Seriously what is next?
Which movie will talentless Hollywood morons butcher next?
They added a twist to make Rosemary' Baby more interesting, a black actress. Sorry guys, but the movie was about acting, about the atmosphere of constant fear, if you even bothered to see it, you wouldn't touch it.
I am pissed, obviously.
Yes, this is a complete travesty. Changing the race of the lead character and moving the location a few thousand miles is not exactly creative genius, and doesn't hide the fact that htis is a complete ripoff.
shareYes, this is a complete travesty. Changing the race of the lead character and moving the location a few thousand miles is not exactly creative genius, and doesn't hide the fact that htis is a complete ripoff.
share"The Shining" already was re-made, and also for TV.
shareOk, then Forrest Gump.
I read later on this board about the Shinning, big successful remake.
There are many books that never made it to the big screen, why not use some of them? Or better yet, come up with an original screenplay...
No matter how you felt about the TV re-make (if you even saw it) it was Stephen King's idea. It was more faithful to the book and what King always regretted after seeing the infamous Kubrick film with Jack Nicholson. I still love the film though.
shareI enjoyed seeing the book-centered version of the Shining out of respect for the original story and the father's heroism(as opposed to Kubrick making him a dangerous maniac). It actually got me to read the book, because I hadn't realized the original story was so different But the movie is a classic of unrestrained madness and cinematic beauty using the original story as a jumping off point.
shareYou guys make a very good point. I've always loved the novel and with the exception of the opening shot and "All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy," I was disappointed in Kubrick's treatment. Scatman Crothers was an excellent Dick Hallorann, otherwise casting was horrible and nothing like King's characters. Changes in plot were awful (I remember having the bejeepers scared out of me when Jack gets a short-wave transmission from his dead mother; this didn't appear in the movie). I fully understand why King was disappointed in Kubrick's release. As a stand-alone, I can understand why people love it but as a filmed version of a truly fantastic novel? A vanity project.
shareOnce I got to know the real Hallorann character in the show and book, it makes me sick how Kubrick kills him off like some kind of throwaway joke. The wasp nest part of the original was great. I wasn't the biggest fan of attack by giant topiary animals, though. But the whole story about how the Dad was tying to keep himself and everything under control despite the demons inside and outside himself was really a great story of courage and endurance.
shareThe wasp nest part of the original was great.
Yea, Lolita was great. Everything by Kubrick is done well, but people who only know the movie of The Shining should check out the original story.
Did you see the version of Lolita that was done in the 90s? I wouldn't call it a "remake" because it was just a movie based on the same source material, not a reimagining of the film.
It was no classic, but I thought it was worthwhile because it had a simpler more naturalistic style which emphasized how depressing the concept is. I haven't seen it in a long time, but I remember thinking that it's use of color and lighting made everything seem very bleak, like the greater detail brought out the flaws of the people and locations. In doing so, it missed the irony and absurdity of the novel and Kubrick's film, though.
Key difference between The Shining and Lolita:
For The Shining, Kubrick bought the rights and wrote the scrpipt, with the author having no say.
For Lilita, Nabakov wrote a script based on his own book. This script was then rewritten by Kubrick, but a lot of the changes from the book, most significantly the buildup of the Quilty part, were already in Nabakov's script.
Hey people, nice side shot of Kubrick vs King.
Of course the book is a more elaborate in depth of the Shining. As was Lolita.
Kubrick was his own guy. I don't believe he ever had any intention of being faithful to source material. He re-imagined them, is all.
"The Shining" by Kubrick is an all time Gothic horror film classic largely because of some of his changes.
The thing about Kubrick is? He needs to be judged on his own esthetic. His films are more like? A filmed story as if it were presented one page at a time from a 'Life Magazine Essay', circa the 1940's-1950's. He lets the 'still frame' hold, and we bring our emotions to it. In essence, cold photography creating warm emotions. He was an innovator, yet completely the product of his time.
Guys are still doing it, in different ways. Terence Malick comes to mind.
Now, I haven't seen the new "Rosemary's Baby" yet, but I'm going to try not to compare it to the 1968 film.
Polanski's key theme during the 60's was 'paranoia', and "RB" is his tour de force.
There is no way to duplicate the 'old biddies culture' of 1960's NYC, so they decided to ignore it completely. Probably a wise move.
I'll try to watch on it's own terms. I'm not expecting it to be as good as the original. I mean, that was a great film.
Example? it's movie night at the house, and you have 6 choices: Oliver!, Funny Girl1, The Lion In Winter, Rachel, Rachel, Romeo and Juliet, and Rosemary's Baby.
Which one you picking? Those were the Oscar nominees for best picture in 1968. Oliver! won.
What sets Rosemary's Baby apart is how viscerally the paranoia shows through from technical film making. Very similar to "Invasion Of The Body Snatchers", 1957.
Good point about the paranoia element of the original Rosemary's Baby. When I saw it for the first time, I had a fairly good idea what was going to happen based on the film's cultural influence, but I really appreciated the sense of ambiguity and veiled menace. That's why it was so important for it to be 99% or more free of overt violence.
