HOW THE FUCK COULD THEY DO THIS?? THE ORGINAL IS A CLASSIC!! WHO IN THE BLOODY HELL IS RUNNING THE SHOW OVER AT WARNER BROS.??? THIS IS WHY I HATE NEW MOVIES! DON'T THEY HAVE ANY CREATIVE PEOPLE THAT CAN COME UP WITH AN ORIGINAL THOUGHT INSTEAD OF BUTCHERING THE CLASSICS!!!???? WHY!!!????

I AM PISSED OFF TO THE HIGHEST LEVEL OF PISSTIVITY!!!

[Edited 3/15/11 14:29pm]

What upsets me the most, is that we are living in a time where everyone is watching every nickel and penny. This is just pure waste!! This movie probably cost 20 times more than the original which still holds up today. Did some executive schmuck hold a meeting with the intention to spend an obscene amount of money and waste everyone's time?? The money that was used to make this film, could put a huge portion of Tokyo back together. When I saw the original film, my ticket price was about $3 bucks. If anyone spends $13 to see this, is just as stupid as the idiots that made this piece of shit!!

I don't understand the interest in Russell Brand. I find him very annoying. He's being forced down the publics throat.

you know they are currently writting a remake for drop dead fred around him.

personally i adore russell brand and will be one of the idiots going to see this movie. to me it looks hysterical! russell is my favorite comedian. i didn't see the original dudley one....

actually i think he's cute. in a homeless drug addict you'll catch herpes kinda way. i'd be scared i'd get a std from him. love his accent. seen all his hysterical stand up specials....

I agree that there are far, FAR too many remakes these days. There is absolutely no reason or excuse for it. However, once in a while, if they get them right, I really enjoy them. I'm not saying they're better, just, ya know, enjoyable. Some stories/movies do well with a modern update, and sometimes seeing an actor in a role you already loved is fun. Just think of it like a play, where completely different actors could play all the parts from one production to the next.

All the previews I've seen of this one actually make me laugh (and yes, I am a Russell Brand fan), so I guess I'm not as up in arms about it as some people. There does seem to be a good number of people upset about this one, too. But they announced it at least a year ago, so I'm surprised to see such a reaction now. I guess maybe a lot of people are just seeing previews and commercials for the first time.

OMG OMG OMG OMG!

After seeing that trailer, now I REALLY want to choke someone!

hey! hollywood! quit the endless remakes already! buy some new material dudes! DO IT!

XxAxX said:

hey! hollywood! quit the endless remakes already! buy some new material dudes! DO IT!

Russell Brand is PERFECT for the role of Arthur!!!! He's so outrageous. Definitely a must see.

I did like the original too. The Arthur theme song by Christopher Cross is still quite memorable in my mind.

gyro34 said:

Russell Brand is PERFECT for the role of Arthur!!!! He's so outrageous. Definitely a must see.

I did like the original too. The Arthur theme song by Christopher Cross is still quite memorable in my mind.

NO HE IS NOT!!!!

He would have been perfect for the role of Arthur's son. That is...if anyone in Hollywood had any fucking imagination left!!!!!

They could have made an entirely new movie, with Russell Brand as Arthur and Linda's son, who turns out to be a drunk like his but not in the lovable way that Dudley did it. Liza is still around, she could have easily reprised her role as Linda but now she'd be the Matriarch of the family and the one to put her foot down, that if Arthur, Jr. didn't get his shit together, she cut him off without a cent. They could have introduced new characters, added more of a plot, the whole nine.

Hollywood SUCKS and as long as people keep encouraging them by accepting and celebrating their mediocre bullshit, it's going to stay that way.

HatrinaHaterwitz said:

gyro34 said:

Russell Brand is PERFECT for the role of Arthur!!!! He's so outrageous. Definitely a must see.

I did like the original too. The Arthur theme song by Christopher Cross is still quite memorable in my mind.

NO HE IS NOT!!!!

He would have been perfect for the role of Arthur's son. That is...if anyone in Hollywood had any fucking imagination left!!!!!

They could have made an entirely new movie, with Russell Brand as Arthur and Linda's son, who turns out to be a drunk like his but not in the lovable way that Dudley did it. Liza is still around, she could have easily reprised her role as Linda but now she'd be the Matriarch of the family and the one to put her foot down, that if Arthur, Jr. didn't get his shit together, she cut him off without a cent. They could have introduced new characters, added more of a plot, the whole nine.

Hollywood SUCKS and as long as people keep encouraging them by accepting and celebrating their mediocre bullshit, it's going to stay that way.

It's all obviously done for the money...a rehashed idea is financially safer than an original idea.

HatrinaHaterwitz said:

gyro34 said:

Russell Brand is PERFECT for the role of Arthur!!!! He's so outrageous. Definitely a must see.

