Remakes! Remakes! Read all about 'em!

Features, Shorts, Live-Action and Direct-To-Video
Post Reply
AV Forum Member
AV Forum Member
Posts: 2949
Joined: October 24th, 2004

The upcoming season of remakes and reboots...

Post by GeorgeC » January 14th, 2005, 8:25 pm

I don't have a lot of enthusiasm for the upcoming summer season what with all the remakes and reboots going on.

First off, we have a new Herbie movie that nobody wanted. (What is it with Disney and Lindsay "fake chest" Lohan? This is the THIRD remake she's done for that studio!)

Then, there's a Batman film that I am increasingly less likely to go and see because frankly it looks like something I've already seen. Black rubber costume -- check! Poorly designed Bat-tractor -- check! Yet another trailer full of scenes that look like they were shot in a closet -- check! Poor script reviews -- CHECK!

I think I'm going to pass on the new Batman and just get the old Batman and Robin serial coming out on DVD in March...! I don't expect much from that serial, but at least it will be good for laughs.

Maybe one of the animated features and Episode III will pick up the slack for what looks like another typical blockbuster year? It's funny that the animated films and the Star Wars wrap-up look better than anything else I've seen in trailers thus far. There's a sense of wonder and excitement in those trailers that doesn't get drowned out by lousy rock/heavy metal/grunge music and music video fast-edits.



P.S. -- I predict Fantastic Four will be a bigger bomb that Elektra already is looking to be... The FF footage released this week just doesn't convince methat the filmmakers have a clue how to handle that comic adaptation.

The best bet for anything good from Marvel this year seems to be the upcoming Marvel Super Heroes DVD set Buena Vista Video is releasing late June/early July. Seriously, I don't think another good superhero film is going to happen until Spider-Man 3.

AV Team
AV Team
Posts: 3197
Joined: October 22nd, 2004

Post by Josh » January 15th, 2005, 1:59 am

I wish that insteading of remaking classics, studios would remake bad films that were big hits.

AV Forum Member
AV Forum Member
Posts: 38
Joined: October 18th, 2004
Location: Southern California

Re: The upcoming season of remakes and reboots...

Post by MusicFan » January 15th, 2005, 2:43 am

GeorgeC wrote:I don't have a lot of enthusiasm for the upcoming summer season what with all the remakes and reboots going on.

First off, we have a new Herbie movie that nobody wanted. (What is it with Disney and Lindsay "fake chest" Lohan? This is the THIRD remake she's done for that studio!)

Then, there's a Batman film that I am increasingly less likely to go and see because frankly it looks like something I've already seen. Black rubber costume -- check! Poorly designed Bat-tractor -- check! Yet another trailer full of scenes that look like they were shot in a closet -- check! Poor script reviews -- CHECK!

I think I'm going to pass on the new Batman and just get the old Batman and Robin serial coming out on DVD in March...! I don't expect much from that serial, but at least it will be good for laughs.

Maybe one of the animated features and Episode III will pick up the slack for what looks like another typical blockbuster year? It's funny that the animated films and the Star Wars wrap-up look better than anything else I've seen in trailers thus far. There's a sense of wonder and excitement in those trailers that doesn't get drowned out by lousy rock/heavy metal/grunge music and music video fast-edits.



P.S. -- I predict Fantastic Four will be a bigger bomb that Elektra already is looking to be... The FF footage released this week just doesn't convince methat the filmmakers have a clue how to handle that comic adaptation.

The best bet for anything good from Marvel this year seems to be the upcoming Marvel Super Heroes DVD set Buena Vista Video is releasing late June/early July. Seriously, I don't think another good superhero film is going to happen until Spider-Man 3.
When did Batman Begins get poor script reviews? I didn't see a single story about these so-called bad script reviews on SuperHeroHype in the past week, Nolan has got nothing but praise for his work, I never saw a script review for Begins that wasn't positive, I'm a huge fan of Nolan's previous work, so I'm certainly looking foward to the film. GeorgeC, you are the first person I've seen with a negative opinion of Batman Begins, to be honest, not saying it like its a bad thing, as we are entitled to our own opinions. I'm hoping that Michael Chiklis' talent is displayed to its fullest potential in the F4 movie, yeah, that won't happen, but at least it hopefully will be pretty good, I think it will meet my expectations for the film. Episode III looks like a pretty solid picture. There's quite a bit of stuff coming during the summer I'm looking out for.

