CINEMA

Hollywood out of ideas, remakes 'Total Recall'

POSTED BY: HAKEN
UPDATED: Tuesday, May 24, 2011 09:50
SHORT URL: http://bit.ly/lXDOys
VIEWED: 2202
PAGE 1 of 1

Tuesday, January 11, 2011 9:21 AM

HAKEN

Likes to mess with stuffs.


Hollywood has finally run out of ideas (how many times have people said that before?) because after making sequels after sequels, rebooting old TV shows into movies, and turning comic books into movie franchises, they are now tapping into their recent movies to be remade.

Next on the list, Arnold Schwarzenegger's 'Total Recall.' It was announced today that Collin Farrell will lead the cast with Len Wiseman in the Director's chair.

Supposedly Wiseman will be more true to the Phillip K. Dick source material, but we'll see.


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, January 11, 2011 9:26 AM

OPPYH


Colin Farrel is now the king of remakes. In addition to the 2007 Miami Vice remake, and Fright Night(due later this year)..now this? Hollywood really has run out of ideas.

----------------------------------------------------------------

70's TV FOREVER

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, January 11, 2011 10:01 AM

STORYMARK


Quote:

Originally posted by HAKEN:
Hollywood has finally run out of ideas (how many times have people said that before?) because after making sequels after sequels, rebooting old TV shows into movies, and turning comic books into movie franchises, they are now tapping into their recent movies to be remade.

Next on the list, Arnold Schwarzenegger's 'Total Recall.' It was announced today that Collin Farrell will lead the cast with Len Wiseman in the Director's chair.

Supposedly Wiseman will be more true to the Phillip K. Dick source material, but we'll see.




It has nothing to do with being out of ideas. Remakes happen because they're easier to market, and most importantly - because people talk so much about them in advance - which rarely happens for original ideas - and almost never this far in advance.

So, by complaining about it, you are actually reinforcing it.

"I thoroughly disapprove of duels. If a man should challenge me, I would take him kindly and forgivingly by the hand and lead him to a quiet place and kill him."

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, January 11, 2011 11:16 AM

ZEEK


Total Recall wasn't very interesting the first time around. Pass.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, January 11, 2011 12:00 PM

HAKEN

Likes to mess with stuffs.


Quote:

So, by complaining about it, you are actually reinforcing it.


Perhaps, but I do my fair share of talking about little known movies too.

I just felt that it was too soon to remake 'Total Recall.'

Besides, in addition to the 'Total Recall' movie, there was also a 'Total Recall' television series titled 'Total Recall 2070,' which had a brief run about 10 years ago.

'Total Recall 2070' was sort of a mash up of 'Total Recall' and 'Blade Runner' that had nothing to do with either movies, but supposedly is based on ideas from both worlds created by Phillip K. Dick. I felt it was an okay syndicated sci-fi series that rode on the popularity wave of the "near future" sci-fi concept at the time.

I don't believe Len Wiseman, a Director known more for design and style than substance, has the ability to take the difficult Phillip K. Dick source material beyond what has already been done.

And the screenwriter, Kurt Wimmer, although noted for 'Equilibrium,' hasn't done anything of merit in recent years within the sci-fi genre that would suggest that he could pull off a good 'Total Recall' script.

I dunno, this all just looks too much like double trouble to me, especially with the marketing guys in charge.



NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, January 11, 2011 12:09 PM

STORYMARK


Yeah, I was aware of the TV show, but aside from the name, it had/has little to do with the concept behind the films, so I don't see it as relevant.

And since the first film made huge changes to Dick's story, and was released over 20 years ago, I hardly see a more accurate adaptation being "too soon". The fact that Mars isn't involved in this remake seems to indicate that it'll be a rather huge difference from Verhoven's film, as Mars was pretty much the focus.

I agree Wiseman doesn't have a great track record, and is the biggest potential problem, but I try not to judge projects sight-unseen.

As for Wimmer, I take it as a good sign that he writes more than sci-fi. Makes it more likely to be a film with ideas, and not just a pastiche of beats from other films/stories.

