list http://www.spout.com/ Recent community activity around Planet of the Apes on Spout Copyright 2005-9 Spout, LLC Spout RSS http://www.spout.com/images/SpoutLogoRSS.jpg http://www.spout.com/ 136 30 http://www.spout.com/films/Planet_of_the_Apes/192700/default.aspx Title: Planet of the Apes
Year: 2001
Director: Tim Burton
Plot: This big budget "re-imagining" of the 1968 original departs somewhat from both that classic science fiction film and the source novel by author Pierre Boulle. Mark Wahlberg stars as Leo Davidson, an astronaut of the early 21st century whose unauthorized mission to rescue a chimp companion from a mysterious space storm goes awry when he and his ship are lost through a rip in the fabric of time. Leo crash-lands on a planet where intelligent, talking apes are the dominant species and humans a conquered slave class. Befriending both a chimpanzee activist named Ari (Helena Bonham Carter), who's sympathetic to humans, and a beautiful human rebel, Daena (Estella Warren), Leo quickly becomes a prominent figure of resistance to his fellow humans. This makes him an instant source of irritation for the militant and ambitious General Thade (Tim Roth) and his trusted adjutant, Attar (Michael Clarke Duncan), who intend to hunt Leo down and crush the burgeoning human uprising. War looms between ape and human as Leo and his band head for a sacred site deep in an off-limits desert, where secrets about the planet's ape and human ancestry wait to be revealed. Planet of the Apes is directed by Tim Burton and features the original film's star, Charlton Heston, in a cameo role as the dying father of Thade. ~ Karl Williams, All Movie Guide
Times Tagged: 28
Number of Lists: 44
Number of blog posts: 2
Number of discussion threads: 5
SpoutRating: 2
]]>Thu, 16 Jul 2009 14:53:25 GMTPlanet of the Apes2001Tim BurtonThis big budget "re-imagining" of the 1968 original departs somewhat from both that classic science fiction film and the source novel by author <a href="/players/P____82584/default.aspx" style='text-decoration:underline'>Pierre Boulle</a>. <a href="/players/P___198251/default.aspx" style='text-decoration:underline'>Mark Wahlberg</a> stars as Leo Davidson, an astronaut of the early 21st century whose unauthorized mission to rescue a chimp companion from a mysterious space storm goes awry when he and his ship are lost through a rip in the fabric of time. Leo crash-lands on a planet where intelligent, talking apes are the dominant species and humans a conquered slave class. Befriending both a chimpanzee activist named Ari (<a href="/players/P_____7266/default.aspx" style='text-decoration:underline'>Helena Bonham Carter</a>), who's sympathetic to humans, and a beautiful human rebel, Daena (<a href="/players/P___285095/default.aspx" style='text-decoration:underline'>Estella Warren</a>), Leo quickly becomes a prominent figure of resistance to his fellow humans. This makes him an instant source of irritation for the militant and ambitious General Thade (<a href="/players/P____61768/default.aspx" style='text-decoration:underline'>Tim Roth</a>) and his trusted adjutant, Attar (<a href="/players/P___240637/default.aspx" style='text-decoration:underline'>Michael Clarke Duncan</a>), who intend to hunt Leo down and crush the burgeoning human uprising. War looms between ape and human as Leo and his band head for a sacred site deep in an off-limits desert, where secrets about the planet's ape and human ancestry wait to be revealed. Planet of the Apes is directed by <a href="/players/P____83666/default.aspx" style='text-decoration:underline'>Tim Burton</a> and features the original film's star, <a href="/players/P____94233/default.aspx" style='text-decoration:underline'>Charlton Heston</a>, in a cameo role as the dying father of Thade. ~ Karl Williams, All Movie Guide28Tag Target (>10)44252http://www.spout.com/ProductImages/t90096uvd7r.jpghttp://www.spout.com/films/Planet_of_the_Apes/192700/default.aspxFilm http://www.spout.com/groups/Tim_Burton/Re_Hate_to_say_it_but/39/37847/1/ShowPost.aspx Post By: seely
Post To: Tim Burton
Post Date: 12/2/2008 1:58:12 PM
Body: I try to pretend Planet of the Apes never happened. I had mixed feelings on the newer Charlie and the Chocolate Factory. I really like Gene Wilder's interpretation, and grew up watching that over and over, but I really did enjoy Depp's crazy and slightly off kilter interpretation of the role--perhaps truer to the book. Its hard to beat out nostalgia. Definitely agree about Roald Dahl and Burton... just heard today that Burton has started to work on a film version of The Witches. I can't wait to see how creepy it is. [quote user="csprague"] Big Fish is possibly one of my favorite movies of all time. i think it's beautifully made and the story is so imaginative, plus I can see a little bit of the tension Burton must have felt in his own life with the reality and fantasy. I can say that I wasn't a huge fan of Planet of the Apes, I just didn't really enjoy it much, and I really loved the old ones. We used to watch marathons of them when i was a little kid. But, I absolutely love the new Charlie and the Chocolate Factory, I think Johnny Depp was hilarious and I enjoyed the world he made so much. I think Tim Burton and Roald Dahl were a match made in heaven. [/quote]
