dan aykroyd “But boy, I liked that film,” the Saturday Night Live alum continued. “I thought that the villain at the end was great. I loved so much of it. And of course, Kate McKinnon and Leslie Jones and Melissa McCarthy and Kristen Wiig, you’re never going to do better than that. So I go on the record as saying I’m so proud to have been able to license that movie and have a hand and have a part in it, and I’m fully supportive of it, and I don’t besmirch it at all. I think it works really great amongst all the ones that have been made.”
dan aykroyd “I liked the movie Paul Feig made with those spectacular women,” Aykroyd said. “I was mad at them at the time because I was supposed to be a producer on there and I didn’t do my job and I didn’t argue about costs. And it cost perhaps more than it should, and they all do. All these movies do.”
Dan Aykroyd Defends ‘Ghostbusters’ All-Female Reboot Starring Melissa McCarthy, Kristen Wiig "I'm fully supportive of it, and I don't besmirch it at all," the actor and screenwriter says. "I think it works really great amongst all the ones that have been made." BY CARLY THOMAS Plus Icon JULY 27, 2024
The massive success of Disney which owns Marvel / Star Wars / Avatar, pushed other studio executives to ask, why their franchises couldn’t have $billion films. As a result of that, medium level hits such as with Star Trek (2009), Prometheus, Hellboy or The Mummy were no longer big enough box office for other studios. It was a $billion or failure. That brought in excessive studio executive meddling with the writing and directing. The result was instead of getting medium level hits, several franchises were killed (for awhile at least) by a filmmaking committee approach.
This is pretty spot on. Bob Iger even said that they started to get disappointed when a movie failed to break a billion dollars. While it's become more common as of the 2010s, it's still a wild ask and studios are going to have to get happy with having modest hits. I hope we see an uptick in mid-budget films as movies like the John Wick series, Civil War, plenty of horrors, and Anyone But You prove they can be successful. I'd say Avatar is the only outlier because James Cameron seems to be in a category of his own. Then again, I think it's safe to say that he himself is the franchise.
The video game industry went through the same thing but it seems it's finally starting to turn around with the return of medium budget games. The absolute disaster of so many high budget games just bombing seems to have finally opened the doors for mid budget games to come back. I'm hoping that the current state of Hollywood will reset things and we'll finally get some lower budget movies come back
The Robocop remake had a missed opportunity to spoof social media by having some scenes interrupted by an ad for a inworld product. Like how the original had fake commercials.
Exactly…Ghost Busters 2 main issue was that it was painfully unfunny and overall not good, not the gender swap. Supposedly many of the scenes were improvised, and felt like it in the worst possible way, and the director was a bit too nice to ask that many of the scenes be scrapped or re-done.
I didnt have too much of a problem with an all female cast. But yeah. They kinda just went directionless and anything that could have been funny they just ruined by trying to be funny. By the end of the movie I was finding myself saying "why don't they shut up?" Compare that with the reboot with the kids. That one i felt was only successful because they recognized what was successful and threw in nostalgia from the old cartoon. Pretty much anyone who is my age remembers the cartoon and the toys and that movie atleast brought fun to it.
Some movies should never be remade, for the simple reason that they already exist in their optimal form, so any such attempt will _necessarily_ fail. _Ghostbusters_ and _RoboCop_ are two of them.
Only movies with potential/good concepts but that didn't live up to that potential should be remade. Remaking a classic is just asking to fail. Spawn is the type of thing that should be remade. There's a really good movie to be made from that....but the movie they DID make wasn't it..
Exactly. A few movies are classics that last, but most are a product of their place and time. And if well done then, about the only thing the re-make can be is worse than the original.
A perfect example of a well done and amazing remake would be Peter Jackson's King Kong, dude that movie is awesome, better than the Monsterverse, hell even Peter managed to give us well written human characters in a monster movie.
The thing about the Nu-Crow is that it was, in no way, shape or form an adaptation of the comic. And for something that claims to not be remaking the original, it’s hilarious they have a character yell the opening dialogue of the first film directly at the protagonist.
I have a passionate hatred for The Crow 2024, as someone heavily biased towards the original and its personal meaning to me. They had the gall basically to release it on the 30th anniversary of the original film, and didn't bother to at least be interesting with it. The late Brandon Lee has been in the ground for 30 years and people _still_ won't stop pissing on his legacy. I just take solace in the fact that the reboot flopped.
The funniest thing about Ghostbusters is the video game was essentially the third movie. It was that good. Absolutely loved it. Yes it's not a movie but it still felt like a sequel to the movies with great writing and a lot of the cast reprising their roles
I don't have a horse in the Ghostbusters race, but it seems like the studio could've come up with an original vehicle for such a great cast as the remake had. It was no fair to the new crew to make them have to live up to the originals, and I think it would've been the same with an all-male SNL-alum cast. Nobody likes replacement icons foisted on them.
@@Syntopikon Agreed, I actually didn't mind the 2016 Ghostbusters film (it had it's good moments and it's BAD moments), it's just that when you have to compare to the two originals, it's already a losing battle.
The lady busters had an awful script and then as has been dissected elsewhere the directors pacing and cuts were nowhere as precise as the original. Poor script led to overacting and the Final Cut‘s pacing was lousy
It's hard to imagine how a movie that collected $400 million+ is a failure while most movies that gross half of that is a superhit. I know the production cost plays a major role but still, grossing a $400 million+ means a lot of people are watching and it did a great business. So, what's the... I don't have the appropriate word for it! (Of course Cruise's The Mummy is a disappointment)
It's an excellent question. There's a lot of opaqueness when it comes to whether or not a movie is a success, as evidenced by the numerous litigation over Hollywood accounting (Peter Jackson sued New Line because they claimed that the LOTR movies, which raked in nearly $3b on less than $300m in total budgets, made not money). There are very few actual budgets available to read (The Village, directed by M. Night Shyamalan, is one of the few, thanks to a lawsuit). A movie usually needs to make 2-2.5x its budget in order to breakeven. There are the production costs and the distribution costs. Sometimes, a studio does one or the other. But the majors - Universal, Disney, Warner Bros., Paramount - handle both. They front the production cost (costs associated with making the movie, from pre-production to shooting to post-production) and the distribution cost (that's the marketing, promotion, getting it into theaters, and the strategy of the release). In The Mummy's case, it was reported to be as much as $195 million for production and another $150m for marketing (according to reports). That means it needed to make at least $390m - $487m to break even (reports said around $450). That's because of the marketing costs (print & advertising, the split with the theaters which starts out in the studios favor on opening weekend and moves to the theaters favor as time goes on [which is also why theaters rely on concessions to make money]). Cheaper movies can be profitable because they might in a genre that has an embedded fan base (like horror movies, which often do solid business on small budgets because there's a lot of horror fans) or because their marketing strategy punched above its weight and got people into theaters, or because it was a sleeper hit (like the first Joker movie). Doing a movie like The Mummy means that the studio expects a home run hit: big bet, big payoff. Bob Iger said that at Disney, it got to the point where if a Marvel movie didn't hit a billion, they were disappointed. Those are the kinds of numbers a $200 million dollar movie is usually looking for (or at least close to it).
@@Syntopikon Thanks for replying wow. Don't mind if I'm mistaken, is that a Chatgpt answer? (It's rhetorical, I hope you're not offended). Keep up the good work. Love from London ❤️.
