Can confirm. I’m 38 and I cringe every time I see a remake of some 20 or 30 year old movie or show. Come up with something original instead of going for the low hanging fruit. Also, use less CGI and more practical effects.
Too much bad cgi now days.
Look at top gun 2. I wasn’t excited at all to see it. I left the theater pumped and saw it four more times.
Top Gun 2 was full of CGI…
True, what people want is seamless VFX.
I watched Argylle and everything looks so fake. Most of it was shot on a green screen. Half the charm of an extravagant spy movie is taking us to exotic locales.
Yes, but Argylle doesn’t take itself seriously at all. Which for me was a good thing
Yeah, I didn’t mind the light tone but still felt like a fake movie. Like something you would see a fake trailer for in another comedy.
Super-fake looking locations and stunts.
When I first saw the trailer on TV, I assumed it was a cat food ad spoofing movie trailers.
But also a ton of practical effects. The CGI was mostly there to help the practical effects, the movie wasn’t full on CGI like Avatar.
None of the planes shown in the film ever left the ground.
Unable to delete so editing instead. Leaving Lemmy.world due to privacy concerns.
The planes look good, but they are almost entirely CGI. The difference is that they used realistic flight maneuvers and reference lighting to make it look really good. Practical effects means little to no CGI and that definitely does not apply here.
That is false. Most of the flying is legit.
https://www.ign.com/articles/how-top-gun-maverick-astonishing-practical-effects-were-achieved
It was full of good CGI
The cgi was used to remove the pilot of the f18. It wasn’t all cartoon look physics bending bs.
Sure the physics of the flight were real as they were flying real aircraft.
However, it is against the air forces rules to fly so closely in formation. CGI was used to bring the jets closer together to look better on camera. The majority of the environments were CGI as they were not permitted to fly so close to the ground or obstacles. The entire opening sequence with the advanced fighter jet was entirely CGI as that plan does not exist. That’s what CGI looks like when you have the means, time, and budget. Plus combining that with practical effects, leads to the best results.
And that’s my point. It wasn’t cartoonish special effects with bizarre physics.
It was well down.
Alright. Well I agree
Perhaps you did not get your point across in your downvoted comment
Lots of practical effects as well. The flying was mostly practical. The used cgi to make the f18 look like a one seater but the flying was legit
The flying was legit when looking at cockpits, but the planes were all fake. They actually created plane models that don’t exist in real life. You can bet that unless it was a scene with several humans on screen talking face to face, about 90% of what you were seeing was made by a computer animator.
A good story is a good story. Lots of CGI or no CGI doesn’t change that fact. There are lots of movies with no CGI that are just garbage.
The issue is studios trying to avoid having to write a good story trying to mask a mediocre story with lots and lots of mediocre CGI. Why? Because it’s faster to create lots of computer effects than to come up with a great story. It’s also a lot easier to create an assembly line for CGI than it is to create one for great stories
It was a damn good movie.
I thought I was going to hate it. It seemed like a cash grab. I’m not a huge fan on Tom cruise. It was just a damn good movie. Movies have forgot they’re supposed to be entertaining. It was entertaining.
Fairly long set of 4 videos, but this is an interesting flip side of “less CGI” discussion: https://youtu.be/7ttG90raCNo
As a counterpoint to this I think the “why” of the remake is really important. Id actually like to see them do more movies that could benefit from an “update” moreso than a remake… like Major League, I loved those movies as a kid. Show me some of my favorite contemporary actors having fun with a modern script on something that I enjoyed back in the day and yeah Ill watch that.
The white men cant jump remake wasnt a GREAT movie, but its not like they were remaking an absolute classic that was perfect in every way and wanted to cash in with merch, tie-ins and video games so it didnt feel like a shameless cash grab. I had fond memories of the original and I like Jack Harlow so yeah I liked it, wouldnt rave about it but its fun.
This is my stance. I love the new Dune. It’s less of a remake instead of a different adaptation of the book(s), but regardless it isn’t original. I generally hate the reusing of IPs just for the sake of it, but it feels right for Dune right now. For the other 90% of trailers before it that were remakes, I couldn’t be bothered to care about them.
I feel like most remakes are pretty bad, if I watched the original and loved it, why would I want to watch a newer, slightly different version?
I’m a dude and I love the original Charmed and Mean Girls but didn’t even bother to watch the remakes because I knew they weren’t going to be as good as the originals.
I like watching remakes because I’ts not about if it meets up on quality or enjoyment, its the comparison between the two. Yeah usually they fall short.