]]>Tue, 02 Dec 2008 18:58:12 GMTseelyTim Burton12/2/2008 1:58:12 PMI try to pretend Planet of the Apes never happened. I had mixed feelings on the newer Charlie and the Chocolate Factory. I really like Gene Wilder's interpretation, and grew up watching that over and over, but I really did enjoy Depp's crazy and slightly off kilter interpretation of the role--perhaps truer to the book. Its hard to beat out nostalgia. Definitely agree about Roald Dahl and Burton... just heard today that Burton has started to work on a film version of The Witches. I can't wait to see how creepy it is. [quote user="csprague"] Big Fish is possibly one of my favorite movies of all time. i think it's beautifully made and the story is so imaginative, plus I can see a little bit of the tension Burton must have felt in his own life with the reality and fantasy. I can say that I wasn't a huge fan of Planet of the Apes, I just didn't really enjoy it much, and I really loved the old ones. We used to watch marathons of them when i was a little kid. But, I absolutely love the new Charlie and the Chocolate Factory, I think Johnny Depp was hilarious and I enjoyed the world he made so much. I think Tim Burton and Roald Dahl were a match made in heaven. [/quote] http://www.spout.com/groups/Tim_Burton/Re_Hate_to_say_it_but/39/37496/1/ShowPost.aspx Post By: csprague
Post To: Tim Burton
Post Date: 11/20/2008 2:39:12 PM
Body: [quote user="seely"] ...I haven't really liked Burton's last few films. I thoroughly enjoyed 'Big Fish', and thought perhaps it was a bit of a maturing in his filmmaking, away from the cartoon-ish qualities of a lot of his earlier film and more towards a magic-realism approach (though he always had elements of that). However, everything since then has to me almost felt like a regression of sorts--Corpse Bride seemed a bit of a rehashing of Beetlejuice/Nightmare Before Christmas, and Sweeney Todd? Well, I just plain didn't really care for it, though I thought the cast carried it through fairly well. Maybe I'm just being over-critical? Thoughts? [/quote] Big Fish is possibly one of my favorite movies of all time. i think it's beautifully made and the story is so imaginative, plus I can see a little bit of the tension Burton must have felt in his own life with the reality and fantasy. I can say that I wasn't a huge fan of Planet of the Apes, I just didn't really enjoy it much, and I really loved the old ones. We used to watch marathons of them when i was a little kid. But, I absolutely love the new Charlie and the Chocolate Factory, I think Johnny Depp was hilarious and I enjoyed the world he made so much. I think Tim Burton and Roald Dahl were a match made in heaven.
]]>Thu, 20 Nov 2008 19:39:12 GMTcspragueTim Burton11/20/2008 2:39:12 PM[quote user="seely"] ...I haven't really liked Burton's last few films. I thoroughly enjoyed 'Big Fish', and thought perhaps it was a bit of a maturing in his filmmaking, away from the cartoon-ish qualities of a lot of his earlier film and more towards a magic-realism approach (though he always had elements of that). However, everything since then has to me almost felt like a regression of sorts--Corpse Bride seemed a bit of a rehashing of Beetlejuice/Nightmare Before Christmas, and Sweeney Todd? Well, I just plain didn't really care for it, though I thought the cast carried it through fairly well. Maybe I'm just being over-critical? Thoughts? [/quote] Big Fish is possibly one of my favorite movies of all time. i think it's beautifully made and the story is so imaginative, plus I can see a little bit of the tension Burton must have felt in his own life with the reality and fantasy. I can say that I wasn't a huge fan of Planet of the Apes, I just didn't really enjoy it much, and I really loved the old ones. We used to watch marathons of them when i was a little kid. But, I absolutely love the new Charlie and the Chocolate Factory, I think Johnny Depp was hilarious and I enjoyed the world he made so much. I think Tim Burton and Roald Dahl were a match made in heaven. http://www.spout.com/blogs/aidanbrack/archive/2008/9/7/34862.aspx Post By: aidanbrack
Post To: The Bigger Picture
Post Date: 9/7/2008 8:17:12 AM
