Comments on: Whyy??!

Whyy??!

hellbient — Mon, 28 Feb 2005 16:12:53 -0800

First Bugs, now Lamar. Having just heard that there will be a new Revenge of the Nerds movie next year, I really wasn't prepared for the coming onslaught.

By: eyeballkid

eyeballkid — Mon, 28 Feb 2005 16:26:44 -0800

I really wasn't prepared for the coming onslaught When you left the cave, after your 20 year escape from the human race, did the light burn your eyes?

By: hellbient

hellbient — Mon, 28 Feb 2005 16:33:43 -0800

Yes, when I left the cave, after my 20 year escape from the human race, the light did burn my eyes.

By: casu marzu

casu marzu — Mon, 28 Feb 2005 16:34:57 -0800

I can't believe that this list leaves off Romero's Land of the Dead.

By: grabbingsand

grabbingsand — Mon, 28 Feb 2005 16:39:52 -0800

Even more troubling: - a remake of Frankenheimer's Seconds. - or redoing Hitchcock's The 39 Steps. Though reversing and reducing Guess Who's Coming to Dinner to just Guess Who is probably the worst offender of all.

By: fire&wings

fire&wings — Mon, 28 Feb 2005 16:59:52 -0800

SIGH.

By: swordfishtrombones

swordfishtrombones — Mon, 28 Feb 2005 17:00:42 -0800

When I was young, I thought that Lamar song was the coolest thing I had ever heard. I was nine, so please forgive me.

By: vhsiv

vhsiv — Mon, 28 Feb 2005 17:10:53 -0800

Doesn't this say something about America being unable to examine itself? Again, it's not the '70's anymore, with 'All the President's Men' and 'The China Syndrome' and whatever, but COME ON. What's with the endless fetishization and debunking of the past? The original 'Stepford Wives' had some trenchant social obsevation/examination going on, but many of the 'social' films of the '70's have been or are going to be remade as comedies. What's going on here?

By: gnutron

gnutron — Mon, 28 Feb 2005 17:11:31 -0800

"we've got bush!" ah, the memories of childhood.

By: vhsiv

vhsiv — Mon, 28 Feb 2005 17:12:36 -0800

Besides the hunt for a fast buck with a vaguely nostalgic title.

By: vhsiv

vhsiv — Mon, 28 Feb 2005 17:17:46 -0800

"we've got bush!" ah, the memories of childhood. And a President who some managed to live through NONE of it. No memories of Vietnam. No memories of Watergate. No Civil Rights movement. All these remakes are obviously for the Kool-Aid drinkers born during the past 20 years.

By: kenko

kenko — Mon, 28 Feb 2005 17:18:12 -0800

Not to mention a remake of The Pink Panther starring Steve Martin. But a movie version of Sweeney Todd could be cool if done right, which, of course, it won't be.

By: vhsiv

vhsiv — Mon, 28 Feb 2005 17:22:53 -0800

^'some'='somehow'

By: Hat Maui

Hat Maui — Mon, 28 Feb 2005 17:29:45 -0800

i sure hope they film the new 'revenge of the nerds' in tucson like the last one. perhaps they can get my buddy Toby Radloff to promote it on mtv like he did with 'revenge of the nerds ii: nerds in paradise.' oh, and by the way, what the fuck's a frush?

By: graventy

graventy — Mon, 28 Feb 2005 17:34:26 -0800

Even more troubling: Is that even possible? How can they take such a perfect classic of a nerd movie and remake it?! Didn't you get the message of the original? We're all nerds! *sniff* It was perfect.

By: drmarcj

drmarcj — Mon, 28 Feb 2005 17:36:26 -0800

A Herbie remake. There really is no God. I wonder if he'll be a "new" or "old" beetle?

By: Faint of Butt

Faint of Butt — Mon, 28 Feb 2005 18:17:28 -0800

drmarcj, my understanding is that Herbie in the new movie will be a classic Bug. Which is odd, since this means that Volkswagen is passing up a perfect marketing opportunity. It actually confuses me somewhat.

By: octothorpe

octothorpe — Mon, 28 Feb 2005 18:25:54 -0800

I can't believe that this list leaves off Romero's Land of the Dead I can't belive that they are not filming that in Pittsburgh. It's just not right. Everyone knows that Romero's zombies live here. I see them everytime I go to the J.C. Pennys at the Monroeville Mall.

By: hellbient

hellbient — Mon, 28 Feb 2005 18:33:04 -0800

I can't belive... octothorpe's a zombie! nice Romerian slip...