A lot of movies these days hide how much they spent on a movie just because of the sheer amount it needs to make to be profitable, they spend an absolutely insane amount of money on movies these days and breaking even is not a "success" in the mind of a business, even if people liked the movie and a lot went to see it because in the end they spent too much for that to matter
Here are a couple things I see a lot with nostalgic remakes & reboots: One- The studio thinks that the name alone is enough to garner myriads of fans. They don’t even try to understand why the original worked or how it became popular; they instead dash off some mess vaguely similar to the original and expect fans to embrace it as strongly or even more strongly than the original, buy merch, and clamor for sequels. When many fans respond, “Um…what the blazes is this?!” instead, they get bitter, which leads to the second thing I’ve seen happen a lot. Two- The fanbase is not universally accepting of the new version. A lot of times what happens is the fanbase is divided, with some being critical & dismissive and others saying, “Hey, let ‘em cook! This might be a shot in the arm for the franchise and lead to good things down the road!” Instead of saying, “We hope you enjoy the new version because we tried to make something you’d like,” the studios and stars get bitter at the fanbase for not gushing over their project. The makers will look the fanbase right in the eye and claim, “Who cares if you don’t watch/read it!? This wasn’t made for you!” Who was it made for, then, and if it doesn’t matter that the fans watch/read it, why are you angry they’re not watching/reading it? They’ll also claim the fans are all bigots that hate everything. Before anyone says anything, yes, there have been people- whether fans or outsiders- who have made bigoted remarks about projects. There really were some people who made racist comments about Star Wars and sexist comments about Ghostbusters. However, as terrible as these people are, they do not represent the majority of fans and critics, and trying to pass off anyone with a criticism- or even a lack of interest- as a bigot is damaging. There are actually people who claim that The Acolyte failed because Star Wars fans demanded it be cancelled because they hate “lesbian space witches” (Um…what?). In reality it was cancelled due to low ratings, and if you look at reviews fans will cite poor writing and characterization. Claiming, “The fans are all just hateful bigots who can’t appreciate anything and that’s why the project failed!” is not going to garner fan support. You know what is a good continuation in my opinion? The new version of Night Court. It respects the original & its fans while having the same kind of humor & heart. When you respect the fans and what they like, they respect you.
Spike Lee's "reimagining" of the classic Korean movie, Old Boy is #1 on my sh*t remakes list. It's absolutely abysmal, apart from the "father" scene. (If you've watched it, you will know what I mean). 😀
i havent seen them but they give me Marvel vibes from Rudd being involved and i just dont really find him to be a hook in movies, i actually kinda dislike him
Honestly, I think they're actually worse than the 2016 remake. 2016 was just generically bad and unfunny but I find modern nostalgia bait movies like afterlife and frozen empire to be so cynical and kind of gross. Not to mention the CG Harold Remus appearance that just came off as so tasteless
Interesting you mentioned Scarface (1983) and The Thing (1982) in the beginning of remakes that did do well, and while they have gathered popularity over the years, they both still bombed heavily at the box office, and even received Razzie nominations as well. I guess that's something for a whole other video idea because you could also include The Shining in that lineup as well (minus the remake factor).
You could argue there was a remake of The Shining because there was a three-part TV miniseries adaptation in 1997. Whether it’s a remake or merely a different adaptation, I’m guessing it wasn’t well received since it’s never talked about.
I for one still think that without studio interference and given an R-rating Padilha could have made a good RoboCop movie. His Elite Squad movies have some similar themes as RoboCop. But lesson is, never make a studio mandated remake of a Paul Verhoeven film. It's an failed endevour from the start. Especially with an PG-13 rating. Total Recall remake was also generic action movie crap. As for The Mummy, in my opinion it's hardly a remake of the 1999 movie. The movies have very little in common. They just wanted to use the property to start the Dark Universe. The 1999 Mummy has more in common with 1932 one.
The reason why these types of movies fail is simply because they lack any creativity. Instead of adding or exploring what came before, they simply steal and do the same while not understanding what makes those old films great. IT'S all about the money and nothing else. And when they fail, it's somehow the customers that are wrong. Maybe it's me but I know what I like and what I dislike.
Honestly, the best choices for remakes are not classics but films with interesting premises that just didn't hit the mark. The Thing is a perfect example where you have a short story based around a shape shifting alien and the movie just turns it into a Frankenstein esque monster. The 82 remake brought life to that amazing concept in a way the original film didn't. Something like Highlander would be a great choice for a remake if done well imo because although that movie has a cult following, the film itself is, let's face it, pretty bad but the concept of a tontine amongst immortal warriors is badass and a sincere update made by a fan of the original that explores that idea with more depth and a better script could be fantastic
Well, it has some reasoning behind it , although the re-make took it too far. 80s films WERE a bit of a sausage fest, with Star Wars having like 4 women in the galaxy, apparently, or most action movies having women there to just instantly fall in love with the 20-plus year older leading man, and then be baggage to drag along or be rescued. That is good 80s-cheese and wish-fulfillment for some, but gets old after a while. The main issue with GB 2 was that it was just…painfully unfunny. Supposedly many of the scenes were improvised, and felt like it in the worst possible way. It was also a bad idea and a cash grab from the from the start. The first was a “lightening in a bottle” movie that was a product of its time, and that is nearly impossible to recreate - any re-make can pretty much only be worse, even the sequels where they had many of the original cast in their roles.
I hear Psycho is terrible because it is merely a shot-for-shot remake, except in colour. I haven't seen either version. The remake I want to add to this list is Total Recall.
Cushing and Lee weren't one of the greatest friendships in Hollywood history. They were one of the greatest friendships in the British film industry ;)
The original ghost busters are classic but I really like the new reboot with all female. It was hilarious I’m sorry. One of those bad good movies!!!!! Definitely loved Chris Hemsworth being apart of it too ❤️
Very good, however I can think of two films that shares a common source material, the first was slated, the second loved and not considered to be a reboot of the first: Judge Dredd and the superb Dredd.
Remeber Red Dawn 1984 movie that people sees as Propaganda but no one talks about how Red Dawn 2012 is Actually Propaganda i cringed when they have one of the character rob a subway and they reference Call of Duty i was rooting for the Chinese i mean North Koreans
I forgot about that. The villains were going to be Chinese, but the studio changed it at the last minute to North Koreans to appease their Chinese investors. Marvel did something similar in Dr. Strange, changing The Ancient One from being a Tibetan man to Tilda Swinton to appease the Chinese. I don't know why they couldn't just change the Chinese dub to have him say he's from mainland China and hates Winnie the Pooh or whatever the hell kind of crap the CCP wanted. They filmed special scenes exclusively for the Chinese version of one of the Iron Man movies.
They should leave well enough alone. The original one from Fall 1984 with an all star cast which was the first film has a PG-13 rating, it was very successful.
While Christian Nyby's 1951 film THE THING (FROM ANOTHER WORLD) and John Carpenter's 1982 remake THE THING are both classics in their own rights, the John Carpenter film was actually more faithful to the original source material, John W. Campbell's novella WHO GOES THERE?.
It's not just the creators who are out of ideas, audiences want the same thing over and over again too. They don't want the trouble of thinking of new opinions.
I couldnt believe they were remaking Psycho. The ending is the whole iconic feature and once that is known, nobody cares if another actor is going to do it. Destined to fail.
It amuses me that the GB reboot is still the second highest grossing GB film after the original. I don't like the film, but the two proper sequels underscore that there's not a ton of interest in the franchise despite being better received. Not every great movie needs to be a franchise.
Anybody looking at the Crow remake and saying "Hey, yeah. Let's do that!" is kind of baffling to me. The worst one has to be the Ghostbusters 2016 remake, though. That one seemed almost *designed* to piss fans off. Not only was it not particularly funny, but it relegated the original Ghostbusters to bit parts. They would've been better off leaving the original cast out of it entirely than to give them insulting parts.
I still think The Crow might be worst. There's something no one wanted. Though I wonder if the REAL worst one might be one I didn't include: 2016s Ben-Hur. It's like trying to remake Titanic or LOTR.
Ghostbusters reboot could have worked if it had a different name and a different cast, not a completely different casts just a few recast roles with more likeable actually funny actors.
