Sign in to follow this  
Sam Mac

Please cut the politics

104 posts in this topic

4 minutes ago, Hoganman1 said:

I guess you're right about new adaptations bringing more people to the original. Also, as a fan of Denzel  I should give the new one a chance. I also agree there are some films that should not be re-made like the Maltese Falcon. Here's my short list: Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid, Casablanca, Citizen Kane, The Usual Suspects, Tombstone, and Laura. I'm sure there are others as well. Of course there have been some "remakes' that were  disguised as original material.  Farewell My Lovely and Murder My Sweet come to mind.

I believe you misunderstood my Maltese Falcon comment;  The Bogie version was the 3rd adaptation of the Hammett book.   Note that when the newest Ben Hur film was released people complain about that claiming the newest released harmed the 'original' 1959 film.   BUT the 1959 film was ALSO a so called 'remake'.    New adaptations do NOT harm the original (unless the current producers buy the rights to prior versions to prevent them from viewing, like was done with The Great Gatsby).     

So to me NO source material is off limits.    (note that I use 'source material' and NOT film). 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, jamesjazzguitar said:

I believe you misunderstood my Maltese Falcon comment;  The Bogie version was the 3rd adaptation of the Hammett book.   Note that when the newest Ben Hur film was released people complain about that claiming the newest released harmed the 'original' 1959 film.   BUT the 1959 film was ALSO a so called 'remake'.    New adaptations do NOT harm the original (unless the current producers buy the rights to prior versions to prevent them from viewing, like was done with The Great Gatsby).     

So to me NO source material is off limits.    (note that I use 'source material' and NOT film). 

 

 

Wow, I've got a lot to learn. I had no idea that there were other versions of The Maltese Falcon. It appears I'm out of my league on this forum. I should probably do my homework before responding to some of these subjects.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
52 minutes ago, Hoganman1 said:

I guess you're right about new adaptations bringing more people to the original. Also, as a fan of Denzel  I should give the new one a chance. I also agree there are some films that should not be re-made like the Maltese Falcon. Here's my short list: Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid, Casablanca, Citizen Kane, The Usual Suspects, Tombstone, and Laura. I'm sure there are others as well. Of course there have been some "remakes' that were  disguised as original material.  Farewell My Lovely and Murder My Sweet come to mind.

I think it would be a good idea if they would only remake flawed movies, not excellent ones.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
41 minutes ago, darkblue said:

I think it would be a good idea if they would only remake flawed movies, not excellent ones.

I agree. I remember back when Tombstone and Wyatt Earp came out within months of each other.  Neither was a re-make of the other, but Tombstone was great and Wyatt Earp was pretty weak.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
31 minutes ago, darkblue said:

I think it would be a good idea if they would only remake flawed movies, not excellent ones.

I agree that the best reason for a 'remake' is when the source material is excellent but the prior movie made from that source material wasn't.    

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Hoganman1 said:

I remember back when Tombstone and Wyatt Earp came out within months of each other.  Neither was a re-make of the other, but Tombstone was great and Wyatt Earp was pretty weak.

Well, yeah.

If you want to make a boring Wyatt Earp movie, Costner's definitely the guy to get.

  • Haha 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I know. Costner was on a roll back then, but I think he started taking himself too seriously. On the other hand, Tombstone had it all. A great cast, humor, and for the most part was historically correct. It's in my top ten.

-"Why Johnny; you look as if someone just walked across your grave"-

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Hoganman1 said:

 

-"Why Johnny; you look as if someone just walked across your grave"-

Well, if you're gonna quote lines from TOMBSTONE, you may as well add MY favorite----

"I have TWO guns, one for each of you...." :D

Sepiatone

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, jamesjazzguitar said:

Oh no, and we were getting along so well (ha ha):   I disagree with that remake POV;  In fact to me few films are remakes.   Instead they are 'new' adaptations based on source material (book, play, original story) that was previously made into a film.   Hey, generally I like the first (studio-era),  adaptation,  but there are exceptions; The Huston \ Bogie,  The Maltese Falcon being the classic example.

In addition these new adaptions bring attention to previous ones. E.g. I  know a few people that after seeing the Denzel film,  discovered there was the Sinatra film, and saw that also.   I.e. the Denzel film made people aware of the previous film.

