First up --
From DarkHorizons.com --
20th Century Fox is doing a Sarah Connor TV series.
That's right -- Terminator: The TV Series. It's tentatively called "The Sarah Connor Chronicles" or C-squared (C^2) for short.
The TV series is a follow-up to Terminator 2: Judgment Day and follows the lives of Sarah Connor and her son John as she tries to protect him and mold him into a future resistance leader. Don't expect any Terminators that look exactly like Arnold.
Looks like nobody learned their lesson from T3.
***************************************
From AICN.com --
Secondly, and yet another case of kicking a dead horse is a planned remake of the original Robocop movie.
That's right -- as if two bad sequels, two animated series, and several TV mini-series weren't enough evidence that old Robo is too far rusted to rouse interest anymore, MGM (the owners of Robocop) want to remake the original film with a more contemporary (re: MORE violent) attitude.
Paul Verhoven wisely has sworn off this project.
I'm suspecting most fans of the original Robocop will, too.
After all, the only really good Robocop was the first film...
Remakes! Remakes! Read all about 'em!
Remakes! Remakes! Read all about 'em!
Just wading through some press emails this morning and I can't <I>believe</I> how many remakes have been announced!
Soon there will be no original classics left!
'Romancing the Stone' remake in works
Fox is bringing "Romancing the Stone" to the big screen again, swinging into development a remake of the 1984 adventure movie and tapping Daniel McDermott to write it.
'They Live' to be reincarnated
John Carpenter's cult 1988 film "They Live" is getting the remake treatment from Universal and studio-based Strike Entertainment, which are in negotiations to acquire the film rights with rights holder Les Mougins.
Russell Brand eyeing 'Arthur' redo
Russell Brand is developing a remake of "Arthur," the 1981 comedy that starred Dudley Moore, for Warner Bros. as a potential starring vehicle.
Soylent Green
Daniel McDermott, a former head of DreamWorks Television who segued to screenwriting, most recently co-wrote the DreamWorks thriller "Eagle Eye", is developing a remake of "Soylent Green" for Warner Bros.
I'm sure there are others out there - well we know there are - but the sheer level of these is getting truly ridiculous.The Thing
Universal and studio-based Strike Entertainment, whose credits include "Bring It On" and "Children of Men," had success in the remake arena with 2004's update of "Dawn of the Dead", is also working on a remake of Carpenter's "The Thing."
Soon there will be no original classics left!
-
GeorgeC
You know, right at the onset of the art form film productions were merely converting quite a few existing vaudevillian, operatic, or theatrical productions to the screen. And up till now who knows how many gazillions of books have been adapted. Outright remakes aren't too terrible, either, if only because they're bound to incite some interest in the originals.
(Of course, the opposite can occur as well, as with the 2007 3:10 To Yuma which didn't utter a whisper about the the 60's original... to which it owes a massive amount of material and dialogue.)
(Of course, the opposite can occur as well, as with the 2007 3:10 To Yuma which didn't utter a whisper about the the 60's original... to which it owes a massive amount of material and dialogue.)
-
eddievalient
- AV Forum Member
- Posts: 1347
- Joined: January 23rd, 2006, 5:23 pm
- Location: The Middle of Nowhere
I've got to say that I agree some of those films are fun remakes. I quite like the teen horror genre for the laughs as much as the "scares", but the films they're seeking to remake above are way above those leagues.
I mean, those teen films that are coming out in the bucket load now are based on sometimes dated, low-budget shockers that were sometimes quite painfully amateurish. At least now they get the remake treatment with a decent budget, even if they're still cheap productions for the studios.
Point is...most of the films currently being rehashed are <I>still contemporary</I>...and still only a generation or so ago. Yes, there are lots of kids on this site that will say they weren't born when such and such came out, but that doesn't mean those films are outmoded.
Personally, I feel it's a lack of inspiration from the young executives. The reason we're seeing these remakes and sequels to late 1970s and 1980s movies is because these are what the execs grew up watching. And now they're in powerful positions they have a chance to relive their childhood fantasies again...and get paid for it.
I mean, those teen films that are coming out in the bucket load now are based on sometimes dated, low-budget shockers that were sometimes quite painfully amateurish. At least now they get the remake treatment with a decent budget, even if they're still cheap productions for the studios.
Point is...most of the films currently being rehashed are <I>still contemporary</I>...and still only a generation or so ago. Yes, there are lots of kids on this site that will say they weren't born when such and such came out, but that doesn't mean those films are outmoded.
Personally, I feel it's a lack of inspiration from the young executives. The reason we're seeing these remakes and sequels to late 1970s and 1980s movies is because these are what the execs grew up watching. And now they're in powerful positions they have a chance to relive their childhood fantasies again...and get paid for it.
But, in trying to justify a Big Studio Budget, they also lose the basic POINT of why those cheap-thrill Friday-night drive-in "Hit the teens where they live" movies were made--Ben wrote:I've got to say that I agree some of those films are fun remakes. I quite like the teen horror genre for the laughs as much as the "scares", but the films they're seeking to remake above are way above those leagues.
I mean, those teen films that are coming out in the bucket load now are based on sometimes dated, low-budget shockers that were sometimes quite painfully amateurish. At least now they get the remake treatment with a decent budget, even if they're still cheap productions for the studios.
Qv., the remake of "When a Stranger Calls" taking the story off of Suburban Babysitter Street and moving it to a Frank Lloyd Wright dream cabin in the Rockies, or "Prom Night" moving the prom from a high school gym to a champagne Paris Hilton bash at a five-star hotel--
At least the Friday the 13th remake hasn't been relocated to a Club Med resort in the Bahamas...
Personally, I feel it's a lack of inspiration from the young executives. The reason we're seeing these remakes and sequels to late 1970s and 1980s movies is because these are what the execs grew up watching. And now they're in powerful positions they have a chance to relive their childhood fantasies again...and get paid for it.
I'd hardly call most of the (ex-indie and ex-music video) directors working on them "In powerful positions"--
But the first wave was definitely a rebel cry against the robotic Saw/Hostel mindset, a realization that all that "cool" Miike Takahashi-worship had almost crippled the true horror genre out of existence, and a search for just what made all those movies The Older Generation got to enjoy, back when they used to play real theaters...
But that was the horror-remake wave--
Just why we're getting the Sci-Fi Remake wave has more to do with MGM trying to struggle back to life, and raise quick operating cash by exploiting their old 80's Orion Pictures intellectual-properties.
(Except for that Arthur thing, which, although Orion, is more a matter of Russell Brand delusionally believing that we'll all suddently love a drunken jerk because, well, we liked the last one before, 'n stuff!)
