Remakes- they are usually awful

[Montrovant]

I also wouldn't call the Batman movies "remakes". The Batman movies ignored the 1960's film/TV series and really took more from the comics.

I thought the first one was okay, the second one sucked, the third one was tolerable, and the fourth one was horrid. "Gay Capades on Ice". The Nolan movies were pretty good, except Batman killing the villians. Batman doesn't kill the villians.

Didn't watch the new Karate kid with the spawn of Will Smith. I'm still annoyed with that kid from the "Day the Earth Stood Still" remake.

Did Batman intentionally kill anyone in the Nolan movies? I remember him doing it what seemed accidentally, not intentionally....

 

[TruthSeeker56]

You're way off with this.

First, what makes a great author is entirely subjective. Second, even if an author writes a great book, it may not translate well into a movie. Even if you break a book up into multiple movies, you're probably going to have to leave a lot out. There's also the inability to effectively project the thoughts of characters in a movie as you can in a book. It sounds to me more that you think the authors YOU like should be made into movies.

One last thing is that not all the movies made based on King books have been bad. In fact, a few have been excellent. The real problem is that his horror hasn't translated well to movies. Stand By Me, The Green Mile, and most definitely The Shawshank Redemption were all very good movies based on King books.

Oh, and I don't know how overrated King is; he's been lambasted by many a critic. I've enjoyed reading a number of his books, which is the only standard by which I judge an author, and based on his sales apparently quite a few others have as well, so I guess he's not all THAT bad.

I believe that Stand By Me, The Green Mile, and Shawshank were all Stephen King short stories, and yes, all three of them adapted well to the "big screen". Maybe using King short stories is the secret!

A "normal" Stephen King novel is very wordy, chock full of analogies, and too "fat". King spends too much time weaving the "background" story and going out of his way to reference non-fictional locations in Maine. He should spend more time adding more "meat to the bone".

I'm presently reading Stephen King's newest book, "11/22/63", and so far, it is VERY tedious. My wife got it for me for Christmas, because of the fact that I am a JFK assassination self-proclaimed "expert".

In this very thick new book, once again, King spends way too much time referencing non-fictional locations in Maine (like anybody OUTSIDE of Maine gives a shit), and every other sentence is some sort of analogy. This book is interesting, but Kings' writing style reminds me of a high schooler trying to get an "A" in a writing class.

Obviously, the works of MANY authors are virtually unadaptable to any other media (live theatre, movies, TV).

 

[Montrovant]

You're way off with this.

First, what makes a great author is entirely subjective. Second, even if an author writes a great book, it may not translate well into a movie. Even if you break a book up into multiple movies, you're probably going to have to leave a lot out. There's also the inability to effectively project the thoughts of characters in a movie as you can in a book. It sounds to me more that you think the authors YOU like should be made into movies.

One last thing is that not all the movies made based on King books have been bad. In fact, a few have been excellent. The real problem is that his horror hasn't translated well to movies. Stand By Me, The Green Mile, and most definitely The Shawshank Redemption were all very good movies based on King books.

Oh, and I don't know how overrated King is; he's been lambasted by many a critic. I've enjoyed reading a number of his books, which is the only standard by which I judge an author, and based on his sales apparently quite a few others have as well, so I guess he's not all THAT bad.

I believe that Stand By Me, The Green Mile, and Shawshank were all Stephen King short stories, and yes, all three of them adapted well to the "big screen". Maybe using King short stories is the secret!

A "normal" Stephen King novel is very wordy, chock full of analogies, and too "fat". King spends too much time weaving the "background" story and going out of his way to reference non-fictional locations in Maine. He should spend more time adding more "meat to the bone".

I'm presently reading Stephen King's newest book, "11/22/63", and so far, it is VERY tedious. My wife got it for me for Christmas, because of the fact that I am a JFK assassination self-proclaimed "expert".

In this very thick new book, once again, King spends way too much time referencing non-fictional locations in Maine (like anybody OUTSIDE of Maine gives a shit), and every other sentence is some sort of analogy. This book is interesting, but Kings' writing style reminds me of a high schooler trying to get an "A" in a writing class.

