Export thread

We're having a flood of 80's movies remakes lately. It seems to be the in thing to do, like superhero movies were a couple of years ago.

The goal here is to find a movie that is being made that is a remake (doesn't HAVE to be an 80's movie remake) and post thoughts about it.

Teen Wolf (2010) (TV)
Teen Wolf.

Matt² said:

We're having a flood of 80's movies remakes lately. It seems to be the in thing to do, like superhero movies were a couple of years ago.

The goal here is to find a movie that is being made that is a remake (doesn't HAVE to be an 80's movie remake) and post thoughts about it.

Teen Wolf (2010) (TV)
Teen Wolf.

Click to expand...

The original Teen Wolf sucked ass.

Matt² said:

Short Circuit (2011)

Click to expand...

Further Adventures in Babysitting (2011)

Drop Dead Fred (2011)

Child's Play (2011) bleah.

I think they should remake everything. Keep it up to date.

This thread is exciting me.

So let's be honest here, everything you posted is a horrible movie without the nostalgia goggles. I might have loved them as a kid but I don't watch them nowadays unless I feel the need to reminisce.

^What he said. These movies all suck anyway.

MiB III (2012)

--Patrick

escushion said:

^What he said. These movies all suck anyway.

Click to expand...

wow.. generation gap.. ok, 90's movies then, get involved.

Born in the 80's and saw most of them when I was a kid on VHS if not in the theater. They're not good movies, dude. Fun, sure. Nostalgic, okay. But they're not good and there's no real reason to worry about remakes that, for all you know, could make a better movie.

Remakes are an unstoppable juggernaut of the movie industry. If they wanted to say, remake the entire Die Hard series, I'd find it a little weird, but they're cashing in on a safe bet. Same if they were to do something with movies like Edward Scissorhands or The Addams Family movies. Hell, they're remaking Let The Right One In and it's barely been out a few years.

The only reason I'd say anything listed shouldn't be remade is because it's not a strong enough source material in the first place, but it's possible to build upon that into something decent, if not great.

The Warriors (2011)

Ghost in the Shell (2011)

Akira (2013)

Then again, maybe that could somehow work....

Captain Blood (2011)

Yes, I know the original was made in 1935. Yes, it could do with color and decent special effects so the boats don't look like bathtub toys. I would love to see a faithful recreation of the original but we all know Hollywood would just screw it up.

Fight Club (1999)

Alien (1979)

Aliens (1986)


The Indiana Jones Trilogy

This thread is making me think of the possible bill and Ted sequel and giving me a joy bonner.

The Godfather

Jaws

That shit ain't never getting remade.

Chazwozel said:

The Godfather

Jaws

That shit ain't never getting remade.

Click to expand...

But what do you think about crossovers?

Matt² said:

Short Circuit (2011)

Click to expand...

This remake is guaranteed to be a giant steaming pile of crap.

Scud said:

Red Dawn

Click to expand...

but make it with Aussie accents

klew;442111][QUOTE=Scud said:

Red Dawn

Click to expand...

but make it with Aussie accents[/QUOTE]

And add a lot of hot Aussie Girls...

---------- Post added at 05:57 PM ---------- Previous post was at 05:47 PM ----------

They should never remake the great classics of cinema like Ben-Hur

Ben-Hur (1925 film) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

sixpackshaker;442114][QUOTE=klew;442111][QUOTE=Scud said:

Red Dawn

Click to expand...

but make it with Aussie accents[/QUOTE]

And add a lot of hot Aussie Girls...

---------- Post added at 05:57 PM ---------- Previous post was at 05:47 PM ----------

They should never remake the great classics of cinema like Ben-Hur

Ben-Hur (1925 film) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia[/QUOTE]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ben-Hur_(1959_film)

Seemed to be a fairly highly reviewed movie winning 11 academy awards and what not. Less you consider this one to be a crappy remake?

crono1224;442126][QUOTE=sixpackshaker;442114][QUOTE=klew;442111][QUOTE=Scud said:

Red Dawn

Click to expand...

but make it with Aussie accents[/QUOTE]

And add a lot of hot Aussie Girls...

