Weekly Ketchup: Bryan Singer Teaches X-Men: First Class

Summary

This Week's Ketchup includes director news for X-Men: First Class, remake news for The Brood, The Borrowers and The Creature from the Black Lagoon, and new roles for Leonardo DiCaprio, Mel Gibson, Laurence Fishburne, Tina Fey and Steve Carell. Back to Article

Comments

August M.

Agustin Macias

Bryan Singer back to X-Men is great.

Ghibli re-making the Borrowers is stupid, that movie sucks. They have to make it great in order for me to watch it.

Where's the story of the guy from Uraguay was paid 30 million dollars to make a movie of his 4 minute youtube video of aliens and robots attacking the Uraguay capitol. The effects were great for a budget of 300 dollars.

Dec 18 - 05:37 PM

The.Watcher

The Watcher

Singer's X-Men - Good.
Gibson's Movies - Good (always a fan)
Borrowers - great! Hates the live-action but Miyazaki makes wonderful anime
Gil's fright dinner sound horrendous
Morpheus in Predators is ****ing cool!
Don't like musicales (except Sweeney Todd)
Tina Fey Carrol - don't care for either of them
Cancun sounds god-aweful. **** Twilit. **** it hard. **** anyone who had anything to do with it.
As for the Family Friendly Tombstone, well....that sucks so bad im speechless.
ENOUGH WITH THE REMAKES!!!!

Dec 18 - 05:49 PM

August M.

Agustin Macias

Miyazaki's not directing it. It's a newcommer of the studio.

Plus, Remakes are not all bad, it's just there have been many terrible ones over the years.

Great Remakes: Invasion of the Body Snatchers 1970s, Wizard of Oz '39, Lord of the Rings, The Magnificent Seven, Star Wars(Remake of The Hidden Fortress), Ten Commandments 1950s, etc.

Dec 18 - 07:26 PM

ColinTheCimmerian

Colin Hay

August M, I agree with you that not all remakes are a bad, but I must protest at some of your examples. Star Wars was not a remake of The Hidden Fortress. There's a big difference between being a remake of something and simply being inspired by it. I'd also argue against Lord of the Rings being a remake; there was a previous film adaption of the book, but Peter Jackson did not remake Ralph Bakshi's film, he simply made his own adaption of Tolkien's book. In my view, in order for a film to be a remake of a previous film, it needs to be based directly on that previous film, not on some other third-party source.

Dec 19 - 09:09 AM

August M.

Agustin Macias

Was there a Lord of the Rings before Peter Jackson's version? if so, it's still a remake. A remake should be a different view of the subject matter than what was previously made, whether it turns out good or bad. If a remake is exactly like the original, it'll just seemed like the same movie with updated visuals and cast, Psycho comes to mind. I understand that inspiration of a film may not be considered a remake but they are so many similarities to Star Wars and The Hidden Fortress.

Oh also, a reboot is also considered a remake because your remaking the original to start the franchise all over again.

Dec 19 - 04:28 PM

saicam

onaivatco5 november

That still does not justify it as a remake, you may have a point about the others but Star wars should be taken out because it is not a remake.

Dec 19 - 08:36 PM

August M.

Agustin Macias

Was there a Lord of the Rings movie before Peter Jackson's version? if so, it's still a remake. A remake should be a different view of the subject matter than what was previously made, whether it turns out good or bad. If a remake is exactly like the original, it'll just seemed like the same movie with updated visuals and cast, Psycho comes to mind. I understand that inspiration of a film may not be considered a remake but they are so many similarities to Star Wars and The Hidden Fortress.

Oh also, a reboot is also considered a remake because your remaking the original to start the franchise all over again.

Dec 19 - 04:30 PM

ColinTheCimmerian

Colin Hay

Yeah, but Jackson wasn't remaking Bakshi's movie; his movies had nothing to do with the 70's film. He made a completely different movie that happened to be based on the same source material. Jackson could have made his films without having even seen Bakshi's, so how is he remaking Bakshi's movie?

A remake is a movie that draws its source material from another movie; i.e it's a movie adaption of another movie. But Jackson's LOTR wasn't an adaption of the earlier film; when his movies were up for best adapted screenplay, it wasn't for adapting the 1978 film's script, it was for adapting Tolkien's book. They are completely independent projects; one is not based on the other. Just like how Tim Burton's Batman isn't a remake of the 1960's version starring Adam West; they're both called Batman and both feature the character Batman, but Burton's film has absolutely nothing to do with the one from the 60's.

