TF2 Revenge of the Fallen(thread): Bay doing coke off dead h

Status
Not open for further replies.
P

Philosopher B.

CDS said:
I was gonna post a new thread but fuck it, I will just use this thread as my movie playground.

I think the lamenting and gnashing of teeth regarding remakes is dumb and there have been quite a few that added a new perspective, twist, or other something that made it worthwhile. And the idea that it "ruins" the previous work is absurd. A remake of The Warriors could be awesome and have more crazy action that the other couldn't really pull off in the low budget original.
But ... gnashing teeth is so fun! :waah:

Actually, to be very serious, I would LOVE to see them take a remake of The Warriors back to the gritty and disturbing realism of the book, though I doubt they'll do that.
 
C

Chazwozel

Just finished watching Transformers 2 (torrented it).


Piece of garbage



Case closed. Glad I didn't waste 10 bucks.
 
P

Philosopher B.

Denbrought said:
Philosopher B. said:
But what is that avatar. It glares at me so! :Leyla:
Uber'd Heavy from Team Fortress 2. I swear I keep answering this question.
Thank you, kind sir!

*Hugs Denbrought*

Oh fuck what is this sticky stuff?! :Leyla:
 
Philosopher B. said:
CDS said:
I was gonna post a new thread but smurf it, I will just use this thread as my movie playground.

I think the lamenting and gnashing of teeth regarding remakes is dumb and there have been quite a few that added a new perspective, twist, or other something that made it worthwhile. And the idea that it "ruins" the previous work is absurd. A remake of The Warriors could be awesome and have more crazy action that the other couldn't really pull off in the low budget original.
But ... gnashing teeth is so fun! :waah:

Actually, to be very serious, I would LOVE to see them take a remake of The Warriors back to the gritty and disturbing realism of the book, though I doubt they'll do that.
I would want to see it set back in the 70's New York. Not 2010 Los Angeles. What's next? Give one an eye patch and a cyborg side kick? Gritty is the best way to describe the first movie. A little cheesy but it was fun and you had no idea who would make it back to Coney the way they were all dropping.
 
Philosopher B. said:
Denbrought said:
[quote="Philosopher B.":3dd98uxf]But what is that avatar. It glares at me so! :Leyla:
Uber'd Heavy from Team Fortress 2. I swear I keep answering this question.
Thank you, kind sir!

*Hugs Denbrought*

Oh fuck what is this sticky stuff?! :Leyla:[/quote:3dd98uxf]
You guess :unibrow:
 
P

Philosopher B.

I don't want them to do the same thing, but I don't want what Steve doesn't want either. The first film was a badass, fun film. But it hedged on showing some stuff the book showed, and the book had awesome realistic little details, especially seeing all the research the author did on gangs at the time. If they could capture more closely the essence of the original book, I would be interested to see that.

Denbrought said:
Philosopher B. said:
Denbrought said:
[quote="Philosopher B.":28sj6edx]But what is that avatar. It glares at me so! :Leyla:
Uber'd Heavy from Team Fortress 2. I swear I keep answering this question.
Thank you, kind sir!

*Hugs Denbrought*

Oh fuck what is this sticky stuff?! :Leyla:
You guess :unibrow:[/quote:28sj6edx]

M ... molasses?
 
Charlie Dont Surf said:
Steve said:
I would want to see it set back in the 70's New York.
Why would you want to see the exact same movie with different people? Did you also enjoy Gus Van Sant's "Psycho"?
Keep the same feel but toughen it up a bit. Like I said before roller skating guys and mimes are not that threatening. The way you feel about T2 is the way I'd feel about a Warriors remake. No good can come of it. Guess the point I'm making is "stay the fuck away from my Warriors! Hollywood, if you do that I will support every Michael Bay movie on opening day for the rest of my life!"
 
S

Steven Soderburgin

I like to think that Gus Van Sant's Psycho remake is a really interesting comment on the concept of remakes in general. I like to think this because I respect Gus Van Sant as an artist and there's really nothing else about that movie that works.
 
Kissinger said:
I like to think that Gus Van Sant's Psycho remake is a really interesting comment on the concept of remakes in general. I like to think this because I respect Gus Van Sant as an artist and there's really nothing else about that movie that works.
no, sorry, Van Sant fucked up.
 
