Rocky Horror REMAKE

[monkey tennis]

There is going to be a Rocky Horror Picture Show remake.
Sky Movies in the UK and MTV are planning on remaking the 1975 Cult movie.

Richard O'Brien has said that he will have nothing to do with it...don't blame him.
Will it be time to do the Time Warp again.....probably not...:no:
How can they even think of trying to recast Frank-N-Furter ???


http://www.nzherald.co.nz/category/story.cfm?c_id=200&objectid=10527066

http://images.art.com/images/-/Rocky-Horror-Picture-Show--C10042419.jpeg

[Bizarro Amy]

So does that mean that Richard O'Brien no longer owns the rights to this? I thought they needed his permission to remake his work. This is a pretty lame idea. Why do they feel the need to remake it?

[monkey tennis]

I heard Richard O'Brien owned the rights to the stage shows.

I imagine it will be some kind of transvestite version of High School Musical....er...not sure if that's a bad thing really....:embarassed::grin::help:

[The Toyroom]

The classics don't need to be remade....

[Raydeen1]

WHY????????????????????????????????????

Hollywood really needs to try new things.

[david_b]

'Course almost no one remembers the original 'Rocky' sequel, 'Shock Treatment'.. Made by the same team, it came out in 1981. Quite an attempt to cash in on Rocky's cult status, but it never much caught on as a valid sequel.

[toys2cool]

I'm sure I'm in the minority here.But I can't stand this movie :embarassed: besides Sarandon being hot,there's nothing else

But then again i haven't seen it in years and the last time I tried I was like 8 or 9

[palitoy]

The allure of this film is lost on me as well, I just don't get it. However, I think a remake is probably not going to capture the magic again either.

[vulcan2074]

I kinda Like The Rocky Horror Picture Show. It didn't happen until I got older though. For some reason the Singing gets me Grooving. I think People need to come up with there own original ideas and Leave the classics alone. Theres too many Remakes now a day.
V~2074

[Bizarro Amy]

'Course almost no one remembers the original 'Rocky' sequel, 'Shock Treatment'.. Made by the same team, it came out in 1981. Quite an attempt to cash in on Rocky's cult status, but it never much caught on as a valid sequel.

I have "Shock Treatment" on VHS. It was nearly impossible to get when I was looking for it. I didn't think it was available on DVD, so imagine my excitement when I found it on Amazon.
The first time I watched it, I didn't care much for ST. However, I think now would be a great time to get people into it, because the world in which it takes place is eerily similar to the current overexposure to reality TV.
I won't be watching a remake of "Rocky Horror," just like I refused to watch the new version of "Hairspray." How would they expect to accomplish the appeal of the original? It wasn't meant to be as terrible & fun as it turned out to be, and that's why people had fun with it. Would the new version be redone to seem more legit? Or would they make an attempt at intentional camp? <Shudder> However, my morbidly curious side is dying to know who they will cast in this...

[JPkempo]

It will be as good as all the remakes of Miracle on 34th street

[HardyGirl]

I've seen parts of it on TV. I've never gone out on Halloween to the theatre to see it w/ a participating audience, though I'd like to one day. But honestly, do ya see anyone replacing Tim Curry? I don't think so.:no:

[MegoScott]

This is the worst idea I've ever heard of. It's like making Rear Window with Steve Gutenburg. You can do it, but why would you?

[Vortigern99]

Well, they remade Rear Window with Chris Reeves, so....

As a RHPS fan (I played Frank in the Austin cast for 5 years), I have to say I have no problem with a re-make. The movie itself is only a low-budget version of the stage production, of which there have been many incarnations. There are many Rocky Horror albums with different casts of different nationalities and different decades. Why not make another movie and see if it turns out? At least we know the music will rock. Just don't cast Marilyn Manson as Frank (as has been threatened) and this thing has a chance.

As to Shock Treatment, maybe you have to have been in the show to truly appreciate it?, but I love it, it's an awesome musical even if it's incredibly low-budget and the script doesn't quiiiiite come together. Janet (Jessica Harper) singing "Little Black Dress" and "In my own way" are the highlights for me, plus Brad's showdown with his twin brother (Michael whats-his-name) is just priceless. "Who are you, sir?" "Your ACCUSER!" Priceless.

[MegoScott]

My mistake, Bedroom Window (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0092627/) wasn't a remake.

Anyway. No. Boo.

