While Hollywood is busy mining every bit of 80's pop culture...
- Thread starter mcbob
- Start date
BB vs. TWCL became Big Trouble in Little China. So, you sorta know. Just don't forget your thruster.
Well, that's the story. W.D. Richter directed BB and wrote Big Trouble, which was supposedly an adaption of the sequel story. The head of the WCL was Hanoi Xan, who became David Lo Pan. The Big Trouble script was written, obviously, to Carpenter's and Russell's strengths.
Might as well just leave it be.
Batutta
Major Contributor
You know they won't. Hollywood will squeeze the last drop of blood out every unturned stone until nothing is left to remake except The Garbage Pail Kids Movie. Then they'll start rebooting the reboots.
Paul V Doherty
Active member
I don't think I have EVER seen a remake that was as good as the original.... except maybe Ben Hur.
I would love to stand corrected.
I defy anyone to correct me, please for the love of Hollywood!
I would love to stand corrected.
I defy anyone to correct me, please for the love of Hollywood!
That's kind of a loaded question, as too much of it is subjective.
A few contenders which come to mind . . .
The Maltese Falcon (Huston)
John Carpenter's The Thing
Invasion of the Body Snatchers (1978)
Dirty Rotten Scoundrels
The Fly (1986)
Some say True Grit. I haven't seen it.
A few contenders which come to mind . . .
The Maltese Falcon (Huston)
John Carpenter's The Thing
Invasion of the Body Snatchers (1978)
Dirty Rotten Scoundrels
The Fly (1986)
Some say True Grit. I haven't seen it.
dust'n the callipygous
Well-known member
The Thing From Another World. Very campy, even for a '50s sic-fi flick
Nektonic
Veteran
Invasion of the Body Snatchers (1978) is awesome. I love that film. While the original is great, I think I prefer the one from 78. The less said about the recent remake and the one from the 90's, the better.
Also, The Fly is amazing too. I don't see how they could top David Cronenberg's remake. The Fly II sucked pretty bad too. Of course, they didn't have Cronenberg directing on that one.
As for The Thing, we're going to be getting a prequel in the fall. I don't feel too good about that. It focuses on the Norwegian camp. I think part of the fun of The Thing, at least early on in the movie is that the Norwegian camp is mysterious and a prequel will kill the shock of finding out what happened to them and how the camp looked when MacReady and the other dude get there.
Hmm. Now I'm curious to watch The Fly again; haven't since college. Will have to do it while my wife's not around, because there's no way she can sit through it.
snowleopard
Well-known member
I’m waiting for Hollywood to go back and relive the 70’s. Films like Network, Kramer vs. Kramer, An Unmarried Woman, Save the Tiger, They Shoot Horses Don't They, Norma Rae, A Woman Under the Influence…
Oh wait, they’ve already tried it. Starsky & Hutch, Swept Away…
Oh wait, they’ve already tried it. Starsky & Hutch, Swept Away…
simonpwood
Well-known member
'The Departed' was a good remake (but there are lots of Hollywood remakes if you look at foreign language films that have been remade).
'The Thing' was an interesting one. It was not so much a remake of the original film, rather they went back to the source material, the book 'Who goes there' and did their own version. Supposedly John Carpenters version was truer to the book (I haven't read it though).
So, this begs the question does it count as a remake if they interpret the book rather than remake the film? When you consider famous books there have been lots of versions made, for instance there are lots of Hamlet movies, or lots of versions of the 3 Musketeers (way too many), or lots of versions of Robin Hood (way-way too many, seriously). These films were not considered remakes of earlier films when you think about it - they were just reinterpretations of the original stories.
'The Thing' was an interesting one. It was not so much a remake of the original film, rather they went back to the source material, the book 'Who goes there' and did their own version. Supposedly John Carpenters version was truer to the book (I haven't read it though).
So, this begs the question does it count as a remake if they interpret the book rather than remake the film? When you consider famous books there have been lots of versions made, for instance there are lots of Hamlet movies, or lots of versions of the 3 Musketeers (way too many), or lots of versions of Robin Hood (way-way too many, seriously). These films were not considered remakes of earlier films when you think about it - they were just reinterpretations of the original stories.