Teen-Wolf remake rumors.

[Joe Kalicki]

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 hated it the first time I saw it, but it's since grown on me. I'm a huge fan of the original and of the book. I grew up reading Roald Dahl almost every day.

 

[JonnyFreeze]

I hated it the first time I saw it, but it's since grown on me. I'm a huge fan of the original and of the book. I grew up reading Roald Dahl almost every day.

in my primary school (pre-school) all the kids would fight over who got to read "The Twits"

 

[SSJmole]

Next time just go around them.

:lol: :lol: :lol: I hate you

Batman Begins.

Batman begins is not a remake though its a relaunch and based on a paticular comic

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.

making a film in to a tv show = fine
making a tv shoiw in to a film = fine

as it was not that begin with.

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.

Willy Wonka and the chocolate factory is not a remake though. It's very close to book and based on book not on the original film

 

[Ice]

Willy Wonka and the chocolate factory is not a remake though. It's very close to book and based on book not on the original film

Actually, it is still a remake.

 

[SSJmole]

Actually, it is still a remake.

I don't count it as a remake unless it is based on original film.

 

[Joe Kalicki]

I don't count it as a remake unless it is based on original film.

I actually agree with SSJmole on this point.

 

[Random]

I don't count it as a remake unless it is based on original film.

Same plot, same characters, same damn things happen (for the most part) just one person did it differently decades before. It is a remake, they are doing the same damn thing that's done before. Their just remaking willy wonka just drawing more from the book.

 

[ourchair]

I don't count it as a remake unless it is based on original film.

I agree with this.

There are many things Burton's Charlie and the Chocolate Factory could have done that would make it a remake, which it didn't. Most notably, it wasn't a musical.

But the sequences with Deep Roy singing an Oingo Boingo-esque ditty for each kid that gets offed were awesome.

 

[Ice]

From dictionary.com:

remake-

1. to make again or anew.
2. Movies. to film again, as a picture or screenplay.
–noun 3. Movies. a more recent version of an older film.
4. anything that has been remade, renovated, or rebuilt: The tailor is offering a special price on remakes.

Willy Wonka was a remake. Just like if Teen Wolf will get done again will be a remake.

 

[E]

Ice is right.

 

[SSJmole]

From dictionary.com:


Willy Wonka was a remake. Just like if Teen Wolf will get done again will be a remake.

but the first was Charlie and the chocolate factory not Willy wonka , things happen differently , based on book not original film. My understanding is that a remake would be based on previous film.

if anything it's more of a relaunch than remake. Like batman begins is not a remake of the first film but instead a relaunch of a series.

dictionaries are not always 100% correct I mean a few years ago they still had Gay as only meaning happy. yes it's been updated but still.

 

[Joe Kalicki]

I still agree with SSJmole. Charlie and the Chocolate Factory is not a remake of WIlly Wonka and the Chocolate Factory. Just because the two movies are adapted from the same source material doesn't mean the latter one is a remake of the prior.

Is 300 a remake of 300 Spartans because it draws form the same story? Is the Passion of the Christ a remake of Jesus Christ Superstar?

 

[Ultimate Houde]

IIs the Passion of the Christ a remake of Jesus Christ Superstar?

No, they are both remakes of the Technicolor Dreamcoat.

 

[Ice]

but the first was Charlie and the chocolate factory not Willy wonka , things happen differently , based on book not original film. My understanding is that a remake would be based on previous film.

if anything it's more of a relaunch than remake. Like batman begins is not a remake of the first film but instead a relaunch of a series.

dictionaries are not always 100% correct I mean a few years ago they still had Gay as only meaning happy. yes it's been updated but still.

The first movie was an adaptation. Because it was book first and made into a movie. Things were different because all adaptations into movies ALWAYS have something different. Spider-Man, X-Men, etc. Batman Begins is not a remake of the first film, you are correct. And that's simply because the stories are completely different. There is no "relaunch" because that's a remake. Willy Wonka movies may have had different things happen, but that's what you get from a remake.

