Log in

So then there's this - The Worst Damn Sports Show Period [entries|archive|friends|userinfo]
Schwa Love

[ website | Photos and Drawrings ]
[ userinfo | livejournal userinfo ]
[ archive | journal archive ]

So then there's this [Nov. 29th, 2008|03:22 am]
Schwa Love
At Comicon this summer, I guess there was a teaser for the sequel of some silly little Disney movie, due out in three years.

[User Picture]From: animatus
2008-11-29 12:01 pm (UTC)
I'm actually really excited for this.

(Reply) (Thread)
(Deleted comment)
[User Picture]From: schwa242
2008-11-30 11:24 pm (UTC)
I'm not expecting anything great. I won't be seeing it with eight-year-old eyes for one thing. The gimmick of the original was that it was really really really pretty, and showed what could be done with computers and backlit animation (most of the film does not actually employ computer animation). It's certainly not the greatest story (though I do like the religion and simulacra aspect of it), and definitely not grounded in any actual science involving computers, but it was fun (and for me, still is) nonetheless. The problem with a new film is, they are more than likely going to lose the element of bedazzling anyone with the look and feel of it. I have no doubt that it will be pretty. I do doubt that it's going to blow people away in any innovative sense. So it will have to be a few steps up on writing. Since there are Lost writers attached (a show I have a love/hate thing for), that'll certainly help. Not that Lost makes any more sense than Tron did, but there's enough confusion and audience guesswork thrown in the mix akin to Claremont's run on X-Men to keep people's attention for several years.

If it sucks, so what? There are rarely instances where a remake or re-imagining of a series or movie really gets to me, because I only have to see it once, and if I hate it, I can ignore it. Take the five minutes of the sequel to The Secret of NIMH I saw. For me, never happened. Part of it for me is that I don't get awash in fandom as much as I used to where I have to accept every single associated "official" media release related to a project as canonical. If I don't like it, I don't have to care, and I ignore it.

The only point this becomes a problem for me is if something jumps from book to screen. The reason being, is that a book creates a world in my head complete with its own visuals, and then seeing a movie super-imposes someone else's ideas of visuals into my mind, and then I'm stuck with some sort of weird hybrid the next time I read the book. You went into this regarding the first Narnia film. This is why, even though a movie for William Gibson's Pattern Recognition may be made (though from the looks of things, maybe not), I probably won't see it. That's where I get into fanboy weenie mode and worry about violating this pristine, virgin version of the story in my head with someone else's idea of what it is supposed to look like. Things like this make reading the source material from an established movie awkward as well. The first time I read Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep? as a teen, after having seen Blade Runner umpty-ump times was an awkward process, because I kept trying to force the movie and its characters and visual and thematic elements into the book's narrative.

So, uh, in answer to your question, I'm looking forward to it, and hope it'll be a nice summer popcorn movie.
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
[User Picture]From: schwa242
2008-12-14 04:26 am (UTC)
So I've been thinking long and hard about this the last couple weeks and... well no, I haven't thought about it at all, but there was a blurb about Michael Bay getting his foul little mitts into rebooting Nightmare on Elm Street and one of the producers saying things like, "It's not Freddy cracking jokes," and Mez is just disgusted with the whole idea, and I realized there is a remake that would piss me off. The aforementioned Blade Runner. There is absolutely no need, but someone will do it. I could give a damn about what happens to Tron, because it's a pretty dopey movie, but Blade Runner was made with such meticulous detail that a remake would be pointless and have to have all sorts of changes to keep it consistent with newer conceptions of the future. I can think of at least two scenes in that film that involve phone booths, for example. Plus, it's hard to imagine a future where replicants, who would likely fall under some sort of amped up anti-terrorism laws, could just wander around in large public crowds looking so sexy in their giant trench coats without immediately being picked up by authorities, who would not be individuals dragged back to the police department against their will, but rather large paramilitary SWAT teams. The noir elements are thrown out the window, so there's no point.

Also, any of the good Terry Gilliam films don't need to be remade. Hell, neither does Tideland. Once was one too many.

On the other hand, I really really really want to see some multimillionaire snap up the rights to redo the Star Wars films and make them even dopier.
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
(Deleted comment)
[User Picture]From: jwgh
2008-11-29 01:53 pm (UTC)
I still think it should be named 'TR10N'.
(Reply) (Thread)
[User Picture]From: mmcirvin
2008-11-29 03:31 pm (UTC)
Somebody might think it was about Turlough.
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
(Deleted comment)