Body: As in the original 1968 film, Tim Burton’s Planet of the Apes tells the story of an American astronaut in the future who finds himself stranded far in the future on a strange and inhospitable world ruled by apes. Aside from a shared concept however, this ‘reimagining’ is a very different picture from its inspiration. Where the original film attempted to debate philosophical and moral issues and was, at points, a little pompous and melodramatic in tone, Tim Burton’s film is much pacier, more conventional action picture. Gone are the debates and court hearings and in its place is a focus on the politics of the ape society and more running around. The film’s opening is promising as we are introduced to a reckless astronaut, Leo, played by Mark Wahlberg, and see him crash and escape from his burning spacecraft. Emerging into a jungle, he finds himself in the middle of a hunt where humans are the prey, getting captured and sold to an orangutan slave trader. The hunt scenes are some of the most memorable of the picture as the characters bob between trees and leap into the undergrowth in an attempt to escape. The camerawork here is impressive, clinging tightly to the action to create a claustrophic, intense feeling as the humans are picked off one by one and herded up. In one particularly effective shot, a child is plucked from the arms of a protective parent - fearsome stuff. Whilst the ape make-up from the 1968 film was quite serviceable, Burton’s apes are clearly a different breed. Attention has been given not only to their make-up, which is much more detailed, but also to their posture and movement, particularly in battle. Rather than merely hopping they scarper, leap and roll their heads and shoulders. Leo is taken to the ape city where he encounters Ari, an ape who believes that humans should have rights. Convincing her to buy him, Leo then concocts an escape plan and convinces her and his fellow slaves to join him in running away. And that’s where the story really stops, degenerating into an extended chase sequence and then a set piece battle. Without those philosophical debates from the original, the film offers little opportunity for its characters to establish themselves or develop and so there is no emotional payoff when the world’s secret is revealed. It was the humbling of Heston’s character that makes the earlier film work on an emotional level, providing an interesting arc and giving the events their context. Burton attempts to give Leo a similar affecting moment in this film but it lacks impact emotionally or visually. Tim Burton’s film misunderstands the success of the original, choosing to emulate the wrong aspects of the formula. The original film worked firstly because it was a spectacle, offering exciting and interesting visuals that caught the imagination, and secondly because of the characterisation of its main characters and the themes it explored. Burton’s version emphasises action, not characterisation, and just one of the themes, that of racial equality. The film also tries to emulate the humour of the original movie but breaks a cardinal rule; it’s characters do not take themselves seriously. An entire character, the slave trader played by Paul Giamatti, seems to exist primarily to crack jokes and never feels like a living, breathing creature. It is hard to take the film seriously when its characters mug for the camera and it is disappointing to see an actor of Giamatti’s quality give such a dull, one note performance. Perhaps the most significant shift that Burton makes in his ‘reimagining’ is in the recasting of the villains. In the original movie whilst the apes are the threat, humans are the off-screen villains of the film. Here Burton allows no such complexity, creating an out-and-out villain in the form of General Thade who is played by Tim Roth. Thade’s attitudes seem similar to those of Dr. Zaius from the original but his position as head of the army makes him seem more dangerous. Tim Roth is excellent as Thade, investing energy and a malevolent cunning into a character that is shallow and undeveloped in story terms. It is a shame that the script does not give him much to do beyond lurk menacingly and attempt to persuade Ari, played by Helena Bonham Carter to marry him. Bonham Carter is quite good as Ari, making her playful but also suggesting a possible romance between her and Leo. Unfortunately the film never sees fit to develop this, possibly wary of a condemnation for beastiality. It is a shame because she has far more chemistry with Wahlberg’s Leo than Estella Warren’s Daena shares with him. Unfortunately Ari is a missed opportunity for the film which never explores her character in detail, nor does it discuss her animal rights activism, missing a golden opportunity for satire. Burton’s Planet of the Apes is a missed opportunity. It is never terrible but does very little well and does nothing original with its story or characters. Instead its action lies flatly on screen and the film relies too heavily on pretty ordinary visual effects to try to generate interest, rather than its themes or characters. Compare the ape city to the elven city of Lothlorien in Lord of the Rings and it comes off a poor, stagey second. Compare its final, big battle to that at the start of Gladiator and it fails to impress either in visuals or in its scale. The problem with Planet of the Apes is that it lacks ambition and never pushes boundaries in terms of technical limitations or its plot. It is not a bad film but it never escapes the shadow of the film it pays homage to, being too similar to avoid comparison and not different enough to feel truly fresh. If it had shown us a different ape civilisation, one closer to Pierre Boulle’s original novel where the apes had a higher level of technology, or if it had told an entirely new story this film could well have distinguished itself more. However I have to agree with Roger Ebert’s assertion than in forty years time, film fans will be returning to the 1968 version ahead of the 2001 ‘reimagining’; the earlier film is simply more interesting and entertaining.
