THESE FORUMS NOW CLOSED (read only)
Fun Stuff => ENJOY => Topic started by: Cartilage Head on 13 Aug 2008, 12:34
-
FUCK MAN.
WHY CAN'T THEY JUST LEAVE MOVIES ALONE, THE CUNTS
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/entertainment/7558091.stm
GRRRAAAAAAH
-
Sky movies have a very consistent track record, so I see no reason to be alarmed. I seriously doubt they're going to try and make it more "mainstream"; it will probably be essentially the same film with new actors, and possibly more naughty bits.
-
The quality isn't what's important. There is NO REASON to remake this film. The only reason they are doing it is for easy money. They might as well remake fuckin' Ben-Hur or Citizen Kane.
-
Easy money seems to be the culprit here. For christ's sake the fact that it's dated makes it even better. This doesn't come as a huge suprise though....I mean Rodriguez is remaking Barbarella....which is equally unnecessary.
-
The quality isn't what's important. There is NO REASON to remake this film.
Uh. I'm confused. Would you also say there is no reason for any theater group to perform the musical that the film was based on, either?
-
First of all, what are you talking about? I completely don't understand your argument.
-
I don't completely understand trying to form any kind of connection between Citizen Kane and Rocky Horror Picture Show.
-
He's talking about the fact that every Halloween in a lot of places they show the movie with the audience playing along, and usually there's a live action performance that goes through all of the musical numbers with the movie, or at least that's the way it was in my hometown.
Doesn't mean I think they should take a movie camera to it again though. I swear to god, some days it seems like all Hollywood is about is everyone rushing to be the first to do something for the second time.
Edit: And his argument is that both are classics that shouldn't be remade, Mr. Bendu. Now, mind they are very different movies with different audiences for the most part, but there isn't any fucking reason to touch them.
-
You are aware that Rocky Horror was a stage musical before it was a film, right?
Everyone?
-
Well, I also don't really understand the mindset that a remake of a movie, or a sequel to a movie, will somehow take away from what made the original good.
They could do a shitty musical version of Citizen Kane, or Citizen Kane: Rosebud's Return, and I wouldn't give two shits.
-
My view on it is, didn't we pass a castle a few miles back?
What I mean by that is, its not like they are burning every version of the classic. They are just making a new one. We will still have our dear sweet Rocky Horror picture show...
-
I'm just worried about Dr. Frank-N-Furter. I mean, I guess another person can play him, but I can't imagine someone more awesome for the part than a young Tim Curry.
-
You are aware that Rocky Horror was a stage musical before it was a film, right?
Thank you. That was my point exactly.
The "original classic film" was itself a "remake".
Theater groups are constantly performing "remakes" of it.
I see no reason not to film another version, as long as it's good. I doubt anyone would be stupid enough to fuck with the songs.
-
That is completely different. A musical is meant to be performed over and over and revived every decade or so. The film itself is a cult classic and very important to some people. It is the definitive adaptation and has been for decades.
(Also, the original film is an adaptation, not a "remake".)
-
So... what makes this new one a "remake" and not an "adaptation"? I mean, just asking.
-
The Rocky Horror Picture Show was adapted from the stage version- the Rocky Horror Show.
This new film would be remade from the classic screen version.
Jackie, I'm part of a Rocky Horror shadowcast in New York and I can attest to the fact that the focus of the whole thing lies in the film, not the performance. The callbacks and the stage performance are mostly for laughs and to enhance the experience.
What everyone so far has failed to point out is that this is being produced by MTV. Fucking MTV. It's blasphemous and we're just crossing our fingers that they don't cast Zac Efron as Rocky.
For the record Phil, we perform twice a week all year and not just on Halloween.
-
I guess I don't understand the semantics here. Isn't every remake pretty much an adaptation? I mean, they're not using the same actors or anything so... what's so different about this except that it's already been made into a movie before? I mean, there's like fifty adaptations of Dracula, are they all remakes? I'm honestly just trying to understand.
-
Well yeah the NEW YORK one would do it all year round, I'm from Lubbock, Texas, Gene. My home town tried to ban the movie and the stage performances on more than one occasion. :cry:
-
All the more reason why you should get your ass down here more often.
Come see our humble performance sometime, while you're still off from school.
-
There is a troupe in Appleton, WI that is doing Rocky Horror in (I believe) September. They're on MySpace. I want to go, but I don't think I can take the time off of work :( I shall see though, because it would be totally friggin' awesome!
As per the actual purpose of the thread: remaking RHPS is sick and wrong, and I wholeheartedly am against it.
-
All the more reason why you should get your ass down here more often.
Come see our humble performance sometime, while you're still off from school.
This applies to all of you bitches.
