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 leads in Prydain are young- Taren and Eilonwy are kids/teens. The supporting characters (Dallben, Gwydion, Coll, Fflewder) are mostly adults.

I'd love to see Prydain done well. I recommend that series to people all the time; probably at least two or three times a year to parents with kids who are getting into reading.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

MeanGreenStompa wrote:

Ouze wrote:@MGS. Same. Although I saw the Conan remake I can't recall a single thing about that, except the in-utero stabbing. I'm actively trying now, and coming up empty. It's funny because I didn't remember it as being bad, but it clearly wasn't very memorable either.

Kanluwen wrote:I didn't really find him to be that "wooden" personally...but I dunno.

That said, you hit upon the biggest reason why the movie was a flop. Ahnald's Conan is iconic and ingrained into the public psyche.

The central villain was forgettable and tepid. Some old dude with a sword. Even when he put on the evil crown and I was expecting a daemonic rebirth into a decent monster, all we got was still him, now running around with a silly hat.

The film felt hollow because the film had no soul.

The new one was somewhat more true to the source material, and I actually liked Momoa better as Conan. He fits the role better and doesn't turn him into a joke. That said, his performance was still not very good. You need someone of Momoa's physical type with more charisma and intelligence. Also, the story was forgettable and more suited to the Savage Sword of Conan comics than to the stories or a proper movie.

The original film is a crappy take on Conan, but a classic, great movie in its own right. Most of the supporting cast is EXCELLENT, including James Earl Jones and Max von Sydow. The sweep of the story and cinematography is grand. The score is one of the all-time-great classic film scores of all time.

The original is imprinted in people's memories for very good reasons. Sadly, it's also loaded with a joke version of Conan provided by Arnie blackblack. Hopefully now that someone has TRIED to make a new one, the way has been paved for a really good one.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Dickens.
Steven King

Okay, I got owned. Okay, so Dick's only the main guy for sci-fi movies.

I love Bladerunner but I'd like to see someone have a crack at making Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep, with themes and characters intact.

Ratius wrote:Is anyone else totally "meh" about this compared to the original? :(

I have no intention of seeing that.

Time to educate you suckas.

The reason Phil Dick (Funnily enough how he preferred to be addressed ) has so many adapted movies to his name can be explained in three (two hyphenated) words:

HOLLYWOOD HIGH-CONCEPT

This was the prevalent school of big budget screenwriting throughout the 80's and early to mid 90's. It is still going today but to a lesser extent. Phil Dick stories are as 'High concept' as you get, the crux of most of his pieces can easily be summed up in a sentence. (Which for those who dont know is the definition of High Concept)

@MGS what poirot have you been watching?! There can only be one!
Suchet would rip that fat old fudds throat out (At least In 'Topgun Acting' terms).

As for the trailer, is it wrong i think it looks promising?

This is the correct Poirot.

Now that the teaser has you squawking, enjoy the full trailer.

Ahtman wrote:Now that the teaser has you squawking, enjoy the full trailer.

Oh wow.


If you don't have an angry Sharon Stone you aint got .

I was already definitely going to see this. But if I had had any doubts, spotting Bill Nighy there would have dispelled them.

Meh, looks alright but then again it would do. Is this going to be the shape of Hollywood to come - remaking the same films every 20 years? I can understand why some people hanker for a remake but lets be honest, I don't think there was a great deal wrong with the Arnie version - and this looks like it is following a very similar plot line. It's not as if the Arnie version looks particularly dated; bar one or two scenes, it has held up pretty well I think.

filbert wrote:Meh, looks alright but then again it would do. Is this going to be the shape of Hollywood to come - remaking the same films every 20 years? I can understand why some people hanker for a remake but lets be honest, I don't think there was a great deal wrong with the Arnie version - and this looks like it is following a very similar plot line. It's not as if the Arnie version looks particularly dated; bar one or two scenes, it has held up pretty well I think.

There was not only nothing wrong with Arnie's version, but there was everything right about it!

'See you at the pah-ty, Rich-ta!'

Oh boy, Arnold is truly a special, special guy.

Harold(from harold and kumar) got kinda awesome.
I like the idea of what the Recall is(kinda like a "Special Massage)
But the action looks predictable(except the scene where he beats them up outta the chair)
Well this is the problem with adpating old movSo they had to get around that with unique sequences. But today we can do anything with computers so those unique scenes arent unique anymore.

Im with the Arnold crowd.. feth Colin Farrell and this suck ass remake.

Arnold was a king amongst men, and he made bad films good. Even Commando was totally awesome, and if it starred anyone else it would have been awful.

Total Recall was great, and will watch it again in Blueray over this appalling remake of an Arnie classic.

