logo Sign In

doubleKO

User Group
Members
Join date
7-May-2011
Last activity
8-Jul-2023
Posts
2,420

Post History

Post
#513336
Topic
When Remakes are a Bad Idea
Link
https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/513336/action/topic#513336
Time

Mrebo said:

I did not see the new Clash of the Titans but why do you think it could benefit from being remade?

The original felt like an epic B movie with A potential. The story and the creatures were the focus for me and something I felt CGI could pull off if done well. I had no particular feelings towards any of the original actors or their performances and felt that they could fairly easily be matched or surpassed.

* Ocean's 11 remake for me too.

Post
#513333
Topic
When Remakes are a Bad Idea
Link
https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/513333/action/topic#513333
Time

TV's Frink said:

doubleKO said:

I enjoyed the new Star Trek ... remake.

Agreed.  Though, would Star Trek 2009 really be considered a remake?

It was worded that way to let the reader decide. It has the same name so I thought I'd mention I enjoyed it. I realize it is completely different to the original movie and the series - that is one of the reasons I like it.

Post
#513325
Topic
When Remakes are a Bad Idea
Link
https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/513325/action/topic#513325
Time

I don't completely agree, for me it depends on the quality and characteristics of the remake in question, as well as my feelings for and familiarity with the original material. I enjoyed the new Star Trek and The Italian Job remake. I held the belief that Clash of the Titans should be remade for years and was very disappointed with the result when it finally was. Some regard the 1990 remake of Night of the Living Dead as superior. I agree that most remakes I have seen are inferior and demeaning to the original work in some way, but I am not against the idea altogether. It does make less sense to remake something in its original format.

My biggest problem with remakes is that by using the same name and material, comparisons are automatically invited and the importance of this comparison is often overblown to the point where the "loser" of the comparison suffers from a similarly overblown negative public perception rather than being judged on its own merits or appreciated for its own strengths.

Of course we are talking about Hollywood, and the major influence here is money. This means that movies that could be significantly improved due to having a great premise and shoddy execution are going to be sidelined in favour of stuff that they already know people like and will pay to see. So the movies that get remade will usually be the movies that need it least.

Post
#512851
Topic
Muxing up Movie quotes
Link
https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/512851/action/topic#512851
Time

ferris209 said:

Here's mine:

1. Craig - Sorry, I think he sucks and I hate the new Bond.
2. Connery - The original and the best!
3. Brosnan - I really liked Brosnan, plus my wife REALLY liked Brosnan, so my trip home was way better after watching a Brosnan Bond movie.
4. Lazenby - huh?
5. Moore - I enjoyed Moore, mostly because he was Bond while I was growing up and I liked the comedic shtick he did.
6. Dalton - *yawn*

Why did you rank Craig at number 1 if you hate him? ;)

I suspect cut and paste here...

Post
#512850
Topic
Last movie seen
Link
https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/512850/action/topic#512850
Time

The Hangover Part II

Not nearly as funny the first one. 5/10 balls.
-2 balls for continuing the disturbing trend of showing balls.
= 3/10 balls

Seriously, what is with the all the man-parts in comedies these days? I have recently seen Harold and Kumar Escape from Guantanamo Bay, Hall Pass and The Hangover Part II and I feel like Hollywood is trying to shove penis in my face. I am not appreciative. I'm sure "unrated version" DVDs are partly to blame. How I hate those...

Post
#512474
Topic
Video Games - a general discussion thread
Link
https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/512474/action/topic#512474
Time

xhonzi said:

HarryTasker2525 said:

Console is too easy.

I know.  I kinda hate how I can just put a disc in my console and play a game without spending hours on hours reconfiguring it and getting all new drivers for each of my components.  I only have so many hours to play each week- it's kind of boring that I'm not spending any of those hours fighting my computer.  I mean, I like that consoles make it easy... but they're just too easy.  You know what I mean?

Without sarcarsm, this is part of what I like about PC gaming :P Often I enjoy fighting activation and disc-checks, getting the best graphics settings and trying out mods more than I enjoy the game itself. I freely admit to being a "tourist" gamer and play just about everything on easy while I look at the pretty graphics... I have nothing against consoles other than FPS games suck to play with gamepads. I generally go with PC for first-person and console for 3rd-person/driving/fighting games.

I remember why I didn't go ahead with BioShock now... it was the damned aspect ratio on my 16:10 monitor. The HDCP in my DVI connection wouldn't allow my graphics card to scale to 16:9. The game can be run at 16:10 with proper FOV (after the patch) but the HUD is still stretched and it pisses me off to no end looking at a non-circular reticle. Picky I know. I believe the solution may be to break out the old VGA cable and see if my graphics card will scale it, as that will hopefully make it look exactly as it should.

Actually, your point is becoming clearer to me now...