The Silver Screen Oasis

"Inherit" is full of great quotes.

"Why is it, my old friend, that you've moved so far away from me?"
"All motion is relative, Matt. Maybe it's you who've moved away by standing still."

One of my favorite plays.

As long as we don't text somebody who's in the next car!

I'm willing to bet that happens!

Steven Spielberg may be to blame with his invention of the weekend blockbuster: "Jaws," that is

It's ironic. JAWS and STAR WARS are fine adventure films. But the influence they've wielded has been devastating.

That's a fascinating premise.

Close?

[youtube][/youtube]

Ah, my favorite, ChiO.

I have had to draw the line with my daughter in my household and car. No texting your friends when you are sitting right next to each other!

I think CGI has its place and definitely love a lot of modern blockbusters. This weekend I saw an all CGI film, the Lego Movie, and loved it! But I do definitely agree, especially with big action movies, they overdo the CGI at the expense of plot and acting.

Interestingly, I read that Philip Seymour Hoffman will be digitally inserted into a couple of scenes he had not filmed for the final Hunger Games movie. I wonder how that will look. When they did it with Oliver Reed in Gladiator it wasn't so great...but that was a long time ago now.

The Lego movie looks so good! I hope it's as funny as the commercials make it look.

I'm thinking of seeing the LEGO movie with my Nephew and his two of his children later on this week. To help him out with the babysitting aspects.

Lomm wrote:I think CGI has its place and definitely love a lot of modern blockbusters. This weekend I saw an all CGI film, the Lego Movie, and loved it! But I do definitely agree, especially with big action movies, they overdo the CGI at the expense of plot and acting.

Totally agree with you. There are things that simply aren't possible without CGI. (Remember when we thought it couldn't get better that Jurassic Park?) But now some of the action movies are going to far. They feel fake right from the beginning.

I have noticed, however, that several directors, on their commentary, have mentioned that a certain effect was done "the old way." And they always go on to point out that they only use CGI when there isn't any other way to do it. So, at least some of the best know better than to fall into that trap.

This seems like a good place to post a bit of reading matter.

From this week’s issue of a San Francisco weekly (the Bay Gardian):

"OPENING

About Last Night First remake of the week; a do-over of the 1986 ensemble rom-com, based (like the earlier film) on a David Mamet play. This version stars Kevin Hart, Regina Hall, Michael Caly, and Joy Bryant (1:40)
. . .
Endless Love Second remake of the week; a do-over of Franco Zeffirelli’s adaptation of Scott Spencer’s young-adult-love-gone-awry novel. (1:44)
. . .
Robocop Third remake of the week is of the uber-violent 1987 sci-fi classic. Step away from the Verhoeven, Hollywood do-over machine! (1:30)"

I couldn't p o s s i b l y add anything to that!

You know, I don't mind these remakes (nto that I've seen them or read anything about them), since they were all very much of their time and it seems like one could do updates that would be a propos to today's audiences. That being said, I really loved Robocop, the original. Loved that black humor.

Honestly, the studio era constantly remade earlier films. Stella Dallas was first filmed in 1925, then again in 1937. Ben-Hur, silent version, Charlton Heston version. The Maltese Falcon was made 3 times. Those are only 3 examples out of many.

Sandy K

I agree that "classic" Hollywood always had remakes. Besides "The Maltese Falcon," you had several films based on Robin Hood, Zorro, even the novel Captain Blood. (I know some people would say that remaking a silent film as a talkie isn't exactly a "remake" as, say, remaking "Robocop" today.)

But there are some differences. While 1941's "Maltese Falcon" was a remake, "The Big Sleep" and "Double Indemnity" were not. You seemed to have a willingness to adapt novels or even have original screenplays, like "Sunset Boulevard," that seems to be missing today.

Also, it seems like care was taken to rethink the remake process back then. Compare "Mystery of the Wax Museum" and "House of Wax," for instance. "House of Wax" greatly streamlines the plot of the original film (which had way too many characters) and puts the story into a different era. Some thought was involved with the process.

I think one problem with recent remakes is that they take a film that really had a connection with its era, like the Seventies or Eighties, and then simply plop the story into the present, where the actions or the attitudes no longer make sense or have no "echo" with the life outside the theater. And the audience sits there and thinks "Why did they bother?"

There's another problem with remakes which simply didn't exist in the past. Once a film completed it's run it was tossed into the vaults, possibly never to be seen again, certainly not unless it created a big stir. Then TV came along, eager to reuse those old films. And now everyone can see almost any movie ever made. Therefore, remakes and the originals are readily available for comparison. It DOES make a difference!

the audience sits there and thinks "Why did they bother?"

Sadly, that is my reaction to a lot of today's movies. Remake or other.