Theatrical Film Releases that don't need their own thread


#81

So anyone here actually one of the few, the not so proud?


#82

To be fair to the movie, which is awful but not any more awful than the average low-budget throwaway horror movie, it’s been available for streaming for a few weeks. No one who wanted to see it hasn’t already seen it. Furthermore, it only opened in 10 theaters and it got zero marketing. I’m guessing the theatrical release was probably some sort of contractual obligation.

But, yeah, $742 has gotta be some sort of record.

-Tom


#83

I wonder what the average ticket price was for that $742. As of June 30th the average ticket price for all movies was $8.95. So you’re talking not even one small theater full of paying customers.


#84

Nah. It most certainly was to make sure it was eligible for the Academy Awards.

-xtien


#85

That thought did cross my mind. Maybe it has really cool special effects? Or cinematography?


#86

My wife and I saw Disney’s live action reboot of Cinderella a few years ago. It was so uninspired I missed out on their other live action reboot. They are going to live action reboot The Lion King. Who knows if it will be worth seeing, but damn, that cast is fantastic.


#87

I don’t know if Rogen is a bad pick for Pumba per se, but he kind of seems outclassed by how inspired most of the rest of these choices are.


#88

The other live action movies have been fantastic. I am not sure why Lion King would be any different. I’m looking forward to that.


#89

Isn’t live action remake the very definition of cannibalism? Feasting on the creative corpses of yesteryears to power the balance sheet in the future?

I like the Lion King and Beauty and the Beast as a kid but I’ll be all over this on Day Never.


#90

If you want to write it off despite the only things you know about it are that it’s live action and has an amazing cast, that’s fine. Disney is on a course of doing a bunch of these. I didn’t watch the live action Cinderella, but I thought the Jungle Book remake was terrific. Didn’t take anything away from the old cartoon; just good in its own way.


#91

I’m sure human flesh is more nutritional, pound for pound, versus say SPAM. I may even accept that human flesh taste good (even though I have never tasted it before). BUT IT IS HUMAN FLESH!

By the same token, I’m sure the remakes are entertaining and competently made, with a great cast. But it is the principle of remakes that I’m against. What if Pixar remade Cars/pump out even more Cars sequels instead of something new like Inside Out? When resources are put into remakes, original ideas are bounded to miss out. And I’m all for more originality.


#92

Live action Jungle Book and Beauty and the Beast were very well done. I enjoyed them both. I see Lion King as likely to be done very well too.

If you’re against remakes, I don’t even know how you watch or listen or read a lot of things. They often borrow or take from another source… all the time.


#93

I’m against remake, not adaptation. Like Total Recall 2012. Or The Amazing Spiderman. My only exception is Dirty Rotten Scoundrels.


#94

I understand it’s a remake to you, but for the 3 thru 7 year olds, they’re loving these live action movies and this is their generation versions of these movies and the tech they start with and the people they’ll remember turning sixty and dying like we did with some of performers and creators that made things when you and I were kids. They’re going to grow up with these versions as “the” version. Just because some of us grew up with the animation and older versions, I mean dear lord how old is Cinderella and Snow White now? They’re classics to some but just old shit to others. I’m didn’t watch a bunch of black and white cartoons and refuse the colored stuff just because my dad said hey, that’s just a remake. He’s been bitching about remakes since I was seven.

I think you’re missing out on some of these.


#95

The thing is, most of the old versions are still holding up pretty well. Especially the animations. Total Recall or Robocop are all 80s babies, but like spaghetti western, if you can look past the (lack of) production value they are quite enjoyable.

The one thing remake is adding is tons and tons of production value. Everything will be polished. The cast will be multicolour without stereotype. There will be plenty of laughs as well as heart felt moments. I’m sure I may even enjoy them as, say, inflight movies. But like I said, I prefer more originality than more production value.

Now you damn kids GET OFF MY LAWN!


#96

Kids like just about anything - especially when they have not seen anything before whatever sequel is currently cranked out. When they don’t like it, they are either growing up or it is sooo bad…

I did not think Watson’s performance in Beauty was very good, as she is not a (musical theater) performer, but they had to chase that Harry Potter dollar so I know why she was cast. It is a shame as there are so many women that could have done better. The Lion King cast has a much better cast for following the Bway show version, so it will probably be worth checking out.


#97

I don’t think you’re being very generous with Watson. That movie did very well, and it was enjoyable to watch. Very well done. And when someone asks me if I have seen True Grit, I say yes. I am talking about the 2010 version, not the 1969. I’ve been over John Wayne for years, and would not have seen it otherwise.

And just so you know, animated Beauty and the Beast did not hold my 3 year old nephew’s attention. Live Action got about 30-40 minutes out of him. If you think it’s easy for kids to like anything, I am wondering how often you hang around a bunch of kids. With things like on-demand and streaming, they’ll watch the same episode 20 times, and you have to convince them to try new things.

There’s a place for remakes, and the existence of one doesn’t invalidate the previous ones and it may even introduce new generations to some older stories and ideas.


#98

Of course It did well. For the audience it was intended for. Again the HP money, etc. I did not slight her, but I do think someone more qualified and capable would have made “the movie” (art) much better, as opposed to the marketing which is what most films are driven by these days more than they used to be…which was already borderline.

The older versions still are popular is they are carefully crafted for both an adolescent and mature market - where as these remakes will not be as timeless. You weren’t baby sitting, you were experiencing.

Regardless of genre, sequels/remakes are rarely about making it better in an artistic sense. Some do surprise you, (Fury Road is probably the last from my experience), but on the whole the rule seems to be it will be guaranteed less than what came before.


#99

I am not a Harry Potter fan. I haven’t liked that series much since the first movie. Maybe I like it because it was good. I also have two young nephew and they have young girl cousins… they love these LIve Action movies. They loved it. So which intended audience is that exactly 3 to 60?

You don’t know what is going to be timeless. The “timeless” shows I grew up with, the kids don’t watch. Most of them don’t even know who Dick Van Dyke is, and those timeless classics predated me before I was kid.

Like I said, I clearly won’t change your mind, but sometimes it’s a chance to introduce a new generation to something that would be overlooked otherwise, and I’m fine with that. And yes, sometimes the remake just isn’t good. Beauty and the Beast is not an example of one of those.


#100

I don’t think this is about changing a mind. I agree that kids would like the show, probably up through tweens in the least. My point is, it is unfortunate they no longer take the time to make them better for mature audiences as well. That is a lost art.