This just in: Unoriginality strikes Hollywood YET AGAIN...

[MinionZombie]

http://comingsoon.net/news/movienews.php?id=16019

*cough* Can anyone say "Son of Mask"? *cough* :barf:

[zombiegirl]

Oh, another retarded cash in. How nice. :rolleyes:
It's gonna suck major :moon:

[LouCipherr]

You have got to be kidding me.

Man, hollywood really is friggin' desperate, aren't they?

UNREAL...


and yeah, "Son of Mask" was the first thing that popped into my head when I read this.

Just goes to show ya, the future of movies is independent films. At least some of those have some original ideas - unlike Hollywood for the past 4 years. :mad:

[DjfunkmasterG]

Alllllllllllllllllllllllllrighty then!

I have just lost 100 more points of respect for Hollywood, not that they had many points to begin with so add this loss to the previous losses, carry the 7, divide by Bleen, square rooted by 37, equals...









Yeah, they pretty much lost all my respect

[Tied2thetracks]

Don't be so harsh, Son of The MAsk wasn't so bad. Jimmy Fallon could save
this movie.


A friend sent me this story earlier today and that was my response,

[MinionZombie]

JIMMY FALLON!!!??? The SNL guy that keeps looking at the camera?

*gosh*

Damn I hate that guy, lol, personally I can't understand why anyone finds him funny. I tried watching some of the *shock horror* American REMAKE of Taxi (the original was a nifty little flick) with *ug* Fallon in it and I almost had a hernia from the stress and strain of it all. Likewise I tried to watch some of Son of Mask and my gut was likewise trying to punch its way through my flesh and escape so it could strange me and end the torture of it all. :lol:

The original two Ace Ventura pics, especially the first, are legends. I remember those from when I was a kid, they were hilarious! The first was on TV a few weeks ago and I was watching some of it and I knew all the cues/lines/whatever even though I hadn't seen it in sooooooo long ... and ... it was just pure, inspired genius on Carey's part.

It'd be cool to see Carey do something like that again, just for old time's sake, then he can go back to being all "serious" again. :D

[axlish]

Fallon sux!

I'd love to see a new installment starring Jim Carrey! Do they not realize that it was Jim Carrey who carried those movies? Not the characters!

[darth los]

you know hollywood has alot of balls. You hear them spew out excuse after excuse on why the film industry is down over the last couple of years. They say it's the economy, then it's because people don't want to deal with dstractions in the movie theater like cell phones, rowdy unsupervised kids, and my personal pet peeve infants who cry throughout the flick- I mean are you serious? Find a babysitter dude.:mad: But i digress. While all of these excuses are legitimate who wouldn't deal with a bunch of crap to see a kickass movie. The main problem is that we've seen most of these movies before. Everything that comes out nowdays is a remake or a sequel. Hollywood has become so corporate that they are afraid to go away from a winning formula because for one thing movies cost so much to make that most blockbusters need to rake in about 200 million just to break even. Here's a list of movie remakes from the recent past

psyco
the omen
king kong
The manchurian candidate
yours mine and ours
the fog
oceans eleven
Manhunter/Red dragon
The hills have eyes
the Poseidon adventure
The Texas chainsaw masacre
Dawn of the Dead/ night of the living dead/ Day of the dead
The producers
Fun with dick and jane
THE DUKES OF HAZZARD
The honeymooners
The grudge
Pulse
Dark water
Bewitched
aeon flux
Amityville horror
War of the worlds

And just just off the top of my head. Never mind the rehashes and prequels like Star wars and Batman. Or even movies that are adapted from novels like harry potter and lord of the rings.

My point is that hollywood needs to start giving us fresh concepts and maybe most people won't utter the line " i'll wait for the dvd". Think about it 20 bucks for a newly released dvd, that's just the ticket money. Never mind theater food which costs an arm and a leg. And you just know your girl is going to want something if you take her out being that most theaters are located in/next to malls or shopping districts. Be prepared to blow 2-3 huundred when all you wanted was to see a movie.( am i ranting?) Everything is so expensive nowdays pampers, gas, rent, girlfriend (cause we all know- no money no honey) People work really hard for their money and aren't willing to blow it on bull$hit. Anyway you get my point-- Step your game up hollywood, because the consumer dollars that most americans have to spend on recreatioal things are becoming too scarce to spend on reimagining of films that in most cases there was nothing wrong with in the first place. Whew now i feel better.

