The Ohio Sci-Fi and Horror Marathons

The Official Forum of the Ohio Sci-Fi and Horror Marathons
It is currently Thu Jul 19, 2018 3:26 pm

All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 13 posts ] 
Author Message
 Post subject: Re: My afterthoughts
PostPosted: Mon Nov 07, 2011 10:51 am 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Sun Apr 02, 2006 6:03 pm
Posts: 469
Location: Dublin, OH
David2012 wrote:
...I mentioned that I refused to go see the remake of Spiderman, since I think it is INCREDIBLY stupid that they are remaking a perfectly good movie LESS THAN TEN YEARS OLD! It's like they're saying "You know what people? We messed up 2003's Spiderman. We hate it so much, we're gonna remake it, and we're not even going to wait until it gets old." I LOVE 2003's Spiderman, and it does not need a remake, ever...

To be fair, the Spiderman remake is more about legal issues than it is an attempt to reboot the genre.

Marvel does not own the rights to make a Spiderman movie, Sony does. If Sony doesn't make another film by a certain date, the rights revert back to Marvel. When negotiations with Raimi fell through on a possible Spiderman 4 (and the cast essentially walked with Raimi when he left), Sony opted to reboot the series with a new cast and stories rather than try to re-cast into the current series.

It's an unfortunate situation, but I don't think Sony's trying to tell us that the 2003 film sucked. :)

_________________
David A. Zecchini; Creature of the Wheel, Lord of the Infernal Engines
"Damnati Im Ludum" (VitruvianZeke@att.net)


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Nov 07, 2011 8:55 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Jan 29, 2007 12:16 am
Posts: 420
Location: Toledo
It's not like the 2003 Spider-Man movie was an original story. :lol: It's the same character we've known and loved for decades.

Spidey is Spidey, I wasn't particularly attached to Tobey Maguire, though he was good for the role.

The new one actually looks pretty cool. I like the setup in the teaser trailer at least.



2003 Spidey for next year's sci-fi marathon!!!!


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Nov 07, 2011 9:31 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Apr 03, 2006 9:15 am
Posts: 1959
Spiderman began and ended with Nicholas Hammond

_________________
Jaws3dfan®
Follow me on Twitter


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Nov 08, 2011 10:47 am 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Sun Apr 02, 2006 6:03 pm
Posts: 469
Location: Dublin, OH
Jaws3dfan wrote:
Spiderman began and ended with Nicholas Hammond

*ahem*

I respectfully disagree ...

http://youtu.be/UhHhXukovMU

_________________
David A. Zecchini; Creature of the Wheel, Lord of the Infernal Engines
"Damnati Im Ludum" (VitruvianZeke@att.net)


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Nov 09, 2011 6:26 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Sep 07, 2010 8:19 pm
Posts: 82
I agree. The new Spiderman film does look great. I just got attached to Tobey Maguire, Kirsten Dunst, the woman that played Mary Jane, Spiderman's boss, etc. It would just feel weird seeing a Spiderman film without them, but I totally get what you're saying. I might see it. When it comes to movies, I am usually an equal opportunity watcher. I see all the horror remakes that come out, and believe it or not, some of them are pretty darn good. Remakes don't take away from the originals at all. The originals are still there, sitting on store shelves, video rental aisles, home movie collections, etc. A movie can be remade 999 times and the original will still exist. Maybe Hollywood is running out of ideas, but I think it's a sales tactic that Hollywood uses to feed on our nostalgia, our love of the past. To be fair, not all horror films are remakes. Generally, I love all horror movies. It would take a movie to REALLLLLLYYYYY suck in order for me to hate it (see "The Blair Watch Project" and "Revenge Of The Dead").

_________________
"Two possibilities exist: Either we are alone in the Universe or we are not. Both are equally terrifying."
- Arthur C. Clarke


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Nov 10, 2011 12:10 pm 
Offline

Joined: Thu Apr 06, 2006 9:55 pm
Posts: 463
Location: Chicago
David2012 wrote:
Maybe Hollywood is running out of ideas, but I think it's a sales tactic that Hollywood uses to feed on our nostalgia, our love of the past.


Hollywood hasn't run out of ideas. It's just run by accountants who've run out of nephews to give jobs to. There's plenty of great ideas out there, but Hollywood is too conservative to take a chance on "unknown" talent i.e. people who aren't relatives or friends of friends. I work in the industry and see the failing upwards all the time. Remember that movie Paparazzi? No one else does either, but it was seriously directed by Mel Gibson's hair stylist! And that's why we get garbage like the Prom Night remake.

_________________
"I came here to chew bubble gum and kick a**. I'm all out of bubble gum."


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Nov 11, 2011 10:42 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Apr 03, 2006 9:15 am
Posts: 1959
David2012 wrote:
I see all the horror remakes that come out, and believe it or not, some of them are pretty darn good.


