George Lucas Stole My Childhood: Remake Mania - Page 3 - Never Forgotten: a Foster's Home Community

kageri · 08-28-2007, 10:53 PM

Wilt has a chest?

ZING! Thank you, thank you, I'll be here all night. Try the potato salad.

Anyway, I may have posted this somewhere before, but I doubt a Sailor Moon movie could be worse than the trailer Saban Entertainment produced before they tried to buy the rights to the license (childhood-eating abomination available here). The really scary thing is that the only reason DiC won the battle is because they were willing to pay more money, and not because their version of the show was closer to the original.

(Also, I'm hoping Cass, a Sailor Moon expert, will be able to shed some light on who the girl in the wheelchair is. Or any of them, really.)

jekylljuice · 08-29-2007, 04:24 AM

Oh yeah, I agree that we always have the option of shunning such movies in the likelihood that they'll do our fond memories a disservice, but nonetheless it's often rather painful seeing something you have some kind of attachment to revving itself up to crash and burn, regardless of whether or not you actually watch the end result or not. And perhaps it's also a tad irritating when Hollywood has to plough endlessly through antiquated franchises in order to make its money, rather than trying to entice audiences with any fresh or interesting new ideas. That in mind, inspiration can come from a variety of sources, and there are certainly examples of TV shows which have been the foundations for quality films (I love the Untouchables...to be fair I've never watched the original series, but I think it stands as a fine film on it's own). It's all a matter of execution, I guess.

Concerning the Scooby Doo movie, for starters I think they could have done a lot better if they'd done away with that obnoxious two-minute farting contest (I don't remember there being anything of that ilk in the cartoon series, but maybe I can be proved wrong). True, it was a very small component of the film overall, but somehow it managed to burn itself onto my conscious more violently than anything else in the picture. Maybe that's my own problem, but I found that scene to be in bad taste and painfully intrusive.

I'll credit them that they went to more effort to capture and enhance the human characters' personalities than the Garfield movie even came close to, but overall I think the mistake the Scooby Doo movie made was to focus too much on trying to appease modern day youngsters with endless crude humour and far-out plot development that seemed at odds with the original cartoon (I remember reading a review in Empire that pretty much summed up how I feel on the matter; "they forgot the rule that all "ghosts" must really be disgruntled caretakers running around in masks"), whilst going equally overboard with the ironic parodies designed to appeal to the cynical adults in the audience, to the point where the campy, spooky adventure that marked the TV series got engulfed somewhere in between. Judging from the opening sequence, one of the film's central jokes appeared to be that we'd actually missed the more familiar adventure story we'd come to see, and were getting something more warped and disconcerting in its place, and it wasn't a joke I was really inclined to appreciate (not because I'm particularly conservative on matters of how Scooby Doo should be portrayed - I was always a casual viewer at best - but because their alternative kind of adventure just wasn't my cup of tea). Admittedly, the film's biggest plot twist...
Spoiler Below

(the one involving that little scrapper who no one - to my knowledge - actually likes)

...did help to enliven the conclusion a little and came close to making the whole affair worthwhile, but I personally think that a storyline a lot closer to that of Old Man Smithers wouldn't have gone amiss. True, no doubt it would have been predictable as hell, but with all the right moves it there's a chance that it could also have been a fair bit of fun.

EDIT: That said, the existence of Scooby Doo movie was completely vindicated for me by a brief moment in Looney Tunes: Back in Action..."Like, what was that? You made me sound like a total space cadet, man! If you goof on me in the sequel, I'm coming after you!"

AerostarMonk · 08-29-2007, 09:43 AM

I have to say that Matthew Lillard was the only guy who seemed to get the character he was portraying. Cardellini played Velma as a bombshell hiding inside a frumpy nerd's body, Prinze played Freddie as a vapid moron, and Gellar can't seem to shake the fact that not ever character she plays is Buffy. Lillard however was as true to Shaggy as you can get in live-action. He had the mannerisms and the vocals down pat.

As for the out there premise, I don't think it veered to far from the Scooby Doo universe, seeing as all subsequent series, barring the prequel A Pup Named Scooby Doo, featured actual supernatural entities. It wasn't until the ret-con that occured in Scooby Doo on Zombie Island that all previous series after Where Are You were disregarded from canon. That is depending on which fan you talk to though.