And Star Wars may be similar to The Hidden Fortress in some ways, but it is in no way a remake. They have an entirely different set of characters, an entirely different setting, and entirely different stories. Plus, you know, different titles. If Star Wars was a remake of The Hidden Fortress, it would have been called The Hidden Fortress, or some variation on that (The Hidden Death Star? :P).

Dec 19 - 09:35 PM

August M.

Agustin Macias

Lord of the Rings is still a remake no matter how much you deny it. Both versions features the same characters and the same plot, only difference is that Jackson's version was better done.

And Casino Royal is a remake. There was a TV movie of it called Casino Royal in 1954, which is the first appearance of Bond. And no, I'm not referring to the 1967 Bond satire Casino Royale.

Dec 19 - 11:36 PM

Freudian Nightmare

Martin Andersson

Yes, both films feature the same plot and characters, but that's because they're based on the same book. It doesn't make the PJ's version a remake just beacause there were a version done before him.

Dec 20 - 06:37 AM

D Ray

D Young

The earlier LotR was a 1978 animated movie that was just over 2 hours long and included numerous songs written specifically for it. PJ's version was not a remake of that; it was a live-action version of the LotR BOOKS. Yes, both used the same source material, but that's because both were interpretations of that work. This is not "remaking" a previous version; it's a new work unto itself and is that director's vision of how the source material should be presented.

Dec 20 - 08:56 AM

ColinTheCimmerian

Colin Hay

You're missing the point, dude. If Bakshi's movie had never existed, Jackson's still would have been made, exactly as is, ergo it is NOT a remake of Bakshi's movie. The word 'remake' means 'make again'. In the context of movies, make the same movie again. Jackson and his writing team did not watch Bakshi's movie and say 'let's do our own take on that movie'. They probably have seen it, but all the inspiration for their film came from the book. Jackson's King Kong was a remake, because it was directly based on the 1933 King Kong, which was an original story. If that movie had never existed, then neither would Jackson's, because he would not have had a movie to REMAKE. Jackson called his film a remake and the studio advertised it as such, because that's what it was. Jackson has never called his Lord of the Rings films remakes of Bakshi's film. Neither did the studio, neither did the media, because they aren't remakes. The only person who thinks so is you, friend. I think you've mistaken sequential order of release as the defining factor for determining what is a remake of what, when in truth it has more to do with whether or not one film is based on another.

I would say the same argument applies to Casino Royale. The 1954 version you refer to wasn't even a movie, it was an hour-long tv episode, part of the Climax! series on CBS. And it may have been the first appearance of Bond on-screen, but it wasn't an original story, it was based on the book Casino Royale (and so was the Daniel Craig movie). The recent Casino Royale would be exactly the same if the 1954 TV adaption never existed; they are completely separate projects. One is not based on or inspired by the other, ergo, one is not a remake of the other.

Dec 20 - 11:50 AM

Dave J

Dave J

Colin The Cimmerian
Again, this is off topic, some label some of the old Bond movies as part of a series but because Broccoli owns the rights to make the Bond films, some are not even labelled as Bond pictures such as "Never Say Never Again" and the two "Casino Royals" that were made before Dr No, but sometimes by watching those movies a studio won't be able to make there your own version.

The fact that there was an older, grimier and bad version of The Lord of the Rings can encourage a better movie to be made, but the thing is that it started as a book first. And Jackson was asking "Ring" fans on line to send their suggestions in recreate Jackson's own version of TLOTRs, he got the final say of course.

Dec 21 - 04:10 PM

ColinTheCimmerian

Colin Hay

Oh, and a reboot isn't always a remake (though sometimes they may be). Casino Royale was a reboot of the Bond franchise, but it wasn't a remake of Dr. No (the first Bond movie). Batman Begins was a reboot of the Batman movie franchise, but it wasn't a remake of Tim Burton's Batman (or the 1960's version I mentioned in my last post). All three are completely different, independent films.

Dec 19 - 09:50 PM

Alexson Philip

Alexson Philipiah

i dnt really like the idea of singer directiong it , as i have never been a huge fan of his movies, especuially xmen1, and the terrible superman returns, which was more of a drama,then a superhero flik. i think he really sux wne it comes to showing actions scenes.

