justifiy one.

    It is the trope namer for Bolivian Army ending.

    No one could survive that?

    Welp

    I just spent an hour on Tropes

    Robman on
  • Options
    NocrenNocren Lt Futz, Back in Action North CarolinaRegistered User regular
    edited March 2010
    Quid wrote: »
    Apothe0sis wrote: »
    Hustle

    vs.

    Leverage

    The latter is broken, so broken.

    As far as I know Leverage is not based on Hustle. And in fact, the only real similarity is "Likable group of con men con bad people" which didn't exactly start with Hustle. But either way both are good shows.

    Burn Notice is one of these shows as well.

    I haven't seen Hustle, but I find Leverage incredibly annoying. It reminds me of CSI.

    Leverage is an okay show. But I get the feeling they're not going 'far enough' with the concept. The pilot episode was pretty good, but then the tone kind of changed and it feels...wimpier...somehow. As if they're too hamstrung by the 'bad guys being good guys' thing.

    Have you watched all of it? The end of Season 2 goes a good deal further out. I thought, anyway.

    Yes, I have thanks to the wonder that is Netflix streaming. I like the show, but it's...lacking. Sending Nate back to the drink wasn't exactly 'edgy'. I'm still wondering exactly how these nobodies know where to find this group of con-men.

    Plus, the nature of their getting paid seems to be glossed over or ignored because it might potentially make them out to be 'bad guys' for getting paid.

    And the fact that both seasons end with the same basic premise... It feels desperate somehow. A kind of artificial drama that a show somewhat on the bubble doesn't need. If they keep doing it, one year it'll backfire horribly.

    The pay and finding clients bits I just grant it as the conceits of the show; I have more problems with Hardison's 1-click-interface computer than either of those, really. But I agree that Nate going back to drinking was basically pointless. The whole false sense of invincibility thing could have played better if he was sober while he was doing it. I appreciate that the end of both seasons was basically a breakup of the group. If season 3 hadn't been greenlit I wouldn't be left on a cliffhanger or wondering what happened to everybody; in both cases you're left with the assumption that they just went their own ways.

    My complaints are mostly just the 'it bugs me' variety. But the 'breakup' thing still annoys me. This is the third time they've done that in three seasons and always because they're not sure if they're going to be picked up for broadcast. It's getting a bit old after just 28 episodes.

    And the 'will they, won't they' crap is also old. He's not Sam, she's not Diane, this isn't 1983. Writing Sophie out to cover Bellman's pregnancy was fairly clever and filling her 'part' with Jeri Ryan was an interesting swerve, but having her film bits in front of blue screens to keep her part of the show felt out of place.

    Like I said, some things just kind of bug me about the show, as good as it is.

    She was pregnant? That was my guess as to why they wrote her out like that but I didn't see mention of it on wikipedia and didn't bother digging any deeper than that.

    If it matters, I found that the word of god on Leverage has this to say about how the team finds work:
    @Barbara: I haven't read every question/answer ever posted, so this may be a repeat, but how do "clients" find the team???

    We discussed this back in S1. Hardison's put a bunch of proxy links out on legal aid websites, and also has newscrawlers trawling for possible victims. It's not so much the vics find Leverage, as Leverage finds the vics. Just like they might find you, the day you really need them.

    So it's A-Team, the next generation?

    Nocren on
    newSig.jpg
  • Options
    AdrienAdrien Registered User regular
    edited March 2010
    Robman wrote: »
    Lanlaorn wrote: »
    Kipling217 wrote: »
    Lawndart wrote: »
    Cloudman wrote: »
    So are we allowed to complain about awful, unnecessary sequels in here?

    Because a sequel to Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid is being made.
    Eh, it's been done.

    Sequel. Not prequel.

    Considering how the first one ends I would like to know how they plan on justifiy one.

    It is the trope namer for Bolivian Army ending.

    No one could survive that?

    Welp

    I just spent an hour on Tropes

    I read that. I saw the link. I thought, "I'll just click on that one. I'm not like him."

    I now have five tabs open and I am walking away from my computer.

    Adrien on
    tmkm.jpg
  • Options
    ScalfinScalfin __BANNED USERS regular
    edited March 2010
    You know, this might be a generational thing, given that most of the remakes and such seem to be of stuff Gen X watched. What was happening what the Boomers were at the age the Xers are now?

    Scalfin on
    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
    The rest of you, I fucking hate you for the fact that I now have a blue dot on this god awful thread.
Sign In or Register to comment.