The "Freeola Customer Forum" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only. You cannot post here or create a new thread or review on this forum.
I jus**t read that Spawn is going to have a re-make/sequel and to me this sounds like a pretty good idea. The Spawn s**tory is violent and complex and didn't translate well to the terrible kids special-effects film that got made. The re-make is going to be R rated and will concentrate on Spawn as the dark loner (in the same way as Tim Burton's Batman got rid of a whole hos**t of lesser characters). The clown, etc are being dumped in favour of a darker vision that s**ticks closer to Todd McFarlane's original creation.
This got me thinking about re-makes in general. Over recent years we have seen such pointless re-makes as Psycho (what a load of bull sh*t) and Get Carter.
Ring (the Japanese horror movie) has already been re-made in Taiwan as 'The Ring Virus' and looks likely to have a god-awful Hollywood re-make any time soon. This is jus**t not necessary. If more money had been spent marketing the film the firs**t time round it could have had a similar success to, the highes**t grossing subtitled movie of all time, Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon.
I think the only films that need to be re-made are ones that a) didn't live up to expectations the fis**t time round (ie. great plot ideas but bad script, actors or director), b) weren't as good as they could of been due to tough censorship (ie. many gritty 1950s film noirs were toned down at the scripting s**tage due to intense pressure from the Hays Production code) or c) when the director/ scriptwriter is able to put a new spin on things (ie. The Faculty by Robert Rodriguez is esssentially a re-make of The Body Snatchers).
There is absolutly no reason to re-make a film like Psycho that is s**till greaat today and despite it's age s**till captivates millions of viewers. The only reason that someone would remake Psycho is $$$$MONEY$$$$. Luckily though it wasn't a big success so if we're lucky we won't have to endure re-makes of 'Citizen Kane', 'Casablanca' or 'Gone With The Wind'!
Can anyone think of a film that desperately needs a new-improved re-made version?
This got me thinking about re-makes in general. Over recent years we have seen such pointless re-makes as Psycho (what a load of bull sh*t) and Get Carter.
Ring (the Japanese horror movie) has already been re-made in Taiwan as 'The Ring Virus' and looks likely to have a god-awful Hollywood re-make any time soon. This is jus**t not necessary. If more money had been spent marketing the film the firs**t time round it could have had a similar success to, the highes**t grossing subtitled movie of all time, Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon.
I think the only films that need to be re-made are ones that a) didn't live up to expectations the fis**t time round (ie. great plot ideas but bad script, actors or director), b) weren't as good as they could of been due to tough censorship (ie. many gritty 1950s film noirs were toned down at the scripting s**tage due to intense pressure from the Hays Production code) or c) when the director/ scriptwriter is able to put a new spin on things (ie. The Faculty by Robert Rodriguez is esssentially a re-make of The Body Snatchers).
There is absolutly no reason to re-make a film like Psycho that is s**till greaat today and despite it's age s**till captivates millions of viewers. The only reason that someone would remake Psycho is $$$$MONEY$$$$. Luckily though it wasn't a big success so if we're lucky we won't have to endure re-makes of 'Citizen Kane', 'Casablanca' or 'Gone With The Wind'!
Can anyone think of a film that desperately needs a new-improved re-made version?
Page:
I wouldnt say idiot.
More of a clueless, self-important irksome peon with the argumentative ability of salad.
More of a clueless, self-important irksome peon with the argumentative ability of salad.
An idiot he is, agreed!!
Yeah, if you're a moderator, why don't you edit this.
Michael Corleone is an idiot.
(Five pound Ali changes it.)
You're on.
Michael Corleone is an idiot.
(Five pound Ali changes it.)
You're on.
what the hell do you lot know?
nothing.
thank you very much
'(.)'
nothing.
thank you very much
'(.)'
I bought a book last week called The Jesus Mysteries, I haven't started it yet but the basic idea of the book is that important themes from the Bible such as the Virgin birth, the resurection and miracles had cropped up time and time before in numerous religions and cultures.
It makes sense that the Bible would largely be based on other myths (unless you believe it is God's word -I don't).
It makes sense that the Bible would largely be based on other myths (unless you believe it is God's word -I don't).
I wondered on that one.
The idea that The Bible (a bit religious in tone) is based on Paganism (the anti-organised religion) made me wonder.
If anything would be not in the spirit of worshippping the earth as the source of life, not in a relgious way but in a spiritual manner - then that would be Christiantity.
If anyone is interested in a similar line of argument, look on the net for The Gospel of Thomas.
(a movie briefly covered this, but I cant remember the name)
The Vatican has reluctantly agreed that, through carbon-dating and confirmation of Aremaic language accurate to that period, that this "could be" a missing Gospel, but refuse to authenticate it.
Thomas basically said that Jesus told him you dont need to build churches or give tithes to the church (the basis of modern taxation) because that went against the idea of God being everywhere at once, and not confined to a building or using a "servant of god" as an instrument.
If you want to talk to God, just do it anywhere.
And the Vatican, surprisingly, didnt like this "Dont worry about going to Church and donating money" aspect.
Odd that really.
The idea that The Bible (a bit religious in tone) is based on Paganism (the anti-organised religion) made me wonder.
If anything would be not in the spirit of worshippping the earth as the source of life, not in a relgious way but in a spiritual manner - then that would be Christiantity.
If anyone is interested in a similar line of argument, look on the net for The Gospel of Thomas.
(a movie briefly covered this, but I cant remember the name)
The Vatican has reluctantly agreed that, through carbon-dating and confirmation of Aremaic language accurate to that period, that this "could be" a missing Gospel, but refuse to authenticate it.
Thomas basically said that Jesus told him you dont need to build churches or give tithes to the church (the basis of modern taxation) because that went against the idea of God being everywhere at once, and not confined to a building or using a "servant of god" as an instrument.
If you want to talk to God, just do it anywhere.
And the Vatican, surprisingly, didnt like this "Dont worry about going to Church and donating money" aspect.
Odd that really.
Blackhole wrote>>>Storys have been re-cycled since the beginning of time -even the Bible is believed to be based on ancient pagan myths.
Which bits were you thinking of?
Which bits were you thinking of?
mattyboy wrote:
> I think maybe Halloween, the original - Although classic it may be
> it is starting to show its age and a re make could be for the
> better!! It would have to be John Carpenter though, only he could
> better what needs bettering if anything!!
How dare you!
Halloween is an absolute masterpiece, and to remake it would destroy it.
> I think maybe Halloween, the original - Although classic it may be
> it is starting to show its age and a re make could be for the
> better!! It would have to be John Carpenter though, only he could
> better what needs bettering if anything!!
How dare you!
Halloween is an absolute masterpiece, and to remake it would destroy it.
Page: