New topic
PrintableNO MORE REMAKES!!!!!
Hollywood has totally lost its creativity. Even the movie NACHO LIBRE is a rip-off from an old Mexican movie with the comedian CAPULINA. m MyeternalgrattitudetoPhil&Val.Herman said "We want sweaty truckers at the truck stop! We want cigar puffing men that look like they wanna beat the living daylights out of us" Val"sporking is spooning with benefits" | |
- E-mail - orgNote -  Report post to moderator |
StoneCrib said: ufoclub said: so to duplicate the success of star wars, you have to cast unknowns.
Not gonna happen in this era, bro LOL! This is the era of fame, so they'd HAVE to cast some known people. Nothing wrong with that. Ewan McGregor was known. Samuel Jackson was known. Jimmy Smits was known. Natalie Portman was known. They all did a great job. The new star Wars Movies had none of the social/artistic impact and magical craze that the old ones did (at least star wars, and empire strikes back) that psychological rule of unknowns making a story more engaging applies no matter what decade it is. And the new cast did a very poor job compared to the old cast, compare the character of Princess Leia to Princess Amadala, or The old obiwan to the new one, or Luke in Empire to Anakin.... overall they had much more suprising personality that went against the stereotype. (example your heroine was a bitchy bossy hard ass princess) both Speilberg and Lucas used to used this casting tactic to make their more fantastic movies more believable (Speilberg's first serious mistake was..... HOOK). Lord of the rings trilogy used this tactic as well. There were no superstarss in it, and it seemed to have much more of that magical addictive quality to the masses then the new star Wars films. Not that those are going to age well at all. My art book: http://www.lulu.com/spotl...ecomicskid
VIDEO WORK: http://sharadkantpatel.com MUSIC: https://soundcloud.com/ufoclub1977 | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
ufoclub said: StoneCrib said: Not gonna happen in this era, bro LOL! This is the era of fame, so they'd HAVE to cast some known people. Nothing wrong with that. Ewan McGregor was known. Samuel Jackson was known. Jimmy Smits was known. Natalie Portman was known. They all did a great job. The new star Wars Movies had none of the social/artistic impact and magical craze that the old ones did (at least star wars, and empire strikes back) that psychological rule of unknowns making a story more engaging applies no matter what decade it is. And the new cast did a very poor job compared to the old cast, compare the character of Princess Leia to Princess Amadala, or The old obiwan to the new one, or Luke in Empire to Anakin.... overall they had much more suprising personality that went against the stereotype. (example your heroine was a bitchy bossy hard ass princess) both Speilberg and Lucas used to used this casting tactic to make their more fantastic movies more believable (Speilberg's first serious mistake was..... HOOK). Lord of the rings trilogy used this tactic as well. There were no superstarss in it, and it seemed to have much more of that magical addictive quality to the masses then the new star Wars films. Not that those are going to age well at all. Well you also have to understand that there have been tons of space movies since Star Wars premiered back in 77 so the newness is gone. Also, George couldn't afford big names then because he knew the special effects were gonna eat up most of his budget and the studio was taking a chance on the project to begin with. Living to die and I'll die to live again - 360 degrees - comprehend | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
StoneCrib said: ufoclub said: The new star Wars Movies had none of the social/artistic impact and magical craze that the old ones did (at least star wars, and empire strikes back) that psychological rule of unknowns making a story more engaging applies no matter what decade it is. And the new cast did a very poor job compared to the old cast, compare the character of Princess Leia to Princess Amadala, or The old obiwan to the new one, or Luke in Empire to Anakin.... overall they had much more suprising personality that went against the stereotype. (example your heroine was a bitchy bossy hard ass princess) both Speilberg and Lucas used to used this casting tactic to make their more fantastic movies more believable (Speilberg's first serious mistake was..... HOOK). Lord of the rings trilogy used this tactic as well. There were no superstarss in it, and it seemed to have much more of that magical addictive quality to the masses then the new star Wars films. Not that those are going to age well at all. Well you also have to understand that there have been tons