There a lot of thing under satire, it's a broad slightly vague definition, surely you can't call them all unfunny? I really don't like the way this post seems to implicitly conflate original with decent. There are many classics that were remakes or adaptions. And many shit originals. It's not something you want to do too often, but original movies aren't all that either. It always depends. This is rather obvious. I don't particularly like it when a movie is just a straight adaption/reboot rather than being more like it took inspiration, but people are perfectly entitled to do that and it makes for some great viewing sometimes. In the end, that is all it is about. Good movies. Originality is less important than other elements of quality, they simply overwhelm it. A good film doesn't really need to be original as long as it is good at what it does. Originality is cool and we should be wary of over-proliferance of more derivative work but you should also be wary of your emotional impressions forming your opinion of a numerical matter. It's easy if you're angry at a movie or two and read some angry articles to get cynical but you should temper that with looking at data properly and calmly. I'm questioning to what you extent you've done that. And no, I'm not going to leave this thread. I'm providing an alternative opinion here, is that so harmful to you? If you feel my argument is too hostile, that's another mater. We can discuss if I need to turn it down, and I'm quite happy to do that. But I don't see why difference of opinion is somehow wrong. Did you only post this to have others agree with you? Or do you actually want to reach a logical conclusion here?
Then pick indie moves you don't think will give you that feeling, if you don't enjoy those ones. Simple. Isn't that watching movies 101? "Pick what you think you will enjoy."?
Personally speaking, I don't see the point because, no matter how much better it's acted/scripted/filmed etc, I already know the story. And I don't want to know the story. Or they take the title and names of the characters and come up with something sooooooo different, that they may as wll have just come up with a new title too (Yes, I'm talking about Total Recall, Point Break and Fantastic Four to name three.) A difference of opinion is not wrong at all - it wouldn't do if we were all the same but as this thread title advises, I am sounding off and I know I'm not the only person who feels this way.
Yep. You aren't. And there are reasons to. But I think you're underestimating the originality of many adaptions that are still loyal (e.gm the Marcvel movies are loyal but there is major originality too). And I think you're overestimating the percentage of the market they hold.
Just made the blog entry. Also discover that, we need more room on "The Pile of Shit No One Asked For", they're making a reboot of The Mummy.
Oh, the satire bit. David Brent on the Road - no thanks. Popstar: Never Stop Never Stopping - I am so not 15 years old anymore. War Dogs - Couple of asshats make money off a war? err, nope. Mike And Dave Need Wedding Dates - And I'm not 18 anymore neither. Nine Lives - a business man and a cat swap bodies ... like that's never been done before. What could go wrong? I had thought about Sausage Party as a contender, until I watched the trailer. Now, I do swear, probably more than I should, but even I was shocked at the amount of f-bombs in a thirty second snippet. Sooo ... that leaves me with Secret life of Pets, Our Kind Of Traitor, Bad Moms and The Shallows. Secret Life of Pets - do I really want to spend an afternoon in the company of a theater full of kids chomping, slurping and whinging about needed a weeee, moooooommmm! Our Kind Of Traitor - Based on a Le Carre novel, think I'll read the book. The Shallows - Another shark with an agenda to lay in wait for the meal that got away (mind games between a shark and a stranded woman. MMmmmmaybe not) Which leaves Bad Moms. This is actually one film I would watch - May have to take my 17 year old daughter to see it, Can't take the husband at the risk of him finding out what I REALLY used to be like before the kids left primary education! So, out of 23 movies, there's only one I'd watch. Am I just too picky?
We are also of a different generation, you and I. My most recent contact with this has been the reboot of the Star Trek franchise, a universe and a concept that is beloved by me. The new is not the old, and it never will be. And though I feel that the new films lack a certain soul that the old franchise and crew possessed, part of me has to accept that this is just the way it is. I don't think the dynamic of the old crew would work for today's younger audience. They haven't lived the same lives or through the same slices of history that I did, and the old crew did. The new Uhura is a self-empowered woman who belongs in the senior crew without question. The old Uhura was a shock to many viewers. A woman on the senior crew? A black woman? Are you insane???? And regardless of Uruha's blackness or Sulu's Asianness (and now, gayness), the magic of an ensemble of people that just happens to gel with a synergy that makes you care about them and love them as a group, as an endeavor, as the crew of the Enterprise, is also missing. You can't just recreate that recipe out of anyone. It either happens or it doesn't. But... I know that if I want Star Trek to live on, I have to let younger people have it as they would have it, in order to engage it as they would engage it; else, it will die with my generation. I've discussed this with other fans of the franchise and opinions are all over the place. Many of the old guard (like me) are confused as to why they didn't choose to explore other areas of Star Trek history and lore, rather than gamble on a reboot that will forever be compared to the phenomenon that is the original cast and story. There are tons of fan-made films (some of which are good enough to bring CBS/Paramount knocking at the door with cease and desist orders) that do exactly that. Star Trek: Axanar (youtube it) takes us into the slice of history where the Federation was at war with the Klingons. This is a well known part of the Star Trek universe, but always one spoken of in past tense, never actually opened up and delved into. So... I guess my opinion is mixed on this. Sometimes I think it's good to keep a franchise alive even if I'm not a fan of what's being done with it. Other times I think it's a heinous mistake. Did you see the remake of The Fog or the prequel to The Thing? Neither newer film had any of the bone-chilling horror that the older film had. They both got lost in masturbatory CGI effects and completely forget what it is that actually scares people.
Star Trek is where it gets really, really sticky for me - and this is why. I grew up on Star Trek with Shatner, et-al. As a child it was just fascinating. (along with Star Wars). So when ST The Next Generation came, I was so on board. The spin offs, not so much and Enterprise, no no no. But that's just me. But I love the new Star Trek movies. Theoretically, I shouldn't but I do! And I think it's mainly because to me, they haven't rehashed it, they haven't given the same script to a bunch of younger guys and said "see if you can bring us a new audience". They've taken the characters and given them a whole new story to play with, a sort of "lets introduce a time travelling bad guy that wipes everything out from the Shatner years and forces them to make a whole new 40-odd years worth of Star Trek adventures!" So long as Chris Pine never has to go to Sea World to rescue the last whale in order to communicate with an alien race about to destroy the planet, LIVE LONG AND PROSPER, CAPTAIN KIRK!