---------- Post added at 05:57 PM ---------- Previous post was at 05:47 PM ----------

They should never remake the great classics of cinema like Ben-Hur

Ben-Hur (1925 film) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia[/QUOTE]

Ben-Hur (1959 film) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Seemed to be a fairly highly reviewed movie winning 11 academy awards and what not. Less you consider this one to be a crappy remake?[/QUOTE]

A remake is a remake. It is more of a message for people not to get their panties in a twist. Hollywood has been making remakes as long as they have been making movies.

Ben Hur (1907 film) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

If it makes you feel any better about Short Circuit, it's the Robot Chicken crew remaking it. Apparently they loved the original.

fade said:

If it makes you feel any better about Short Circuit, it's the Robot Chicken crew remaking it. Apparently they loved the original.

Click to expand...

Well... hmmm...

That could be awesome... or horrible...

Azurephoenix;442154][QUOTE=fade said:

If it makes you feel any better about Short Circuit, it's the Robot Chicken crew remaking it. Apparently they loved the original.

Click to expand...

Well... hmmm...

That could be awesome... or horrible...[/QUOTE]

Or somewhere in the middle.

crono1224 said:

Or somewhere in the middle.

Click to expand...

Bah... your logic is no fun... no fun at all...

fade said:

If it makes you feel any better about Short Circuit, it's the Robot Chicken crew remaking it. Apparently they loved the original.

Click to expand...

I was 16 when it came out, and I remember having a good time at the movie...

Matt²;442039][QUOTE=escushion said:

^What he said. These movies all suck anyway.

Click to expand...

wow.. generation gap.. ok, 90's movies then, get involved.[/QUOTE]

I was an 80s kid. I saw these movies. They suck.

Matt² said:

Short Circuit (2011)

Click to expand...

If it makes you feel any better about Short Circuit, it's the Robot Chicken crew remaking it. Apparently they loved the original.

Click to expand...

I was an 80s kid. I saw these movies. They suck.

Click to expand...

Anyone that says Short Circuit sucks is dead to me.

So is there going to be a corresponding "movies they should remake" thread with a list of links to upcoming movies?

Hey I loved Short Circuit as a kid, my brother and I still quote it to this day. That doesn't mean when I remove my nostalgia goggles I can call it a good movie, though.

Johnny five is alive!

CynicismKills said:

Hey I loved Short Circuit as a kid, my brother and I still quote it to this day. That doesn't mean when I remove my nostalgia goggles I can call it a good movie, though.

Click to expand...

It was a different time, one full of campy awesome. Short Circuit was a good family movie with a robot, and that was all it had to be.

I own the DVD and make my wife watch it on occasion, and unlike movies like Weekend At Bernies, it still holds up under my older, more cynical self. Johnny Five is ALIVE!

P.S. I actually work with a guy that helped build, and during both films piloted, Johnny Five.

Johnny Five was a well done movie robot.

I think the key to remakes is to not remake good movies (or at least, good for their genre), like:

The Manchurian Candidate
The Posiedon Adventure
The Omen
Disturbia/Rear Window
Flight of the Phoenix
The Hills Have Eyes
Miracle on 34th Street
One Missed Call
When a Stranger Calls
The Wicker Man
The Wolfman
The Parent Trap
Death at a Funeral


Those are just the ones that come to mind at the moment. But....on the other hand, there are some incredible remakes out there:

Gone in 60 Seconds
Father of the Bride
Fun with Dick and Jane
Dawn of the Dead
The Ladykillers
Little Shop of Horrors
Meet Joe Black
The Mummy
Munich
Oceans 11
Psycho (guess it depends on the viewer, I really liked it)
Scarface


I think it can really go either way with a couple of soft rules

-The movie should NOT have been considered one of the best movies ever made (posiedon/Manchurian candidate)
-Horror movies are probably a bad idea, but you may pull something out if you don't feel you have to put a Megan Fox look-alike in it
-Don't put Dennis Quaid in it.
-If its an old comedy from the 50s - 60s you could see some real improvement with a remake, as so much of the original value is based on contemporary social norms (father of the bride)
-Give it more than a couple years (death at a funeral)
-If it is heavily dependant on special effects, you could do well with a remake, but be careful (Little Shop of Horrors and Dawn of the Dead, but also the Hills Have Eyes)

But outside of my Ben Hur example, few remakes are considered one of the best movies made.

