Wicker Man

DarkMatter

DarkMatter

Veteran
Just watched the trailer for a new version of Wickerman with Nick Cage at apple.com. Who is up for a sequel? What do you guys think?:thumbup: :thumbdown
 
Yeah, I gotta agree with you about cage sucking as an actor. He seems to keep popping up because of Coppola. Yeah, nothing wrong with the original, however i think a fresh new take on it might be interesting.
 
i think he keeps popping up because he's nic cage and he made a few good movies early in his career before anyone knew he was related to Coppola.

Martin Scorsese (in Scorsese on Scorsese) talks about meeting and wanting to cast him before learning he was Coppola's nephew (is that the relation i forget).

So i don't think it's fair to say he only gets work because he's related to Coppola.

I'm Nic Cage. I was makin' my bones while you were going out with Cheerleaders!
Click to expand...
 
I'm not a huge fan of either Nick Cage or Wickerman, BUT! I did find the new trailer intriguing. Then again the lot of trailers I saw at the Omen included "Little Man" so really anything would have looked good.
 
I totally like Cage.

To say he has no talent is testament to asshatage.

-

Have you guy's even watched these films ?

Valley Girl
Rumble FIsh
Peggy Sue Got Married
Raising Arizona
Moonstruck
Wild at Heart
Leaving Las Vegas
Face/Off
Snake Eyes
8mm
The Family Man
Adaptation
Matchstick Men

To say you hate him is one thing; to imply the man has no talent shows ignorance. The man has an Oscar for chrissakes.

I can't stand Julia Robert's. But that broad can act.
 
I have enjoyed him in some of those movies John, esp. Matchstick Men and Leaving las Vegas, but I don't really like him that much. I don't deny he has talent but I'm not excited to see him a new movie, make sense?

As for Julia... having just seen her on Bway I'm not so sure she can act anymore... :-)
 
Totally makes sense !

-

Julia; uccckkk ....

I've liked some film's in spite of her but have never ever ever gotten the jist with her. Like, why do people like her? It is a mystery.
 
Sad as it is to admit, the ONLY movie of hers I have ever liked HER in was Notting Hill. Other than that, I have never gotten the whole Julia thing.
 
Julia gets kinda irksome. Nicolas Cage is sometimes beyond irksome. My problem with Cage is is over-the-top acting style. With the rare exception of Peggy Sue Got Married and Matchstick Men he is just way out there. I enjoyed The Rock and ConAir in spite of him. I am probably the only person on the planet that didn't like Raising Arizona, but there it is. He was actually pretty good in Adaptation. But this was a case where I liked him in spite of the movie. Not a Kaufmann fan.
 
Blaine said:
Julia gets kinda irksome. Nicolas Cage is sometimes beyond irksome. My problem with Cage is is over-the-top acting style. With the rare exception of Peggy Sue Got Married and Matchstick Men he is just way out there. I enjoyed The Rock and ConAir in spite of him. I am probably the only person on the planet that didn't like Raising Arizona, but there it is. He was actually pretty good in Adaptation. But this was a case where I liked him in spite of the movie. Not a Kaufmann fan.
Click to expand...

Once again Blaine I agree with you nearly 100%. I didn't like anything about Adaptation and I am not a Kaufman fan either.

But you nailed it for me-its his over the top acting style that generally turns me off about Cage. You can always tell he's "acting!". I like his quieter performances.
 
I don't mind Cage - he's fine, but I do mind remakes. I mean, what are they trying to say? Whicker Man is a totally classic horror movie, with absolutely superb performances, and probably one of the most memorable endings ever.

If you're inspired by Whicker Man - then take that inspiration and do your own horror movie in the same genre - but why take the name. What you're saying is that your movie is not good enough to sell without the name of the classic to hide under.

And then, of course, the original location is never good enough and you must always move it from England / Scotland / whereever to somewhere in the USA.

And of course, the original didn't need a big budget or special effects, so the remake has to cost a fortune and have lots of special effects because films are crap if they don't have lots of unnecessary sfx, explosions and stuff. Right....

I'll now step down from my soap box and let someone else have a go.
 
Graeme - That pretty much covers why Hollywood movies have sucked so much in recent years. You hit it perfectly.
 
