Please Explain: "Don't touch my classic!"
By
BafflingBeerMan,
Posted on: 2010-10-26 24:21 in Comic and Hero-Villain Culture
Quote:
It is. Romero had a falling-out with his partner over royalties and who came up with what. The end result was that Romero was allowed to keep the trademark of "The Dead" while the other guy was allowed to use "The Living Dead." However, Romero didn't instigate the lawsuit, the makers of Dead Rising did so that the owners of "The Dead" trademark (and makers of Dawn of the Dead) wouldn't sue them.|
Originally Posted by Dr_Mechano
The original Night of the Living Dead is pretty much THE creator of Zombies as we known them today, anything prior to that focused on the more traditional Voodoo Zombie.
Personally I feel a remake of Dawn of the Dead is pretty needless. Dawn of the Dead was a product of its time, the entire movie thanks to the spread of Zombie culture has now become something absorbed by cultural Osmosis. Heck look at Dead Rising, they had to slap a 'not affiliated with Dawn of the Dead by George A Romero' tag onto the box (though I'm not sure whether that was for legal reasons or not). |
Quote:
| Though I wouldn't mind knowing what the large number of faults you see in it are Ironik, though I admit the movie isn't perfect or to everyones tastes (a lot of people don't like the slow build up and large character development that goes on but that doesn't mean you turn it into a trashy Action movie like the remake did, with an additional 5 characters that are so blatently there to be killed off for more gore). |
For many of us, this was our very first exposure to zombie movies. You have to remember that Night of the Living Dead wasn't shown on TV back then and things like videotapes (we called them videocassettes) were just starting to be talked about for consumers but wouldn't be affordable for most people for quite a number of years. (I bought my first VCR in 1985; it cost $690. I bought one 10 times better in 2005, it cost $39.) So when we saw this movie back in '78, the lengthy talking-head portion at the beginning was especially mystifying and dull because we had no idea what they were talking about. The actors do a decent job arguing back and forth and it's a fairly dynamic scene, but without anything to give the argument context, it's just two blowhards shouting at each other. The film is actually full of this sort of thing, but that's a good enough example of what I consider a pretty major fault. The rule is "show, don't tell," and the first, what?, 8 or 10 minutes of the movie are all talk and no action. Halloween came out that same year and it has just as much exposition, except it's handled much more dynamically. Dawn is just lifeless (no pun intended) by comparison. Whereas Halloween builds the suspense and tension and the mystery deepens, Dawn just lays all the cards out on the table right at the outset. Since the guy arguing *against* the "just shoot 'em in the head" guy turns out to be completely wrong (Which should have been obvious to anyone who'd seen what was going on outside), the argument really becomes pointless.
The Alt Alphabet ~ OPC: Other People's Characters ~ Terrific Screenshots of Cool ~ Superhero Fiction
Which Solaris do you own? The 1972 version or the 2002 version with Clooney?
I've never been able to make it through the 72 version, too much experimental camera work for me, but I've watched the 2002 version atleast a dozen times.
Quote:
'02. The original is de rigeur viewing for any cineaste (and my college dissertation was to be on cinema genres, so I had to watch everything), but I don't particularly care for it. The remake corrected some of the flaws of pacing and brought Lem's story into a proper science fictional setting. (I think Lem, for all his talents, is a bit overrated. His titanic ego didn't help much.)|
Originally Posted by warden_de_dios
Which Solaris do you own? The 1972 version or the 2002 version with Clooney?
I've never been able to make it through the 72 version, too much experimental camera work for me, but I've watched the 2002 version atleast a dozen times. |
You probably already know this, but if you like Solaris, try Sunshine by Danny Boyle. Although the premise sounds silly, it's actually based on an actual -- if not terribly probable -- thing that could happen to the sun.
The Alt Alphabet ~ OPC: Other People's Characters ~ Terrific Screenshots of Cool ~ Superhero Fiction
Sunshine was great!
Do you have a theory who Gordon's visitor was in the 02 Solaris? Trying to fiqure that out is what drove me to read the book, translated to english of course and to watch the 72 version.
I have a compelling urge to netflix Solaris.
Quote:
I'd just like to point out that pretty much all of Romero's recent zombie movies suck.|
Originally Posted by Ironik
It is. Romero had a falling-out with his partner over royalties and who came up with what. The end result was that Romero was allowed to keep the trademark of "The Dead" while the other guy was allowed to use "The Living Dead." However, Romero didn't instigate the lawsuit, the makers of Dead Rising did so that the owners of "The Dead" trademark (and makers of Dawn of the Dead) wouldn't sue them.