Even though a stage musical is played well by many different casts I think the movie is such a classic it'll be a bummer to me to see it remade. But I've been wrong so many times before I wonder why I post on the internet at all.

[jessica]

Oh horrors! What a tragedy...

These dimwits need to stop!!

[DocDrako]

Lame. But that's Hollywood.

:crazy:

[Joe90]

That's one to avoid.

But Man! Susan Sarandon is HOT in the original movie...

http://www.angelfire.com/pa3/lookingglass/images/janetfloorshow.jpg

[ctc]

>Would the new version be redone to seem more legit?

To the audience? Yes. There's a weird through-line in society that says "old" is "bad." If people don't recognize the actors, or director, or bands doing the music then it's uninteresting for them.

People LIKE the same old same old again and again. Sad but true.

You mention "Hairspray" and I gotta say THAT one REALLY bothered me. It's the same movie, with big name actors. Marketing, pure and simple. I can see Rocky Horror going the same route. I get SOOOOO tired of seeing the same people, performing their recognized schticks, in EVERYTHING!

"Will Ferrel IS Dr Frank...."

Don C.

[monkey tennis]

Will Ferrell....:no:......please.

Unless they can get a time warp to use a young Tim Curry I won't be watching.
Think I'll.....I'll...steal all the Popcorn...:grin:.

The remake may also include music not featured in the original.

Wonderful, sounds like an Oscar winner already.

[Vortigern99]

Curry originated the role, and of course I adore him for it, but he's not the only actor to ever play Frank successfully. The best Frank I ever saw was a diminutive blond guy with tiger-striped underwear, only one fishnet on his leg, and white socks! It's the energy and sense of command the performer brings to the part that's important. There are many, many talented actors out there capable of working wonders with this part. Compared to some of the stage productions, the movie is rather lackluster. If you guys could hear the rockin' energy of the Roxy record (1973) or the sly humor of the original London cast recording, I think you'd see that there are many ways to do this musical. The movie we all know is only one version.

The songs not in the film are indeed in other recordings, such as Brad's Once in a While and the deleted-scene-only Superheroes.

[Werewolf]

I'm sure I'm in the minority here.But I can't stand this movie

I never understood its appeal either. But to be fair, I do have a deep seated hatred of musicals in general.

[Earth 2 Chris]

I don't usually like musicals either, but I've always liked this one. LIKED being the opportune word. I have no desire to dress up in costume and perform it.

That being said, a remake does seem kind of pointless to me, since the old campy factor is one thing that makes it work.

Chris

[Seeker]

The whole point of Loving Rocky Horror had nothing to do with the movie or the musical. It hads to do with the whole Midnight cinima lifestyle toast, newspaper, squirt guns and all.

A remake sours all that.

[Adam West]

I like the movie. It's not something I own or would watch over and over again ad nauseum but it's just strange and campy enough to keep my attention.

We have a local way, way off broadway theatre that just recently had a showing and invited everyone to come with all the accoutrements necessary to watch with audience members. I have never been to one of these audience participation performances and suggested to my wife that maybe it would be fun to experience it....she laughed at the suggestion so I guess that was a no.

[Vortigern99]

The whole point of Loving Rocky Horror had nothing to do with the movie or the musical. It hads to do with the whole Midnight cinima lifestyle toast, newspaper, squirt guns and all.

A remake sours all that.

When you first start going to Rocky, or if you're a casual fan, yeah -- the experience is about the experience, not necessarily about the movie. But if you become a cast member of the midnight show, or even a kind of Rocky Horror groupie (who never play anything but hang around helping with lights, costumes, socializing, etc.), you start to realize how great the music is, what a fun show it is, and how there are all these different stage versions, many of which are actually better than the movie. So for a seasoned cast member (which I realize no one here is except me, but still), the idea of a remake is really pretty exciting.

[thunderbolt]

:wall: stupid stupid stupid.

[Vortigern99]

:smiley1:

[Seeker]

What makes you think your the only "Seasoned" cast member? The midnight movie lifestyle went way beyond Rocky Horror.

Monty Python, John Waters movies, Eraser Head. The whole point was to be anti main stream.

Any "True" midnighter would be against commercial remakes.

[Vortigern99]

Wha--? I'm talking about being in the cast of the live theatrical show that went on in front of this particular movie, not "living the midnight movie lifestyle" which perforce included a host of other films. I'm not trying to win some kind of contest over who is a "true midnighter". Either you want to see the movie re-made or you don't.