Graeme_Nattress said:
I don't mind Cage - he's fine, but I do mind remakes. I mean, what are they trying to say? Whicker Man is a totally classic horror movie, with absolutely superb performances, and probably one of the most memorable endings ever.

If you're inspired by Whicker Man - then take that inspiration and do your own horror movie in the same genre - but why take the name. What you're saying is that your movie is not good enough to sell without the name of the classic to hide under.

And then, of course, the original location is never good enough and you must always move it from England / Scotland / whereever to somewhere in the USA.

And of course, the original didn't need a big budget or special effects, so the remake has to cost a fortune and have lots of special effects because films are crap if they don't have lots of unnecessary sfx, explosions and stuff. Right....

I'll now step down from my soap box and let someone else have a go.
Click to expand...

I agree with you up to the budget part, esp. with horror remakes. By even Hollywood standards the remakes don't get much of a budget. 8-10million which by today's standard in Hollywood qualifies as "indie"... can you imagine? 8million indie? I wish I had 8 million...
 
Well, the SFX budget for that Wicker Man trailer was probably more than the sfx budget for the entire original movie!

Movies don't have to be expensive - they just need to be good.

Graeme
 
Graeme_Nattress said:
Well, the SFX budget for that Wicker Man trailer was probably more than the sfx budget for the entire original movie!

Movies don't have to be expensive - they just need to be good.

Graeme
Click to expand...

That may or may not be true, but youhave to admit that the cost of making the same movie today would be at least double to triple-if not higher- the original budget. And honestly, I didn't see any effects in the Wicker trailer that would have been as expensive as the original film's entire budget.

I don't think the EFX budgets are really whats to blame. Certainly over the years audiences have grown to expect more visually as the SPFX technology has advanced. My case in point is The Fog. Talk about a movie that could be ripe for being reimagined with more enhanced effects. Why did the remake suck? Script, script, script. It all starts and finishes with script. Even with "better" effects, without a solid script you have nothing. I'm all for using better effects to tell the story, but the story has to be worth telling in the first place. Remaking a movie is fine with me if you can bring something new to it, show it differently, explore a new angle, use something that wasn't available when the original was made. Unfortunately, that's not what generally happens as we all know.

I think too most people, your average Americans that is, haven't seen the originals. I remember growing up in the 70s a lot of people wouldn't watch b/w movies. Certainly by today's youth standards the original Omen is "old". I think remaking the story for a new generation is awesome, unfortunately they're not getting the best renditions most of the time. People like us, film geeks, WILL watch b/w, "old", foreign, subtitled, art house movies. The audience the remakes are tageting will not.

I agree with you overall. Movies should definitely be good, regardless of budget. But that has always been the gripe with Hollywood. This is hardly a new frustration or issue.
 
Last edited:
Okay after listening to all this, I had to go view the trailer:

http://www.apple.com/trailers/wb/thewickerman/hd/

****, this will make money but having seen the original, this is enough to make me ill. Edward Woodward was superb in the role that Nicolas Cage :shocked: is reprising. I didn't see the Christopher Lee part, unless it's supposed to be Ellen Burstyn (and checking IMDb, it is.)

And in the trailer, they're dropping clues to Cage including that the girl burned to death. That was the great thing about the original. The way it guided you into the horror along with Woodward.

And Britt Eckland...:love4:
 
Exactly! I bet they change the ending and don't kill off Cage or something. Remember the abomination them made of Get Carter. I grew up in that area of England. That car park was still there last time I was in the UK. You can't go mucking around with classics like that and doing some new fangled thing on top. If you want to do something new - do it, but don't take the name of an old classic to allow you to "sell" the new movie.

I was exaggerating about the cost of the trailer..... :-)
 
Graeme_Nattress said:
Remember the abomination them made of Get Carter.
Click to expand...
I have the original with Michael Caine, a great actor btw. I couldn't bring my self to watch it with Sly in Caine's role, so fortunately, I don't remember the abomination they made of it. :Drogar-BigGrin(DBG)

Graeme_Nattress said:
I was exaggerating about the cost of the trailer..... :-)
Click to expand...
No much. :thumbsup: The original was fairly minimalistic regarding SFX. As I recall, the biggest thing in it was the burning of the Wicker Man.

And how the hell are you going to pick a better place than Summerisle? The place just gives you the creeps.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top