I see it as a opprotunity to take an interesting concept and explore it in more depth than the original film, which became more of a muscle-head excersize in over-the-top violence than the thought-provoking story the premise had potential for. Maybe they'll blow it, but again... I'm not going to judge on such surface information.

And face it, when it comes to movies - the marketing guys run everything. This is no different.

"I thoroughly disapprove of duels. If a man should challenge me, I would take him kindly and forgivingly by the hand and lead him to a quiet place and kill him."

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, January 11, 2011 12:37 PM

SEGFAULT


Anytime Hollywood makes another pass at a Dick story I get excited, because one of these days they're going to get it right.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, January 11, 2011 1:46 PM

LWAVES


We all know that Hollywood ran out of ideas a long long while ago and that sequels, prequels, reboots, TV adaptions, remakes etc are an easy way for them to operate and hopefully (for them) make money.
Sticking with remakes there are some good ones out there. They may be few and far between but they are there. The Thing comes to mind. In more recent times Let Me In and True Grit stand out. If a remake aims to bring something else to the viewer (like staying closer to the original novel) and a decent enough amount of time has passed then I say go for it. If the finished product is bad then I just won't watch it.

As for Total Recall then I have to say that 20 years is plenty of time. It wasn't a great film to begin with, it was a great Arnie film but compared to similar movies it was average-ly okay IMO. If the new remake can stick closer to PKD's original ideas then good luck to them. I've heard of the director but can't say if he's any good or not without checking to see if I know his work. He may do the material justice, or not, hopefully he will.


And this is slightly off-topic, but related, and is something that has started to bug me a little bit recently.
If they go back to PKD's source material for this film is it really a 'remake'? I noticed it more recently with True Grit and Let Me In with people saying they were remaking them, especially when folks say they are remaking the John Wayne film. If the Coens went back to the novel (which they did) then how could it be a remake of the Wayne version. Surely it's a alternate version, or whatever you want to call it.
A lot of it is down to the terminology used by people (not having a dig at anyone as I'm as guilty as everyone else) but it has come to my attention. Of course it may just be the filmmakers trying to distance themselves from the other film and maybe add a little more credibility.



"The greatest invention ever is not the wheel. It's the second wheel." - Rich Hall

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, January 15, 2011 2:10 AM

SHINYGOODGUY


Agreed, Storymark and Haken, marketing rules the day. Take a look at Tron:Legacy, a SFX-laden (and a bit over produced IMHO in that aspect), 3D venture that had no story and no redeeming value (save Jeff Bridges) who was absolutely wasted in this sequel. You would think that after 28 years they would have a better end product.

But its all marketing. "Make it in 3D and then we could sit back and count the money. The fools will flock to anything with the Tron name attached to it." And so, I did. I watched the trailer a dozen times, I read the stories about how Pixar was asked to try and fix the storyline (I'm not sure if they did accept the assignment, but from the looks of it - apparently not). I bought my ticket (my son along as well) and sat there like a lump. Disappointment comes directly to mind.

I have lots of issues with the new Tron film, not that the first one was Dr. Zhivago (or Star Wars for that matter), but it had something. It was quirky fun, something never before seen, the precursor to The Matrix, if you will. But the new Tron was sour, devoid of fun. It made the same mistake that Lucas made with the Star Wars Pre-logy. Episodes 1,2, & 3 took itself too seriously and didn't have FUN. That's what made the first Tron such a cult classic, of course the cool cheesy graphics helped, but FUN. The story in Tron: L was just plain lame (the acting, particularly by Hedlund didn't help). What makes matters worse is that they built the whole story around the father/son relationship but they forgot to tell Hedlund to emote that. Poor direction? Who knows!

Basically, Tron kicks Tron: L's ass out of the park big time, and this without the help of 3D. So what good is it to remake or rehash a movie/tv series if you don't bring a good story along with it? The remake of True Grit was good, solid movie making with emphasis on story.
It was different, John Wayne's perf notwithstanding, than the original. With varying degrees, both were well-made. The tone and pacing were somewhat different. Having said that I like The Duke's version slightly better (call me old fashioned).