I love how sexism is blamed for that shitty ghostbusters remake but movies like pitch perfect are huge hits. This is why studios are backing away from all female casts because immediately it’s not a shit script or casts is “sexism”
Ghostbusters -- I'm a woman, and I have just never liked Kristin Wiig. I didn't like her on SNL. I never found her funny. Melissa McCarthy--I liked her in Gilmore Girls, and I like Spy (mainly because Jason Stratham is so funny in this movie), but I also don't find her all that funny, although I like her more dramatic turns. But, between the two of them, there was nothing about the 2016 Ghostbusters that appealed to me in any way.
I mean people found them funny Bridesmaids was the highest grossing comedy of the year it came out so obviously they aren’t hated. The movie wasn’t good because it wasn’t good that’s all
@@dcluvspie5777 I didn't find Bridesmaids funny at all. But that's just not my sense of humor. Again, I have never found Kristin Wiig funny in slightest, and I realize I'm all by myself with that opinion.
I don't believe it was the woman cast for "Ghostbusters" but the women they chose. Melissa McCarthy? Leslie Jones? Kate McKinnon? Kristin Wiig? They couldn't find any better female comedians at the time?
Leslie Jones was the only one who actually brought some life and heart to the film and Wiig is actually good in other things but McKinnon and McCarthy are just awful
I hate to say but it was a female cast that killed any interest. They could’ve casted Sigourney Weaver, Scarlett Johansson and Michelle Yeoh in that crap and the audience would’ve still flipped out. Call it sexism but ultimately it was a stupid decision by the studio and the director. It’s like gender swapping the Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles for no other reason but studio reasons. And it’s still not a popular decision yet some studio still try to do it.
dan aykroyd “But boy, I liked that film,” the Saturday Night Live alum continued. “I thought that the villain at the end was great. I loved so much of it. And of course, Kate McKinnon and Leslie Jones and Melissa McCarthy and Kristen Wiig, you’re never going to do better than that. So I go on the record as saying I’m so proud to have been able to license that movie and have a hand and have a part in it, and I’m fully supportive of it, and I don’t besmirch it at all. I think it works really great amongst all the ones that have been made.”
I have a cool idea for a video: Trilogies with forgotten extra films. Idk if it there would be enough for a full video but I think it would be cool to look into. (an example of this could be something like the jason bourne trilogy that actually has 5 films total in the franchise)
Every movie you name was just sad memories that can't go away... I think The Crow Remake got me upset out of all the Movies in this list. Maybe if they change the Title to The Crow it might of work out?? You forgot Wickerman, Total Recall, Red Dawn, Point Break, does Disney Live actions Remakes Count??? If so all of Disney Live Action Remakes are BAD👎👎
dan aykroyd “I liked the movie Paul Feig made with those spectacular women,” Aykroyd said. “I was mad at them at the time because I was supposed to be a producer on there and I didn’t do my job and I didn’t argue about costs. And it cost perhaps more than it should, and they all do. All these movies do.”
In regards to reboots, I just have to say 3 words: JUST SAY NO! Sequels are okay if they continue the story in a positive way. Most of the time, reboots are just cash grabs and hopefully, these studios will finally see, that they are not. They are money powers of just a tad write-off.
The reason Mignola blocked Del Toro from directing the third Hellboy movie was because he didn't like changes that Del Toro made to the character and wanted a more comic accurate version. That said, the movie has some strange differences from the comic: Hellboy sympathizes with the monsters (the opposite of the comics I read), Professor Broom seems more of a villian, and the comic is less about gore than mood. Go figure.
And sure enough, Mignola is now producing a second reboot that IS focusing on the mood more than gore (The Crooked Man). TBH, makeup isn't good, but it looks promising.
That sounds a lot like how Stephen King didn't like original The Shining movie, and made that TV version that is generally considered to be a lot worse. Mignola should've stuck with Del Toro and worked with him to address his concerns. I haven't read any of the comics with the character in question, but wasn't there a Japanese character that was almost cast with a white actor until the public complained about whitewashing? If that's accurate, then that sounds like quite a deviation.
@KasumiKenshirou I think you mean Ghost in the Shell, where Scarlett Johansson played a Japanese character. And yeah, Mignola and Del Toro should have just ironed out their differences and completed the trilogy.
I'm still open to a more faithful adaptation of the Crow graphic novel. It would be really confusing with Skull cowboy showing up out of nowhere and the crow talking with Eric. Heard the other day they thinking of taking another shot at Robocop. because reasons i guess. I'm mixed on Hellboy, i enjoy David Harbour as Hellboy, but there was too much stuff jammed into it For the most part it had cool special effects but sometimes the hand looked like it was made of plastic.
When will studios learn that if you're going to remake a movie, it needs to be better than the original - so stop remaking classics 'cos they never will be! Learn from Oceans 11: a solid, well made movie that didn't suffer from being negatively compared to the original cos the original was crap!
Remakes and reboots of movies and TV series are like cover versions of songs. They _can_ be good, even surpassing the original, _if they do everything right._ If you're going to do one of these, you do _not_ want a shot-for-shot (or note-for-note) redo, because that will almost always prompt the _why?_ question. That sort of thing can be good exercise, fun for a home movie (or a concert in between the new stuff and the old hits), but not for a full-budget feature for theatrical release or an album. Ideally, you want something that you have an entirely different take on, that stands on its own as a creative work rather than being a do-over of someone else's thing. To my mind, John Carpenter's _The Thing_ is like Jimi Hendrix's "All Along the Watchtower" - it takes the core idea of the original (or in the case of _The Thing,_ the original source material) in a wildly different direction, to the point where future generations are surprised that they _aren't_ the original.
John Carpenter's The Thing made the right move by being moreso an adaptation of the original book than a remake. Because of this, it created a worthy revisit of the concept with some of the best scares and practical effects ever in a film. In fact, any "remake" that instead serves as a new adaptation of the original source mostly has a chance of being good: IT: Chapter One, an adaptation of the 1950s plot from Stephen King's horror doorstopper, comes to mind for me. IT was filmed once as a miniseries, and sure that miniseries is meant to be good, but IT: Chapter One featured effects, frights, and an intense atmosphere that make it a worthy redo of the concept. In fact, it was my first Stephen King film adaptation that I saw and it was a great choice.
Nothing makes me cringe more than that one magazine article where they were hyping up the Universal Monsterverse. And they had al the actors there and were really hyped about it! Only for it to fail badly 😅
The original Ghostbusters is highly overrated I watched that movie for the first time last year and my God is overrated so the 2016 movie looked no better or worse.
When a classic gets remade, my most common response is "Why? Who asked for this?" There are times when a movie gets remade, and is improved, such as with "The Thing", but usually, the result is disappointing, and I'd rather watch the original again.
That's pretty much the gist. Despite the connection between The Thing From Another World and The Thing, the former was black and white while the latter was in color. It's why I don't mind the "The Day the Earth Stood Still" remake with Keanu Reeves. I think there're allowances when there's some significant technological change i.e. silent to sound, black and white to color.
I would not have minded the gender swap if Ghost Busters 2 had been funny, or good, but it just wasn’t. Apparently many of the scenes were largely improvised, and feel it…in the worst possible way. The director is apparently a nice guy, and maybe too nice, as there were many scenes and jokes that should have been scrapped or re-done, but were just left in.
Glad that Universal monsterverse failed. They were so smug thinking that they were 1st to do cinematic universe, so that means auto respect right? Wrong. But I never got the backlash for Tom Cruise for "stealing" The Mummy from Brendan Fraser. Like it's a reboot, of course it'll star another actor. Where was this backlash when The Rock got his Scorpion King spinoff or when The Mysterious Island starred him instead of Fraser, despite being a direct sequel to Journey to the Center of the Earth?
