quote:

ORIGINAL: Darkfeather
You really have to stop comparing the two. They aren't meant to be similar in any way, other than name and character. Have you seen the rebooted Total Recall? That is more like what this is supposed to be. Now that movie is a whole nother conversation, but it shows that a movie can have the same name, same concept, but completely different storylines. Keep thinking that Abrams is trying to fit his Star Trek into Roddenberry's, and you will give yourself an aneurism

quote:

ORIGINAL: Zonie63

quote:

ORIGINAL: Darkfeather
You really have to stop comparing the two. They aren't meant to be similar in any way, other than name and character. Have you seen the rebooted Total Recall? That is more like what this is supposed to be. Now that movie is a whole nother conversation, but it shows that a movie can have the same name, same concept, but completely different storylines. Keep thinking that Abrams is trying to fit his Star Trek into Roddenberry's, and you will give yourself an aneurism

I never saw the rebooted Total Recall. I liked the original well enough, but not so much that I'd care much about a reboot.

I can get that a movie would have the same name and same concept, especially if we're talking about a famous novel or historical event which often gets played and replayed in the movies and/or TV shows. I can even get that Abrams might want to offer a new and refreshing take on Star Trek, but it might have helped a bit if he knew something of the original story first.

I don't know about the reboot of Total Recall, but I think if one is going to do a reboot, it might help to at least watch the original story. I don't think one can do a good remake if one only reads the Cliff Notes or only watches the trailer from the previous version. That's where the problem seems to be. I guess the main complaint of the reboot is that it comes off more as a mockery of TOS by someone who was never a fan to begin with. It seemed like he couldn't make up his mind whether to do a satire or a more serious story or just some dazzling light show.

That seems to be a main complaint about a lot of movies these days, since they put so much into action and special effects that they lose something in the story line.

If he wanted to do a satire, that might have been funny. Monty Python and the Holy Grail was good satire of the old King Arthur legend. Star Trek has always made good fodder for comedy and satire. But by the same token, the Star Trek universe is quite multi-faceted, with an infinite number of stories and plot lines which could be used. My central complaint is that it appeared that Abrams was so desperate to reproduce a carbon copy of the original crew and put it all into a single story. Perhaps he was too ambitious in trying to put everything into a single installment, whereas TOS took three seasons and several movies to establish the characters that the audiences came to know.

He couldn't decide whether to do a story about young Cadet Kirk or Captain Kirk, and it seems he got the two mixed up. A good prequel might have been nice, a more in-depth story of young Kirk and how he climbed up the ranks to become Captain. Heck, at least George Lucas gave us a whole trilogy showing how young Anakin Skywalker became Darth Vader. He did make him kind of a wussy, and the trilogy wasn't that good for many other reasons, but still, at least they put some time and thought into developing his character and showing how he got from point A to point B.

quote:

ORIGINAL: MasterCaneman

I just had an evil idea. I have a lot of those, but this one is in context. Has anyone done a reboot of Metropolis, the skein that started this whole shootin' match?

Oh, and in case you want to know. I shot first...

quote:

ORIGINAL: Darkfeather

You are also missing the point. A reboot is supposed, SUPPOSED to have little to do with the original, hence the reboot instead of remake.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Darkfeather

quote:

ORIGINAL: SpanishMatMaster

quote:

ORIGINAL: Darkfeather
This is frikkin America, where anything is target for reboot, or remake or whatever

Waiting for the remake of:
- Gone with the wind.
- Citizen Kane.

Eh, why do you think we have gems like the movie version of The Dukes of Hazzard. There are three unwritten rules of movie remakes in hollywood:
1: never remake a movie that grosses above a certain number
2: never touch moves by specific directors
3: never touch movies that star or stared specific actors

you will notice they skirt this rule, bend it, push it, but no company still producing movies has ever violated these three cardinal rules, and why we get remakes of television shows from the 60s

quote:

ORIGINAL: Zonie63

quote:

ORIGINAL: Darkfeather

quote:

ORIGINAL: SpanishMatMaster

quote:

ORIGINAL: Darkfeather
This is frikkin America, where anything is target for reboot, or remake or whatever

Waiting for the remake of:
- Gone with the wind.
- Citizen Kane.

