?

Log in

No account? Create an account
 
 
12 April 2011 @ 09:18 pm
 
A remake of The Crow?!? Will Hollywood never give up? You have to vote with your wallets, people. They keep on doing this crap because you pay for it.
Tags: ,
 
 
 
chands_wsprchands_wspr on April 13th, 2011 05:52 am (UTC)
Good God! Why the hell would they want to mess with perfection? I also feel it's an insult to Brandon Lee... I mean he died making that movie!
Mari Adkinsmariadkins on April 13th, 2011 04:37 pm (UTC)
YES THIS
9: FFFFFUUUUUUUUUUUUUU-rottensick on April 13th, 2011 11:15 am (UTC)
Wow Hollywood, way to respect your fucking dead.
Alessaralessar on April 13th, 2011 01:37 pm (UTC)
Actually people are voting but hollywood is too stupid to realize the results.
Steve Hutchisonfoomf on April 13th, 2011 02:26 pm (UTC)
It's not that they remake it. Just that it's too soon.

They're making yet another 3 Musketeers too.

IN 3-D. And what appears to be the Countess de Winters is a freaking NINJA.
The Sniper in Dragphasmaphobic on April 13th, 2011 03:23 pm (UTC)
Who knows? Could be good! It's not uncommon for remakes to be better than their originals. I'd list some examples here, but I'm sure you already know them.

But then again, I must be one of the few people for whom "The Crow" never attained "religious icon" status, I guess.
The Sniper in Dragphasmaphobic on April 13th, 2011 03:28 pm (UTC)
In fact, I'd rather see a good reboot than yet another one of its absolutely terrible direct-to-video sequels.

And did you ever see the TV series? My mom doubt it for me ages ago, thinking it was the movie. Dear god that was awful.
God of Thunder and Rock'n'Roll: What?!?archmage on April 13th, 2011 04:05 pm (UTC)
God, that show was hideous.
The Sniper in Dragphasmaphobic on April 13th, 2011 04:08 pm (UTC)
Most definitely.
God of Thunder and Rock'n'Rollarchmage on April 13th, 2011 04:04 pm (UTC)
The movie never hit that level for me, but the original comics were close. I liked the film, sure, but it wasn't nearly as powerful. I'm just really fed up with remake after remake.
The Sniper in Dragphasmaphobic on April 13th, 2011 04:23 pm (UTC)
I lost count of the number of movies and video games I've experienced that I never wanted to end. Each one has a similar flow: Watch/Play the movie/game, get halfway through, and think "Goddamn I love this, please let this never ever end so I can enjoy it until I breathe my last. Please, oh please, let our times together be extended somehow."

I see remakes as a way to fulfill that desire. There are so few original stories left in the collective creative consciousness of our species. Most every story that we love is simply a different twist to the same old tale, a variant of the Hero's Journey, a new take on an Aesopian Fable, a modernization of a Greek legend, or a generationally-targeted Shakespearean revival. Last Man Standing is The Warrior and the Sorceress is A Fistful of Dollars is Yojimbo, etc. All of these are stories that I liked, each in their own way. And when Lucas kicks the bucket, and someone finally re-makes the original Star Wars (you KNOW it's going to happen some day), I'll be in line to see that, too.

I can already see some comments here and on another article more or less to the tune of "Brandon Lee is rolling in his grave" and so on. Thing here is, The Crow character wasn't written for, about, or because of Brandon Lee, much like The Joker wasn't in any way about Heath Ledger. I'll bet a few years down the road, when the next Batman director dares to try her hand at putting The Joker back on film, she'll be met with cries of "Too soon!" and "How dare you ruin the memory of Heath!" and so on.



However, I have no idea how good this will be. I really liked 28 Weeks Later, and thought it was a worthy continuation of the first movie. This is the same writer, I understand, so I have high hopes that he will bring something good and fresh to this established property.
God of Thunder and Rock'n'Rollarchmage on April 13th, 2011 05:51 pm (UTC)
I see a vast distinction between remaking, say, Seven Samurai as The Magnificent Seven and taking a recent film and just making it again. Who was it that said that there are only so many stories that can be told? Taking one of those archetypes, switching to a different genre, adapting for a completely new setting, that still shows creativity. On the other hand, taking a recent film and simply making it again is on par with plagiarism. You're simply copying the old work. If you ARE changing enough things that it's a new story, then show the creativity and make it your own, don't just slap a name on it and ride the coattails (The Lawnmower Man, anyone?).

