Teen-Wolf remake rumors.

I demand that you give yourself POTD! :lol:
I'll do it!

I dunno. I always thought his acting was a little shaky.
POTD!

Come on now. Time for that massage...



... *points gun to head* Just give me one reason not to
ssjmole, gamma man...

Oh wait. Reasons NOT to...

:p

oh that is not cool. seriously.
It wouldn't be cool if he crossed the line. He didn't. Even Bob Saget said himself that sometimes you just have to joke about things to make life better. There were times he joked about his family members death to help him get through mourning.


All hail Bob Saget.
 
Last edited:
Remaking Teen Wolf is just an awful, horrible idea.

And not because "it will ruin the original" or "remakes are evil"(neither of which are even remotely true) or any reason other than that Teen Wolf is one of the worst movies ever made.
 
but it is true that remakes are evil and an insult to original.
... Right.

Remakes are only evil if they are bad remakes of something that was good originally. But if the original was bad, then a remake can be good.

Besides this doesn't sound like a remake. It's a new Teen Wolf. Featuring a girl. At worst, it's resurrecting a dead franchise.
 
:roll:

How? How is it true? Some remakes are great movies.

How is not remotely true? name one great movie that is a remake


... Right.

Remakes are only evil if they are bad remakes of something that was good originally. But if the original was bad, then a remake can be good.

But then if the original was sooooo bad why remake it? Even if the movie was the worst film ever to me the remake is automatically worse.




See people saying remakes can be good lead to films been made that are no longer original and is killing the movie industry. I'm actually saddened by the lack of respect for artists who made the original and saddened by the fact people would rather watch remakes that can never be as good as the original than original films.




and I'm done trying to get through to people.
 
How is not remotely true? name one great movie that is a remake

Batman Begins. Remakes are a bad idea, I have no problem remaking a move that was bad (good concept, horribly executed) Like Batman, the tim burton was good, but flawed in many ways. I will not say "no remakes" cause some can lead to good movies, Like Mask of Zorro, that was a remake I thought was a very good movie. But it the remake/reboot/refresh is worst than the original, don't do it. Cause then you would be insulting the original. But hollywood has gone overboard with the remakes. Whatever happened to just stealing an idea?
 
First of all: I think there are instances where an original CAN be outstripped by a remake, but they are very few and far between.

I think that nearly every instance of this happening I can think of are not matters of remakes improving on an original film, but of remakes drawing on an identical original source material, and adapting it better than other films have. (Willy Wonka, Batman Begins, 12 Angry Men, etc.)

That said, there are certainly cases where films have good premises that are just not realized to their full potential due to acting constraints, interfereing studios, or special effects limitations. I don't think it is any sort of insult to the original to take the ideas that made the original good and try to take it to a whole new level. That is very rarely done well-and more times than not there is a matter of wanting to capitilize on the "name brand" of the original to make an easy ticket sale, but there are surely examples where improvements have been made on a film itself.

One sort of bad example is Buffy the Vampire Slayer. A horrible film remade into a TV series that was groundbreaking and fun.

Having seen both, I would argue that Ocean's Eleven is the equal to the original, and at the same time a great homage to the pure star-power that drove the original film. They captured the style of that movie and updated it to speak to modern audiences.

The fact is, the way we communicate ideas as a society changes ove rthe years, and film is a medium that is becoming old enough that some films don't resonate the same way they once did. Ideally, remakes reinterpret the excellent ideas and emotions of original pieces of work, allowing new audiences to appreciate the work done in breaking the story in the first place.
 
Having seen both, I would argue that Ocean's Eleven is the equal to the original, and at the same time a great homage to the pure star-power that drove the original film. They captured the style of that movie and updated it to speak to modern audiences.

Agreed.
 
But then if the original was sooooo bad why remake it? Even if the movie was the worst film ever to me the remake is automatically worse.
As ShaggyMarco pointed out in an already excellent fashion:
ShaggyMarco said:
That said, there are certainly cases where films have good premises that are just not realized to their full potential due to acting constraints, interfereing studios, or special effects limitations.
Remaking a bad movie is essentially the film makers saying that they think the core concept of a film was a pretty alright deal, it just wasn't all it could have been... and I think that applies to all film ideas, even if it's something as retarded as Kangaroo Jack.

SSJmole said:
I'm actually saddened by the lack of respect for artists who made the original and saddened by the fact people would rather watch remakes that can never be as good as the original than original films.
See, that's just a completely monistic way of looking at things.

I agree that some remakes mean that you don't respect the original idea. But other remakes mean that you DO respect the original idea, and that you admire it so much you want to 'modernize' it to become more resonant to a contemporary audience (Ocean's Eleven) or apply a new coat of paint. There's definitely an element of hubris involved, but it doesn't necessarily mean DISRESPECT. That's like saying doing covers of old Frank Sinatra songs is like giving him the finger.

On the other hand, only a fanatical twit believes that ALL culture of any merit is built ENTIRELY on originality when in fact, the very foundations of creative culture are built on 'derivative' works (as ironic as that sounds). To limit people from being able to do 'remakes' (or covers, or Ultimatizations) means that you prevent this creative culture from developing. In fact, the very health of culture is drawn from 'remakes' and other 'unoriginal' acts.

Animation legends like Walt Disney and Don Bluth did it. Comedy innovators like Buster Keaton and Charlie Chaplin did it. Comics progenitors like Stan Lee and Osamu Tezuka did it. Doujinshi artists and cover bands do it. To insist that a lack of originality kills movies and other creative industries is using one trite over-generalization instead of a better one: Movies aren't bad because they were unoriginal ideas. They were bad because they were bad movies.
 
Back on subject:

The basic premise of using lycanthropy as a metaphor for dealing with teenage changes in your body, relationships, and social situation is, fundementally, an awesome idea.

I think the possibility of using this remake to give validity to the fact that both boys and girls deal with these rapid changes and that having to deal with these changes cause complications and teenage drama.

It has potential.
 
By the way, Tim Burton's Charlie and the Chocolate Factory was good, but come on, it's in no way superior to the original.
I actually disliked it a lot, and I am pretty certain it has nothing to do with my preference for the original. I just think Tim Burton is a generally bland filmmaker, though I do think Ed Wood is one of the best films EVER.
 
I actually disliked it a lot, and I am pretty certain it has nothing to do with my preference for the original. I just think Tim Burton is a generally bland filmmaker, though I do think Ed Wood is one of the best films EVER.

I didn't like it because he was putting hard working midgets out of work by doing umpaa loompas digitally. Wrong, just wrong.
 
Last edited:

Latest posts

Back
Top