Total Recall: Yet Another Remake...

interstate78 wrote:
lostlobster wrote:
interstate78 wrote:
Vector wrote:
f*ck off. f*ck RIGHT OFF. TOTAL RECALL DOES NOT NEED TO BE REMADE. NOT EVEN CLOSE. DON`T REMAKE ARNIE MOVIES. JUST DON`T. f*ck OFF AND DIE.

You know what movie really can't be remade?

Blade Runner. It's still a benchmark for sci-fi movies

Fast Fascinating Fact that ties in the comment about musicals from before: there was a musical version of Blade Runner that was under development around 2000 (music by Jim Steinman) but was apparently never completed (scroll down to last section for mention of Blade Runner).

A musical of Blade Runner? WHAT? *faints*

Thank GOD they never completed that

Oh come on, are you telling me you aren't the least bit curious about how they will set Roy's "things I've seen" monologue to music?

You don't need to wait for the remake to come out to have your childhood memories destroyed. Just watch the old one again

I guess I was too young and/or stupid to really get the dream/reality thing, because I just saw it as a fun and cheesy action sci-fi flick. It's very difficult to watch an Arnie movie in any other way

SpacePPoliceman wrote:
Fedaykin98 wrote:
I have felt the need for three pages to point out that Romeo and Juliet, along with a great number of the "classics", were, in fact, remakes.

I feel there is a big difference between being inspired by old folk tales, and wholesale remake.

If you believe that the original works that Shakespeare was remaking were merely old folk tales, then either I have a lot to teach you on the subject, or vice versa. You may insert your thesis here if I've been wildly mistaken for years.

A lot of you guys are talking like the "film" industry is some centuries-old bastion of creativity.

It's a decades-old hive of scum and villainy, built on the high principles of making as many people part with as much money as possible as frequently as possible.

This is not some high art form. It is the second most basic form of wealth transfer known to man.

duckilama wrote:
A lot of you guys are talking like the "film" industry is some centuries-old bastion of creativity.

You will never find a more wretched hive of scum and villainy. We must be cautious.

Remake alert!!!

Han shot second?

Han shot first. If Han didn't shoot first, he's not Han.

Fedaykin98 wrote:
SpacePPoliceman wrote:
Fedaykin98 wrote:
I have felt the need for three pages to point out that Romeo and Juliet, along with a great number of the "classics", were, in fact, remakes.

I feel there is a big difference between being inspired by old folk tales, and wholesale remake.

If you believe that the original works that Shakespeare was remaking were merely old folk tales, then either I have a lot to teach you on the subject, or vice versa. You may insert your thesis here if I've been wildly mistaken for years. :)

Do you want to accept wikipedia as a source?

wikipedia wrote:
Romeo and Juliet belongs to a tradition of tragic romances stretching back to antiquity. Its plot is based on an Italian tale, translated into verse as The Tragical History of Romeus and Juliet by Arthur Brooke in 1562, and retold in prose in Palace of Pleasure by William Painter in 1582.

Which sounds a lot more like an adaptation than a remake to my ears. Lear was based upon a legend of a pre-Roman king, which I think he found in a book entitled something along the lines of "A Historie of Kings of Britain". Othello a short story. In some cases he did expound on plays, as did many of his contemporaries, but even then, on one hand you have f*cking Shakespeare, on the other The Last House on the Left.

duckilama wrote:
Han shot first. If Han didn't shoot first, he's not Han.

Is there a tee-shirt for that? We need a tee-shirt with a flow chart or something:

Who are you? -
Did you shoot?
Yes - You are Han
No - You are dead

Prederick wrote:
Kosars wrote:
Doesn't seem like any movie is safe from being remade, Disney is even working on a remake of Flight of the Navigator. :|

Honest and true. I didn't think I'd ever see Hollywood so thoroughly and completely give up on new ideas, but, here we are.