At least those who live in the US + Tommy cause he bends over for the man every day.
-
Jackie, I'm part of a Rocky Horror shadowcast in New York and I can attest to the fact that the focus of the whole thing lies in the film, not the performance. The callbacks and the stage performance are mostly for laughs and to enhance the experience.
Dude, I know. I used to play Riff Raff in performances of RHPS. I'm fucking gay as hell for RHPS.
I'm still not the least bit raged up about this.
And the fact that it's co-financed by MTV doesn't mean much. Election was an MTV film and it was pretty goddamn good.
-
I dunno, man. Call me skeptical but I do not see anything good coming out of an MTV produced Rocky Horror. An MTV-produced satire on high school life (read: every teen movie ever made, including but definitely not limited to Election) maybe, but not a cultish midnight movie.
You got any pictures? I'm mildly curious to see your Riff now.
-
I haven't played Riff Raff in over 10 years. The RHPS culture in Knoxville is, well, nonexistant. I'm not even sure they do it every week in Atlanta any more.
Also, the "legitimate theater" in Knoxville is a total joke. I know I could never pull off financing and producing an RHPS show, but I have seriously considered doing Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are Dead if I can find the right people. I know tons of places I could have it performed, since the stage requirements are almost nonexistant.
-
I would not watch this.
I couldn't think of anybody other than Curry playing our beloved Frankie, and I'll bet you couldn't find anyone who has such amazing legs AND such an orgasmic voice as his either.
And how many people could pull off Columbia?
I mean come on
And comparing the Rocky Horror Show and the Rocky Horror Picture Show shouldn't happen
They are two completely different experiences.
Sure, they're the same in the sense that they have the same storyline (mostly)
Other than that, they are both amazing in completely different ways
-
Then what's to stop this version from being amazing in a different way?
I'm not saying I think it will be, just that I don't see any reason yet to think it won't. Once more details surface, sure, but right now it could totally go either way.
Hell, for all we know, they'll bring Richard O'Brien in to quality-control it. Hasn't he been talking about a "remake" or "third" Rocky movie for a while now?
-
*yawn*
Call me when they remake Little Shop of Horrors again, then I'll be interested.
-
*yawn*
Call me when they remake Little Shop of Horrors again, then I'll be interested.
You know...now that you said it, someone will do it.
Just out of curiousity.....interested in a good or bad way?
-
Hey, remember when MTV tried to make an adaptation of Carmen with Beyonce?
Exactly.
Godspeed, Rocky Horror Remake.
Or thank God.
Either way, this baby has a shelf life of 5 minutes, I'm betting.
-
Why worry about the remake?
Dracula has been remade how many times, by how many different studios?
How many actors have played Sherlock Holmes?
If the remake sucks we'll forget about it PDQ, if it's good, we'll remember it.
In the end, it's only a movie.
-
I can kind of see Zero's point from the start of the thread, why is it that it is perfectly acceptable for a play or a musical to be redone a million times, with any actor in the world potentially being able to play any character ever created, but as soon as something is put down on film it can never be redone. having my own vague hopes of being an actor at some point I find that a little shitty, cos I would love to play some of the characters I've seen, but for what ever reason that's apparently not allowed.
-
The problem with remaking a film that is known as a "Classic" is that when you think of it, you instantly associate the characters with the actors performing in said picture. Unless the new version goes totally above and beyond the original (with MTV behind it? HAHAHAHAHA), it will remain that way. I'm not too worried about them remaking it. As Border pointed out, if it's forgettable.....we'll forget it. Maybe not forgive, but we damn well won't have second thoughts about shoving it into the dark recesses of memory
-
The problem with remaking a film that is known as a "Classic" is that when you think of it, you instantly associate the characters with the actors performing in said picture.
I still am not seeing how that is different from watching an original cast of a play or musical that amazes you, but then getting mad because some other theatre troupe is putting the same play on. :?
Earlier I mentioned Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are Dead. I've never seen a stage performance of it, but I read the play before I saw the movie. Now whenever I think of it, I think of Tim Roth, Gary Oldman and Richard Dreyfuss. But I don't think I would have a problem with someone trying to make another screen version of it.
I think it boils down to that I think it's a bit silly to hate something before there are even any details about it, let alone before it exists.
-
It is a valid point you're making, and i kind of wonder myself why people seem to have more vivid memories of film productions than they do of live performances. I was just thinking that i can remember more of the last ten movies i've seen than the last ten stage shows. That makes me sad :cry:
-
Well that's drama dude, it's kind of the whole idea behind the art form.
The notion that you are getting a singular experience that will never, ever be repeated again. You can't rewind it and you can't give it to your friends to borrow.
