okay, so... did some hollywood exec just walk into a blockbuster, close his eyes and point in a random direction then declair "Let's Remake That!" or something? dont get me wrong, for a corny little 70's disaster flick, i liked The Possieden Adventure, but seriously, of all the things to remake...

dude for one...you spelled it wrong.

it's "Poseidon" and...it looks like a thriller to see.

*shrugs*

sure it'll be no Titanic but it looks good.

I'm excited as hell for this one...But I gotta say, the one thing I'm the most curious about, is how Fergie is going to be as an actress.

dude for one...you spelled it wrong.

it's "Poseidon" and...it looks like a thriller to see.

*shrugs*

sure it'll be no Titanic but it looks good.

Okay my bad spelling withstanding and admitted, this is the stupidest idea for a movie since... Well the last bad hollywood remake to be shat out.

I'm excited as hell for this one...But I gotta say, the one thing I'm the most curious about, is how Fergie is going to be as an actress.


she's not going to be acting, she's going to be singing in the ballroom and then scream when the ship tips over, they did the same thing in the original. they put up some throwaway popstar in the ballroom scene and we all got to see her drown.

Originally Posted By Pakx
Okay my bad spelling withstanding and admitted, this is the stupidest idea for a movie since... Well the last bad hollywood remake to be shat out.

I love how people like Pakx can tell you that this remake is a bad idea, and you should refrain from spending your money on it. Just keep in mind, he has yet to see it.

I understand Pakx that Poseidon won't be considered a classic cinematic piece, but as far as summer blockbusters are concerned, I would much rather see this than Mission Impossible III or the upcoming X-Men: The Last Stand.

I went to a grand opening ceremony of a new theater in my area last night, and got free tickets to a movie of my choice (only four films showing; Hoot, Ice Age: The Meltdown, R.V. and The Sentinel). I choose the Sentinel, mainly because I have already seen two of the films, and I plan on seeing Hoot next week.

The Sentinel was far from great, especially given the terrible script, but the acting kept me involved. I expect the same from Poseidon. I am a big fan of Josh Lucas (who didn't get enough recognition for his role in this year's Glory Road), and Kurt Russell and Richard Dreyfuss are nice casting choices for supporting roles.

okay, so... did some hollywood exec just walk into a blockbuster, close his eyes and point in a random direction then declair "Let's Remake That!" or something? dont get me wrong, for a corny little 70's disaster flick, i liked The Possieden Adventure, but seriously, of all the things to remake...


wow, i cant wait until poseidon comes out I CANT WAIT until may 12, 2006, i really have to see that movie it seems much better than turner tech, it looks like a big fat thriller/action movie, "i cant wait" like hilary duff's lol

okay, so... did some hollywood exec just walk into a blockbuster, close his eyes and point in a random direction then declair "Let's Remake That!" or something?
When you think about it, how many films could there be left to make? its nothing but sequels & prequels.

When you think about it, how many films could there be left to make? its nothing but sequels & prequels.


the hell are you talking about? there are multitudes of untapped original talent all over the country, it's not a matter of being out of ideas, it's a matter of doing the least work as possible in order to make money off the idiots who see these films. nothing is cheaper than old source material nobody cares about, and nothing is easier to write and make than an update to a movie that already exists. i've said it before and i'll say it again, they're trying to see how far they can go without doing any actual work. trying to see how complaicant and stupid we are. how much we follow formula so the film industry doesnt need to think creatively anymore, and can simply become a cashcow business.

"There's only about 12 good movies. We just keep remaking them." -- Louie B. Mayer


That dude didnt know what he was talking about...

That dude didnt know what he was talking about...
Actually I agree with them. You can pretty much group the majority of movies into categories and determine their ending by category. The stories may be altered, but the overall plot concepts are usually the same.

Actually I agree with them. You can pretty much group the majority of movies into categories and determine their ending by category. The stories may be altered, but the overall plot concepts are usually the same.

you obviously dont watch enough good film, and when did plot become the only part of a story? i missed that meeting. plot in a good film is maybe, MAYBE 25% of what makes it a good film, and there are more than 12 original plots going around these days.

you obviously dont watch enough good film, and when did plot become the only part of a story? i missed that meeting. plot in a good film is maybe, MAYBE 25% of what makes it a good film, and there are more than 12 original plots going around these days.