Dan Aykroyd Defends ‘Ghostbusters’ All-Female Reboot Starring Melissa McCarthy, Kristen Wiig "I'm fully supportive of it, and I don't besmirch it at all," the actor and screenwriter says. "I think it works really great amongst all the ones that have been made." BY CARLY THOMAS Plus Icon JULY 27, 2024
I despise studios trying to hide behind cries of "istaphobes!" when people call them on their products being garbage. If they announced tomorrow that they were rebooting "Alien" with some macho dude in the lead role, fans would be irate. Misogyny had nothing to do with the failure of Ghostbusters 2016. A remake is a statement, a claim that there is something fundamentally wrong with the original and it needs to be updated. In some cases, this may be perfectly accurate. Technology changes, we can do things today they couldn't do 50 years ago. Some of the very old movies have outdated references or language that doesn't really resonate today. There are reasons to refresh movies. But the only reason they "remade" Ghostbusters was to make a political statement. They could simply have told a new story in the same universe and nobody would have complained. Telling a story was not their goal.
The Crow was awesome. I’m Crow Indian, grew up a huge Kung Fu (and by extension brandon Lee fan), and I have seen the original enough times to see its flaws. The new Crow is really good if you can get over your boomer aesthetics and expectations.
You should do a video on remakes done right especially remaking bad films and making them better in particular films like 1980s Dune to the new Dune even comparing the first Super Mario Bros with the animated one.
You list all the people slated to play The Crow, yet leave out Jason Momoa the one that people wanted more than anyone. And it still would suck even if he was in it
Yeah, I saw Twisters and wasn't a huge fan. I like each of the actors individually, but the movie as a whole was a bit lackluster. I compare every sequel that comes out decades later to Top Gun: Maverick and so far, they've all fallen short.
I enjoyed twisters. It lacks the kinetic spectacle of the first though. But I liked the performances. However maybe no one asked for it and it did not do well internationally but it was popular in the "fly over" states. So apparently a bad tornado season in the southern United States wouldn't push people away for that movie. So I expected it to do well where I live. Which is texas. It overperformed its opening in the us and I felt it never should have been that underestimated. Hollywood thinks everything is new york and California. Also Glen Powell is hot stuff right now.
I actually really like Ghostbusters 2016. Maybe it's cause I'm not a gigantic fan of the original, having only seen it a couple times, but the 2016 film holds up well as it's own comedy, especially in comparison to a lot of truly awful modern comedies. Plus, most comedies don't get such a large budget or fantastical premises. It's pretty good!
what do you really mean by 'failed'? - commercially or artistically? If the latter, then the most extreme failures must be the JJ Abrams STAR TREKs. the GHOSTBUSTERS revamp was in many respects better than the original, with a more sensible take on the scenario, and not heavily reliant on a Bill Murray type to do something brilliant (though the worst bits were probably the Ackroyd & Murray cameos).
ghostbusters 2016 made more money at the box office than all the other ghostbusters apart from the 1st...... it also has the best critics score on imdb etc..... again apart from the first........ $229 million dollars box office
The Ghostbusters remake was nothing more than a political left wing lecture. End of story. It was box ticking quota filling that totally missed the charm of the original. And your rambling on about why it failed totally missed the point entirely. It was about the woke insertion change for the sake of change- hating the original yet wanting the reboot to be as successful as the original.
The. Constant. Stops., as. If. There. Are. Periods. After. Every. Single. Word. Make. The. Videos. Hard. To. Get. Through. This channel is good. I enjoy the subject matter, editing and writing of the viideos, but the bizarre cadence of the narration is genuinely hard to get through. Not the voice. The voice is good- in fact the videos sound fine when they are reading quotes. Im not sure why, but they dont seem to perform those with the constant stops. I know that the whining and complaining of viewers is probably frustrating. I don't mean to sound mean or inconsiderate and i really believe this strange audio style can be hurting the channel. Thanks for your time.
You can say you don’t like it- that’s fine- but you can’t deny the fact that it is made with such skill and is so highly thought of that it can legitimately be called a masterpiece. Perhaps you haven’t fully understood its nuances or the multiple levels that it is working on, or know enough about filmmaking, or even the context in which it was released, to fully comprehend what makes it great. That is on you. I wrote my masters dissertation on the film, so have pulled it apart from every angle, and I’ve seen enough films to know that the cream rises to the top. It’s a masterpiece. Bona fide. You can argue against that as much as you like but it’s a fact, a widely held one at that, and it’s not going to change because you say so. Robocop = masterpiece.
The female Ghostbusters reboot is far superior to the recent films, which play to all of the worst aspects of sequel bait, and are pretty dreadful films. At least the Feig film approached it from a fresh direction.
![Ice On My Teeth - ATEEZ エイティーズ 에이티즈 [Music Bank] | KBS WORLD TV 241115](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/c-n92OgbbwA/mqdefault.jpg)
The audio quality on this might be worse than usual as I had to record it while dealing with a bout of COVID. My bad 😮💨
Hope you are feeling better. Another brilliant video.
You didn’t skip a beat actually. Great video as always. Get well soon!
dan aykroyd “But boy, I liked that film,” the Saturday Night Live alum continued. “I thought that the villain at the end was great. I loved so much of it. And of course, Kate McKinnon and Leslie Jones and Melissa McCarthy and Kristen Wiig, you’re never going to do better than that. So I go on the record as saying I’m so proud to have been able to license that movie and have a hand and have a part in it, and I’m fully supportive of it, and I don’t besmirch it at all. I think it works really great amongst all the ones that have been made.”
dan aykroyd “I liked the movie Paul Feig made with those spectacular women,” Aykroyd said. “I was mad at them at the time because I was supposed to be a producer on there and I didn’t do my job and I didn’t argue about costs. And it cost perhaps more than it should, and they all do. All these movies do.”
Dan Aykroyd Defends ‘Ghostbusters’ All-Female Reboot Starring Melissa McCarthy, Kristen Wiig "I'm fully supportive of it, and I don't besmirch it at all," the actor and screenwriter says. "I think it works really great amongst all the ones that have been made." BY CARLY THOMAS Plus Icon JULY 27, 2024
The massive success of Disney which owns Marvel / Star Wars / Avatar, pushed other studio executives to ask, why their franchises couldn’t have $billion films.
As a result of that, medium level hits such as with Star Trek (2009), Prometheus, Hellboy or The Mummy were no longer big enough box office for other studios. It was a $billion or failure.
That brought in excessive studio executive meddling with the writing and directing. The result was instead of getting medium level hits, several franchises were killed (for awhile at least) by a filmmaking committee approach.
This is pretty spot on. Bob Iger even said that they started to get disappointed when a movie failed to break a billion dollars. While it's become more common as of the 2010s, it's still a wild ask and studios are going to have to get happy with having modest hits. I hope we see an uptick in mid-budget films as movies like the John Wick series, Civil War, plenty of horrors, and Anyone But You prove they can be successful.
I'd say Avatar is the only outlier because James Cameron seems to be in a category of his own. Then again, I think it's safe to say that he himself is the franchise.
The video game industry went through the same thing but it seems it's finally starting to turn around with the return of medium budget games. The absolute disaster of so many high budget games just bombing seems to have finally opened the doors for mid budget games to come back. I'm hoping that the current state of Hollywood will reset things and we'll finally get some lower budget movies come back
Worst ones are truly The Crow, The Lion King and Psycho
Especially Psycho.
Whenever Disney does a remake I just assume it's for copyright reasons lol
Psycho and Carrie, shot for shot remakes with worse casts, what could go wrong
I honestly don't think Psycho was that bad, Vince Vaughn in a serious role is seriously under rated to me
@@kenon6968Psycho was at least competently directed it was just a baffling choice for Gus
The Robocop remake had a missed opportunity to spoof social media by having some scenes interrupted by an ad for a inworld product. Like how the original had fake commercials.
