George Lucas Stole My Childhood: Remake Mania
 

You've heard it before. "blank blank insert here my childhood." It's the rallying cry of geeks everywhere whenever an update, remake, or re-imagining happens. From Star Wars to James Bond prequels, reboots and a whole list of other re's have been dominating Hollywood.

This summer we saw the success of Transformers, a reimagining of cartoon from the 80s. And opinions pretty much split down the middle on whether the movie helped or hurt the mythology that was already previously established.

Of course this is nothing compared to the general outcry against the Star Wars prequels. The eponymous figure in the title of this thread has even been called out by his ex-wife for beating a dead horse, so it seems that geeks aren't the only ones upset with some of GL's most recent decisions.

In the past two months more and more movies based on properties beloved from people's childhoods have either started production or being greenlit. Get Smart, Voltron, Speed Racer, Jonny Quest. There's even rumblings of Disney digging up its old Sailor Moon license agreement. And others are just waiting for the studios to say yes. As we speak WETA is waiting for the go-ahead on Evangelion.

Sometimes these reboots and other re's and ups work. Casino Royale, Battlestar Galactica and Batman Begins are fantastic examples of critical and financial success. Other times they drop like a rock. To anyone who watched the new Flash Gordon, I almost feel like I have to apologize.

But what do you think of this trend in movies in television? Do you feel that Hollywood should go back to original ideas and trying to find good scripts? Do you find many of these re's actually entertaining and fun. Or have they actually ruined the original for you in some ways. Have they stolen your childhood?

When a movie or new series is derived from old material, I think it's just Hollywood trying to make a buck, not much more. Some of these reworkings will be fantastic, in which case I will stand and cheer. Others are going to be horrendous, which will not make me happy at all. In general, I welcome the idea of my old favorites getting dusted off and revived for the big screen; it's always nice to see my favorite characters again, and it's interesting to see how much they differ from the original versions. The first Scooby-Doo movie comes to mind here; I enjoyed that one so much I saw it in the theater four times (although I'll admit that the latter three viewing were only $2.50 each). I don't see any of these reworkings as ruining the originals for me, though. The remakes may be a bad experience, and the writers and directors ought to be villified for some of them, but they can never take away my memories. :)

Did I see a mention of a possible Sailor Moon movie? ;D

Excellent topic, by the way. ;)

my favorite remakes so far have been the 90's feature film versions or the Brady Bunch and The Addams Family.
Pretty much any other remake has disappointed me severely. Especially Planet of the Apes.
Actually I have yet to watch the Scooby Doo movies, Batman begins (i think i would like it though), Casino Royale, or the Battlestar Gallactica. Most of those I am happy with not seeing.

I'm one of the few people who genuinely enjoyed Planet of the Apes. It may not have been nothing like the book, but neither was the original. I'm not going to say that it's the original's fault that it wasn't well-received, due to the fact that people couldn't get over nostalgia, because I know it's not true.

A true adaptation of the book would be great. There are no sentient humans other than the main character and the apes are as advanced if not moreso as Earth humans. It ends pretty much exactly like Burton's version though, although there's an epilogue I won't give away for those who may want to read the book themselves.

As for my take on this trend, while we do get some little gems here and there, I really wish Hollywood would return to original properties. Things like Back to the Future, Ghostbusters, Goonies, Star Wars, Indiana Jones, The Terminator, and a host of other great films wouldn't have ever been made if all the money of the 70s and 80s was being funneled towards big-screen adaptations of I Love Lucy and a remakes of Gone With The Wind and Citizen Kane. A few re's and ups are good every now and then but it shouldn't become a staple of the industry as it seems to be now.

I have mixed feelings about the redo trend. I absolutely love it when a franchise is given new life with a film that respects the source material. But I really dislike it when we get a botch job and have to suffer through a movie that is an insult to the fan base.