As for the outrage at this due to Lee's death, well, that's not my view. Actors die like everyone else, and if they die on set, that shouldn't make the film sacred.
The Sniper in Dragphasmaphobic on April 13th, 2011 05:58 pm (UTC)
You make good points, but when an "original" movie isn't actually original by nature of being based on an already-existing book, what then? The Crow, after all, was a book before it was a movie, thus any "remake" wouldn't actually be as much a remake as a new translation of the original book. Books old and new get translated to movie form all the time, and frequently with multiple incarnations. The Hobbit, The Lord of the Rings, I Am Legend, The Girl With the Dragon Tattoo, Let the Right One In, etc etc.

Stories cross media formats all the time. As long as the core of the story remains intact - in this case, some goth dreamboat musician comes back from the grave to avenge his dead girlfriend - where's the harm in bringing a good story to a new audience? When was the last time you watched The Crow, anyway? I gave it another re-watch about 3 or 4 months back, and it is really very dated.
God of Thunder and Rock'n'Rollarchmage on April 13th, 2011 06:18 pm (UTC)
Well, therein lies a point that relates to the core: is a remake actually referring to the original source material for it's inspiration, or the "original" adaptation? In this case, all accounts imply that the remake of The Crow is remaking the film, which was never a very good translation of the book. If this was someone trying to actually make the book into a film (as opposed to the "original" film, which was "we like the look and idea, but we're rewriting the story"), I'd at least give it more creedence. Sadly, very few remakes fall into that category.

As for rewatching the film...not long ago, actually. Yes, it's dated, though that is not a sticky point to me. Most films set in 'the real world' (as opposed to science fiction/space types or historical/fantasy types) will have this through no fault of their own. This is not a good enough reason, in my opinion, to make it again, just to "update" it. Where does that particular slide stop? Is it then fair game to make it again and again, ad nauseum?
Mari Adkinsmariadkins on April 13th, 2011 04:37 pm (UTC)
TRAVESTY

may the ghost of brandon lee rise up and kick their asses.
Jay Bohmerjaybohmer on April 13th, 2011 08:17 pm (UTC)
There hasn't been anything 'new' out of Hollywierd in a while. With the possible exception of feature length animation.
Edward Martin IIIedwardmartiniii on April 13th, 2011 08:30 pm (UTC)
Fuck it -- people get what they pay for.

There is a froth of people trying to make their movies -- not only in Hollywood, but all over the world -- but if the typical moviegoer is going to pull down their pants and toss out a tenner into a cup for a pair of swinging robot testicles, then that's the kind of entertainment that the industry will drop that hard-earned, sticky-stained buck for.

Film-making is an art, but movie distribution is a business. The business hunts cash. It's not terribly more complicated than that.

Just like any other art -- sure there are thousands of people desperately trying to show us how they see the world, all the wild and wondrous ways of Life and Vision, and if we were willing to strap a few neurons together and explore, we could find those visions. Some would be awesome. Some would be terrifying. Some would be horribly bad. Instead, we get down on our hands and knees and gulp down quarts of whatever comes out of Thomas Kinkade's "paintbrush."

We deserve what we pay for.
God of Thunder and Rock'n'Rollarchmage on April 13th, 2011 08:35 pm (UTC)
And that's exactly my issue. I may not like these flicks, but I can't blame H'wood. They've openly admitted that they aren't in it for the art anymore, they're a business. As long as the populace continues to pay for shit, shit is what they'll get.

You make things, you set a bar, a standard. Some things will make that line, some exceed, and some fall short. If the public continues to accept that which falls short, they allow that bar to drop, and the cycle continues.

Sure, I'm annoyed at H'wood for this crap, but I'm actually mad at the zombified public who not only accepts but apparently WANTS "entertainment" which is more and more of the same (and less), and requires them to remove their brains.
Edward Martin IIIedwardmartiniii on April 13th, 2011 08:41 pm (UTC)
Yeppers!

(gulp, gulp, gulp...)

The Remake Controversy is one of the funniest: "Oh, I am so horrified they're remaking the CLASSIC and nearly perfect movie My Dribbling Penis! They'll ruin the subtle majesty of it! I simply MUST go to the theater immediately and blog about how much it's a hollow shell of the original!"
Mauler_mauler_ on April 19th, 2011 02:04 pm (UTC)
No.

Please, just no.

Base a film on another one of the comics which isn't Eric Draven, fine. But not a film where the star passed while making it, but not when it's already so timeless and perfect and not when the soundtrack is so damn astounding.

What the fuck. Money. >:(