I concur. There's a lot of interesting stuff out there. What plot archtype would Waking Life fit in? Or Lost in Translation? Or Requiem for a Dream? Or The Third Man? Or Ichi the Killer? Or Magnolia? Or Breathless? Or Bowfinger? Or Russian Ark? Or Capote? Or Boogie Nights? Or Broken Flowers? Or 2001: Space Odyssey? Or Dr.Strangelove? And that's just to name some off the top of my head.

And no, I won't be seeing Poseiden. I just haven't been less interested in seeing a film since... well, Mission: Impossible III.

It was a joke, and "that dude" was the head of MGM. I think he said it in the 1930s. The idea still seems to be true, even if the number is a little more than 12.

Bah, MGM. they havent had a good movie since the 80's. and how many important films can you name that were made in the 30's and dont involve Charlie Chaplin?

anyway i knew you were joking, i was playing the righteously indignant auteur card.

Originally Posted By Pakx
and how many important films can you name that were made in the 30's and dont involve Charlie Chaplin?

How about Gone with the Wind? The Wizard of Oz? Wuthering Heights? Frankenstein? Mr. Smith Goes To Washington? Lost Horizon? Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs? It Happened One Night?


Originally Posted By Pakx
there are multitudes of untapped original talent all over the country, it's not a matter of being out of ideas, it's a matter of doing the least work as possible in order to make money off the idiots who see these films. nothing is cheaper than old source material nobody cares about, and nothing is easier to write and make than an update to a movie that already exists. i've said it before and i'll say it again, they're trying to see how far they can go without doing any actual work. trying to see how complaicant and stupid we are. how much we follow formula so the film industry doesnt need to think creatively anymore, and can simply become a cashcow business.


Hey Mr. Originality, just keep in mind that your favorite movies include Cool Hand Luke, The Road to Perdition, The Bourne Films, A History of Violence and Oldboy, which were are all based on previously released material (whether it be novels or comics), while another film, Princess Mononoke, is based around known Japanese mythology.


You can just smell the hypocrisy!

Hey Mr. Originality, just keep in mind that your favorite movies include Cool Hand Luke, The Road to Perdition, The Bourne Films, A History of Violence and Oldboy, which were are all based on previously released material (whether it be novels or comics), while another film, Princess Mononoke, is based around known Japanese mythology.


You can just smell the hypocrisy!

what the fuck are you talking about? i didnt say anything about films based on source material of a different medium. and those films are still stylistically and artistically divergant from thier source material. we arent talking about films based on novels, comic books or mythology we're talking about films that have already been made, and are being remade. it takes alot of talent to properly adapt a novel to film, and A History of Violence, Oldboy and Road to perdition have very little in common with thier source material. i didnt even say that original screenplay is a requirement. i said that there is alot of untapped originality in the film business. so how about a nice tall glass of shut the fuck up?

You can just smell the idiocy.

Originally Posted By Pakx
what the fuck are you talking about? i didnt say anything about films based on source material, and those films are still stylistically and artistically divergant from thier source material. we arent talking about films based on novels, comic books or mythology we're talking about films that have already been made, and are being remade. it takes alot of talent to properly adapt a novel to film, and A History of Violence, Oldboy and Road to perdition have very little in common with thier source material. i didnt even say that original screenplay is a requirement. i said that there is alot of untapped originality in the film business. so how about a nice tall glass of shut the fuck up?

I seem to recall you saying "nothing is cheaper than old source material nobody cares about." Hence, the reason I made mention of the hypocrisy in your liking of films which have tapped into source material.

Furthermore, your arguement about there being a lot of untapped originality in the film business holds very little weight because you appreciate films that are derived from previously made material.

Why is using one previously used idea any worse than using another previously used idea?

And please notice, I made logical points without having to resort to cursing. How can someone do that?

I seem to recall you saying "nothing is cheaper than old source material nobody cares about." Hence, the reason I made mention of the hypocrisy in your liking of films which have tapped into source material.

Furthermore, your arguement about there being a lot of untapped originality in the film business holds very little weight because you appreciate films that are derived from previously made material.

Why is using one previously used idea any worse than using another previously used idea?