By: vhsiv

vhsiv — Mon, 28 Feb 2005 19:26:50 -0800

OMG. A pal just sent me information about an in-the-can and possibly direct-to-video sequel to 2001's 'Dungeons & Dragons'. My first question: Did the first film actually make any money? Apparently, no: Business Data for Dungeons & Dragons http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0190374/business Budget $35,000,000 (estimated) Opening Weekend $7,237,422 (USA) (10 December 2000) (2,078 Screens) £405,669 (UK) (18 February 2001) (140 Screens) Gross $15,185,241 (USA) (28 January 2001) That's $20M in the red for us mortals. The sequel has a $15-20M budget, and not even C-list stars direct from the WB. Part of me has to wonder if this, like the planned 'Catwoman' sequel is just vaporware destined for the Chinese bootleg market, just like 'The Forgotten'. Someone's exploiting these turkeys for tax-loopholes - that's the only possible answer.

By: vhsiv

vhsiv — Mon, 28 Feb 2005 19:54:00 -0800

Gratuitous self-link here: If anyone has $20M to burn, I've got an original story for you, over here. Guaranteed topicality, people will talk about it for months afterward. Apologies, in advance, if this is entirely off-color.

By: bingo

bingo — Mon, 28 Feb 2005 19:56:14 -0800

Herbie remake. There really is no God. It's not a remake. It's another sequel. It's been a while since the last one, but a new Herbie movie is not in itself that strange of an idea.

By: hipnerd

hipnerd — Tue, 01 Mar 2005 01:56:43 -0800

I'm just waiting for the A-Team movie.

By: berek

berek — Tue, 01 Mar 2005 03:00:08 -0800

UM, is it just me, or has anyone else noticed that most of the posts in this thread are from people who obviously know nothing about how Hollywood works? Example: That's $20M in the red for us mortals. The sequel has a $15-20M budget, and not even C-list stars direct from the WB. It is next to impossible to make a movie today that doesn't make money. The figures cited were just for the American box office. When you factor in rentals, DVD sales, cable TV, and overseas sales, the movie made money. Also, Hollywood is famous for its creative accounting. According to their books almost none of the movies released in a given year make any money. This was the basis of a lawsuit by Art Buchewald a number of years ago. People always complain about sequela and remakes as if they're a recent thing. The truth is Hollywood used to, in its first fifty years, make a lot more of them. At that time there were no outlets for old movies, no TV, VCR, etc. It made perfect sense to reuse good plots. There were after all three versions of The Maltese Falcon.

By: vhsiv

vhsiv — Tue, 01 Mar 2005 04:10:29 -0800

O.k. - further research reveals that Dungeons & Dragons did actually make some $$, possibly, probably, but the variance reported on BoxOffice Mojo.com is broader than that reported at IMDb.com. Mojo also reports a higher production budget. IMDB reported no foreign returns, though these days it's pretty well known that many of the really big returns come from Europe and Asia, despite the bootlegging. Mojo reported higher foreign returns for D&D than it made domestically, but they also report a higher budget than IMDb did. Six one way, half a dozen the other. Frankie Muniz is apparently set for life. But none of this reflects the general LACK OF EFFORT on the part of the 'creators'.

By: Sangermaine

Sangermaine — Tue, 01 Mar 2005 08:10:11 -0800

Yeah, berek's right. Hollywood has always done stuff like this. Witness franchises like Lethal Weapon, Death Wish, Dirty Harry, Alien, Beverly Hills Cop, Police Academy, Rocky, Rambo, etc (not to mention Revenge of the Nerds itself...) Doesn't this say something about America being unable to examine itself? ... Besides the hunt for a fast buck with a vaguely nostalgic title. vhsiv Er...no, that pretty much nails the reason. Amazingly, not everything in the universe is political or has to do with grand cultural shifts. Hollywood likes sequels, and always has, because it's an easy way to generate money. You already have name recognition going in, which is why, say, a James Bond movie is always a safe bet simply from the name.

By: runtina

runtina — Tue, 01 Mar 2005 10:06:48 -0800

I forgive you, swordfishtrombones, cause I still think that Lamar song is one of the coolest things ever. Re-making Seconds is just wrong, though.

By: codger

codger — Mon, 14 Mar 2005 10:08:18 -0800

The Love Bug remake is already done, sort of. It was a Disney channel project and starred Bruce Campbell, if you can believe that. As for a remake of Seconds, I am very, very afraid. I'm not a fan of the new Manchurian Candidate and I'd frankly just like to see those films left alone. Then again, aren't we due for another * Body Snatchers or another Blob? What's the statute of limitations on remakes anyway? How late can they go? I say give it two or three more years and we'll be seeing the new Something about Mary or American Pie, just as soon as those movies' stars get to be old enough for cameo roles only.