User avatar
AV Founder
AV Founder
Posts: 18934
Joined: October 22nd, 2004
Location: London, UK

Post by Ben » January 15th, 2005, 10:11 am

Mickey A wrote:I wish that insteading of remaking classics, studios would remake bad films that were big hits.
You've lost me again! :)


George - the Batman serial, of which I have on taped-off-air VHS, really is a pretty cool little thing, for what it is, with stories with Kane himself. I will be joining you in picking it up, though will catch Bats Begins since a couple of friends worked on it and have been jazzing it up to me (so I can't very well NOT see it, right?)!

I agree that the summer looks pretty poor, but War Of The Worlds could be great (it's the first time in ages that Spielberg has worked so fast and furious - last times were Raiders and Jurassic - so good things expected). Herbie could be fun, if they do it big and do it right, and though I am a little worried about it, Star Wars 3 looks like it might just pull it off.

Of the animated features, not expecting much from Valiant (we've been getting quite a bit about it here as it was made in the UK and so far I'm not impressed) and Robots, despite its look, only is so-so for me (with Robin Williams very offputting in the trailer).

Expecting better from Madagascar and ChickLit later in the year. :)

AV Forum Member
AV Forum Member
Posts: 415
Joined: October 22nd, 2004

Post by PatrickvD » January 15th, 2005, 1:39 pm

Part of me wants Chicken Little to be the bad film everyone wants it to be and bomb.... but I have a feeling Chicken Little will be the hit Disney hopes it will be. It has that thing that their traditional features were missing: lightheartedness, just simple and fun, no big nonsense. Therefore Madagascar and Chicken Little will draw in the audiences. And I'm afraid batman begins will be recognised for what it truly is: a cash in on the superhero craze. Unless it is as good as the Spiderman films, i can see it opening big, with poor Box Office legs (the story of Warner Brothers) Overall, I'm not really looking forward to any films this year. It looks to be pretty boring with a few exceptions.

AV Team
AV Team
Posts: 3197
Joined: October 22nd, 2004

Post by Josh » January 15th, 2005, 2:57 pm

Part of me wants Chicken Little to be the bad film everyone wants it to be and bomb....
Everyone wants Chicken Little to bomb? Since when? Don't you think its kind of mean to want a film to bomb, with no reason whatsoever. I mean, we haven't even seen five minutes of the film, and already its bad?
It has that thing that their traditional features were missing: lightheartedness, just simple and fun, no big nonsense.
But how could you know that? We haven't even seen the film. I find it incredibly odd, interesting, and ironic that folks are stating something to the degree that "the sky is falling" at Walt Disney Animation. Maybe Chicken Little is a film that audiences need to see. Sorry, but I am just getting very cranky about his whole "Chicken Little is going to be terrible" vibe that people are unjustifiably getting.
You've lost me again!
Yeah, Ben, I probably should have explained what i meant by my statement that I wish studios would remake bad films that were hits. Basically, what I was saying is that, well, take a film like John Q. There was a lot of potential in that film, but it failed to impress most critics. However, the film did reasonable business domestically. So instead of remaking a classic like It's A Wonderful Life- a film that can't really be improved upon too much, studios should remake- if they "must" remake any films at all- films that had potental to be great, but fell short. See what I am saying, now? :)

AV Forum Member
AV Forum Member
Posts: 415
Joined: October 22nd, 2004

Post by PatrickvD » January 15th, 2005, 4:35 pm

Everyone wants Chicken Little to bomb? Since when?
Since Eisner murdered traditional animation :roll: A lot of people are still upset over the mess they made at WDFA. But let me state my opinion better. I said part of me wants it to bomb because I am so pissed over the reason why they've suddenly switched to CG and fired half of their staff. That does not mean I am not looking forward to it. It just feels wakward, supporting this film, since I know many people lost their jobs in this redicolous "switch".
But how could you know that? We haven't even seen the film.
well, it is pretty obvious from the new trailer that the movie is going to be silly and funny. No big Treasure Planet or Brother Bear-drama. Or did I see a different trailer? Can't we base our opinion on a trailer? The trailer is supposed to sell the movie, right? Plus, this film is from the creators of Emperor's New Groove. Best. film. of. all. time. :D It will rule.

