Rocky Horror REMAKE

[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

[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

[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.