Well the one thing I do like about the whole remake-reboot trend is that it shows that the studios in their own very minor way are admitting that they have made some mistakes in the past with the way they handled certain franchises (IE Batman, Bond etc...) and therefore are in some cases taking positive steps to not only win back the fan base but also bring in new fans to whatever series they want to resurrect.

I personally liked the prequels (except AOTC) & some of these "nerd outcries", but I have to say all of these re-makes & returns (Rocky, McClane, Indy, Rambo,etc...) all just seems like a movie fad.

Oh. I've only just noticed this thread. I've kind of said my peice elsewhere on this topic but there is much wisdom here that the creative leaders would do well to heed. I also hope the A-Team themselves are guarding the rights to The A-Team.

There was a Flash Gordon re-make? Do you mean since the 1980 one with Brian blessed and the Queen souindtrack? Or is that the remake to which you refer?

As Monk says this is "old stuff", the choice of words in dug up is pretty accurate. A long ass time ago Disney was planning a live Sailor Moon, the hype around the DIC version of the show during weekday morning cartoons made it pretty big.

I never heard of any progress as far as who the girls would be casted as or how they were going to do Luna or any of the special effects. The only thing I know for sure I heard MANY times was that Geena Davis was contacted to play Queen Beryl. Davis also mentioned she was actually excited to play Queen Beryl.

But like most movies, it died in development hell and just never went anywhere. A rumor floated around about Buffy creator, Joss Whedon coming on as either a writer or director for the Moon movie. As Monk probably well knows about me, I personally don't see much of a problem with this "trend" simply because as much as you hate to hear about it, no one is forcing anyone to go see these movie remakes.

Granted it may be a little insulting to see the toons you love be changed in such a way, but ultimately, it's your choice to go to the theaters and pay the money or not. I don't see these TV remake movies any different then any other movie fad that has come and pass, there are good ones and bad ones.

Spider man brought forth an ass load of comic book movies, Batman Begins brought forth re-launching failed series, and it looks like Transformers may do the same since Voltron, Speed Racer, Get Smart, and (now officially) G.I. Joe is on the way. I just read the director for Joe is "Mummy Returns" "Deep Rising" director Stephen Sommers.

Remakes are just like any other movie genre like if you go see a horror or a comedy movie, there are crap ones and good ones. Some movies DO need to be remade, others don't but prove that they can still kick ass. Charlie and the chocolate factory was a fantastic remake, despite the fact I still love the old one.

The remake was done in such a fresh new way that it was really hard for me not to enjoy this movie. Batman Begins and Casino Royale proved that series can still be useful long after their expiration date and create quality films. But a movie remake is just like any other type of movie like a comic book or novel adapted to film: sadly not everyone is going to do a good job of it.

I'm a firm believer in seeing it before I whine about it, too many people piss and moan about things without giving it a chance. I can see that they wouldn't want to spend the money if they think it will suck, no one is forcing people to go to the theaters to see something they don't want to see.

Me personally though, I won't knock it until I try it, and that's just my view. Even if I see a movie and it turns out being crap, I'm still glad I took the time to see it and judge it truthfully and honestly. By the way, as much as I loved Batman Begins and Casino Royale, don't think I 100% support relaunching.

What annoys me the most out of relaunched movies is that they "erase/ignore" everything in the past films and start ALL over again. I frankly can't stand that, it's like ignoring years of hard work and story effort just to blink it away and say it never happened. I don't think it's necessary always.

Godzilla did that a lot of times with his movies and it can be really annoying sometimes.

Yeah, that I really don't like that at all. If you're going to do a movie based on a TV show or movie series with history, by the stars don't ignore that history or change the premise. It's part of what makes the original special, part of why it's considered good enough for a big-screen remake to begin with. And they shouldn't play around with character design too much, either. Updating the designs is one thing, but it often goes too far; the characters can become almost unrecognizable, one of the reasons the 1980's Masters Of The Universe movie was so horrid. He-Man simply did not look like He-Man, in my opinion. What if this was done with a hypothetical Foster's movie? Half of the Forum members would be screaming if Mr. Herriman was decked out in a Vegas-style leisure suit instead of his familiar garb or the "1" on Wilt's chest was redesigned. Stars alone know what they'd have Frankie wearing but knowing Hollywood I'd hate it and be screaming for blood. The point is, if you're going to do a remake, build on the old characters and stories, don't ignore them. The fans surely won't.

