I'm pitting Roger Ebert, fucking remakes, Brad Rutter, and some Dopers

The BBQ Pit
1

This is a bizzare OP, I admit, but I simply don’t have the time or desire to keep up with different posts now, and this is the result- if that’s okay?

First off, Brad Rutter- he was rightfully more knowledgable than the incredible Ken Jennings. That’s okay- but why did he have to be such an arrogant dick? It could have been a ‘nice’ genius walking away with Jennings’s 2 million. Fucker.

Second of all, pointless remakes- I went to see Charlie and the Chocolate Factory today, and it was similar to The Texas Chainsaw Massacre directed by Michael Bay in 2003- it takes the original cut out of the film and reprojects it, but with such an unfathomable and horrid lack of an understanding of what made the original good, and why that film was made. I mean, Jesus, I can’t describe this monstrosity- words can’t express this. I saw a stage version of The Graduate this year that made the same mistake-

Why was the original film made?: To represent a generation in the 60s. The stage version is pointless in this respect.

What made the original film good?: The music, the editing, the camera shots- all gone!

And here’s one thing that Michael Bay and Tim Burton need to realize: with these films (Massacre and Wonka), the originals also had the benefit of being the first! The idea only worked because it was happening once- it CANNOT happen again.

And finally: Roger Ebert. Go read his review here for Charlie; I read his reviews of the ‘great’ films, I recognize his achievements, but the man does not deserve his place in his career (both salary and respect). He does not go over important details of a film, he gives away endings, and he simply loves to refer to concepts from his Movie Glossary or to other films and actors that we don’t know of to show off his encyclopedic knowledge. We get it- you get to see all the fucking movies for a living, whereas I don’t (lucky SOB), so I don’t know as much.

He gives Charlie 3 stars, and his review is good- he gave Fight Club a bad review, he gave Daredevil a good review, he gave Stacy and Romy whatever Reunion a good review, he gave Godfather 3 a good review, he gave The Ring a bad review.

I’m not just disagreeing with him b/c film is subjective- the man is not a good film reviewer sometimes, is all.

Also, I pit the posters who razed my question about The Sinner’s Prayer in May- I understand what you said about the question being probably unanswerable and lenghty because I am wordy (like I am right now :smiley: ), but I pit you for shooting someone down for posting a question that strays from ‘How can I change my oil better?’ or getting a stain out- the purpose of this website is also to examine the world, not just to ask practical help questions.

And finally, I pit Liberal’s drive-by tendencies. I know we’re not supposed to pit him, but if he were here he’d probably respond to this lenghty op of mine with a fucking insult. Bugger off!

2

By this I mean- when you read his Great Films essays, he will go over the specifics as all reviewers do (director, stars, year released), he provides insight into perhaps some visuals (he does a ton of shot-by shot analyses of the great films, after all) of scenes and the way they are shot and secrets of the imagery, he may drop some trivia about how he met the director/actors, but really he will spend more time talking about his relationship with the film and the superficial (but insightful) aspects of the visuals, dialogue, what scenes happen when and how, and movie cliches and other film references, instead of examining broader things like the inspirations of the director (like, he never mentions Godard in an essay of Pulp Fiction) and why the film was made, etc.

3

Holy crap, my op seems like the rant of a hip-hop star after he’s ‘made it’ in the industry! :smiley: Naming all the people who ever fucked with him.

So, anybody else have a series of things to rant about now worthy of individual posts?

4

Feel better now?

5

I was under the impression that Charlie was a “re-imagining” of the book and not a remake of the Gene Wilder version.

6

I knew someone was going to bring that up- I read it on IMDB today.

But that must be bullshit.

And besides, who are the people going to the movie- fans of the book or adults who’ve seen the original? Mostly the latter, like myself.

And as for remakes, how could I have forgotten Manchurian Candidate? Yet again, you have a director take the idea of an old movie

cut and paste to a new movie

and lose all sight of the point of the original (red scare), the goodness of the original, and shit.

That movie had nothing happen in it. What a shitty movie. Must have gotten 3 stars from Ebert.

7

I still can’t quite get over the fact that Ebert gave the original Die Hard a lousy two-star review, then turns around and gives a laughably bad sequel to a rip-off of it (*Speed 2 *) a jaw-dropping three-and-a-half stars! Go figure.

Also, I believe he’s still trying to live down his positive review for Gigli.

8

I mean, they even got a bratty rich girl who looks exactly like the girl in the original. Burton does nothing with the story, Depp does nothing with the character, the movie is pointless and an obvious cash-in on the original.

But that gives me an idea- maybe if I make a remake of The Godfather, but instead claim that it’s based on the Puzo novel- when really it’s just a completely pointless and shitty version of the movie that goes over the same plot movements without knowing why it is, sometimes skewing off into pointless asides, like a robot programmed to have sex with humans that also does painful and pointless things during the act without thought, all in an attempt to mirror a superior being.

