41 replies to this topic

[Captain Tightpants]

When the dust from the inevtiable zombie apocalypse settles, historians will no doubt have one simply question: what caused so many people to lose their minds at once? The answer will probably be Hollywood's decision to remake a famous film with below-par "popular" actors in order to make a quick buck. But what would Hollywood have done in order to set us all off? This very nearly happened with a remake of Buffy the Vampire Slayer that had nothing to do with Buffy, Joss Whedon, the cast of both "Buffy" and "Angel" or anyone else remotely connected to the original film or the television series. Foruntately, Hollywood had the sense to shelve the project before anything came of it. But that doesn't mean they're always going to do it - the fact that Michael Bay is still making films is proof enough.

So, imagine that it's now November and we're all sitting in the cinema for SKYFALL when the first trailer attached to the film is shown - and this trailer is going to be the thing that pushes you over the edge, meaning you lose all faith in humanity and turn into Jim. What would that trailer be?

My entry: "Brett Ratner presents Shia LaBeouf as Harry Callahan in DIRTY HARRY."

[univex]

meaning you lose all faith in humanity and turn into Jim.

lol

About the trailer...

Antoine Fuqua presents Taylor Lautner in FIRST BLOOD
or...
M. Night Shyamalan presents Johnny Depp in North by Northwest

[jrcjohnny99]

Sylvester Stallone in "Get Carter".......oh wait.....

[Mr. Blofeld]

Seven words: Americanized Doctor Who, directed by Tim Burton.

[Chief of SIS]

*From the explosion master Michael Bay...Transformer IV : Even more bombastic robot/explosion pørn*

Oh wait....

dang it

Edited by Chief of SIS, 29 January 2012 - 05:33 AM.

[The Shark]

Seven words: Americanized Doctor Who, directed by Tim Burton.

What's wrong with Tim Burton?

[Chief of SIS]

The question isn't what's wrong with Tim Burton? It should be why put Tim Burton on Doctor Who?

[The Shark]

To finally make that show into something interesting?

[Chief of SIS]

ZING!

[killkenny kid]

Seven words: Americanized Doctor Who, directed by Tim Burton.

In the words of Luke Skywalker...."NOOOOOOOOO!!"

[Jeao007]

Rumor has it that they're planning to make a live-action Cowboy Bebop film starring Keanu Reeves as Spike Spiegel. I'd lose my if true.

[DR76]

Due to Joss Whedon's lousing handling of the BUFFY comics' storylines, I couldn't care less if another Buffy movie was made without him.

[Captain Tightpants]

Due to Joss Whedon's lousing handling of the BUFFY comics' storylines

The entire point of Season Eight was to reboot the franchise, but to do it in a way that was actually a part of the story. At the end of Season Eight, earth was permanently cut off from all the demon dimensions. It was a little outrageous towards the end with the creation of "Twilight" and an entire new universe, but by the end of the season, it effectively returned earth to its season-one state. Season Nine is far stronger.

But then, once "Angel" started, I liked it far more than "Buffy". The fifth season was actually pretty good, but four and six and the first two-thirds of seven could have been a lot better. "Angel" was a much strogner show (even if the end of the fourth season was weak).

I couldn't care less if another Buffy movie was made without him.

The whole thing was basically a disaster waiting to happen. Some aspiring actor named Whit Altmann (or something) was trying to get a remake off the ground, one that she would star in. It was something of a vanity project, trying to kick-start her career as an actor and writer. Fortunately, the studios took one look at her finished draft and saw that it was unintelligible.

[larrythefatcat]

Well... we already know an "Americanized" Doctor Who wouldn't go well... thanks for teaching us this lesson, Paul McGann and 20th Century Fox Television! "Eric Roberts as what?" *shiver*


I have to agree with the anti-Tim Burton sentiment... after "Ed Wood" everything else has been somewhere between self-plagiarism and just plain terrible. I thought "Sweeney Todd" was alright, but only because I enjoy the original musical and the casting of Alan Rickman was perfection! (I wonder how many times those last seven words have been written or uttered)

Oh, and "Charlie and the Chocolate Factory"... Roald Dahl wrote the freakin' screenplay for "Willy Wonka" so that along with the fact that it's amazing has to count for something. Sorry, didn't mean to derail the thread...


Also, I don't know anything about a "Cowboy Bebop" film, but all I've heard is that the live action "Akira" starring Keanu has been put on hold indefinitely.

Edited by larrythefatcat, 29 January 2012 - 03:44 PM.

[Dustin]

Overall Hollywood isn't all that bad. They produce an awful lot of drivel and abysmal hotchpotch but every once in a while there are gems to be found, too. One just shouldn't expect too much and not take the whole industry too seriously, then it's actually quite a lot of fun.