Uh, this is not a new development. Hollywood has always made and remade its films. There were versions of The Maltese Falcon filmed in 1931, 1936 and 1941, but people only remember the John Huston/ Humphrey Bogart version.

interstate78 wrote:
lostlobster wrote:
interstate78 wrote:
Vector wrote:
f*ck off. f*ck RIGHT OFF. TOTAL RECALL DOES NOT NEED TO BE REMADE. NOT EVEN CLOSE. DON`T REMAKE ARNIE MOVIES. JUST DON`T. f*ck OFF AND DIE.

You know what movie really can't be remade?

Blade Runner. It's still a benchmark for sci-fi movies

Fast Fascinating Fact that ties in the comment about musicals from before: there was a musical version of Blade Runner that was under development around 2000 (music by Jim Steinman) but was apparently never completed (scroll down to last section for mention of Blade Runner).

A musical of Blade Runner? WHAT? *faints*

Thank GOD they never completed that

What, haven't you heard? Joss Whedon is doing that one, Tony Head is starring.

SpacePPoliceman wrote:
Do you want to accept wikipedia as a source?

wikipedia wrote:
Romeo and Juliet belongs to a tradition of tragic romances stretching back to antiquity. Its plot is based on an Italian tale, translated into verse as The Tragical History of Romeus and Juliet by Arthur Brooke in 1562, and retold in prose in Palace of Pleasure by William Painter in 1582.

Which sounds a lot more like an adaptation than a remake to my ears. Lear was based upon a legend of a pre-Roman king, which I think he found in a book entitled something along the lines of "A Historie of Kings of Britain". Othello a short story. In some cases he did expound on plays, as did many of his contemporaries, but even then, on one hand you have f*cking Shakespeare, on the other The Last House on the Left.

Every source you gave there was something that was already written, not an "old folk tale" (your words). Adapted from written prose and poetry != inspired by old folks tales.

Fedaykin98 wrote:
SpacePPoliceman wrote:
Do you want to accept wikipedia as a source?

wikipedia wrote:
Romeo and Juliet belongs to a tradition of tragic romances stretching back to antiquity. Its plot is based on an Italian tale, translated into verse as The Tragical History of Romeus and Juliet by Arthur Brooke in 1562, and retold in prose in Palace of Pleasure by William Painter in 1582.

Which sounds a lot more like an adaptation than a remake to my ears. Lear was based upon a legend of a pre-Roman king, which I think he found in a book entitled something along the lines of "A Historie of Kings of Britain". Othello a short story. In some cases he did expound on plays, as did many of his contemporaries, but even then, on one hand you have f*cking Shakespeare, on the other The Last House on the Left.

Every source you gave there was something that was already written, not an "old folk tale" (your words). Adapted from written prose and poetry != inspired by old folks tales. :)

Sure. Old folk tale, oral tradition, put down into prose? Again, adaptation, not remake (your words). To restate a point which is more to the point, on the one hand is f*cking Shakespeare, and on the other is...this time I'll go with Prom Night.

IMAGE(http://images0.cafepress.com/product/64263660v3_240x240_Front.jpg)

I was absolutely shocked when I heard that they were remaking Total Recall. At Comicon, I had to fight the urge to shove my way into the Total Recall panel to shout "Why?" and "Is it because you have 10 kids to feed?!" I grew up watching this movie (yes, my parents were awesome) and it breaks my heart that is it being remade in my lifetime.

Despite the "new take" the remake is still going to rip off some of the most memorable scenes. Av Club spots this important issue in their article titled "Don't worry, the new Total Recall will have a three-breasted woman." Seriously?! If it's a new interpretation, it's a new interpretation. If it's a craptastic, water-downed politics-instead-of-scifi rewrite, at least leave my beloved mutants alone and don't try to cram them into New Shanghai or Euromerica with Collin Farrell. If you're wondering what I'm talking about, read the IMDB synopsis.

And, if you share my frustration, you might enjoy the website Don't Remake Total Recall. (Some inappropriate and funny language)

Saw the trailer today.

It looks pretty good.

http://trailers.apple.com/trailers/s...

BadKen wrote:
Saw the trailer today.

It looks pretty good.

http://trailers.apple.com/trailers/s...

Damn, that looks awesome!

I saw them when they were doing some filming last summer downtown. They had part of a road closed off and I got to see the cars they were using.

karmajay wrote:
BadKen wrote:
Saw the trailer today.

