Quote:
Originally Posted by cheerfulgreek
I understand what you mean by CGI, but this is not what I mean by "remake". As I can remember, there were three Jurassic Parks, that ranged from 1993-2001, I believe. But those sequels were done from and based on the original as a continuation.
I see a remake as a new movie using the same story but with a different cast. I see a sequel as a movie in which the story of the first/original movie continues, with or without the original cast.
|
I understand the difference between remakes, sequels, prequels, etc. This is irrelevant to the point I'm trying to make.
Forget Jurassic Park. Let's use 'War of the Worlds' instead. In the original, the special effects they tried to pull off where horrible. They were impressive at the time the movie was released, I'm sure, but now they just look extremely fake. I agree that it was a good idea to remake that movie. If you haven't seen the original and/or remake, search online for some scenes, and it won't take you long to see what I mean.
'Jaws', on the other hand, had nothing "wrong" with it. There's not much you can do to alter that story. The shark already looked lifelike enough. Why remake it? So that the shark can look like something straight out of 'Deep Blue Sea' (1999)? 'Jaws' is a classic and was done well then. I think they should just leave it alone.
But hey - no need to reinvent the wheel, right? Just take an old story and old script from a popular movie and make millions of dollars. This seems to be Hollywood's MO lately. It drives me crazy that no one seems to be able to come up with their own creative ideas anymore!
...Sorry, it's Monday
Threaded Mode