Damn.. now I want to see both versions of the Little Shop Of Horrors again.

Depends on if you count foreign remakes. If you go there you have incredible choices:

Magnificent 7
The Birdcage
Vanilla Sky

...can't remember anymore at the moment.

For straight up remakes I don't think you will ever have that. That's because the best movies made have to be, at their core, great/incredible. Dawn of the Dead and Ocean's Eleven were great remakes, but at the end of the day that story could only be so good. You can't take Dawn of the Dead and turn it into The Posiedon adventure. It inherently lacks the potential for greatness. And any movie that has that potential for greatness probably was already made great the first time around, or the potential lies unrecognized in the corner somewhere until someone finally reboots it (Darkman would be a good choice for this I think).

The Departed was pretty awesome.

And Ocean's 11 (the new one) was considerably better than the original.

But they're not exactly typical.

Remake everything.

The remake of Death at a Funeral was atrocious.

ScytheRexx;442211][QUOTE=CynicismKills said:

Hey I loved Short Circuit as a kid, my brother and I still quote it to this day. That doesn't mean when I remove my nostalgia goggles I can call it a good movie, though.

Click to expand...

It was a different time, one full of campy awesome. Short Circuit was a good family movie with a robot, and that was all it had to be.

I own the DVD and make my wife watch it on occasion, and unlike movies like Weekend At Bernies, it still holds up under my older, more cynical self. Johnny Five is ALIVE!

P.S. I actually work with a guy that helped build, and during both films piloted, Johnny Five.[/QUOTE]

Such a great movie, you had to make your SO watch it with you, more than once.

escushion;442287][QUOTE=ScytheRexx;442211][QUOTE=CynicismKills said:

Hey I loved Short Circuit as a kid, my brother and I still quote it to this day. That doesn't mean when I remove my nostalgia goggles I can call it a good movie, though.

Click to expand...

It was a different time, one full of campy awesome. Short Circuit was a good family movie with a robot, and that was all it had to be.

I own the DVD and make my wife watch it on occasion, and unlike movies like Weekend At Bernies, it still holds up under my older, more cynical self. Johnny Five is ALIVE!

P.S. I actually work with a guy that helped build, and during both films piloted, Johnny Five.[/QUOTE]

Such a great movie, you had to make your SO watch it with you, more than once.[/QUOTE]

Well yes, of course, it's in his name: CynicismKILLS

I used to always tell a friend they should remake Clash of the Titans. I argued that it just needed a special effects update, and the acting/writing could only improve. :mmph:

Now I don't want them to remake anything.

The thing is, most of the remakes started as subpar horror flicks from the 70s. Now, they're starting to get into MY nostalgia territory with Nightmare on Elm St., Friday the 13th and The Karate Kid. The latter of which was surprisingly quite good.

I honestly don't see why studios don't just remaster the originals and re-release those, instead. Granted, the only time I've actually seen that done is with the original Star Wars trilogy. But that was goddamn Star Wars. But wouldn't a remastering cost a hell of a lot less than making a whole new movie?

Jaws was mentioned earlier. I'm really VERY surprised that hasn't been remade, yet.
Ditto on Casablanca. Maybe that's too sacred to touch.
I remember Tarantino joking he'd love to remake Citizen Kane and have "Rosebud" be Kane's wife's pussy or something, instead.

Heard somewhere that The Goonies was being considered. Hope that doesn't happen.
Wasn't remake of The Birds talked about? That might work, but I really don't know.

The only unbelievablely great and successful remake I can think of is Star Trek.

Why is there so much hatred towards remakes? Ive never understood that.

Azurephoenix;442166][QUOTE=crono1224 said:

Or somewhere in the middle.

Click to expand...

Bah... your logic is no fun... no fun at all... [/QUOTE]It is very fuzzy, though.

--Patrick

makare said:

Why is there so much hatred towards remakes? Ive never understood that.

Click to expand...

