Discussion in 'Mayberry Lounge' started by Cheese, May 29, 2014.
Saw this comment on talk about a Cliffhanger reboot.
Seems about right but do yall agree with it
They still have been some high quality, original films these last few years, but the masses seem to like the familiar for some reason.
A Cliffhanger reboot? Really? I think the only reason I remember that film is because it was filmed near me. Is it highly regarded enough to warrant a remake?
As for the list, having not put too much thought into it, it sounds about right.
Hollywood has been rebooting, remaking etc for 100 years......they were just less obvious about it in the past.
Cliffhanger was Good movie but not good enough to warrant a reboot. Love the bad guy in it.
I hope they do more Superman/Spiderman/Batman movies and just do the same story over and over again with different actors!
No No I dont.
Cliffhanger does not need to be remade.
Lithgow is an amazing villain.
He is. I just seen him on Dexter and he made that season(4) amazing. But he was pimp in Ricochet too and crazy in Raisin Cain. The guy is a big scary dude but scary with screaming and pounding his chest etc. but calm and calculated. Like a man of his word and won't let anything get in the way of his goals.
It's such bullshit.
We make like 10 times more movies a year than we did back in the 50's and 60's and even back then, those years were not without their share of remakes and adaptations. People act like things have changed but they really haven't.
This redo/remake/rehash hatewagon is a complete misnomer. They want to make a point but in doing so, they're blindly ignoring the films that we do have that aren't that. It's confirmation bias and it's been that way for a long time now and I'm tired of it.
On one hand, it is unfortunate that the more interesting and unique films either A.) never get pushed to mainstream/constrained to limited releases and B.) people decide that it's not worth $20 or so to see on the big screen. So, who's wrong?
People have often toyed around with the idea that smaller budget movies should cost LESS and by that, people will have a higher opportunity to see them and maybe they may rise in popularity---but c'mon, that'll collapse the damn system if we try to string prices in relation to the movie budgets.
No, and what about the 1900s, 1910s and 1920s? And, Cliffhanger was so damn awful that I'm not sure why they even bothered with that garbage in the first place, but perhaps a reboot could make it watchable?
Yeah, I seem to think this started with 80's music being remixed some ten years ago. There was a big boom for 80's revival starting back then. They've desecrated so many of my childhood classics now I don't even get mad anymore. I just hope they don't do a Big Trouble in Little China remake at this point.
The 1980's should say "George Lucas and the Summer Blockbuster" since if you're going to assign credit to one or the other, then Lucas was the one who revolutionized film and the rise of the blockbuster in 1977 with Star Wars. Really, it's a credit they share.
Many of those, like the 1950's in particular, are massive oversimplifications, but I accept that as inevitable in any endeavor like this, and try to appreciate it for what it is saying.
I think it's more a nature of their prominence. They've definitely become more prominent, especially among big budget remakes. I would add "Superheroes/Comic Books" to the 2000's. Philip has a point, though. It's been routine since Hollywood began to re-interpret and remake classic old tales like The Three Musketeers basically every 10-15 years. We're about due for the next one of those, btw.
I'd give the credit to Speilberg for Jaws. It came out two years earlier and it was the first summer blockbuster and the first to ever reach $100 million. I agree that Star Wars took the next step but if it wasn't for Jaws in 75 then Star Wars might have been released with it's initial cut or pushed back to Christmas 77.
Separate names with a comma.