RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32
|
Unless they star people from the original show, a la "Maverick."
Maverick was a freakin' AWESOME movie!!!
I never watched the original TV show, but damn that movie was good!I agree though. Old TV shows converted to new movies rarely work the way you'd like them to because they're usually catering to appeal to a different generation, rather than hit the nostalgia button for the oldies.
Maverick was a freakin' AWESOME movie!!!
I never watched the original TV show, but damn that movie was good!
What made the movie so great, was that in the show, there were two Mavericks: Brett and Bart... and James Garner was one of them. (Well, that tidbit, and the fact that James Coburn was in the movie, and he's awesome in everything).
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32
|
What made the movie so great, was that in the show, there were two Mavericks: Brett and Bart... and James Garner was one of them. Well, that and James Coburn being in it!Maverick was a freakin' AWESOME movie!!!
I never watched the original TV show, but damn that movie was good!
Yeah, wasn't he the original Brett?
Take or leave Branaugh? What the heck've you been watching?Hamlet: I should probably be stoned for saying this, but I liked the Gibson one better.
Harry Potter: See above.
Rabbit-Proof Fence: Meh.
Wild, Wild West: Vomit.
Much Ado About Nothing: Batman totally stole the show.
Othello: Like I said, flawless performance. And Fishburne was incredibly good, too. I've probably seen that one like 5 times.
Did you see him and Robert DeNiro in Mary Shelley's Frankenstein? They wrestle in amniotic fluid. I am not kidding. I know what it was because there's a scene where he gathers it from clinics and insane asylums.
Looks around for stones...with sharp edges and high iron or lead ore content...
Now, Gibson's Hamlet was fun, but KB's was profound. The only false moments were with Jack Lemmon. I think he was drunk.
|
But out of that you also got Ewen McGregor who did an outstanding job as Obi Wan despite the prequels' obvious problems.Ewen McGregor was terrible and I am a big fan of Ewan. It should have been Kenneth Branagh as Obi he is probably the only actor that would come the closest to Sir Alec Guinness in ability.
I don’t think McGregor acted very well in Episode 1. Too often it looked like he was trying not to laugh or shake his head in disbelief at the hokey script, poor direction or silly digital characters. Liam Neeson on the other hand did a good job with a bad lot.
McGregor did a far better job, and made a convincing Obi Wan in the next two, despite a lot of similar (or worse) problems with script and plot. From those movies I could believe him “growing up” to be Alec Guinness.
|
On his worst day, though, he's still head and shoulders better than Lorne Green... although I still like the original show better than the new one. Maybe it's just nostalgia.Same here. My vote also goes to nostalgia, mainly because I've seen episodes of it again now that I'm all grown up. It's definitely nostalgia.
You know, speaking of nostalgia, I would love to see a remake of the Buck Rogers series. That was a good show for a preteen boy with lots of hormones. Space Hoes for the win!
You know, speaking of nostalgia, I would love to see a remake of the Buck Rogers series. That was a good show for a preteen boy with lots of hormones.
You mean, another remake? My God, I loved the inclusion of Buster Crabbe in the Gil Gerard pilot -- an absolute masterwork stroke, one that made the whole series for me:
Crabbe made regular television appearances, including one on an episode of the 1979 series Buck Rogers in the 25th Century, where he played a retired fighter pilot named "Brigadier Gordon" in honor of Flash Gordon [whom Crabbe also played, back in the day]. When Rogers (Gil Gerard) praises his flying, Gordon replies "I've been doing that sort of thing since before you were born." Rogers (who was born over 500 years earlier) responds "You think so?" to which Gordon replies "Young man, I know so!" Crabbe had, in fact, been playing "Buck Rogers" since long before Gerard was born.
That one inclusion and exchange validated the series far better than any acting, script, or special effects could ever do. In fact, I'd almost go so far as to say it's my favorite bit of television dialogue ever, given the ironies.
Take or leave Branaugh? What the heck've you been watching?Hamlet: I should probably be stoned for saying this, but I liked the Gibson one better.
Harry Potter: See above.
Rabbit-Proof Fence: Meh.
Wild, Wild West: Vomit.
Much Ado About Nothing: Batman totally stole the show.
Othello: Like I said, flawless performance. And Fishburne was incredibly good, too. I've probably seen that one like 5 times.
I dont understand the hate for Wild Wild West - I enjoyed it a lot. Then again Im a sucker for Steampunk.
I think a lot of actors play "the same role" over and over again because no one ever offers them a different one. Look at Jim Carey. How many movies that were not comedy has he made now?
I think a lot of actors play "the same role" over and over again because no one ever offers them a different one. Look at Jim Carey. How many movies that were not comedy has he made now?
Typecasting. The studios only see an actor as a certain type of character, that's all they ever offer. It's also why so many actors really interested in challenging themselves branch out to do independent films and stage as well as start their own production companies.