of space movies since Star Wars premiered back in 77 so the newness is gone. Also, George couldn't afford big names then because he knew the special effects were gonna eat up most of his budget and the studio was taking a chance on the project to begin with. I think that might be wrong about the budget, back then even superstars were not typically paid much (by today's standards) until they saw Marlon Brando do his crazy contract for Superman.... Lucas and Spielberg both had a stated policy in their GREAT years of wanting to cast non superstars to make their movies seem more engaging as an alternate reality. richard donner also adopted this policy by casting Christopher Reeve as Superman, and Coppola cast the unknown Al Pacino in the Godfather. The studios were very scared, but these strategies really paid off! My art book: http://www.lulu.com/spotl...ecomicskid
VIDEO WORK: http://sharadkantpatel.com MUSIC: https://soundcloud.com/ufoclub1977 | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
ufoclub said: StoneCrib said: Well you also have to understand that there have been tons of space movies since Star Wars premiered back in 77 so the newness is gone. Also, George couldn't afford big names then because he knew the special effects were gonna eat up most of his budget and the studio was taking a chance on the project to begin with. I think that might be wrong about the budget, back then even superstars were not typically paid much (by today's standards) until they saw Marlon Brando do his crazy contract for Superman.... Lucas and Spielberg both had a stated policy in their GREAT years of wanting to cast non superstars to make their movies seem more engaging as an alternate reality. richard donner also adopted this policy by casting Christopher Reeve as Superman, and Coppola cast the unknown Al Pacino in the Godfather. The studios were very scared, but these strategies really paid off! Star Wars was made for only 11 million, so I'm pretty sure budget played a big part in casting, even back then but they may have also wanted unknowns as well. Living to die and I'll die to live again - 360 degrees - comprehend | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
|
No George always wanted a non star cast, hes always worked with unknowns pretty much untill that last 3. The Most Important Thing In Life Is Sincerity....Once You Can Fake That, You Can Fake Anything. |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
This reminds me of the arguments over in the www.trekbbs.com forums. Some people are all in favor of just starting the whole Star Trek franchise over from scratch and going forth from there. It's just a bad idea. Think of your favorite movie or television show. Yerars later, someone comes along and wants to remake it, and to hell with all the stories, characters, etc. so they can make it they way they think will only get better ratings and therefore more money for themselves. I have a serious issue with remakes because it basically comes down to people lacking in creativity but using the franchise names to still bring in the big money, because in the end that's all that it's about for these people: money.  | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
Remake all 6 as "Flow Wars" with Tony M. in every role. ~ I'D BUY THAT FOR A DOLLAR ~
| |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
StoneCrib said: ufoclub said: I think that might be wrong about the budget, back then even superstars were not typically paid much (by today's standards) until they saw Marlon Brando do his crazy contract for Superman.... Lucas and Spielberg both had a stated policy in their GREAT years of wanting to cast non superstars to make their movies seem more engaging as an alternate reality. richard donner also adopted this policy by casting Christopher Reeve as Superman, and Coppola cast the unknown Al Pacino in the Godfather. The studios were very scared, but these strategies really paid off! Star Wars was made for only 11 million, so I'm pretty sure budget played a big part in casting, even back then but they may have also wanted unknowns as well. star wars was a higher budget movie at that time! 12 million in 1977 = 40 million last year. Check the budgets of other genre blockbusters! Jaws was $12mill, the godfather part 2 was 13 mill, exorcist was 13 mill the one that blows them all out of the water is superman which cost 55mil back then which is approx 189mil today! I think they did toy with the idea of a more known cast initially, I'm sure every old studio head thinks that that is the wise choice. My art book: http://www.lulu.com/spotl...ecomicskid
VIDEO WORK: http://sharadkantpatel.com MUSIC: https://soundcloud.com/ufoclub1977 | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