]]>Sun, 07 Sep 2008 12:17:12 GMTaidanbrackThe Bigger Picture9/7/2008 8:17:12 AMAs in the original 1968 film, Tim Burton&rsquo;s Planet of the Apes tells the story of an American astronaut in the future who finds himself stranded far in the future on a strange and inhospitable world ruled by apes. Aside from a shared concept however, this &lsquo;reimagining&rsquo; is a very different picture from its inspiration. Where the original film attempted to debate philosophical and moral issues and was, at points, a little pompous and melodramatic in tone, Tim Burton&rsquo;s film is much pacier, more conventional action picture. Gone are the debates and court hearings and in its place is a focus on the politics of the ape society and more running around. The film&rsquo;s opening is promising as we are introduced to a reckless astronaut, Leo, played by Mark Wahlberg, and see him crash and escape from his burning spacecraft. Emerging into a jungle, he finds himself in the middle of a hunt where humans are the prey, getting captured and sold to an orangutan slave trader. The hunt scenes are some of the most memorable of the picture as the characters bob between trees and leap into the undergrowth in an attempt to escape. The camerawork here is impressive, clinging tightly to the action to create a claustrophic, intense feeling as the humans are picked off one by one and herded up. In one particularly effective shot, a child is plucked from the arms of a protective parent - fearsome stuff. Whilst the ape make-up from the 1968 film was quite serviceable, Burton&rsquo;s apes are clearly a different breed. Attention has been given not only to their make-up, which is much more detailed, but also to their posture and movement, particularly in battle. Rather than merely hopping they scarper, leap and roll their heads and shoulders. Leo is taken to the ape city where he encounters Ari, an ape who believes that humans should have rights. Convincing her to buy him, Leo then concocts an escape plan and convinces her and his fellow slaves to join him in running away. And that&rsquo;s where the story really stops, degenerating into an extended chase sequence and then a set piece battle. Without those philosophical debates from the original, the film offers little opportunity for its characters to establish themselves or develop and so there is no emotional payoff when the world&rsquo;s secret is revealed. It was the humbling of Heston&rsquo;s character that makes the earlier film work on an emotional level, providing an interesting arc and giving the events their context. Burton attempts to give Leo a similar affecting moment in this film but it lacks impact emotionally or visually. Tim Burton&rsquo;s film misunderstands the success of the original, choosing to emulate the wrong aspects of the formula. The original film worked firstly because it was a spectacle, offering exciting and interesting visuals that caught the imagination, and secondly because of the characterisation of its main characters and the themes it explored. Burton&rsquo;s version emphasises action, not characterisation, and just one of the themes, that of racial equality. The film also tries to emulate the humour of the original movie but breaks a cardinal rule; it&rsquo;s characters do not take themselves seriously. An entire character, the slave trader played by Paul Giamatti, seems to exist primarily to crack jokes and never feels like a living, breathing creature. It is hard to take the film seriously when its characters mug for the camera and it is disappointing to see an actor of Giamatti&rsquo;s quality give such a dull, one note performance. Perhaps the most significant shift that Burton makes in his &lsquo;reimagining&rsquo; is in the recasting of the villains. In the original movie whilst the apes are the threat, humans are the off-screen villains of the film. Here Burton allows no such complexity, creating an out-and-out villain in the form of General Thade who is played by Tim Roth. Thade&rsquo;s attitudes seem similar to those of Dr. Zaius from the original but his position as head of the army makes him seem more dangerous. Tim Roth is excellent as Thade, investing energy and a malevolent cunning into a character that is shallow and undeveloped in story terms. It is a shame that the script does not give him much to do beyond lurk menacingly and attempt to persuade Ari, played by Helena Bonham Carter to marry him. Bonham