On the other hand, there are some actors with limited range who do work best in certain roles. Kevin Costner seems at his best in baseball films.
I think a lot of actors play "the same role" over and over again because no one ever offers them a different one. Look at Jim Carey. How many movies that were not comedy has he made now?Typecasting. The studios only see an actor as a certain type of character, that's all they ever offer. It's also why so many actors really interested in challenging themselves branch out to do independent films and stage as well as start their own production companies.
On the other hand, there are some actors with limited range who do work best in certain roles. Kevin Costner seems at his best in baseball films.
Some actors are indeed unfairly typecast and could do much more given a chance. Some could do different roles well if the director was good (I think Carrey is one like that, he could spread out as long as someone with iron hand keeps him in check and prevent him from chewing up the scenery).
...but I admit also that some of my favorite actors are those character actors who don't have that much of a range but owns that limited range (elsewhere I have mentioned that Christopher Lee in the cast makes any movie worth watching, and there are others like that).
That said, actors like that usually work best in second or third billing and not as main characters.
Feels like Jack Nicholson has been phoning in most of his performances lately, just playing the Jack Nicholson character. And while I have liked some Samuel Jackson films he has been in so much crud that nowadays he counts as negative for me (he lacks the histrionic camp quality of Nick Cage).
Maybe some of those Samuel L. Jackson roles should have gone to Laurence Fishburne...
I dont understand the hate for Wild Wild West - I enjoyed it a lot.
I often rant that the whole genre of "Movies Based on Old TV Shows" should be banned forever. (Unless they star people from the original show, a la Maverick.)
The whole thing is inane -- find a TV show that kids' parents used to watch, and "re-imagine" it as a blockbuster movie? Please. Once (aka The Fugitive) is understandable, if a sad commentary on the lack of original ideas. But now, as near as I can figure, 75% of all movies made are either based on old TV shows, or are simply remakes of other movies (because there are only so many old TV shows, but you can remake a movie an infinite number of times). Even a lot of the ones that claim to be "original" are remakes in disguise (e.g., MI:3 = True Lies). The remaining 25% is made up of movies based on comic books (23%), and movies based on actual books (2%).
I'd be happier if at least all the old TV show movies had clear references and "nods" to the original series (as in Maverick), and if all remakes did the same (which they never do -- how many rabid 3:10 to Yuma fans even know it's a remake at all?).
I'd be happier if at least all the old TV show movies had clear references and "nods" to the original series (as in Maverick), and if all remakes did the same (which they never do -- how many rabid 3:10 to Yuma fans even know it's a remake at all?).
I'm pretty skeptical of most movie adaptations of TV shows as well. Most are entirely unessential. But there are some I can endorse. The first of the Brady Bunch movies was pretty good, in part, because it reinterpreted the original show and transplanted it, 70s sitcom culture and all, into the 1990s. Brilliant idea and pulled off reasonably well.
I could also understand taking a show and spinning a longer story with big screen style like Serenity with respect to Firefly. The fit between the show and movie was relatively seemless.
I could also understand taking a show and spinning a longer story with big screen style like Serenity with respect to Firefly. The fit between the show and movie was relatively seemless.
Yeah, that makes sense to me, especially if you keep the same actors/continue the storyline/maintain some semblance of continuity. The Simpsons movie is another example in which the movie is simply a longer TV episode, not a lame repackaging of a long-defunct franchise.
|
Wild, Wild West: Vomit.
Much Ado About Nothing: Batman totally stole the show.
You need to jump on the youtube and see Keven Smith's take on what went wrong with Wild, Wild West." Nothing he could have done would have made most people happy with that role. Let's face it. The move was to PC to allow a "Little Person" play the role as writen originally.
And I found his take on "Much Ado' so good I put some of his lines into my wedding. As far a Batman stelling the show. Feh, it was Beetlejuice just prior to kicking the bucket.
I think a lot of actors play "the same role" over and over again because no one ever offers them a different one. Look at Jim Carey. How many movies that were not comedy has he made now?2 I think.
21 and Majestic.
Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind
Man on the Moon (has some comedy but I wouldn't call it one)The Truman Show (also has some comedy, but I don't think I'd call it one)
Simon Birch
Director of Sales
|
I think a lot of actors play "the same role" over and over again because no one ever offers them a different one. Look at Jim Carey. How many movies that were not comedy has he made now?2 I think.
21 and Majestic.Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind
Man on the Moon (has some comedy but I wouldn't call it one)
The Truman Show (also has some comedy, but I don't think I'd call it one)
Simon Birch
Batman Forever (laughable, but not a comedy)
Lemony Snicket's A Series of Unfortunate Events (arguably a comedy, but not in the same spirit as his other work)The Number 23
Thanks IMDB!