I think it's because we associate movie remakes with the idea that the people behind the remake are looking to make a guaranteed return on the money that they would be spending to make it because they believe that the fans of the original will see it based on the name. To be sure, the large, large number of awful remakes backs up this theory. It's both a tarnishing of what the fans like, and an implied insult that the fans are too dumb and undiscerning to not see the film.

Of course, by way of contradictions, theater/musicals somehow escape this entirely in the cultural consciousness. Every time a Shakespeare play gets put on somewhere with a different cast, or visual concept, that's technically a remake. But we take it for granted that the people behind those productions are doing it (for the most part) because they love and honor the source material.

So I guess you could expand the question to: why do we give theater production companies the benefit of the doubt, but not movie studios?

It's not like a musical on Broadway won't fucking gouge you $60-100/seat in order to actually see the performers. Even TKTS is $$ if you want to see a new-ish show. D:

I think that many people feel the remake is an unspoken assertion by the people doing the remaking that a movie was flawed in some way and needed to be fixed (Transformers?). This treads on the tender treasured memories of some, who get all bent out of shape about the slight, imagined or otherwise.

--Patrick

makare said:

Why is there so much hatred towards remakes? Ive never understood that.

Click to expand...

Valid or not, many people are of the opinion that for every good remake there are nine that are terrible. I know I feel that way.

Tress;442329][QUOTE=makare said:

Why is there so much hatred towards remakes? Ive never understood that.

Click to expand...

Valid or not, many people are of the opinion that for every good remake there are nine that are terrible. I know I feel that way.[/QUOTE]

For every good movie PERIOD there are nine that are terrible.

SpecialKO said:

So I guess you could expand the question to: why do we give theater production companies the benefit of the doubt, but not movie studios?

Click to expand...

Because while I can pop in my dvd copies of Miracle on 34th Street or King Kong and watch them anytime I want. I can't go to the Globe Theater and watch the original cast perform Romeo & Juliet.

But just because they make a shitty remake doesn't make the good original disappear. That's what I've never understood. Who cares if they make a hundred crappy versions of a movie the good one is still there.

Covar said:

Because while I can pop in my dvd copies of Miracle on 34th Street or King Kong and watch them anytime I want. I can't go to the Globe Theater and watch the original cast perform Romeo & Juliet.

Click to expand...

I think that reason is also valid for why I should not care about remakes.

Null said:

The remake of Death at a Funeral was atrocious.

Click to expand...

Can't believe I put that in the wrong category. That was one of the worst remakes ever.

escushion said:

Such a great movie, you had to make your SO watch it with you, more than once.

Click to expand...

Hey now, I don't force her to watch the movie. She is just not the type to watch older movies on a whim though, and didn't watch television hardly at all as a kid. When I say I make her watch them, I mean I am the one to buy them and we sit down for a night of older 80s camp, and sometimes go back to our favorites.

Recently I found "The Goonies" on television and she was like "What movie is this?".

Ive often thought of remakes as licensed fan fiction. Like little kids going "me too, me too!" at story time

makare said:

But just because they make a shitty remake doesn't make the good original disappear. That's what I've never understood. Who cares if they make a hundred crappy versions of a movie the good one is still there.

Click to expand...

Most remakes are of older black and white movies. Most viewers are turned off by anything that looks too old, so they'll usually choose the new, crappy version because it simply looks shiny. As a result the classic version doesn't get the attention it should.

But they probably wouldn't watch the old one anyway.

I quite enjoyed the Death at a Funeral remake.

The thing I hate the most is where these horror remakes try to make the originals more "scary" by having that stupid super-fast editing where it seems like the movie is having a seizure. Christ, I'm tired of seeing that in horror flicks.

And when they try to make it more "scary" by beating you over the head with the gore instead of going for the subtle psychological terror.

I found a DVD copy of the cabinet of Doctor Caligari yesterday. I can rest easy knowing that one will NEVER be remade.

LittleSin said:

I found a DVD copy of the cabinet of Doctor Caligari yesterday. I can rest easy knowing that one will NEVER be remade.

Click to expand...

Great. You've jinxed it. Now Uwe Boll will suddenly want to remake it.