I'm a drama major/or was, and I can remember doing plenty of runs where I was doing the same play, but each night the blood would splatter different, or so and so might punch in a different way. That's what makes it more awesome, in my opinion, but also creates in it a very short lifespan in people's memories.
Meh, I feel like I'm getting too deep.
Woo hoo.
-
Funny thing, after reading this last night, i went out today and noticed that the theater group on base is doing a production of Rocky Horror. Gonna see if i can't get involved somehow
-
okay here's an example (though those of you who don't appreciate it probably couldn't give two shits either way):
the sound of music. it was a stage musical, which was then adapted into a movie. and while it is constantly reproduced as a stage musical, would it not be ludicrous to attempt a film remake? is andrews' not the definitive version of maria? is there any need whatsoever to touch that film? again, this is assuming you liked it in the first place.
i see rocky horror as the same. yeah, it was a stage musical. but the film version is definitive. iconic. etc. curry is frankenfurter. any serious attempt at a full-scale reproduction would just be pointless and unnecessary. why fuck with classics?
-
No, otherwise we'd never have gone beyond Bela Lugosi's Dracula. Same principle.
-
Welllllll...that may not have been a bad idea?
Oh man, guys...I got so mad last week. I found out our local Theatre Guild was doing a rendition of Rocky Horror this past weekend, and I had to WORK so I couldn't go. I was sooooooooooo sad I couldn't go. A friend of mine went (and wanted me to go too, but I was working and i left my wallet at school when I went home for the weekend) and said it was amaaaaaaaaaaazing.
I have the worst luck sometimes...
-
My daughter is the stage manager for a production of "The Rocky Horror Show" opening this coming weekend, in Dayton, Ohio.
I will call her and tell her to break a leg.
-
No, otherwise we'd never have gone beyond Bela Lugosi's Dracula. Same principle.
Exactly. Sure, Lugosi's Dracula is the best (imo), but it's not the be-all-end-all of Dracula.
I'm not a particular fan of Rocky Horror, to be honest, and maybe that's why I'd be interested in seeing it done by other people. But the movie is, in itself, an adaptation of something else. They aren't "remaking" the Rocky Horror Picture Show movie, they're just making a new film adaptation of the original theater version.
Same principle as "Charlie and the Chocolate Factory". Remember that? People liked that, didn't they?
-
...People liked the remake of Charlie and the Chocolate Factory?
(I'm kidding, I actually just met a girl and it's her favorite movie, but I quickly informed her she had to see the original because it was waaaaaaay better with Wonka's songs in it).
I guess that Hollywood is going to do what Hollywood wants to do, but that doesn't mean they're going to get my money... If they get a half-decent cast, I might considering seeing it, but I can almost guarantee I will sit in the back scoffing loudly and pissing people off in front of me.
-
I will sit in the back scoffing loudly and pissing people off in front of me.
That is ridiculously rude and juvenile. I hope you're joking.
-
I'm not joking about the scoffing. I doubt that people will be that pissed off though.
Dude, seriously...you should hear me when I watch the Harry Potter movies... Other people chime in to agree with me.
It's all good.
-
People who talk in movie theaters are self-centered jerks. Sorry.
I've had plenty of good movies fucked up by people talking. What makes you "scoffing" at a "bad" movie any different from a bunch of jackasses loudly complaining and ruining my enjoyment of, say, The Royal Tenenbaums?
-
People who talk in movie theaters are self-centered jerks. Sorry.
For once I agree with you.
This is an odd day.
-
I'm not saying it does make me any different.
You can call me a jackass, I don't really care. But, it's not like you're going to be in my local theatre though, is it? I didn't think so.
-
For once I agree with you.
You have literally never agreed with me before?
I honestly will never understand why 99% of this board doesn't like me or agree with anything I say ever.
-
I think I agreed with you once. Truly, it was a momentous occasion.
-
Shock Treatment >>>>>>>>>> Rocky Horror Picture Show
Also I agree with you zerodrone! It's just a movie, if you don't like the idea of it then DON'T GO.
-
Shock Treatment is fun but if you think it's legitimately better, you are smoking rock.
I suppose I should explain my reasoning behind this- it is too dense, poorly produced (for a musical farce, not a serious movie) and the alternate Brad and Janet have really grating singing voices.
Jackie, cut it with the pity party already. Nobody hates you, you're just opening yourself up to stupid flaming.
-
I don't think very many people on here dislike me, but a lot of people do go out of their way to point out that I'm always wrong or whatever.
Shock Treatment has awesome songs but honestly it's a pretty awful film.
-
Honestly I would like it 100x more if it weren't for Brad and Janet's singing voices.
Bitchin' in the Kitchen and Denton U.S.A. are great songs, however.