Carter is quite good as Ari, making her playful but also suggesting a possible romance between her and Leo. Unfortunately the film never sees fit to develop this, possibly wary of a condemnation for beastiality. It is a shame because she has far more chemistry with Wahlberg&rsquo;s Leo than Estella Warren&rsquo;s Daena shares with him. Unfortunately Ari is a missed opportunity for the film which never explores her character in detail, nor does it discuss her animal rights activism, missing a golden opportunity for satire. Burton&rsquo;s Planet of the Apes is a missed opportunity. It is never terrible but does very little well and does nothing original with its story or characters. Instead its action lies flatly on screen and the film relies too heavily on pretty ordinary visual effects to try to generate interest, rather than its themes or characters. Compare the ape city to the elven city of Lothlorien in Lord of the Rings and it comes off a poor, stagey second. Compare its final, big battle to that at the start of Gladiator and it fails to impress either in visuals or in its scale. The problem with Planet of the Apes is that it lacks ambition and never pushes boundaries in terms of technical limitations or its plot. It is not a bad film but it never escapes the shadow of the film it pays homage to, being too similar to avoid comparison and not different enough to feel truly fresh. If it had shown us a different ape civilisation, one closer to Pierre Boulle&rsquo;s original novel where the apes had a higher level of technology, or if it had told an entirely new story this film could well have distinguished itself more. However I have to agree with Roger Ebert&rsquo;s assertion than in forty years time, film fans will be returning to the 1968 version ahead of the 2001 &lsquo;reimagining&rsquo;; the earlier film is simply more interesting and entertaining. http://www.spout.com/blogs/spoutblog/archive/2008/4/23/27711.aspx Post By: SpoutBlog
Post To: SpoutBlog on spout.com
Post Date: 4/23/2008 5:01:36 PM
Body: Everyone is familiar with the major controversy of the 1969 Oscars, but the real problem may not be that Oliver! was named Best Picture over Stanley Kubrick’s 2001: A Space Odyssey, which wasn’t even nominated in that top category. No, the bigger issue may be with Planet of the Apes receiving a special award for make-up — consider someone associated with that production may have stolen from or attempted to sabotage the ape wardrobe of Kubrick’s film. In a Vulture blog interview with 2001 ape performer and choreographer Dan Richter, the former mime implies something to that affect: We had stuff stolen. I can’t say it was Planet of the Apes, but they were the only other movie shooting at the same time and same place we were. Stanley and I even had someone steal a mask and some ape hands right out from under our noses on the backlot, where someone had hid in a drainage ditch. We were in lockdown all the time. However, Richter also mentions that he can see a lot of mistakes in the 2001 costumes, so it’s possible the Academy was right to overlook the film in the Best Costume category. And it’s a bit of a moot point, anyway, since Planet lost the costume Oscar to Romeo and Juliet. Personally, I think both films’ apes look kind of silly (I know, the Planet apes weren’t meant to necessarily look like real apes), though Hollywood hasn’t really done much better since (see Congo, Tim Burton’s Planet of the Apes remake). But Richter is probably right about getting the behavior down better than anyone before or after. Just watch the clip above, and if you’re in NYC Sunday night, check out the special screening of the film at the Tribeca Film Festival. Originally posted on:SpoutBlog
]]>Wed, 23 Apr 2008 21:01:36 GMTSpoutBlogSpoutBlog on spout.com4/23/2008 5:01:36 PM Everyone is familiar with the major controversy of the 1969 Oscars, but the real problem may not be that Oliver! was named Best Picture over Stanley Kubrick’s 2001: A Space Odyssey, which wasn’t even nominated in that top category. No, the bigger issue may be with Planet of the Apes receiving a special award for make-up — consider someone associated with that production may have stolen from or attempted to sabotage the ape wardrobe of Kubrick’s film. In a Vulture blog interview with 2001 ape performer and choreographer Dan Richter, the former mime implies something to that affect: We had stuff stolen. I can’t say it was Planet of the Apes, but they were the only other movie shooting at the same time and same place we were. Stanley and I even had someone steal a mask and some ape hands right out from under our noses on the backlot, where someone had hid in a drainage ditch. We were in lockdown all the time. However, Richter also mentions that he can see a lot of mistakes in the 2001 costumes, so it’s possible the Academy was right to overlook the film in the Best Costume category. And it’s a bit of a moot point, anyway, since Planet lost the costume Oscar to Romeo and Juliet. Personally, I think both films’ apes look kind of silly (I know, the Planet apes weren’t meant to necessarily look like real apes), though Hollywood hasn’t really done much better since (see Congo, Tim Burton’s Planet of the Apes remake). But Richter is probably right about getting the behavior down better than anyone before or after. Just watch the clip above, and if you’re in NYC Sunday night, check out the special screening of the film at the Tribeca Film Festival. Originally posted on:SpoutBlog http://www.spout.com/groups/Top_5/Top_5_Bad_Movies_by_Great_Directors/190/19827/1/ShowPost.aspx Post By: schulen