Remakes: It's not that H-wood is running out of ideas, it's H-wood wants to make money - first and foremost. So the marketing dudes say "why not appeal to the aging baby boomers and their children by remaking X." It's sort of what Disney does every 7 years, they pull out the old standards to resell to those who watched when they were kids and show it to their kids. Anything new and untried is too uncertain for LaLa Land's accountants. Unless your name is attached to H-wood's royalty (Spielberg, Hanks, Lucas, etc.).

How do we stop it? Don't go. Of course if it's well done how could u not.


SGG


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, April 29, 2011 12:49 AM

JAMERON4EVA


Quote:

Originally posted by Storymark:
Yeah, I was aware of the TV show, but aside from the name, it had/has little to do with the concept behind the films, so I don't see it as relevant.

And since the first film made huge changes to Dick's story, and was released over 20 years ago, I hardly see a more accurate adaptation being "too soon". The fact that Mars isn't involved in this remake seems to indicate that it'll be a rather huge difference from Verhoven's film, as Mars was pretty much the focus.

I agree Wiseman doesn't have a great track record, and is the biggest potential problem, but I try not to judge projects sight-unseen.

As for Wimmer, I take it as a good sign that he writes more than sci-fi. Makes it more likely to be a film with ideas, and not just a pastiche of beats from other films/stories.

I see it as a opprotunity to take an interesting concept and explore it in more depth than the original film, which became more of a muscle-head excersize in over-the-top violence than the thought-provoking story the premise had potential for. Maybe they'll blow it, but again... I'm not going to judge on such surface information.

And face it, when it comes to movies - the marketing guys run everything. This is no different.

"I thoroughly disapprove of duels. If a man should challenge me, I would take him kindly and forgivingly by the hand and lead him to a quiet place and kill him."





Marketing guys DONT run everything, If you want proof, look at Star Wars.

"Mom, he has her chip. He has her."
John Connor,"Born To Run", TSCC EP 2x22

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, April 29, 2011 1:27 AM

GWEK


Quote:

Originally posted by jameron4eva:
Marketing guys DONT run everything, If you want proof, look at Star Wars.



The entertainment industry is a very different industry than it was 35 years ago... thanks in large part to STAR WARS and other similar movies.

Marketing DOES rule these day these days, when a studio will sometimes spend as much marketing the movie as it does making it. (I'm not sure if it's still true, but at one point, the latest Harry Potter movie was actually a financial disaster--despite having made over 700 million in ticket sales--because so much was spent on marketing).

As Storymark points out, the industry is all about "buzz" and there are only so many things that reliably generate buzz: an A-list star or director, a VERY high-end writer or creator, a recognizable property/name... on rare occassions, a cool concept or interesting plot.

Consider INCEPTION. Twenty, thirty, forty years ago, it might not have starred the equivalent of DeCraprio. The innovative concept and A-list director might have been enough. But most studios wanted nothing to do with the script until more talent was attached.

Heck, even STAR WARS suffered from the effect! Lucas did not want Alec Guinness as Kenobi, but wanted instead to cast Toshiro Mifune. The studio nixed that, saying that there was no way they would let a relatively untested director make a movie starring a bunch of unknowns and a Japanese guy. They needed a bankable star like Sir Alec to put in the trailer. (And don't forget that Star Wars almost didn't get made: every major studio had passed on the project. In fact, I believe 20th Century Fox had actually passed, or was about to pass, before a staff change among the executive decision makers brought in a guy who liked Lucas's work.)

People can trash re-makes all they want, but re-makes, sequels, and other crappy popcorn movies with giant stars and no plot generally bring in the big amounts of ticket sales because of the aforementioned buzz. And the money from those "sure things" allows studios to balance their slate by taking risks. For every Planet of the Apes remake or Batman sequel, they can take the risk on an Inception or a Matrix.




www.stillflying.net: "Here's how it might have been..."