[Maitreya]

How unfortunate... This has "Coming soon on DVD" written all over it.

[Danny]

this is the reason i stick to dvds and havent been in a cinema since return of the king....:bored:

[erisi236]

Why do people continue to trot out the "Hollywood isn't original anymore" stuff? Theres PLENTY of stuff thats not a sequel/prequel/remake/based on a book movies out there right at this very minute.

Look at the top 20 movies this weekend

1 Talladega Nights: The Ballad of Ricky Bobby
2 Step Up
3 World Trade Center
4 Barnyard: The Original Party Animals
5 Pulse
6 Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Man's Chest
7 Miami Vice
8 The Descent
9 Zoom
10 Monster House
11 John Tucker Must Die
12 Little Miss Sunshine
13 You, Me and Dupree
14 The Ant Bully
15 The Devil Wears Prada
16 The Night Listener
17 Kabhi Alvida Naa Kehna
18 Superman Returns
19 Little Man
20 Scoop Focus

oh no!
1 remake of a film no one saw
1 sequel to a movie most people love
1 based on tv movie the people have panned
and 1 rebirth of a franchise movie that people have wanted for a decade

If you hate those type of films go see the other 16 :D

And really, alot of remakes aren't based on "damn we got no ideas left" they're more based on some guy saying "man that movie was so cool back in the day, I'd love to try doing it" :)

[darth los]

Why do people continue to trot out the "Hollywood isn't original anymore" stuff? Theres PLENTY of stuff thats not a sequel/prequel/remake/based on a book movies out there right at this very minute.

Look at the top 20 movies this weekend

1 Talladega Nights: The Ballad of Ricky Bobby
2 Step Up
3 World Trade Center
4 Barnyard: The Original Party Animals
5 Pulse
6 Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Man's Chest
7 Miami Vice
8 The Descent
9 Zoom
10 Monster House
11 John Tucker Must Die
12 Little Miss Sunshine
13 You, Me and Dupree
14 The Ant Bully
15 The Devil Wears Prada
16 The Night Listener
17 Kabhi Alvida Naa Kehna
18 Superman Returns
19 Little Man
20 Scoop Focus

oh no!
1 remake of a film no one saw
1 sequel to a movie most people love
1 based on tv movie the people have panned
and 1 rebirth of a franchise movie that people have wanted for a decade

If you hate those type of films go see the other 16 :D

And really, alot of remakes aren't based on "damn we got no ideas left" they're more based on some guy saying "man that movie was so cool back in the day, I'd love to try doing it" :)

-First off World trade center is based on real life events

-Pulse is a remake of a japanese horror flick

-Pirates is a sequel and not all that from what i hear

-Miami vice is taken from the 80's show

-Superman returns is a sequel/rehash

-If anyone has ever seen the old loony toons/merry melodies cartoons, little man is a knockoff of the old bugs bunny cartoon where there's this criminal called baby faced finster who is on the run from the law and poses as a baby so he can lay low for a while. The scene where he's in the bathroom shaving is lifted directly from the cartoon!

-The descent is eerily similar to the cave

Now i'll concede that talledega nights is a hit but other than that and pirates most films on that list had dismal performances at the box office. So the bottom line if they're so original why did the majority of them flop? Maybe because they're trash? You could put up a list of orignal movies a hundred movies long if the films are trash no one will go see them. The movie going public wants quality not quantity.

Thanks for the list. It sure helped to reinforce my point:D

[bassman]

-First off World trade center is based on real life events

-Pulse is a remake of a japanese horror flick

-Pirates is a sequel and not all that from what i hear

-Miami vice is taken from the 80's show

-Superman returns is a sequel/rehash

-If anyone has ever seen the old loony toons/merry melodies cartoons, little man is a knockoff of the old bugs bunny cartoon where there's this criminal called baby faced finster who is on the run from the law and poses as a baby so he can lay low for a while. The scene where he's in the bathroom shaving is lifted directly from the cartoon!