RHPS is different from other midnight movies because, as I've tried to explain, there are numerous different versions of the stage show and cast recording worldwide, many of which are superior to the movie.

Also, to date RHPS has made almost $140 million on a $1 million budget; believing this is somehow "anti-mainstream" borders on delusional. It was released to a mainstream audience nation- and worldwide, but flopped initially. The business of motion pictures is business, with art as a secondary concern. It's wonderful that RHPS has inspired so much artistry and creativity over the years, but it is and always has been a commercial enterprise like all other mainstream films.

[mitchedwards]

I've said it once and I'll say it again. Hollywood is out of new ideas

[Vortigern99]

No it isn't. Hollywood has always adapted previous material -- books, comics, operas, other films -- to keep the moviemaking machine rolling. Some of the best films of yesteryear are either re-makes or adaptations. Wizard of Oz, Gone with the Wind, Maltese Falcon, Dracula, Frankenstein, even Citizen Kane -- just to name a few masterpieces of the 30s and 40s -- were all re-makes, adaptations or both. The same is true of any decade you care to name.

Also, there are plenty of original films still being produced today, movies with no previous incarnation in any medium. Most of these are independent films, but a few are mainstream big-budget releases; there are dozens of these each year.

[thunderbolt]

^^^ But do we reallly need a remake of Rocky Horror?? Mitch is right, they are out of ideas.

[Vortigern99]

Part of the reason so many films are being re-made these days is that we now have the technological power to portray scenes which eluded filmmakers in the past. I don't just mean special effects, I also mean film stock, camera lenses, editing systems, sound recording equipment, and other technical aspects that make filmmaking more accessible, more "user-friendly" if you will, than it once was. Films look and sound better now than they've ever looked in the history of the medium.

The original RHPS was made on a tiny budget with very little time to shoot. The result is sloppy and slapdash -- which is part of its quirky appeal, certainly -- but the original show did not ask or require sloppiness, it simply happened during the movie shoot because of the budget and time constraints. With a bigger budget, more time, better technology and an effort to please a legion of fans, there's a good chance a new film will exceed the quality of the original, and approach the quality and energy of some of the stage versions, such as the Roxy cast or original London cast.

[thunderbolt]

Its the crappiness that gives it its charm. A slick redo with young pretty stars will lose that. It'd be like remaking Jaws or Smoky and the Bandit. They are products of the time they were made. Bandit was made when the cb and truckers were part of pop culture, a remake of it(no doubt starring Adam Sandler) just wouldn't work as well.

[ctc]

>Part of the reason so many films are being re-made these days is that we now have the technological power to portray scenes which eluded filmmakers in the past.

Yeah; but a bigger part is name recognition. That's why they keep making Batman films. Would the last one have been as popular if it'd featured a totally original character? I doubt it.

>They are products of the time they were made.

I agree too; and not just for bad films, but for ANY film. The reason I watch so many old films is 'cos they were made with a totally different attitude, different techniques, different senses of propriety.... so to ME they're radicly different from what I'm usually exposed to. And I like different.

>Hollywood has always adapted previous material

VERY true; but I'm always kinda leary of it. Sometimes they mess with the book and you get the original Planet of the Apes; which was made at a time when folks were into questioning things. Sometimes you get the 2000's version; which had a lot of effects, was VERY pretty, but completely empty.

'Course sometimes you get the 80's Flash Gordon; which is NOTHING like the source material, very pretty, rather empty, but oddly mesmerizing....

>there are plenty of original films still being produced today,

Yeah, but even there it seems like a lot of 'em are a lot like the big budget flicks any more. And you never really hear about 'em until someone does the billion dollar remake.

Don C.

[Raydeen1]

While I agree wholeheartedly, look what all this new stuff did to Star Wars.

The ships in particular completely lost the feel of the first movies. The computer generated ships are far too sleek and all look brand new and everything is chrome. I worked in 3D animation for several years and without a doubt in my mind could have made better looking ships with a better overall feel and more weathered look more akin to the models of the original series.

Just becuase this new technology exists, doesn't mean folks can use it properly or should use it in certain circumstances.


Part of the reason so many films are being re-made these days is that we now have the technological power to portray scenes which eluded filmmakers in the past. I don't just mean special effects, I also mean film stock, camera lenses, editing systems, sound recording equipment, and other technical aspects that make filmmaking more accessible, more "user-friendly" if you will, than it once was. Films look and sound better now than they've ever looked in the history of the medium.

