Eldo wrote:They should waste their money remaking the original trilogy of Star Wars instead? Why don't they do that? Because it's zomg a classic and zomg it's sacred.
That's because Star Wars is the sole property of George Lucas and he'll only allow himself to fuck those movies up.
I dont care about that eccenteric director,there is no way he can make a classic like Lone Wolf and Cub good. If he was a big fan of the manga and thought long and hard to understand it and make it true to source it can become good. But thats less likely than a meteor falling on your head...
I dont want to see a diffrent spin on it, you dont touch a classic if you cant make them as good as the originals period!
This is not going to be the first hollywood remake of the Seven Samurai. For all practical purposes, the 1960 western classic The Magnificent Seven is. It was a really well done remake with a great cast; Yul Brynner, Eli Wallach, Steve McQueen, Charles Bronson, and James Coburn.
As for the Lone Wolf and the Cub movie... I think Darren Aronofsky is a brilliant director and I am waiting for his version.
Also, A Bugs Life is pretty much a remake of Seven Samurai.
"We must question the story logic of having an all-knowing all-powerful God, who creates faulty Humans, and then
blames them for his own mistakes." - Gene Roddenberry
Was a bugs life the one when they brought in the Flea circus guys or was that antz?
A little philosophy inclineth man's mind to atheism, but depth in philosophy bringeth men's minds about to religion.
-Sir Francis Bacon, Of Atheism <---Did I make this my sig? This shits gay as fuck.
RedEyes wrote:This is not going to be the first hollywood remake of the Seven Samurai. For all practical purposes, the 1960 western classic The Magnificent Seven is. It was a really well done remake with a great cast; Yul Brynner, Eli Wallach, Steve McQueen, Charles Bronson, and James Coburn.
As for the Lone Wolf and the Cub movie... I think Darren Aronofsky is a brilliant director and I am waiting for his version.
PI is a great movie and is way better than most of these Hollywood movies, especially considering that it had a very small budget. Calling it terrible is insane. I could understand if you personally didn't like it but you must concede that it was at least an ambitious effort from the director.
Femto wrote:Pi is terrible and Requiem for a Dream is near unwatchable after the first time.
That is all.
Ill agree on the rewatch factor of Requiem for a Dream.
A little philosophy inclineth man's mind to atheism, but depth in philosophy bringeth men's minds about to religion.
-Sir Francis Bacon, Of Atheism <---Did I make this my sig? This shits gay as fuck.
Requiem is good. Im not arguing that. But I have to agree that its not the kind of movie you watch over and over again.
A little philosophy inclineth man's mind to atheism, but depth in philosophy bringeth men's minds about to religion.
-Sir Francis Bacon, Of Atheism <---Did I make this my sig? This shits gay as fuck.
Buzkashi wrote:Requiem is good. Im not arguing that. But I have to agree that its not the kind of movie you watch over and over again.
Agreed. Great movie, but not one I want to watch over and over again.
"We must question the story logic of having an all-knowing all-powerful God, who creates faulty Humans, and then
blames them for his own mistakes." - Gene Roddenberry
i dunno, i've seen it more than once, and i liked every time. thinking about it you might not want to, but when u actually do it, its not that bad. enjoyable even.
lets hope lone wolf turns out well. dont want to mess that up.