Obviously, the works of MANY authors are virtually unadaptable to any other media (live theatre, movies, TV).

I never read the Green Mile, but Shawshank and Stand By Me were both in that in-between world of novellas. Too short to stand alone as a novel (at least by the standards of average King books) but much longer than just a short story. I think the real issue is that movies should stick to his dramatic stories rather than try his horror.

I haven't read any of King's work since...oh....I guess the last book of The Dark Tower series. I agree, some of his books get very big, but I don't mind that if I enjoy it. For example, I'm a fan of the Wheel of Time series, and that's 13 books of pretty good length. I liked It, The Stand (although without the additions later added in), a few other long King works. I don't think he's the greatest writer I've ever read, but while I was reading his books, he did have a knack for putting together a very readable story.

On the other hand, I also loved the Hitchhiker's Guide books, and none of those is a long book. Different styles, it all depends on how the author puts it all together.

Anyway, I'm not opposed to remakes in general, but I do think it's starting to get out of hand. Remaking a movie (or series) less than 10 years after the original is probably too soon; some of these remakes are less than 5 years removed from the originals nowadays. I think it's just a fad, Hollywood trying to cash in on what's working at the moment.

 

[JoeB131]

I also wouldn't call the Batman movies "remakes". The Batman movies ignored the 1960's film/TV series and really took more from the comics.

I thought the first one was okay, the second one sucked, the third one was tolerable, and the fourth one was horrid. "Gay Capades on Ice". The Nolan movies were pretty good, except Batman killing the villians. Batman doesn't kill the villians.

Didn't watch the new Karate kid with the spawn of Will Smith. I'm still annoyed with that kid from the "Day the Earth Stood Still" remake.

Did Batman intentionally kill anyone in the Nolan movies? I remember him doing it what seemed accidentally, not intentionally....

Well, he let Ras'al Ghul die when he could have saved him and he pushed Two-Face off the high building. I think they really didn't get the full potentional out of either character.

 

[Montrovant]

I also wouldn't call the Batman movies "remakes". The Batman movies ignored the 1960's film/TV series and really took more from the comics.

I thought the first one was okay, the second one sucked, the third one was tolerable, and the fourth one was horrid. "Gay Capades on Ice". The Nolan movies were pretty good, except Batman killing the villians. Batman doesn't kill the villians.

Didn't watch the new Karate kid with the spawn of Will Smith. I'm still annoyed with that kid from the "Day the Earth Stood Still" remake.

Did Batman intentionally kill anyone in the Nolan movies? I remember him doing it what seemed accidentally, not intentionally....

Well, he let Ras'al Ghul die when he could have saved him and he pushed Two-Face off the high building. I think they really didn't get the full potentional out of either character.

I don't remember the circumstances of Ras'al Ghul, but I'll take your word for it. As far as Two-Face, it seemed to me he pushed him off not to kill him, but to save Gordon's boy.

Two-Face was the main thing I did not like about Dark Knight, otherwise I loved that movie. There was enough wrong with Begins that I don't think about al Ghul's character too much.

 

[JoeB131]

I liked Batman Begins, but they were really scaping the bottom of the villian barrel there.

I think the Dark Knight's problem was that it underutilized Two Face. Instead of killing him, he should have been the main villian for the third movie. Ledger was pretty good as the Joker.

 

[RoadVirus]

GREAT writers should have movies made from their literary works. People like Steinbeck and Hemingway and Miller and Michener and many more.

Then we have Stephen King, perhaps the most overrated writer in history. How many of HIS books have been made into movies, most of which were even poorer than whatever Stephen King "dime novel" it was based on? I've lost count...........probably a couple of dozen?

The problem with movies made from King's books is how they follow the book. The TV miniseries of The Stand was mediocre at best because it followed the book like a drunk with a blood alcohol level 3 times above the legal limit walks a straight line.

IT, on the other hand, was great. Talk about real horror. A clown is enough to invoke fear in anyone. Add Stephen King's preception of a clown and you have sheer terror.