Dec 18 - 07:17 PM

bluestar50

Todd Foster

Holy****, I'm not surprised that Hollywood is doing more remakes. Do something original for a change.

Dec 18 - 07:24 PM

Niteowl

Jack Appleton

unfortunately... Hollywood has resorted to remakes and sequels because they simply cannot come up with anything original AND good. Avatar is a great start, lets hope we get more stuff like that in the future.

Dec 19 - 06:21 PM

August M.

Agustin Macias

Miyazaki's not directing it. It's a newcommer of the studio.

Plus, Remakes are not all bad, it's just there have been many terrible ones over the years.

Great Remakes: Invasion of the Body Snatchers 1970s, Wizard of Oz '39, Lord of the Rings, The Magnificent Seven, Star Wars(Remake of The Hidden Fortress), Ten Commandments 1950s, etc.

Dec 18 - 07:26 PM

ColinTheCimmerian

Colin Hay

August M, I agree with you that not all remakes are a bad, but I must protest at some of your examples. Star Wars was not a remake of The Hidden Fortress. There's a big difference between being a remake of something and simply being inspired by it. I'd also argue against Lord of the Rings being a remake; there was a previous film adaption of the book, but Peter Jackson did not remake Ralph Bakshi's film, he simply made his own adaption of Tolkien's book. In my view, in order for a film to be a remake of a previous film, it needs to be based directly on that previous film, not on some other third-party source.

Dec 19 - 09:09 AM

August M.

Agustin Macias

Was there a Lord of the Rings before Peter Jackson's version? if so, it's still a remake. A remake should be a different view of the subject matter than what was previously made, whether it turns out good or bad. If a remake is exactly like the original, it'll just seemed like the same movie with updated visuals and cast, Psycho comes to mind. I understand that inspiration of a film may not be considered a remake but they are so many similarities to Star Wars and The Hidden Fortress.

Oh also, a reboot is also considered a remake because your remaking the original to start the franchise all over again.

Dec 19 - 04:28 PM

saicam

onaivatco5 november

That still does not justify it as a remake, you may have a point about the others but Star wars should be taken out because it is not a remake.

Dec 19 - 08:36 PM

August M.

Agustin Macias

Was there a Lord of the Rings movie before Peter Jackson's version? if so, it's still a remake. A remake should be a different view of the subject matter than what was previously made, whether it turns out good or bad. If a remake is exactly like the original, it'll just seemed like the same movie with updated visuals and cast, Psycho comes to mind. I understand that inspiration of a film may not be considered a remake but they are so many similarities to Star Wars and The Hidden Fortress.

Oh also, a reboot is also considered a remake because your remaking the original to start the franchise all over again.

Dec 19 - 04:30 PM

ColinTheCimmerian

Colin Hay

Yeah, but Jackson wasn't remaking Bakshi's movie; his movies had nothing to do with the 70's film. He made a completely different movie that happened to be based on the same source material. Jackson could have made his films without having even seen Bakshi's, so how is he remaking Bakshi's movie?

A remake is a movie that draws its source material from another movie; i.e it's a movie adaption of another movie. But Jackson's LOTR wasn't an adaption of the earlier film; when his movies were up for best adapted screenplay, it wasn't for adapting the 1978 film's script, it was for adapting Tolkien's book. They are completely independent projects; one is not based on the other. Just like how Tim Burton's Batman isn't a remake of the 1960's version starring Adam West; they're both called Batman and both feature the character Batman, but Burton's film has absolutely nothing to do with the one from the 60's.

And Star Wars may be similar to The Hidden Fortress in some ways, but it is in no way a remake. They have an entirely different set of characters, an entirely different setting, and entirely different stories. Plus, you know, different titles. If Star Wars was a remake of The Hidden Fortress, it would have been called The Hidden Fortress, or some variation on that (The Hidden Death Star? :P).

Dec 19 - 09:35 PM

August M.

Agustin Macias

Lord of the Rings is still a remake no matter how much you deny it. Both versions features the same characters and the same plot, only difference is that Jackson's version was better done.

And Casino Royal is a remake. There was a TV movie of it called Casino Royal in 1954, which is the first appearance of Bond. And no, I'm not referring to the 1967 Bond satire Casino Royale.

Dec 19 - 11:36 PM

Freudian Nightmare

Martin Andersson

Yes, both films feature the same plot and characters, but that's because they're based on the same book. It doesn't make the PJ's version a remake just beacause there were a version done before him.