Take White men cant jump for example, Ioved the original but only liked the remake took a couple of viewings to figure it out. They glossed over the basketball too much, which blurred out the movies grounding theme which I think is “We can come together over common passions” and they didnt set up a big enough conflict between Walls and Harlow. They also missed out on a chance to have some great conversations about modern racial attitudes, which was one of the things that made the first one that bit better. “You cant hear Jimmy” and the discussion about “A black man would rather look good first and win second” people in that movie had some racial opinions and they talked about them, yet nobody screamed racism.
But it was well shot, funny, entertaining, good performances, good callbacks, likeable characters. If it was a standalone it wouldnt be a better movie, but it wouldnt be worse either.
Here’s what people want… Good movies and good television. Yeah, originality is great, but remakes can be good too.
I liked the remake of Infernal Affairs (The Departed), Scarface, Cape Fear, Ocean’s 11, The Fly, King Kong (Peter Jackson), True Grit, Judge Dread, and The Wizard of Oz (1939) was also a remake. The Fall Guy looks good too.
For TV, there’s Battlestar Galactica, Westworld, Cobra Kai, Sabrina, and Wednesday, though different, could fit in there as it’s still based on another property.
What people don’t want are obvious cash grabs.
I don’t think Wednesday should count as remake. Also I want to add The Lighthouse to your list of good remakes.
Yeah, I was hesitant to put Wednesday on there. I guess I was going for stories/characters we’ve seen before vs. something completely original. Wednesday is more like Cruella. Both good, both original, but based on previous property.
Neither Kobra Kai.
There was a Karate Kid remake and that showed how not do remakes. Kobra Kai was a continuation.
Judge Dredd was also not really a remake.
Hell some of those remarks are better than the original IMO the True Grit remake is infinitely better than the original one, mind you I dont like John Wayne movies and this aint even me being political I fucken love Clint Eastwood movies.
The Battlestar Galactica reboot kicked ass where the original was legit campy and crappy. Reboots can be okay, but for one: stop rebooting a great and successful franchise, you already are up against a very high bar.
💯 the new Dune movies could be considered a reboot, but they’re light years better than the 80s movie, which was widely considered a disappointment by fans of the books and a financial failure.
I’m seeing a resurgence of people liking the '80s version, but it’s mostly because of the camp, but also because it’s more accurate to the book, until the end. The miniseries is honestly possibly the best version, though most people don’t know it exists. The new one is by far the most interesting, and it sounds and looks nearly perfect.
The 80s movie is absolutely not more accurate to the book. Duncan Idaho gets shot with a gun, the Fremen had sonic blasters made from ‘killing words’, the Harkonnen had heart plugs, the ornithopters didn’t even have wings. I could go on and on, it went way off text.
The latest movies are much closer to the books, the few changes make total sense for the format of cinema, they don’t radically change the tone or mechanics of the setting.
It follows the events better I guess is what I should say. The new one cuts a lot more of it out and adds a lot more that wasn’t there. The tone of the old one is totally wrong and the new one is more accurate.
That said, neither are perfect. All of the adaptations make a lot of changes
I think it’s funny you use Clint Eastwood to prove you’re not politically motivated because he talked to a chair to entertain conservatives while John Wayne on the other hand was a Nazi. Like I get it, you can absolutely disagree with both it’s just funny the difference in egregiousness.
I like old Clint Eastwood movies in spite of my politics, my dislike of John Wayne movies is further amplified by my politics and the fact he was just an awful person overall. Seriously Waynes death was fucken poetry, getting cancer because he wanted to be Genghis Khan and promptly getting irradiated is fucken poetic.
But yeah both Wayne and Eastwood are/were bastards, If memory serves me right they both said some pretty egregious shit about Sacheen Littlefeather at the 45th academy awards.
One went out to campaign for nazis, the other was one. I frankly don’t see a difference.
The second Judge Dread was really good. I wish they would make a sequel.
Honestly sometimes we’re fine with cash grabs too, aslong as they don’t require much attention. For example John Wick is a really fun and easy series of films to watch but you don’t need to have 100% attention throughout
I have to say, I recently realized there was a fourth and I hadn’t seen the third, and I didn’t care for those two. The first on was amazing. The second was good, but started introducing too much gun-magic the third and fourth had lost all the authenticity the first one was known for. The first everyone talked about how it was somewhat realistic and people moved and behaved in a believable way. In the third and fourth everyone is just running around using their jacket to block bullets while firing blindly but perfectly accurately. It got really dumb.
It’s dumb, but it’s fun, atleast that’s the case for me
It’s fun, just not what I was hoping the series would become.
Yeah, you can kinda tell that as the series went on it started to be more and more a vehicle for really dumb stunts and action sequences. I feel like occasionally we get a movie or set of movies that are just cranked out by like, a production chock full of stuntmen. That’s fine, I suppose, it’s not unenjoyable, but I do much prefer something in the vein of Heat, or the original John Wick, rather than it’s sequels.