Mr. Marshmallow · 08-29-2007, 11:58 AM

Actually, if you remember the Scooby Doo movie did not ignore the whole "guy in a costume" gag and I'm not talking about the the opening scene with the Luna Ghost. If you remember, Fred stated twice very clearly there was no such things as monsters because they all knew the monsters they met were costumes.

Which also explains why Fred didn't believe Scooby about those Dark Elf creatures existing because they knew from past expierence that monsters didn't exist (or so they thought). Add to that Velma thinking the Dark Elf that grabbed her was wearing a mask and when she tried to yank it off, found out the hard way he was real.

This also explains why Daphne and Shaggy were more scared then usual because not only were they dealing with REAL monsters, but they were dealing a HUGE number of real monsters. The whole "secret villain" at the end is another hint towards the whole it was a guy in a suit joke so i felt they touched it clearly.

I didn't have a problem with Velma at all. I liked the fact they actually gave her some sex appeal and I loved Cardellini's impression of Velma's voice. Fred I actually liked because while he was stupid and doofy at times, he was a hell of a lot more active then his toon counterpart. Toon Fred always seemed stiff and bland to me.

At least his character here got a little more substance, and to be honest, I think the fact a blond guy wearing ascot has an ego of such large proportions is a great joke in and of itself. Gellar though you can't really blame for being stuck in her "Buffy" mode because some actors simply can't escape who they are.

Jason Statham, Vince Vaghun, Owen Wilson, Ben Stiller, they all ultimately play the same kind of character in all their movies and sometimes it's just the only way they can act. Very few actors can take such drastic transformations into completely unrecognizable identities like say Gary Oldman. Compare his performance in "Batman Begins" and "The Fifth Element".

Tell me how easy it is to tell it's the same guy. I want to touch up one very common MISCONCEPTION about Hollywood, something that bugs me alot every time I hear someone say. Originality is NOT DEAD in Hollywood, originality is being SUPPRESSED in Hollywood, that's what's happening.

There are thousands of people writing original movie scripts every day, the problem is that movie companies and executives feel original movies are too risky to try and sell. They want to spend millions of dollars on a project they know will succeed and so they pick franchises that people are familiar with.

They turn down original scripts all the time in favor for something more well known, that's why they make movies off of remakes, comic books, books, TV shows, cartoons etc. Plus, when you mean original ideas are we talking super amazing quality original movies, or do you mean movies that just isn't based of a previous format?

Because Superbad for example is an original film and not based on anything. So is Balls of Fury, Death Sentence, Hatchet, Hostel, War, Wild Hogs etc. Now you guys may not consider those movies to be as good as Superbad but they are ORIGINAL movies. They are not based off a Japanese movie, a remake, a comic book or a novel or video game.

Original movies do exist, but it all depends on whether people are referring to original movies they like or dislike. Because all those movies I listed are original films, whether you think they are good films or not, they are still original.

frankie_fan · 01-21-2010, 07:44 PM

After reading all of these posts, I couldn't help but put my two cents worth on the subject.

Regarding on the whole remake/reboot trend, I'll only like those movies IF they are true to the original source, something that Speed Racer did brilliantly. John Goodman looks EXACTLY like Pops Racer, including the mustache, and I had to jump for joy upon seeing his wrestling fight with the ninja! I also agree with AerostarMonk about Matthew Lillard as Shaggy. I thought that he nailed it perfectly, not that I'm a fan of Scooby-Doo. That's one of the things I look for in a TV/cartoon remake movie: actors who LOOK and SOUND like the characters that they're playing. Steve Carell was brilliant as Maxwell Smart, Christina Ricci slipped into Trixie like a glove, French Stewart did the best Inspector Gadget I've ever seen, and I thought Brendan Fraser did a great job as both George of the Jungle and Dudley Do-Right.

I ran into this thread while searching for The A-Team, as the first trailer for it has been released, and I think all the actors look like their counterparts (minus the bling-bling). See for yourself: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ozUQvBOFaDU

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mr. Marshmallow

A long ass time ago Disney was planning a live Sailor Moon, the hype around the DIC version of the show during weekday morning cartoons made it pretty big.