-The descent is eerily similar to the cave

Now i'll concede that talledega nights is a hit but other than that and pirates most films on that list had dismal performances at the box office. So the bottom line if they're so original why did the majority of them flop? Maybe because they're trash? You could put up a list of orignal movies a hundred movies long if the films are trash no one will go see them. The movie going public wants quality not quantity.

Thanks for the list. It sure helped to reinforce my point:D

"Superman Returns" is not a "rehash"....It's a sequel. A very worthy sequel of two films that are arguably the best super hero flicks, ever. The first more-so than the second.


"...the movie going public wants quality"???? What imaginary world do you live in? Yes, movie fans that watch films for the RIGHT reasons want quality, but these days "movie going public" basically means "mindless teenagers looking for a cheap fright". It's sad....but it's true and that is what it has become. I would imagine that DVD's and the internet have helped in keeping REAL movie goers from the cinema, as well.

[p2501]

Why do people continue to trot out the "Hollywood isn't original anymore" stuff? Theres PLENTY of stuff thats not a sequel/prequel/remake/based on a book movies out there right at this very minute.

Look at the top 20 movies this weekend

1 Talladega Nights: The Ballad of Ricky Bobby = Days of thunder, without the unintentional laughs
2 Step Up = Dirty dancing
3 World Trade Center = Nameless cultural tie in film / the towering inferno
4 Barnyard: The Original Party Animals = nameless, family oriented CGI film #274.3
5 Pulse = remake of a Japanese horr film
6 Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Man's Chest
7 Miami Vice = remake of a TV show
8 The Descent
9 Zoom = Beyond witch mountain + thunderbirds + power rangers
10 Monster House = nameless, family oriented CGI film #275.4
11 John Tucker Must Die nameless, teen/pre teen girl oriented film #4627.4
12 Little Miss Sunshine
13 You, Me and Dupree = The odd couple + taming of the shrew
14 The Ant Bully = nameless, family oriented CGI film #271.8
15 The Devil Wears Prada
16 The Night Listener
17 Kabhi Alvida Naa Kehna = take away from the "curry hut"
18 Superman Returns = remake
19 Little Man = Porn
20 Scoop Focus



just sayin

[darth los]

[QUOTE=bassman311.

"...the movie going public wants quality"???? What imaginary world do you live in? Yes, movie fans that watch films for the RIGHT reasons want quality, but these days "movie going public" basically means "mindless teenagers looking for a cheap fright". It's sad....but it's true and that is what it has become. I would imagine that DVD's and the internet have helped in keeping REAL movie goers from the cinema, as well.[/QUOTE]

Very good point. That teenager line is so true. That's why discussion is healthy. It brings to light certain points that some of us might not have thought of before. not to knock superman because i went to see it and liked it alot but the point i was making is that it's hardly a new idea. As a matter of fact to build on your teenager theory: If it is indeed true that they constitute the bulk of moviegoers maybe the braintrust in hollywood figures that since they are so young they might not remember or have ever seen the original films. I mean something is always new to somebody. The special effects in the originals are dated and might not resonate with this generation. There are some people that have never seen GAR'S films!?! I know , perish the thought. But it's true.

[bassman]

There are a few "remakes" on the way that I'm really looking forward to....

Brian DePalma has "The Black Dahlia", which is based on the book by James Ellroy.

Martin Scorsese has "The Departed", which is based on "Infernal Affairs".

[erisi236]

-First off World trade center is based on real life events

-Pulse is a remake of a japanese horror flick

-Pirates is a sequel and not all that from what i hear

-Miami vice is taken from the 80's show

-Superman returns is a sequel/rehash

-If anyone has ever seen the old loony toons/merry melodies cartoons, little man is a knockoff of the old bugs bunny cartoon where there's this criminal called baby faced finster who is on the run from the law and poses as a baby so he can lay low for a while. The scene where he's in the bathroom shaving is lifted directly from the cartoon!

