Originally Posted By DlandDug >>I am significantly more buoyant about TRON: Legacy's ability to hold on to those 3D screens that Tangled which I think will get a good caning from Megamind and HP7.1<< Harry Potter, most certainly. MegaMind... not so sure. I saw it tonight and it actually didn't meet my very low expectations...
Originally Posted By Jim in Merced CA <MegaMind... not so sure. I saw it tonight and it actually didn't meet my very low expectations...> Very ouch, baby... "MegaMind" doesn't appeal to me, but then again neither does 'Monsters vs. Aliens' or 'Despicable Me' or 'Kung Fu Panda' -- haven't seen any of them. Loser, right?
Originally Posted By Schmitty Good Vibes Only my opinion: Tron sucked. Black Hole sucked donkeys black holes. I won't see either remake unless someone I know very well, who shares my taste very closely, tells me otherwise.
Originally Posted By Schmitty Good Vibes Jim, 'Monsters vs. Aliens' wasn't bad. It's worth a dollar rental. Not too much more, but it was good. I saw it in IMAX 3D and had a lot of fun with the 3D gags, such as the paddle ball.
Originally Posted By mawnck 2nd opinion: Kung Fu Panda is excellent. If you're boycotting it, you're only depriving yourself. Monsters vs. Aliens, not so much. 1-dimensional stock characters (mostly extremely annoying ones) in search of a story. If you aren't sufficiently well-versed in B-movie monster trivia, then there's absolutely no reason to waste your time. Despicable Me is adequate by-the-numbers fluff, suitable for killing 75 minutes if there's nothing good on TV. Tron looked cool at the time, and some of it still does, but it was kind of silly. The Black Hole was terrible. <------- Looking forward to "The Boatniks in Somalia," "Splash 3D - It's Madison Time!" and "The One and Only Genuine Original Jonas Band."
Originally Posted By Jim in Merced CA <<------- Looking forward to "The Boatniks in Somalia," "Splash 3D - It's Madison Time!" and "The One and Only Genuine Original Jonas Band."> now were talkin'! Good ones, mawnck! I'm not boycotting Dreamworks Animation -- itheir movies just don't compell me to go seek them out.
Originally Posted By Anatole69 Ah I don't get the derision some of you have in remaking Tron and the Black Hole. Just because they are remaking some mediocre movies, doesn't mean that the new films will be bad necessarily. It just means that Disney see's marketing potential in those two properties. It's entirely possible the new films will be superior to the originals, using their concepts as the starting point and working from there. Shakespeare stole the plots for almost all of his plays. He was even called an "upstart crow", decorating himself with the feathers he stole from other artists. Yet no one remembers the people or the plays he stole his plots from, they remember his because his execution of those ideas was so masterly. The Black Hole is a great idea for a movie, it just depends on how good the script is in fleshing out the ideas, presenting characters we like, and giving us something we haven't seen on the screen before. - Anatole
Originally Posted By mawnck >>giving us something we haven't seen on the screen before.<< Like "The Black Hole." ;-)
Originally Posted By Anatole69 The Wizard of Oz was made before the 1939 version color version as a black and white silent film, yet no one talks about the original. The story is just a starting point, make it original enough and well executed, and it will be its own film or novel or piece of art. - Anatole
Originally Posted By Anatole69 Actually with that same line of thinking, the 1939 version of The Wizard of Oz, or the 2000 version of Lord of the Rings, or any number of other films would never have been made because they had already been done before. It would be a mistake to believe that a remake of a movie will always be inferior for covering ground that was already covered once before. - Anatole
Originally Posted By mawnck >>The Wizard of Oz was made before the 1939 version color version as a black and white silent film, yet no one talks about the original. The story is just a starting point, make it original enough and well executed, and it will be its own film or novel or piece of art.<< (1) It was silent. (2) It bore much less resemblance to the story in the book than the MGM version did. And yes, they could theoretically make a good movie about The Black Hole, assuming they throw out, well, everything, but then isn't it just a new movie with the same title? And WHY use a lousy movie as a starting point? Isn't that a handicap to creativity? Isn't it better to start out with a blank slate than one that's been dropped in a sludge pit?