But that would require imagination and creativity, something directors by comitee heavily lack.
And criticizing corporatism/consumerism? I don't think so😂
My main issue with the Ghostbusters reboot was they forced funny. When you try to force things to be funny, the jokes stop landing
Exactly…Ghost Busters 2 main issue was that it was painfully unfunny and overall not good, not the gender swap. Supposedly many of the scenes were improvised, and felt like it in the worst possible way, and the director was a bit too nice to ask that many of the scenes be scrapped or re-done.
I didnt have too much of a problem with an all female cast. But yeah. They kinda just went directionless and anything that could have been funny they just ruined by trying to be funny. By the end of the movie I was finding myself saying "why don't they shut up?"
Compare that with the reboot with the kids. That one i felt was only successful because they recognized what was successful and threw in nostalgia from the old cartoon. Pretty much anyone who is my age remembers the cartoon and the toys and that movie atleast brought fun to it.
Some movies should never be remade, for the simple reason that they already exist in their optimal form, so any such attempt will _necessarily_ fail.
_Ghostbusters_ and _RoboCop_ are two of them.
Only movies with potential/good concepts but that didn't live up to that potential should be remade. Remaking a classic is just asking to fail. Spawn is the type of thing that should be remade. There's a really good movie to be made from that....but the movie they DID make wasn't it..
Robocop remake ruined coz PG 13 ratings & robocop black design
We need to remind Hollywood to stop remaking movies and make better sequels of our favorite movies like they used to be.
Exactly. A few movies are classics that last, but most are a product of their place and time. And if well done then, about the only thing the re-make can be is worse than the original.
A perfect example of a well done and amazing remake would be Peter Jackson's King Kong, dude that movie is awesome, better than the Monsterverse, hell even Peter managed to give us well written human characters in a monster movie.
It’s a rare sit to see
That movie fucking sucks. Obvious green screens are obvious.
The thing about the Nu-Crow is that it was, in no way, shape or form an adaptation of the comic. And for something that claims to not be remaking the original, it’s hilarious they have a character yell the opening dialogue of the first film directly at the protagonist.
I have a passionate hatred for The Crow 2024, as someone heavily biased towards the original and its personal meaning to me. They had the gall basically to release it on the 30th anniversary of the original film, and didn't bother to at least be interesting with it. The late Brandon Lee has been in the ground for 30 years and people _still_ won't stop pissing on his legacy. I just take solace in the fact that the reboot flopped.
Paul Feig still complaining this week.😅
I saw that lol
The funniest thing about Ghostbusters is the video game was essentially the third movie. It was that good. Absolutely loved it. Yes it's not a movie but it still felt like a sequel to the movies with great writing and a lot of the cast reprising their roles
Yup, Ivan Reitman would agree with you.
Reminds of wanted the weapons of fate is the officials 2nd sequel of 2008 wanted movie
The original Crow movie was really lightning in a bottle. It was a bad idea to remake it.
I just watched it recently and made me appreciate life. Brendon Lee’s spirit is sealed in it. There no need for a remake nor the sequels.
They failed because nobody wanted any of these reboots.
I don't have a horse in the Ghostbusters race, but it seems like the studio could've come up with an original vehicle for such a great cast as the remake had. It was no fair to the new crew to make them have to live up to the originals, and I think it would've been the same with an all-male SNL-alum cast. Nobody likes replacement icons foisted on them.
I think that's accurate. It was a losing battle and even the other Ghostbusters movie since 2016 haven't done as well as the original.
@@Syntopikon Agreed, I actually didn't mind the 2016 Ghostbusters film (it had it's good moments and it's BAD moments), it's just that when you have to compare to the two originals, it's already a losing battle.
The lady busters had an awful script and then as has been dissected elsewhere the directors pacing and cuts were nowhere as precise as the original. Poor script led to overacting and the Final Cut‘s pacing was lousy
It's hard to imagine how a movie that collected $400 million+ is a failure while most movies that gross half of that is a superhit. I know the production cost plays a major role but still, grossing a $400 million+ means a lot of people are watching and it did a great business. So, what's the... I don't have the appropriate word for it! (Of course Cruise's The Mummy is a disappointment)
It's an excellent question. There's a lot of opaqueness when it comes to whether or not a movie is a success, as evidenced by the numerous litigation over Hollywood accounting (Peter Jackson sued New Line because they claimed that the LOTR movies, which raked in nearly $3b on less than $300m in total budgets, made not money). There are very few actual budgets available to read (The Village, directed by M. Night Shyamalan, is one of the few, thanks to a lawsuit).
A movie usually needs to make 2-2.5x its budget in order to breakeven. There are the production costs and the distribution costs. Sometimes, a studio does one or the other. But the majors - Universal, Disney, Warner Bros., Paramount - handle both. They front the production cost (costs associated with making the movie, from pre-production to shooting to post-production) and the distribution cost (that's the marketing, promotion, getting it into theaters, and the strategy of the release). In The Mummy's case, it was reported to be as much as $195 million for production and another $150m for marketing (according to reports).
That means it needed to make at least $390m - $487m to break even (reports said around $450). That's because of the marketing costs (print & advertising, the split with the theaters which starts out in the studios favor on opening weekend and moves to the theaters favor as time goes on [which is also why theaters rely on concessions to make money]).
Cheaper movies can be profitable because they might in a genre that has an embedded fan base (like horror movies, which often do solid business on small budgets because there's a lot of horror fans) or because their marketing strategy punched above its weight and got people into theaters, or because it was a sleeper hit (like the first Joker movie).
Doing a movie like The Mummy means that the studio expects a home run hit: big bet, big payoff. Bob Iger said that at Disney, it got to the point where if a Marvel movie didn't hit a billion, they were disappointed. Those are the kinds of numbers a $200 million dollar movie is usually looking for (or at least close to it).
@@Syntopikon Thanks for replying wow. Don't mind if I'm mistaken, is that a Chatgpt answer? (It's rhetorical, I hope you're not offended). Keep up the good work. Love from London ❤️.
A lot of movies these days hide how much they spent on a movie just because of the sheer amount it needs to make to be profitable, they spend an absolutely insane amount of money on movies these days and breaking even is not a "success" in the mind of a business, even if people liked the movie and a lot went to see it because in the end they spent too much for that to matter
thank you so much for including the robocop dummy shot at 17:35 its one of the funniest ever to me
Here are a couple things I see a lot with nostalgic remakes & reboots:
One- The studio thinks that the name alone is enough to garner myriads of fans. They don’t even try to understand why the original worked or how it became popular; they instead dash off some mess vaguely similar to the original and expect fans to embrace it as strongly or even more strongly than the original, buy merch, and clamor for sequels. When many fans respond, “Um…what the blazes is this?!” instead, they get bitter, which leads to the second thing I’ve seen happen a lot.
Two- The fanbase is not universally accepting of the new version. A lot of times what happens is the fanbase is divided, with some being critical & dismissive and others saying, “Hey, let ‘em cook! This might be a shot in the arm for the franchise and lead to good things down the road!” Instead of saying, “We hope you enjoy the new version because we tried to make something you’d like,” the studios and stars get bitter at the fanbase for not gushing over their project. The makers will look the fanbase right in the eye and claim, “Who cares if you don’t watch/read it!? This wasn’t made for you!” Who was it made for, then, and if it doesn’t matter that the fans watch/read it, why are you angry they’re not watching/reading it? They’ll also claim the fans are all bigots that hate everything. Before anyone says anything, yes, there have been people- whether fans or outsiders- who have made bigoted remarks about projects. There really were some people who made racist comments about Star Wars and sexist comments about Ghostbusters. However, as terrible as these people are, they do not represent the majority of fans and critics, and trying to pass off anyone with a criticism- or even a lack of interest- as a bigot is damaging. There are actually people who claim that The Acolyte failed because Star Wars fans demanded it be cancelled because they hate “lesbian space witches” (Um…what?). In reality it was cancelled due to low ratings, and if you look at reviews fans will cite poor writing and characterization. Claiming, “The fans are all just hateful bigots who can’t appreciate anything and that’s why the project failed!” is not going to garner fan support.