-The descent is eerily similar to the cave

Now i'll concede that talledega nights is a hit but other than that and pirates most films on that list had dismal performances at the box office. So the bottom line if they're so original why did the majority of them flop? Maybe because they're trash? You could put up a list of orignal movies a hundred movies long if the films are trash no one will go see them. The movie going public wants quality not quantity.

Thanks for the list. It sure helped to reinforce my point:D

Reinforce what? That you hate everything? :rockbrow:

and did you miss when I said...

"oh no!
1 remake of a film no one saw
1 sequel to a movie most people love
1 based on tv movie the people have panned
and 1 rebirth of a franchise movie that people have wanted for a decade"

Who cares, if you don't want to see them, don't.

If everyones basis for what an "Original film" is, "that it hasn't been done before", then you're going to have to go back in time by about 70 years, because it's ALL been done before. No family film is original, no horror film is original, action, sci-fi, western, comedy, ect, ect, ect.

You all want an original film, grab a camcorder and film yourself crying on the internet about another remake, see if that'll put asses in seats. :moon:

[LouCipherr]

heh, I didn't film myself crying, but I did help make and was part a film that will never put anyone in a theatre seat.. but y'know what's sad? I'd sure as hell rather watch the film I did then most of the drivel coming out of hollywood. :p

[Chakobsa]

I think it's a fairly safe bet that everyone of us is a fan of what can broadly be described as the horror genre, a genre that owes much of it's enduring appeal to it's constant retelling and redefining of the same basic stories, just think about Dracula movies for example, there are probably hundreds, most of them ****e. All of them can, I think be classed as remakes/new interpretations or whatever, but we all have our favourites; Lugosi, Schreck, Lee, even (good lord!!:eek: ) Jack Palance.
There's a kind of pop culture elitism at work here(and I'm as guilty as the rest; No wicker Man remake!!) that's really somewhat amusing. After all, you never hear opera buffs saying stuff like " a new production of "Die Walkure"?Never!"
No one is forcing us to watch any of these films, yeah, it's a safe bet that most of them will be crap, but what the hell, we're film fans and part of the fun of that is siffting through the dross to find the films that we will eventually come to cherish, crappy sequels included.

[MinionZombie]

As a Brit I'd like to chip in on "The Descent". Neil Marshall (writer/director of the flick) acknowledged the similarities between his flick and *sigh* The Cave, but he had already been in the process of creating his flick for quite some time already. He just heard part way into pre-production that there was an American "cave movie" going on, and that's all he knew, so it's all co-incidence and no deliberate chaffery on either film's part...although as a Brit and lover of good movies, The Descent freakin' rocks and I love it.

As for Superman Returns - 30 minutes too long, far too much half-assed "human emotion stuff" and wasn't anyone else tired of seeing Superman saving almost everybody from something? The film was alright, but it just seemed so "pflaaah" and/or "meh". It could have been done so much better, but at least it wasn't The Punisher.

Watched Miami Vice today ... and it sucked. The final shoot-out was cool (but NOWHERE near the league of the shoot-out in Heat), otherwise it was two-odd hours of people talking and looking at each other in HD, I was resorting to looking around the room at the walls for more entertainment, not even Tom Towles cropping up as a bad guy caught my interest. So very boring ... oh there was one other good bit - when that guy gets shot in the head (vague enough to not be a spoiler, so fudge ya'll! lol) ...

[HLS]

God help us all! Not another one of those movies!!!???? Good Gawd!

[KingStoph]

Lets hope the FAN FILM Comunity can save us!

With a Better Spin off! (http://www.freewebs.com/freddyvsthemask/) From the Mask :lol:

[bassman]

As for Superman Returns - 30 minutes too long, far too much half-assed "human emotion stuff" and wasn't anyone else tired of seeing Superman saving almost everybody from something? The film was alright, but it just seemed so "pflaaah" and/or "meh". It could have been done so much better, but at least it wasn't The Punisher.


Have you not seen Richard Donner's original?:rockbrow: :D

[p2501]

As a Brit I'd like to chip in on "The Descent". Neil Marshall (writer/director of the flick) acknowledged the similarities between his flick and *sigh* The Cave, but he had already been in the process of creating his flick for quite some time already. He just heard part way into pre-production that there was an American "cave movie" going on, and that's all he knew, so it's all co-incidence and no deliberate chaffery on either film's part...although as a Brit and lover of good movies, The Descent freakin' rocks and I love it.