Dec 20 - 06:37 AM

D Ray

D Young

The earlier LotR was a 1978 animated movie that was just over 2 hours long and included numerous songs written specifically for it. PJ's version was not a remake of that; it was a live-action version of the LotR BOOKS. Yes, both used the same source material, but that's because both were interpretations of that work. This is not "remaking" a previous version; it's a new work unto itself and is that director's vision of how the source material should be presented.

Dec 20 - 08:56 AM

ColinTheCimmerian

Colin Hay

You're missing the point, dude. If Bakshi's movie had never existed, Jackson's still would have been made, exactly as is, ergo it is NOT a remake of Bakshi's movie. The word 'remake' means 'make again'. In the context of movies, make the same movie again. Jackson and his writing team did not watch Bakshi's movie and say 'let's do our own take on that movie'. They probably have seen it, but all the inspiration for their film came from the book. Jackson's King Kong was a remake, because it was directly based on the 1933 King Kong, which was an original story. If that movie had never existed, then neither would Jackson's, because he would not have had a movie to REMAKE. Jackson called his film a remake and the studio advertised it as such, because that's what it was. Jackson has never called his Lord of the Rings films remakes of Bakshi's film. Neither did the studio, neither did the media, because they aren't remakes. The only person who thinks so is you, friend. I think you've mistaken sequential order of release as the defining factor for determining what is a remake of what, when in truth it has more to do with whether or not one film is based on another.

I would say the same argument applies to Casino Royale. The 1954 version you refer to wasn't even a movie, it was an hour-long tv episode, part of the Climax! series on CBS. And it may have been the first appearance of Bond on-screen, but it wasn't an original story, it was based on the book Casino Royale (and so was the Daniel Craig movie). The recent Casino Royale would be exactly the same if the 1954 TV adaption never existed; they are completely separate projects. One is not based on or inspired by the other, ergo, one is not a remake of the other.

Dec 20 - 11:50 AM

Dave J

Dave J

Colin The Cimmerian
Again, this is off topic, some label some of the old Bond movies as part of a series but because Broccoli owns the rights to make the Bond films, some are not even labelled as Bond pictures such as "Never Say Never Again" and the two "Casino Royals" that were made before Dr No, but sometimes by watching those movies a studio won't be able to make there your own version.

The fact that there was an older, grimier and bad version of The Lord of the Rings can encourage a better movie to be made, but the thing is that it started as a book first. And Jackson was asking "Ring" fans on line to send their suggestions in recreate Jackson's own version of TLOTRs, he got the final say of course.

Dec 21 - 04:10 PM

ColinTheCimmerian

Colin Hay

Oh, and a reboot isn't always a remake (though sometimes they may be). Casino Royale was a reboot of the Bond franchise, but it wasn't a remake of Dr. No (the first Bond movie). Batman Begins was a reboot of the Batman movie franchise, but it wasn't a remake of Tim Burton's Batman (or the 1960's version I mentioned in my last post). All three are completely different, independent films.

Dec 19 - 09:50 PM

leo v.

leo vilenjak

i would like to see bryan singer again in x- man ....nice
i LOOVE MEL GIPSON - HIS IS AMAZING
Borrowers - nice
i love musicales - PHANTOM IN THE OPERA and the best of the best MOULIN ROUGE!
Laurence Fishburne-aka- morpheus - i love that man

Dec 18 - 07:29 PM

Jason B.

Jason Black

Um, it hasn't really been the whole Twilight cast that has been on the rotten ideas as it has been Lautner... and he REALLY deserves it. Even in the Twilight movies, he was the worst actor. And how could you even THINK of putting this one on a good idea list? A break, really? Please. This sounds like a crappy rip off of Taken. And I don't care how big and buffed Lautner gets, he still looks like a sixteen year old. I'm not going to believe him as that one super spy he's supposed to play and I don't even believe him to be some kinda hero saving his girlfriend from druggies. Maybe in like ten years but not now. Way too young. He's not even 18 yet.

Dec 18 - 07:40 PM

Jack Waters

zachary leeman

Gibson is certainly lining up some strange projects. A viking movie with DiCaprio? The Beaver? A guy who learns to survive in prison from a 9 year old? This isn't a bad thing. I, for one, am glad he's using his later years in cinema to do more risky, experimental projects. I'm definately interested in them all and am excited for them. Also, Edge of Darkness looks ****ing awesome.

Dec 18 - 07:48 PM

Shane S.