I'm not defending the remake, I'm just saying remaking the original Dawn of the Dead isn't a bad idea. The most egregious problem for me is not that it's slow to build up (I actually *like* slow, which is why I own Solaris), but that the entire first part of the movie is people arguing about something that is completely theoretical and unseen to the audience. We have no stake in it and it's hard to understand what the issue is or why they're so vehement about it unless you come into the movie already knowing everything about zombies. Which in 1978 almost nobody did. For many of us, this was our very first exposure to zombie movies. You have to remember that Night of the Living Dead wasn't shown on TV back then and things like videotapes (we called them videocassettes) were just starting to be talked about for consumers but wouldn't be affordable for most people for quite a number of years. (I bought my first VCR in 1985; it cost $690. I bought one 10 times better in 2005, it cost $39.) So when we saw this movie back in '78, the lengthy talking-head portion at the beginning was especially mystifying and dull because we had no idea what they were talking about. The actors do a decent job arguing back and forth and it's a fairly dynamic scene, but without anything to give the argument context, it's just two blowhards shouting at each other. The film is actually full of this sort of thing, but that's a good enough example of what I consider a pretty major fault. The rule is "show, don't tell," and the first, what?, 8 or 10 minutes of the movie are all talk and no action. Halloween came out that same year and it has just as much exposition, except it's handled much more dynamically. Dawn is just lifeless (no pun intended) by comparison. Whereas Halloween builds the suspense and tension and the mystery deepens, Dawn just lays all the cards out on the table right at the outset. Since the guy arguing *against* the "just shoot 'em in the head" guy turns out to be completely wrong (Which should have been obvious to anyone who'd seen what was going on outside), the argument really becomes pointless. |
That is all.
- CaptainFoamerang
Silverspar on Kelly Hu: A face that could melt paint off the wall *shivers*
Someone play my AE arc! "The Heart of Statesman" ID: 343405
Quote:
See, I appreciate the remakes.. when they're different enough to stand and shine separately. Every Christmas I tend to go through Disney's, the Muppets, the 1951 version, Scrooged, and Blackadder's Christmas Carol. Every one of those "remakes" are more homages than remake, wouldn't you say?
|
Originally Posted by Local_Man
One of my favorite examples is a story/movie that keeps being done over and over: A Christmas Carol. No actor has ever been able to play Scrooge better than Alistair Sims. The 1951 version has Sims with just the right amount of angry, miserable miserly Scrooge in the beginning, and giddy, overjoyed, almost insane Scrooge in the end. Other actors from Rich Little to Patrick Stewart to Bill Murry to the Muppets to the recent CGI version have made good attempts, but nobody has been as good as Sims.
|
Quote:
IMHO Carpenter's version is one of the most flawless monster movies extant.|
Originally Posted by Flarstux
The Carpenter version is somewhat closer to the source, that being 'Who Goes There?' by John W. Campbell but I disagree that the Hawks version was lame. If both were showing on TV at the same time I'd watch the old one. Much better movie, IMO.
|
I also like the Hawks version.
The Nethergoat Archive: all my memories, all my characters, all my thoughts on CoH...eventually.
My City Was Gone
Quote:
You know what else would help that? If the original series didn't have a habit of turning him into a damned fighter jet and fire truck and monkey all the time. At least the movie kept him a semi.
|
Originally Posted by Liquid
Tell that to my boss and any other people who would tell me this is not the "real" Optimus Prime:
 I'm not kidding. I've actually heard, "no, I mean the real Optimus Prime" in response to seeing this. New versions do supplant the old in the public psyche. Kelenar's example about Dr. Strangelove is perfect (in fact, prior to reading his post, Dr. Strangelove was the first movie that popped into my head that I'd flip out over if they remade it). I'm open to remakes, but it's very important to me that they either do their best to be respectful of the source material when it's good, or improve it where it can use improvement. There are some classics that have flaws, and those classics could be remade and improved upon. But most have more to lose than they have to gain. I also agree with the Goat about translations. |
Huh. I spent the last hour or so reading about the modern Transformers fandom, and it's pretty much made up of mostly smug teenagers and 20-somethings who make fun of anyone who preferred the originals. They actually make fun of the fans who prefer it the way it was with things like "Geewun" and "Trukk not Munky".
Oh and then these same people spend hours detailing why the new movies are the work of Satan. That right there makes me bang my head into a wall to prevent myself from exploding with laughter.
Me personally, I thought the "beast" series were pathetic, but some of the stuff that's come since has been really extraordinarily fun to watch. I enjoyed Energon.. Animated..
You know what really makes me giggle? These people spend hours and hours and hours of their lives trying to contort and twist all of these different series into one continuity. Guys: it's JUST a bunch of cartoons about robots disguising themselves to fight their secret war and disrupt the humans as little as possible. (and that, by the way, is why the "Beast" series never did it for me. What, exactly, is a 14 foot tall gorilla "disguised" as?) That's it. It's a cool premise. The reason you need all these insane Deus Ex Machinae to tie it all together is because it was obviously never intended to BE tied together. I mean.. these people even hamfistedly come up with ways to make Kiss Players canon.