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, April 29, 2011 1:38 AM

GWEK


On writers: I see a few people trashing Wimmer for his limited sci fi chops... but no one is commenting on the fact that his most recent credits are SALT and LAW-ABIDING CITIZEN. SALT, in particular, carries many of the same character-based sensibilities as TOTAL RECALL.

Note also that Wimmer is only one of three writers credited with writing the script (at least one of whom has a good deal of experience with big budget action). Assuming the writers weren't all working together (which is doubtful), Wimmer was likely brought in to do a character polish (probably based on the buzz from his work on the similarly-themed SALT) *after* the other writers had adapted the basic plot and put most of the act into place.

Heck, the thing that concerns me most about Wimmer is that he has sole writing credit for ULTRAVIOLET!

www.stillflying.net: "Here's how it might have been..."

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, April 29, 2011 3:49 AM

THESOMNAMBULIST


Lwaves wrote:
Quote:

And this is slightly off-topic, but related, and is something that has started to bug me a little bit recently.
If they go back to PKD's source material for this film is it really a 'remake'? I noticed it more recently with True Grit and Let Me In with people saying they were remaking them, especially when folks say they are remaking the John Wayne film. If the Coens went back to the novel (which they did) then how could it be a remake of the Wayne version. Surely it's a alternate version, or whatever you want to call it.



Interesting point Lwaves. The book is there for personal interpretation. Much like the various incarnations of A Christmas Carol or the Midsummer Night's dream, and as such perhaps fall outside the confines of a remake...

However by they mere fact they are already calling this 'Total Recall' and not 'We Can Remember It for You Wholesale' suggests they're maybe not sticking to the source material... We'll see.





Cartoons - http://cirqusartsandmusic.blogspot.com

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, April 29, 2011 3:52 AM

THESOMNAMBULIST


Originally posted by SHINYGOODGUY:
Quote:

Agreed, Storymark and Haken, marketing rules the day. Take a look at Tron:Legacy, a SFX-laden (and a bit over produced IMHO in that aspect), 3D venture that had no story and no redeeming value (save Jeff Bridges) who was absolutely wasted in this sequel. You would think that after 28 years they would have a better end product.

But its all marketing. "Make it in 3D and then we could sit back and count the money. The fools will flock to anything with the Tron name attached to it." And so, I did. I watched the trailer a dozen times, I read the stories about how Pixar was asked to try and fix the storyline (I'm not sure if they did accept the assignment, but from the looks of it - apparently not). I bought my ticket (my son along as well) and sat there like a lump. Disappointment comes directly to mind.

I have lots of issues with the new Tron film, not that the first one was Dr. Zhivago (or Star Wars for that matter), but it had something. It was quirky fun, something never before seen, the precursor to The Matrix, if you will. But the new Tron was sour, devoid of fun. It made the same mistake that Lucas made with the Star Wars Pre-logy. Episodes 1,2, & 3 took itself too seriously and didn't have FUN. That's what made the first Tron such a cult classic, of course the cool cheesy graphics helped, but FUN. The story in Tron: L was just plain lame (the acting, particularly by Hedlund didn't help). What makes matters worse is that they built the whole story around the father/son relationship but they forgot to tell Hedlund to emote that. Poor direction? Who knows!

Basically, Tron kicks Tron: L's ass out of the park big time, and this without the help of 3D. So what good is it to remake or rehash a movie/tv series if you don't bring a good story along with it? The remake of True Grit was good, solid movie making with emphasis on story.
It was different, John Wayne's perf notwithstanding, than the original. With varying degrees, both were well-made. The tone and pacing were somewhat different. Having said that I like The Duke's version slightly better (call me old fashioned).