I never heard of any progress as far as who the girls would be casted as or how they were going to do Luna or any of the special effects. The only thing I know for sure I heard MANY times was that Geena Davis was contacted to play Queen Beryl. Davis also mentioned she was actually excited to play Queen Beryl.

But like most movies, it died in development hell and just never went anywhere. A rumor floated around about Buffy creator, Joss Whedon coming on as either a writer or director for the Moon movie.

Now THAT I wasn't expecting. If it did happen sometime in the 90s, I would've been like I was when I saw Inspector Gadget (the first one with Matthew Broderick): I wouldn't care less about whether it stayed true to it or not! Thankfully, I'm a different person now, and I always check to see if it's in every way true to the original source.

Ccook50 · 01-23-2010, 07:19 AM

At the moment, Disney is prepping a motion-capture remake of the Beatles' 1968 movie Yellow Submarine with Robert Zemeckis directing it, and the announcement has been met with widespread disapproval. They've already lined up who will "portray" the Beatles (Cary Elwes will be George), and a soundalike band, named the Fab Four, will do the music.

The disapproval stems from the thought that Submarine was a film for its time, the late 1960s. Its irregular linear art and its fireworks palette of colors cannot be adequately done in motion-capture since the technology is supposed to make things "lifelike" and the Heinz Edelmann-designed inhabitants of Submarine were all very un-lifelike to begin with. Also, two of the Beatles (John and George) are no longer around, so this remake cannot even do the original ending (where the group appears live) without it feeling creepy.

And finally, will the Disney audience weaned on the likes of Hannah Montana and High School Musical be able to appreciate the music of the Beatles? In 1978, kids thought that the Bee Gess and Peter Frampton thought up Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band after that movie came out, prompting Capitol records to re-release the Beatles' version with the label "The Original Classic." There's fear that the Beatles on-screen will be thought of as fictional and that Disney thought up the movie and the music. (I digress, my sister tells of two ten-year-old girls at a school talent show who did a duet of "I Will"--from the White Album--and she was absolutely floored by them). Time will tell...but the red flags are already out.

frankie_fan · 05-08-2020, 07:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mr. Marshmallow

A long ass time ago Disney was planning a live Sailor Moon, the hype around the DIC version of the show during weekday morning cartoons made it pretty big.

I never heard of any progress as far as who the girls would be casted as or how they were going to do Luna or any of the special effects. The only thing I know for sure I heard MANY times was that Geena Davis was contacted to play Queen Beryl. Davis also mentioned she was actually excited to play Queen Beryl.

But like most movies, it died in development hell and just never went anywhere. A rumor floated around about Buffy creator, Joss Whedon coming on as either a writer or director for the Moon movie.

I don't how reliable Wikipedia is nowadays, but I found out from a link to a Variety article (from the Wikipedia article on Sailor Moon) that the director was to be Stanley Tong. (source: https://variety.com/1997/voices/colu...zy-1117863071/)

If you don't know who he is, he directed the third and fourth Police Story movies that starred Jackie Chan, and a Disney film from 1997 that wasn't that much well-received...

Let's just say that I'm glad the Sailor Moon movie died when it did.

08-28-2007, 10:53 PM	#21
kageri Polkameister FORTY-SEVEN, YES. I MEAN TWO. Join Date: Feb 2006 Location: Arizona Posts: 1,873	Wilt has a chest? ZING! Thank you, thank you, I'll be here all night. Try the potato salad. Anyway, I may have posted this somewhere before, but I doubt a Sailor Moon movie could be worse than the trailer Saban Entertainment produced before they tried to buy the rights to the license (childhood-eating abomination available here). The really scary thing is that the only reason DiC won the battle is because they were willing to pay more money, and not because their version of the show was closer to the original. (Also, I'm hoping Cass, a Sailor Moon expert, will be able to shed some light on who the girl in the wheelchair is. Or any of them, really.) __________________ "(NOTE: these companies are from the country that makes the best video games: JAPAN!)"

