The unnecessary reboot/remake of the week thread
- Thread starter Rowdy Roddy McDowall
- Start date
And now a modern-day female Zorro https://www.superherohype.com/movies/471097-cbs-is-planning-a-zorro-reboot-with-a-female-lead
I'm actually okay with gender bending most roles. Zorro being a woman would be neat as they wear a mask anyways.
Like since when was 'The Equalizer' considered a big hit that it would need to be rebooted and be a woman? Like I can picture Jackie Ryan reboot, but some of these are just weird.
Like since when was 'The Equalizer' considered a big hit that it would need to be rebooted and be a woman? Like I can picture Jackie Ryan reboot, but some of these are just weird.
There’s been a female Zorro in the comics anyway https://comicvine.gamespot.com/lady-zorro/4005-85223/
As for the Equalizer, I’d say that the Denzel films are more an inspiration than the Woodward tv show. Simple name recognition really.
He directed an amazing episode of Grey's.
Revenge is next on the list. A show that should have only been a miniseries in the first place.
https://tvline.com/2019/11/06/revenge-revival-sequel-series-abc-cast-member-returning/
https://tvline.com/2019/11/06/revenge-revival-sequel-series-abc-cast-member-returning/
And todays useless reboot.... WEEDS! And this one makes very little sense to me as it picks up 10 years later. But the show already ended like 10-12 years later, so are we in 2030-2025? She will be aging really well.
https://tvline.com/2019/11/07/weeds...ise-parker-nancy-botwin/#comment-list-wrapper
And $10 on Frasier reboot being on Peacock sometime next year.
https://tvline.com/2019/11/07/weeds...ise-parker-nancy-botwin/#comment-list-wrapper
And $10 on Frasier reboot being on Peacock sometime next year.
someone on twitter proposed that Frasier be rebooted with him having a new career as a Jordan Peterson-type, with Frederick as a liberal academic now living with him. I thought it was brilliant!
The only way the show would work is if Frasier has to move in with Frederick. But I guess we will see next year.
And the most unnecessary revival of all time is.... CGI James Dean!
Some South African filmmakers you've never heard of before got James Dean's family's consent (and by family, it's a couple cousins on his father's side who had nothing to do with him) to use his likeness to create a whole new character for some Vietnam War movie that will probably go straight to digital.
Some South African filmmakers you've never heard of before got James Dean's family's consent (and by family, it's a couple cousins on his father's side who had nothing to do with him) to use his likeness to create a whole new character for some Vietnam War movie that will probably go straight to digital.
What do they think it bring to film having "James Dean" in it?
There was some criticsm over the CGI Carrie Fisher and Peter Cushing in Rogue One but they were existing characters in the franchise nothing some-one new being shoehorned in.
I remember after Rogue One voicing a concern that someday we'd end up with live actors being digitally created for movies rather than actually having them do the movies themselves. I hadn't considered dead actors being recreated to play new characters. That's pretty fucked up.
The claim that they couldn’t find a living actor to play the role and so settled on Dean is particular bullshit. Just admit you wanted the publicity from this stunt-casting, you cowards!
On the coattails of a new cast preforming freshly dug up scripts of "All in the Family" and "The Jeffersons", dreamful stagnation also rears its head again in regurgitating "Good Times":
https://urbanhollywood411.com/2019/11/05/good-times-all-in-the-family-remakes-coming-to-abc/
DYN-O-MITE!
I loved the original shows (Esther Rolle is definitely missed and when John Amos left the show floundered) but why remake them as carbon copy when this isn't the era of Shakespeare from 1590 when few playwrights, much less ideas, even existed? Just swapping topical figures' names in scripts, assuming they're doing even that, seems a bit lame, but then again Shakespeare's plays have also played out and as verbatim for centuries, or the few one-off times when they replaced ye olde bantereth with then-contemporary equivalents.
Of course, Shakespeare didn't have home video and I'm only bringing him up for historical purposes... just think if a meddler went back in time with a betamax recorder (new for only $1199 at Sears forty years ago!) and other related operational equipment?
https://urbanhollywood411.com/2019/11/05/good-times-all-in-the-family-remakes-coming-to-abc/
DYN-O-MITE!
I loved the original shows (Esther Rolle is definitely missed and when John Amos left the show floundered) but why remake them as carbon copy when this isn't the era of Shakespeare from 1590 when few playwrights, much less ideas, even existed? Just swapping topical figures' names in scripts, assuming they're doing even that, seems a bit lame, but then again Shakespeare's plays have also played out and as verbatim for centuries, or the few one-off times when they replaced ye olde bantereth with then-contemporary equivalents.
Of course, Shakespeare didn't have home video and I'm only bringing him up for historical purposes... just think if a meddler went back in time with a betamax recorder (new for only $1199 at Sears forty years ago!) and other related operational equipment?
As much as I can fathom neat ideas over CGI replacements for people, and they're using his countenance and typecast actor mannerisms and not him as such, how many in the Millennial and Gen-Z target demographics are going to have a clue? Unless that's the point, giving the rebel a cause but most of today's kiddies can't stand anything made before 1980 because it's not in stereo or in color and/or "looks really cheap" (read "imaginationless", send 'em in time to a theater in 1600 with a Shakespeare play and they'll go absolutely spare!)
There were various reasons. I only had one: Because, unlike for big fake machines like AT-AT walkers, it's harder to pass off fluidity of humans and animals as looking legitimate- which is surely important? Especially for suspension of disbelief? Or having them blink enough times or otherwise not look drug-addled, of which I suspect one of the more apposite metaphors is "stoned"? (They got Tarkin's blink count right despite some stuttered bodily motion video, so why not for Leia? Had I been in the movie theater instead of waiting for the home video release to go down in price, I could have been laughing along with the rest of the theater.)
With hindsight - or even without - it’s surprising that they didn’t have Tarkin and Leia appear via hologram, which would’ve covered up for any flaws or imperfections in the CGI.
That's actually what I thought they were going to do with Tarkin when I first heard rumours of digitally recreating him from footage of Peter Cushing before the movie's release.
Tarkin could have been via hologram but Leia had to be aboard the Tantative IV as its next stop was Tatooine....
Similar threads
- Locked
