Movie Reviews 2.0

[London Geezer]

Can you imagine if they used Jim Carrey for the Genie ?

Actually I never thought about that! He would probably be very good, although the Jim Carrey of today isn’t the same as the one from Liar Liar (one example off top of my head).

I think literally anyone trying to play such a classic Robin Williams role would get a hard time. Nobody can do what he used to do.

Then again I haven’t seen the movie yet so I can’t pass judgement on Will Smith! He can be very funny.

 

[Mariner]

What was Disney supposed to do? Never do anything related to Aladdin, ever again?

I'd have to say that they shouldn't really do Aladdin again because they've already done it once. Never seen the original that I can remember but I'd much rather they produced some new stuff rather than just use CGI to create a 'live action' remake of an oldie.

 

[Malo]

I'd have to say that they shouldn't really do Aladdin again because they've already done it once. Never seen the original that I can remember but I'd much rather they produced some new stuff rather than just use CGI to create a 'live action' remake of an oldie.

I'm sure they need to spew out constant movies and products in order to maintain the enormity of their profits and get money back on the IP they're buying up from everyone. The massive amount of people and resources they have need to be doing something. I doubt many new creations get green-lit nowadays so between actual interesting new stuff, they have to continually regurgitate content to keep the engine going.

 

[Deleted member 13524]

I'd have to say that they shouldn't really do Aladdin again because they've already done it once. Never seen the original that I can remember but I'd much rather they produced some new stuff rather than just use CGI to create a 'live action' remake of an oldie.

I'm glad they did it, just as I'm glad they did the Jungle Book and will be doing Lion King.

Not all movies need to be remade, but I also don't believe this holier-than-thou gatekeeping dogma crap that says "only the original is ever good".

Would we be better off without Ocean's Eleven and Great Gatsby?
Heck, most of the stories in Disney's own "original" animations from 1940 forward had already been made by Europeans and Russians a decade or two before, so those are remakes too.

Let people do what they want to do, and the market reception is the only one who gets to say if they should or shouldn't do more of those.

 

[BRiT]

They need to remake Armageddon using the Fast & Furious universe.

 

[Mariner]

It's not 'holier than thou dogma crap' to wish for something novel as opposed to a tired remake looking to do nothing but make money.

I've read dozens, nay, hundreds of books which would make great movies. Why should these be overlooked just so Disney can keep pumping out remakes in search of an easy dollar?

Pixar and some of the other companies producing animated movies can come up with good and interesting ideas so I don't see why anybody would be happy with a remake which just rehashes the same old tired story.

 

[hoom]

Not all movies need to be remade, but I also don't believe this holier-than-thou gatekeeping dogma crap that says "only the original is ever good".

I don't really give a damn about Aladdin.

Its one thing to lovingly redo & improve a classic that was held back for various reasons at the time, or with some clever twist/s.
But they've been doing a lot of remakes that intentionally shit on the classic and/or are just shittier versions of the good original.
The whole 'subvert expectations' shit just gotta stop.

As @Mariner says there are a huge number of books etc that would make for amazing movies with current tech and without the baggage of an older classic to live up to or subvert.

 

[tongue_of_colicab]

It's not 'holier than thou dogma crap' to wish for something novel as opposed to a tired remake looking to do nothing but make money.

I've read dozens, nay, hundreds of books which would make great movies. Why should these be overlooked just so Disney can keep pumping out remakes in search of an easy dollar?

Pixar and some of the other companies producing animated movies can come up with good and interesting ideas so I don't see why anybody would be happy with a remake which just rehashes the same old tired story.

Because millions of people keep on paying for those movies time and time again.

Anyway went to see Detective Pikachu the other day and it was kind of fun. The CGI is good and while the story isn't anything worth remembering I guess it's not a bad start for a more adult oriented Pokemon. Hell, they allowed Mr. Mime to be (figuratively) burned alive so there might be hope for the future

 

[Deleted member 13524]

It's not 'holier than thou dogma crap' to wish for something novel as opposed to a tired remake looking to do nothing but make money.

You say as if the market somehow lacked "novel content". On a roster of 10-20 films on any given time in a cinema, how many of those are remakes? Zero to one?
You're actually complaining that the less-than-5% of films that release in Hollywood aren't "novel".

How's that for entitlement and gatekeeping?

I've read dozens, nay, hundreds of books which would make great movies. Why should these be overlooked just so Disney can keep pumping out remakes in search of an easy dollar?

Because Disney does whatever the fuck Disney wants with their production budget and IP. If you want them to only release new/original stuff, then by all means buy 10 tickets for those and 0 tickets for the others.

I don't see why anybody would be happy with a remake which just rehashes the same old tired story.

The fact that you can't perceive the logic doesn't mean the logic doesn't exist.
I had been longing to see what a live-action version of Aladdin would look like, using modern technology. It looks great, I'm glad they did it and the ticket was well worth the money to me. I'm probably going to watch it again with my 4 year old daughter.

Its one thing to lovingly redo & improve a classic that was held back for various reasons at the time, or with some clever twist/s.
But they've been doing a lot of remakes that intentionally shit on the classic and/or are just shittier versions of the good original.
The whole 'subvert expectations' shit just gotta stop.

Which Disney movies do you think are "just shittier versions of the good original"?

I can think of a bunch of whitewashing / english-washing adaptations from rather recent asian/european movies, like The Ring and Oldboy. None of that made by Disney.