A better comparison might even be, like, any Jackie Chan movie, since those are all just basically vehicles for stunt work, but I think a comparison between those and the John Wick sequels is kind of self-evidently not a flattering comparison, for the sequels. Jackie Chan movies tend to have better, mostly self-contained plots, they tend to have much better and more impressive action, and action choreography, even if it’s almost intentionally less flashy. Even though obviously most of the stuff in the Jackie Chan movies is unrealistic, it still feels more real, because it’s all been actually done, relative to the John Wick movies, which tend to be more full of CGI, and kind of less real as a result of them being kind of, ridiculous murderfests. They become ungrounded.
What the fuck is this article smokin? Is it AI?
…of these young kids,
Ok goddamnit, enough with the millennials r kids n shit. Im 45. Millennials are adults. Adults! Kiss my pucker, fucker
If you’re 45, aren’t you technically Gen X? My understanding is that the Millennial generation starts in the 1980s, with Gen X being between 1965 and 1980.
Generations aren’t about hard lines of division. For example, if some was born in December 1979 and another in January 1980, they would have more in common than with someone born in 1975 or 1985.
I was born six months before the millennial cutoff, but I find many of my touchstones align with millennials than with Gen X and then I have some that line up with Gen X.
Ultimately, the utility of generational analysis is degraded with pieces like this. There seems to be something useful about looking at how certain aged people relate to events, but trying to ask about “How millennials are ruining the work place for Gen X” isn’t a good use of that analysis.
I dunno, Ive read many different date start times. Usually i am a millennial, i think only ever saw myself at the end of the x cutoff once. There’s even A goofy tiny 4 year “gen” thing i got lumped into once or twice called xennial. I dunno where i belong. Good thing it’s all bullshit anyway
My understanding was that “millennial” was first coined to refer to those graduating in 2000.
True, although you are Gen X if you’re 45 years old. You’re 2-3 years older than the oldest millennial.
I’m.a 33 y/o millennial with a mortgage and shitty movies I don’t want to watch. Hopefully they’ll stop calling millennials “kids” by the time I retire.
Maybe it’ll just morph into a pejorative like Boomer did. Like standing in for kid? Ha! More likely it’s gonna be like how they did the Xers and simply not speak of us at all
Right? We’re middle aged, some grandparents.
deleted by creator
Ok goddamnit, enough with the millennials r kids n shit. Im 45. Millennials are adults. Adults! Kiss my pucker, fucker
I think they meant in emotional terms.
So Boomer actually means that they have the mental state of Lead Poisoning?
Aaand the Boomer came out swinging! Bold move cotton! Listen big guy, i know it ain’t your fault, it’s all the lead in the air. Just try not to forget who he is when i send my kid over to mow your lawn next time, k?
Ok boomer
:raises hand: Gen-X too please!
47 marvel superhero movies is the best I can do, sorry
I am interested in that new Roadhouse NGL.
For us I feel like it’s worse, since it taints the memories of the original.
Yes, Gen-X too. Unless it’s a re-telling of The Three Amigos in the style of Cormac McCarthy’s Blood Meridian with Glanton and the Judge replacing El Guapo and his German pilot lackey. In which case, I’m here for that.
Are remakes ever for a new generation? Aren’t they just for the original people who liked it, and they hope a new gen will like the new content, but they never do?
They are for new markets, at the moment this means China
Yes, because it’s well known that once a movie or series is released, it’s promptly destroyed to make sure that no trace of it subsists. Which is why remakes are inevitable.
This is the entire concept behind the
NintendoDisney vaultHey, that’s Warner new secret business strategy, don’t go around leaking it!
Absolutely not. This is how we got to “my James Bond is better than your James Bond”-style of thinking.
Every new gen wants their own thing. Every new gen thinks the last gen was lame. Business takes old gen shit and add new gen actor/actress/good looking person, adds old gen shit and then resells the new gen its own version. This is why every show is full of pretty people and nothing new.
Most of the characters in Severance are not pretty, and it was very original IMO.
There’s this concept called Hollywood ugly. Even people who are not pretty or considered to play ugly characters on film are still above average in terms of looks compared to the whole of the population. Most actors in Severance while might not be considered movie star out of everyone’s league gorgeous, are still pretty and attractive people. It’s much more about how they are presented in camera that makes them seem more everyday like.
Yeah I guess John Turturro is a good example of Hollywood ugly :)
Severance is excellent and exceptional. It’s also AppleTV+, where it’s more likely than not you’ll see actors that resemble people in real life (and when it’s not, it’s Ghosted and shit). And they generally don’t do remakes.