 

 

I would agree with this POV as well.  There are films that use the same source material, but produce a completely different film.  

West Side Story and Baz Luhrman's Romeo + Juliet are both based on Shakespeare's play, but are two completely different films. 

Emma and Clueless are both based on Jane Austen's novel, Emma, but are two completely different takes on this film.

Taming of the Shrew and 10 Things I Hate About You are both based on Shakespeare's play but are obviously two different interpretations.  

All of these I would consider film adaptations.

Something like the 1998 remake of Psycho where it was literally a frame by frame remake would indeed be a remake. 

I definitely prefer adaptations over remakes.  One of the few exceptions being Steve Martin's Father of the Bride.  I prefer it over the Spencer Tracy original--though I like the Tracy one too, but I prefer Martin's version. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, jamesjazzguitar said:

I agree that the best reason for a 'remake' is when the source material is excellent but the prior movie made from that source material wasn't.    

It seems like the big thing to do right now is to remake an acclaimed movie that perhaps used older special effects, animation, etc. and CGI it to death.  Look at all the versions of King Kong, Godzilla, Planet of the Apes, Tarzan, etc. that have come out within the last decade or so.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
31 minutes ago, speedracer5 said:

It seems like the big thing to do right now is to remake an acclaimed movie that perhaps used older special effects, animation, etc. and CGI it to death.  Look at all the versions of King Kong, Godzilla, Planet of the Apes, Tarzan, etc. that have come out within the last decade or so.  

Those were all popular popcorn movies, but I'm not certain I would call them "acclaimed".

I suppose it would depend on one's definition of "acclaimed", though. 

I'd call 'The Godfather' acclaimed, but I'm not sure it could be improved upon with CGI.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
31 minutes ago, darkblue said:

Those were all popular popcorn movies, but I'm not certain I would call them "acclaimed".

I suppose it would depend on one's definition of "acclaimed", though. 

I'd call 'The Godfather' acclaimed, but I'm not sure it could be improved upon with CGI.

I guess I was mostly thinking of the 1933 version of King Kong which in its time, was acclaimed for its special effects.  I'm sure there are better examples of films that were innovative in their time, but whose special effects today's filmmakers have decided needed to be re-done.  Over and over and over again.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As for KONG, the only "remake" worthy of spending any time on is the 2005 Peter Jackson treatment.

There are remakes that attempt to "correct" some of the "mistakes" made in the originals concerning historical fact(depending on the subject matter),  or include material left out of the original.  But I draw the line at changing the scope and tenor of the original, like done with that dismal remake of D.O.A  in '88.

Sepiatone

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 hours ago, jamesjazzguitar said:

Oh no, and we were getting along so well (ha ha):   I disagree with that remake POV;  In fact to me few films are remakes.   Instead they are 'new' adaptations based on source material (book, play, original story) that was previously made into a film.   Hey, generally I like the first (studio-era),  adaptation,  but there are exceptions; The Huston \ Bogie,  The Maltese Falcon being the classic example.

In addition these new adaptions bring attention to previous ones. E.g. I  know a few people that after seeing the Denzel film,  discovered there was the Sinatra film, and saw that also.   I.e. the Denzel film made people aware of the previous film.

 

 

I agree with you that remakes can bring attention to the original. I think they can even outdo the original at times. The Desert Song was remade a few times and each version I find to be very good. As long as the film is good I don't mind if it is faithful to the original film or book/ play source material.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Sepiatone said:

As for KONG, the only "remake" worthy of spending any time on is the 2005 Peter Jackson treatment.

There are remakes that attempt to "correct" some of the "mistakes" made in the originals concerning historical fact(depending on the subject matter),  or include material left out of the original.  But I draw the line at changing the scope and tenor of the original, like done with that dismal remake of D.O.A  in '88.

Sepiatone

I don't think the '76 film was too bad, though not nearly as good as the two versions you mentioned.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/13/2017 at 9:59 AM, jamesjazzguitar said:

Ben should mention how the Tea Party is like those commies back in the 50s, in that they also wish to overthrow the US Government if they can't gain power by legal means.     