Steve said:
Charlie Dont Surf said:
Steve said:
I would want to see it set back in the 70's New York.
Why would you want to see the exact same movie with different people? Did you also enjoy Gus Van Sant's "Psycho"?
Keep the same feel but toughen it up a bit. Like I said before roller skating guys and mimes are not that threatening. The way you feel about T2 is the way I'd feel about a Warriors remake. No good can come of it. Guess the point I'm making is "stay the smurf away from my Warriors! Hollywood, if you do that I will support every Michael Bay movie on opening day for the rest of my life!"
Also, from what I've been hearing, they've been metting eith all of the gangs in LA to see about providing information and assistance to making the film. Evidently, all of LA's gangs are in full support.
 
Charlie Dont Surf said:
Kissinger said:
I like to think that Gus Van Sant's Psycho remake is a really interesting comment on the concept of remakes in general. I like to think this because I respect Gus Van Sant as an artist and there's really nothing else about that movie that works.
no, sorry, Van Sant smurfed up.
You've got to admit that was pretty cool, though. The studio dumps a crap load of money for a remake and he does it frame by frame. Brought nothing new or innovative to the remake. Just the exact same movie. That would be like a publisher giving me a fat paycheck to rewrite a novel and I just copy it. He got paid for that shit. He got paid. And the execs who greenlit it quietly packed their desks up and began looking for a new career.
 

Cajungal

Staff member
If I remember right, the only things different besides the color were:

1. A line that Hitchcock had wanted to use but was not allowed to because of censors, something about sex probably

2. A shot at the beginning that swooped in from far away--because the technology wasn't around then

3. The amount of money stolen
 
Cajungal said:
If I remember right, the only things different besides the color were:

1. A line that Hitchcock had wanted to use but was not allowed to because of censors, something about sex probably

2. A shot at the beginning that swooped in from far away--because the technology wasn't around then

3. The amount of money stolen
Those, and the sound of Norman Bates masturbating as he peers through the peephole.
 
P

Philosopher B.

Espy said:
Did they have anything masturbating in TF2? I know they had humping... man, how did Bay miss that?
Maybe he figured the masturbation joke in the first one sufficed.
 

ElJuski

Staff member
Philosopher B. said:
Espy said:
Did they have anything masturbating in TF2? I know they had humping... man, how did Bay miss that?
Maybe he figured the masturbation joke in the first one sufficed.
Actually, the whole movie is Micheal Bay masturbating himself.
 
S

Steven Soderburgin

Charlie Dont Surf said:
We ain't no echo chamber. This fuck didn't like Shoot 'Em Up.
Hey, I barely liked it.

I liked Crank more, though. I'm curious to see Crank 2.
Steve said:
[You've got to admit that was pretty cool, though. The studio dumps a crap load of money for a remake and he does it frame by frame. Brought nothing new or innovative to the remake. Just the exact same movie. That would be like a publisher giving me a fat paycheck to rewrite a novel and I just copy it. He got paid for that shit. He got paid. And the execs who greenlit it quietly packed their desks up and began looking for a new career.
I was only half joking in my earlier post about Psycho. I do think it's at the very least, one of the most interesting and unique remakes ever made, simply for the fact that it had the ambition and conceit to try to remake the movie shot for shot and line for line. Here's a really great analysis of Van Sant's remake that closely examines the reasons behind the choices made and why they did or didn't work.
 

ElJuski

Staff member
I was so pissed that I missed my chance to see Crank 2 in the theaters. Now I must wait for DVD to revel in its absurd fucknuttery.
 
L

Lally

Steve said:
Charlie, your comment shocks me. I would think you out of anyone else on this board would be against any type of remake.
That would imply that a movie is necessarily bad specifically because it's a remake. This isn't the case at all. A remake is simply the vehicle, the opportunity to retell a story. Unfortunately, this usually seems to be accompanied by laziness, which is what creates the horrible, unimaginative remake. The concept of a remake itself is not necessarily the problem, it's the execution of said remake.

It's kind of like when you're in elementary school and they tell you you're not allowed to start a sentence with "because." You totally can start a sentence with "because," you just have to know how to construct a proper sentence afterward. A good remake can be made, you just have to know how to construct a proper one.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top