The film would first have a wedding scene (not the daughter of the Godfather or anything, just a wedding), then a guy meets with the Godfather to have his horse whacked, which is done by the Spice Girls in a musical sequence, then Michael shoots a cop in a restaurant for giving him a ticket, goes to Italy and marries Paris Hilton, Sonny works at the same toll booth from the original for no reason except it looks the same, there’s a meeting of the 5 families to discuss ending a war that hasn’t happenend in the film, and then at the end Michael has his own family killed just so the movie could be different. That’s how shitty Charlie is. :wink:

Dawn of the Dead remake!- I feel like I’m living in a parallel universe; I never thought I was one of the most insightful men alive, but when Quentin Tarantino saws the remake of DOTD is terrific, when the users of IMDB give Texas Chainsaw remake a glowing score, and the same with Charlie (and Ebert gives Charlie a good review, whereas it should be on his worst list of the year like Chainsaw), I know now-

I am one of the smartest, most aware men alive. Ebert, Tarantino, and the (I assume) teenagers/20-somethings on IMDB are fucking no match for me in the great rat race of life.

:slight_smile:

9

You seem to be under the impression that these categories are mutually exclusive. Most people I know who saw it also read the book when they were young, and appreciate Dahl’s darker humor as well.

10

Maybe Charlie is satire and you just aren’t getting it. :smiley:
As for Ebert, he been slowly going downhill since Siskel died. Gene was the only guy who could reel in Ebert’s ego. Roeper’s a pussy by comparison.

Otherwise, I wouldn’t sweat it too much. Hollywood is only interested in making money. Their desire to make decent movies went out the window years ago.

11

Of course it is, you don’t like it. :wink:

The term “re-imagining” is bullcrap, but it’s true that that movie had more to do with the book than it did the older movie.

12

Time to switch to Decaf.

13

Yeah, when I see crappy movies, it’s usually okay because I know that no-name actors/actresses, directors, cinematographers, etc. are working on crappy stuff, trying to make a buck and getting experience on their way up. That’s good, I support that.

But when rich/powerful directors like Burton, Bruckheimer and Bay, Reiner, or Lucas make crappy films, there’s no fucking excuse. They have creative control, they have riches, they have power, they have esteem- they can do what they wish in many ways!

But still, the all-important dollar is enought to make even these directors churn out crap for returns, I suppose. I pit that system then- the film industry.

How pointless. :smiley:

14

Both the original and the re-make were made to turn a profit.

It doesn’t matter to the studio whether or not a re-make (or the original) is good or not. All that matters is how much profit they get.

15

As long as they make money for the studio, they can spew forth all the crap they want.

Otherwise, how could crap like the Deuce Bigalow sequel get made?

According to Box Office Mojo, it has a budget of $22 million (not including marketing costs) and has made $17
million so far. It will make a profit at the box office and even more from rentals and broadcast fees.

What does this mean? Crap sells. I wouldn’t be surprised if there’s another sequel next year.

16

But the point I just made is: these rich, powerful, respected directors shouldn’t want to spew forth crap! They will make money regardless of quality, b/c their names attract.

But not as much, of course- Burton’s next movie (which I saw a preview for at Charlie) is an animated one, and although it’ll make money, it won’t pull down what something with the name Charlie Chocolate Factory and with Johnny Depp in it and marketed to kids and adults would.

And the fact that these directors are already rich doesn’t mean I have a right to compare them to Tarantino, who made enough off Pulp to retire, so he makes Jackie Brown for himself and his critics and Kill Bill in a way that allows him creative control over the violence, thus bringing in less returns, but allowing his idea to be 100%. I can’t compare them all to him; I shouldn’t look down on rich directors making crap for even more money, b/c honestly I’m of the capitalist persuasion and I understand their decision for cash over art.

17

Deuce Bigalow was a reasonably funny comedy with sentiment.

It is, as I’m sure the sequel is, 50000000000000000000 times better than Charlie Shit Factory. If this movie had been released in Nov. or Dec. I could call it the nightmare before Christmas. That’d be funny.

If this next movie sucks, Burton is officially never going to make a non-shitty film again.

Mars Attacks
Planet of the Apes- hey! Another fucking remake I forgot about! :smack:

18

Sometimes I think Ebert is a better essayist than film critic, but I still pay more attention to those “two thumbs up” than other reviews because we like the same movies generally.

One of his biggest mistakes, if I recall correctly, was giving one and a half stars to the original Blade Runner. He redeemed himself by awarding three stars to the director’s cut (which is better), but the original was mighty fine and deserved his support.

And this is from someone who doesn’t even like science fiction.

I haven’t read your question at GQ, but the answers to questions asked there should not be arguable. (Or perhaps I should say that the answers should be verifiable.)

Some remakes are better, some are not, others are at least interesting. I wonder if my parents were upset that people dared to remake The Ten Commandments and Ben Hur in the 1950’s.

You are tired of Liberal’s drive-bys? What “drive-bys”? What a strange reaction to one of our more reserved and non-controversial participants. Do you see Liberal as being confrontational?

Wow.

19

Maybe they don’t think their movies are crap.

20

I forgot that entire idea, actually (seriously)

I take that to heart, because as someone who hopes to make a student film in the next few years that could be slammed for strange/unusual parts, I thought about that tonight- but I think there’s a difference between Scorcese’s lacking with Gangs of New York and Burton’s complete blindness with this film.

With Lucas, I only see ‘complete blindness’ with the end of Phantom Menace; I know he was making it like the end of the original SW, but having little Ani blow up the ship accidentally while Amidala is rescued uninterestingly? No.

With Reiner- well, even Ebert knows North is terrible and can’t fathom why Reiner thought it was good enough.

And as for Michael Bay- the only thing clever/intelligent the man has ever made was the ‘Aaron Burr’ Got Milk commercial that started his career. Got talent? No, you don’t.