Another Total Recall

[_Nomad_]

Total Recall (2012) - IMDb@@AMEPARAM@@http://ia.media-imdb.com/images/M/MV5BMjAyNTg3NjM2N15BMl5BanBnXkFtZTcwODQxOTAwNg@@._V1._SX100_SY67_.jpg@@AMEPARAM@@BMjAyNTg3NjM2N15BMl5BanBnXkFtZTcwODQxOTAwNg@@@@AMEPARAM@@SX100@@AMEPARAM@@SY67

:leaving:

Edited cuz linky no worky. :hi:

[MEANZ06]

linky no worky... :slap:

[Sea Six]

Total Recall (2012) - IMDb@@AMEPARAM@@http://ia.media-imdb.com/images/M/MV5BMjAyNTg3NjM2N15BMl5BanBnXkFtZTcwODQxOTAwNg@@._V1._SX100_SY67_.jpg@@AMEPARAM@@BMjAyNTg3NjM2N15BMl5BanBnXkFtZTcwODQxOTAwNg@@@@AMEPARAM@@SX100@@AMEPARAM@@SY67

[Sea Six]

Try ^that one.

[boracayjohnny]

Am I missing something? Why do the folks in Hollywood make the same movie again? Once again, I'll vote with my money or lack there of for them.

[78SA]

If either of the females get naked I will see it. :lol:

[ApexOversteer]

Am I missing something? Why do the folks in Hollywood make the same movie again? Once again, I'll vote with my money or lack there of for them.

Remember the 1939 The Wizard Of Oz, with Judy Garland? Yeah, that was fourth time in 40 years that a film had been made based on the novel.

To discount a film simply because it's a remake is silly.

Here is my previous post on this subject...

I disagree. It obviously has the potential to suck, but suckage is not a foregone conclusion, by any means.

The quality of a film, for me, is in no way dependent on, or beholden to, any previous film or TV version of the same story. A good story, told well, will always be good cinema.

It has been twenty years since the Schwarzenegger film, which granted is a brilliant example of just-post-80's sci-action. But it has not aged well. It plays in all primary colors, coming off as the stylized 80's left over that it is, and Schwarzenegger's presence, which doesn't actually fit the character, diminishes the ability of the film to have its intended impact for a new viewer. The perfect DVD for your 80's theme party, Total Recall is now in the domain of nostalgia, almost kitsch, having been too camp to remain true cinema.

The story is worth retelling. We're two decades further into the Digital Epoch and for sci fi tv and cinema, the idea of implanted memories is hot and, frankly, so is terrorism. Total Recall actually fits the mindset more now than it did in 1990.

Wiseman has the skills and the tools to make a great adaptation of this story. Now he just has to deliver it.

http://www.thevettebarn.com/forums/off-topic/19461-movienews-afriad-total-recall-remake-will-suck-well-relax.html

[Mike Mercury]

Remember the 1939 The Wizard Of Oz, with Judy Garland? Yeah, that was fourth time in 40 years that a film had been made based on the novel.

To discount a film simply because it's a remake is silly.



well; your cult-like (pro-film industry cult) knee-jerk reaction; is like most... prone to using a bad example.

The Oz book was published in 1900; and yes there were three films attempted before a "real" film was made in 1939. The previous three were all silent movies, and in B&W. AND they were amateur'ish attempts; without the financial backing of an established commercial film studio.

Only the 1939 film was the first attempt to do a "real" film. The previous three simply don't count :nono:

The 1990 Total Recall movie was not a highschool drama-club production; and does not need remade. Everyone else is quite correct in bashing Hollywood for their laziness in remaking previous films... instead of investing in quality writers and capable directors/producers that can "invent" instead of "copy".

There's no need to come to ones rescue... when it's blatantly obvious that rescue is not warranted in this specific.

[boracayjohnny]

Remember the 1939 The Wizard Of Oz, with Judy Garland? Yeah, that was fourth time in 40 years that a film had been made based on the novel.

To discount a film simply because it's a remake is silly.

Here is my previous post on this subject...



http://www.thevettebarn.com/forums/off-topic/19461-movienews-afriad-total-recall-remake-will-suck-well-relax.html

Silly, huh? Well, you go watch the same movie with whiz bang technology twenty years forward. I'll be the one checking out something new and/or different. Have fun watching the same story and paying for it....again.

[Yerf Dog]

Hollywood acts as a business and they know a remake of a good movie has a better chance to make money than a movie based on an unknown script.

Taking chances can cost money.

Speaking of which, the remake of 'Footloose' comes out today. :D

[Cybercowboy]

Eh, I'll watch it when it's on H-blow. :lol:

I read a book recently titled "Ready Player One" that would make a fantastic movie. Supposedly the author of the book has already been contacted by movie execs. There are a number of other books (I mainly read sci-fi) that would also make good movies but it seems we get a bunch of crapola foisted on us and all the big bucks go into making Transformers 4 or whatever.

[_Nomad_]

Speaking of which, the remake of 'Footloose' comes out today. :D

The only way I would pay to see that is if Juliana Hough is there naked and blows me while I watch footage her on the big screen blowing me.

[ApexOversteer]

Silly, huh? Well, you go watch the same movie with whiz bang technology twenty years forward. I'll be the one checking out something new and/or different. Have fun watching the same story and paying for it....again.