Kiss Players is a Transformers variant wherein the robots have to be kissed by little girls to do their business. I'm married to a rabid Star Wars fan so I'm exposed to the hideously ugly side of fandom but man.... they look like sane, rational persons compared to Transformers fans. It's just a fun series of cartoons, don;t take it so seriously! If even Star Wars fans look sane in comparison, you might wish to consider taking a step outside and getting some fresh air, maybe touch a member of the opposite sex.
Edited to add: Seriously, check this out. According to the fandom this is "canon"
http://transformers.wikia.com/wiki/K..._%28fiction%29
Quote:
Mighty Joe Young?
|
Originally Posted by NobleFox
What, exactly, is a 14 foot tall gorilla "disguised" as?
|
See.. and it's not just Transformers... it's like.. lots of fandoms go insane and they don't realize it's because they like it as it was when they were kids. The people who like Beast Wars? Yeah.. were generally in the target market when it was out. I read above someone saying "Generation 1 is a rough draft of the Transformers Universe".
What? There was never any intention FOR a "Transformers Universe". It was a toy line made up of two separate sets of toys. One of which is actually from a comic series of movies wherein the giant robots eventually moved past needing pilots and by the end of it formed a world much like Cybertron. If you go to Walgreens right now and look in the dollar rack, you can find a Diaclone movie retitled something like "Defenders of the Planet". You wanna know where Transformers came from? THAT is where Transformers came from. It's the merging of two toy lines that were failing.
There was no more an intent at the beginning for there to be a Transformers "Universe" than there was an intent for Star Wars to be a set of six films, or for Luke and Leia to be siblings. It's weird to watch people try to retcon reality itself to fit some eponymous "it was always meant to be this massive giant plot" master plan. In reality, it was just made up as they went along.
These people taking a big dump on the new movies while defending Beast Wars is exactly the same reason last-gen Star Wars fans take a dump on Clone Wars... and why MY generation took a dump on the prequels.
I find it better to just.. step back and enjoy things for what they are. If something contradicts "old canon" just.. let it go. Instead of twisting things around to make a hamfisted reason Han Solo calls something that happened just recently an "ancient religion" just let it go. You know why Han called Jedi an "ancient religion"? It's simple.
When the movie was written, Jedi was intended to be something that had been lost for many generations.. not something that kinda blinked out 12 years ago in a flurry of violence. That's why he said it. When reality changes to make it no longer "ancient" then "in the story" he said something else entirely. Who cares? New canon replaces old.
I didn't like it that R2D2 never once thought to mention he was Darth Vader's robot, but hey.. that's what happened. And you know what else? Anakin Skywalker now had a Padawan between episodes 2 and 3. Get over it. It's just a movie series.
I absolutely preferred G1 to the ******* monkey... but that's not because I'm rigid and inflexible... I don't like it because it was stupid, to me. It's a matter of taste, and frankly I think Transformers fans take it way too seriously.
So long as it doesn't perform cardinal sins that destroy the purpose of the original... like Glee utterly de-sexualizing RHPS, and even casting a woman as Dr. Frank... who cares? And even then.. if suddenly new RHPS movies are made which are totally desexualized and Dr. Frank was a woman.. well.. I'll just have to deal with that. It's just a movie.
Quote:
Of course then there's a few people like me. I liked both G1 and Beast Wars (as well as Car Robots/Robots in Disguise, a guilty pleasure). The ones I absolutely detest are Beast Machines, Bayformer movies, Animated, and now Prime. It's not so much the stories/writing/etc, it's the designs I hate. They are either stylized to hell and/or just throw away too much of the Transformer aesthetic (which is a feat in itself considering how varied it is).
|
Originally Posted by NobleFox
Lots of stuff
|
Branching Paragon Police Department Epic Archetype, please!
The original Night of the Living Dead is pretty much THE creator of Zombies as we known them today, anything prior to that focused on the more traditional Voodoo Zombie.
Personally I feel a remake of Dawn of the Dead is pretty needless.
Dawn of the Dead was a product of its time, the entire movie thanks to the spread of Zombie culture has now become something absorbed by cultural Osmosis. Heck look at Dead Rising, they had to slap a 'not affiliated with Dawn of the Dead by George A Romero' tag onto the box (though I'm not sure whether that was for legal reasons or not).
Though I wouldn't mind knowing what the large number of faults you see in it are Ironik, though I admit the movie isn't perfect or to everyones tastes (a lot of people don't like the slow build up and large character development that goes on but that doesn't mean you turn it into a trashy Action movie like the remake did, with an additional 5 characters that are so blatently there to be killed off for more gore).
George A Romero himself actually hated the remake but then he doesn't like the new 'fast zombies'. He much prefers the slow but overwhelmingly outnumbering Zombies that most people associate when you say Zombie.
Still it could have been worse...what about that truly, truly terrible remake of Day of the Dead.
During that movie me and my friends just pictured George A Romero popping out correcting the things wrong with the movie and single handedly quelling the Zombie Apocalypse ("Zombies can't walk on the ceiling, that's just stupid" "Nor do their heads explode when you set them on fire, so stop that and continue through the flames if you please.")