08-29-2007, 04:24 AM	#22
jekylljuice Executive Weasel Ball jekylljuice was here. Join Date: Feb 2007 Location: the 44th floor (not counting the mezzanine) Posts: 1,568	Oh yeah, I agree that we always have the option of shunning such movies in the likelihood that they'll do our fond memories a disservice, but nonetheless it's often rather painful seeing something you have some kind of attachment to revving itself up to crash and burn, regardless of whether or not you actually watch the end result or not. And perhaps it's also a tad irritating when Hollywood has to plough endlessly through antiquated franchises in order to make its money, rather than trying to entice audiences with any fresh or interesting new ideas. That in mind, inspiration can come from a variety of sources, and there are certainly examples of TV shows which have been the foundations for quality films (I love the Untouchables...to be fair I've never watched the original series, but I think it stands as a fine film on it's own). It's all a matter of execution, I guess. Concerning the Scooby Doo movie, for starters I think they could have done a lot better if they'd done away with that obnoxious two-minute farting contest (I don't remember there being anything of that ilk in the cartoon series, but maybe I can be proved wrong). True, it was a very small component of the film overall, but somehow it managed to burn itself onto my conscious more violently than anything else in the picture. Maybe that's my own problem, but I found that scene to be in bad taste and painfully intrusive. I'll credit them that they went to more effort to capture and enhance the human characters' personalities than the Garfield movie even came close to, but overall I think the mistake the Scooby Doo movie made was to focus too much on trying to appease modern day youngsters with endless crude humour and far-out plot development that seemed at odds with the original cartoon (I remember reading a review in Empire that pretty much summed up how I feel on the matter; "they forgot the rule that all "ghosts" must really be disgruntled caretakers running around in masks"), whilst going equally overboard with the ironic parodies designed to appeal to the cynical adults in the audience, to the point where the campy, spooky adventure that marked the TV series got engulfed somewhere in between. Judging from the opening sequence, one of the film's central jokes appeared to be that we'd actually missed the more familiar adventure story we'd come to see, and were getting something more warped and disconcerting in its place, and it wasn't a joke I was really inclined to appreciate (not because I'm particularly conservative on matters of how Scooby Doo should be portrayed - I was always a casual viewer at best - but because their alternative kind of adventure just wasn't my cup of tea). Admittedly, the film's biggest plot twist... Spoiler Below (the one involving that little scrapper who no one - to my knowledge - actually likes) ...did help to enliven the conclusion a little and came close to making the whole affair worthwhile, but I personally think that a storyline a lot closer to that of Old Man Smithers wouldn't have gone amiss. True, no doubt it would have been predictable as hell, but with all the right moves it there's a chance that it could also have been a fair bit of fun. EDIT: That said, the existence of Scooby Doo movie was completely vindicated for me by a brief moment in Looney Tunes: Back in Action..."Like, what was that? You made me sound like a total space cadet, man! If you goof on me in the sequel, I'm coming after you!" __________________ That's it, The End, But you'll get over it, My Friend. Last edited by jekylljuice; 08-29-2007 at 05:49 AM.

08-29-2007, 09:43 AM	#23
AerostarMonk Holy Toledo! Just try to relax and I'll try not to steal from you. Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: Toledo, Ohio. Posts: 462	I have to say that Matthew Lillard was the only guy who seemed to get the character he was portraying. Cardellini played Velma as a bombshell hiding inside a frumpy nerd's body, Prinze played Freddie as a vapid moron, and Gellar can't seem to shake the fact that not ever character she plays is Buffy. Lillard however was as true to Shaggy as you can get in live-action. He had the mannerisms and the vocals down pat. As for the out there premise, I don't think it veered to far from the Scooby Doo universe, seeing as all subsequent series, barring the prequel A Pup Named Scooby Doo, featured actual supernatural entities. It wasn't until the ret-con that occured in Scooby Doo on Zombie Island that all previous series after Where Are You were disregarded from canon. That is depending on which fan you talk to though. __________________ From the thinnest thread We are sewn together From the finest string we dangle over time From the highest wire We walk through fire Should our balance ever falter Should our steps be unaligned