Remakes: It's not that H-wood is running out of ideas, it's H-wood wants to make money - first and foremost. So the marketing dudes say "why not appeal to the aging baby boomers and their children by remaking X." It's sort of what Disney does every 7 years, they pull out the old standards to resell to those who watched when they were kids and show it to their kids. Anything new and untried is too uncertain for LaLa Land's accountants. Unless your name is attached to H-wood's royalty (Spielberg, Hanks, Lucas, etc.).

How do we stop it? Don't go. Of course if it's well done how could u not.


SGG




(That there Haken is exactly the kind of article we could use.)

Nice Shiny - must say you hit quite a few nails on heads with that one.



Cartoons - http://cirqusartsandmusic.blogspot.com

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, April 29, 2011 8:05 AM

STORYMARK


Quote:

Originally posted by jameron4eva:


Marketing guys DONT run everything, If you want proof, look at Star Wars.



Which isn't owned by a studio, but a private individual, and as such is a completely different situation from 99% of films. It's an irrelevant example in this context.

"I thoroughly disapprove of duels. If a man should challenge me, I would take him kindly and forgivingly by the hand and lead him to a quiet place and kill him."

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, April 29, 2011 12:50 PM

KWICKO

"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." -- William Casey, Reagan's presidential campaign manager & CIA Director (from first staff meeting in 1981)


Not sure if RE-making Total Recall qualifies Hollywood as being "out of ideas". After all, wouldn't just MAKING the movie in the first place (from a Phillip K. Dick story) mean they were out of ideas?

Does making a movie from a movie make it any worse than making a movie from a book or short story, or even a play?

"Although it is not true that all conservatives are stupid people, it is true that most stupid people are conservatives." - John Stuart Mill

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, April 29, 2011 1:51 PM

RIONAEIRE

Beir bua agus beannacht


My dad really likes Total Recall, so I know he'll go see it in the theater, who knows, I might end up there with him. The original I felt was just ... too bizarre with the revolutionary critter coming out of the guy's belly etc. But my dad enjoys it.

As for remakes, I don't always mind, sometimes it bothers me though, it depends on which movie they are remaking. With True Grit I saw the remake, it was good, but the first one was better in my opinion, the new one wasn't funny like the John Wayne version was. And Waves, I thought the new True Grit was a lot like the old one in plot, it just wasn't as funny.

I think that they should call this new Total Recall something else, like the actual story title, that way people don't see it as a remake and they won't complain about remakes. For instance, I Am Legend was based on a book, the Charlton Heston film Omega Man was based on the same book, but people didn't realize that I Am Legend was a "remake" of Omega Man, so no one whinged about it and no one had hurt feelings about a new movie trying to take the place of the one they grew up with, unless they knew the book and thus knew what was really going on.

When they made a remake of Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory I refused to watch it, I still refuse, I can't handle a remake of one of my favorite childhood movies. I was irritated when Hallmark remade Annie but since it was only Hallmark it didn't bother me _as _much. We'll know society is at its end when someone tries to remake The Sound of Music.

"A completely coherant River means writers don't deliver" KatTaya

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, April 29, 2011 2:07 PM

WHOZIT


They should reboot the "Royal Wedding" with Jack Black as the groom.....trust me it'll be huge!

It'll be sooooo funny! He'll fart during the vows!

I want 15% of the gross.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, April 29, 2011 2:35 PM

CHRISISALL


I wanna see Blade Runner remade. What crap that was- Indy as cop fighting whiny synthetic peeps.



Hahahahahaha, just kidding!!! They remake THAT, and they truly WILL be out...


The laughing Chrisisall


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, April 30, 2011 12:47 AM

LWAVES


Quote:

Originally posted by Kwicko:
Does making a movie from a movie make it any worse than making a movie from a book or short story, or even a play?




In a word - Yes.
Although I don't think that all remakes, reboots etc are bad. Just most of them.