I liked Batman Begins, but they were really scaping the bottom of the villian barrel there.

I think the Dark Knight's problem was that it underutilized Two Face. Instead of killing him, he should have been the main villian for the third movie. Ledger was pretty good as the Joker.

Ugh. Don't even get me started about the Batman "remake" movies. Batman Beings...Dark Knight.....CRAP!

 

[Montrovant]

This is comic book movie blasphemy I'm seeing!

The Dark Knight was the best CBM that's been made, and Heath Ledger was amazing as the Joker!

 

[TruthSeeker56]

The problem with movies made from King's books is how they follow the book. The TV miniseries of The Stand was mediocre at best because it followed the book like a drunk with a blood alcohol level 3 times above the legal limit walks a straight line.

IT, on the other hand, was great. Talk about real horror. A clown is enough to invoke fear in anyone. Add Stephen King's preception of a clown and you have sheer terror.

It's easy to see why most of King's "full length" books are difficult to adapt to the "big screen" or the "small screen", for all the reasons I mentioned earlier.

I found "It" and "Pet Sematary" to both be gruesome, loathesome books and movies.

ANY book or movie that involves kidnapping/abusing/killing CHILDREN is just not my cup of tea.

Personally, I believe that Stephen King has a few screws loose. You have to wonder about what kind of life his wife and kids have had, living with somebody who has such a macabre mind. I know that one of his children is also an author.

I happen to be a published author. King, in a roundabout way, sort of "stole" my idea for a future novel I planned on writing. The premise of my novel is "what if John F. Kennedy had not been assassinated on November 22, 1963". The possibilities are endless, and very interesting to ponder.

 

[bayoubill]

The Karate Kid remake was actually good. At least the new kid was more believable than Ralph Machio acting like he knows Karate.

I have to disagree...

'k... I didn't see the original back in the 80's 'cause I thought the premise was so absurd...

I saw the recent remake in the theater... and, while it had its good moments, it overall sucked...

I then pulled up the original on Netflix... and I was surprised by it...

it's actually quite good... and way better than the remake...

 

[Montrovant]

The problem with movies made from King's books is how they follow the book. The TV miniseries of The Stand was mediocre at best because it followed the book like a drunk with a blood alcohol level 3 times above the legal limit walks a straight line.

IT, on the other hand, was great. Talk about real horror. A clown is enough to invoke fear in anyone. Add Stephen King's preception of a clown and you have sheer terror.

It's easy to see why most of King's "full length" books are difficult to adapt to the "big screen" or the "small screen", for all the reasons I mentioned earlier.

I found "It" and "Pet Sematary" to both be gruesome, loathesome books and movies.

ANY book or movie that involves kidnapping/abusing/killing CHILDREN is just not my cup of tea.

Personally, I believe that Stephen King has a few screws loose. You have to wonder about what kind of life his wife and kids have had, living with somebody who has such a macabre mind. I know that one of his children is also an author.

I happen to be a published author. King, in a roundabout way, sort of "stole" my idea for a future novel I planned on writing. The premise of my novel is "what if John F. Kennedy had not been assassinated on November 22, 1963". The possibilities are endless, and very interesting to ponder.

King's wife, Tabitha, is an author as well. I didn't know about any of his children writing; it must be in the genes!

I don't see why anything must be wrong with the man in order to write horror fiction. Not only is it far from the only type of writing he does, many people enjoy reading or watching horror; I do not think it means they all have a screw loose. He may well be a very average man who happens to put his darker imaginings into writing. Perhaps it's therapeutic. I have no idea, I just don't think his writing horror indicates all too much about his overall personality, and I certainly don't think his writing (that I have seen) has been extreme enough to seem particularly odd.

 

[JoeB131]

This is comic book movie blasphemy I'm seeing!

The Dark Knight was the best CBM that's been made, and Heath Ledger was amazing as the Joker!

I was 100% fine with the movie, until they killed Two-Face. That ruined it for me.

Second movie where they've killed him off.

Stop killing Two-Face, dammit!