I agree some are very good, like:

John Carpenter's THE THING
Invasion of the Body Snatchers (1978)
When a Stranger Calls (2006)
My Bloody Valentine (2009)
Thirteen Ghosts (2001)

But some are aweful:
The Fog (2005) - Worst Movie Ever
Prom Night (2008)
Dawn of the Dead (2004)
Halloween (2007)

_________________
Jaws3dfan®
Follow me on Twitter


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Nov 12, 2011 1:59 am 
Offline

Joined: Sat May 13, 2006 12:54 am
Posts: 355
Location: Outskirts of Nowhere
Hollywood has tons of original ideas! The problem is, they're all being turned into lousy Adam Sandler movies... :roll:


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Nov 12, 2011 10:14 am 
Offline

Joined: Wed Apr 05, 2006 12:23 pm
Posts: 521
It's far from unique to Hollywood - it's generally pervasive across entertainment. And the reason is that it's a business.

It is almost always a safer bet financially to go with the known quantity over the unknown new idea. That's why we see remakes in Hollywood, but it's also the reason that comics continue to promote Superman, Batman, Wonder Woman, Spider-Man, the Hulk and the X-Men instead of creating new characters. It's the reason that a Shakespeare company is going to do Hamlet, Romeo & Juliet and Julius Cesar over Twelfth Night, Coriolanus and As You Like It.

People are less likely to invest in an unknown entertainment.

Not that it doesn't happen, of course. Otherwise we'd never have anything new, and obviously that doesn't happen. But it is the reason that there will always be remakes (or revivals) instead of just a flood of new properties.

It has nothing to do with the creativity that exists - it just has to do with where is the money flowing.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Nov 13, 2011 6:44 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Jan 29, 2007 12:16 am
Posts: 420
Location: Toledo
AEinhorn wrote:
It's far from unique to Hollywood - it's generally pervasive across entertainment. And the reason is that it's a business.

It is almost always a safer bet financially to go with the known quantity over the unknown new idea. That's why we see remakes in Hollywood, but it's also the reason that comics continue to promote Superman, Batman, Wonder Woman, Spider-Man, the Hulk and the X-Men instead of creating new characters.


Its not just that people prefer to go with a known quantity, its also because companies ALREADY OWN the likes of Mickey Mouse, Batman, Optimus Prime, Spider-Man, 101 Dalmatians, The Terminator, Bugs Bunny, Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles, etc, AND ALL THE LICENSING RIGHTS attached to those properties. Putting out new material with familiar characters not only serves to keep those properties in the public eye and consciousness, but it also introduces the characters to the new younger generations. Companies make A LOT of money selling Superman birthday cards, Mickey Mouse hats, C-3PO cereal, Optimus Prime toys, and Spider-Man scooters.

Its not just that putting out a new Batman movie or Spider-Man comic book is more likely to get a return on your investment than something featuring some new characters, but the owners would probably keep doing it even if they keep losing money on the project (Superman movies coughcough) because its in their best financial interests to keep their properties in the public eye as much as possible. The more well-known and well-liked a property is, the more they can charge for licensing fees for a pack of Lightning McQueen pencils.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Nov 14, 2011 10:44 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Apr 03, 2006 9:15 am
Posts: 1959
The True Spider-Man

_________________
Jaws3dfan®
Follow me on Twitter


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Nov 26, 2011 8:14 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Sep 07, 2010 8:19 pm
Posts: 82
to MEATFETISH: I seen Paparazzi. It was fun seeing someone actually get revenge on the paparazzi in that movie. It is crazy how violent and careless the paparazzi are when it comes to getting stories. Not only do they completely make them up, but they go to extreemes to get them, no matter how violent or wreckless. I watched Paparazzi because I wanted to see someone do to them what I'D like to to LOL I've actually seen all films that were directed by Mel Gibson (or in Paparazzi's case, his hair stylist). Despite how freakin' nuts Mel Gibson is, I actually like Apocalypto. I love any movie that has to do with the Mayans.

to Jaws3Dfan: I love the Spiderman costume that Tobey Maguire wore much more. It's sharp and looks awesome, but to be fair, the Spiderman show paved the way. You have to start somewhere.

_________________
"Two possibilities exist: Either we are alone in the Universe or we are not. Both are equally terrifying."
- Arthur C. Clarke


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Nov 28, 2011 6:43 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sat May 13, 2006 12:54 am
Posts: 355
Location: Outskirts of Nowhere
In all fairness though, Gibson did have really good hair. :lol:

This discussion reminds me of when my sister saw the new Spider-Man trailer. Her reaction was, "why are they making another Spider-Man movie?" Jeez, I don't know, maybe because they make BILLIONS for Sony? That might have something to do with it. Yeah, it's a little soon for a reboot, but it's not like Spider-Man 3 was all that great anyway.


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 13 posts ] 

All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
cron
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group