As @Mariner says there are a huge number of books etc that would make for amazing movies with current tech and without the baggage of an older classic to live up to or subvert.

And look how bad those adaptations can be received by the general audience. Eragon? Golden Compass?
Good books don't magically turn into good movies.
And let's not even talk about film adaptations from videogames with stories that had equally high potential.

 

[Sigfried1977]

People always complain about remakes, but when new stuff (like John Carter. A film I personally liked a lot.) does get made, people tend to steer clear of it. Maybe it's just my impression, but it seems to me like original movies with considerable budgets all crash and burn at the box office.

 

[Mariner]

You say as if the market somehow lacked "novel content". On a roster of 10-20 films on any given time in a cinema, how many of those are remakes? Zero to one?
You're actually complaining that the less-than-5% of films that release in Hollywood aren't "novel".

How's that for entitlement and gatekeeping?

Stop getting your knickers in a twist. I merely stated that I couldn't really see the point in such live action remakes and would prefer to see novel stuff instead. You were the one who got all excitable about it, posting unnecessarily aggressive responses such as this one. It's a post about a film for kids, FFS. Not a personal insult just because you like watching Disney movies.

Perhaps I'm just lacking this Disney-mania because I was never bothered about watching the films as a kid and I'm not bothered about watching them now? (Though I remember taking my little sister to see Bambi and, I think, the Jungle Book when they were re-released). My wife and her sisters were Disney-obsessives as kids. My wife has grown out of it to some degree since having children. Perhaps her sisters will do the same?

 

[Deleted member 13524]

Stop getting your knickers in a twist. I merely stated that I couldn't really see the point in such live action remakes and would prefer to see novel stuff instead.

Of course you couldn't see the point...
Here's how your posts read:

I never watched Aladdin so I have no idea why people would want its live action remake, but I still have the opinion that Disney shouldn't do any life action remake because I read many books.



Yeah man, not gatekeeping at all

 

[tuna]

I've read dozens, nay, hundreds of books which would make great movies. Why should these be overlooked just so Disney can keep pumping out remakes in search of an easy dollar?

There are thousands movies made every year based on original stories. But the people who own Disney wants as much money as possible every year, so it is better to focus your marketing on what you think will appeal to people.

 

[Mariner]

Here's how your posts read:

In your head, perhaps. Not in mine.

No point in continuing this. You obviously enjoy arguing and I'm not going to waste any more time talking about a film I don't care about and will most likely never see.

 

[Sigfried1977]

I quite enjoyed "The Perfection" on Netflix. What a tight and nasty little genre bending thriller.

 

[London Geezer]

People always complain about remakes, but when new stuff (like John Carter. A film I personally liked a lot.) does get made, people tend to steer clear of it. Maybe it's just my impression, but it seems to me like original movies with considerable budgets all crash and burn at the box office.

I’d say it’s about known properties. Technically, the MCU movies (yes, those again!), such as Black Panther are all ‘original’ apart from the actual sequels (Avengers, Thor’s 1 2 3 etc). However they are very familiar properties and people will flock to them.

The reality is that the public only has the money, time and interest to go see a set amount of films per year, and “new properties” are a risk that is clearly not taken by everyone, unless in those cases where reviews and great word of mouth help.

John Carter, or even Shazam which I liked, just didn’t click for a number of reasons.

Even Pixar, which had a series of absolutely amazing original movies that were also financially successful, have funnelled their energy more and more on sequels, and their new original films haven’t exactly been even close to those classics like Wall-e or Finding Nemo, both in terms of returns and actual quality, although that’s a subjective view.

 

[eloic]

The Butler. I liked the movie very much. Quite informative. It's hard to know that these things happened so recently...

Regarding black people voting for Obama, I've always thought that it was not the most desirable thing because people should vote a political platform for its ideas and goals, not a person just for the colour of their skin and we already know for a fact that many black voters voted Obama because he's mixed, BUT bearing in mind the history of the country I can perfectly understand that and how much it meant to black people.

Oh, and I would have liked Mariah to appear more in the movie.

 

[BRiT]

Deadwood: The Movie.

Just as good as the series. There's a few flashbacks interspersed here and there to set the mood and remind the viewer of what happened. The town, characters, and story feel like a natural continuation so they did a good job there.

My only complaint is more about myself, as there's been too long a time between the series and this movie that I don't remember all the nuances. I would not mind binge watching through it all again from the beginning, to get the most out of it.

 

[Sigfried1977]

The Meg
The film about Jathan Statham who, despite being named Jonah, only ever comes dangerously close to being swallowed by a giant 75 foot fish. It's fun, stupid, too long and unfortunately a little too bloodless for a film about a giant shark eating people. I'm also having a tough time believing it's based on a best selling novel. CGI can be a little dodgy as well. And speaking of dodgy CGI, the Shallows, another PG-13 shark movie, definitely managed to extract way more tension and thrills from a similar subject matter.

 

[jlippo]

The Meg
The film about Jathan Statham who, despite being named Jonah, only ever comes dangerously close to being swallowed by a giant 75 foot fish. It's fun, stupid, too long and unfortunately a little too bloodless for a film about a giant shark eating people. I'm also having a tough time believing it's based on a best selling novel. CGI can be a little dodgy as well. And speaking of dodgy CGI, the Shallows, another PG-13 shark movie, definitely managed to extract way more tension and thrills from a similar subject matter.

The book series is very silly and they pretty much made new plot for the film. (And changed megalodons completely from nocturnal bioluminent ones.)