Shane Stephenson

I liked Singer's take on the X-Men and I'm glad to see him back.

Expecting to see the blood eagle graphically depicted in that Mel Gibson viking movie. Do not want!

I think Studio Ghibli is a bit overrated but The Borrowers is just their sort of thing.

Really starting to look forward to Predators.

Now, now, just because Taylor Lautner is in a bad movie series doesn't mean every movie he makes will be bad. I think this sounds at least mid-range.

If you're going to give a gunslinger the Jack Sparrow treatment, at least have a little creativity and make one up.

Dec 18 - 09:05 PM

King Crunk

King Crunk

Singer going back to X-Men is kind of good news, but I wish he would do something that is not a franchise flick. I also think that turning Doc Holiday into a family movie icon is ludicrous to the extreme. Taylor Lautner is terrible, he needs to learn to act. Luckily he is not getting roles in any potentially good movies, so his annoyingness is slightly reduced. I also agree Jason B. big time on Lautner not being able to pull off an action hero character, he just does not have the personality or the looks; he too pretty and too boring. Bale, Worthington, Craig, those are people that can kick @$$ and take names and do it convincingly, but a lot of the pretty boy "actors" who are in right now(Lautner, Channing Tatum, Labouf) and are getting action roles just do not know how to carry themselves like action heros. Agree with Jack Waters on Gibson, he has an interesting line up of movies coming out and I am very excited for them(especially the Viking epic!).

Dec 18 - 09:22 PM

King Crunk

King Crunk

And Predators better be kick @$$, Rodriguez!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Dec 18 - 09:25 PM

mjprogue

Mike PArker

I'm always happy to see a Mel Gibson project of any kind...but really...even if you for some reason like Dicaprio...can you really see him playing a viking? Really? I mean, sure, frail, effeminate boys probably were born to viking families...but are we really gonna believe one grew up to become someone important? Or even survived to adulthood at all? That is worth Rotten Idea status more than anything else.

As for Borrowers, I don't remember ever seeing a Japanese release anime making these lists before, why the exception here? Just curious...no opinion really...


All Fright Diner sounds pretty cool as an animated feature...

Predators?....about time!

Any Steve Carell announcement is good...

Tyler Lautner's movie? Only one question...how does a 19(?) year old with one hit under his belt get producer credits for anything? Seriously, are they just handing those credits out like candy in Hollywood?

First instinct is to cringe over the Doc news...but honestly, this could work...it isn't likely to...but it really could in the right hands...

Not a fan of remakes in general...but Creature is one that could really benefit from the half century of effects advancement...as long as the script isn't butchered or ignored.

Dec 18 - 10:51 PM

frankdozier

William Luc-Ferris

DiCaprio has the acting chops to pull off a convincing viking. He was pretty macho in The Departed.

Dec 19 - 01:28 AM

mjprogue

Mike PArker

Macho in Departed? Not really...maybe his character was competant, but axe swingingly macho? Not a chance.

Still I'm torn between being disgusted at his casting and wanting to trust Gibson's judgement...and I'm sure I'll land on the trust side and watch the resultant movie.

Dec 19 - 06:43 PM

Jason B.

Jason Black

Oh, and I just noticed you spelled TAYLOR Lautner's name wrong in his stupid headline! His new movies will most likely suck but he at least deserves his name spelled right. You did the same thing last week with Rihanna's name. Check yourselves, RT. Check yourselves!

Dec 18 - 11:02 PM

Throw An Onion

Joshua Mills

Any film involving the phenomenon that is Taylor Lautner immediately lands on my completely ignore list. The man will hopefully fall out of popularity when his lack of real skill is finally see. Maybe him and Megan Fox can make an attractive but untalented people film together. Everything else I could care less about.

Dec 18 - 11:35 PM

frankdozier

William Luc-Ferris

DiCaprio has the acting chops to pull off a convincing viking. He was pretty macho in The Departed.

Dec 19 - 01:28 AM

mjprogue

Mike PArker

Macho in Departed? Not really...maybe his character was competant, but axe swingingly macho? Not a chance.

Still I'm torn between being disgusted at his casting and wanting to trust Gibson's judgement...and I'm sure I'll land on the trust side and watch the resultant movie.

Dec 19 - 06:43 PM

King Thor

Chris Kalmin

Disappointed with Singer coming back. Thought X1 and X2 were only mediocre, which I'm sure means this next one will be just average as well. I just don't think he has gotten the X-Men world down (or that he should be directing any superhero movie for that matter), just not his thing.