I did like the original too. The Arthur theme song by Christopher Cross is still quite memorable in my mind.

NO HE IS NOT!!!!

He would have been perfect for the role of Arthur's son. That is...if anyone in Hollywood had any fucking imagination left!!!!!

They could have made an entirely new movie, with Russell Brand as Arthur and Linda's son, who turns out to be a drunk like his but not in the lovable way that Dudley did it. Liza is still around, she could have easily reprised her role as Linda but now she'd be the Matriarch of the family and the one to put her foot down, that if Arthur, Jr. didn't get his shit together, she cut him off without a cent. They could have introduced new characters, added more of a plot, the whole nine.

Hollywood SUCKS and as long as people keep encouraging them by accepting and celebrating their mediocre bullshit, it's going to stay that way.

It is mediocre bullshit by your standards. Maybe, you should get together with those that feel the same way about this lack of creativity and contact Hollywood to demand more originality.

GetAwayFromMe said:

It's all obviously done for the money...a rehashed idea is financially safer than an original idea.

In regards to the first part, of course it is. Everything they do is for money. NOBODY is making movies with a desire to LOSE money.

In regards to the second part, not necesarilly. They've done studies on this glut of sequels and remakes that show they pretty much have the same success/failure rate as original material. Its just an EASIER idea.

gyro34 said:

HatrinaHaterwitz said:

NO HE IS NOT!!!!

He would have been perfect for the role of Arthur's son. That is...if anyone in Hollywood had any fucking imagination left!!!!!

They could have made an entirely new movie, with Russell Brand as Arthur and Linda's son, who turns out to be a drunk like his but not in the lovable way that Dudley did it. Liza is still around, she could have easily reprised her role as Linda but now she'd be the Matriarch of the family and the one to put her foot down, that if Arthur, Jr. didn't get his shit together, she cut him off without a cent. They could have introduced new characters, added more of a plot, the whole nine.

Hollywood SUCKS and as long as people keep encouraging them by accepting and celebrating their mediocre bullshit, it's going to stay that way.

It is mediocre bullshit by your standards. Maybe, you should get together with those that feel the same way about this lack of creativity and contact Hollywood to demand more originality.

It's mediocre by a lot of people's standards. That why Hollywood is always complaining about people not going to the movies like they used to. They try to blame it on cable, rentals and file sharing and the economy but that's bullshit. It's the lack of originality that's doing them in. Yet, they refuse to see it because in spite of that, there is still an audience for the mediocre, so they figure they don't have to change.

.

[Edited 3/17/11 13:09pm]

HatrinaHaterwitz said:

gyro34 said:

It is mediocre bullshit by your standards. Maybe, you should get together with those that feel the same way about this lack of creativity and contact Hollywood to demand more originality.

It's mediocre by a lot of people's standards. That why Hollywood is always complaining about people not going to the movies like they used to. They try to blame it on cable, rentals and file sharing and the economy but that's bullshit. It's the lack of originality that's doing them in. Yet, they refuse to see it because in spite of that, there is still an audience for the mediocre, so they figure they don't have to change.

.

[Edited 3/17/11 13:09pm]

Who are these people? Name names. I want to know who are these self-righteous, and arrogant people who have such a refined taste.

I said this on the bodyguard remake thread but its worth repeating its cheaper for the studios to throw a couple of writers into revising an already owned property, than creating new ideas.

With all this rage on this thread, you'd think this would be discussion about the reboot of Star Trek. Trekkies were less upset about their reboot than the OP of this thread is about the remake of Arthur.

From the trailer it looks ok-like a renter.

But I never really like the first one-Don't care for Dudley Moore.

^Well lets be real here giving Trek to Abrams who gave us Alias and Lost kinda made sense. Giving Wonder Woman to David E.Kelly, who I like, is a head scratcher. Unless hes got something up his sleeve, this reboot is coming off as an Ally McBeal with super powers show.

Where Oh Where Is Josh Whedon's script?

Oh nevermind I thought this was the Wonder Woman Thread.

[Edited 3/20/11 23:26pm]

Just as long as they don't try to remake "10".

what everyone think about the remake of ALFIE with jude law? i never seen the original.

i understand all your bitching cause i was flipping out when they wewre rumoring to remake THE CROW

What's next? A remake of Casablanca??

JoeTyler said:

What's next? A remake of Casablanca??

I believe that has been discussed, actually.

I don't see modern remakes of movies. Period. Fortunately, my knowledge of classic film is broad enough that I'm able to avoid them.

That's not to say remakes are bad, in and of themselves. There've actually been some pretty decent remakes down the years. Leo McCarey remade his own 1939 movie Love Affair in 1957 as An Affair to Remember. While not up to the original, the 1959 remake of 1934's Imitation of Life isn't horrible. And pretty much every version of A Star Is Born (original in 1937 with Frederic March and Janet Gaynor, 1954 with Judy Garland and James Mason, 1976 with Barbra Streisand and Kris Kristofferson) is good.