Going from a book to a movie is changing its presentation to the public. It is releasing it in a different way, even if they stuck religiously to the same story, it is still different. Any transfer between movie, written word, radio play, theatre play or whatever puts it in a way that opens it up to wider appeal to the public - which is who it is ultimately aimed at.
Shakespeare's works are a good example that cover written word, plays and movies. There are folks out there who would never go to the theatre or read one of his stories but they'll quite happily sit through a movie. Then there are those that wouldn't even glance at the movie but would read his works or see a play. In more modern times the same might be said for Hitchhikers Guide To The Galaxy. I myself would never have considered watching Les Miserables or Phantom Of The Opera on a stage but I did see the movie versions.
Each presentation opens the story up to a different type of audience. Whether the transfer is any good or not is another issue.

As for Total Recall being remade then (as mentioned further up) it comes down to the point that they are remaking Total Recall not We Remember It For You Wholesale. They are re-doing a film that already exists as a film, not basing it on the source material or another format. Transferring between books and movies is one thing but there is already a movie that exists for Total Recall. It would be like someone rewriting a popular novel as another novel.

And if your comment that making a film from a novel (or whatever) is 'remaking' it then everything but the original idea in someone's head is a remake.



"The greatest invention ever is not the wheel. It's the second wheel." - Rich Hall

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, April 30, 2011 3:04 AM

KWICKO

"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." -- William Casey, Reagan's presidential campaign manager & CIA Director (from first staff meeting in 1981)


Maybe they should just go ahead and turn it over to Uwe Boll and let him finish it once and for all.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, April 30, 2011 5:39 AM

KRELLEK


Quote:

Originally posted by HAKEN:
Hollywood has finally run out of ideas (how many times have people said that before?) because after making sequels after sequels, rebooting old TV shows into movies, and turning comic books into movie franchises, they are now tapping into their recent movies to be remade.

Next on the list, Arnold Schwarzenegger's 'Total Recall.' It was announced today that Collin Farrell will lead the cast with Len Wiseman in the Director's chair.

Supposedly Wiseman will be more true to the Phillip K. Dick source material, but we'll see.




Could they not give Summer the lead female role in that case? :-)

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, April 30, 2011 5:41 AM

KRELLEK


Quote:

Originally posted by lwaves:
Quote:

Originally posted by Kwicko:
Does making a movie from a movie make it any worse than making a movie from a book or short story, or even a play?




In a word - Yes.
Although I don't think that all remakes, reboots etc are bad. Just most of them.

Going from a book to a movie is changing its presentation to the public. It is releasing it in a different way, even if they stuck religiously to the same story, it is still different. Any transfer between movie, written word, radio play, theatre play or whatever puts it in a way that opens it up to wider appeal to the public - which is who it is ultimately aimed at.
Shakespeare's works are a good example that cover written word, plays and movies. There are folks out there who would never go to the theatre or read one of his stories but they'll quite happily sit through a movie. Then there are those that wouldn't even glance at the movie but would read his works or see a play. In more modern times the same might be said for Hitchhikers Guide To The Galaxy. I myself would never have considered watching Les Miserables or Phantom Of The Opera on a stage but I did see the movie versions.
Each presentation opens the story up to a different type of audience. Whether the transfer is any good or not is another issue.

As for Total Recall being remade then (as mentioned further up) it comes down to the point that they are remaking Total Recall not We Remember It For You Wholesale. They are re-doing a film that already exists as a film, not basing it on the source material or another format. Transferring between books and movies is one thing but there is already a movie that exists for Total Recall. It would be like someone rewriting a popular novel as another novel.

And if your comment that making a film from a novel (or whatever) is 'remaking' it then everything but the original idea in someone's head is a remake.



"The greatest invention ever is not the wheel. It's the second wheel." - Rich Hall



if they movieficate a book they should try to do it to the Book Dystopia by the danish author Dennis Jurgensen. and give Summer the lead female role, and perhaps Thomas as the male lead

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, April 30, 2011 9:17 AM

STORYMARK


Quote:

Originally posted by lwaves:
They are re-doing a film that already exists as a film, not basing it on the source material or another format. Transferring between books and movies is one thing but there



Actually, they are basing it more on the book, they're just keeping the more marketable title.