[Seeker]

God who would want to see a remake of something like Monty Python and the Holy Grail or Life of Brian? Movies like Rocky and such should be left alone.:yeah:

[jayihdz]

So does that mean that Richard O'Brien no longer owns the rights to this? I thought they needed his permission to remake his work. This is a pretty lame idea. Why do they feel the need to remake it?


I agree....why?

[ctc]

>The ships in particular completely lost the feel of the first movies.

Although they were kinda SUPPOSED to. I'd read they wanted a more pulp-era sparkling future look to everything; as a contrast to the post Empire "lived in" look the originals had.

>Just becuase this new technology exists, doesn't mean folks can use it properly or should use it in certain circumstances.

THIS is my concern with the CGI tech. That we'll get the same designs tweaked a little bit, over and over and over. Instead of using it to bring an idea to life, too many folks base their ideas around the established techniques for computer animation. And the larger the library of preprogrammed vectors and skins that are developed, the more cut and paste movies will become.

Don C.

[Vortigern99]

The basic point of contention here is that most of you like the low-budget feel of RHPS, the quirky slapdash quality that was a product of its limited funding and brief production schedule. Me, I've seen the movie, or played in front of it, literally hundreds of times (an average of five times a month for five years), and I'm ready for something sharper and more polished. I keep brininging up the point that there are all these other versions of the stage show that are better and more energetic than the movie, but no one seems to want to address that. The stage show existed for several years before the film was made, and is still produced in theaters the world over today. The 1975 movie is not the only way to do this story, cast these characters or present these songs.

[Seeker]

You want to be in a play be in a play. That wasnt what the whole Midnight madness was about. Old schoolers might call you a sell out. The whole point was to have fun, not put on a full length production.

The other point about better effects and such for making movies now......
YE GODS MAN. Lets have the French throw a CGI cow at King Aurthor. Well throw in a realistic CGI two headed giant to menace Robin. Lets edit the sound so its less choppy in bits. THATS WHAT MADE THE ORIGINAL SO GREAT.

[Vortigern99]

Uhhh... okay. Nice talking with you, I guess? /scratches head in bewilderment/

[thunderbolt]

The basic point of contention here is that most of you like the low-budget feel of RHPS, the quirky slapdash quality that was a product of its limited funding and brief production schedule. Me, I've seen the movie, or played in front of it, literally hundreds of times (an average of five times a month for five years), and I'm ready for something sharper and more polished. I keep brininging up the point that there are all these other versions of the stage show that are better and more energetic than the movie, but no one seems to want to address that. The stage show existed for several years before the film was made, and is still produced in theaters the world over today. The 1975 movie is not the only way to do this story, cast these characters or present these songs.

Well, the subject is the remake of the movie, not your stage play or troupe or whatever. The point is a theatrical remake is uneeded. If it happens and Ashton Kutcher is cast as on of the leads, I hope you enjoy. :yuk:

[Bo8a_Fett]

Like most long running theater productions...there are many changes to cast and sets etc....so i'm not too upset that they want to do a remake...just disappointed....there really is no need...and if they do remake it will they screw it up by adding things and drastically changing the story or charecter dynamics.....if O'Brien wants nothing to do with it ...it suggests they want to.
Again what's with the remake thing...Day the Earth stood Still looks awful and many bad remakes already in the bag, all I can say is..
Bad hollywood...Bad......rolls up newspaper...Bad

[Seeker]

Uhhh... okay. Nice talking with you, I guess? /scratches head in bewilderment/


Sorry if your easily confused. We had been talking before about remaking movies, particularly the midnight movies classics like Rocky and Monty Python.
You were like all Blah blah Better effects sound editing yadda yadda.

I was pointing out Monty Python and the Holy Grail for example. Here is a great movie that should NEVER be remade.

Point.

Original Grail- French throw a fake cow over the ramparts at the English knights= Hillarious

remake using better effects- Hey lets use a CGI cow. Well have it wildly waving its legs and make a funny face. Oooo As long as we have the cow animated lets make it 10 cows and a pig. (CGI always goes over board in remakes just because they can)

Point Rocky horror.

Original Time Warp dance- funny

Remake- Lets add 50 really wacked out CGI star trek convention types into the back ground. Modern is not better.

