• Welcome! The TrekBBS is the number one place to chat about Star Trek with like-minded fans.
    If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

Highlander remake on the way

Why is everyone going so old with their casting choices?
In many cases age=perfection of craft
Not always mind you, from time to time Hollywood finds capable actors who can act beyond their years.

Thomas Jane, or his like over a Shia LeBeouf, Zach Effron or Taylor Lautner any day.


Well Lambert was 29 and was playing someone who died at 19, so unless they are going for a conner who dies in middle-age (maybe getting a prostate exam?) I think it slightly strange that people are going for people who are 45-50ish. Thomas Jane would however be great for that crazed vet who gets stabbed in the alleyway.

Still the first film didn't give a shit about story logic so why should this.
 
I like it too, although not as a sequel to Highlander, gads what a terrible concept. Oh yeah, we're aliens really, we just forgot. :wtf:

At least the Renegade edition clears that bit up, overall it's a fun action movie in it's own right IMO.

Yeah, i was quite shocked at just how mush stuff was missing from the initial movie release.....the special edition really does tone and shape up the movie no end.:techman:
 
Way I see it...they remake it, and it rocks, we've got one more really cool movie in the hopper. If not, we still have the original and the TV series.

No worries.

As for why not? Well...got a better idea for revivving the franchise?

How about we just leave it the hell alone? That thinking is the problem in Hollywierd anymore. NO originality, hence let some hack or a writer that just loves or likes the movie, buy the rights to movies and see if they can do better because they have none.
 
How about we just leave it the hell alone? That thinking is the problem in Hollywierd anymore. NO originality, hence let some hack or a writer that just loves or likes the movie, buy the rights to movies and see if they can do better because they have none.

You forget that Hollywood was founded on no originality. The relatively recent swarm of complaints that all Hollywood does "now" are remakes and reboots when, in fact, they were doing that since day one.
 
How about we just leave it the hell alone? That thinking is the problem in Hollywierd anymore. NO originality, hence let some hack or a writer that just loves or likes the movie, buy the rights to movies and see if they can do better because they have none.

You forget that Hollywood was founded on no originality. The relatively recent swarm of complaints that all Hollywood does "now" are remakes and reboots when, in fact, they were doing that since day one.
Since when?...There has been plenty of original and innovative ideas from filmmakers back in the 30's,to the 70's that were not remakes or reboots. Actually some very good films.
 
^^ Just to add a bit to the idea that lack of originality isn't new.. Ben Hur was a BIG remake from the silent era..

Love Affair (1939) was remade as An Affair to Remember in 1957.
Beau Gest from '26 was remade in '39
Billy the Kid 1930, was made again in 1941.. and again, and again, and again...

Wiki has a great list of remakes spanning the decades that are easily verifiable.

List

Remmaking foreign films into hollywood films, as judged by that list, is nothing new either..
 
^^ Just to add a bit to the idea that lack of originality isn't new.. Ben Hur was a BIG remake from the silent era..

Love Affair (1939) was remade as An Affair to Remember in 1957.
Beau Gest from '26 was remade in '39
Billy the Kid 1930, was made again in 1941.. and again, and again, and again...

Wiki has a great list of remakes spanning the decades that are easily verifiable.

List

Remmaking foreign films into hollywood films, as judged by that list, is nothing new either..
I see that. But there have been american made films that have been far well known more than the foriegn version. NOTHING in that list that I see from those eras I mentioned have spawned a "franchise" in relation to the post.
 
How about we just leave it the hell alone? That thinking is the problem in Hollywierd anymore. NO originality, hence let some hack or a writer that just loves or likes the movie, buy the rights to movies and see if they can do better because they have none.

You forget that Hollywood was founded on no originality. The relatively recent swarm of complaints that all Hollywood does "now" are remakes and reboots when, in fact, they were doing that since day one.
Since when?...There has been plenty of original and innovative ideas from filmmakers back in the 30's,to the 70's that were not remakes or reboots. Actually some very good films.