"I thoroughly disapprove of duels. If a man should challenge me, I would take him kindly and forgivingly by the hand and lead him to a quiet place and kill him."

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, April 30, 2011 10:59 AM

LWAVES


Quote:

Originally posted by Storymark:
Quote:

Originally posted by lwaves:
They are re-doing a film that already exists as a film, not basing it on the source material or another format. Transferring between books and movies is one thing but there



Actually, they are basing it more on the book, they're just keeping the more marketable title.



Fair enough. I can't say I've kept up with news on this version, partly because of the Arnie version. But if they do stick close enough to PKD's work then I'll probably keep closer attention to it nearer release date.



"The greatest invention ever is not the wheel. It's the second wheel." - Rich Hall

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, May 6, 2011 1:09 PM

IMNOTHERE


Quote:

Originally posted by Storymark:
Actually, they are basing it more on the book, they're just keeping the more marketable title.



Except "Total Recall" vs. "We Can Remember For You Wholesale" is on my short and select "film better than the book" list.

Bear in mind that the "book" is a short story < 20 pages long - there's barely enough to make an "Outer Limits" episode, let alone a feature film, and the plot is a bit potty. Heresy, I know. The concept is a great bit of brainfrack, but I think the film did a better job of turning the idea into a story.


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, May 7, 2011 9:43 PM

CALHOUN


They should really remake "Battlefield Earth". That was an awesome book which I waited 25 years for the movie only to wish they hadn't made it at all..

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, May 8, 2011 4:21 AM

TWO

The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at www.mediafire.com/folder/1uwh75oa407q8/Firefly


Columbia Pictures financed Deuce Bigalow: European Gigolo, the sequel to Deuce Bigalow: Male Gigolo, while passing on the opportunity to participate in Million Dollar Baby, Ray, The Aviator, Sideways and Finding Neverland, all of them original, all of them Best Picture Nominees at the Oscars.

I grabbed the above factoid from Roger Ebert's review of Deuce Bigalow 2 (rating: zero stars - " . . . Mr. Schneider, your movie sucks." ) at http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20050811/REV
IEWS/50725001/1023


What could this mean other than Columbia Pictures, in the years 2004-2005, was making decisions based only upon money and nothing else?

There is a little justice in the world -- the sequel made half the money of the original, although more than Serenity. How did that happen?
Deuce Bigalow 1 Gross: $92,938,755 www.boxofficemojo.com/movies/?id=deucebigalowmalegigolo.htm
Deuce Bigalow 2 Gross: $45,109,561 www.boxofficemojo.com/movies/?id=deucebigalow2.htm
Serenity World Gross: $38,869,464 www.boxofficemojo.com/movies/?id=serenity.htm

The Joss Whedon script for "Serenity," where Wash lives, is
Serenity-190pages.pdf at www.mediafire.com/two

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, May 8, 2011 3:55 PM

RIONAEIRE

Beir bua agus beannacht


I have to admit that Deuce Bigalow: Male Gigalow is one of my favorite movies, yes, for serious, it is one of my favorites, at least one of my favorite comedies, but Deuce 2 was an _awful movie, it was an embarassment to all fans of Deuce, I notice that though DBMG is played a lot on TV they never ever show the second one, that is because it sucked brick. It was just stupid. Some things shouldn't have a sequel, period.

"A completely coherant River means writers don't deliver" KatTaya

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, May 22, 2011 2:11 AM

SHINYGOODGUY


Thanx, I was inspired.


SGG

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, May 24, 2011 3:56 AM

ANONYMOUSE


More often than not, the film would be a lot better if they simply stuck to the original book/story in the first place. By far the best examples are Total Recall, Battlefield Earth and, especially, Starship Troopers.

Oh, that last one so annoyed me. Rico was treated very badly - Heinlein's Rico would never have done something as stupid as pulling the Bug's claw out of Dizzy's chest. If he'd left it there until they could get her to surgery, she'd probably have lived. Instead he did more damage to her than the Bug did - those serrations point backwards for a REASON. She died in agony, for nothing.