The most common reason producers don't continue from where stories leave off is because they have to worry about being constricted into the confines of the original story that was left behind by the last film. Which I can see how that'd be upsetting, but you can't just totally push away so much story so easily.'

Look at Batman's movies. Batman Beings basically is saying "yeah everything from 1989 up to 2004 does not exist anymore", that's BULL CRAP! How can you so carelessly and ignorantly discard so much hard work? Do you know how hard the writers, director, make up artists, and actors probably worked to make those movies only to basically say their story existence is wiped out?

Godzilla however does it WAY too much. After 1995's supposed "Last" Godzilla movie "Godzilla vs. Destroyah", continuity in the movies was completely ignored and for some stupid reason every movie after Destroyah was made to be a direct sequel to the original 1954 Godzilla movie "King of the monsters". Each time a new Godzilla movie was made, ZIP, everything before is ignored.

It's like this: Godzilla 2000 is a direct sequel to King of monsters ZIP! Sorry change that, Godzilla vs. Megagurius is the direct sequel ZIP! Sorry again :scaryberry: GOD that is so annoying. The character revamps is also another big issue, I don't mind a tweak here or there but sometimes it's just revolting.

Dr. Doom for example from the FF movie looked JUST like Dr. Doom, he had pretty much the same powers, looked and acted just like the comic book Doom was. They didn't make him an alien from another planet or say he was bitten by a radioactive dung beetle, they kept majority of him in tact.

Leading back to relaunching movies and Batman Begins, this brings me to the new Joker portrayed by Heath Ledger in "The Dark Knight" and how they have already made the Joker a shallow shell of his character's history. Heath Ledger's Joker has the make up come off, as in he's NOT a "super" villain.

He's not the bleach skinned maniac we all know and loved, no, instead he's just another crazy villain who wears make up, that was one of the whole points of the Joker that he DIDN'T wear make up, it was permanent. Revamps usually can only be as good as the way the director envisions them.

Christopher Nolan made a beautiful movie with "Begins", I don't doubt that, but he made a totally stupid envision of the Batman series by making it more "realistic" and changing Scarecrow's gas, Ra's Al Gul, and Batman's gadgets into something more scientifically plausible. Batman is hardly what I call realistic so why bother whizzing on such a great super hero by making him more "real" when he never needed to be more real in the first place?

Dr. Doom wasn't really intact if you want to go by actual comics. He's more of a weak amalgam of Ultimate Fantastic Four's Victor Van Damme and Marvel-616's Victor Von Doom, and not really the best of either of them. Not to say he's not a good villain for the movie he was in. But he was a very weak representation of the character he was based on.

As for the reboot of the Batman film franchise, it was something that was needed. By the time Burton and Schumacher got done with it, while still representative of various eras in the Batman mythos it wasn't really reflective of the comics today. Something which both the studios and a lot of the fans wanted. You can argue about the changes made, but I think we can agree that changing Gotham back from a Neon-Glo East Coast city of sin to a city with a shiny exterior hiding a seedy and cancerous underbelly in some places better than others was a good direction. Not to mention that this is actually a second reboot in the past 10 years even. Whether people want to admit it or not there was absolutely no relation to Burton and Schumacher's Batmans. So instead of choosing which to go with they decided to start from scratch.

What I will say is that I'm not fond of what I've heard about Nolan. Apparently, like Burton, he also has no interest in Batman in the comics. He wants Batman to be more reminiscent of James Bond. I think they really should stop hiring directors who have no true respect for the sourrce material and only want to put their own spin on things. There's nothing wrong with having different interpretations. By all means that's what these re's are for, but at least respect your source, whether it be a comic, book, movie, song, whatever. Otherwise why bother to re-anything?