08-29-2007, 11:58 AM	#24
Mr. Marshmallow Not-So-Hopeless Romantic Gotta love being in love Join Date: Aug 2006 Location: Orland Park, IL Posts: 1,924	Actually, if you remember the Scooby Doo movie did not ignore the whole "guy in a costume" gag and I'm not talking about the the opening scene with the Luna Ghost. If you remember, Fred stated twice very clearly there was no such things as monsters because they all knew the monsters they met were costumes. Which also explains why Fred didn't believe Scooby about those Dark Elf creatures existing because they knew from past expierence that monsters didn't exist (or so they thought). Add to that Velma thinking the Dark Elf that grabbed her was wearing a mask and when she tried to yank it off, found out the hard way he was real. This also explains why Daphne and Shaggy were more scared then usual because not only were they dealing with REAL monsters, but they were dealing a HUGE number of real monsters. The whole "secret villain" at the end is another hint towards the whole it was a guy in a suit joke so i felt they touched it clearly. I didn't have a problem with Velma at all. I liked the fact they actually gave her some sex appeal and I loved Cardellini's impression of Velma's voice. Fred I actually liked because while he was stupid and doofy at times, he was a hell of a lot more active then his toon counterpart. Toon Fred always seemed stiff and bland to me. At least his character here got a little more substance, and to be honest, I think the fact a blond guy wearing ascot has an ego of such large proportions is a great joke in and of itself. Gellar though you can't really blame for being stuck in her "Buffy" mode because some actors simply can't escape who they are. Jason Statham, Vince Vaghun, Owen Wilson, Ben Stiller, they all ultimately play the same kind of character in all their movies and sometimes it's just the only way they can act. Very few actors can take such drastic transformations into completely unrecognizable identities like say Gary Oldman. Compare his performance in "Batman Begins" and "The Fifth Element". Tell me how easy it is to tell it's the same guy. I want to touch up one very common MISCONCEPTION about Hollywood, something that bugs me alot every time I hear someone say. Originality is NOT DEAD in Hollywood, originality is being SUPPRESSED in Hollywood, that's what's happening. There are thousands of people writing original movie scripts every day, the problem is that movie companies and executives feel original movies are too risky to try and sell. They want to spend millions of dollars on a project they know will succeed and so they pick franchises that people are familiar with. They turn down original scripts all the time in favor for something more well known, that's why they make movies off of remakes, comic books, books, TV shows, cartoons etc. Plus, when you mean original ideas are we talking super amazing quality original movies, or do you mean movies that just isn't based of a previous format? Because Superbad for example is an original film and not based on anything. So is Balls of Fury, Death Sentence, Hatchet, Hostel, War, Wild Hogs etc. Now you guys may not consider those movies to be as good as Superbad but they are ORIGINAL movies. They are not based off a Japanese movie, a remake, a comic book or a novel or video game. Original movies do exist, but it all depends on whether people are referring to original movies they like or dislike. Because all those movies I listed are original films, whether you think they are good films or not, they are still original. __________________ http://www.youtube.com/user/BionicSlime http://www.fanfiction.net/~nukem999

01-23-2010, 07:19 AM	#26
Ccook50 Foster's Legend Don't forget to turn left at Greenland Join Date: May 2007 Location: Cumming GA Posts: 510	At the moment, Disney is prepping a motion-capture remake of the Beatles' 1968 movie Yellow Submarine with Robert Zemeckis directing it, and the announcement has been met with widespread disapproval. They've already lined up who will "portray" the Beatles (Cary Elwes will be George), and a soundalike band, named the Fab Four, will do the music. The disapproval stems from the thought that Submarine was a film for its time, the late 1960s. Its irregular linear art and its fireworks palette of colors cannot be adequately done in motion-capture since the technology is supposed to make things "lifelike" and the Heinz Edelmann-designed inhabitants of Submarine were all very un-lifelike to begin with. Also, two of the Beatles (John and George) are no longer around, so this remake cannot even do the original ending (where the group appears live) without it feeling creepy. And finally, will the Disney audience weaned on the likes of Hannah Montana and High School Musical be able to appreciate the music of the Beatles? In 1978, kids thought that the Bee Gess and Peter Frampton thought up Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band after that movie came out, prompting Capitol records to re-release the Beatles' version with the label "The Original Classic." There's fear that the Beatles on-screen will be thought of as fictional and that Disney thought up the movie and the music. (I digress, my sister tells of two ten-year-old girls at a school talent show who did a duet of "I Will"--from the White Album--and she was absolutely floored by them). Time will tell...but the red flags are already out. __________________ "God forgot to make stupidity painful." --Ivan Stang (Church of the SubGenius)