You know what is a good continuation in my opinion? The new version of Night Court. It respects the original & its fans while having the same kind of humor & heart. When you respect the fans and what they like, they respect you.
Just look Godzilla 98. The marketing was clever but the movie just didn’t feel like a Godzilla movie.
Spike Lee's "reimagining" of the classic Korean movie, Old Boy is #1 on my sh*t remakes list. It's absolutely abysmal, apart from the "father" scene. (If you've watched it, you will know what I mean). 😀
I forgot about that one.
I heard even Lee disowned it.
Wait, they made even _more_ Ghostbusters movies, and they made money?! What a world.
i havent seen them but they give me Marvel vibes from Rudd being involved and i just dont really find him to be a hook in movies, i actually kinda dislike him
Honestly, I think they're actually worse than the 2016 remake. 2016 was just generically bad and unfunny but I find modern nostalgia bait movies like afterlife and frozen empire to be so cynical and kind of gross. Not to mention the CG Harold Remus appearance that just came off as so tasteless
Interesting you mentioned Scarface (1983) and The Thing (1982) in the beginning of remakes that did do well, and while they have gathered popularity over the years, they both still bombed heavily at the box office, and even received Razzie nominations as well. I guess that's something for a whole other video idea because you could also include The Shining in that lineup as well (minus the remake factor).
You could argue there was a remake of The Shining because there was a three-part TV miniseries adaptation in 1997. Whether it’s a remake or merely a different adaptation, I’m guessing it wasn’t well received since it’s never talked about.
I for one still think that without studio interference and given an R-rating Padilha could have made a good RoboCop movie. His Elite Squad movies have some similar themes as RoboCop. But lesson is, never make a studio mandated remake of a Paul Verhoeven film. It's an failed endevour from the start. Especially with an PG-13 rating. Total Recall remake was also generic action movie crap.
As for The Mummy, in my opinion it's hardly a remake of the 1999 movie. The movies have very little in common. They just wanted to use the property to start the Dark Universe. The 1999 Mummy has more in common with 1932 one.
If they didn't want an R rating, why hire Padilha at all? They was stupid.
The reason why these types of movies fail is simply because they lack any creativity. Instead of adding or exploring what came before, they simply steal and do the same while not understanding what makes those old films great. IT'S all about the money and nothing else. And when they fail, it's somehow the customers that are wrong. Maybe it's me but I know what I like and what I dislike.
Honestly, the best choices for remakes are not classics but films with interesting premises that just didn't hit the mark. The Thing is a perfect example where you have a short story based around a shape shifting alien and the movie just turns it into a Frankenstein esque monster. The 82 remake brought life to that amazing concept in a way the original film didn't.
Something like Highlander would be a great choice for a remake if done well imo because although that movie has a cult following, the film itself is, let's face it, pretty bad but the concept of a tontine amongst immortal warriors is badass and a sincere update made by a fan of the original that explores that idea with more depth and a better script could be fantastic
Nah the remake was an all women cast "just because". There was no reason for it to be all female, they simply thought it would be "edgy"
Well, it has some reasoning behind it , although the re-make took it too far. 80s films WERE a bit of a sausage fest, with Star Wars having like 4 women in the galaxy, apparently, or most action movies having women there to just instantly fall in love with the 20-plus year older leading man, and then be baggage to drag along or be rescued.
That is good 80s-cheese and wish-fulfillment for some, but gets old after a while.
The main issue with GB 2 was that it was just…painfully unfunny. Supposedly many of the scenes were improvised, and felt like it in the worst possible way. It was also a bad idea and a cash grab from the from the start. The first was a “lightening in a bottle” movie that was a product of its time, and that is nearly impossible to recreate - any re-make can pretty much only be worse, even the sequels where they had many of the original cast in their roles.
I hear Psycho is terrible because it is merely a shot-for-shot remake, except in colour. I haven't seen either version. The remake I want to add to this list is Total Recall.
Yup, Total Recall would also fit. Psycho simply didn't need to be done.
Some other great remakes: The Four Feathers, The Invasion of the Body Snatchers. Some other bad ones: Total Recall, Fant4stick
This channel is a gem and I'm happy it's growing. Keep up the great work.
I think a remake of the crow no matter who played it would be a flop it's a remake nobody wanted
Should be a legacy sequel that takes places in brandon lee the crow universe
Cushing and Lee weren't one of the greatest friendships in Hollywood history. They were one of the greatest friendships in the British film industry ;)
Lol fair point
The original ghost busters are classic but I really like the new reboot with all female. It was hilarious I’m sorry. One of those bad good movies!!!!! Definitely loved Chris Hemsworth being apart of it too ❤️
Very good, however I can think of two films that shares a common source material, the first was slated, the second loved and not considered to be a reboot of the first: Judge Dredd and the superb Dredd.
Remeber Red Dawn 1984 movie that people sees as Propaganda but no one talks about how Red Dawn 2012 is Actually Propaganda i cringed when they have one of the character rob a subway and they reference Call of Duty i was rooting for the Chinese i mean North Koreans
You just jogged my memory and made me remember that I actually saw the 2012 remake in theaters.
I forgot about that. The villains were going to be Chinese, but the studio changed it at the last minute to North Koreans to appease their Chinese investors. Marvel did something similar in Dr. Strange, changing The Ancient One from being a Tibetan man to Tilda Swinton to appease the Chinese. I don't know why they couldn't just change the Chinese dub to have him say he's from mainland China and hates Winnie the Pooh or whatever the hell kind of crap the CCP wanted. They filmed special scenes exclusively for the Chinese version of one of the Iron Man movies.
They should leave well enough alone. The original one from Fall 1984 with an all star cast which was the first film has a PG-13 rating,
it was very successful.
While Christian Nyby's 1951 film THE THING (FROM ANOTHER WORLD) and John Carpenter's 1982 remake THE THING are both classics in their own rights, the John Carpenter film was actually more faithful to the original source material, John W. Campbell's novella WHO GOES THERE?.
It's not just the creators who are out of ideas, audiences want the same thing over and over again too. They don't want the trouble of thinking of new opinions.
Ah man, I could’ve been happy not knowing they rebooted The Crow but apparently they didn’t listen.
I couldnt believe they were remaking Psycho. The ending is the whole iconic feature and once that is known, nobody cares if another actor is going to do it. Destined to fail.
The one movie every studio is afraid to remake and good reason to NOT TOUCH, is The Princess Bride.
It amuses me that the GB reboot is still the second highest grossing GB film after the original. I don't like the film, but the two proper sequels underscore that there's not a ton of interest in the franchise despite being better received.
Not every great movie needs to be a franchise.
Anybody looking at the Crow remake and saying "Hey, yeah. Let's do that!" is kind of baffling to me.
The worst one has to be the Ghostbusters 2016 remake, though. That one seemed almost *designed* to piss fans off. Not only was it not particularly funny, but it relegated the original Ghostbusters to bit parts. They would've been better off leaving the original cast out of it entirely than to give them insulting parts.
I still think The Crow might be worst. There's something no one wanted.
Though I wonder if the REAL worst one might be one I didn't include: 2016s Ben-Hur. It's like trying to remake Titanic or LOTR.
Universal monster universe was probably the biggest failure. They had so many movies lined up after Cruise's Mummy movie.