Eh, why do you think we have gems like the movie version of The Dukes of Hazzard. There are three unwritten rules of movie remakes in hollywood:
1: never remake a movie that grosses above a certain number
2: never touch moves by specific directors
3: never touch movies that star or stared specific actors

you will notice they skirt this rule, bend it, push it, but no company still producing movies has ever violated these three cardinal rules, and why we get remakes of television shows from the 60s

I never heard of these particular rules. Where did they come from, and how does one find out about these rules if they're unwritten? What specific directors or actors are "untouchable"? How much money does a movie have to gross before it's considered "untouchable"?

You'd think that the first rule you listed would be the first one to break, because if a movie made a lot of money the first time around, it would make even more in a remake. Money is the cardinal rule in Hollywood, so you can do whatever you want as long as it makes money.

But there does seem to be a bit of film snobbery implied in these rules, as if there's a separate class of movies which are supposed to be "serious cinema" which should never be tampered with. But since Star Trek is regarded as a cheesy comic book, it shouldn't matter what Abrams did with it. But that's probably what gets people so miffed about it all, since some fans don't really see Star Trek in that way. It may not be "serious cinema" like Gone With the Wind or Citizen Kane, but it's really in a category all by itself.

Only time will tell whether the Abrams version will have any long-term staying power with the fans. If the fans who enjoyed this only saw it as a cheesy but entertaining popcorn flick, then it will likely be forgotten in the years to come. Those of us who grew up on TOS became lifelong fans of the entire franchise, but we won't last forever.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Darkfeather

Oh come now, the internet is a big wonderful place, you don't want me to do all the work for ya.

quote:



1. Stories in the public domain that have already had multiple movie remakes done.

2. The original is terribly dated in either setting or pacing and style.

3. The original is not terribly well known or beloved.

4. The remake does in fact bring something new while respecting the original.

5. The original was basically pretty cheesy or tongue-in-cheek in tone and most folks wouldn’t care if it was remade.

quote:


But use this piece of logic. Take Avatar. Grossed 2 billion so far, came out in 2009. Now lets say Michael Bay pitches to Warner a glorious explosion filled remake and they stupidly agree. He wants them to shoot exploding arrows and the floating chunks of planet crash and boom all over the place, pow. Hilarity and mayhem ensues. The only problem, if the Warner version fails to match 2 billion, it is a failure. if it exceeds 2 billion, 20th gets into a pissing match. Either way, James Cameron won't be a happy camper because someone fucked with his 2 billion baby

quote:

ORIGINAL: njlauren

For example, Kirk is kind of the rebel punk, he hates orders, makes his own rules (which, of course, Kirk did in the 'real' timeline)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Darkfeather

Star Trek: The Motion Picture, release date December 7, 1979. Domestic gross $82.2 million. Abrams Star Trek, release date May 8th, 2009. Domestic gross $257.7 million.

quote:


Star Trek Into Darkness, reaps an estimated $70.6 million over the weekend and $84.1 million since Wednesday. No matter what people say, the money in the register and people in the seats are saying Abrams has done a pretty good job. But then again, Alvin and the Chipmunks the Squeakquel, released December 23, 2009. It had a domestic gross of $219.6. So maybe that means Abrams could have done just as well replacing the cast with computer animated rodents...

quote:

ORIGINAL: Zonie63
Okay, I'm game. I Googled it and found this site at the top of the list, except they have five rules, and it didn't say anything about certain directors or actors being off limits:

quote:



1. Stories in the public domain that have already had multiple movie remakes done.

2. The original is terribly dated in either setting or pacing and style.

3. The original is not terribly well known or beloved.

4. The remake does in fact bring something new while respecting the original.

5. The original was basically pretty cheesy or tongue-in-cheek in tone and most folks wouldn’t care if it was remade.

quote:

ORIGINAL: jlf1961

tj, what about what they did to "The Day the Earth Stood Still?"

They not only changed the story completely, they destroyed the whole premise of the movie.

quote:

ORIGINAL: jlf1961

tj, what about what they did to "The Day the Earth Stood Still?"

They not only changed the story completely, they destroyed the whole premise of the movie.

quote:

ORIGINAL: jlf1961

tj, what about what they did to "The Day the Earth Stood Still?"

They not only changed the story completely, they destroyed the whole premise of the movie.