?

Log in

No account? Create an account

The Past | The Previous

Against Hollywood

The soulless monkey men from Hollywood have remade Assault On Precinct 13.

I had a much longer and original post here, but I've deleted it, because I didn't like it. It was rantish. It was pointless. In its place is this decision. It's a simple one: no more remakes. I am making a movie going life decision, and it's simple: No More Remakes. I'm tired of Hollywood raping the past for bland moments of the future that they'll rape later for millions of dollars. So, from now on, I refuse to watch remakes. 2005 has become the Year of Fuck Hollywood.

I'm beginning with remakes. There might be more.*




* Yes, I'm aware it'll likely result in nothing. But fuck it. They (studios and film makers) toss millions into it and get millions back, but I get nothing from it, not even a moment of satisfaction, so that's it. No more.

Comments

( 22 Soaking Up Bandwidth — Soak Up Bandwidth )
joey_j0jo
Jan. 9th, 2005 10:17 am (UTC)
You know. I read that long post. It was amusing.
benpeek
Jan. 9th, 2005 10:26 am (UTC)
thanks, but i didn't like it. it's rare when i dislike something i write on this livejournal, so when it happens, i listen to it and delete. it's no biggee, anyhow.
redlantern2051
Jan. 9th, 2005 10:22 am (UTC)
Hey Ben, I read the longer post, too. It was fine man. I am reading Hunter S Thompson's latest book and lusting after Kathleen from "Hi-Five", so perhaps I am not in the best frame of mind this weekend, tho. :-)
benpeek
Jan. 9th, 2005 10:28 am (UTC)
er. which one is kathleen?

anyhow, thanks, but i figure when i don't like something on this livejournal, i'll just delete it. it's no biggee. just listen to the little critic inside--and i have pretty mild standards for this place. so when something says it's got to go, it goes.
redlantern2051
Jan. 9th, 2005 12:15 pm (UTC)
Kathleen is the Asian chick. I love her! :-) There is a pic of her on my LJ.

BTW I agree Hollywood loves to rape its past. However, say "Oceans 11" was an OK remake-and I'm a BIG Sinatra fan. Also I thought "THe Manchurian Candidate" was a good remake. I thought both were about equal to the originals...just my 2 cents, dude. :-)
benpeek
Jan. 9th, 2005 12:25 pm (UTC)
oh, yeah, okay, her. she is cute.

anyhow, while i never saw the remake of the manchurian candidate (i love angela lansbury in it) and i have heard that it's a not bad remake, it's not exactly essential to remake make the film and 'update' it, is it? i mean, they could've made a different film taking all that subject matter and putting it into something new. that's the other side of remakes--even when they're not bad, they're kinda lazy in that there's nothing essential about remaking this film. nothing that cries out for it. a new original film could have been made just as easily.

ocean's 11 was fluff, though. it could have been any old heist film.
future_conduit
Jan. 9th, 2005 10:30 am (UTC)
Stepford wives!?
although i liked some of the "modern details" what was with the irrelevant beginning, gender twist, & happy ending?
i think boycotting remakes is a splendid idea.
benpeek
Jan. 9th, 2005 11:02 am (UTC)
Re: Stepford wives!?
i never even went to see that. it had evil all over it--and plus, i'm no real matthew broderick fan.

but yes: no more remakes. influence your friends.
wyldemusick
Jan. 9th, 2005 10:49 am (UTC)
If there was a movie that didn't need to be remade, this was it. What made it work in the first place was the grungy, crunchy low-budget meanness of it. It shoud hve had Harvey Keitel going psycho in it somewhere.
benpeek
Jan. 9th, 2005 11:04 am (UTC)
it gets worse, however. in the part of the black cop, there is white ethan hawke. in the part of the white crim, there is black laurence fishburne. words fail to communicate how truly awful that is.

oh, and they're making v for vendetta into a film staring natalie portman.
redlantern2051
Jan. 9th, 2005 12:17 pm (UTC)
hey is this a good comic? Its Alan Moore, isn't it? I think there is a copy in my comic store...I'm thinking about picking one up.
benpeek
Jan. 9th, 2005 12:28 pm (UTC)
to be honest, i found V for Vendetta to be kind o cold and impersonal. it's alan moore and david loyd, so it's still interesting, but just not something i recommend from moore's work if you've an interest in thatcher inspired dystopia, however, you'll probably love it.

there are better things to read of moore's, i think, but i know people who swear it's his best thing. so, i guess, the answer is: worth reading, but your mileage may vary.
artbroken
Jan. 9th, 2005 04:09 pm (UTC)
I agree that V is cold and impersonal, but I also think that's part of the point.

And yeah, Moore's written better books, but it's definitely in the upper half of his bibliography.
benpeek
Jan. 9th, 2005 10:08 pm (UTC)
for me, i'd say it straddles the border. (he's done some truly forgettable work for that lower half, and v for vendetta is hugely above that stuff.) i also think that david loyd's art, which i've enjoyed elsewhere, is not always to my taste in the book.
ashamel
Jan. 9th, 2005 11:25 pm (UTC)
I love the art in V for Vendetta, and think the writing is, as usual, brilliant. But the whole cold and impersonal thing turns me off it.

Still, I think a movie could work, all arguments about whether they should just come up with their own damn thing or not noted. But then, I don't dislike Natalie Portman, as I get the vibe you do (if only from your comment there). It is a Léon thing.
benpeek
Jan. 9th, 2005 11:50 pm (UTC)
actually, i think natalie portman is a fairly reasonable actor. i loved her in leon, and i've never been disappointed to see her in a film. but. that said, my instant reaction upon hearing that she's the lead in v for vendetta is that she's totally wrong for the role, and that her inclusion in it suggests that the film will be a watered down action thriller with all the social context cut out.
artbroken
Jan. 10th, 2005 07:35 am (UTC)
Yeah, I'm not the world's biggest David Lloyd fan. And there are parts of V that don't work well now, and there are parts that never worked well.

But there are also parts that burn. And if the flame is strong enough I will forgive the occasional taste of ashes.
studebakerhawk
Jan. 9th, 2005 11:51 am (UTC)
I though Sodeberghs remake of Tarkovsky/Lem's Solaris was damned fine. Other than that i concur.
benpeek
Jan. 9th, 2005 11:55 am (UTC)
i thought it was okay. the end annoyed me, and the twist was real obvious. but, you know, he could've made that film without the lem influence or remake nature. (there's probably also an arguement for saying it wasn't really a remake, but a new version based off the book.)

interestingly enough, lem himself thinks that movie is a pile of shit.
bodhichitta0
Jan. 9th, 2005 06:16 pm (UTC)
I don't like remakes and don't generally watch them. I especially thought it was weird years ago when they remade 'psycho' frame by frame with different people. I own one--'A Black Beauty' remake they did in the 90s for the kids. They did a good job with that--very faithful to the book.
benpeek
Jan. 9th, 2005 10:09 pm (UTC)
i thought the psycho remake was at least an interesting idea, but, since i've never actually seen the original, and i don't enjoy anne heche, i just skipped it.
bodhichitta0
Jan. 9th, 2005 10:24 pm (UTC)
Does anyone enjoy Anne Heche? I mean, really?

(The original is worth a rent though it is hard to watch it with fresh eyes now as everything good in it has been copied to death.)
( 22 Soaking Up Bandwidth — Soak Up Bandwidth )