I really wish they had given this to another very capable director and see what he could have done with it. oh well...

Dec 19 - 09:03 AM

ColinTheCimmerian

Colin Hay

August M, I agree with you that not all remakes are a bad, but I must protest at some of your examples. Star Wars was not a remake of The Hidden Fortress. There's a big difference between being a remake of something and simply being inspired by it. I'd also argue against Lord of the Rings being a remake; there was a previous film adaption of the book, but Peter Jackson did not remake Ralph Bakshi's film, he simply made his own adaption of Tolkien's book. In my view, in order for a film to be a remake of a previous film, it needs to be based directly on that previous film, not on some other third-party source.

Dec 19 - 09:09 AM

August M.

Agustin Macias

Was there a Lord of the Rings before Peter Jackson's version? if so, it's still a remake. A remake should be a different view of the subject matter than what was previously made, whether it turns out good or bad. If a remake is exactly like the original, it'll just seemed like the same movie with updated visuals and cast, Psycho comes to mind. I understand that inspiration of a film may not be considered a remake but they are so many similarities to Star Wars and The Hidden Fortress.

Oh also, a reboot is also considered a remake because your remaking the original to start the franchise all over again.

Dec 19 - 04:28 PM

saicam

onaivatco5 november

That still does not justify it as a remake, you may have a point about the others but Star wars should be taken out because it is not a remake.

Dec 19 - 08:36 PM

August M.

Agustin Macias

Was there a Lord of the Rings movie before Peter Jackson's version? if so, it's still a remake. A remake should be a different view of the subject matter than what was previously made, whether it turns out good or bad. If a remake is exactly like the original, it'll just seemed like the same movie with updated visuals and cast, Psycho comes to mind. I understand that inspiration of a film may not be considered a remake but they are so many similarities to Star Wars and The Hidden Fortress.

Oh also, a reboot is also considered a remake because your remaking the original to start the franchise all over again.

Dec 19 - 04:30 PM

ColinTheCimmerian

Colin Hay

Yeah, but Jackson wasn't remaking Bakshi's movie; his movies had nothing to do with the 70's film. He made a completely different movie that happened to be based on the same source material. Jackson could have made his films without having even seen Bakshi's, so how is he remaking Bakshi's movie?

A remake is a movie that draws its source material from another movie; i.e it's a movie adaption of another movie. But Jackson's LOTR wasn't an adaption of the earlier film; when his movies were up for best adapted screenplay, it wasn't for adapting the 1978 film's script, it was for adapting Tolkien's book. They are completely independent projects; one is not based on the other. Just like how Tim Burton's Batman isn't a remake of the 1960's version starring Adam West; they're both called Batman and both feature the character Batman, but Burton's film has absolutely nothing to do with the one from the 60's.

And Star Wars may be similar to The Hidden Fortress in some ways, but it is in no way a remake. They have an entirely different set of characters, an entirely different setting, and entirely different stories. Plus, you know, different titles. If Star Wars was a remake of The Hidden Fortress, it would have been called The Hidden Fortress, or some variation on that (The Hidden Death Star? :P).

Dec 19 - 09:35 PM

August M.

Agustin Macias

Lord of the Rings is still a remake no matter how much you deny it. Both versions features the same characters and the same plot, only difference is that Jackson's version was better done.

And Casino Royal is a remake. There was a TV movie of it called Casino Royal in 1954, which is the first appearance of Bond. And no, I'm not referring to the 1967 Bond satire Casino Royale.

Dec 19 - 11:36 PM

Freudian Nightmare

Martin Andersson

Yes, both films feature the same plot and characters, but that's because they're based on the same book. It doesn't make the PJ's version a remake just beacause there were a version done before him.

Dec 20 - 06:37 AM

D Ray

D Young

The earlier LotR was a 1978 animated movie that was just over 2 hours long and included numerous songs written specifically for it. PJ's version was not a remake of that; it was a live-action version of the LotR BOOKS. Yes, both used the same source material, but that's because both were interpretations of that work. This is not "remaking" a previous version; it's a new work unto itself and is that director's vision of how the source material should be presented.

