Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

What film SHOULD be remade?

A remake of Lord of the Rings without all the really shit music, especially the twee faux Irish music that happens every time a hobbit is on screen (I haven't seen The Hobbit yet but I'm betting it's just as bad).

No need for a remake, the existing films could just get rescored with some cool techno. Or maybe a sultry jazz score ?
 
I'd like to see I Am Legend and The Time Machine get remade and be proper adaptations of the books which don't chuck out everything that's most interesting about them.
 
A remake of Lord of the Rings without all the really shit music, especially the twee faux Irish music that happens every time a hobbit is on screen (I haven't seen The Hobbit yet but I'm betting it's just as bad).

Apparently the Beatles were planning to make a film version of LOTR at one point, with Paul and Ringo as Frodo and Sam, George as Gandalf and John playing Gollum.

Thank fuck they didn't is all I can say.
 
I'd like to see a remake of Monsters in which the aliens don't look as if they were blatantly cooked up on a desktop PC.

The aliens looked fine and the last scene, where we finally get a good look at them, is gorgeous. And it wouldn't be that you've been influenced by knowing that they were cooked up on a PC by the director, because that was widely publicised ? Considering the film was made on a microscopic budget and a crew of 5 including the actors, the film looks spectacular. And he didn't just create the aliens on his PC, but whole landscapes of destruction and debris they creatures left behind. It was quite an achivement.

The director got nabbed by Hollywood to do another Godzilla remake, so you'll probably get your wish: A bland giant moster movie like many others, rather than a small British indie film with a very personal vision which completely subverts its own genre.
 
The aliens looked fine and the last scene, where we finally get a good look at them, is gorgeous. And it wouldn't be that you've been influenced by knowing that they were cooked up on a PC by the director, because that was widely publicised ? Considering the film was made on a microscopic budget and a crew of 5 including the actors, the film looks spectacular. And he didn't just create the aliens on his PC, but whole landscapes of destruction and debris they creatures left behind. It was quite an achivement.

The director got nabbed by Hollywood to do another Godzilla remake, so you'll probably get your wish: A bland giant moster movie like many others, rather than a small British indie film with a very personal vision which completely subverts its own genre.
I like to be absorbed in the films that I watch - to forget in effect that I am watching a film. Watching screen creations where you can see the polygons and crude CGI surface texturing jolts me out of that zone - unless it is consistent with the story or the 'feel' of the film (this was neither). This is not something I was particularly looking for after having read reviews - it is just completely obvious to anyone with a pair of functioning eyes.

I agree that the director's efforts constitute an immense achievement. But that does not negate any of what I've written. If I was watching a film about grizzly bears and the director came on in a bear suit, I would not care how realistic his growling was or how many years he had spent in the Alaskan wilderness in preparation for his cameo. I would like to see the film remade - not as a conveyor-belt Hollywood blockbuster, but with the same (very good and interesting) plot, and a bigger budget for the monster scenes.
 
Even if you found the effects so objectionable that it ruined the film for you enough to need a remake, the whole point of Monsters was that it isn't about the creatures, who have maybe three minutes of screen time. This post alien invasion world is only the backdrop to a road movie and a love story, that is closer to something like Before Sunrise than Godzilla. Monsters is a film Hollywood would have no interest in making, because you can just see suits demanding monster action from beginning to end.

To me the most interesting thing about it was the audacity of treating it's most sensational elements as a backdrop rather than up front (your claim that polygons are visible is rubbish). And in that regards the effects were perfectly fine. If you can't cope with a few imperfect shots, then maybe stick to Hollywood blockbusters only if CGI perfection is the most important thing and you are unable and unwilling to suspend your disbelief. It's a shame if you can only judge a film by the quality if it's effects, while ignoring all its other virtues.
 
The 80s sci-fi flick Millennium starring Kris Kristofferson and ex-Charlie's Angel Cheryl Ladd had a good story but was poorly executed. It's about an air crash investigator who comes across an odd bit of futuristic kit in a plane wreck. He starts an affair with a mysterious woman who claims to be a flight attendant and who tries to convince him not to go public with his find. It turns out that survivors from a post-apocalyptic future travel back in time to abduct people, who are about to die in disasters. They are saved at the last moment and taken through a time portal to repopulate the future earth, because those who are just about to die anyway are not going to affect the timeline when they go missing.

It's a good story which starts as a mystery thriller and then turns into a time travelling sci-fi epic, but it has terrible dialogue, a budget that renders the apocalyptic future laughable and the whole thing looks like a cheesy TV movie. There also were some interesting details in the novel it was based on which the film left out because it would have been too expensive, like the beautiful woman played by Ladd wore an organic body suit which hid a grisly looking a body, mutated and tumour ridden from the effects of whatever destroyed most of humanity.

 
...and that one also reminds me of Timescape, another obscure, low budget sci-fi/disaster film which had a good story and could do with a big budget treatment and better execution. Recently widowed father (Jeff Daniels) is on holiday with his daughter, when a group of mysterious travellers arrive at their hotel. Turns out they are time travelling tourists from the future who visit famous historical disasters, which spells bad news for the holiday resort.

 
The aliens looked fine and the last scene, where we finally get a good look at them, is gorgeous. And it wouldn't be that you've been influenced by knowing that they were cooked up on a PC by the director, because that was widely publicised ? Considering the film was made on a microscopic budget and a crew of 5 including the actors, the film looks spectacular. And he didn't just create the aliens on his PC, but whole landscapes of destruction and debris they creatures left behind. It was quite an achivement.

The director got nabbed by Hollywood to do another Godzilla remake, so you'll probably get your wish: A bland giant moster movie like many others, rather than a small British indie film with a very personal vision which completely subverts its own genre.

Bump:

 

My old buddy directed that.

I knew he was probably going to be making it for ages but seeing all the mass media marketing that seemed to start this morning brought it all home.
I really can't imagine him as a big shot sitting in a directors chair and pointing.
 
Cheers for that AS; I knew he was an Urb's mate, but couldn't find the original Monsters thread (which I enjoyed and does not need remaking as mentioned above).
 
Back
Top Bottom