"Consider that a div-awce"

I cant believe im going to say this.
But i agree with mattyrm

pretre wrote:

filbert wrote:Meh, looks alright but then again it would do. Is this going to be the shape of Hollywood to come - remaking the same films every 20 years? I can understand why some people hanker for a remake but lets be honest, I don't think there was a great deal wrong with the Arnie version - and this looks like it is following a very similar plot line. It's not as if the Arnie version looks particularly dated; bar one or two scenes, it has held up pretty well I think.

There was not only nothing wrong with Arnie's version, but there was everything right about it!

'See you at the pah-ty, Rich-ta!'

Oh boy, Arnold is truly a special, special guy.

This.

Hollywood is just a sad, lame attempt at money grabbing these days, not really making much worth watching anymore. And all these remakes make me want to vomit. It's like they've run out of ideas and are just taking "safe" investments on remaking movies that were big hits when they came out.

Arnie's one-liners are just plain epic hilarity. So good in fact a metal band called Austrian Death Machine has spawned several albums with each song being based around a classic arnie line. Who is your daddy and what does he do?

Um hollywood was always a business first. Take a look at where films like casablanca, rear window, citizen kane. Al movies made when hollywood was a production line.
The problem may be consumers now.

Ill watch it for sure, might even be a decent film. Im not a fan of whats his face though, but hey, take what ya get. But I agree, The original Total Recall, was and still is a fantastic/fun movie

What's the point of remaking a movie that relies entirely on the plot twist? What's next, a remake of The Sixth Sense?

lord_blackfang wrote:What's the point of remaking a movie that relies entirely on the plot twist? What's next, a remake of The Sixth Sense?

I SEE DEAD PEOPLE!!!!

lord_blackfang wrote:What's the point of remaking a movie that relies entirely on the plot twist? What's next, a remake of The Sixth Sense?

I'm not sure that the twist was that important to Total Recall. It was a good movie outside of the twist.

Frazzled wrote:

lord_blackfang wrote:What's the point of remaking a movie that relies entirely on the plot twist? What's next, a remake of The Sixth Sense?

I SEE DEAD PEOPLE!!!!

No you see wiener dogs everywhere frazzled.

Looks like a decent action film.

Mannahnin wrote:Always need more movies based on PK Dick stories. Does anyone else come close to how many of his have been made into movies?

Stephen King.

I enjoy seeing new and interesting takes on old material. The original isn't exactly religiously faithful to the story either, so I don't mind someone else taking a crack at their own vision. The problem isn't typically remaking things, as that has been going on longer than any of us has been alive in one form or another, is that often they aren't very good or are uninspired. It also isn't the job of a remake to replace an older film. I'm able to watch the Adam West Batman film, the Tim Burton Batman film, and The Dark Knight and enjoy them each for their own idiosyncrasies; I don't have to just pick one and make it fight the others. I'm not worried about it being better or worse than the older film, I worry that it just isn't very good in general. As it stands it at least has my interest piqued enough to go and see it.

I remember going to the cinema to see the original. As for this remake, why? Dear god Why? Why? WHYYYYYYYYYYYYY????

You get the gist

The original had everything: cheesy soundtrack (who can forget last resort) Ronnie Cox as the bad guy, Michael Ironside as a bad guy, Sharon Stone!!!!
Cheesy One liners, old school 80s soundtrack, I could go on. Damn you hollywood. Shameless, profiteering b$$$$$$s!!!!!
Get your ass to Mars!!!

Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:I remember going to the cinema to see the original. As for this remake, why? Dear god Why? Why? WHYYYYYYYYYYYYY????

Becuase you were old enough to see the original in the theater means you are also generally outside the demographic this is aimed for: 18-24. The 24 year olds would have been 2 years old at the time.

@Ahtman: Way to make us feel old.

The full trailer makes it look alot worse. I mean aside from (seemingly) no mars it looks to be just a ripoff of the old film (including actual lines of dialogue). I thought they were just takiing the key idea from the short story and making a new story.

@MrDwhitey
Suchet all the way. Love the themetune/opening credits to poirot, so classy, so art deco.

Just a shame that it looks like we won't be hearing Colin Farrell shouting YOU BLEW MY COVEEER!

And they arent going to drop any hints that maybe what he is living is the dream he paid for. Unlike in the original.

Amaya wrote:

That's what we all hoped about the Conan remake and look how well that turned out.

I'll take your word for it - I haven't seen the Arnie version OR the last version of it - I never got into Conan (or RE Howard's work in general).

The version of Total Recall they (De Laurentiis Entertainment Group) were going to make here had a more "everyman" version of Quaid. We had ALL of the sets and props done before we got told to destroy it all. I can't help thinking "what might have been?"