And as for Breckinridge copping it during the live fire exercise - oh, come ON! And where was the military discipline and tactics described in the book? Where were the powered suits? Where, for that matter, was the central tenet of why only veterans could vote?

In the book, Rico was lashed, but for a damn good reason, and one he agreed with - he didn't come close to quitting because of it. He took his 5 (not 10) licks, admitted the mistake to himself, and that was that.

As for Carmen - oh, dear. What kind of pilot can't see a dirty great asteroid bigger than her gorram ship coming straight for them, relying on instruments? Wash would never have done that.

And Zim taking a demotion just to get on the front line - nonsense. Either a) such an experienced and capable trainer would be left where he was needed, or b) he'd be out there at his proper rank. Certainly no trooper would be sent out there if s/he hadn't even finished boot! "Who are all these kids?" indeed - at that point he was only 19 himself and hadn't even finished basic training, yet he's a gorram lieutenant?! I despair, I really do! It needs a remake - by someone who knows what s/he's doing!

Battlefield Earth - I've only seen bits of it. That's all I want to see. The original story was actually well worth reading; say what you like about Dianetics, at least Hubbard could write.

Total Recall - 'a man is defined by his actions, not his memories' - utter nonsense. Empirically flawed; memories make the man. Quaid was a very different man from Hauser. Mars' moons are captured asteroids that barely deserve to be called moons and are barely visible from the surface. Don't even get me started on the absurd effects...

Enough. This is getting O/T. Offhand I can't remember seeing a remake I liked. Could've just said that in the first place, I suppose. :)


There are too many people who look, but do not see; listen, but do not hear; acknowledge, but do not understand; speak, but have nothing to say.

- Me.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, May 24, 2011 9:50 AM

STORYMARK


Quote:

Originally posted by Anonymouse:
More often than not, the film would be a lot better if they simply stuck to the original book/story in the first place. By far the best examples are Total Recall, Battlefield Earth and, especially, Starship Troopers.




I kinda agree, and kinda disagree on Starship Troopers. Filming the book as is wouldn't have been a very good movie, either. It's just not written in a way that's very adaptable to cinema.

Sure, they could have come closer, but I think as adaptations go (key word being "adapt") I think it was solid, and in some ways better than the book (I much prefer the satirization of the fascist state the film presents over the glorification of it in the book). Sure, I'd have liked some powered armour, and the white washing of the cast sits wrong with many (though I chalk that up to satire again), but I think it's a pretty good movie made from a book not really suited to a movie.


Your complaints about Total Recall don't even make sense, though.

"I thoroughly disapprove of duels. If a man should challenge me, I would take him kindly and forgivingly by the hand and lead him to a quiet place and kill him."

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

YOUR OPTIONS

NEW POSTS TODAY

USERPOST DATE

OTHER TOPICS

DISCUSSIONS
Expenda-Belles
Mon, September 15, 2014 17:55 - 32 posts
Edge of Tomorrow
Sat, September 13, 2014 08:33 - 121 posts
Morena Baccarin heading back to the big screen
Mon, September 8, 2014 08:46 - 16 posts
Untapped potential
Sat, September 6, 2014 14:13 - 11 posts
Sin City 2: A Dame to Kill For
Thu, August 28, 2014 17:14 - 18 posts
Codas
Thu, August 21, 2014 23:55 - 11 posts
Guardians is getting positive early reviews
Wed, August 20, 2014 17:05 - 41 posts
just saw A Most Wanted Man
Mon, August 18, 2014 17:42 - 3 posts
Expendables 3
Mon, August 18, 2014 17:39 - 1 posts
Jewel Staite is the lead in a new comedy!
Mon, August 18, 2014 02:31 - 5 posts
Robin Williams RIP
Sun, August 17, 2014 19:10 - 14 posts
For You Jewel Staite Fans
Sun, August 17, 2014 02:56 - 3 posts

FFF.NET SOCIAL

OUR SPONSORS