Remakes & Reboots and Film Fatigue

Yesterday I stumbled upon the reality that the movie Overboard is being remade.  Now, I was never a huge fan of the film, it was okay and I’d watch it if it happened to be on.  I have friends who are much bigger fans.  But I always figured it was one of those movies that had been left alone.  Till Yesterday.

It made me wonder at what point does a movie get to ‘remakable’ status?  Is there a time limit?  A quality level?  Perhaps nothing at all (and I’m starting to think this is the reality.)

They made the first Spiderman movie with Toby McGuire in it in 2002.  Since then, they have made 2 sequels, rebooted it, made a sequel to that one and rebooted it again.  All in 16 years.  At least with the latest guy, its because the ownership changed hands therefore contracts were different.

But seriously.  16 years, 6 movies (8 if you include Captian America: Civil War and the upcoming Avengers movie), 3 actors.  That is roughly a new Spiderman movie every 2-3 years and only a few are actually connected to each other.  Toby McQuire came out with one in 2002. 2004, and 2007.  Andrew Garfield got 2012 and 2014.  Tom Holland got 2017 (with 2016 (CA:CW) and 2018 (Avengers: Infinty Wars) as honorable mentions).

Seems a lot.  (Although I wish Tom Holland luck with the role.  He seems like a sweetheart.)

It makes the Star Trek reboot look like they took way too long (almost 50 years).

Of course there is Star Wars, creatively sourced as a continuation rather than a reboot.  They are using the same basic plots so I find the last series to be generally less impressive than the other two (yes, I’m a freak who loves the Prequels.  Not as much as the original trilogy, but I do love them).  I don’t want to watch The Original Trilogy with Anakin 2.0

The Mummy was recently remade, though I did not see this version due to an aversion of all things Tom Cruise.  Plus the Brendan Fraser Trio was a big part of my middle school years.  I don’t want to ruin them with whatever this new one is.  Which doesn’t appear to be anything like the 1932 original, or the Fraser 1999 remake.  So I’m not sure if it’s so much a remake as its “Hey, we got the rights to this film franchise and a budget, want to film?” type deal.

There are times I adore remakes.  It just seems that recently the board has been pretty flooded with remakes and reboots and sequels. And some of them run pretty close together.  I can understand a remake/reboot if enough time as passed (King Kong, Godzilla and Star Trek for example).  Book adaptations happen all time (Look up the many many many versions of Pride and Prejudice.  I did once.  I think there were thirty some at the time).  I just don’t get why I’m getting remakes/reboots of films that have been released since I was in high school.  Sure, its been over a decade but barely and still within memory.

At the very least a decade should be the minimum amount of time unless the movie was awful (ex. The Incredible Hulk movies.  We don’t talk about the Incredible Hulk movies).

I remember reading somewhere that someone had boiled down the general narratives of the world to about 6 storylines.  And that everything basically followed one of them.  But there are a million ways to be creative with a prompt.  Just look at any writing group and ask them their responses to a prompt.  You are bound to get a bunch of variety even with the same building blocks.

So I don’t think its a hard task to find something out there that is creative, even if its something old.  At least something not made in the last decade.  At the rate we are going, The day I turn 40, Harry Potter will be releasing its remake of A Deathly Hallows.

That being said…I’m probably going to be watching the new Overboard.  If only because the fact they genderswapped it sounds intriguing.

I believe I wrote about this before, but it was just a recent rant in my mind that needed to come out.  What are your thoughts on the matter?

Scarlet O’Hara (Bubblews Repost)

Vivien Leigh in Gone With the Wind trailer-9

EDIT NOTES:  This post was made several years ago on Bubblews, a site that is no longer online.  I found it while cleaning out some folders on my google drive, and decided to repost it, with some minor grammatical corrections.  According to my file, I wrote this on October 9, 2014, 11:55 AM.  I plan on eventually reading the novel, and rewatching the movie to see if my views still hold true. Also this post doesn’t focus on GWTW portrayal of slavery, which is at times very awkward because of its avoidance of the reality.  This just focuses on their main plot around Scarlet.

On Sunday, I saw Gone With the Wind in Theaters.  It was a great experience, although I hate to tell the movie people that 5 minutes is not enough to allow people to get to the bathroom and/or go to the concession stand to refill their drinks.  Should have been fifteen, but that is not the point of this post. Continue reading “Scarlet O’Hara (Bubblews Repost)”

Movie Review: Anna Karenina

Title: Anna Karenina
Release Date: 2012
Rating:
Staring:  Keira Knightley, Jude Law, Aaron Taylor-Johnson, Kelly MacDonald, Domhall Gleensen, Alicia Vikander, and Matthew Macfadyen

My Rating C.

My Review:

Alright, I knew going in that this was going to be a weird movie.  Its Tolstoy.  The man doesn’t do simple happy ever afters.  I’m not entirely sure he does happily ever afters at all.  Plus I had read a few bits of the book before watching the movie.  I’m determined to go back and actually read the whole thing.  If I can read Game of Thrones, which is 900 pages long, I think I can stretch a little further and read Anna Karenina.