And please notice, I made logical points without having to resort to cursing. How can someone do that?

alright lets go from the top: 1: i did say nothing is cheaper than old source material nobody cares about, because it's true. but i also said that remaking a film takes no actual talent or work, because it doesnt. and that adapting a novel is hard work that takes alot of craft and (here comes that word again) originality.

2: my arguement about there being alot of untapped originality in the film business isnt an arguement, it's a fact. do you know how many great films have been held off for years because they wanted to opt for Charlie's Angels 3 instead of Secondhand Lions? you seem to think i'm an absolutist. well that's your mistake and your problem. just because i want to see a push of original film who'se preoccupation is telling a story and not making money, doesnt mean i dont appreciate films based on novels and comic books, because frankly, the works mentioned as source material for my favorite films are far from uncared for and the films based upon them are brimming with technical and creative originality. have you seen a historoy of violence or road to perdition? they bear almost no resemblance to thier source material, and are infact much better. when you adapt a novel or comic, it requires you to have a deep understanding of the source material, and then to tell the story in a way that suits your ideas about it. a History of violence or Syriana are perfect examples of this.

3: because there is a difference of medium. novels are different than comic books are different than films are different than music. when you remake a novel or comic into a screenplay, it takes work, as previously mentioned, when you adapt a film into a film, it doesnt take any work, or originality, it just takes alot of cash and the go-ahead of the company execs. it's like when you see one of those "readers digest" versions of well-known novels. it's just an adaptation of something from the same medium, which is pretty fucking redundant.

and 4: your points are moot, and you're fucking right i swear. i swear like a sailor, if you have a problem with that then dont reply to my posts with more bullshit.

Originally Posted By Pakx
i also said that remaking a film takes no actual talent or work, because it doesnt. and that adapting a novel is hard work that takes alot of craft and (here comes that word again) originality.

Anybody can say the words, Pakx. Back up your words by showing me how remaking a film takes "no actual talent or work." Also, show me how adapting a novel is hard work that takes a lot of craft and originality. And, explain to me how this relates to a film YOU HAVE NOT SEEN.


Originally Posted By Pakx
just because i want to see a push of original film who'se preoccupation is telling a story and not making money, doesnt mean i dont appreciate films based on novels and comic books, because frankly, the works mentioned as source material for my favorite films are far from uncared for and the films based upon them are brimming with technical and creative originality.

I love original films. Go back and look at my list of favorite movies and notice that almost all of them are films with an original screenplay. I would love to see a push for original stories in movies, as well.

But I am not going to come on to a message board and say movies like Poseidon lack "technical and creative originality," say there were no important films made in the 1930s that didn't involve Charlie Chaplin, and then spew hypocritical statements about films that use the basis of there story from previously released material.


Originally Posted By Pakx
have you seen a historoy of violence or road to perdition?

Yes, and I like them both. Man, that was an easy one.


Originally Posted By Pakx
when you adapt a novel or comic, it requires you to have a deep understanding of the source material, and then to tell the story in a way that suits your ideas about it.

I would say that remaking a movie requires you to have a deep understanding of the source material, and then to tell the story in a way that suits your ideas about it. Now, prove to me why I am wrong.


Originally Posted By Pakx
when you remake a novel or comic into a screenplay, it takes work, as previously mentioned, when you adapt a film into a film, it doesnt take any work, or originality, it just takes alot of cash and the go-ahead of the company execs.

You know, you just keep repeating yourself with backing-up your statements.

All that remaking a movie takes is a lot of cash and the go-ahead of the company execs? That's it. I figured it took a lot more "work" to make a movie.

But since you have made so many movies (I know how you like to talk about being a filmmaker), I guess I should just take your word for it instead of waiting for you to prove to me why it is very little work.

As much as I enjoy two trolls feeding each other, it's a little repetitive.

trex is trying to play the more advanced intellect, obviously, and Zach plays his usual angry self. There will be no winner, as you're both indignant characters.

In short, to both of you, shut up. :)

As much as I enjoy two trolls feeding each other, it's a little repetitive.

trex is trying to play the more advanced intellect, obviously, and Zach plays his usual angry self. There will be no winner, as you're both indignant characters.

In short, to both of you, shut up. :)
Quoted for Truth