What would make me lose faith in humanity? Hardly anything coming from there could do the trick. Most of the thinkable blasphemies have already been committed - not all of them in fiction, it saddens me to say. That said I may feel tempted to become an extremely peeved fellow if Hollywood ever so much as touches MODESTY BLAISE again. I've come to the opinion now that the failed attempt of the 60's was in fact a blessing and would not like to see that material gangraped by grubby dollars and streamlined marketing to the point of a trailer for a flat and uninspired 200 million dollar CGI excess, just so some redneck hicks in the hinterland don't get to wonder what "modesty" means, why the cockney doesn't shag the girl and why the English faggot doesn't pack a decent gun to help him over his inferiority complex. I can do without such defilement and so can MODESTY BLAISE.

Edited by Dustin, 29 January 2012 - 04:58 PM.

[DamnCoffee]

George Lucas.

[Dustin]

George Lucas.

A biography of Lucas could actually turn out quite funny and entertaining.

[SecretAgentFan]

Hmm, Tim Burton and "Doctor Who"...

That sounds like a fantastic idea, actually!

As for the "Hollywood push over the edge"-question - nothing. I expect the studios to mainly be in it for the money. And if they stop making any films that interest me... well, I do like to read books.

[elizabeth]

Remake Singin' in the Rain with a Don and Kathy sex scene and Cosmo acting like Stiffler from American Pie.

[The Shark]

I have to agree with the anti-Tim Burton sentiment... after "Ed Wood" everything else has been somewhere between self-plagiarism and just plain terrible.

MARS ATTACKS! was a masterpiece. One of the finest comedies ever made.

[x007AceOfSpades]

same thing I expect all the time, trailers for Hollywood films that show too much reveal secrets/twists. A ty PG-13 horror movie remake and anything having to do with Michael Bay.

[Vauxhall]

20th Century Fox presents Daniel Radcliffe as Ronny "Crusher" Balboa in Brian Levant's ROCKY VII: FULLY RELOADED WITH A VENGEANCE.

[x007AceOfSpades]

20th Century Fox presents Daniel Radcliffe as Ronny "Crusher" Balboa in Brian Levant's ROCKY VII: FULLY RELOADED WITH A VENGEANCE.

James Franco as Ivan Drago right?

[Vauxhall]

20th Century Fox presents Daniel Radcliffe as Ronny "Crusher" Balboa in Brian Levant's ROCKY VII: FULLY RELOADED WITH A VENGEANCE.

James Franco as Ivan Drago right?

Ian Drago, I reckon. His slightly less physically imposing or intimidating long-lost son. Naturally, he would be out for Revenge ™. Robert Pattinson is also in discussions for inclusion, putting a new spin on the descendants of Apollo Creed.

[x007AceOfSpades]

20th Century Fox presents Daniel Radcliffe as Ronny "Crusher" Balboa in Brian Levant's ROCKY VII: FULLY RELOADED WITH A VENGEANCE.

James Franco as Ivan Drago right?

Ian Drago, I reckon. His slightly less physically imposing or intimidating long-lost son. Naturally, he would be out for Revenge ™. Robert Pattinson is also in discussions for inclusion, putting a new spin on the descendants of Apollo Creed.

Tom Cruise as The Ghost of Mickey. Seth Rogen as Paulie with Robert Downey Jr in black paint once again for Clubber Lang, and I hear it's down to Downey Jr and Statham for the role.

[hcmv007]

It's A Wonderful Life starring Colin Farrell

Gone With the Wind starring Justin Bieber

Barbarella starring Rosie O Donnell

The Wizard of Oz starring Dakota Fanning

Unlike the others listed above I have nothing against Miss Fanning but if some dolt wants to remake that she's a logical choice. Nobody should remake the Wizard of Oz.

[Captain Tightpants]

Overall Hollywood isn't all that bad. They produce an awful lot of drivel and abysmal hotchpotch but every once in a while there are gems to be found, too.

They don't mean to shoot themselves in the foot. They just do. Take my example of a DIRTY HARRY remake directed by Brett Ratner and starring Shia LaBeouf, for example - whoever made the decision to do all of this didn't plan for the film to be utter tripe. And they probably made each of those decisions for very valid reasons:

- LaBeouf would be cast as Dirty Harry because he is young and popular, and he can hold up a franchise as easily as he can individual films. The first five films were popular enough to sustain sequels, and a remake could carry on with that. At twenty-five, LaBeouf could be used in an origin story for Harry and stay in the role for several films. There is a certain logic to casting him in the film, but it overlooks the way he is horrendous.