Post To: Top 5
Post Date: 9/16/2007 2:43:09 PM
Body: Planet of the Apes - Tim Burton.The Brothers Grimm - Terry Gilliam Bad News Bears - Richard LinklaterPsycho - Gus Van SantMost Woody Allen Movies Strange how great directors fuck up so many remakes. What do you think?
]]>Sun, 16 Sep 2007 18:43:09 GMTschulenTop 59/16/2007 2:43:09 PMPlanet of the Apes - Tim Burton.The Brothers Grimm - Terry Gilliam Bad News Bears - Richard LinklaterPsycho - Gus Van SantMost Woody Allen Movies Strange how great directors fuck up so many remakes. What do you think? http://www.spout.com/groups/PulpFiction1975/Re_Classics_thrown_into_the_present/66/3240/1/ShowPost.aspx Post By: Risselada
Post To: PulpFiction1975
Post Date: 10/13/2006 2:34:29 PM
Body: [quote user="paul"]A Fistful of Dollars (2006)Directed by Michael Bay[/quote] A remake of a remake? Go figure. But what would be more interesting, Will Smith as The-Man-With-No-Name or Yojimbo. Will Smith and the latter both seem more excitable.[quote user="paul"]I tend to not like remakes. A remake, like Charlie and the Chocolate Factory, usually polishes off the dated aspects of the original. Costumes, special effects, action scenes, overall gratuity is usually improved. But the fatal flaw for most remakes is in an attempt to make the story more "relatable" to contemporary audiences. Case in point: the musical sequences with the Oompa Loompas that painfully reference pop culture.I wouldn't be surprised in the least if Disney tried to remake Mary Poppins with Beyonce Knowles. That, to me, is the territory most remakes explore.The best example of a remake is Gus Van Sant's Psycho, where he made every effort to pick up the pieces Hitchcock was forced to drop because of censorship norms.[/quote] Now I wouldn't call Charlie and the Chocolate Factory a remake of Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory as you seem to be implying. If the the "Charlie" movie had been obviously derived from screenplay of the "Willy" movie, I may agree with you. But they both seem to be totally separate adaptations from the original novel. However, I'm not saying that just because it isn't technically a remake means that they should have filmed another movie based on a book that already had such a memorable film already made of it. Mary Poppins was also originally a book too. Or maybe a series of them. Whatever that means. Although Psycho was also originally a book, from what I hear the newer version was obviously a remake of the original screenplay. I also hear one of the most strictly shot for shot remakes as well. Planet of the Apes also came from a novel. And Dial M for Murder was originally a play. What really bugs me is a seemingly somewhat more recent phenomenon. The director of a successful foreign movie is conned by Hollywood into remaking the movie just a short time afterwards in the Hollywood system with American actors. Usually any edginess or creativity is removed from the script and even major important portions of the movie are changed. I'm sure you can think of plenty of examples. Here's a couple. The Ducth movie The Vanishing (also based on a book) was made in 1988 and remade by the same director George Sluizer in 1993 with Jeff Bridges. The original movie is one of the most fascinating and astounding thiller / character study movies I've ever seen. Although I haven't seen the remake I have read about how horrible it is and how Sluizer inconceivably allowed the ending to be changed in a way that I could imagine it would lose all of it's effect. And somehow my guess is that the remade movie didn't use the same music which is probably the creepiest music I've ever heard anywhere in my life. Robert Rodriguez essentially remade El Mariachi with Desperado albeit with an amazingly higher amount of money. Takashi Shimizu makes pretty much every version of The Grudge in any laguage. The original of which is pretty horrible anyways. Jean-Marie Poiré later remade his French comedy The Visitors into an American version but staring the same two original French actors in the lead. And now in what will probably be the most frustrating remake of this kind, Michael Haneke is remaking his Funny Games with an English speaking cast. From any past indication of the way these things go, there is virtually no chance that this remake will push the envelope even further on it's themes of audience alienation and helplessness. In fact it will probably be shamefully watered down. But it will probably end up getting too much praise, and I'll have to hear a lot of annoying chatter about it from people who aren't even aware of the original. Yeah, I'm a snob I guess.
