The Movie Thread

[Rhodes]

Originally Posted by Sailor Steve

For Halloween I watched the remake of Fright Night. It was pretty good, and I loved David Tennant in Roddy McDowell's old role. It even had Chris Sarandon, the original Jerry Dandridge. The problem was that the pacing was off. It didn't have the same flow, or the same feel. I guess it would be better if I hadn't seen the original. As it is, it left me wanting to see the first one again.

I only watched the original once. The remake, a few times, since it airs a few times in one of the movies channels! Yep, Tennent is great in that role! I'm curious to see him has the Purple Man in Jessica Jones!

[Betonov]

Seen Man from U.N.C.L.E today.
Fun movie, enjoyed every minute of it.

Don't take it too seriously, it's on par with Kingsmen. Fun and enjoyable if you want to relax watching a good movie.
If you walk into theaters with a critic check list and a michelin level scoring system, then just don't.

[Stealhead]

Originally Posted by mapuc

I'm watching a classic movie with Steve Steve Mcqueen "The Sand Pebbles" At this moment.

Markus

That's a great movie.

[STEED]

Watched BLADERUNNER The Final Cut last night, been a while since I last watched it and still a dam good film even if we are closing in on 2017.

[CaptainRamius]

My favorite movie has to be RED (look it up) and RED 2 (look that up too)
Lots of action and lots of funny moments. Plus, you never will see a super car drive under a truck again, so...

[CaptainRamius]

Originally Posted by Oberon

This. My second favorite movie I guess, at least until the movie comes out in theaters.

[STEED]

Watched a Sci-Fi double bill last night..

Red Planet and War of the Worlds (Tom Cruise)

Can some one tell me how one bloke was able to film the alien ship rising up out of the ground when all the electronics were knocked out in the storm?

[vienna]

That's why it's science-fiction...

BTW, still like the original George Pal WOTW over the Cruise version. I saw the original when I was very young and, at the time, those triangular, slowly hovering Martian craft were the most creepy things I had ever seen (and, remember, Nixon was on TV all the time)...


<O>

[CaptainRamius]

Originally Posted by vienna

That's why it's science-fiction...

BTW, still like the original George Pal WOTW over the Cruise version. I saw the original when I was very young and, at the time, those triangular, slowly hovering Martian craft were the most creepy things I had ever seen (and, remember, Nixon was on TV all the time)...


<O>

I love that first line. Never seen War of the Worlds, but probably should. Sounds like a great movie a

[Oberon]

I prefer the book over both versions...if only someone would do a film that adheres to the original novel!!

[CaptainRamius]

Originally Posted by Oberon

I prefer the book over both versions...if only someone would do a film that adheres to the original novel!!

I feel your pain, brother

[Eichhörnchen]

Originally Posted by Oberon

I prefer the book over both versions

I'll second that: there are still passages from the novel that can almost play through in your mind like cinematic sequences, such as the capsizing ferry with its panicking passengers.

[vienna]

There's always a problem with bringing books to the screen. Sometimes it's a question of length; really long, involved book storylines are often too unwieldy to fit into the normal 80 minute to 2 hour film length seen as more or less standard in Hollywood; also, the standard length is seen by most producers as best suited to the comfortable attention span of audiences, not to mention longer length means longer production time and higher production costs. Then there is the dilemma of the theater owners: they depend on high turnover of audiences to generate revenue and a four hour film means only half the showings daily of a two hour film and, correspondingly, half the audiences and revenue...

Some books to film are also changed to accommodate the marketing goals of the producers. If they can sign an actor, say Tom Cruise, the producers will change, add to or delete from the original text/story to make it a "star vehicle" and put the emphasis on the actors attributes rather than the story's...

Technology sometimes causes changes: either it isn't available or the producers have access to new technology they think will appeal more to the audiences. Imagine what the original 1950s WOTW would have been like if George Pal had access to today's tech...

All in all, perhaps the Orson Welles radio dram adaptation is the best of both worlds; the film is in your mind and imagination...


<O>

[Raptor1]

Originally Posted by vienna

There's always a problem with bringing books to the screen. Sometimes it's a question of length; really long, involved book storylines are often too unwieldy to fit into the normal 80 minute to 2 hour film length seen as more or less standard in Hollywood; also, the standard length is seen by most producers as best suited to the comfortable attention span of audiences, not to mention longer length means longer production time and higher production costs. Then there is the dilemma of the theater owners: they depend on high turnover of audiences to generate revenue and a four hour film means only half the showings daily of a two hour film and, correspondingly, half the audiences and revenue...

Some books to film are also changed to accommodate the marketing goals of the producers. If they can sign an actor, say Tom Cruise, the producers will change, add to or delete from the original text/story to make it a "star vehicle" and put the emphasis on the actors attributes rather than the story's...

Technology sometimes causes changes: either it isn't available or the producers have access to new technology they think will appeal more to the audiences. Imagine what the original 1950s WOTW would have been like if George Pal had access to today's tech...

All in all, perhaps the Orson Welles radio dram adaptation is the best of both worlds; the film is in your mind and imagination...


<O>

The War of the Worlds isn't a particularly long book and I think the format it's written in is quite easily adaptable to a movie (the newer version actually does follow it quite closely for the most part). The problem is that every adaptation (except Pendragon Pictures' sadly under-budgeted version) shifts the setting of the story to the modern era, while making a movie set in the original Victorian setting would both be much more logical given the point the story is trying to make about imperialism and much more interesting as a movie overall. If updating the setting so the audience could relate to it is so necessary for the story to work, people would not still be reading the book to this day. Or, at least, that's my opinion...

[vienna]

Originally Posted by Raptor1

The War of the Worlds isn't a particularly long book and I think the format it's written in is quite easily adaptable to a movie (the newer version actually does follow it quite closely for the most part). The problem is that every adaptation (except Pendragon Pictures' sadly under-budgeted version) shifts the setting of the story to the modern era, while making a movie set in the original Victorian setting would both be much more logical given the point the story is trying to make about imperialism and much more interesting as a movie overall. If updating the setting so the audience could relate to it is so necessary for the story to work, people would not still be reading the book to this day. Or, at least, that's my opinion...

I also would enjoy seeing a version set in the Victorian Era, but, again, cost would be a consideration. There are fewer and fewer actual locations that have not been marred by modern features and building full-sized or even models of Victorian places is really, really expensive, so it would take a lot of heavy CGI to get the right look and feel, also not cheap. Then there is the perception in Hollywood of period films not being good box office performers; they're okay for smaller or indie films like Merchant/Ivory, but the gamble on the revenues for period films is not good for major studios or producers. It's just cheaper on a cost vs. return basis to just do modern versions and cash in on who ever is the flavor of the month box office celebrity and get a healthy influx of product placement money (there was no Audi, MB, Nike, Coke, etc. in the Victorian era), not to mention all the marketing to be done to kids who just don't seem to be all that much interested in Victorian themed products, not when there's new Transformer, Star Wars, Marvel Superhero item on the shelves...


<O>