Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

The world's gone mad! Mad I tells ya!!! http://uk.movies.yahoo.com/13092011/35/fan-outrage-point-break-remake-0.html
Damn you hollywood - you are dancing on Swayze's grave!!

I want everbody on this site to join me in a collective you-know-what: 1,2,3,

Noooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo!!!!

I didn't realize Point Break was a sacred cow. Although it sounds more like they are remaking xXx (the Vin Diesel movie).

What was wrong with Point Break that it needs a remake? Also, it's only 20 years old, hardly pre-historic.

Kilkrazy wrote:What was wrong with Point Break that it needs a remake?

I stopped asking silly (by which I mean reasonable, which has no place in production companies decision making tree) questions like that awhile ago. Compared to the time between the original Death at a Funeral (2007) and the remake (2010) it is practically a silent era film.

It is also hard to get worked up when in the last month alone remakes for Bladerunner (well, a pseudo remake?), Flatliners, Total Recall, and Highlander have been announced, and that isn't even the entire list.

The remakes are coming...

I haven't liked a lot of movies which have come out recently. I think they are running on the philosophy of "If you film it, they will come."

Or they're looking for tax write offs.

They should remake Spiderman, complete with origin story.

Nobody bitched about John Wayne rolling over in his grave when they remade True Grit.

I'm still waiting on the "Revenge of the Ninja" remake.

kronk wrote:They should remake Spiderman, complete with origin story.

Nobody bitched about John Wayne rolling over in his grave when they remade True Grit.

They didn't remake the John Wayne adaptation of the film, they made their own adaptation of the novel, and I'm not sure where you were at the time, but people still complained.

I thought that The Thing was being remade, but as it turns out its supposed to be more of a prequel to The Thing than a remake. Which is all fine and dandy with me, it'll be cool to see what happened to the original researchers there.

Kilkrazy wrote:What was wrong with Point Break that it needs a remake?

What's right about it that suggests a remake is a good idea?

Does anything ever need to be remade?

halonachos wrote:Does anything ever need to be remade?

One could say everything is essentially a remake. There are no original ideas anymore, or so they say

halonachos wrote:I thought that The Thing was being remade, but as it turns out its supposed to be more of a prequel to The Thing than a remake. Which is all fine and dandy with me, it'll be cool to see what happened to the original researchers there.

They say it is a prequel, but the trailer screams remake all the way. It even has the exact same title. The main reason I'll probably give it a go at this point is that Ronald D. Moore wrote it.

halonachos wrote:Does anything ever need to be remade?

Some things had good concepts that weren't up to much first time around, like the TV series Battlestar Galactica or the movie The Thing. I like the original, but the remake is much better, it is closer to the original story but also pays homage to the 1950s film.

Ahtman wrote:

halonachos wrote:I thought that The Thing was being remade, but as it turns out its supposed to be more of a prequel to The Thing than a remake. Which is all fine and dandy with me, it'll be cool to see what happened to the original researchers there.

They say it is a prequel, but the trailer screams remake all the way. It even has the exact same title. The main reason I'll probably give it a go at this point is that Ronald D. Moore wrote it.

The trailer looks like it, but if you remember that at the beginning there was a bunch of Norwegians shooting at a dog from a helicopter until the helicopter crashes. Well, the movie coming out this year is about those "crazy" Norwegians in the helicopter.

halonachos wrote:The trailer looks like it, but if you remember that at the beginning there was a bunch of Norwegians shooting at a dog from a helicopter until the helicopter crashes. Well, the movie coming out this year is about those "crazy" Norwegians in the helicopter.

Well just go ahead and spoil the ending why don't yah

I'm sorry, I should've realized that a prequel would have an ending just like the beginning of the sequel.

halonachos wrote:The trailer looks like it, but if you remember that at the beginning there was a bunch of Norwegians shooting at a dog from a helicopter until the helicopter crashes. Well, the movie coming out this year is about those "crazy" Norwegians in the helicopter.

Rephrasing the premise twice doesn't make it look any less like a remake being sold as a prequel.

halonachos wrote:I'm sorry, I should've realized that a prequel would have an ending just like the beginning of the sequel.

Its okay. The Thing is way past the 5-year rule on spoilers

Ahtman wrote:

halonachos wrote:The trailer looks like it, but if you remember that at the beginning there was a bunch of Norwegians shooting at a dog from a helicopter until the helicopter crashes. Well, the movie coming out this year is about those "crazy" Norwegians in the helicopter.

Rephrasing the premise twice doesn't make it look any less like a remake being sold as a prequel.

I don't know, sure they both focus on the creature, and sure they both have flamethrowers in a scientific expedition's camp, but even though they both focus on the same premise it doesn't necessarily make it a remake. Star Wars focused on the same premise for the Original trilogy, yet I wouldn't consider Episode V a remake of Episode IV, nor Episode VI a remake of either IV or V.

Also The Thing(2011) has different characters than The Thing(1982), while John Carpenter's version had American scientists discovering the Norwegian scientists and then the Thing, the 2011 version has Norwegian scientists discovering The Thing. And of course no Kurt Russell.

halonachos wrote:And of course no Kurt Russell.

You realize most remakes, if not every remake, doesn't have the same cast, right?

halonachos wrote:both focus on the creature, and sure they both have flamethrowers in a scientific expedition's camp, but even though they both focus on the same premise it

It is like you are making the argument for me. You also forgot they both have the exact same title. It doesn't appear to be different enough to actually justify it's existence as a prequel, other than they found a way to keep people from complaining about remakes by calling it prequel.

Your comparison to Star Wars is both confusing and poorly thought it, though I would guess the former is caused by the latter.

Firstly, the bit about Kurt Russell was a joke.

Secondly, I fail to see how I am adding to your argument. The bit about the flamethrowers was also a joke(I find it funny that there are flamethrowers in a scientific expedition). There is a common enemy(The Thing) but different overall plots. The American team in the 1982 version saw the chopper of Norwegians chasing a dog which means that there was something happening before they arrived there.

The 2011 movie explains what happened, for example why there was a chopper full of Norwegians chasing the dog and further explains the origin of The Thing.

A remake will feature the same characters and not cast and have the same storyline, a prequel will explain what happened before that storyline. The 2011 version is going to tell the story of what happened before Kurt Russell showed up in Antarctica.

Also:

BloodyDisgusting.com wrote:“It’s a really fascinating way to construct a story because we're doing it by autopsy, by examining very, very closely everything we know about the Norwegian camp and about the events that happened there from photos and video footage that’s recovered, from a visit to the base, the director, producer and I have gone through it countless times marking, you know, there’s a fire axe in the door, we have to account for that…we're having to reverse engineer it, so those details all matter to us ‘cause it all has to make sense.”
— Eric Heisserer describing the process of creating a script that is consistent with the first film