Honestly, I think Jim Carrey is a great example of the opposite of the title of this thread:
Great acting from a supposedly bad actor.
Kevin Costner seems at his best in baseball films.
Nah, he's best as Elvis. And I thought he was also good as fishman or murderous nutjob.
Honestly, I think Jim Carrey is a great example of the opposite of the title of this thread:Great acting from a supposedly bad actor.
Also Eric Banna fits this - he was a crap comedian very cringe worthy.
Until Chopper (which I thouroughly recomend), Black Hawk down, Munich nobody knew how good an actor he was.
Batman Forever (laughable, but not a comedy)
Still the usual role. Not a comedy (laughable, I agree, but not a comedy), but a character that wasn't taken at all seriously by those in charge of making that movie (and it was still better than the one that came after).
|
|
On the subject of remakes, it is really a short-term business decision. On an individual basis, taking existing material and remaking it saves you pre-production costs and provides you with a built-in market about which you have reliable data. It makes perfect sense to produce a remake in these conditions, rather than pay more for a movie that is not a sure thing. Of course, the long-term effects of this strategy may not be desireable, but since when are corporations far-sighted?
My favorite remake? Last Man Standing. I just love a modern western based on a western based on a samurai movie based on westerns.
My favorite remake? Last Man Standing. I just love a modern western based on a western based on a samurai movie based on westerns.
Minor correction: Yojimbo was based directly on Dashiell Hammett's Red Harvest, set in the same time period as Last Man. So the three movies sort of make a circle back to the book (which is far better than all of the films put together, BTW).
|
|
My favorite remake? Last Man Standing. I just love a modern western based on a western based on a samurai movie based on westerns.Minor correction: Yojimbo was based directly on Dashiell Hammett's Red Harvest, set in the same time period as Last Man. So the three movies sort of make a circle back to the book (which is far better than all of the films put together, BTW).
I hope you are saying that book is supremely awesome, and not disparaging the films themselves!
I didn't know about Red Harvest though, I had always figured Yojimbo was just generally inspired by westerns. I think it undeniably attempts to be a western, but obviously (now) there is a deeper more explicit connection to Hammett. Genius point for Kirth!
I hope you are saying that book is supremely awesome, and not disparaging the films themselves! I didn't know about Red Harvest though, I had always figured Yojimbo was just generally inspired by westerns. I think it undeniably attempts to be a western, but obviously (now) there is a deeper more explicit connection to Hammett. Genius point for Kirth!
Trivia point: Kurosawa himself aknowledged "Yojimbo" as a direct adaptation. In answer to your question, Dashiell "The Maltese Falcon" Hammett might be my favorite all-time author, above Jack Vance even. Fistful of Dollars is one of my favorite movies. Yojimbo was something different: I really liked how he intimidates the wretches first and then mows them down when they're shaken -- I modeled my variant Samurai class after that movie, in fact. Last Man... well, I don't think Bruce Willis is cool, is my problem; certainly nowhere near as cool as HE obviously thinks he is. Outside of that, it was a fun movie.
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32
|
I think a lot of actors play "the same role" over and over again because no one ever offers them a different one. Look at Jim Carey. How many movies that were not comedy has he made now?Typecasting. The studios only see an actor as a certain type of character, that's all they ever offer. It's also why so many actors really interested in challenging themselves branch out to do independent films and stage as well as start their own production companies.
On the other hand, there are some actors with limited range who do work best in certain roles. Kevin Costner seems at his best in baseball films.
Stiffler!!!
Has Seann William Scott ever played a part in any movie that wasn't in some way Stiffler?
Has Seann William Scott ever played a part in any movie that wasn't in some way Stiffler?
Kar, in Bulletproof Monk?[/grasping at straws]
|
|
Stiffler!!!
Has Seann William Scott ever played a part in any movie that wasn't in some way Stiffler?
Southland Tales
To the OPTom Hanks and Audrey Tautou AND Paul Bettany in The Da Vinci Code (the other good actors in this movie aren't acting much better, but the acting of these three is utter crap)
I try hard not to mention a certain famous (and good) actor in a certain movie based on a popular role playing game...
I try hard not to mention a certain famous (and good) actor in a certain movie based on a popular role playing game...Marlon Wayans?
oO
I think he meant Jeremy Irons...but then again, I still have to wonder why he made Eragon... "I was young and needed the money" doesn't really count for him.
