- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: battlestar galactica question.
Posted on 3/29/13 at 12:32 pm to Ace Midnight
Posted on 3/29/13 at 12:32 pm to Ace Midnight
quote:so you punish remakes if the original was good but it's ok if the original was bad and you judge them on their own
So, as I indicated before, not being a fan of the earlier works, I judged the "remakes" as independent productions.
1
Posted on 3/29/13 at 12:35 pm to Fearthehat0307
quote:
so you punish remakes if the original was good
If you're going to re-do a quality product, why are you doing it if it isn't going to be good?
quote:
if the original was bad and you judge them on their own
No - if I'm unfamiliar with the source material or original I judge it on its own.
Not sure what's causing the confusion.
Posted on 3/29/13 at 12:38 pm to Ace Midnight
quote:you said this
No - if I'm unfamiliar with the source material or original I judge it on its own.
Not sure what's causing the confusion.
quote:you said not being a fan, which to me means you didn't like it. no confusion just think it's hypocritical to judge them differently because of your feelings toward the original.
So, as I indicated before, not being a fan of the earlier works, I judged the "remakes" as independent productions.
Posted on 3/29/13 at 12:47 pm to Ace Midnight
quote:
If you're going to re-do a quality product, why are you doing it if it isn't going to be good?
well pretty much everyone BUT you thinks the BSG remake was good so....
Posted on 3/29/13 at 12:47 pm to Ace Midnight
why doesn't Casino Royale count? Its a remake of a comedy. LINK
I'm assuming you also pretty much hate all movie versions of books you have read too?
Jurassic Park, Interview With A Vampire, American Psycho, the Bourne series, The Lord of the Rings trilogy, the Harry Potter series, Sleepy Hollow, V for Vendetta, LA Confidential, The Godfather, and Minority Report are all different enough from the books that they must suck according to your standards.
What about a remake of a book adaptation that is different from both the movie and book? Do films like The Count of Monte Cristo(2002) and The Three Musketeers(1993) make your head explode?
I'm assuming you also pretty much hate all movie versions of books you have read too?
Jurassic Park, Interview With A Vampire, American Psycho, the Bourne series, The Lord of the Rings trilogy, the Harry Potter series, Sleepy Hollow, V for Vendetta, LA Confidential, The Godfather, and Minority Report are all different enough from the books that they must suck according to your standards.
What about a remake of a book adaptation that is different from both the movie and book? Do films like The Count of Monte Cristo(2002) and The Three Musketeers(1993) make your head explode?
This post was edited on 3/29/13 at 12:53 pm
Posted on 3/29/13 at 2:27 pm to Ace Midnight
quote:
I judged the "remakes" as independent productions.
The new Star Trek films are an independent production. Totally different timeline and story. They're not trying to remake the originals.
Posted on 3/29/13 at 2:31 pm to Dr RC
quote:
Do films like The Count of Monte Cristo(2002) and The Three Musketeers(1993) make your head explode?
No, but I don't care for them, either.
quote:
Jurassic Park, Interview With A Vampire, American Psycho, the Bourne series, The Lord of the Rings trilogy, the Harry Potter series, Sleepy Hollow, V for Vendetta, LA Confidential, The Godfather, and Minority Report are all different enough from the books that they must suck according to your standards.
Wow - the barrage.
I'm a fan of Michael Crichton, but not of Jurassic Park (any of it).
I didn't read the Bourne novels, but enjoyed the films.
Didn't watch Sleepy Hollow, V for Vendetta or LA Confidential (I know, especially V, but I plan on watching it).
Minority Report - Dick's stuff is always subject to differing interpretations. I wasn't offended with the film version of the story, despite the variations. I have no explanation. Bladerunner is my favorite film, despite significant variations with the book, which I also like.
LOTR is the Gold Standard for filming a classic work of literature. If the filmmaker is a fan of the source work and stays true to it, it can be spectacular as LOTR is.
Harry Potter - didn't read, didn't watch, don't care.
ETA: Another example - The Firm - I did the reverse of the normal process, I watched the film, but then immediately read the book (within a week or so). I thought the radically different endings both worked, in context. Ultimately I appreciated the elegance of the film's ending, which is the classic lawyer's solution. However, the book ending is also satisfying, in a way.
Go figure.
This post was edited on 3/29/13 at 2:34 pm
Posted on 3/29/13 at 2:35 pm to wadewilson
quote:
The new Star Trek films are an independent production. Totally different timeline and story. They're not trying to remake the originals.
If they're not going to be true to the original spirit, why am I watching? Why should I care? Why should I like it, being I am a fan of the original television series?
Posted on 3/29/13 at 2:39 pm to Ace Midnight
Ace - I respect your opinions, but you are way to close minded when it comes to cinema and remakes.
Posted on 3/29/13 at 2:40 pm to Ace Midnight
quote:
LOTR is the Gold Standard for filming a classic work of literature. If the filmmaker is a fan of the source work and stays true to it, it can be spectacular as LOTR is.
Wut?