However there's nothing in Batman Forever or Batman and Robin that disapproves or "cancels out" any of the material that was laid down by Batman and Batman Returns. So it could easily correlate. Gotham City's "look" is more of a "whoop dee do" factor for me. Like I said, it's when they go totally species change that upsets me.

Dr. Doom is at least closer to Doom in the comics then Legder is as the new Joker since we know he's no different then any other yahoo who puts on a purple suit and clown make up. Yes, I imagine Ledger will do a great job playing a psychotic villain, but his new design makes it easy for anyone to duplicate his appearance.

Which is why I loved Joker's permanent bleached skin. One of the things I loved so much about Burton's Joker was the fact he put human make up on himself and when he washed it off, you saw his real skin, the bleach white skin. I just loved seeing that effect done that this change with Ledger is really insulting.

Not to mention I want to go on record that I said it was STUPID from the beginning to redo the Joker in the first place, he's one of the LEAST realistic Batman characters ever, he falls into a vat of acid and turns ghost white and goes nuts! That's hardly what I call a plausible situation to see in a realistic world.

Since Batman begins is already getting a 3rd, I pray to god they STAY AWAY from "mutant" villains of Batman so they don't butcher apart their genetics like they are doing with Joker. So Clayface, Bane, Mr. Freeze, Man-Bat, and Poison Ivy are out. Unless of course they drown them in a vat of realism like they did Ras' Al Gul.

I agree with you about the Batman franchise going through the reboot process.

Honestly, I always thought that Batman was like that before Batma Begins, but after looking up its original source (especially Batman's character), I was surprise that, not only the movies I have watch weren't true to the source at all, but the directors themselves didn't seem to realize what Batman really is.

As much as I like Tim Burton's film, I just wish he pay more attention to the source itself (Joel Schaummer, on the other hand, made the films more akin to the 1960s Batman).

For Nolan's version of Batman, I have to say I'm glad he took the time to research what Batman is really about (including respecting and being true to the Batman mythos), as Begins makes it clear that the Dark Knight will not kill any criminals, no matter how cruel they are (most of the time, he tries to convince them to turn themselves in or seek help), as well as establishing that it was Joe Chill, not the Joker, who killed Bruce's parents. I'm also glad that the film went with the dark and grim atmosphere, boosted with a great plot.

Overall, I prefer Nolan's versions over the Burton/ Schaummer films (as well as looking forward to The Dark Knight and the third untitle sequel).

Yeah, the only problem is Joe Chill was NEVER CAUGHT. I can see why Burton would put Joker in his history to tie Batman and him closer together, but Nolan didn't do a much better job considering they caught AND killed Joe Chill.

From what I recall, one of the biggest things about Batman's parents murder was that they never found Chill and that to me sounded pretty important to keep in since it seemed Nolan was "supposedly" being more accurate but he wasn't.

How he handled the Scarecrow is proof of his "accuracy". I don't mind how they changed Scarecrow's look or his weapon that delivers his gas, but was it too much to ask to keep his gas a "phobia hallucinogenic" since fear is his trademark, and not goofy gas?

His gas still was a phobia hallucinogenic. It wasn't just goofy gas. People saw some of their worst fears realized. Reality literally shattered for those who took in a whiff of the gas. No, the only thing changed about Scarecrow other than his appearance is making him director of the Arkham Asylum instead of a professor at Gotham U.

I do agree that Joe Chill should've never been apprehended. That was as big of a botch job as Gordon driving the Batmobile.

It made people see cocaine drug inducing crap and weird stunts but it wasn't at all what I call phobia. Batman was probably the only one I ever got the distinction of his bat phobia coming out, and that's not much evidence considering he still suffered from "Bat freak outs" in his dreams/nightmares.

I remember in the old cartoon show when Scarecrow gassed people and you saw a guy afraid of spiders, afraid of heights, like actual clinical fears that people suffered from and I liked that alot better then just seeing a bunch of freaky stuff from this drug. Most of it was just super imposing or blurry images of faces.