But for every good one, you'll something awful - like the recent remake of The Women.

Genesia said:

JoeTyler said:

What's next? A remake of Casablanca??

I believe that has been discussed, actually.

I don't see modern remakes of movies. Period. Fortunately, my knowledge of classic film is broad enough that I'm able to avoid them.

That's not to say remakes are bad, in and of themselves. There've actually been some pretty decent remakes down the years. Leo McCarey remade his own 1939 movie Love Affair in 1957 as An Affair to Remember. While not up to the original, the 1959 remake of 1934's Imitation of Life isn't horrible. And pretty much every version of A Star Is Born (original in 1937 with Frederic March and Janet Gaynor, 1954 with Judy Garland and James Mason, 1976 with Barbra Streisand and Kris Kristofferson) is good.

But for every good one, you'll something awful - like the recent remake of The Women.

yeah

the problem is that many movies don't need a remake at all, specially the dramas. I can understand a remake of a sci-fi/fantasy film, but a drama?? is that really necessary??? NO

yesterday I read that a remake of Straw Dogs is in the works and I thought that was ridiculous and unnecessary...

proof that Hollywood has run out of ideas...

JoeTyler said:

Genesia said:

I believe that has been discussed, actually.

I don't see modern remakes of movies. Period. Fortunately, my knowledge of classic film is broad enough that I'm able to avoid them.

That's not to say remakes are bad, in and of themselves. There've actually been some pretty decent remakes down the years. Leo McCarey remade his own 1939 movie Love Affair in 1957 as An Affair to Remember. While not up to the original, the 1959 remake of 1934's Imitation of Life isn't horrible. And pretty much every version of A Star Is Born (original in 1937 with Frederic March and Janet Gaynor, 1954 with Judy Garland and James Mason, 1976 with Barbra Streisand and Kris Kristofferson) is good.

But for every good one, you'll something awful - like the recent remake of The Women.

yeah

the problem is that many movies don't need a remake at all, specially the dramas. I can understand a remake of a sci-fi/fantasy film, but a drama?? is that really necessary??? NO

yesterday I read that a remake of Straw Dogs is in the works and I thought that was ridiculous and unnecessary...

proof that Hollywood has run out of ideas...

I can't remember who said it, but I was watching an interview in which the subject said the problem with remakes is that they always remake the wrong films. They should remake the bad films and do them better - not remake the ones that were good in the first place.

lazycrockett said:

^Well lets be real here giving Trek to Abrams who gave us Alias and Lost kinda made sense. Giving Wonder Woman to David E.Kelly, who I like, is a head scratcher. Unless hes got something up his sleeve, this reboot is coming off as an Ally McBeal with super powers show.

Where Oh Where Is Josh Whedon's script?

Oh nevermind I thought this was the Wonder Woman Thread.

There's so many damn remakes these days you can't keep up with them.

JoeTyler said:

What's next? A remake of Casablanca??

Nope. A remake of "Purple Rain" starring Jamie Foxx as The Kid and Beyonce as Apollonia. They will also remake the soundtrack, slow everything down to midtempo and update it shit hop style.

Genesia said:

JoeTyler said:

yeah

the problem is that many movies don't need a remake at all, specially the dramas. I can understand a remake of a sci-fi/fantasy film, but a drama?? is that really necessary??? NO

yesterday I read that a remake of Straw Dogs is in the works and I thought that was ridiculous and unnecessary...

proof that Hollywood has run out of ideas...

I can't remember who said it, but I was watching an interview in which the subject said the problem with remakes is that they always remake the wrong films. They should remake the bad films and do them better - not remake the ones that were good in the first place.

vainandy said:

JoeTyler said:

What's next? A remake of Casablanca??

Nope. A remake of "Purple Rain" starring Jamie Foxx as The Kid and Beyonce as Apollonia. They will also remake the soundtrack, slow everything down to midtempo and update it shit hop style.

you just killed me man

Genesia said:

JoeTyler said:

yeah

the problem is that many movies don't need a remake at all, specially the dramas. I can understand a remake of a sci-fi/fantasy film, but a drama?? is that really necessary??? NO

yesterday I read that a remake of Straw Dogs is in the works and I thought that was ridiculous and unnecessary...

proof that Hollywood has run out of ideas...

I can't remember who said it, but I was watching an interview in which the subject said the problem with remakes is that they always remake the wrong films. They should remake the bad films and do them better - not remake the ones that were good in the first place.

Exactly! Instead though, they remake the good ones into bad ones, with whichever overrated new "stars" that just so happen not to have anything better to do! WTBF????