|
ufoclub said: StoneCrib said: But you can't tear it down for one reason - IT STILL EXISTS. The originals aren't going anywhere, are they? And if you ever saw the doc on GL he said he wishes he had this technology then that he has now, so here's his chance to do it like he ORIGINALLY dreamt it up! What's wrong with that? Also, it would make BIG MONEY and you know damn well yo ass would be sleeping in line for opening day tix! LOL! Do it because he can. Period. He has the money, the backing, the fan base nerds, and a proven franchise = BIG BUCKS! It would help in continuity with all 6 films; it will visually link the 1st 3 to the 2nd 3. That's hot shit right there! Damn Carrie and Harrison, bring in Brad and Angelina for Han and Leia and the shit is HOT AS FUCKIN' FIRE OUT OF A DRAGON'S ASS! So, here's my list: Luke - Matt Damon Leia - Angelina Han Solo - Brad Pitt Lando Calrissean - Jamie Foxx Now who can fuck with a cast like that? THAT'S why you do this remake, to see the new stars of today do their own twist on the Sci-Fi classic! Stop being so damn scary and old! LOL! NOOO!.... the thing that made star Wars so cool in 1977 was it had no Hollywood stars, so it was much easier to just jump into the fantastic story and environment. It was a slap in the face to Hollywood, none of their stars were included, and none of their old school craftsmen, shot in another country too, the FX were done by young technical people/hippie/artists that Lucas rounded up into some old warehouse (leaving the old hollywood special effects divisions behind).... it also didn't follow any commercial trend with its retro symphonic soundtrack with no typical scifi synthesizer. You know Lucas had to pay huge fines cause he didnt run the credits at the beginning of the film? The Most Important Thing In Life Is Sincerity....Once You Can Fake That, You Can Fake Anything. |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
lazycrockett said: ufoclub said: NOOO!.... the thing that made star Wars so cool in 1977 was it had no Hollywood stars, so it was much easier to just jump into the fantastic story and environment. It was a slap in the face to Hollywood, none of their stars were included, and none of their old school craftsmen, shot in another country too, the FX were done by young technical people/hippie/artists that Lucas rounded up into some old warehouse (leaving the old hollywood special effects divisions behind).... it also didn't follow any commercial trend with its retro symphonic soundtrack with no typical scifi synthesizer. You know Lucas had to pay huge fines cause he didnt run the credits at the beginning of the film? He also chose to drop out of the directors guild becuase of the rule infringment... that is COOL! My art book: http://www.lulu.com/spotl...ecomicskid
VIDEO WORK: http://sharadkantpatel.com MUSIC: https://soundcloud.com/ufoclub1977 | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
HobbesLeCute said: Remake all 6 as "Flow Wars" with Tony M. in every role.
ah da horror!!! | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
ufoclub said: StoneCrib said: Star Wars was made for only 11 million, so I'm pretty sure budget played a big part in casting, even back then but they may have also wanted unknowns as well. star wars was a higher budget movie at that time! 12 million in 1977 = 40 million last year. Check the budgets of other genre blockbusters! Jaws was $12mill, the godfather part 2 was 13 mill, exorcist was 13 mill the one that blows them all out of the water is superman which cost 55mil back then which is approx 189mil today! I think they did toy with the idea of a more known cast initially, I'm sure every old studio head thinks that that is the wise choice. True, but Jaws was made for 7 million. But the studio was still very worried about this film because it was unchartered territory at that time. Living to die and I'll die to live again - 360 degrees - comprehend | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
|
StoneCrib said: whodknee said: I could see Matt Damon as Luke but Brad Pitt couldn't pull off Han Solo and I just can't see Jolie and Foxx in those roles. Actually, all of these people are too old to play these roles anyway. Personally I don't think it'd be worth the effort to remake these movies. To make a Prince analogy, it'd be like replacing the Revolution with better musicians. The chemistry and timing are a large part of what made Star Wars (and the Revolution) so great. That's something you can't reproduce. However, I don't think it would affect my appreciation of the originals so it wouldn't bother me. I'd probably go see it just to see what it was like. Too old? Harrison Ford was 33 when he played Han. Brad Pitt is 42 and