In fact, most of the fears most powerful effects came from if people were looking at Scarecrow or Batman because they had scary masks. Otherwise, the gas really didn't do anything else but slightly distort reality to make things look freaky where as his old gas actually made a person's personal fear come to life.

It was still a cool effect none the less. Like I said though, sometimes remakes can pay off and others don't. Invasion of the Body snatchers for example. The Invasion I heard sucked, but the 80s one with Donald Sutherland was also a remake and I saw that one and thought it was absolutely fantastic.

Those alien screams, the haunting music, I heard many people say it surpassed the original black and white one. In opinions of course.

I for one would like to see an end to these live-action adaptations of retro cartoons, particularly wherein you get the main character played by some CGI creation. With films like Garfield and Scooby Doo, they were clearly aiming to make the titular characters look cartoony enough in their computer-generated guises so as to sufficiently resemble their original animated selves, yet also add "realistic" details like fur and irises to help them blend in a little more aptly into their new three-demensional environs. Problem is, they came up woefully short on both sides of the spectrum. Neither character looked enough like their cartoon counterparts for me to accept them as such, and yet they looked so fake and cartoony that the interactions going on between themselves and the rest of the live-action world seemed terribly ungainly. The decision to render Garfield in CGI whilst having the rest of the local menagerie portrayed by real animals, though obviously a lot more cost effective, worked out rather dismally in practice - having him neck-to-neck with flesh-and-blood felines only accentuated just how artificial the leading kitty was (as if it wasn't blatant enough already). It wasn't helped by the fact that NONE of the real animals they'd chosen looked anything like the characters as they appeared in the strip/cartoon. Couldn't they even have found an actual silver tabby to play Nermal? Not that "Nermal" as we saw him in the film had anything in common with the Nermal we know, other than actually being a cat.

The rather frustrating thing about the Garfield movie was that it wasn't--actually--that--bad. It was perfectly passable, if very bland and undemanding, family entertainment (at least when compared to the Scooby Doo movie, which I personally found just plain painful to watch - sorry, Cass), and had it been about some different, original cat character I might have been a little better disposed toward it. Trouble is that it wasn't Garfield. The characters, particularly Jon and Liz, were just so vexingly washed out. Stocking the soundtrack with such flavour-of-the-month groups as the Black-Eyed-Peas (as opposed to Lou Rawls or Desiree Goyette, who had been the staples in the animated series) kind of betrayed the sad probability that this film had been churned out not for the sake of providing pleasant nostalgia for life-long Garfield fans like myself, but rather to make the character and franchise more marketable to the current generation of kids. Which actually kind of hurts. :(

I've heard whisper of this live action Wacky Races adaptation they're currently trying to get off the ground - no doubt, if it goes ahead, Muttley and Saw-Tooth would also be portrayed by ugly masses of digital pixels. Warner Brothers, if you're listening, kindly can this idea before it's too late. You know it makes sense to do so.

I can relate and understand how people feel towards these recent LIVE toon movies and how fans feel they are losing something precious to them. However, I regard these films just like I regard any other film I think looks bad: if you don't want to see it then don't see it, it's as simple as that.

No pain, no problem. No one forces people to go see movies, and if you think its crap then call it crap, ignore it, and get on with the rest of your day. People will always make bad movies and nothing you do or say will change that, so what if they butcher ideas or things from your childhood? Just brush it off.

No matter how piss poor of a job they do on these movies, no movie's crap factor will be powerful enough to truly remove or damage the memories you gained growing up with these toons. I grew up on Alvin and the Chipmunks and I think their new movie looks like crap, but then I just decide not to go see it.

Garfield, Chipmunks, and Underdog were all made by the same company or CGI team or whatever you want to call it. I feel those movies truly are in bad taste and are not worthy mentioning of the toons names, however, I very much disagree about Scooby Doo's live movie as I felt that movie was amazing.