I find it incredibly odd, interesting, and ironic that folks are stating something to the degree that "the sky is falling" at Walt Disney Animation.
It's pretty obvious why people are claiming the sky is falling. It's wishful thinking since everyone is still upset over what happened to traditional animation. But let me tell ya this, the average Joe at the supermarket does not even know Miceal Eisner and will still take their kids to see Chicken Little. No sky is falling... well except for maybe in the movie :lol: :D Disney animation is fine. If Sharktale can make $320 million worldwide, Chicken Little can make twice that. I base that on a trailer and the knowledge that Disney wil probaply overpromote it like dreamworks did to Shrek.

AV Team
AV Team
Posts: 3197
Joined: October 22nd, 2004

Post by Josh » January 15th, 2005, 6:31 pm

Michael Eisner did NOT, in my opinion, murder traditional animation. In fact, wasn't Disney the last major studio to switch to CGI? And at least Disney has upped the quality of their DTV films, thus quenching some of the thirst for traditional animation.

Who killed traditional animation? Well, let's ask the people who went to see Ice Age instead of Sinbad, Treasure Planet, and Home on the Range. And even the gross of a moderate hit like Brother Bear failed to impress the studios when compared to the $200+ that Pixar's and DreamWorks' films were making. "Oh, well, those films weren't very good, though!" Maybe this is just my opinion, but I think that Lilo and Stich was better than Ice Age. But Ice Age brought in more dough.

As for Chicken Little...
Or did I see a different trailer? Can't we base our opinion on a trailer?
Sure, you can. However, are you sure you want to? I mean, judging a movie based on about one minute's worth of various footage from its 80+ minutes isn't exactly fair, is it? There have been some excellent movies that had some very bad marketing (The Iron Giant).

AV Forum Member
AV Forum Member
Posts: 415
Joined: October 22nd, 2004

Post by PatrickvD » January 16th, 2005, 6:29 am

Mickey A wrote:Who killed traditional animation? Well, let's ask the people who went to see Ice Age instead of Sinbad, Treasure Planet, and Home on the Range. And even the gross of a moderate hit like Brother Bear failed to impress the studios when compared to the $200+ that Pixar's and DreamWorks' films were making. "Oh, well, those films weren't very good, though!" Maybe this is just my opinion, but I think that Lilo and Stich was better than Ice Age. But Ice Age brought in more dough.
Lilo an Stitch made a lot of money. And yes, I understand that executives only think $-signs. CG = money. 2d = not. But what happened to 2d (making stupid movies, blaming the medium) in the long run is what will happen to CGI. Sharktale was the first sign of crap to come. And all the things that plagued Disney's 2d films will continue to plague their CG films in my opinion. Changing Chicken Little from a boy to a girl and back isn't exactly cost cutting.

And then there's another thing that seriously bugs me (and is in my opinion an obvious sign that 2d was defnitely killed) Movies like Shrek, Sharktale and Polar Express are ALL over the place. Non stop commercials etc etc. They're all being launched onto 4,000 screens across the country. While movies like Sinbad, Home on the Range and Treasure Planet were finished as quickly as possible and launched onto as few screens as possible with as little publicity as possible, just to get it over with. Nor Disney, nor Dreamworks ever had the intention of making these films work. That is why they were murdered. If the average citizen does not know this film is out, then how can he go see it? And if a company isn't confident about their upcoming film (wether they are good ones like Lilo and Stitch, Iron Giant or bad ones like Treasure Planet or Home on the Range) it will never, ever make money.
And at least Disney has upped the quality of their DTV films, thus quenching some of the thirst for traditional animation.
I agree there, I only wish they'd make some new films instead of Little Mermaid in reverse type of films. But the quality has definitely increased. If a movie like Lion King 1.5 was released onthe big screen with a big promotional campaign a la Shrek 2 it would have made $400 million, I can assure you. People love it.
Sure, you can. However, are you sure you want to?
lol, I'm pretty sure I want to. Yes it is only 1 minute of most likely 80 minutes. But I can tell from the trailer, wether the story looks interesting or not and if I like the animation or not. So far, I really like what I've seen. But you're totally right, i still can't say wether it's going to be the next Home on the Range (wich had a great trailer) or the next Iron Giant.

Sorry to the one who started this thread, I kinda hijacked it with the Chicken Little discussion. I'll say no more :oops: :wink:

AV Forum Member
AV Forum Member
Posts: 2949
Joined: October 24th, 2004

Post by GeorgeC » January 16th, 2005, 4:41 pm

Mickey A wrote:Michael Eisner did NOT, in my opinion, murder traditional animation. In fact, wasn't Disney the last major studio to switch to CGI? And at least Disney has upped the quality of their DTV films, thus quenching some of the thirst for traditional animation.


Wrong, wrong, wrong!

I wouldn't be calling you out on this if it weren't so transparent that you're being a very willing shill for Eisner and the Disney Company as it stands or you've been very misled and duped into believing the Company line... courtesy of the public relations people that work for Michael Eisner.

You've talked to Disney employees and people that worked within the Feature Animation Department, haven't you? They have a VERY different story to tell and from what I've seen and experienced firsthand, most of the people who worked in the trenches -- they weren't producers, directors, and screenwriters who constantly had to deal with Disney executives and Uncle Mike himself -- are very honest. The trenchworkers, the gruntworkers of Feature Animation, didn't have to deal with the politics all the time and so can tell the truth. Unlike the producers, directors, and writers, the trenchworkers are mostly unemployed in animation now.

The fact is that from day one, Eisner and his cronies (including Jeffrey Katzenberg) TRIED to shut down Disney Feature Animation. It was only a last minute appeal by Roy Disney that kept the unit from being shut down in the mid-1980s. The production experience on Black Cauldron was a disaster and the film went millions of dollars overbudget and bombed at the box office.

Add to this the fact that these execs never bothered to learn how animation is produced and didn't understand storyboards and the animation production process itself. They instituted a big change in the way feature animation was produced by insisting to see a screenplay starting with Beauty & the Beast before okaying animation.

The problem with this method of production is that words don't always translate well into good visual drama and there can be problems with working from a verbal script as opposed to a visual guide (storyboards) for an animated feature! The execs were oblivious to this fact and since "verbal scripts" had always worked at Paramount and whatever studio they worked at before Disney, by God that's how things were going to be done at Disney!

For as big a big as some Disney Feature Films have been, there have been far bigger LIVE-ACTION feature film bombs at Disney Studios in the past few years. As bad as the failure of Treasure Planet was, there have been something on the order of 3-5 LIVE-ACTION bombs IN A ROW that had budgets comparable or higher than Treasure Planets! Instead of pleading mea culpa and admitting that he okayed these turkeys, Michael Eisner and the executives hide behind their balance sheets and it's the filmmakers and stars of the films that bear the brunt of the criticism.

(As much as I DON'T like Jackie Chan's American films in general, it's really crummy how he got the brunt of the criticism for the Disney remake of 80 Days Around the World. Yes, Jackie should have known better and NOT taken the money for this turkey, but at the same time he's gotten more than his fair share of criticism for the way film turned out and how much money got wasted on it. What gets lost is that Mr. Chan is NOT the guy who greenlighted the film in the first place -- that was a Studio executive!)

Yes, there's a novelty to CGI and I've heard more than my fair share of simple-minded kids and adults saying CGI is superior to hand-drawn animation. No question it's the current fad. On the other hand, I've heard more than my fair share of hard-core animation fans bemoaning the loss of traditional animation and wondering why in the heck Disney killed its golden goose. More than a few of the hard-core fans that LOVE hand-drawn animation are wondering where to go to get their fix. Some of them are collecting the classic animation from other American studios (MGM, Warner Bros., Fleischer/Famous pre-1960s animation), others have gone on to Japanese animation because that's basically the last bastion of regularly-released hand-drawn animation that has any kind of story (even if the animation itself is limited and Japanese character animation is by large lousy).