]]>Fri, 13 Oct 2006 18:34:29 GMTRisseladaPulpFiction197510/13/2006 2:34:29 PM[quote user="paul"]A Fistful of Dollars (2006)Directed by Michael Bay[/quote] A remake of a remake? Go figure. But what would be more interesting, Will Smith as The-Man-With-No-Name or Yojimbo. Will Smith and the latter both seem more excitable.[quote user="paul"]I tend to not like remakes. A remake, like Charlie and the Chocolate Factory, usually polishes off the dated aspects of the original. Costumes, special effects, action scenes, overall gratuity is usually improved. But the fatal flaw for most remakes is in an attempt to make the story more "relatable" to contemporary audiences. Case in point: the musical sequences with the Oompa Loompas that painfully reference pop culture.I wouldn't be surprised in the least if Disney tried to remake Mary Poppins with Beyonce Knowles. That, to me, is the territory most remakes explore.The best example of a remake is Gus Van Sant's Psycho, where he made every effort to pick up the pieces Hitchcock was forced to drop because of censorship norms.[/quote] Now I wouldn't call Charlie and the Chocolate Factory a remake of Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory as you seem to be implying. If the the "Charlie" movie had been obviously derived from screenplay of the "Willy" movie, I may agree with you. But they both seem to be totally separate adaptations from the original novel. However, I'm not saying that just because it isn't technically a remake means that they should have filmed another movie based on a book that already had such a memorable film already made of it. Mary Poppins was also originally a book too. Or maybe a series of them. Whatever that means. Although Psycho was also originally a book, from what I hear the newer version was obviously a remake of the original screenplay. I also hear one of the most strictly shot for shot remakes as well. Planet of the Apes also came from a novel. And Dial M for Murder was originally a play. What really bugs me is a seemingly somewhat more recent phenomenon. The director of a successful foreign movie is conned by Hollywood into remaking the movie just a short time afterwards in the Hollywood system with American actors. Usually any edginess or creativity is removed from the script and even major important portions of the movie are changed. I'm sure you can think of plenty of examples. Here's a couple. The Ducth movie The Vanishing (also based on a book) was made in 1988 and remade by the same director George Sluizer in 1993 with Jeff Bridges. The original movie is one of the most fascinating and astounding thiller / character study movies I've ever seen. Although I haven't seen the remake I have read about how horrible it is and how Sluizer inconceivably allowed the ending to be changed in a way that I could imagine it would lose all of it's effect. And somehow my guess is that the remade movie didn't use the same music which is probably the creepiest music I've ever heard anywhere in my life. Robert Rodriguez essentially remade El Mariachi with Desperado albeit with an amazingly higher amount of money. Takashi Shimizu makes pretty much every version of The Grudge in any laguage. The original of which is pretty horrible anyways. Jean-Marie Poiré later remade his French comedy The Visitors into an American version but staring the same two original French actors in the lead. And now in what will probably be the most frustrating remake of this kind, Michael Haneke is remaking his Funny Games with an English speaking cast. From any past indication of the way these things go, there is virtually no chance that this remake will push the envelope even further on it's themes of audience alienation and helplessness. In fact it will probably be shamefully watered down. But it will probably end up getting too much praise, and I'll have to hear a lot of annoying chatter about it from people who aren't even aware of the original. Yeah, I'm a snob I guess. http://www.spout.com/blogs/sci-fi-4/archive/2005/12/15/3.aspx Post By: P3X984
Post To: sci-fi
Post Date: 12/22/2005 1:43:33 PM
Body: On this you may be right, but how many "sci-fi revivals" have there actually been on TV? Most of the big-screen movie attempts (e.g. Planet of the Apes, and Lost in Space ) have been terrible. What other TV revivals have there been?
]]>Thu, 22 Dec 2005 18:43:33 GMTP3X984sci-fi12/22/2005 1:43:33 PMOn this you may be right, but how many "sci-fi revivals" have there actually been on TV? Most of the big-screen movie attempts (e.g. Planet of the Apes, and Lost in Space ) have been terrible. What other TV revivals have there been? http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/Boring/MemberTagFilms.aspxBoring
Number of films tagged: 177