IronBrig4;442429][QUOTE=LittleSin said:

I found a DVD copy of the cabinet of Doctor Caligari yesterday. I can rest easy knowing that one will NEVER be remade.

Click to expand...

Great. You've jinxed it. Now Uwe Boll will suddenly want to remake it.[/QUOTE]

*shudders*

That man should never EVER be allowed to make another movie...

makare said:

But just because they make a shitty remake doesn't make the good original disappear. That's what I've never understood. Who cares if they make a hundred crappy versions of a movie the good one is still there.

Click to expand...

Because it's a waste of money that could have (hopefully) gone into making an original new movie instead. (no it wouldn't, i'm not even fooling myself)

ScytheRexx;442195][QUOTE=Matt² said:

Short Circuit (2011)

Click to expand...

If it makes you feel any better about Short Circuit, it's the Robot Chicken crew remaking it. Apparently they loved the original.

Click to expand...

I was an 80s kid. I saw these movies. They suck.

Click to expand...

Anyone that says Short Circuit sucks is dead to me. [/QUOTE]

Obligatory bad video clip reference

Too many people are blinded by nostalgia. Not that I won't also fall victim, but I try to stay conscious of it.

I think nostalgia is an incredibly easy and lazy trap to fall into.

Flight of the Navigator
Howard the Duck

Ehhhh, I don't know. I loved and grew up on Flight of the Navigator, but a remake may not necessarily suck. I could see Will Smith's son playing the role of the kid.

Azurephoenix;442431][QUOTE=IronBrig4;442429][QUOTE=LittleSin said:

I found a DVD copy of the cabinet of Doctor Caligari yesterday. I can rest easy knowing that one will NEVER be remade.

Click to expand...

Great. You've jinxed it. Now Uwe Boll will suddenly want to remake it.[/QUOTE]That man should never EVER be allowed to make another movie...[/QUOTE]This list of demons courtesy of collectedcurios.com:



--Patrick

TNM said:

Flight of the Navigator
Howard the Duck

Click to expand...

For totally different reasons.

Let the Right One In

Seriously, I just watched it and it's amazing. Surprisingly tender, too.

Then, I watched the trailer for the American remake. And honest to God, they lifted scenes directly from it almost entirely. NOTHING about it looks original.

I just want to say: Fuck North American audiences and their inability to enjoy a film with a foreign language. Not everyone, of course. Just the vast majority.

ThatNickGuy said:

Let the Right One In

Seriously, I just watched it and it's amazing. Surprisingly tender, too.

Then, I watched the trailer for the American remake. And honest to God, they lifted scenes directly from it almost entirely. NOTHING about it looks original.

I just want to say: Fuck North American audiences and their inability to enjoy a film with a foreign language. Not everyone, of course. Just the vast majority.

Click to expand...

If it makes you feel any better, I've never heard of the original OR the remake.

I don't remember the original to know if it should be remade, but I'll throw this out there:

Monster Squad (2011)

WOLFMAN'S GOT NARTS.

figmentPez said:

I don't remember the original to know if it should be remade, but I'll throw this out there:

Monster Squad (2011)

Click to expand...

CGI instead of practical effects, and the kids' language will be sterilized. I'll stick with the '80s version, acknowledging its not a good movie, but I like it a lot.

Arthur (2011 film) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Another cheerful story about an untreated alcoholic, who is a complete fall down drunk.

While watching Batman on tv this weekend, I realized that I have no sense of Nostalgia with this stuff. I appreciated it while I was young, but can recognize where it is campy now. As such, I don't care what they remake. It doesn't remove or detract from the original, so the worst case is that someone makes something forgettable that I can ignore, and the best case is that something awesome comes from it. Unlikely, but possible.

LittleSin said:

I found a DVD copy of the cabinet of Doctor Caligari yesterday. I can rest easy knowing that one will NEVER be remade.

Click to expand...

Too late: The Cabinet of Dr. Caligari (2005 film)

Fun Size said:

While watching Batman on tv this weekend, I realized that I have no sense of Nostalgia with this stuff. I appreciated it while I was young, but can recognize where it is campy now. As such, I don't care what they remake. It doesn't remove or detract from the original, so the worst case is that someone makes something forgettable that I can ignore, and the best case is that something awesome comes from it. Unlikely, but possible.