Listen Hellboy 2019 aint bad.....no its not Toro quality but its fun popcorn film i guess cause i love Baba in the 2019.....thats my girl
The female Ghostbusters could have served as a sequel if done correctly.
Ghostbusters reboot could have worked if it had a different name and a different cast, not a completely different casts just a few recast roles with more likeable actually funny actors.
I love how sexism is blamed for that shitty ghostbusters remake but movies like pitch perfect are huge hits.
This is why studios are backing away from all female casts because immediately it’s not a shit script or casts is “sexism”
i remember liking the Ghostbusters remake, but that's because i never watched the og one when i first watched the remake
Did you end up watching the original later on?
Ghostbusters -- I'm a woman, and I have just never liked Kristin Wiig. I didn't like her on SNL. I never found her funny. Melissa McCarthy--I liked her in Gilmore Girls, and I like Spy (mainly because Jason Stratham is so funny in this movie), but I also don't find her all that funny, although I like her more dramatic turns. But, between the two of them, there was nothing about the 2016 Ghostbusters that appealed to me in any way.
I mean people found them funny Bridesmaids was the highest grossing comedy of the year it came out so obviously they aren’t hated. The movie wasn’t good because it wasn’t good that’s all
@@dcluvspie5777 I didn't find Bridesmaids funny at all. But that's just not my sense of humor. Again, I have never found Kristin Wiig funny in slightest, and I realize I'm all by myself with that opinion.
I like Wiig, but not McCarthy. But I think both are better in dramas anyway.
Melissa McCarthy ruined wontons for me forever.
I don't believe it was the woman cast for "Ghostbusters" but the women they chose. Melissa McCarthy? Leslie Jones? Kate McKinnon? Kristin Wiig? They couldn't find any better female comedians at the time?
Leslie Jones was the only one who actually brought some life and heart to the film and Wiig is actually good in other things but McKinnon and McCarthy are just awful
I hate to say but it was a female cast that killed any interest.
They could’ve casted Sigourney Weaver, Scarlett Johansson and Michelle Yeoh in that crap and the audience would’ve still flipped out.
Call it sexism but ultimately it was a stupid decision by the studio and the director. It’s like gender swapping the Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles for no other reason but studio reasons.
And it’s still not a popular decision yet some studio still try to do it.
I'd rather have them stop making films until they can actually come up with new ideas.
I thought the RoboCop remake was pretty good. It actually revitalized Michale Keatons career.
dan aykroyd “But boy, I liked that film,” the Saturday Night Live alum continued. “I thought that the villain at the end was great. I loved so much of it. And of course, Kate McKinnon and Leslie Jones and Melissa McCarthy and Kristen Wiig, you’re never going to do better than that. So I go on the record as saying I’m so proud to have been able to license that movie and have a hand and have a part in it, and I’m fully supportive of it, and I don’t besmirch it at all. I think it works really great amongst all the ones that have been made.”
So it seems the problem with most of these remakes is that they switch the genre they were originally supposed to be.
I have a cool idea for a video: Trilogies with forgotten extra films. Idk if it there would be enough for a full video but I think it would be cool to look into. (an example of this could be something like the jason bourne trilogy that actually has 5 films total in the franchise)
Every movie you name was just sad memories that can't go away... I think The Crow Remake got me upset out of all the Movies in this list. Maybe if they change the Title to The Crow it might of work out?? You forgot Wickerman, Total Recall, Red Dawn, Point Break, does Disney Live actions Remakes Count??? If so all of Disney Live Action Remakes are BAD👎👎
dan aykroyd “I liked the movie Paul Feig made with those spectacular women,” Aykroyd said. “I was mad at them at the time because I was supposed to be a producer on there and I didn’t do my job and I didn’t argue about costs. And it cost perhaps more than it should, and they all do. All these movies do.”
Dracula has been done and redone dozens of times some of which were fantastic.
Dracula is permanently stamped in pop culture.
In regards to reboots, I just have to say 3 words:
JUST SAY NO!
Sequels are okay if they continue the story in a positive way. Most of the time, reboots are just cash grabs and hopefully, these studios will finally see, that they are not. They are money powers of just a tad write-off.
The reason Mignola blocked Del Toro from directing the third Hellboy movie was because he didn't like changes that Del Toro made to the character and wanted a more comic accurate version. That said, the movie has some strange differences from the comic: Hellboy sympathizes with the monsters (the opposite of the comics I read), Professor Broom seems more of a villian, and the comic is less about gore than mood. Go figure.
And sure enough, Mignola is now producing a second reboot that IS focusing on the mood more than gore (The Crooked Man).
TBH, makeup isn't good, but it looks promising.
That sounds a lot like how Stephen King didn't like original The Shining movie, and made that TV version that is generally considered to be a lot worse. Mignola should've stuck with Del Toro and worked with him to address his concerns.
I haven't read any of the comics with the character in question, but wasn't there a Japanese character that was almost cast with a white actor until the public complained about whitewashing? If that's accurate, then that sounds like quite a deviation.
@KasumiKenshirou I think you mean Ghost in the Shell, where Scarlett Johansson played a Japanese character. And yeah, Mignola and Del Toro should have just ironed out their differences and completed the trilogy.
I'm still open to a more faithful adaptation of the Crow graphic novel. It would be really confusing with Skull cowboy showing up out of nowhere and the crow talking with Eric.
Heard the other day they thinking of taking another shot at Robocop. because reasons i guess.
I'm mixed on Hellboy, i enjoy David Harbour as Hellboy, but there was too much stuff jammed into it
For the most part it had cool special effects but sometimes the hand looked like it was made of plastic.
When will studios learn that if you're going to remake a movie, it needs to be better than the original - so stop remaking classics 'cos they never will be! Learn from Oceans 11: a solid, well made movie that didn't suffer from being negatively compared to the original cos the original was crap!
Plus, Soderbergh is a genuinely great director. The most unnecessary remake might be the one I didn't include: Ben-Hur.
I LIKED the female ghostbusters movie
The Fog remake from 2005 is the worst remake I've ever seen. Which makes it a contender for worst movie I've ever seen period..
Man leave it up to Aronofsky to come up with the most batshit interpretation of a pretty simple franchise
It's why I dig him lol
Dude's slightly wacky, but makes interesting stuff.
Remakes and reboots of movies and TV series are like cover versions of songs. They _can_ be good, even surpassing the original, _if they do everything right._
If you're going to do one of these, you do _not_ want a shot-for-shot (or note-for-note) redo, because that will almost always prompt the _why?_ question. That sort of thing can be good exercise, fun for a home movie (or a concert in between the new stuff and the old hits), but not for a full-budget feature for theatrical release or an album.
Ideally, you want something that you have an entirely different take on, that stands on its own as a creative work rather than being a do-over of someone else's thing.
To my mind, John Carpenter's _The Thing_ is like Jimi Hendrix's "All Along the Watchtower" - it takes the core idea of the original (or in the case of _The Thing,_ the original source material) in a wildly different direction, to the point where future generations are surprised that they _aren't_ the original.
John Carpenter's The Thing made the right move by being moreso an adaptation of the original book than a remake. Because of this, it created a worthy revisit of the concept with some of the best scares and practical effects ever in a film.
In fact, any "remake" that instead serves as a new adaptation of the original source mostly has a chance of being good: IT: Chapter One, an adaptation of the 1950s plot from Stephen King's horror doorstopper, comes to mind for me. IT was filmed once as a miniseries, and sure that miniseries is meant to be good, but IT: Chapter One featured effects, frights, and an intense atmosphere that make it a worthy redo of the concept. In fact, it was my first Stephen King film adaptation that I saw and it was a great choice.
As always, it usually depends on the script, direction, cast, and budget.
+producers too
Coz sometimes the producers interferences could ruined the movie like that happened with godzilla 98
Nothing makes me cringe more than that one magazine article where they were hyping up the Universal Monsterverse. And they had al the actors there and were really hyped about it! Only for it to fail badly 😅
The 2017 Mummy might not have been good, but it *did* have one of the better movie tie-in games.
Best remake/ reboot was EVIL DEAD 2013
The original Ghostbusters is highly overrated I watched that movie for the first time last year and my God is overrated so the 2016 movie looked no better or worse.
When a classic gets remade, my most common response is "Why? Who asked for this?" There are times when a movie gets remade, and is improved, such as with "The Thing", but usually, the result is disappointing, and I'd rather watch the original again.
That's pretty much the gist. Despite the connection between The Thing From Another World and The Thing, the former was black and white while the latter was in color. It's why I don't mind the "The Day the Earth Stood Still" remake with Keanu Reeves. I think there're allowances when there's some significant technological change i.e. silent to sound, black and white to color.
Can’t stand pretty much any Tom Cruise movie after Risky Business
This an almost never ending list. And some of thoose could actually be good, like Hellboy.
I would not have minded the gender swap if Ghost Busters 2 had been funny, or good, but it just wasn’t. Apparently many of the scenes were largely improvised, and feel it…in the worst possible way. The director is apparently a nice guy, and maybe too nice, as there were many scenes and jokes that should have been scrapped or re-done, but were just left in.
Ghostbusters with an all female cast took the biscuit for me. The worst sequel everrr
Glad that Universal monsterverse failed. They were so smug thinking that they were 1st to do cinematic universe, so that means auto respect right? Wrong.
But I never got the backlash for Tom Cruise for "stealing" The Mummy from Brendan Fraser. Like it's a reboot, of course it'll star another actor.
Where was this backlash when The Rock got his Scorpion King spinoff or when The Mysterious Island starred him instead of Fraser, despite being a direct sequel to Journey to the Center of the Earth?
I enjoyed the crow 2024
Dan Aykroyd Defends ‘Ghostbusters’ All-Female Reboot Starring Melissa McCarthy, Kristen Wiig "I'm fully supportive of it, and I don't besmirch it at all," the actor and screenwriter says. "I think it works really great amongst all the ones that have been made." BY CARLY THOMAS Plus Icon JULY 27, 2024
2004's Dawn of The Dead did it right
I despise studios trying to hide behind cries of "istaphobes!" when people call them on their products being garbage. If they announced tomorrow that they were rebooting "Alien" with some macho dude in the lead role, fans would be irate. Misogyny had nothing to do with the failure of Ghostbusters 2016. A remake is a statement, a claim that there is something fundamentally wrong with the original and it needs to be updated. In some cases, this may be perfectly accurate. Technology changes, we can do things today they couldn't do 50 years ago. Some of the very old movies have outdated references or language that doesn't really resonate today. There are reasons to refresh movies. But the only reason they "remade" Ghostbusters was to make a political statement. They could simply have told a new story in the same universe and nobody would have complained. Telling a story was not their goal.
I kinda like new hellboi
Hellboy fighting the giant ogres was awesome!
@@awesomedallastours yeah! We kinda like it. Great movie with low budget. Still fun, not like general movie these days
*cough*snow*cough*white...
they should had never made those films in the first place; thay way money would be saved and actors careers would be unscathed
The Crow was awesome. I’m Crow Indian, grew up a huge Kung Fu (and by extension brandon Lee fan), and I have seen the original enough times to see its flaws. The new Crow is really good if you can get over your boomer aesthetics and expectations.
The Mummy had a broken trailer uploaded, go see it it's hilarious
You should do a video on remakes done right especially remaking bad films and making them better in particular films like 1980s Dune to the new Dune even comparing the first Super Mario Bros with the animated one.
Nice video
You list all the people slated to play The Crow, yet leave out Jason Momoa the one that people wanted more than anyone. And it still would suck even if he was in it
The recent Twisters, who asked for that? But the very worst in my memory is the Psycho remake. It truly disgusted me.
Yeah, I saw Twisters and wasn't a huge fan. I like each of the actors individually, but the movie as a whole was a bit lackluster. I compare every sequel that comes out decades later to Top Gun: Maverick and so far, they've all fallen short.
I enjoyed twisters. It lacks the kinetic spectacle of the first though. But I liked the performances. However maybe no one asked for it and it did not do well internationally but it was popular in the "fly over" states. So apparently a bad tornado season in the southern United States wouldn't push people away for that movie. So I expected it to do well where I live. Which is texas. It overperformed its opening in the us and I felt it never should have been that underestimated. Hollywood thinks everything is new york and California. Also Glen Powell is hot stuff right now.
I actually really like Ghostbusters 2016. Maybe it's cause I'm not a gigantic fan of the original, having only seen it a couple times, but the 2016 film holds up well as it's own comedy, especially in comparison to a lot of truly awful modern comedies. Plus, most comedies don't get such a large budget or fantastical premises. It's pretty good!
Is your real name David Manning?
The Mummy bombed because Tom Cruise made it about himself instead of the title character
No..Top Gun was rubbish.
what do you really mean by 'failed'? - commercially or artistically? If the latter, then the most extreme failures must be the JJ Abrams STAR TREKs.
the GHOSTBUSTERS revamp was in many respects better than the original, with a more sensible take on the scenario, and not heavily reliant on a Bill Murray type to do something brilliant (though the worst bits were probably the Ackroyd & Murray cameos).
ghostbusters 2016 made more money at the box office than all the other ghostbusters apart from the 1st......
it also has the best critics score on imdb etc..... again apart from the first........ $229 million dollars box office
The Ghostbusters remake was nothing more than a political left wing lecture. End of story. It was box ticking quota filling that totally missed the charm of the original. And your rambling on about why it failed totally missed the point entirely. It was about the woke insertion change for the sake of change- hating the original yet wanting the reboot to be as successful as the original.
Can't wait for the SKIBIDI TOILET movie btw
👍👍👍
I liked the 2014 Robocop movie.
Scarface is a remake?!?!?!?
Yup. The original Scarface movie is from 1932 and takes place Chicago. And both are adapted from a 1929 novel.
@@Syntopikon 😯
The. Constant. Stops., as. If. There. Are. Periods. After. Every. Single. Word. Make. The. Videos. Hard. To. Get. Through. This channel is good. I enjoy the subject matter, editing and writing of the viideos, but the bizarre cadence of the narration is genuinely hard to get through. Not the voice. The voice is good- in fact the videos sound fine when they are reading quotes. Im not sure why, but they dont seem to perform those with the constant stops. I know that the whining and complaining of viewers is probably frustrating. I don't mean to sound mean or inconsiderate and i really believe this strange audio style can be hurting the channel. Thanks for your time.
jesus.. you need to hire a narrator
Calling Robocop a masterpiece is crazy
It’s accurate
It's really not
You can say you don’t like it- that’s fine- but you can’t deny the fact that it is made with such skill and is so highly thought of that it can legitimately be called a masterpiece.
Perhaps you haven’t fully understood its nuances or the multiple levels that it is working on, or know enough about filmmaking, or even the context in which it was released, to fully comprehend what makes it great. That is on you.
I wrote my masters dissertation on the film, so have pulled it apart from every angle, and I’ve seen enough films to know that the cream rises to the top. It’s a masterpiece. Bona fide.
You can argue against that as much as you like but it’s a fact, a widely held one at that, and it’s not going to change because you say so.
Robocop = masterpiece.
The female Ghostbusters reboot is far superior to the recent films, which play to all of the worst aspects of sequel bait, and are pretty dreadful films. At least the Feig film approached it from a fresh direction.
NO.
Where did you come from, Reddit? At least Afterlife has a soul. Unlike 2016.
Nah. The recent films suck but Feig's are worse.