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32
|
I try hard not to mention a certain famous (and good) actor in a certain movie based on a popular role playing game...Marlon Wayans?oO
I think he meant Jeremy Irons...but then again, I still have to wonder why he made Eragon... "I was young and needed the money" doesn't really count for him.
heh, heh. I know. I probably should have put a smiley face or something there to show I was joking. I hate that you can't portray emotion properly online :(
You know, speaking of nostalgia, I would love to see a remake of the Buck Rogers series. That was a good show for a preteen boy with lots of hormones.You mean, another remake? My God, I loved the inclusion of Buster Crabbe in the Gil Gerard pilot -- an absolute masterwork stroke, one that made the whole series for me:
** spoiler omitted **
That one inclusion and exchange validated the series far better than any acting, script, or special effects could ever do. In fact, I'd almost go so far as to say it's my favorite bit of television dialogue ever, given the ironies.
Yes I remember it fondly as the episode where the bad guys had given the earth pilots food poisoning leaving the defence in the hands of those still available and my jaw still dropped when he was introduced as Brigadier Gordon as its one of the few times I actually understood what was going on for a change!
Well that and the plan to take down the bad guys involved American Football!
|
|
I try hard not to mention a certain famous (and good) actor in a certain movie based on a popular role playing game...Marlon Wayans?oO
I think he meant Jeremy Irons...but then again, I still have to wonder why he made Eragon... "I was young and needed the money" doesn't really count for him.
Dementia?
On the other hand, there are some actors with limited range who do work best in certain roles. Kevin Costner seems at his best in baseball films.
Yes I did like Field of Dream.
[quote=]...but I admit also that some of my favorite actors are those character actors who don't have that much of a range but owns that limited range (elsewhere I have mentioned that Christopher Lee in the cast makes any movie worth watching, and there are others like that).
That said, actors like that usually work best in second or third billing and not as main characters.
Except "The Stupids" nothing he could do though, that was one of a small number of movies I just couldn't finish watching as it was that bad, even "Space Marines" where I actually wanted the bad guys to kill the hero as he was that awful, but I still watched it entirely .
I think he meant Jeremy Irons...but then again, I still have to wonder why he made Eragon... "I was young and needed the money" doesn't really count for him.
Read an interview with him; evidently he'd purchased a castle in Ireland and for a few years was taking any movie roles that came along if they offered a big enough paycheck. Thus D&D, Eragon, the Time Machine remake, etc.
How did Ron Howard get sweet little Audrey in that stinker?
I think that Jeremy Irons is secretly one of us, but for some reason he can't break into a decent fantasy movie. Think about it. I just hope we don't see him dragged into some of the SciFi channels farces, like John Rhys-Davies...
While Irons is probably the obvious, I'd have to also point out Tom Baker.
I try hard not to mention a certain famous (and good) actor in a certain movie based on a popular role playing game...
Except he was actually quite good even if he was tall for an elf!
Except he was actually quite good even if he was tall for an elf!And a little too overweight for my vision of an elf.
Must have been all those jelly babies!
How did Ron Howard get sweet little Audrey in that stinker?
I think that Jeremy Irons is secretly one of us, but for some reason he can't break into a decent fantasy movie. Think about it. I just hope we don't see him dragged into some of the SciFi channels farces, like John Rhys-Davies...
...or F. Murray Abraham (speaking of the Oscar curse). Caught a flick a couple of weeks ago on SciFi called Bloodmonkey. It was about as awful as you'd expect. I had to watch though; how can you pass up something named Bloodmonkey? If I ever start a band, that's what I'm calling it. I'll have to change it to Bludmunkee though, just to avoid an legal hassle.
|
|
...or F. Murray Abraham (speaking of the Oscar curse). Caught a flick a couple of weeks ago on SciFi called Bloodmonkey. It was about as awful as you'd expect. I had to watch though; how can you pass up something named Bloodmonkey? If I ever start a band, that's what I'm calling it. I'll have to change it to Bludmunkee though, just to avoid an legal hassle.How did Ron Howard get sweet little Audrey in that stinker?
I think that Jeremy Irons is secretly one of us, but for some reason he can't break into a decent fantasy movie. Think about it. I just hope we don't see him dragged into some of the SciFi channels farces, like John Rhys-Davies...
Don't have to, can't copyright a title. You can register it as a trademark, but that's very rare, outside of gaming and franchise type shows/entertainment (Star Wars, Star Trek, stuff like that).
Don't have to, can't copyright a title. You can register it as a trademark, but that's very rare, outside of gaming and franchise type shows/entertainment (Star Wars, Star Trek, stuff like that).
In that case, I'll just change the spelling in a pretentious attempt to make it it sound more "edgy".
|
Since he was mentioned upthread, how about Jeremy Irons?
Good performances in several movies, and then he played Profion, in the first Dungeons & Dragons movie, and spent the entire movie chewing scenery so vigorously, that I got kinda sick of seeing his tonsils. And even then, he was out-bad-acted by the blue-lipstick-wearing dude who played his henchman... The main character and his wizard not-girlfriend had potential, and maybe the dwarf, but everyone else needed to die in a fire. In some cases (Snails, the Elf leader, Profion and Damodar), twice!