February 24, 2008

I think the fucking-up would come with them doing some stupid setting change. Like setting the movie in Kandahar or something idiotic like that. 

"We'll always have Duluth" 

When I read the post title I was thinking as valatan was which was "how could Hollywood remake and therefore ruin a perfectly classic movie?" I feel like the duo behind the link aren't using "fuck up" to mean ruin necessarily. I was expecting more "Well you have to get a comedic genius to play Claude Rains' role, so a good choice would be Ricky Gervais. This of course means modern Hollywood would cast Nick Cannon or Dane Cook because they're 'hot' right now."

Then again, I think re-making a movie that was perfectly good the first time is wrongheaded and idiotic 99 times out of 100. Are there not enough writers in the world that we have to blow millions of dollars to see something made again? Lazy sequels are one thing but re-doing a script wholesale is just stupid.

(In case you were wondering, the 100th case is something like Evil Dead 2 where having a non-zero budget makes a difference and nobody saw the first one because it had such low distribution. Even then I'm sure plenty of people would argue that 2 even lost some of the immediacy and passion that 1 had because it was a slicker production) 

How I'd Sink American Vogue 

« Older dude, you can just sell your old cell or something | ssh -vND 8088 -c blowfish u@h>/tmp/pr.log 2>&1 & Newer »



To post comments to a thread you must login or create a profile.