Truth be told, I hated Scooby as a child, I didn't get raised on his cartoon show so a live movie of it didn't seem to interest me. But I watched it on cable TV one day and I just totally loved it. The thing I liked about Scooby Doo was it was true to the toon's heritage in more ways then one.

The movie kept the characters quirky personalities and exaggerated them in ways that both parents and kids could recognize them in both levels. Scooby never had fellow toons to hang around with like Garfield and Alvin did, he had the monsters and of course Scrappy Doo, which were BOTH CGI animated as well.

The movie really did bring their world of monsters and magic to life, the amusement park, the island bar, the scenery was absolutely amazing and it looked like a real Scooby Doo setting brought to life. I have never enjoyed such scenery in a movie before and I felt it captured the mood of the show.

Furthermore, the best thing I loved about this movie was the fact they even poked fun at their own inside jokes, revelations, and references. From the fear of dark castles and shifty eye paintings, to Shaggy and Scooby lapping up some deliciously hilarious pot head references, there was at least 3 in there.

Not to mention the agreed annoyance regarded towards Scrappy Doo. That to me showed that this movie really stayed true to the material, to the point of enhancing it, mocking it, and making it funny for children and adults to enjoy. The sequel (while no where near as fresh as the first one) enhanced even more TV authenticity.

I'm saying this not to defend or intentionally bash the CGI movies like Garfield and Underdog, I just wanted to make it clear where I stood on the Scooby Doo movie above all others because I truly feel this movie is one that deserves some appreciation for bringing a kids show to life properly (and more importantly) comically.

Wow, that pretty much covers how I felt about Scooby-Doo as well. I watched every episode at one time or another and loved the show so much that I eventually taped them all. I had very high hopes for the movie when I heard it was being made, but there was a sense of dread, too; what if they butchered the show, turned the movie into something completely unrecognizable? That could very easily have happened - it's happpened to other cartoon adaptations often enough - but happily it didn't. I ended up seeing it in the local theaters four times. I still don't think that Sarah Michelle Gellar bears any resemblance to Daphne at all, but other than that I have no complaints. It was a great movie. :)

Wilt has a chest?

ZING! Thank you, thank you, I'll be here all night. Try the potato salad.

Anyway, I may have posted this somewhere before, but I doubt a Sailor Moon movie could be worse than the trailer Saban Entertainment produced before they tried to buy the rights to the license (childhood-eating abomination available here). The really scary thing is that the only reason DiC won the battle is because they were willing to pay more money, and not because their version of the show was closer to the original.

(Also, I'm hoping Cass, a Sailor Moon expert, will be able to shed some light on who the girl in the wheelchair is. Or any of them, really.)

Oh yeah, I agree that we always have the option of shunning such movies in the likelihood that they'll do our fond memories a disservice, but nonetheless it's often rather painful seeing something you have some kind of attachment to revving itself up to crash and burn, regardless of whether or not you actually watch the end result or not. And perhaps it's also a tad irritating when Hollywood has to plough endlessly through antiquated franchises in order to make its money, rather than trying to entice audiences with any fresh or interesting new ideas. That in mind, inspiration can come from a variety of sources, and there are certainly examples of TV shows which have been the foundations for quality films (I love the Untouchables...to be fair I've never watched the original series, but I think it stands as a fine film on it's own). It's all a matter of execution, I guess.

Concerning the Scooby Doo movie, for starters I think they could have done a lot better if they'd done away with that obnoxious two-minute farting contest (I don't remember there being anything of that ilk in the cartoon series, but maybe I can be proved wrong). True, it was a very small component of the film overall, but somehow it managed to burn itself onto my conscious more violently than anything else in the picture. Maybe that's my own problem, but I found that scene to be in bad taste and painfully intrusive.:P