looks 32. How old do you think Jolie is? She's 31. Jaime is 38, how old do you think Billy Dee was when he played Lando? He was 44. Also, how old do you think Matt Damon is? He's 36. No one is gonna go around asking how old these actors are if they played these roles. And ya can't compare a band to a movie, especially with a perfectionist freak like P. The big names will pull in the audience. Brad and Anjie flirting would be fantastic since it would be genuine. Brad Pitt looks 40. I guess you could cake on the makeup but we're talking a 10 year difference. Pitt might've made a good Luke 20 years ago. Also, Carrie Fisher was much younger than Jolie and Mark Hamill was much younger than Damon. Lando isn't really that important anyway but Jamie Foxx is no Billy Dee-- he's a comedian not a slick ladies man. Even if they were the same ages I doubt Pitt, Foxx, and Jolie could pull off the roles as they were presented in the originals. Ford has this comedic charm I've never seen with Pitt and Fisher was the perfect foil to that. |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
|
StoneCrib said: MickG said: another posable luke is TOBEY MAGUIRE
 I thought about Toby but I don't know about his gig with Spiderman and how that may be contractually difficult. He was a terrible Peter Parker. Why ruin another franchise? |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
It'll never happen anyway. Lucas is VERY protective of his franchise as long as someone doesn't cross the line (hence the allowance of fan films to be made). He's not going to bother to film them all over again because that would be like filming another trilogy, and he's been adamant about not doing episodes 7-9, so why would he give this any consideration? | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
whodknee said: StoneCrib said: Too old? Harrison Ford was 33 when he played Han. Brad Pitt is 42 and looks 32. How old do you think Jolie is? She's 31. Jaime is 38, how old do you think Billy Dee was when he played Lando? He was 44. Also, how old do you think Matt Damon is? He's 36. No one is gonna go around asking how old these actors are if they played these roles. And ya can't compare a band to a movie, especially with a perfectionist freak like P. The big names will pull in the audience. Brad and Anjie flirting would be fantastic since it would be genuine. Brad Pitt looks 40. I guess you could cake on the makeup but we're talking a 10 year difference. Pitt might've made a good Luke 20 years ago. Also, Carrie Fisher was much younger than Jolie and Mark Hamill was much younger than Damon. Lando isn't really that important anyway but Jamie Foxx is no Billy Dee-- he's a comedian not a slick ladies man. Even if they were the same ages I doubt Pitt, Foxx, and Jolie could pull off the roles as they were presented in the originals. Ford has this comedic charm I've never seen with Pitt and Fisher was the perfect foil to that. Brad doesn't look 40, Brad looks early to mid 30s. Jolie LOOKS the same age as Carrie looked back then. Matt Damon LOOKS as young as Hamill looked when he was in Star Wars. I think you're hung up on age and it's not about age but about "look." And when was Lando a "Ladies Man" in "Empire"? The ONLY scene I can recall is when he kissed Leia's hand and that was it. Now if you don't think Foxx can pull THAT simple getsure off - the man that pulled off being a blind music legend - then I don't know what else to tell you.  Living to die and I'll die to live again - 360 degrees - comprehend | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
TMPletz said: It'll never happen anyway. Lucas is VERY protective of his franchise as long as someone doesn't cross the line (hence the allowance of fan films to be made). He's not going to bother to film them all over again because that would be like filming another trilogy, and he's been adamant about not doing episodes 7-9, so why would he give this any consideration?
Um, cuz we can?  Living to die and I'll die to live again - 360 degrees - comprehend | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
StoneCrib said: TMPletz said: It'll never happen anyway. Lucas is VERY protective of his franchise as long as someone doesn't cross the line (hence the allowance of fan films to be made). He's not going to bother to film them all over again because that would be like filming another trilogy, and he's been adamant about not doing episodes 7-9, so why would he give this any consideration?
Um, cuz we can? Good answer!  | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
TMPletz said: StoneCrib said: Um, cuz we can? Good answer! Living to die and I'll die to live again - 360 degrees - comprehend | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |