Movie Trailers

[Dog Pants]

I suppose it depends on how it's done. A remake just to cash in on peoples' nostalgia is a cheap and wasteful shame. A remake as a cash-in on the original is perhaps missing opportunities but not necessarily a bad thing if it gives you more of the same. A remake which reinterprets the theme and reimagines it for a modern audience can be a good thing if done well. For example, I quite enjoyed the new Robocop's focus on isolationism and media sensationalism. Sure, it wasn't the cyberpunk comic strip archetype of an 80s corporate dystopia, but we already have that in the form of the original.

As for 90s kids being more nostalgic, maybe it's just an age thing. We're pretty nostalgic for the 80s but were old enough to be cynical for the 90s so it doesn't have the same charm. I expect my kids will be equally nostalgic for the Avengers and Peppa Pig.

[Dr. kitteny berk]

Question: is this a good thing? Personally I've always found self-declared "90s kids" to be far more obnoxiously nostalgia driven than most (I think I probably fall into the technical category of a 90s kid having been born in the early 80s, but I'm specifically referring to the ones that bang on constantly about how the 90s were the best thing ever). People have moaned in the past about the lack of originality and remakes, so is it going to get worse?

I'm pretty sure the cut off for being a 90s kid is about 1987/8, any earlier than that and you're an 80s kid, easily identified by remembering how shit the 90s were, and being almost entirely blissfully unaware of things like spongebob.

I think generally the performance of remakes is telling, Take point break, we've all seen the original, it was fucking awesome, probably hasn't aged well, but there you go.

Idiot teenagers have no idea what a point break is, probably think it's something from xbonecodblops17 (I asked a 14 year old, he thought it was a tv show about "people at breaking point, I assume, as the title suggests") So they have absolutely no interest in the remake.

Equally, those of us who are old enough to have seen, and enjoyed the original, are generally at the point where we'll either stream it, pirate it, or grab the dvd/blue rey when it's out, rather than suffering the cinema's cost and inconvenience (Not to say the cinema doesn't have its place, but I'm not making the effort for pointier breakier)

On the other hand, the first 2 Expendables movies did really very well because they were both new, and utterly ridiculous enough to warrant a proper look, same with RED, similar quality of movie, but because it wasn't trying too hard to cash in on something else, it worked nicely.


Aaaand another thing, the 2003 rehash of the Italian job? If they'd called it Getaway in Venice, and used any cars but minis, it'd've been better received, for the same reasons (though it was pretty crap)

[FatherJack]

The remake of Robocop was a decent enough film but it's PG rating meant it lacked the brutality of the original and the writing meant it laked the clever satire. However it was relevant, visually impressive and had some great performances.

Ghostbusters might not manage all of those, and if that face-slapping scene is in the trailer as a highlight then there will be a lot of cringing, but I'd sit through that for a better look at that redesigned tech.

[Joose]

Equally, those of us who are old enough to have seen, and enjoyed the original, are generally at the point where we'll either stream it, pirate it, or grab the dvd/blue rey when it's out, rather than suffering the cinema's cost and inconvenience (Not to say the cinema doesn't have its place, but I'm not making the effort for pointier breakier)

It said something along the lines of 'the people who they are aimed at [30-40 year olds] are the ones who aren't actually going to the cinema any more'.

This idea that people our age dont go to the cinema any more gets thrown around here a lot, and it just occured to me that although this seems to be true of the average 5punker, I go the cinema pretty often and a significant number of the people I see there see to be around my age, with the majority of the rest being 20-30. Made me wonder how much of this is perception: does it seem like people my age still go the cinema plenty to me because they happen to go to the same things I do and little else or are you lot making the (not unreasonable) assumption that because you dont go and a bunch of people you know dont go, then most people like you dont go. I figured this is probably something that has been researched, so went to google some stats.

Its actually not super clear. Partially because the stats I could find on it were slightly contradictory. Taking the top few google hits in total though, apparently there is a decrease in the number of 30-40 year olds going to the cinema nowadays, but that is at least in part because there is a decrease in people in general going to the cinema (apart from Hispanic americans in the 25-35 range, who are suddenly mad for films for some reason). However, the decrease is pretty small, with one study suggesting that attendance stats have barely varied by more than 2% in the last 5 years across the board. Another study said that 30-40 year old cinema goers, despite being a declining number, still make up about 25% of audiences.

In other words, there are less 30-40 year olds going, but not significantly. I certainly dont think its the cause of 80s remakes not doing too well. I think the main reason remakes often dont do well is because they are not very good, usually relying on nostalgia to win the crowds rather than the film being intrinsically good.

The other thing to remember about remakes: They are absolutely not a new phenomena. They feel like they are to us for the same reason (which people have alluded to here) that kids dont care about the originals. When we saw remakes of things when we were kids we didnt know that they were remakes, let alone have any investment in the thing they were remaking. If you dont believe me, check out the list of film remakes on Wikipedia. I spotted one from 1935. Just like they are now starting to remake things that came out in the 90s, before they were making 80s film remakes they made 70s film remakes, and so on, and so on.

Personally, I dont care if something is a remake or not. Even things that are technically not remakes often borrow heavily from something that came before. A Bugs Life was basically just The Three Amigos with insects. Three Amigos was basically just a comedy version of the Magnificent Seven. The Magnificent Seven was basically just the Seven Samurai as a western. You could argue that each of those was a "remake with a twist" of the film before, but that didnt make any of them automatically bad films. In fact, I really like all those films (except maybe Bugs Life, which was merely OK). The difference between this and most of the 80s film remakes we are talking about here is that instead of going "hey, I want to make a film that is a lot like Robocop, but with a slightly different, updated theme", they made a new Robocop film. Which means people naturally compare it to the original. People (and I agree with them) think that if you are going to make a remake of something, name it after that thing and then clearly try and entice people with "Hey, this is just like that film you used to like but fresh and new!" then it should be just like that film we used to like but fresh and new. If you are going to fundamentally change something about the film, be that story, setting or general theme, then dont pretend like it is still the same story. Im not saying they should try and hide their influences or anything, just that if they try and make out it is the same when it is not the same, that is going to put people off. Even when (like with new Robocop) its actually a pretty decent film in its own right.

Getting back on topic a bit, my only beef with the new Ghostbusters film having a female lead cast is the fact that it looks like it's going to be a bad film. The quality wont, I think, have a damn thing to do with the gender of the leads. I think it will be bad because of lazy writing and flat jokes. The problem is, if it's so bad that it is not commercially successful then a lot of idiots will falsely associate cast gender with its failure, and some of those idiots control the money for films.

Even more back on topic: Someone made a recut of the trailer.

[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8IDXpOX0Cp0[/youtube]

I think the official trailer is probably a better representation of what this film is going to be like, but if they had gone with this trailer instead people would have reacted a loooot more positively.

[buzzmong]

The problem with remakes is that the studios keep picking good or classic movies to do. That itself is a large part of the problem. Something which is already viewed as a good or classic film is setting a really high bar to reach, and invariably, lots of stuff falls short. Even if the new one is okay and passable, the response is "it's okay, but the original is better".

If you're going to remake a film, then you're much better off picking a bad film that had some interesting ideas and running with it. A good example is Captain America, the early 90's film is dire (so dire I can't find it on IMDB!), and the 2011 one was actually pretty decent.

Reboots are a slightly different matter, but again, unless you pick something bad to start with, then you're setting yourself up for a fail.

Continuations are an interesting thing. I'm really interested in the new Blade Runner film for instance, but that's mostly because it's being done by Ridley Scott. The new Star Wars was a great continuation as well. They are fundamentally different from remakes/reboots though, as they're deliberatly building upon and expanding the previous films, rather than trying to redo it.

Then there's the actual quality of the film. I've spotted a trend where a lot of reboots/remakes lack the underlying theme or concept behind the original, and instead, especially for films that are action heavy, try to ramp up the visual and bombastic side of things. Some of the older films haven't aged well and do look ropey/silly, but are still good as they've got solid plots and scripts. It's a bit like video games if I'm honest where gameplay trumps graphics, and it took a long time for games studios to get out of the 2000's "look at us, we're shinier!" bullshit. Movie studios need to go the same route and refine the balance when it comes to making films.

[Dog Pants]

That fancut trailer looks great. Very derivative of the original, but then the original was great.

Good call on making remakes of bad films, Buzz. Or films that are so old they're just not as great any more. Take The Thing, for example. I've seen the old B&W original and it's very B-movie. Not bad, but by modern standards it's nothing special. The John Carpenter version really took it and ran with it, using modern special effects and a screenplay that would have been banned in 1951. Maybe 16-year-olds today see films like Ghostbusters and, compared to the original from 15 years before they were born, the new one looks like a sassy modern version of an old film with shit effects and a cast full of old guys who deliver their lines with no enthusiasm.

[Roman Totale]

This idea that people our age dont go to the cinema any more gets thrown around here a lot, and it just occured to me that although this seems to be true of the average 5punker, I go the cinema pretty often and a significant number of the people I see there see to be around my age, with the majority of the rest being 20-30. Made me wonder how much of this is perception: does it seem like people my age still go the cinema plenty to me because they happen to go to the same things I do and little else or are you lot making the (not unreasonable) assumption that because you dont go and a bunch of people you know dont go, then most people like you dont go. I figured this is probably something that has been researched, so went to google some stats..

I go to the cinema a lot, and it's always full of people my age - but then again that's because I usually go at 10am on a Saturday or Sunday morning when other people are sleeping off a hangover. I'm not trying to claim our age group doesn't go, I was just para-phrasing a half remembered article I read recently.

My issue isn't with remakes themselves, but more with the quantity and quality. There have always been remakes, but not to the extent we're seeing now. And again my issue isn't that they're being remade/rebooted, but rather that the reason for it is a nostalgia cash in money grab instead of it being about making a good film.

[TezzRexx]

[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NP0HI8p0Lz8[/youtube]

Interestingly, Sony are deleting comments from the Ghostbusters trailer, but mostly non-sexist comments...

[Pnut]

[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HeaugHGd1Kw[/youtube]

[buzzmong]

Looks fun. Certainly looks like it'll be better than Ghostbusters at any rate.

[fabyak]

The same could be said about having your tonsils removed via your rectum though

[Dr. kitteny berk]

TMNT had always been mildly dumb, the last movie was fine because no one expected anything. Low bar was low.

Also, I misread tonsils as toenails, also uncomfortable.

[fabyak]

And funnier than Ghostbusters

[Roman Totale]

Rogue One

[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wji-BZ0oCwg[/youtube]

Damn that looks good!

[Mr. Johnson]

I was looking forward to this more than the horse awakens, and since it's not directed by Abrams there's a fair chance I'll like this better. The trailer looks good, anyway.

[Dog Pants]

That looks so good it made my balls retract. I can't quite work out the setting though. Pre-Yavin? That Death Star looks more intact than the second one.

EDIT: On second view, clearly launching from Yavin. Same screen, and they've even found a good match for Mon Mothma. Fucking hell that looks good.

[Roman Totale]

Mon Motha blew my mind - still not looked up whether it's a relative, uncanny resemblance, or CGI. Also Imperial dude in white cape looks sinister as shit.

[FatherJack]

Isn't that sort of Jan Ors and Kyle Katarn era stuff and basically their brief? Apparently she's called Jyn Erso though which has totally some different letters to Jan Ors.

[Dog Pants]

He has a resemblance and an extremely similar uniform to this guy, seen in the Death Star command room.

[Dog Pants]

Isn't that sort of Jan Ors and Kyle Katarn era stuff and basically their brief? Apparently she's called Jyn Erso though which has totally some different letters to Jan Ors.

Most of the old extended universe stuff is now called legends, scrapped to make way for Disney's new canon. I'm not upset about this, a lot of it was shit.