I still agree with SSJmole. Charlie and the Chocolate Factory is not a remake of WIlly Wonka and the Chocolate Factory. Just because the two movies are adapted from the same source material doesn't mean the latter one is a remake of the prior.

Yes, it is a remake. It's based off of the original film that was based off a book.

Is 300 a remake of 300 Spartans because it draws form the same story? Is the Passion of the Christ a remake of Jesus Christ Superstar?

300 is not a remake. There was no film before that had this story. 300 is in adaptation. Same thing for Passion of the Christ. Adaptation from the Bible.

I've studied about films. I know what I'm talking about.

Teen Wolf gets made, it's a remake. It's the same thing as Willy Wonka movies. The original movies were an adaptation because someone said they were based off books (which I didn't know until it was mentioned). If it does get made, it's a remake. How would it be any different from the Willy Wonka movies? It wouldn't.

 

[SSJmole]

I've studied about films. I know what I'm talking about.

yeah so did I.

Is 300 a remake of 300 Spartans because it draws form the same story? Is the Passion of the Christ a remake of Jesus Christ Superstar?

exactly.


there are 1000s movies about Jesus e.g Jesus of Nazareth (had to watch it in R.E in school) that's all about the same stuff in the passion but yet the passion is not a remake just based on same book.


or how about the Alice in Wonderland films? from disney to the one where Whoopi Goldberg played the Cheshire Cat. same book , same stories but they are not remakes and no one counts them as such.



I do agree though ice that teen wolf will be a remake I've said that from start. I just don't like remakes. I most likely will not see this. We've already seen teen wolf with out Michael J. Fox it was called Teen wolf Too and it sucked compared to the first film

I have as much faith in this film as you all did about epic movie. you were right about epic movie i admitted that. but I honestly think i'm right about this it's a remake and so will suck.

 

[Ice]

yeah so did I.

Doesn't seem like it because you're wrong.

exactly.

Are...are you ****ing serious? 300 is not a remake. Why? Because it's an ADAPTATION only.

This is from Yahoo movies. The genres for the movie for Charlie and the chocolate factory:

Genres: Kids/Family, Musical/Performing Arts, Science Fiction/Fantasy, Adaptation and Remake.

See that? Remake. REMAKE. Still adaptation, but it's still also a remake.

But of course, you'll come with the excuse, "oh sum sites are wrong" or some bs excuse because it's not what you say it is. :roll:

 

[SSJmole]

But of course, you'll come with the excuse, "oh sum sites are wrong" or some bs excuse because it's not what you say it is. :roll:

also noticed you ignored the alice in wonderland thing.

peter pan did it too same book and same story but different films again not a remake.

there has been loads of films on the same books and stories as each other but no one says they are remakes.

of course I could post things about how reliable yahoo movies has been in the past . but the fact is your wrong. you can't see what everyone else is saying and that's fine

and your doing what you say i am. I was explaining how your wrong and you roll your eyes and add that snide little remake because people understand it's not a remake but because you say it is it has to right!

 

[Ice]

of course I could post things about how reliable yahoo movies has been in the past . but the fact is your wrong. you can't see what everyone else is saying and that's fine

and your doing what you say i am. I was explaining how your wrong and you roll your eyes and add that snide little remake because people understand it's not a remake but because you say it is it has to right!

Oh yes, it's because I have to be right. Not because I am and that's what the movie is labeled in the movie industry. Of course it's not a remake. What was I thinking? I mean, because YOU say it's not and have someone agree with you, that makes you automatically correct. Not because the it's labeled as a remake by the people in hollywood, the ones who know all this and say it is. Screw them right? What do they know? Obviously nothing because you say it's not.