Click to expand...

The 1989 film? Yeah, I saw that again recently. It does not hold up. I'm glad it opened doors, but on its own merits, it has not aged well. Even the FX are bad. You can see the matte lines when the camera pans from the miniature city to the alley sets, for example.

Also on Batman (1989) the big distraction for me, was the cars. My internal monologue screamed "BRUCE WAYNE DOES NOT DRIVE A 12 YEAR OLD CHEVY NOVA!"

The 89 Batman had Jack Nicholson as the Joker, though. It's hard to top that.

Call me contrarian as usual, but I never much cared for his Joker. He's got good character, but he doesn't have the energy. Partly because, frankly, he's too old, even in 89. It almost feels like he doesn't really want to be there.

IronBrig4 said:

The 89 Batman had Jack Nicholson as the Joker, though. It's hard to top that.

Click to expand...

An unfunny bald fat Joker who acts just like Jack Nicholson?

Covar;444772][QUOTE=IronBrig4 said:

The 89 Batman had Jack Nicholson as the Joker, though. It's hard to top that.

Click to expand...

An unfunny bald fat Joker who acts just like Jack Nicholson?[/QUOTE]

Which is closer to the character than some angsty, grungy, pseudo-punk, in clown make up, who is unfunny too. Jack was much more close to the gleeful mass-killer.

He laughed in nearly ever scene he was in. He cackled a shit ton.

Jiarn said:

I couldn't disagree with you more on this sixpackshaker. Fat, Bald, Joker that wears pristine clothes and barely laughs at all? Yeah not even close to the gleeful mass-killer.

Click to expand...

It is funny to look at clips of the two together, where Joker is 3 inches taller and 50 lbs heavier.

I feel like watching the 89 Batman again now.

Okay then, here's that clip of him at the parade. You almost don't want Batman to stop them because everybody seems to be having such a good time.

Jiarn said:

That clip just reminded me how very un-comic-joker he was.

Click to expand...

Yeah, Joker totally wouldn't murder an entire museum full of people for the purpose of defacing the art inside with his visage. That TOTALLY doesn't sound like something he'd have done in the last 80 years.

Jiarn said:

I agree the character is alot of fun played by Jack, the point I was arguing against was that it was the style and feel of the same Joker that beat Robin to death with a crowbar. It isn't.

Click to expand...

And THAT Joker doesn't sound like the same Joker that existed from 1940 all the way through till the 80's. It isn't the same God damn Joker. It's a different media entirely. It's a different take.

Wait, are you guys arguing over which Joker was a better movie-Joker, or which was was faithful to the comic? Not really the same thing.

How much whining would there have been if Ledger had just played a carbon copy of Nicholson's Joker, anyway?

I liked the Dark Knight's Joker. For me, he got across that fear that he was unhinged and unpredictable. If you knew anything about him, it was only because he decided to tell you. And even then, he was probably lying!

And to contribute to the thread minorly: I'd heard a rumor that Tim Burton was slated to direct a remake of 1984. I haven't found any news of it since then, but that is one thing that should never ever come to pass. -shudder-

I liked both, I'm also glad they were both different. 1989 Batman was a different animal than 2008 Dark Knight.

I know I've said it a million times now, but I wasn't a fan of Ledger as the Joker. He made a great movie villain. But he was more like a Die Hard villain than the Joker. There was no joke.

I'm not a fan of the purple suit flair madness joker. He never feels sadistic just carnivalistic/crazy which, to me, lessens the power of its psychopathy.
This is from someone that watched cesar romero's Joker. Ugh.

I can see how a kid would like Cesar Romero's Joker, bit I don't think I could stand watching it for two and a half hours straight if he was in the Dark Knight.

Cesar Romero does a really good job of acting (and looking) more like Dalí than like the traditional comic book villain. It's not a bad take on the character, in my opinion. Dalí was known for being unpredictable, odd, doing crazy things, etc.