Since the beginning. The first several waves of films were nothing more than adaptations of books or plays. An original story was a novelty.
 
I'm still not sold on this at all, and tossing out the folks behind National Treasure and Twilight does not impress me much.

The Series did so many good things that the sub par sequels couldn't, and there was a lot of mythos there still to be explored before studio interference demanded changes.

Why not just have another MacLeod relative?

We just had a Highlander rewatch a few month ago here, too. My season reviews are here:

http://ithinkthereforeireview.blogspot.com/search/label/Highlander

Yes Hollywood is unoriginal and has always been, but there is also a case of 'leaving well enough alone'.
 
You forget that Hollywood was founded on no originality. The relatively recent swarm of complaints that all Hollywood does "now" are remakes and reboots when, in fact, they were doing that since day one.
Since when?...There has been plenty of original and innovative ideas from filmmakers back in the 30's,to the 70's that were not remakes or reboots. Actually some very good films.

Since the beginning. The first several waves of films were nothing more than adaptations of books or plays. An original story was a novelty.
I think you are pulling things out of your arse.....:rolleyes:
Are you trying to tell me that MOST of Hollywoods movies back in th 40's to 60's are reboots????:rolleyes:
 
^ Perhaps not most, that would be a fairly time consuming stat to assemble. But it's extremely common for a film to be based on a book, a play, a musical or, history permitting, a previous film, and it is no more the case now than it ever has been.
 
Since when?...There has been plenty of original and innovative ideas from filmmakers back in the 30's,to the 70's that were not remakes or reboots. Actually some very good films.

Since the beginning. The first several waves of films were nothing more than adaptations of books or plays. An original story was a novelty.
I think you are pulling things out of your arse.....
Are you trying to tell me that MOST of Hollywoods movies back in th 40's to 60's are reboots????

Actually, I do know what I am talking about, and you seem to be under a very misguided belief.

For starters, when I refer to the beginning of Hollywood, I am talking about the 10s-30s. This is when Hollywood was actually new. Also, you are slightly putting words into my mouth. I didn't say everything was a reboot back in those days. To be honest, I hate how the term reboot is being used and abused as a buzz word. The term adaptation or remake would be better suited.

Regardless, if you look at those early films, especially the ones that are still looked on as classics today, you will find that many of them are not original-to-film ideas. Many are adaptations of plays and novels (and even comic books!).

Film was a new invention at the time and its profitability in the long run was still uncertain. So, what did movie producers do? They made films of stories people already knew! That way, people would go and see them. It worked for the Greeks, so why not Hollywood? Even two of the most well-know of early film making, Le Voyage dans la lune and The Great Train Robbery, were not original ideas, but adapted or remade from early works.

Over time, more original ideas started to be made into films, but even then, many of the movies made were based off of something else.

Then, by the time we reach your time period of the 40s-60s, we saw more unique stories, but many were still based on other works. We also began the first major waves of remakes! For example, how many Broadway musicals were adapted to film during this period? Or how many Dracula, Robin Hood, or Sherlock Holmes movies have we had over the years? The answer is tons!

Back to my original point, remakes and adaptations have been going on in films since the beginning. It will continue to go on until the end. The idea that people are complaining the Hollywood does it more now is strange, since it is on par of what Hollywood has pretty much always done. I will admit, however, that the marketing of things being a reboot/remake seems to be more in-your-face than ever before.

^ Perhaps not most, that would be a fairly time consuming stat to assemble. But it's extremely common for a film to be based on a book, a play, a musical or, history permitting, a previous film, and it is no more the case now than it ever has been.

Yep.
 
Yea, before, they often let you figure out it yourself that it was a remake or adaptation, unless they wanted to push the fact that it's a film version of "Top Ten Selling Novel xxxxxxxx"

Singin' in the Rain was made before the Gene Kelly Version, Wizard of Oz was made at least 2 or 3 times before the 1939 MGM version
 
If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

Sign up / Register


Back
Top