I ask you this simple question -- who FIRED the Disney Feature Animation crew? Who's ultimately accountable for the massive lay-offs and the redirection of Disney Animation into a Wal-Mart production of direct-to-video schlock and CGI features aping Pixar? (I'm sorry to say this, but the vast majority of people and fans who review the DTV films STILL think they stink. People know how to tell Wal-Mart from Tiffany's quality, I'm afraid.) Sure, David Stainton and the other underlings are directly responsible, but ultimately it's Uncle Mike -- the guy you're so fond of defending -- who gave the order to close down traditional animation at Disney.

Michael Eisner could have tried to be patient and held on to the Feature Animation department. That's what Walt Disney did. Mr. Disney weathered a decade of mostly unsuccessful animated features and package movies until Disney hit it big again with Cinderella (1950). Disney himself pruned down the feature department and did some lay-offs, but he never for more than 5 seconds seriously considered closing down the department that PUT HIS COMPANY ON THE MAP. Mr. Disney was a far-sighted man and realized the legacy of animation in his company and how it generated that were good for OTHER parts of the company including TV production and the Disney resorts. Mr. Disney also had LOYALTY to the people who worked for him for so long and while he wasn't a demonstrative man, he DID appreciate what they did.

Michael Eisner apparently only cares about money and satisfying shareholders -- even at the expense of completely gutting divisions that have traditionally been the heart and soul of the Disney Company.

Does it really make sense to defend Michael Eisner?

As exasperated as I became at Save Disney for its botched campaign and directionlessness at getting rid of Eisner, I'm never going to argue that the sooner Eisner is gone, and a COMPETENT CEO is in place that UNDERSTANDS Disney's legacy, the better off the Disney Company will be.

User avatar
AV Founder
AV Founder
Posts: 18934
Joined: October 22nd, 2004
Location: London, UK

Post by Ben » January 16th, 2005, 4:55 pm

Going back to Mickey A's original question about remaking the hits...

Are you NUTS??

Filmmaking, for all it's "art", is seen as a money making busniess by the Studios. Therefore, if a film is none too successful with critics, but goes out and does decent business, what is reasoning is there to remake?

Spend a ton of cash in putting out the same story again, and watch it flop and burn even if some critics end up enjoying it?

Sorry, but when you say yourself John Q "did reasonable business domestically", then that reads as a successful picture. The audience has gone out in numbers and spread the good word. As far as the Studios are concerned, that's all that matters.


On to Patrick and George's discussion: I largely agree with you both, and had another point in a similar vein to make at the Cars trailer. OF COURSE we can base our opinions of an upcoming film on its trailer - that is the POINT of a trailer. If it doesn't work, then the film will flop.

It's easy to see that ChickLit, especially with the talent behind the "camera" and its confirmed spin on the story, that it will be a light-hearted comedy. And yes, even with the lightest, and funniest of Disney's pictures (Aladdin/Hercules/Emperor's Groove), they all have a little heart, so that can be expected too.

Frankly, I think the film will be a hit whatever happens. It's CGI, it has the Disney name on it (most people think Disney makes all those Pixar films), and it is now coming out in the traditional Pixar slot.

How can the thing not fly, even if it stinks? :)

AV Team
AV Team
Posts: 3197
Joined: October 22nd, 2004

Post by Josh » January 16th, 2005, 10:01 pm

I don't know how in the world you guys get what I say so mixed up. Okay, one at a time...

GeorgeC, no, I have not spoken to anyone from Disney about Michael Eisner. In fact, I would say that I have not spoken to anyone from Disney at all, but I do not know for sure who on this forum works for whom. Was firing all of those 2D animators wrong? Yes. I am not saying Michael Eisner is right. Where you got that from, I don't know. What I am saying, though, is that people now have this hatred toward Disney concerning their dramatic cut in traditional animation. However, they are the only studio responsible for cutting traditional animation. Maybe Eisner did want those traditionally-animated films to bomb- I don't know. But it sure seems odd how Atlantis, Brother Bear, and Treasure Planet had as big of a campaign as most films of their size. So if Warner Bros. spends $50+ million advertising "Movie", and Disney spends $50+ million advertising "Animated Movie", and "Animated Movie" bombs while "Movie" does well, then what would you do in Eisner's shoes? No, he shouldn't have gotten rid of traditional animation at Disney. But to say that Eisner is solely responsible for the reason traditionally-animated films are barely with us any more is unfair.