I feel like Heath Ledger's Joker* played less like a crazy clown character and more like a representation of the card itself. In cards, the Joker has no value of its own. Instead, it is wild and unknowable, and can assume whatever value it wishes by being treated as any other card. However, whatever value it holds is not due to the fact that it is the Joker, rather that it is a substitute for whatever card is declared. Ledger's Joker, then, is a cipher. Nobody knows what he is capable of doing...because he is capable of anything.

--Patrick
*Disclaimer: I haven't seen Dark Knight yet, so I'm going on reputation, here.

The thing is, Nicholson was great at the time. But when I look back at it, I realize that it's basically Nicholson playing Nicholson and just happens to be dressed up as The Joker. Sure, he was funny and had some great one-liners, but Jack really got the psychotic feel behind the smile, as well.

Ledger's role, on the other hand, is not meant to be taken with a single smile. And really, that's how The Joker should be portrayed. He's this chaotic force of nature. I was excited when Ledger was cast, but I remember friends saying "But...Ledger's not a funny guy." My response? Good! The Joker in the comics (at least in the last 15 years or so) has been portrayed as a huge threat, the kind that even fellow supervillains trade horror stories about. That's the kind of Joker I was looking forward to with Ledger's role.

I think Burton's movies were great at the time, but time (and comparison to Nolan's) have not aged them well. My biggest beef with those series of movies was the portrayal of Commissioner Gordon, who looked like a bumbling oaf instead of the hardass detective we saw in Nolan's films.

Can't we all just agree that Mark Hamil is the best Joker ever? That cartoon captured the Joker more as a combination of murderous lunacy mixed with wacky hi-jinks then I think either movie really pulled off.

I admit though, my entire perception of the Joker was downright shaped by that cartoon.

ThatNickGuy said:

The thing is, Nicholson was great at the time. But when I look back at it, I realize that it's basically Nicholson playing Nicholson and just happens to be dressed up as The Joker. Sure, he was funny and had some great one-liners, but Jack really got the psychotic feel behind the smile, as well.

Ledger's role, on the other hand, is not meant to be taken with a single smile. And really, that's how The Joker should be portrayed. He's this chaotic force of nature. I was excited when Ledger was cast, but I remember friends saying "But...Ledger's not a funny guy." My response? Good! The Joker in the comics (at least in the last 15 years or so) has been portrayed as a huge threat, the kind that even fellow supervillains trade horror stories about. That's the kind of Joker I was looking forward to with Ledger's role.

I think Burton's movies were great at the time, but time (and comparison to Nolan's) have not aged them well. My biggest beef with those series of movies was the portrayal of Commissioner Gordon, who looked like a bumbling oaf instead of the hardass detective we saw in Nolan's films.

Click to expand...

Yes and no on Ledger. The audience shouldn't laugh. The heroes and even the fellow villains shouldn't laugh. But Joker should find it all frickin' hilarious. Ledger didn't. There are a billion ominous evil soulless killers out there in the movies--and real life. But the Joker is sort of unique. That's what I mean when I say Ledger and Nolan made him a generic sociopath.

Fade, I'm going to have to seriously disagree. There were times when Ledger's Joker could barely talk for laughing at what he was doing. Like falling over and accidentally spraying bullets at one point. He thought what he was doing was a riot.

He did, but I thought he and Nolan were trying to make it painfully obvious that it was fake laughter.

fade said:

He did, but I thought he and Nolan were trying to make it painfully obvious that it was fake laughter.

Click to expand...

I didn't get that at all. I feel like we were watching different movies.

You'll have to show me an example of these scenes, because I really fail to remember anything like you're describing.

---------- Post added at 06:35 PM ---------- Previous post was at 06:32 PM ----------

I mean, when his henchman gets shocked trying to remove batman's mask we get this harsh, mirthless, disdainful laugh, that doesn't seem truly amused so much as intentionally forced. There's no eye component to the smile, which I assumed was on purpose. The joking around with rachael while eating shrimp was the same. Flat and mirthless. More sneering than laughing. I got a whole "the world owes me something" feel out of it, rather than mirth or glee.

fade said:

He did, but I thought he and Nolan were trying to make it painfully obvious that it was fake laughter.

Click to expand...

Does your colon hurt? Cause you must've reached pretty far into your ass to pull that out.

















(Fade hates everything.)

