No not a Remake!!! or is it the second Remake?

[jackfaire]

all Broadway performances are recorded and stored in the Billy Rose Theatre Collection in the New York Public Library.

Which is great for people living in New York be nice if they made copies and shared them with every other library.

[AdminAssistant]

Theoretically, yes. But the recordings are merely a historical record of an event, and not meant for entertainment. Theatre is not meant to be viewed on a television or movie screen, it's meant to be experienced live, in the moment. Most decently sized cities have at least one professional theatre, or a university theatre, or even a community theatre. And I don't mean those lame-ass Broadway tours that go around to road houses. That's the equivalent of going to a movie and recording it with a video camera, then selling the bootleg copies. Yeah, you get the basic effect, but it's clumsy and awkward and poor quality.

[mikoyan29]

I don't get the trend for remaking fairly recent movies and TV Shows. I mean we've had the following:
Star Trek - Okay this was pretty good
G.I. Joe - I enjoyed it but I wasn't expecting much
A Team - Didn't bother. I enjoyed the original series but for some reason I don't see the modern version as being as campy
Smurfs - Blech. You'd have to pay me to go see it.
The Addams Family - This was actually pretty decent
I Am Legend - I enjoyed it but I realize that there are some that don't.
The Klaatu Movie - The name escapes me...I never bothered to go see it because I can't imagine topping the original
V - I actually started to enjoy this...sadly it is not continuing

I heard that they are remaking Top Gun...Why?

Instead of remakes, I would love to see a movie about a submarine called the Barb (look it up sometime...pretty impressive record). Or the battle in Afghanistan that was fought with horse cavalry. For that matter, the battle in World War II where the Polish horse cavalry charged the Germans. The USS Constitution would make a pretty good movie too.

[jackfaire]

I don't get the trend for remaking fairly recent movies and TV Shows. I mean we've had the following:
Star Trek - Okay this was pretty good

This one is and isn't a remake. It is because Star Trek did have movies. However this takes place before even the original series and it isn't even an alternate timeline so much as a complete re imagining as Pike wasn't that much older than Kirk.

G.I. Joe - I enjoyed it but I wasn't expecting much

Wasn't a remake at so much as converting it to a different medium. For one they went from animation to live action for two they went more modern day.

What I mean is not everyone was firing laser guns like were being used in the cartoon. Again this one was more a re imagining of an existing property.

A Team - Didn't bother. I enjoyed the original series but for some reason I don't see the modern version as being as campy

Your right it wasn't campy like the original which is actually what made it good. Too often you get, *coughs* Charlie's Angels *coughs* that instead of trying to do a serious movie re imagining openly make fun of the show they are doing and the fact they are doing. The reason I cite the first Charlie's Angels movie is because in the opening sequence one of the actors watching the in flight movie says, "Don't you hate when they make a bad movie out of a cheesy 70s TV show?"

I don't remember if they then looked pointedly at the camera but they might as well have it was basically "Walk out now" The A-Team didn't do that they treated themselves as trying to honor the previous movie in small ways, ie slipping in names of characters that the original actors later played.

Smurfs - Blech. You'd have to pay me to go see it.

Not a remake anymore than Enchanted was. It's just taking beloved characters throwing them into our world and pretending they wouldn't understand anything. Still seems like a bad movie though.

I Am Legend - I enjoyed it but I realize that there are some that don't.

Not actually a remake at all. While yes there are previous movies that also tackled the book I Am Legend, which itself wasn't very good, this movie did not attempt a remake based on previous movies but rather tried again to bring the book to the big screen. Fixing what I felt were errors in the book but making others as it went along.

The Klaatu Movie - The name escapes me...I never bothered to go see it because I can't imagine topping the original

Okay you may be confused about this one because Evil Dead 2 was essentially a remake of Evil Dead but Army of Darkness wasn't actually a remake of.....oh wait you mean The Day the Earth Stood Still? Oooooh that Klaatu movie.

Yeah haven't seen either so not sure.

I heard that they are remaking Top Gun...Why?

I am thinking because they feared that the sequel Bottom Gun would be even more homoerotic than the first.

[Nyoibo]

Honestly, I have never understood why some people get so riled up every time a remake comes out. I guess the people who wrote the original might get a little irked, but if their blessing was sought and received (and I would think it would have to be), then that wouldn't be an issue.

I only have a problem with it if they fuck it up.

What I'[m not getting is now they're remaking... sorry "re-imagining" spiderman A movie that was done only 8 or 9 years ago, hell there was another one where they remade it and the movie was only about 3 or 4 years old at the time, what the hell is up with that?