I won't be the only one, you'll be right there with me. It might have a different title, but it won't be "new". Everything is a remix of what has come before.

[ApexOversteer]

well; your cult-like (pro-film industry cult) knee-jerk reaction; is like most... prone to using a bad example.

The Oz book was published in 1900; and yes there were three films attempted before a "real" film was made in 1939. The previous three were all silent movies, and in B&W. AND they were amateur'ish attempts; without the financial backing of an established commercial film studio.

Only the 1939 film was the first attempt to do a "real" film. The previous three simply don't count :nono:

The 1990 Total Recall movie was not a highschool drama-club production; and does not need remade. Everyone else is quite correct in bashing Hollywood for their laziness in remaking previous films... instead of investing in quality writers and capable directors/producers that can "invent" instead of "copy".

There's no need to come to ones rescue... when it's blatantly obvious that rescue is not warranted in this specific.

They might not count to you, but they count to me. The example is meant to show you that just because the story is being told for the fourth time, it has every chance of being told well.

Remember those stories your grandfather used to tell you? You remember them because he told them more than once, and told them differently more than once and each time you got another element of the story you didn't have before.

The real money spending audience for Total Recall wasn't alive or was still shitting in their pampers when Schwarzenegger went to Mars, and to watch the 1990 film now has zero impact. It is a pop culture trinket, viewed through ones opinion of Arnold and it isn't that good a movie and is a pretty crappy adaptation of the book. It left too much on the table to be the one version we ever get.

Frankly the story deserves a real movie.

In the end people like to bitch and moan about remakes, reboots, reimaginings and so-on, but they bring the bank. They are what audiences go to see, and cinema is the business of giving people what they want to see.

[themonk]

Who plays the midget, Vern Troyer?

[_Nomad_]

1990 film now has zero impact. It is a pop culture trinket,

And this one will be too. Only without a pop culture icon in the leading role.

[jaxgator]

Silly, huh? Well, you go watch the same movie with whiz bang technology twenty years forward. I'll be the one checking out something new and/or different. Have fun watching the same story and paying for it....again.

Although I probably won't go to a theater to watch it, I will watch the remake. With all of the technology improvements, it will be worth it to me.

I remember seeing the first Star Wars movie when I was 15. It blew me away. I watched it again in my 30's and wasn't impressed at all. It was really kind of cheesy. If they remade it, I would definitely watch it again but that's just me.

[boracayjohnny]

I won't be the only one, you'll be right there with me. It might have a different title, but it won't be "new". Everything is a remix of what has come before.

Wut?

I reject your argument all movies are the same and insert my own. My argument says there are actually some movies that are not connected to each other. I prove that by knowing "The Sound Of Music" with Julie Andrews is not the same as "The Sound Of Music" with Ron Jeremy.

[jaxgator]

Wut?

I reject your argument all movies are the same and insert my own. My argument says there are actually some movies that are not connected to each other. I prove that by knowing "The Sound Of Music" with Julie Andrews is not the same as "The Sound Of Music" with Ron Jeremy.

OMG :rofl: :rofl:

[boracayjohnny]

Although I probably won't go to a theater to watch it, I will watch the remake. With all of the technology improvements, it will be worth it to me.

I remember seeing the first Star Wars movie when I was 15. It blew me away. I watched it again in my 30's and wasn't impressed at all. It was really kind of cheesy. If they remade it, I would definitely watch it again but that's just me.

You're prolly the same guy to listen to a remake of "Welcome to the Jungle" using only one harmonica. :D

[boracayjohnny]

They might not count to you, but they count to me. The example is meant to show you that just because the story is being told for the fourth time, it has every chance of being told well.

Remember those stories your grandfather used to tell you? You remember them because he told them more than once, and told them differently more than once and each time you got another element of the story you didn't have before.

The real money spending audience for Total Recall wasn't alive or was still shitting in their pampers when Schwarzenegger went to Mars, and to watch the 1990 film now has zero impact. It is a pop culture trinket, viewed through ones opinion of Arnold and it isn't that good a movie and is a pretty crappy adaptation of the book. It left too much on the table to be the one version we ever get.

Frankly the story deserves a real movie.

In the end people like to bitch and moan about remakes, reboots, reimaginings and so-on, but they bring the bank. They are what audiences go to see, and cinema is the business of giving people what they want to see.

The collective people are sometimes stupid too. I've heard of folks running out to buy peanut butter because of a study. Supposedly, the study said peanut butter would cure hemorrhoids when smeared liberally about the ass. Well, that may or may not be true but I'm not gonna be lumped together with a bunch of knot-heads trying that out either.

[jaxgator]

You're prolly the same guy to listen to a remake of "Welcome to the Jungle" using only one harmonica. :D

Shaddup Bish! :slap:




:D

[NeedSpeed]

If either of the females get naked I will see it. :lol:

I just hope the 3-boob girl gets naked.

[NeedSpeed]

And don't forget that much of the viewing audience will never have seen to original let alone realize it's a remake. Much like music.

So therefore, a great movie can me brought to a new audience.

Like the saying goes, history repeats itself :D

[Burro (He/Haw)]

Meh. Who cares. When they remake Avatar lemme know, because the first one sucked nads.

[boracayjohnny]

Shaddup Bish! :slap:




:D

Hit close to home? :lol: