Movies you'd like to see remade and books you'd like to see as a movie

[ASTalumna06]

Originally Posted by cheerfulgreek

I would like to see a remake of "Jaws". I saw the original movie on DVD, and for the time period, it was pretty good. However, I would love to see it redone with today's technology.

Please, no. 'Jaws' is perfect just as it is. CGI would probably ruin the whole thing. It's like when they tried to make additional 'Jurassic Park' movies. Just terrible.

Originally Posted by ASUADPi

Books- James Patterson

Originally Posted by tld221

Alex Cross was turned into a movie in 2012, but it did poorly: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alex_Cross_(film)

They have made numerous James Patterson books into movies, and all of them have been terrible. Morgan Freeman as Alex Cross? Why? Such a horrible choice, and poorly scripted. And don't even get me started on the Women's Murder Club tv show, and '1st to Die' as a tv movie. Awful.

[Phrozen Sands]

Originally Posted by ASTalumna06

Please, no. 'Jaws' is perfect just as it is. CGI would probably ruin the whole thing. It's like when they tried to make additional 'Jurassic Park' movies. Just terrible.
.

I think you and CG are talking apples and oranges. You're talking duplicates and sequels. Based on the way I read her post, I think she's taking remakes. Ex: original Django Unchained vs the remake of Django Unchained.

[ASTalumna06]

Originally Posted by Phrozen Sands

I think you and CG are talking apples and oranges. You're talking duplicates and sequels. Based on the way I read her post, I think she's taking remakes. Ex: original Django Unchained vs the remake of Django Unchained.

I know she's talking re-makes. The point is that the CGI dinosaurs looked stupid compared to the dinosaurs in the original. They went way too over the top with them.

I think the same would happen with a 'Jaws' re-make.

What made 'Jaws' a great movie was the mystery of the shark. You rarely saw it. The point of the movie was to build suspense. And the few times we did see the shark, it looked real enough.

I don't think a re-make is necessary. Just my opinion.

[moe.ron]

I know they just did it, but it was nothing like the book so I would like a proper World War Z please.

[Phrozen Sands]

Originally Posted by ASTalumna06

I know she's talking re-makes. The point is that the CGI dinosaurs looked stupid compared to the dinosaurs in the original. They went way too over the top with them.

I think the same would happen with a 'Jaws' re-make.

What made 'Jaws' a great movie was the mystery of the shark. You rarely saw it. The point of the movie was to build suspense. And the few times we did see the shark, it looked real enough.

I don't think a re-make is necessary. Just my opinion.

Ok. When you said "additional" I didn't take that as a "remake". I also think it depends on who the remake is done by.

[cheerfulgreek]

Originally Posted by ASTalumna06

Please, no. 'Jaws' is perfect just as it is. CGI would probably ruin the whole thing. It's like when they tried to make additional 'Jurassic Park' movies. Just terrible. .

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.

Originally Posted by Phrozen Sands

I think you and CG are talking apples and oranges. You're talking duplicates and sequels. Based on the way I read her post, I think she's taking remakes. Ex: original Django Unchained vs the remake of Django Unchained.

Isn't that the movie with Jamie Foxx in it? I didn't know there was an original one before that one. I thought that was it. But, yes, this is what I'm referring to.

Originally Posted by Phrozen Sands

I also think it depends on who the remake is done by.

This. I think if it was redone by the same director (Steven Spielberg), I think it would be really good.

[ASTalumna06]

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

[cheerfulgreek]

Originally Posted by ASTalumna06

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

I've seen both "War of the Worlds", and that movie is a perfect example of the very reason why I would like to see a "Jaws" remake. I'd take "Deep Blue Sea" sharks any day over "Jaws". I think if Steven Spielberg directed it, it would be really good.

This does not look real, to me.
http://youtu.be/2W0mhAFldIY

How about "Jaws 2016" (as an extinct Megalodon)
http://youtu.be/C7ss0QlEkLo

[DrPhil]

Originally Posted by ASTalumna06

Morgan Freeman as Alex Cross? Why? Such a horrible choice, and poorly scripted.

LOL. Morgan Freeman > Tyler Perry

I'm not a fan of remakes. I enjoy a few of them but prefer originals.

[ASTalumna06]

Originally Posted by DrPhil

LOL. Morgan Freeman > Tyler Perry

Truth.

Where's Denzel Washington when you need him?!