[Andara Bledin]

What I'[m not getting is now they're remaking... sorry "re-imagining" spiderman A movie that was done only 8 or 9 years ago, hell there was another one where they remade it and the movie was only about 3 or 4 years old at the time, what the hell is up with that?

If you're referring the the two Hulk movies, they were 5 years apart. The first one didn't get a good reception, and then they managed to not have any net improvement with the second.

In the case of the Spider Man reboot, there's no telling what might happen, since the movie world they're using is some amalgam of the Ultimates universe and mainstream (Earth-616), with some other odd tweaks to bring it up to current without having to go through 30 years of backstory. I suspect they're likely going to make it so that it ties in better with the rest of their recent releases.

^-.-^

[jackfaire]

What I'[m not getting is now they're remaking... sorry "re-imagining" spiderman A movie that was done only 8 or 9 years ago, hell there was another one where they remade it and the movie was only about 3 or 4 years old at the time, what the hell is up with that?

The Spider-Man thing is because the studio wanted to continue the franchise but didn't like the direction Sam Raimi, Toby Macguire etc wanted to take it so they got rid of them and decided to reboot it so they could throw in a different guy playing spider-man.

As for the second does sound like your talking about the Hulk. There were two reasons for them redoing that one.

The first is that Marvel used to license out their properties to studios to make the movies. The first Hulk movie was good as a stand alone movie but the CGI wasn't the best and the fans felt the story too far from what Hulk was, not recognizing that the story was actually directly from the pages of Marvel.

When Marvel decided to fully take over movie production they decided they wanted to do an Avengers movie and needed a lead in to it. The previous Hulk movie did not provide this and was not fully their controlled property. As such they cast a new Hulk movie to set up Edward Norton as Hulk and tie him into the upcoming Avengers movie by tying the Gamma Project into the Super Soldier project.

Fans were more appreciative of this as it was "closer to the comics" the impression I get is that it was approved because it was closer to the Hulk that the current fans are used to.

There was a period where the backstory of Hulk was that he had been exposed to gamma radiation prior to his bomb through his dad performing experiments on him. This was covered only briefly as I recall in the comics when they decided his becoming the Hulk was simply the way his powers triggered by the Multiple Personality Disorder he was suffering.

The story of his father experimenting on him is the one they used for the Ang Lee Hulk movie and one many fans seemed to be unaware of.

Unfortuantly comic book movies carry the onus of having existed in another form but unfortunately unlike popular books not having a concrete story to go off of so much as a character and many many details about him that at times contradict each other plus a lot of fans some of whom are always going to displeased as even fans will argue over canon.

[Nyoibo]

No, it wasnt' the hulk, it was either a conemdy or chick flick, it's been bugging me for a while now not being able to remember what it was.

[jackfaire]

I was thinking about it today and some remakes are made to make them relatable. Death at a Funeral was remade when it was imported into the states.

[insertNameHere]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_film_remakes_A-M

[Ginger Tea]

Not seen the originals or the remakes (mind you one hasnt even started afaik)

Let the right one in/Let me in, remade due to the fact it wasn't in English to begin with, I have the original but not seen it as yet.

The girl with the dragon tattoo and its forth comming remake, again, not originally in English so it seems they are remade just for the English speaking audience who cannot or will not read subtitles.

There are other stories filmed in black and white that were remade (poorly in some cases) just because people didn't want to watch old movies.

Re the Hulk Ang Lee story line, with comics the orign stories get rebooted so many times that even the current writers may not be fully aware of what they have or have not done in the past.
The FF would be ww2 veterans one story, vietnam another, time flows differently in comics, we age every year, yet it takes a year just to get 12 issues out and sometimes you get 6 issue story arcs that last a day or two of comic book time.

And it would be nice if they didn't do an origin story for the newer spiderman movie, just have it be the 4th with a new set of actors and be done with it, I do not want to have half the story taken up with stuff I and everyone who saw the first movie already know, unless they go totally off cannon that is.

[insertNameHere]

I watch a lot of movies and sometimes it is sad when people have no idea the amount of movies that were remade or re-imaged.

The puniser is a good example, the 1989 version to me is a lot darker and I like how the story was told. Had I seen that before the newer version I probably wouldn't have liked the newer version as well when I saw it.

Although, we can also go off on how some of the remakes are not to pay tribute, just another way to sell a crap movie because people will pay to see it to see how you could remake it, you don't even need a good plot or acting.

[Lace Neil Singer]

I have to admit, I did like the remake/re-imagining of Planet of the Apes. It was cleverly done and there were some great actors in it.

There's a prequel out now, too.

[jackfaire]

I have to admit, I did like the remake/re-imagining of Planet of the Apes. It was cleverly done and there were some great actors in it.

Plus it was closer to the book.

[HYHYBT]

I'm still enjoying the new Thundercats.