Total Recall: Yet Another Remake...

Give ze people air!

Rat Boy wrote:

Give ze people ayawah!

I can't seem to get fired up about this. I enjoy Total Recall, but will openly admit that it's just not that good a movie. There's a lot of cheesy acting, and some of the writing is weak.

I think I enjoy it because it's an interesting idea, regardless of how it's handled.

The Running Man on the other hand, can never be the same without all the cheeseball one liners and ridiculous costumes.

Certainly were a lot of weird screams in that movie, far more than I remembered. If you string them all together, they probably sound like the Tasmanian Devil.

I admit I'm pretty shocked at the dislike of the original film, likely in the same way people who didn't like it are shocked at its popularity.

The cheese, over-the-top action and gore struck me as very deliberate to set the tone of a man's descent into action-hero fantasy. It played like a cheesy action film because that's what Quaid thought he was in. The viewer's ability to second guess how real the events were, while Quaid was not, were what pulled it together, for me. Every single scene in the movie could be interpreted in two ways, and I've never seen another film do that.

Johnvanjim wrote:
Paleocon wrote:

Seriously. With so much good sci fi writing out there that has yet to make it to the screen, why are there so many of these remakes out?

Who WOULDN'T like to see a Neil Stevenson novel done up as a big budget hollywood flick? Crap, that stuff is MADE for the movies. With all the green crazy stuff right now, Zodiac would be PERFECT summer fare.

Amen, Snow Crash, and Cryptonomicon could be made into awesome flicks....

PLEASE! Hollywood-if you're listening-do Snow Crash instead of a Blade Runner remake... or hell, how about Neruomancer? You do know that pretty much everything PKD wrote was pure gold- right?

And it's not a remake, it's an update. Gosh, read the link!

Dear Hollywood Executives,

If you make a movie based on a book by Neal Stephenson, please hire a writer who will add competent endings to the existing stories.

Sincerely,

- Adam

adam.greenbrier wrote:

Dear Hollywood Executives,

If you make a movie based on a book by Neal Stephenson, please hire a writer who will add competent endings to the existing stories.

Sincerely,

- Adam

That's why I picked Zodiac.

Remake A Scanner Darkly, that could use a better interpretation.

Gorilla.800.lbs wrote:
Paleocon wrote:
Gorilla.800.lbs wrote:

Part of the original Total Recall's magic was not only due to Arnie, but also due to Paul Verhoeven being the director. It takes the sardonic Verhoeven to create these cheesy absurdist dystopias.

and to totally ass rape Starship Troopers.

I swear, even a homo-themed, sensitive Ang Lee version of Starship Troopers would have been a vast improvement over Verhoeven's.

I actually LOVE Verhoeven's Starship Troopers. He took the source material and departed with it into a wholly alien territory, that's true. But taken on its own, it's a work of political satire as an art form that is nothing short of genius.

ST2 and ST3, however, where complete garbage. No argument about that. But Verhoeven wasn't involved in making them.

Do you want to know more?

Paleocon wrote:

Seriously. With so much good sci fi writing out there that has yet to make it to the screen, why are there so many of these remakes out?

Because PK Dick got screwed out of his IP rights and they won't have to shell out any royalties?
Yeah, Neal Stephenson would be cool. Imagine Peter Jackson's Snowcrash.

Problem is, Stephenson is :
1) Alive
2) Not a dupe
3) Likely to exert control or charge greatly to step aside.

Besides, I'd rather see that one about the presidential candidate he wrote as Stephen Bury with his dad.
Now THAT would be a good movie.

Captain_Arrrg wrote:

You do know that pretty much everything PKD wrote was pure gold- right?

And it's not a remake, it's an update. Gosh, read the link!

There are more PKD movies out there than most people know. You may be surprised at how poorly some have done.

Unless, you know, you first note that Nick Cage or Ben Affleck are the leads.

duckilama wrote:
Paleocon wrote:

Seriously. With so much good sci fi writing out there that has yet to make it to the screen, why are there so many of these remakes out?

Because PK Dick got screwed out of his IP rights and they won't have to shell out any royalties?
Yeah, Neal Stephenson would be cool. Imagine Peter Jackson's Snowcrash.

Problem is, Stephenson is :
1) Alive
2) Not a dupe
3) Likely to exert control or charge greatly to step aside.

Besides, I'd rather see that one about the presidential candidate he wrote as Stephen Bury with his dad.
Now THAT would be a good movie.

Interface.

Unfortunately, so much of it has come true in the interim between the writing and today that it would seem as unshocking and boring as a documentary. sigh.

10 Print "Get your ass to Mars"
20 Goto 10

wordsmythe wrote:
Captain_Arrrg wrote:

You do know that pretty much everything PKD wrote was pure gold- right?

And it's not a remake, it's an update. Gosh, read the link!

