Rocky Horror REMAKE

[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.

[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.

[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