As for Superman Returns - 30 minutes too long, far too much half-assed "human emotion stuff" and wasn't anyone else tired of seeing Superman saving almost everybody from something? The film was alright, but it just seemed so "pflaaah" and/or "meh". It could have been done so much better, but at least it wasn't The Punisher.

Watched Miami Vice today ... and it sucked. The final shoot-out was cool (but NOWHERE near the league of the shoot-out in Heat), otherwise it was two-odd hours of people talking and looking at each other in HD, I was resorting to looking around the room at the walls for more entertainment, not even Tom Towles cropping up as a bad guy caught my interest. So very boring ... oh there was one other good bit - when that guy gets shot in the head (vague enough to not be a spoiler, so fudge ya'll! lol) ...


Agreed on the descent.

agreed on Superman. it was pretty, but totally pointless.

i think i'm stuck in the minority that liked Miami Vice which is cool by me. But yeah the "hostage resolution" sequence was epic. i want the blondes' short monolog there monogramed on a pillow for my living room.

[MinionZombie]

I have indeed seen the original Superman, but that was a very, very long time ago when I was a kid. I do remember the construction of that movie being much better than Superman Returns, which didn't feel at all well put together. And whats'ername, the one who played Lois ... she was RUBBISH. Not at all convincing, completely plain with absolutely no draw to me ... that's what I thought of her in the film and in those making of docs they were splashing all over TV. She's just so very much "so what?", now the geezer that played the new Superman was very good, he even looks like the Reevester.

I must re-check-out the original two flicks (yeah I know there were more, but it's just like people only watching the first two Godfathers).

For instance, (back to my original comments), the whole "Lois has a kid and a sort-of-but-not-really-husband" 'thing' was shown to us, but never resolved in any way, the 'thing' about the kid was likewise just shown but never resolved, it was just left hanging around.

Now, seeing Superman fly about and save people was cool, but it's the times when you see him say save three or four people in different situations that it gets boring, it'd be better to have no more than two in a row, and for each save to be much bigger, with a couple of small ones at the beginning of the flick.

Likewise, Lex Luthor didn't seem to be much of a threat, and that whole 'plan' of his was left too late into the movie for us to discover it, hence another reason why his threat didn't feel palpable.

It wasn't all bad, it shows promise for future new Superman movies, but it was certainly no Batman Begins.

P2501 - rock on, The Descent ... err ... rocked! :cool:

[Danny]

talking about ****e films i hear uwe boll is trying to get the rights to make a movie about the book house of leaves, how exactly that movie would work is beyond me...... maybe crossing silent hill and 24:lol:

[bassman]

For instance, (back to my original comments), the whole "Lois has a kid and a sort-of-but-not-really-husband" 'thing' was shown to us, but never resolved in any way, the 'thing' about the kid was likewise just shown but never resolved, it was just left hanging around.


I'm sure it was left some-what open for future installments. That whole thing will make more sense to you if you go back and watch the original film before you see "Returns" again.

It's kinda like a tribute/throwback to Jor-el's(Marlon Brando) speech to Kal-el before he was sent away from Krypton. "The father becomes the son....and the son, the father."


I can understand why you weren't too thrilled with "Returns", but to me, I think it was meant kind of like Singer was saying "Okay...this is how we're going to start this thing back up again, here are the characters you remember, it's not a remake - it's a continuation, and the real juicey stuff comes next time around.;) ". "Superman Returns" is more like a reboot....

I think the next flick will be even better. I really enjoyed "Returns", though. I was really psyched to hear John William's legendary score in theaters.:cool: Sent shivers down me spine, goose bumps, the whole nine yards.

And yeah, we can both agree that Kate Bosworth wasn't the perfect decision for Lois Lane.