While it was an incredible production in it's own right, the films did not stick to the source material.
quote:
If they're not going to be true to the original spirit, why am I watching? Why should I care? Why should I like it, being I am a fan of the original television series?
If you just don't like it, that's one thing, but are you saying you hate any remake that tries to create something different?
You must REALLY hate Batman then.
Posted on 3/29/13 at 2:45 pm to wadewilson
quote:
If you just don't like it, that's one thing, but are you saying you hate any remake that tries to create something different?
No. I hate Star Trek (2009). I don't hate BSG, I just don't like it, compared to the original series, and to be fair I've seen about 20 minutes of the new BSG. I haven't seen enough to "hate" it.
quote:
You must REALLY hate Batman then.
Comic book heroes are similar to James Bond - so many iterations. However much they f*cked up the X-Men (and truly, truly atrocious), filmmakers have done better with other heroes. Batman is one of those, although, again, which Batman? Batman with nipples? Batman with guns and bombs? None of them are ideal, but I can, say, dislike the first Bale Batman, but I respect the second film in its own right.
The Avengers was awesome.
Posted on 3/29/13 at 2:51 pm to Ace Midnight
quote:so watching 20 minutes was enough for you to make this statement
and to be fair I've seen about 20 minutes of the new BSG. I haven't seen enough to "hate" it.
quote:that is absurd
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
just started watching the remake on NetFlix.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I could have advised you against that.
Posted on 3/29/13 at 2:56 pm to Ace Midnight
quote:
Comic book heroes are similar to James Bond - so many iterations. However much they f*cked up the X-Men (and truly, truly atrocious), filmmakers have done better with other heroes. Batman is one of those, although, again, which Batman? Batman with nipples? Batman with guns and bombs? None of them are ideal, but I can, say, dislike the first Bale Batman, but I respect the second film in its own right.
The X-Men films were pretty horrible, except for the First Class.
I didn't particularly like Bale's Batman either, but there is something to be said for trying to bring a new angle to the character and story with some realism.
Posted on 3/29/13 at 3:14 pm to Ace Midnight
(no message)
Posted on 3/29/13 at 3:15 pm to Ace Midnight
quote:
LOTR is the Gold Standard for filming a classic work of literature. If the filmmaker is a fan of the source work and stays true to it, it can be spectacular as LOTR is.
when is the last time you read those books?
there are a TON of critical differences that completely change the tone of scenes and nature of relationships between characters.
Posted on 3/29/13 at 3:17 pm to wadewilson
personally - i think its a tad egotistical and absurd to advise people against watching something that you yourself readily admit to having watched a minimal amount of.
I will admit - I never watched BSG when it was on simply cause i thought of it as a slight against the origional.
i learned to adopt an open mind on cinema and remakes to an extent and realized that while the name was the same, the stories and the shows were anything but.
I will admit - I never watched BSG when it was on simply cause i thought of it as a slight against the origional.
i learned to adopt an open mind on cinema and remakes to an extent and realized that while the name was the same, the stories and the shows were anything but.
Posted on 3/29/13 at 3:35 pm to Dr RC
quote:
when is the last time you read those books?
Since I've seen the films, that's for sure.
quote:
there are a TON of critical differences that completely change the tone of scenes and nature of relationships between characters.
There are limitations of filming any work that one has to accept. I get (falsely) accused of being a slave to a particular canon. Another example is Hunt for Red October - obviously you cannot cover all elements of a Clancy novel in 90 to 120 minutes. That film is an excellent example of how to work with the limitations of the film media (and I don't mean to compare Tolkien and Clancy, beyond the fact they had voluminous written works produced into a film version).
Posted on 3/29/13 at 3:40 pm to Fearthehat0307
quote:
so watching 20 minutes was enough for you to make this statement
quote:
that is absurd
Well, that wasn't the only thing he said - he said he was a fan of the original series. I am assuming he liked elements of that. The new BSG is just so completely different in tone, content, style, morality - just everything, that I would advise fans of the original series to avoid on those grounds.
Just as with Star Trek (2009), clearly I'm in the minority, but that doesn't make my opinion or analysis "invalid". You may like the new BSG for the same reasons I don't like it. Ditto for Star Trek (2009).
Whatever gets you through the night.
Posted on 3/29/13 at 3:48 pm to Ace Midnight
quote:
The new BSG is just so completely different in tone, content, style, morality - just everything,
if everything is so different, then how is it shitting on the spirit of the origional?
Posted on 3/29/13 at 3:50 pm to Ace Midnight
but you vehemently complain about changes to Star Trek and BSG that you claim don't make sense or are not in the spirit of the originals.
That claim can easily be made about the LOTR movies.
I find it curious you detest the changing of source material if it was originally a film/yv show but don't care as much if its from a book.
major changes are major changes. It doesnt matter what the original format is.
That claim can easily be made about the LOTR movies.
I find it curious you detest the changing of source material if it was originally a film/yv show but don't care as much if its from a book.
major changes are major changes. It doesnt matter what the original format is.
This post was edited on 3/29/13 at 3:51 pm
Page 5 of 8
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News