Believe what you want to, but I saw no mirth in his laughter, and it sure looked to me that the rest of his facial features were either flat or angry. I mean almost to cartoony obvious extremes. The entire point was that I didn't have to pull it from anywhere, because they practically put it in your face like one of the real Joker's pies.

Also, I never once said I hated Ledger's joker. In fact, I said he was a good character. Just not the Joker. I think I've officially said that like a billion times now.

Telling us how you interpreted it, and telling us how you saw Ledger and Nolan planning it are two entirely different things.









(Anti-Life justifies Fade's hate.)

Here's the thing: Ledger was a great performance in a good movie, and Nicholson's was a bad performance in a bad movie. I couldn't give a fuck who was more like my arbitrary idea of "the joker".

That's right, 3F. Fuck 'em if they can't make a (good) Joke(r).

--Patrick

What's the point of citing an example to you, Fade? You'll just say that you see this or that in it, proving (to you) that it's forced, or fake, or lifeless, which is obviously how Nolan and Ledger were planning it all along, nevermind that you're pretty much the only person who sees it.

I'd say that if you see the laughter is forced, you see it's forced and you will obviously think that was made on purpose. It's not so difficult to understand that Fade isn't trying to be antagonistic for the sake of it, he just interpets the character that way. And while you see the Joker enjoying himself, he doesn't. Examples or not, that's not how he sees it.

And the best thing is that both interpretations are right. One is more "classic" joker, the other one is similar to the Joker's character in "The killing Joke", for example. And even if there was no comic joker to link it to, it's perfectly fine to think whatever you want about the character and the possible intentions of the filmaker! Where's the problem?

I don't know, man, sometimes it feels like this forum has something against Fade...

Welcome to Facebook

Men in Black 3.

Silver Jelly said:

I'd say that if you see the laughter is forced, you see it's forced and you will obviously think that was made on purpose. It's not so difficult to understand that Fade isn't trying to be antagonistic for the sake of it, he just interpets the character that way. And while you see the Joker enjoying himself, he doesn't. Examples or not, that's not how he sees it.

And the best thing is that both interpretations are right. One is more "classic" joker, the other one is similar to the Joker's character in "The killing Joke", for example. And even if there was no comic joker to link it to, it's perfectly fine to think whatever you want about the character and the possible intentions of the filmaker! Where's the problem?

I don't know, man, sometimes it feels like this forum has something against Fade...

Click to expand...

Fade has something against the forum. He doesn't like it.

Matt² said:

Welcome to Facebook

Men in Black 3.

Click to expand...

I... I don't know how to react.

escushion;451249][QUOTE=Silver Jelly said:

I don't know, man, sometimes it feels like this forum has something against Fade...

Click to expand...

Fade has something against the forum. He doesn't like it.[/QUOTE]

Null seems to have something for Fade. It seems Fade can't post anything that is not glowing with love of random crap entertainment, without Null trying to call him out with juvenile, bullying behavior.

Maybe he just sucks at flirting?

sixpackshaker;451783][QUOTE=escushion;451249][QUOTE=Silver Jelly said:

I don't know, man, sometimes it feels like this forum has something against Fade...

Click to expand...

Fade has something against the forum. He doesn't like it.[/QUOTE]

Null seems to have something for Fade. It seems Fade can't post anything that is not glowing with love of random crap entertainment, without Null trying to call him out with juvenile, bullying behavior.[/QUOTE]

I didn't really see anything that was juvenile or bullying. Just two people who strongly disagree.

i know this thread is about remakes but ...

Wes Craven made Scream 4

I like the scream franchise. I think this will do fine. was it needed? no not really... or is it? dun Dun DUUUUUN,

Warner Bros Wants Robert Zemeckis For ‘Wizard Of Oz’ Remake Based On Original Script – Deadline.com

The Wizard of OZ. How can you possibly improve that movie? Easy. CGI!!! Computerized flying monkeys. CGI lion. Tin Man played by Dwayne Johnson. Imagine the carnage he could do with the ax. Oh, Hollywood, you have restored my faith in thee.

Worse than CG: mo-cap CG. With creepy Zemeckis Polar Express/Christmas Carol glassy eyes.