Anyway, why did I give this film a C.  Well, the casting was full of people I like (Matthew MacDadyen, Alicia Vikander, and Kiera Knightly especially), so I can’t complain about the acting.  The costuming was excellant No, I just thought the staging was weird.

And by staging I mean the whole movie is built like its the mutant child of a stage play and a film.  Sometimes you feel like you have the full screen depth of a movie, and sometimes you felt like you were watching a recording of a play.  Which I suppose could be seen as an inventive way of making this all out to be some theme about how society is play on image.

It just threw me off really.  I think if they had started it that way, and perhaps ended it that way it would have been sufficent, but they kept routing it through the whole movie.

Also I found I cared very little for Anna and Vronksky,  Wishing there was more of Stiva and his family, or Levin & Kitty more then there was Anna.  I’m not sure how much of that is because of the source material or the script itself.

Book Review: Fantastic Four (Movie Novelization, Peter David)

Title: Fantastic Four
Author: Peter David (Based on Screenplay by Mark Frost, Simon Kinberg, and Michael France, who were inspired by Marvel)
Genre: Action/Adventure, Movie Novelization, some romance
Summery: Reed Richards, Victor Von Doom, Ben Grimm, and the Storm siblings go up in space to hold experiments with a cosmic cloud.  Things don’t go as planed, and the crew is hit by the cloud instead of being protected by the stations shielding.  Suddenly Reed can stretch his arms further then natural, Susan can be invisible, Johnny can turn into fire, and Ben has transformed into a man made out of rock.  Victor seems unharmed, but slowly he is transforming into a metal alloy, which turns to to be a bad combination with his mood.

Yeah, bad summery.  You can probably get the gist if you watch a cartoon, or read the comic.  I tend to stick to the film when it comes to Marvel stuff.  And I should probably mention that there are slight spoilers here if you are a Fantastic Four newbie.

I have read Peter David novels in the past.  He wrote one of my favorite Star Trek novels, Imzadi.  That was slightly different then this, as Imazdi was based within that universe while Fantastic Four is based directly on a script. I bought this after watching the movie so I already had the characters set in my head as the actors.  I liked it the first time through.  I decided to re-read it for this year’s bookit 50, and liked it again.

There was one issue I had with this book this time through.  Since the second movie hadn’t been out before I read the first movie’s novelization it didn’t phase me the first time, and I don’t think I even realized it till this time reading it.  The novel has a Frankie Raye, which if you have seen the second film you know she’s a character in that film.  One quite different then the one in this novelization. Although this does give me ideas for a fanfic where they ARE the same person (I doubt they are.  I just think it was a matter of Peter David doing his homework and the writers of movie II not taking his novelization into account when they wrote it.  Movie trumps book in this case)

Like with Willow, this book had some scenes that never made it to film or were cut during the final edit (and there are a few in the deleted scenes on the DVD).  Some scenes were completely different.  Like the scene where Reed and Susan talk about their relationship?  Happens in a different location then in the movie.

I enjoyed it. Its a good novelization.

Rating: 4/5
Bookit # (2/50) of (1/52)

This week is theme

So, this week in Intro To Fiction, we are studying ‘Theme.’  Which always makes me think of “The Jane Austin Book Club” where Prudie goes on about “Jane’s Theme” and kinda gets on the nerves of everyone else there except for Grigg (who was uncomfortable as it was) and Silvia who was a little preoccupied with her own personal crisis.

I actually like the movie, but don’t like the book.  Which is an oddity because usually its either equal status or I like the book better.  I like to watch the film first because its like having deleted scenes when you read the book.  But in this case, THey changed enough of the book that I much prefer the movie.  Not to say there weren’t times I wanted something from the book in the movie, but generally the movie was better.  Plus Dean was a steelers fan:)

Another book that failed to meet the expectations of the movie was The Wedding Date (or Asking For Trouble if you want to read the book).  The book and the movie share a common plot…Older sister is going to younger sister’s engagement party and hires an escort to pose as her boyfriend.    The big difference between the movie and the book is:

  1. The book goes over a longer period of time, from the engagement party till after the honeymoon
  2. The names are different and everyone lives in England
  3. Sophie (Kat in the movie) lives with her best friend and friends brother and they take an active role in the story.  This plot is not in the movie.
  4. TJ is in the book, in the form of cousin Tamara who has a simular role, except she (and apparently 95% of the family) doesn’t like Paul (Edward in the movie AKA the fiancée)
  5. The fiancée is a jerk
  6. Kit (Jeff) and Bianca (the sister, forget her name in the move) actually stay together, they run off together after the honeymoon.
  7. Josh (Nick) isn’t an escort.  He was filling in for an actual escort, since his friend was running the company. 

Now unlike The Jane Austin Book Club, Asking For Trouble is equally as enjoyable as the movie.  Its just that they are almost two different stories.  And if I had to choose, I’d probably choose the movie.  If only because I hate that Kit/Jeff won in the end of the book and that Paul was a jerk.  Edward is lovable in the movie (half because of the character, half because Its Jack Davenport.

I’m going to be posting again tonight to get my entries up to the correct number.  I’m two down (one after this entry) from being an entry a day since I started.