- Ratner would be put in the director's chair, because he has experience in both starting up a franchise (like RUSH HOUR) and coming into one halfway through (like X-MEN: THE LAST STAND). He is also established in the genre by RUSH HOUR and standalone films like TOWER HEIST and RED DRAGON. On paper, he is qualified, so there is once again logic, even if it ignores the way his films tend to have no personality.

- JJ Abrams would probably serve as producer, because he is a "name" producer. His name has been attached to dozens of projects, including "Lost", "Alcatraz", "Person of Interest", CLOVERFIELD, MISSION: IMPOSSIBLE III, STAR TREK and SUPER 8; he's been described as more Joss Whedon than Joss Whedon, or the new geek god (though he's also had stinkers like "Felicity" and "What About Brian?" and he actually has very little creative input into the projects that carry his name). I will say he did a good job on STAR TREK, even if I found it boring. And again, there is logic here.

- It would probably be written by Paul Haggis, because Haggis has his finger on the pulse of politics in Hollywood and America, and a character like Dirty Harry is very political in the sense that he clearly has an alleigance, even if it is never uttered or explored in the films. You can't have a character like Harry without having personal politics. But Paul Haggis is at the opposite end of the political spectrum to Harry, so it would never work; it would be like me writing about Republicans.

That's what's maddening about Hollywood. They remake these films for all the wrong reasons, and that influences all the decisions that flow on from it. Remakes and reboots can be good - it's just a question of doing it for the right reasons, because then the right decisions will be made. People would be averse to a DIRTY HARRY remake. If it was directed by Brett Ratner and starred Shia LaBeouf, then that would only further the dislike. But if it were directed by someone who understands the conventions of the genre - say, Ben Affleck or Nicolas Windig Refn - and an older actor was cast in the role, someone who fit the character, then the film could be excellent. we could get another five high-quality DIRTY HARRY films with that, and all because they were remade properly.

The problem is that Hollywood doesn't know what a proper remake is. They see "remake" and only hear a cash register.

[Bryce (003)]

Funny, I kicked around a new DH film idea not to long ago. Not a remake, but a sort of "passing of the torch" concept with a development exec who wanted to pick my brain. Why my brain, I have no clue, but he always liked my take on things. Hey, I got a free lunch out of it.

No, what would really drive me over the edge....

Albert R. Broccoli's EON Productions Presents...

COMMANDERBOND.NET : THE MOTION PICTURE

(No....Really)

[The Shark]

- It would probably be written by Paul Haggis, because Haggis has his finger on the pulse of politics in Hollywood and America, and a character like Dirty Harry is very political in the sense that he clearly has an alleigance, even if it is never uttered or explored in the films. You can't have a character like Harry without having personal politics. But Paul Haggis is at the opposite end of the political spectrum to Harry, so it would never work; it would be like me writing about Republicans.

Have you seen CRASH? From an online review.

"The movie as a whole is executed in a pretend-mythical style—astoundingly overused, absurdly glossy spiritual symbols, artificial, indulgent melodramatics instead of genuine humanity and insight, and the characters—portrayed as either victimized angels or bigoted demons that then become victimized angels."

If Haggis wrote DIRTY HARRY, Harry Callahan would start off as an exaggerated caricature of his usual self, and through some pseudo-religious epiphany break down into tears, realise how evil and racist everyone like, really is inside, hug the (insert ethnic minority) film's serial killer, and from then on will never be the same.

Produced by Harvey Weinstein, and out of complete coincidence goes on to win Best Picture...

[Captain Tightpants]

If Haggis wrote DIRTY HARRY, Harry Callahan would start off as an exaggerated caricature of his usual self, and through some pseudo-religious epiphany break down into tears, realise how evil and racist everyone like, really is inside, hug the (insert ethnic minority) film's serial killer, and from then on will never be the same.

Exactly. But, like I said, Harry is very much a character who is governed by his own internal politics. Hollywood would see that and say "Hey, let's get Paul Haggis because he writes political films!" and figure it was a match made in heaven, oblivious to the way Harry and Haggis are at opposite ends of the political spectrum.

Funny, I kicked around a new DH film idea not to long ago. Not a remake, but a sort of "passing of the torch" concept

That could work, but it kind of reminds me of DIE HARD WITH A VENGEANCE. I believe It was originally going to be called "Simon Says" and feature an original hero and universe, but then it was redirected towards Mel Gibson and Danny Glover for LETHAN WEAPON 4, before being adapted to fit the DIE HARD universe. So as an audience member, I'd probably be inclined to think that and DIRTY HARRY film that introduced a new character had started its life as an original concept, but was grafted into the Harryverse to give it a little bit of instant credibility.