[MinionZombie]

lol, Kate Bollock-worth was crap wasn't she? :lol:

Even for a reboot flick, it could have been a much better pieced together work ... and half an hour shorter. There was so much streamlining that could have been done and made for a tight flick, sadly Singer got into the whole "I'm making a Superman movie" train of thought - which is a distracting road to walk - instead of the "I'm making a movie, let's make it as good as it can be" road. I think Singer got a bit too wrapped up in what he was doing ultimately, rather than what he was doing immediately - ultimately it's Superman, immediately (to him and the crew) they were making a movie, so in the immediate he should have focussed more on making a better movie over all, regardless of the tall guy in the slightly gay - but ever so masculine - underoos. :p (disclaimer, that wasn't a slight against gay people, how could you think that, ya crazy fools?!) I'd still give "The Man In Red Pants Returns" a 6/10 though...when it was good it was good, but when it was dipping it was plummetting faster than a falling Superman with kryptonite in his butt. (And the "is it a bird? is it a plane?" line was classic).

Batman Begins was also a "reboot" flick, but it was also well constructed on the immediate road as well as the ultimate road. :rockbrow:

[bassman]

Well....see, I could agree with you that "Batman Begins" was a better flick...but it wasn't a reboot film.

"BB" was starting all over again....new universe, new characters, new ideas, etc...... where "SR" was picking back up where "Superman II" left off. It was a continuation of the same film franchise. "BB" was not. Because....who would want "BB" to be connect to "Batman and Robin"?:barf:


And for the record: It wouldn't be "The Man in Red Pants Returns"....It would be "The Man in Blue Pants with Red Undies on the Outside Returns".:lol:

[MinionZombie]

Ah-ha! But I'm British, so I am in fact correct-a-mundo, cos we call underwear "pants", and pants to you lot are "trousers" to us. :p nyah!

But Batman Begins had Bruce Wayne, his butler, the chief of police ... so it's not all new characters. Yeah it's a prequel, but it is still a reboot film, cos it's rebooting the franchise after said, ever-so-gay-romp that was B&R (moulded chest/crotch plates anyone?), killed it off years ago. So it's a prequel-boot so-to-speak.

Of course, with the Batman movies there were different characters across each film, only a handful of returnees, which isn't the case with the Superman flicks. Also, like "Return of the Red Pants Guy" (which ignored Superman 3), BB essentially ignores all Batman flicks after Batman Returns...*sigh*...I'll shut up now. :D

[bassman]

Ah-ha! But I'm British, so I am in fact correct-a-mundo, cos we call underwear "pants", and pants to you lot are "trousers" to us. :p nyah!

But Batman Begins had Bruce Wayne, his butler, the chief of police ... so it's not all new characters. Yeah it's a prequel, but it is still a reboot film, cos it's rebooting the franchise after said, ever-so-gay-romp that was B&R (moulded chest/crotch plates anyone?), killed it off years ago. So it's a prequel-boot so-to-speak.

Of course, with the Batman movies there were different characters across each film, only a handful of returnees, which isn't the case with the Superman flicks. Also, like "Return of the Red Pants Guy" (which ignored Superman 3), BB essentially ignores all Batman flicks after Batman Returns...*sigh*...I'll shut up now. :D

No, see....this is where you're wrong, man:p . If "Batman Begins" is continuing the existing film franchise up until "Batman Returns", then there would be no "Dark Knight"(Nolan's next). I say this because the Joker is in the next film and it's also rumored that the Penguin is, as well. Meaning, "Batman Begins" would lead into Burton's "Batman". The only way Nolan could make another would be if it were to take place after "Batman Returns"(if they were to choose to drop the lesser sequels).

Anyway....Nolan and Goyer(writer) both say multiple times on the "BB" SE DVD that this is a whole new Batman film franchise......acting as thought Burton's and Shumacher's never happened.

[MinionZombie]

Well whatever, my brain is farting a lot lately, but what I mean is that BB was a reboot for the Batman franchise, irrespective of where the movies come in the grand Batman scheme...

*urgh*

My eyes are tired and I'm all pooped out after cheering on Pete on Big Brother...:D

[coma]

Anyway....Nolan and Goyer(writer) both say multiple times on the "BB" SE DVD that this is a whole new Batman film franchise......acting as thought Burton's and Shumacher's never happened.
What a fine ideas that was!:D