It looks pretty good.

http://trailers.apple.com/trailers/s...

Damn, that looks awesome!

I don't usually go to the theater to watch movies, but I will for this one!

Yep, looks like it will be a fun ride.

Can't understand the resistance to this.

It looks good, but it seems like it's just a slicker version of the older film. Reminds me of old and new Willy Wonka (still haven't seen the new one).

I can't get interested in this because it's a Len Wiseman movie starring Colin Farrell. Len Wiseman isn't a good director. His schtick is that he doesn't know how to shoot action scenes well and he always puts his wife in his movies. That's pretty much all there is.

And Colin Farrell is either very good or completely terrible, and that seems to depend pretty much entirely on whether or not the director in question can get a good performance out of him. I can't see Wiseman managing that.

I'll see it when it's on Netflix.

Looking at his IMBB, he seems fine. Live Free and Die Hard did perfectly fine. I don't care if he can't write a good story like his Underworld efforts.

Mostly, there isn't enough work to really pass judgement.

I guess I was old enough to realize that Total Recall wasn't an important film event that needs to be protected. It was a fun summer blockbuster. This looks the same.

Big, loud, and visually stunning movies are worth taking in on the big screen, even if they are not masterpieces. I'm not expecting to be discussing the film around Oscar time.

Hey, he shoots those guys with a Rhino revolver.

Thin_J wrote:
His schtick is that he doesn't know how to shoot action scenes well and he always puts his wife in his movies.

I did like the scene in the trailer where the protagonist takes down the room full of soldiers. I thought that was nicely done. Otherwise, the movie looks largely forgettable.

I loved the way the original film handled dual interpretation of each scene (was it real or not?). It looks like the remake will be a straight action film, and I'm worried that people will start to unfairly remember both films as just action movies as a result. Not a comment on pending quality of the new film, but it doesn't seem to have those elements. On the other hand, It's not out yet, so maybe it does pull it off? I have no idea

I see what you mean.

This trailer looks like such a smarter film. Not silly action at all.

The rose-colored glasses in here are pretty damn powerful. I absolutely loved the first one, but the idea that it was marketed as anything other than an action thrill ride is silly. And remake is due since the effects in the first one don't hold up well at all.

That is not to say that the remake won't fail. But judging it by that trailer seems questionable.

ClockworkHouse wrote:
Thin_J wrote:
His schtick is that he doesn't know how to shoot action scenes well and he always puts his wife in his movies.

I did like the scene in the trailer where the protagonist takes down the room full of soldiers. I thought that was nicely done. Otherwise, the movie looks largely forgettable.

Yeah that particular scene was fantastic.

Still against the idea in general, and probably will not check it out at the theater unless a lot of people here or at RT convince me otherwise...

To be clear I don't think the old Verhoeven movie is all that great either. It's fun and all but there's plenty of bad acting in there among other things. I don't have some crazy attachment to it. I don't even own a copy of the movie in any form.

So to me the new one is a remake of a film I already consider pretty average and this time it's in the hands of a generally weak director and an equally weak cast. And knowing Wiseman it won't have any of the kind of humor that kept the old film fun.

Jayhawker wrote:
I see what you mean.

This trailer looks like such a smarter film. Not silly action at all.

Who said action is silly?

Arnie wrote:
"Consider this a divorce!"

The original film was absolutely a (great) action film, although one with two levels; I just loved the additional psychological elements based on audience interpretation. It made it fun to rewatch to look for things, or to try to watch the film assuming the opposite outcome of what you assumed the last time. "Total Recall" without that just doesn't seem the same. Again, though, I haven't seen the new film, so don't really know what is different and what's the same.

The constant remaking of movies only like 20 years old just continues to highlight the creative void in Hollywood. And if it's not a remake, it's an adaptation of some other IP. Meh, are they really all out of ideas over there?

I'm not completely opposed to the idea of remakes. But there are certain questions should be answered in the affirmative before they go forward. Like, is the original still accessible to modern audiences? Are the special effects of the original too dated to do justice to the story?