Permabanned
- Joined
- 11 Feb 2011
- Posts
- 2,136
Yes it's stupid. As if some chick has the phsyical prowess to pull the same stunts Stallone was doing.
Yet another gender-swapped remake incoming - Cliffhanger!
- Thread starter ianh
- Start date
I’ve seen a girl do repeated pull ups (not chin ups) with her fingers, so there’s plenty of scope for some awesome stunting!
Caporegime
- Joined
- 30 Jul 2013
- Posts
- 29,676
As if Stallone did most of the climbing stunts. He was too afraid to film with live bats so they had to be added with early special effects afterwards.
Soldato
- Joined
- 10 Jan 2004
- Posts
- 9,922
- Location
- Poland
Its a tsunami of remakes and usually with women, this whole gender swap thing has ruined these films, as they arent concerned with making a good film but making some sort of PC statement.
Oh and yeah, they remade this... https://www.imdb.com/title/tt7634968/?ref_=fn_al_tt_1
Oh and yeah, they remade this... https://www.imdb.com/title/tt7634968/?ref_=fn_al_tt_1
My problem with that particular film is they didn't understand what made the first one so good which, amongst things like great writing, charismatic actors etc was "why" he chose to change his attitude towards women by the end. However -
Original - They establish him to be a self obsessed sexist pig for the first 1/3 of the movie and make him even worse in the middle 1/3 when he initially gains his power as he only uses it for his own sexist needs like more power over women at work, get more women into bed etc, and then over the last 1/3 of the movie he finally learns to empathise with women, to understand them and himself better and becomes a better person for it.
Reboot - They establish her to be a self obsessed ball buster for the first 1/3 of the movie and make her even worse in the middle 1/3 when she initially gains her power as she only uses it for her own sexist needs like more power over men at work, get more men into bed etc, and then over the last 1/3 of the movie............nothing changes. She still feels no more empathy for men than she had at the start, she is unchanged by the experience and yet she still gets a "happy ending" in both her business and personal life which she hasn't earned...............and yes I watched it, as I really like the actress.
The new one (if imdb is correct) is a a 20M$ B/cheap movie with no mark actors (and maybe script writers) .. it's not staffed for success vs 70M$ original
if the the studios invested more money they could have understood the originals formula ... I think we maybe missing something about the evolution of the
movie market - they(the investors ... the british tax payer!) have become more risk averse, relying on simultaneous media releases and clever multi-platform advertising strategies the gullible public miss, quantity rather than quality.
if the the studios invested more money they could have understood the originals formula ... I think we maybe missing something about the evolution of the
movie market - they(the investors ... the british tax payer!) have become more risk averse, relying on simultaneous media releases and clever multi-platform advertising strategies the gullible public miss, quantity rather than quality.
I also think we're forgetting how tough it is to make money on these mid budget movies now. No mistake, that film was a big success.
I bet gender switch remakes/reboots/sequels are not even 20% of remakes over the past 5 years.
(sorry) - the original yes ?
I'm not sure why these mid budgets exist ? even if there's negiligble margin, ok it keeps people in employment, and keeps cinemas profitable.
twas the great yan gullich before he was tragically killed in a car accident.
like Lynn Hill, in her day .. the nose in 24hours
- I would say climbing, ironically, has greater performance equilibrium between the sexes than a lot of sports ... technique, and power to weight, count.
No, the remake. $70m box office on $20m production.
I think your use of "big" might be the cause for confusion. Making $30-40m after production and marketing is definitely successful but I wouldn't consider that to be a "big" success at all, where as say these following films are what most people (myself included) would consider to be "big" successes for small budget films - "The Conjuring", which made $318m on it's $20m budget, "Slumdog Millionaire" which made $377m on a budget of $15m or "The Kings Speech" which made $414m on a budget of $15m for example.
So really it's a just a simple definition issue on what different folks think could be considered to be a "big" success for a film.