|
|
Post by alexgg on Aug 31, 2012 11:32:55 GMT -5
I like when Remakes draw attention to the original, and even if the remake sucks, the original still exists.
|
|
|
|
Post by punksnotdead on Aug 31, 2012 11:37:27 GMT -5
I like when Remakes draw attention to the original, and even if the remake sucks, the original still exists. And that's precisely it. If a remake sucks, then its sole purpose ends up being to help its predecessor withstand the test of time. Kind of comical when you think about it. |
|
|
|
Post by juilaaradi on Aug 31, 2012 11:58:46 GMT -5
there's nothing wrong about being somewhat campy IMO There is for people who don't like campy movies. Don't get me wrong, I enjoy Arnold flicks, but the guy isn't a great actor. Running Man, Total Recall, True Lies, Last Action Hero, all great movies imo, Eraser, Kindergarten Cop, but It's not like the guy has given an Oscar worthy performance that is so iconic that you could never do it again. And he played a  ing robot in the Terminator flicks, lets get serious here. I just don't understand why people get all bent out of shape when a remake happens. 99% of those people go see the remake anyway just so they can come out and say, "the original was better." And it probably was, but when studios remake movies like Total Recall and Fright Night, that are nothing more than Cult Classics, I'm more than willing to see a new interpretation of an old idea. As I said, I thought the Total Recall remake was entertaining, and I thought Fright Night surpassed its original. So I'm more than willing to let these studios give stuff another go round for better or worse. Worst case scenario, it informs people about the original, and the original is still a better film at the end of the day, nothing lost. To me you don't need to be technically sound as an actor to be well remembered and to me, oscars are worthless trophies and don't really mean much anyways |
|