Originally Posted By leemac <<And WHY use a lousy movie as a starting point?>> Ain't that the truth. I just can't understand why the Studio would want to resurrect that awful feature. Absolutely nothing about it was any good. You aren't starting with good bones if you use that as a reference point for a redux. It is amazing how little originality the Studios have had this past decade - particularly with family movies.
Originally Posted By joe80x86 As apparently one of the few fans of the original Black Hole, I really have never understood the pure hatred some people have of it. Some parts do fall kinda flat but over all the story line isn't that bad. With today's special effects they really should be able to make a great movie out of it if they fix a few of the plot holes.
Originally Posted By Anatole69 At Mawnck, no not really. If the ideas are strong enough, then a good writer can do lots with it. Back in the late 80's and early 1990's a bunch of UK writers, including Alan Moore, Neal Gaiman and Grant Morrison, took many comic book characters that were obscure, outdated or just plain hokey, and completely revitalized them with the sheer will of their creativity. They found new avenues to explore the wonder behind the characters and took parts of their back story that could be considered hokey and completely flipped them around. As one example, Alan Moore's The Killing Joke took one part of the Joker's backstory, that had him as the 3rd rate villan The Red Mask (I believe that's the moniker), and made it part of the most emotional part of the story. - Anatole
Originally Posted By mawnck Saw Megamind. Thought it was quite good, actually ... It has an unusually intelligent script for an animated feature. Not quite as good as Tangled, though. The new trailer for Tangled (the one with that blonde in it) got a MUCH better reaction from the gaggle of rugrats in the audience than I ever saw the old trailer get.
Originally Posted By Christi22222 The Tron trailer I saw (at HP 7.1) had the same problem all of that genre movie does - it looks very lifeless, colorless, soul-less. Maybe some folks like that. I am certainly not an expert. But that's the same problem I had with spy kids 3, tron in the 80's, shark boy and lava girl, etc. All of that electronic/computer crap is ugly to look at on the screen and visually can't hold me for 90+ minutes. Is this not as important to some folks, just the story is so it's ok? Or do some folks really enjoy that sort of look and feel to a movie?
Originally Posted By JenniBarra Personally, I like it when a movie not only looks good but has a good story as well. It's funny that you mention this after seeing HP because that is a fantasy series, and it seems like it's usually the SF/fantasy genre that especially likes playing with style. I think that there are many people attracted to Tron: Legacy by its style, but that's because it's easy to emphasize that as a selling point. I expect trailers to tease me into being interested, but it's whether the movie is also interesting intellectually and emotionally once I'm in the theater that is going to determine if I actually like it.
Originally Posted By Moltres I loved TRON as a kid, well teenager. I have a stand up Arcade TRON in my gameroom. I never play it, but that's beside the point. I'm skeptical but hopeful for Legacy. It is a bit of a cult classic BUT... the problem I see with the new movie is this: While the original was very cutting edge to young viewers on dates back in the day, I don't think the original TRON has carried through to younger audiences. I think the general feeling among movie goers is sort of, "What IS TRON, I don't understand it, could someone explain it to me?" The original TRON hit at the height of video arcades, and was based on a huge and attractive "What If" scenario. Today's kids and teens have no clue what Arcades are, at least not on the scale that we did in the early to mid 80's. So, unlike 101 Dalmatians, which gets passed down and passed down to generation after generation, TRON has been laying dormant for a very long time, so long in fact, that today's typical movie go'er has no clue what the most basic beginning point or pretense is. So, for TRON Legacy to be a hit, OLD FARTS like me are going to have to drag themselves out of moth balls and go plop down 10 - 15 bucks to see it. But I fear that a lot of us now middle aged fans are so used to "waiting for the DVD" that the thing just might flop. I hope I am wrong. I loved the original, but the DVD sits on my shelf collecting dust. I haven't watched it in years.