You're confusing the TEA Party with ANTIFA, BLM, and many other Democrat Marxist subversive groups going back to the '60s, all sharing a dedication to destroying America. But as ridiculous as your comment is it does serve a valuable purpose in demonstrating how the Left successfully convinces people that good is evil and evil is good. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, RaptureGal said:

You're confusing the TEA Party with ANTIFA, BLM, and many other Democrat Marxist subversive groups going back to the '60s, all sharing a dedication to destroying America. But as ridiculous as your comment is it does serve a valuable purpose in demonstrating how the Left successfully convinces people that good is evil and evil is good. 

(O-kayyyy, so I'm guessing some other poster went running back to his favorite red-state forum crying about Ben, saying "Let's get 'em, girls!"
Let the new single-digit "crusader" poster crossover-invasion begin...And then end just as quickly, seeing as they really don't know what they're talking about.  :rolleyes: )

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, EricJ said:

(O-kayyyy, so I'm guessing some other poster went running back to his favorite red-state forum crying about Ben, saying "Let's get 'em, girls!"
Let the new single-digit "crusader" poster crossover-invasion begin...And then end just as quickly, seeing as they really don't know what they're talking about.  :rolleyes: )

We had a spat of these OP'S several years ago, which would come out of nowhere and say something --not just provocative but insulting about a beloved star or film--and then just hit and run.

Then,  the conflagration burned out of control with people getting all hot and bothered.

However, the fabulous thing about it was that people really did enjoy the spark that set off a lot of marvelous opinions and conversations.

Yet,  it often got out of control and was clamped. LOL

This is like another example of that and I think it has run its course.

Yet,  many people have given some quality comments  and the subject has invigorated the website.

Controversy gets people talking, even if they don't always feel comfortable or agree.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, RaptureGal said:

You're confusing the TEA Party with ANTIFA, BLM, and many other Democrat Marxist subversive groups going back to the '60s, all sharing a dedication to destroying America. But as ridiculous as your comment is it does serve a valuable purpose in demonstrating how the Left successfully convinces people that good is evil and evil is good. 

Your comment belongs on the Off-Topic Chit Chat. Since you have such strong opinions, you might want to start a topic over there where we do talk a great deal about politics and things of that nature.

I can only say to you if only life was that black and white. LMREO

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You TELL 'em, PRINCESS! ;)

And ain't it sad that the poster's( rapturegial) divisive rhetoric fails to note that the TEA PARTY is just as "subversive" as the organizations she points her rattled sabre at ?

Sepiatone

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

C'mon now people. Ya have to admit these one-hit wonders who come here and have expressed their dismay at Ben's commentary during this series of films focusing on those in the film industry whose careers suffered being on the Hollywood Blacklist, DO make a point!

Uh-huh, as history has shown, THIS was one of America's "proudest" moments!!!

(...I mean, you DO know if it wasn't for good "patriotic" people like Tail Gunner Joe who'd get this ball rolling, why, we'd ALL probably be speaking Russian TODAY!!!)

LOL

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, RaptureGal said:

You're confusing the TEA Party with ANTIFA, BLM, and many other Democrat Marxist subversive groups going back to the '60s, all sharing a dedication to destroying America. But as ridiculous as your comment is it does serve a valuable purpose in demonstrating how the Left successfully convinces people that good is evil and evil is good. 

My comment was a joke to a wingnut member of this forum.   BUT note that Tea Party types like Ted Nugent did say that if Obama won re-election that they would have to take matter into their own hands.   Yea, it was clear to the FBI what he meant since they paid him a visit and advise him that such comment can get one arrested.

So chill out newbie.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And of course, none of the people who said they'd leave the country if [Bush/Obama/Trump] was elected President actually did leave.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Fedya said:

And of course, none of the people who said they'd leave the country if [Bush/Obama/Trump] was elected President actually did leave.

Talk is cheap - it's demonstrated every day.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Fedya said:

And of course, none of the people who said they'd leave the country if [Bush/Obama/Trump] was elected President actually did leave.

Yeah, I know, huh!

Maybe they eventually realized that it's cold as hell up there in Canada half the year.

AND, once they had THAT little "epiphany", realized that even WITH Bush OR Obama OR that freakin' man-child currently parking his large behind in the Oval Office, decided it wouldn't be worth the trouble.

(...well, this would be MY guess here, anyway)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

New Members:

Register Here

Learn more about the new message boards:

FAQ

Having problems?

Contact Us