[ctc]

>I'm ready for something sharper and more polished

Hmmmm.... I dunno. I don't think remakes of anything are NECCESSARILY bad; but I think a lot of time they really miss the point. Mostly 'cos you get the name slapped onto whatever the current trend in film-making is. The era a movie is made has a HUGE effect on how it turns out. So does the level of technology and budget. Change that, and you can severely cripple a movie.

Rocky is perfectly fine the way it is; warts and all. Polishing it up would probably make it a little less unique, and more like everything else 'cos it'd be realigned to the current "correct" way of making a film. And I don't think everything HAS to conform to an ephimeral concept like "Correct." Or even "Better." I find that to be a dangerous notion; since you lose a lot of films, techniques and theory as films fall out of fashion.

Don C.

[Vortigern99]

I realize I'm in the minority opinion here, but let's remain civil, shall we? Seeker's calling me "easily confused" to belittle me is unacceptably rude. Also, the implication that there are "true midnighters" whose opinion could not possibly match my own is misguided. My midnight movie experience lasted from 1988-1993, so it was a different era from the midnight movie "craze" of the 70s. My experience is no less valid than the earlier experience; it's just different. By the late 80s we were playing out the whole show in front of the screen, and doing it as accurately and as passionately as possible, treating it like a real stage production without the sets, as the movie played behind and above us. I know the movie's every breath, every note, every pause between words. I also happen to be acquainted with other, professional productions of the stage show (without the movie) in which the music is superior. I know the movie can be made better because I've seen and heard for myself what the potential is. Either way, the original will always exist and will likely continue to play in theaters at midnight around the world. It's not like anything is being lost with the movie being re-made. It would simply be another version of the same source material. It's fine if you guys have a different opinion, but there is no need for insult here.

Seeker, you brought up other midnight movies; to me none of them enter into a discussion about re-making this particular film. Should Holy Grail be re-made? Of course not. Song Remains the Same? El Topo? Pink Flamingoes? No, no and no. But RHPS is unique among these in that there are other (and earlier) versions of the show that are different and better than the film.

[ctc]

>there are other (and earlier) versions of the show that are different and better than the film.

I think THIS is the sticking point: most folks don't see how it could be better. Or that it needs to be better. (And they'd probably have divulgent takes on what "better" means.)

Don C.

[Seeker]

>there are other (and earlier) versions of the show that are different and better than the film.

I think THIS is the sticking point: most folks don't see how it could be better. Or that it needs to be better. (And they'd probably have divulgent takes on what "better" means.)

Don C.


Exactly.

Now Ive done work and had a bit part in Tromas latest film and even though Troma is known for cheap effects and shoestring budgets I wouldnt want to see any modernized or redone to any of those. Thats whats fun about movies like The toxic Avenger.

[Vortigern99]

Fair enough, and I can respect that opinion. Obviously the film has a certain unique charm that will be difficult if not impossible to duplicate. Curry's performance alone makes RHPS a classic for the ages.

Nonetheless, there are cast recordings from the stage show that blow the movie away in terms of energetic performances, passionate vocal delivery, comic timing, tight instrumentation, etc. The movie can be done better, and as you all know by now I for one have no problem with a re-make being a kind of companion piece to the original.

[DocDrako]

Let's see if I can figure out Hollywood's choices here...

Cillian Murhy as Dr Frank N Furter
Paul Reubens as Riff Raff
Zac Ephron as Brad Majors
Miley Cyrus as Janet Weiss
Lindsey Lohan as Magenta
Natalie Portman as Columbia
Kevin James as Eddie
Will Smith as Rocky

Special Cameo Appearance By Adam Sandler as Tim Curry

[celsius]

YouTube - Rocky Horror - Cutabove - Colin Mathura-Jeffree (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5zbuioEeuUg)

[thunderbolt]

Let's see if I can figure out Hollywood's choices here...

Cillian Murhy as Dr Frank N Furter
Paul Reubens as Riff Raff
Zac Ephron as Brad Majors
Miley Cyrus as Janet Weiss
Lindsey Lohan as Magenta
Natalie Portman as Columbia
Kevin James as Eddie
Will Smith as Rocky

Special Cameo Appearance By Adam Sandler as Tim Curry


still say Kelso makes an appearance :smiley1:

[unataper]

> I get SOOOOO tired of seeing the same people, performing their recognized schticks, in EVERYTHING!

"Will Ferrel IS Dr Frank...."

Don C.

I totally agree with this comment- look at Jim Carey. Every film he has done since The Mask is him rehashing that same persona.