Dec 20 - 08:56 AM

ColinTheCimmerian

Colin Hay

You're missing the point, dude. If Bakshi's movie had never existed, Jackson's still would have been made, exactly as is, ergo it is NOT a remake of Bakshi's movie. The word 'remake' means 'make again'. In the context of movies, make the same movie again. Jackson and his writing team did not watch Bakshi's movie and say 'let's do our own take on that movie'. They probably have seen it, but all the inspiration for their film came from the book. Jackson's King Kong was a remake, because it was directly based on the 1933 King Kong, which was an original story. If that movie had never existed, then neither would Jackson's, because he would not have had a movie to REMAKE. Jackson called his film a remake and the studio advertised it as such, because that's what it was. Jackson has never called his Lord of the Rings films remakes of Bakshi's film. Neither did the studio, neither did the media, because they aren't remakes. The only person who thinks so is you, friend. I think you've mistaken sequential order of release as the defining factor for determining what is a remake of what, when in truth it has more to do with whether or not one film is based on another.

I would say the same argument applies to Casino Royale. The 1954 version you refer to wasn't even a movie, it was an hour-long tv episode, part of the Climax! series on CBS. And it may have been the first appearance of Bond on-screen, but it wasn't an original story, it was based on the book Casino Royale (and so was the Daniel Craig movie). The recent Casino Royale would be exactly the same if the 1954 TV adaption never existed; they are completely separate projects. One is not based on or inspired by the other, ergo, one is not a remake of the other.

Dec 20 - 11:50 AM

Dave J

Dave J

Colin The Cimmerian
Again, this is off topic, some label some of the old Bond movies as part of a series but because Broccoli owns the rights to make the Bond films, some are not even labelled as Bond pictures such as "Never Say Never Again" and the two "Casino Royals" that were made before Dr No, but sometimes by watching those movies a studio won't be able to make there your own version.

The fact that there was an older, grimier and bad version of The Lord of the Rings can encourage a better movie to be made, but the thing is that it started as a book first. And Jackson was asking "Ring" fans on line to send their suggestions in recreate Jackson's own version of TLOTRs, he got the final say of course.

Dec 21 - 04:10 PM

ColinTheCimmerian

Colin Hay

Oh, and a reboot isn't always a remake (though sometimes they may be). Casino Royale was a reboot of the Bond franchise, but it wasn't a remake of Dr. No (the first Bond movie). Batman Begins was a reboot of the Batman movie franchise, but it wasn't a remake of Tim Burton's Batman (or the 1960's version I mentioned in my last post). All three are completely different, independent films.

Dec 19 - 09:50 PM

Sorting Hat

Carlos Danger

i'm glad that bryan singer is directing another x-men movie.

other than that i don't really care about all the other movies.

Dec 19 - 10:52 AM

ArcticVoltaire

J Brown

I dont really see the logic in the business decision to have Lautner as the star in an action movie. His only audience is a bunch of tween girls who only know him as a werewolf. Their not exactly the type who love action films, so many of them will be turned away. Then, all the teenage guys who do like action movies will refuse to see it because they cant stand twilight. I smell a flop.

Dec 19 - 10:55 AM

Gordon Franklin Terry Sr

Gordon Terry

bordem.
-
you know there will be a foot and a half of snow by tomorrow morning.
-
every idea feels boring . . . maybe its all the snow outside. we have to walk to the cars in a foot and a half of snow.
--
someone tell JAMES CAMERON, GEORGE LUCAS, and PETER JACKSON to look into overseeing a Definitive DUNE movie series.
oversee in the sense that they make sure the six movies are vital sci-fi genre masterpieces that emphasize the ECOLOGICAL and ENVIRONMENTAL motifs of FRANK HERBERT'S and Brian Herbert's continuing novels.

Dec 19 - 02:24 PM

mjprogue

Mike PArker

Not sure how a Dune series could be guaranteed to run 6 movies...unless they totally change the majority of the books, the films will not be exciting enough to bring in the cash...regardless of who is attached.

Nothing against the Dune novels, but they are pretty light on action and heavy on preaching...not a good formula for blockbuster...

Dec 19 - 06:47 PM

What's Hot On RT

Weekly Binge
Weekly Binge

Check out Boardwalk Empire

Historical TV Shows
Historical TV Shows

40 TV depictions of past eras

24 Frames
24 Frames

Pictures of classic movie pairs

Annabelle Trailer
Annabelle Trailer

Horror spin-off of The Conjuring

Find us on:                     
Help | About | Jobs | Critics Submission | Press | API | Licensing | Mobile