There are more PKD movies out there than most people know. You may be surprised at how poorly some have done.

Unless, you know, you first note that Nick Cage or Ben Affleck are the leads.

I saw both Paycheck and Next. Both were pretty bad. Next got a pass because it was an instant stream on lazy Sunday afternoon wit my wife. She just wanted to watch a action flick that wasn't too deep. Throw in Cage, and she was happy. Because it was at home, we were free to chuckle and make fun of certain parts, but otherwise kind of enjoy the idea of the movie and not get too invested.

Paycheck we saw at the theater, which was a mistake. Probably just as bad, but instead we don't get to make fun of the silliness in theater, forcing us to take it way more serious than we should. So we have a little more bitterness for that film.

Both movies had interesting premises that would be worth revisiting by better directors.

Johnvanjim wrote:

Cryptonomicon

The long lectures on maths and cryptography would probably detract from this one's blockbuster potential.

MikeSands wrote:
Johnvanjim wrote:

Cryptonomicon

The long lectures on maths and cryptography would probably detract from this one's blockbuster potential.

It's a movie; they'll just hand-wave through that and let the internet sort out the details.

Gorilla.800.lbs wrote:

I actually LOVE Verhoeven's Starship Troopers. He took the source material and departed with it into a wholly alien territory, that's true. But taken on its own, it's a work of political satire as an art form that is nothing short of genius.

Agreed. My biggest problem with Starship Troopers, and it's not a *big* problem, is that it's called Starship Troopers.

It's the same reason why it's good that when Ridley Scott went and made a movie that took Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep? and went off in its own direction, the movie was called Blade Runner instead.

wordsmythe wrote:
MikeSands wrote:
Johnvanjim wrote:

Cryptonomicon

The long lectures on maths and cryptography would probably detract from this one's blockbuster potential.

It's a movie; they'll just hand-wave through that and let the internet sort out the details.

Just so long as they don't get the science absolutely and idiotically WRONG like in the Matrix.

Paleocon wrote:
wordsmythe wrote:
MikeSands wrote:
Johnvanjim wrote:

Cryptonomicon

The long lectures on maths and cryptography would probably detract from this one's blockbuster potential.

It's a movie; they'll just hand-wave through that and let the internet sort out the details.

Just so long as they don't get the science absolutely and idiotically WRONG like in the Matrix.

There was science in the Matrix? I must have been distracted by the way they ravished western philosophy.

Maybe he means the human batteries.

wordsmythe wrote:
Paleocon wrote:
wordsmythe wrote:
MikeSands wrote:
Johnvanjim wrote:

Cryptonomicon

The long lectures on maths and cryptography would probably detract from this one's blockbuster potential.

It's a movie; they'll just hand-wave through that and let the internet sort out the details.

Just so long as they don't get the science absolutely and idiotically WRONG like in the Matrix.

There was science in the Matrix? I must have been distracted by the way they ravished western philosophy.

The embarrassing bit about using human beings as an energy source could have been avoided had they bothered to consult anyone who has ever taken a high school physics class. Since we are net energy consumers, the concept of using humans as an energy source should strike even the casual viewer as as ridiculous as using an unplugged toaster to power the state of Utah.

Do we want to debate movie science? Because I can do that.

wordsmythe wrote:

Do we want to debate movie science? Because I can do that.

I'm willing to suspend a bit of disbelief, but when they take the time to explain something as a central idea with mumbo science and get it so obviously wrong, it really makes it impossible to watch the rest of the movie unless there are boobages in frame every other second.

Paleocon wrote:
wordsmythe wrote:

Do we want to debate movie science? Because I can do that.

I'm willing to suspend a bit of disbelief, but when they take the time to explain something as a central idea with mumbo science and get it so obviously wrong, it really makes it impossible to watch the rest of the movie unless there are boobages in frame every other second.

Yeah, whatever happened to Carrie-Anne Moss?

lostlobster wrote:
Paleocon wrote:
wordsmythe wrote:

Do we want to debate movie science? Because I can do that.

I'm willing to suspend a bit of disbelief, but when they take the time to explain something as a central idea with mumbo science and get it so obviously wrong, it really makes it impossible to watch the rest of the movie unless there are boobages in frame every other second.

Yeah, whatever happened to Carrie-Anne Moss?

Carrie-Anne Moss != boobages

wordsmythe wrote:

Do we want to debate movie science? Because I can do that.

No you can't. You're an English major.

Quintin_Stone wrote:
wordsmythe wrote:

Do we want to debate movie science? Because I can do that.

No you can't. You're an English major.

He'll argue for the side of the movie industry.

Brennil wrote:
Quintin_Stone wrote:
wordsmythe wrote:

Do we want to debate movie science? Because I can do that.

No you can't. You're an English major.

He'll argue for the side of the movie industry.

And win. "Anytime reality gets in the way of fun, fun wins."