And damn, I must be blind to not see what everyone else is saying, even though I've actually proven with evidence what's a remake and that charlie is one. Not by saying, "oh that one wasn't one so this one isnt." Even though I do see what you're saying, and showing you you're wrong and not I, and not because it's what *I* say, but because what it's actually labeled as, I'm 100% wrong. Oh woe is me.

also noticed you ignored the alice in wonderland thing.

peter pan did it too same book and same story but different films again not a remake.

there has been loads of films on the same books and stories as each other but no one says they are remakes.

Maybe because, once again, a remake is a film that is based off a previous film. Charlie was based off Willy Wonka. Yes, both films were adaptations from a book. Yes, Charlie drew more from the book than the original, but it was still based off the 197o's version movie. Peter Pan, Alice in Wonderland, for them to be classified as a remake, they have to be based off a previous film and have the same general plot going on, with some tweaks. Ocean's 11, a remake. Same as the original with some tweaks. This holds true to Charlie. It is the same as the original movie, but has some tweaks that makes it different. The tweaks can either be something minor that happens differently (squirrels instead of geese) and/or have something new added (charlie and willy going to see willy's father). So you're examples of why charlie is not a remake are incorrect. Not beause I say it isn't or any of that BS, but because of what he people who make the movie, those people in Hollywood who label it what it is. I can understand you not trusting some sites, but it seems childish that when it agree with you, you come with the excuse of "but its wrong in the past" etc. Charlie is a remake. Just face it. I'm not sayin it is to hold something against you or make this some personal grudge (I can barely hold one as it is), but Charlie is a remake. The definition of one I've showed you. Just because a dictionary wasn't updated with the word "gay" doesn't mean the definitions are wrong. Charlie fits into all those highlited. It's labeled as a remake not only by Yahoo, but by many other sites.

Seriously, dude. A remake is a remake and Charlie is one of them.

 

[SSJmole]

Maybe because, once again, a remake is a film that is based off a previous film. Charlie was based off Willy Wonka. Yes, both films were adaptations from a book. Yes, Charlie drew more from the book than the original, but it was still based off the 197o's version movie.

That has been my point dude. they said when it came out it was NOT based on the original film it was based on the book. yes they both came off same book but in order to be a remake it would of had to of been based on the original film.

They even said that was why they changed name to be different from first film. A lot of people say it's a remake and it's a common mistake. People assumed that because it was based on same book it must be a remake.

Then I saw more and more sites make the mistake of adding remake. A common mistake but still a mistake.

now had it been based off first film not the book then yes it would be a remake but it based on book not film so it isn't.

My original point was remakes were bad . Then someone mentioned Charlie and the Chocolate Factory and I just corrected them by saying it's not a remake. I understand why people think it is but it's not

now yes some remakes are good I know like Planet of the Apes but I do not like the idea of remakes plus 99% of them suck.

but yes the film did borrow from the original (e.g only one parent with the children) but it was still based on the book and not based on the original film


but anyway I think we should go back on topic as 2 pages have been debating another film :lol:

 

[Random]

That has been my point dude. they said when it came out it was NOT based on the original film it was based on the book. yes they both came off same book but in order to be a remake it would of had to of been based on the original film.

Geez its still a remake, the premise of the first one was "a movie based on this book" They are doing the same thing "a movie based on this book". Of course they're gonna say "its not a remake" because they want to sound original (even though being closer to the book is less original). This is what a remake is, They made it once now they decide to make it again, remakes are not just a direct translation of the previous film they are remaking it. Simply changing its name and a few detail means nothing. Batman Begins is a remake of Batman (1989) because theyare both major motion pictures telling the origins of Batman even the first one was most likely a remake another film from the 50's. Guess Who is a remake of Guess Who's Coming to Dinner, jsut because the races are swith, the title short and the setting taking place in modren day does not make it any more original. As Ice posted Remake for "Movies. a more recent version of an older film" They are making a more recent version of a movie based on Roald Dahl's Charlie and the Chocolate Factory. Just because something have been re-interupted doesn't make it any less of a remake