If anything, they’re the exception and not the rule.
Are remakes ever for a new generataion?
“Modern audience”
Seems like one of those things everyone would say in the abstract, particularly on a survey. Then when the studios go for safe projects and the thing they remake is among someone’s personal favorites they’ll watch it anyway, validating the strategy.
Exactly this. You see the same in gaming. The amount of remasters of once original successful games is increasing by the year.
The amount of remasters of once original successful games is increasing by the year.
There’s also a pretty substantial incentive there in terms of new market access, by releasing old games on new consoles, and less work overall. A better comparison in that regard, for most movies, would probably be re-releases, with original film remastering and DVD extras.
I will never watch the Point Break or Red Dawn remakes. No way! Also, how dare they!
Right now I’d settle for shit I like not being wiped from existence to make the line go up slightly more with some convoluted Producers math bullshit.
I wonder how many times in my life I will get to see Batman’s parents die? Or James bond play poker? Or star wars get ruined?
I don’t see anything wrong with serialized media, the problem is people are not also taking chances on more novel stuff. Even when it gets made. “Moon” came out fifteen years ago and I thought it was really good but damn near every time I bring it up I’m the only one who even heard about it. “Knives Out” was great, “Glass Onion” was alright, we get weird stuff like “Pig” and “The Menu” and that’s all stuff with big names and decent budgets. There’s tons of smaller stuff coming out too but if you don’t pay attention or seek out film festivals, or know someone who does, it might as well not exist.
Are theaters just too expensive for casual audiences? Is the opportunity cost too high? Or is it just a marketing failure?
I love moon. It is a shame it is not better known, great movie.
Yes theatres are too much for a cash strapped general population. But we also see streaming get ruined all the time, the last time netflix had a show I liked (I am not OK with this) they cut it after one season, and for what? We have a situation where movies/shows should be easier then ever to make but we instead have next to nothing worthwhile out and advertised.
I also hate when they remake movies that don’t work with today’s production companies. Remember what they did to Old Boy? Why did they even try? And why did they think removing the big shocker (the whole point of the movie) would work?
My girlfriend and I still use yes chef because of the menu. Even in non cooking situations
And adaptions that adhere to pre existing lore… Witcher, Halo I am looking at you
Oh come now. If Halo had to stick to pre-existing lore we wouldn’t have seen Master Chief’s ass.
When you make 9 hours of video, but the only redeeming portion of it is 3 seconds of ass.
Same for Gen X. No one wants remakes. Why the fuck do people watch them?
Boomers. Same reason why they’d much rather go to concerts for halfway decent cover bands of their childhood favorites than put any effort into discovering new music
American audiences are no longer the sole demographic for Hollywood. The audience is global, and high budget films are planned with that in mind. The lowest common denominator is the result.
During his Academy Award speech, Cord Jefferson (who won for the American Fiction screenplay) argued for more low-budget films at the cost of a single big-budget mess. More movies means more types of stories, allowing more niches to be filled. It also creates more industry jobs, and deepens the bench with talent development.
The best way to come up with good ideas is to figure out how to have a lot of ideas in the first place.
The movies of the late 90s are great examples of this. Dozens of different types of new stories made on what are now considered very low budgets. The problem is that without the home video and TV markets those sorts of movies don’t make any money. So many 90s classics didn’t make much at the box office but made bank on home video or with licensing.
Market conditions have changed, and the product needs to change with it. Just like how MTV hasn’t been “music television” for a long, long time.
Matt Damon explains how the lack of DVD sales changed what movie studios will greenlight
Maybe I’m dumb but I just fail to see how moving to a streaming platform would actively prevent you from making original content. Like I get people aren’t buying DVDs but they rent stuff digitally and pay to watch your stuff online. Maybe the distribution of money is way different? But I would imagine if anything it would be easier and cheaper to get stuff out in front of people’s faces now. Like way easier. Instead of depending only on a theatrical release or possibly a made for tv movie or straight to dvd movie, you just get it on a streaming platform or hell even just YouTube or some random website. You can spend as much or as little as you want on it. What am I missing?
If anything I think they’re just greenlighting all these remakes because it’s easy money. People complain but they still pay out the ass to see it. If they didn’t make money they wouldn’t make them, plain and simple. I could be totally wrong here but that’s just what it feels like
Streaming doesn’t pay out per view, they just pay a lump sum up front to licence. If you’re not already a hit, that lump sum will be low, and if millions of people stream the film it makes the studio exactly zero dollars.
GenX wants original shows, too.
You got Star Wars
Not even remakes… Remakes of remakes made 3 years before The latest remake
Spiderman: Recursion
Uh, most reasonable people want this. Extended Universes are so early 2010’s.