I'll credit them that they went to more effort to capture and enhance the human characters' personalities than the Garfield movie even came close to, but overall I think the mistake the Scooby Doo movie made was to focus too much on trying to appease modern day youngsters with endless crude humour and far-out plot development that seemed at odds with the original cartoon (I remember reading a review in Empire that pretty much summed up how I feel on the matter; "they forgot the rule that all "ghosts" must really be disgruntled caretakers running around in masks"), whilst going equally overboard with the ironic parodies designed to appeal to the cynical adults in the audience, to the point where the campy, spooky adventure that marked the TV series got engulfed somewhere in between. Judging from the opening sequence, one of the film's central jokes appeared to be that we'd actually missed the more familiar adventure story we'd come to see, and were getting something more warped and disconcerting in its place, and it wasn't a joke I was really inclined to appreciate (not because I'm particularly conservative on matters of how Scooby Doo should be portrayed - I was always a casual viewer at best - but because their alternative kind of adventure just wasn't my cup of tea). Admittedly, the film's biggest plot twist...
Spoiler Below

...did help to enliven the conclusion a little and came close to making the whole affair worthwhile, but I personally think that a storyline a lot closer to that of Old Man Smithers wouldn't have gone amiss. True, no doubt it would have been predictable as hell, but with all the right moves it there's a chance that it could also have been a fair bit of fun.

EDIT: That said, the existence of Scooby Doo movie was completely vindicated for me by a brief moment in Looney Tunes: Back in Action..."Like, what was that? You made me sound like a total space cadet, man! If you goof on me in the sequel, I'm coming after you!" 8D

I have to say that Matthew Lillard was the only guy who seemed to get the character he was portraying. Cardellini played Velma as a bombshell hiding inside a frumpy nerd's body, Prinze played Freddie as a vapid moron, and Gellar can't seem to shake the fact that not ever character she plays is Buffy. Lillard however was as true to Shaggy as you can get in live-action. He had the mannerisms and the vocals down pat.

As for the out there premise, I don't think it veered to far from the Scooby Doo universe, seeing as all subsequent series, barring the prequel A Pup Named Scooby Doo, featured actual supernatural entities. It wasn't until the ret-con that occured in Scooby Doo on Zombie Island that all previous series after Where Are You were disregarded from canon. That is depending on which fan you talk to though.

Actually, if you remember the Scooby Doo movie did not ignore the whole "guy in a costume" gag and I'm not talking about the the opening scene with the Luna Ghost. If you remember, Fred stated twice very clearly there was no such things as monsters because they all knew the monsters they met were costumes.

Which also explains why Fred didn't believe Scooby about those Dark Elf creatures existing because they knew from past expierence that monsters didn't exist (or so they thought). Add to that Velma thinking the Dark Elf that grabbed her was wearing a mask and when she tried to yank it off, found out the hard way he was real.

This also explains why Daphne and Shaggy were more scared then usual because not only were they dealing with REAL monsters, but they were dealing a HUGE number of real monsters. The whole "secret villain" at the end is another hint towards the whole it was a guy in a suit joke so i felt they touched it clearly.

I didn't have a problem with Velma at all. I liked the fact they actually gave her some sex appeal and I loved Cardellini's impression of Velma's voice. Fred I actually liked because while he was stupid and doofy at times, he was a hell of a lot more active then his toon counterpart. Toon Fred always seemed stiff and bland to me.

At least his character here got a little more substance, and to be honest, I think the fact a blond guy wearing ascot has an ego of such large proportions is a great joke in and of itself. Gellar though you can't really blame for being stuck in her "Buffy" mode because some actors simply can't escape who they are.

Jason Statham, Vince Vaghun, Owen Wilson, Ben Stiller, they all ultimately play the same kind of character in all their movies and sometimes it's just the only way they can act. Very few actors can take such drastic transformations into completely unrecognizable identities like say Gary Oldman. Compare his performance in "Batman Begins" and "The Fifth Element".

Tell me how easy it is to tell it's the same guy. I want to touch up one very common MISCONCEPTION about Hollywood, something that bugs me alot every time I hear someone say. Originality is NOT DEAD in Hollywood, originality is being SUPPRESSED in Hollywood, that's what's happening.