Ben, about remaking hits, let me present you with a scenerio. A group of bigwigs has gotten together to decide a new film. Suddenly, someone in the group suggests, "I know! Let's do an It's a Wonderful Life remake!!!" Scary, isn't it? Anyway, I think most people would agree that there is very little that could be improved in IaWL. Still, the remake is made, and turns out to be a good movie, but not the excellent one that the original is.

Wouldn't it have been better if John Q had been remade instead? The film has its flaws, but every single one of them could have been corrected- some of them very easily. And I may be wrong, but I think that in this case, if audiences will pay to see a bad drama, many of them would most certainly pay to see a good version of the film. Now, I can't say that about every film, though. For instance, people seem to love Armageddon as it is. In fact, should Martin Scorsese remake it as a smarter film, I doubt people would flock to it like they did to Michael Bay's movie. Armageddon provided dumb fun, which was what people were looking for. However, it's a different scenerio when it comes to films that audiences are supposed to take seriously. And parts of John Q could not be taken seriously.
On to Patrick and George's discussion: I largely agree with you both, and had another point in a similar vein to make at the Cars trailer. OF COURSE we can base our opinions of an upcoming film on its trailer - that is the POINT of a trailer. If it doesn't work, then the film will flop.
But guys, come on! You mean to tell me that you have NEVER seen a good movie with a bad trailer, or vice versa? Let's say that I was selling lollipops. They were the best tasting lollipops in the world! Well, I had to spread the word about this great candy of mine, so I hired a marketing team. Flash forward a few days later: you walk into a candy store. Suddenly, a guy jumps in front of you and, in a really excited tone, says, "Hey, you there! How'd ya like to have a small sample of the best lollipop in the world?" Of course, you respond, "Why, certainly!"

The guy gives you the stick.

I didn't know that he was going to do that, because I just told him to give customers a sample. I mean, you would think he would know what I meant. I sure did think that. So you see, Chicken Little may be the best animated film of all time. But we have yet to see the best tasting part.

If a movie should only be judged by its marketing campaign, then Dinosaur is a better film than The Iron Giant.

Anyway, you guys can most certainly respond if you want to, but I don't like to argue with folks. It's just that when people gang up on me for expressing my views... well, I don't like it.

AV Forum Member
AV Forum Member
Posts: 1419
Joined: October 22nd, 2004

Post by Macaluso » January 16th, 2005, 10:23 pm

Final Fantasy made me all excited to see it... and that movie blew chunks.

AV Forum Member
AV Forum Member
Posts: 415
Joined: October 22nd, 2004

Post by PatrickvD » January 17th, 2005, 6:20 am

Ben wrote:On to Patrick and George's discussion: I largely agree with you both, and had another point in a similar vein to make at the Cars trailer. OF COURSE we can base our opinions of an upcoming film on its trailer - that is the POINT of a trailer. If it doesn't work, then the film will flop.

It's easy to see that ChickLit, especially with the talent behind the "camera" and its confirmed spin on the story, that it will be a light-hearted comedy. And yes, even with the lightest, and funniest of Disney's pictures (Aladdin/Hercules/Emperor's Groove), they all have a little heart, so that can be expected too.

Frankly, I think the film will be a hit whatever happens. It's CGI, it has the Disney name on it (most people think Disney makes all those Pixar films), and it is now coming out in the traditional Pixar slot.

How can the thing not fly, even if it stinks? :)
You make a good point. Most people I know don't really know the difference bewteen disney and Pixar. They think it all comes from the Disney studio. So I don't think they can tell the difference from Pixar films and Disney productions. So yeah, Chicken Little will fly... even if it stinks :D

User avatar
AV Founder
AV Founder
Posts: 18934
Joined: October 22nd, 2004
Location: London, UK

Post by Ben » January 17th, 2005, 6:48 pm

Mickey - we're not "ganging up" on you!!


But your lollipops stink, and I could have told you that from the trailer! ;)

Post Reply