Number of people who tagged: 105

Number of times used: 207

]]>Tue, 29 Sep 2009 23:44:27 GMT177105207Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/future/MemberTagFilms.aspxfuture
Number of films tagged: 493

Number of people who tagged: 101

Number of times used: 259

]]>Sun, 20 Dec 2009 01:16:33 GMT493101259Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/escape/MemberTagFilms.aspxescape
Number of films tagged: 2868

Number of people who tagged: 76

Number of times used: 279

]]>Tue, 01 Dec 2009 19:51:44 GMT286876279Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/Stupid/MemberTagFilms.aspxStupid
Number of films tagged: 83

Number of people who tagged: 70

Number of times used: 99

]]>Mon, 05 Oct 2009 20:12:14 GMT837099Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/space/MemberTagFilms.aspxspace
Number of films tagged: 495

Number of people who tagged: 54

Number of times used: 140

]]>Sun, 20 Dec 2009 01:16:33 GMT49554140Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/aliens/MemberTagFilms.aspxaliens
Number of films tagged: 74

Number of people who tagged: 51

Number of times used: 111

]]>Mon, 16 Nov 2009 09:12:57 GMT7451111Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/alien/MemberTagFilms.aspxalien
Number of films tagged: 81

Number of people who tagged: 38

Number of times used: 130

]]>Sun, 20 Dec 2009 01:16:33 GMT8138130Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/freedom/MemberTagFilms.aspxfreedom
Number of films tagged: 454

Number of people who tagged: 38

Number of times used: 60

]]>Wed, 16 Sep 2009 23:55:18 GMT4543860Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/crash/MemberTagFilms.aspxcrash
Number of films tagged: 323

Number of people who tagged: 18

Number of times used: 30

]]>Wed, 14 Jan 2009 06:01:58 GMT3231830Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/garbage/MemberTagFilms.aspxgarbage
Number of films tagged: 61

Number of people who tagged: 16

Number of times used: 19

]]>Sun, 19 Apr 2009 06:26:22 GMT611619Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/suckfest/MemberTagFilms.aspxsuckfest
Number of films tagged: 62

Number of people who tagged: 16

Number of times used: 70

]]>Mon, 01 Oct 2007 18:25:04 GMT621670Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/science-fiction/MemberTagFilms.aspxscience-fiction
Number of films tagged: 52

Number of people who tagged: 15

Number of times used: 68

]]>Fri, 04 Dec 2009 19:33:53 GMT521568Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/stranded/MemberTagFilms.aspxstranded
Number of films tagged: 551

Number of people who tagged: 15

Number of times used: 30

]]>Tue, 15 Sep 2009 19:53:34 GMT5511530Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/astronaut/MemberTagFilms.aspxastronaut
Number of films tagged: 252

Number of people who tagged: 12

Number of times used: 21

]]>Tue, 30 Jun 2009 13:07:18 GMT2521221Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/human/MemberTagFilms.aspxhuman
Number of films tagged: 130

Number of people who tagged: 12

Number of times used: 19

]]>Wed, 18 Mar 2009 05:31:49 GMT1301219Tag