There are thousands of people writing original movie scripts every day, the problem is that movie companies and executives feel original movies are too risky to try and sell. They want to spend millions of dollars on a project they know will succeed and so they pick franchises that people are familiar with.

They turn down original scripts all the time in favor for something more well known, that's why they make movies off of remakes, comic books, books, TV shows, cartoons etc. Plus, when you mean original ideas are we talking super amazing quality original movies, or do you mean movies that just isn't based of a previous format?

Because Superbad for example is an original film and not based on anything. So is Balls of Fury, Death Sentence, Hatchet, Hostel, War, Wild Hogs etc. Now you guys may not consider those movies to be as good as Superbad but they are ORIGINAL movies. They are not based off a Japanese movie, a remake, a comic book or a novel or video game.

Original movies do exist, but it all depends on whether people are referring to original movies they like or dislike. Because all those movies I listed are original films, whether you think they are good films or not, they are still original.

After reading all of these posts, I couldn't help but put my two cents worth on the subject.

Regarding on the whole remake/reboot trend, I'll only like those movies IF they are true to the original source, something that Speed Racer did brilliantly. John Goodman looks EXACTLY like Pops Racer, including the mustache, and I had to jump for joy upon seeing his wrestling fight with the ninja! I also agree with AerostarMonk about Matthew Lillard as Shaggy. I thought that he nailed it perfectly, not that I'm a fan of Scooby-Doo. That's one of the things I look for in a TV/cartoon remake movie: actors who LOOK and SOUND like the characters that they're playing. Steve Carell was brilliant as Maxwell Smart, Christina Ricci slipped into Trixie like a glove, French Stewart did the best Inspector Gadget I've ever seen, and I thought Brendan Fraser did a great job as both George of the Jungle and Dudley Do-Right.

I ran into this thread while searching for The A-Team, as the first trailer for it has been released, and I think all the actors look like their counterparts (minus the bling-bling). See for yourself: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ozUQvBOFaDU

Now THAT I wasn't expecting. If it did happen sometime in the 90s, I would've been like I was when I saw Inspector Gadget (the first one with Matthew Broderick): I wouldn't care less about whether it stayed true to it or not! Thankfully, I'm a different person now, and I always check to see if it's in every way true to the original source. :frankiesmile:

At the moment, Disney is prepping a motion-capture remake of the Beatles' 1968 movie Yellow Submarine with Robert Zemeckis directing it, and the announcement has been met with widespread disapproval. They've already lined up who will "portray" the Beatles (Cary Elwes will be George), and a soundalike band, named the Fab Four, will do the music.

The disapproval stems from the thought that Submarine was a film for its time, the late 1960s. Its irregular linear art and its fireworks palette of colors cannot be adequately done in motion-capture since the technology is supposed to make things "lifelike" and the Heinz Edelmann-designed inhabitants of Submarine were all very un-lifelike to begin with. Also, two of the Beatles (John and George) are no longer around, so this remake cannot even do the original ending (where the group appears live) without it feeling creepy.

And finally, will the Disney audience weaned on the likes of Hannah Montana and High School Musical be able to appreciate the music of the Beatles? In 1978, kids thought that the Bee Gess and Peter Frampton thought up Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band after that movie came out, prompting Capitol records to re-release the Beatles' version with the label "The Original Classic." There's fear that the Beatles on-screen will be thought of as fictional and that Disney thought up the movie and the music. (I digress, my sister tells of two ten-year-old girls at a school talent show who did a duet of "I Will"--from the White Album--and she was absolutely floored by them). Time will tell...but the red flags are already out.

I don't how reliable Wikipedia is nowadays, but I found out from a link to a Variety article (from the Wikipedia article on Sailor Moon) that the director was to be Stanley Tong. (source: https://variety.com/1997/voices/colu...zy-1117863071/)

If you don't know who he is, he directed the third and fourth Police Story movies that starred Jackie Chan, and a Disney film from 1997 that wasn't that much well-received...

Let's just say that I'm glad the Sailor Moon movie died when it did.