I don't mind the violence in the remake because it's not letting us know anything we weren't meant to know already. It feels more like watching the Omen, which is also a great horror movie. What viewer ever thought that Damien was a normal child or that anyone who got in his way wasn't going to die in some horrible yet conceptually interesting way? One can know what's going on, but still identify with a character's confusion.
To me, most of the violent scenes in the remake are handled in a stylish, gothic horror manner rather than mindless gore. At worst there were a couple things out of a standard issue crime film--except for the heart thing which I agree should have been implied if they had to have it at all.
There are a few good creepy images like the priest being forced to hang himself by a supernatural vision of himself hanging, Mrs. Castevet's Satanic ritual in the hospital chapel (all you have to do is invert the cross that's already there and you have an instant, convenient black magic workspace!) and it's deadly results, and a couple other things.
I also agree that trying to recreate the literal setting and culture of the original would have been a mistake. Pretty shocking looking back on which movies win Oscars. :)
Did you see the version of Lolita that was done in the 90s?
I read later on this board about the Shinning, big successful remake.
They have already remade "The Shining." Of course, it sucked. The arrogance of filmmakers of this generation amazes me; they really believe they can improve upon the works of Polanski and Kubrick. It's a bit sad actually..
"IMdB; where 14 year olds can act like jaded 40 year old critics...'
The Shining was not remade. A miniseries was based directly on the radically different story told in the book.
shareWell then I guess you can say the same thing about "Rosemary's Baby;" It wasn't really remade; this is just a mini series that is radically different from it's source material as well...
"IMdB; where 14 year olds can act like jaded 40 year old critics...'
Well it's actually kind of the opposite. The Shining miniseries was faithful to the book's story which I said was "radically different" than the story of Kubrick's film. Kubrick--Jack goes insane and menaces his family. King--Jack retains control and sacrifices himself for them. Among many other differences.
Rosemary's Baby the miniseries is not based on a literal reading of the book but takes the basic story outline but re-tells it as gothic horror rather than Polanski's seemingly Hitchcock influenced urban paranoia tale.
To me it's the RB story transplanted to the universe of The Omen. I like it about as much as I like the Omen II, which is to say I think it's worth seeing but not great. If the whole thing lived up to the standards of its best scenes I'd like it as much as a minor Hammer horror film.
The "story" of "Rosemary's Baby" is not the problem with this remake; it's just the movie itself..the awful camera work, the wretched casting and poor acting, the cheap, nauseating gore effects etc. It's just an awful film, that looks like a bad tv show. "Damian: Omen II," I happened to like that film very much. It isn't an unimaginative remake of some better film, but rather a logical, intelligent continuation of a great story. The casting of that film was great, as were the military school and home settings that it takes place in. I saw nothing wrong with that sequel, and I like "Omen III: The Final Conflict" as well; I believe the Omen trilogy is classic..3 original films that tell a good story, with a satisfying beginning, middle and conclusion, (what better way for that story to culminate than with the son of Satan going for the Presidency? But this remake was just terrible movie making, which makes little sense, as the director has done impressive work in the past. It was a waste of time, and utterly pointless.
"IMdB; where 14 year olds can act like jaded 40 year old critics...'
I never said "The Shining" mini series was bad. I didn't comment either way on it's quality. I don't remember much about it, so I assumed it was just another remake.
"IMdB; where 14 year olds can act like jaded 40 year old critics...'
The Shining miniseries was kind of bland at times but had fascinating story elements drawn from the book, and did not treat the Torrence family characters as weirdos or gratuitously kill off Hallorann.
shareI never said "The Shining" mini series was bad. I didn't comment either way on it's quality. I don't remember much about it, so I assumed it was just another remake.
by Pinku_Eiga » 6 days ago (Mon May 12 2014 11:30:54):
They have already remade "The Shining." Of course, it sucked. The arrogance of filmmakers of this generation amazes me; they really believe they can improve upon the works of Polanski and Kubrick. It's a bit sad actually..
I just need to see it again; it's been so long since I have watched that version, and I just don't remember it leaving any kind of impression. I need to see it again with the facts you told me, in mind. I remember looking at how the film was crafted more than how it was written. Also I was comparing it to Kubrick's version only, as I never read S. King's book.. The film from S. Kubrick is just such an incredible work of art IMO, that nothing could compare..did he really change the events of the book that much?
"IMdB; where 14 year olds can act like jaded 40 year old critics...'
Also I was comparing it to Kubrick's version only, as I never read S. King's book.
Okay, i'm going to read "The Shining." I haven't read Stephen King in years, but I do remember how deeply layered he writes his characters..I remember that from reading "Cujo." Thank you for the recommendation.
"IMdB; where 14 year olds can act like jaded 40 year old critics...'
I hope you come back to this board when you're finished and post your thoughts. And parts of it really scared the bejeepers out of me, e.g. the aforementioned hornets' nest, a certain short-wave transmission . . . well, you'll see. I'm pretty sure you'll be blown away.
shareOk, that is a promise. I will return here and tell you what i think about "The Shining.." You've got me really keyed up now, to read it...thanks again.
"IMdB; where 14 year olds can act like jaded 40 year old critics...'
I just need to see it again; it's been so long since I have watched that version, and I just don't remember it leaving any kind of impression. I need to see it again with the facts you told me, in mind. I remember looking at how the film was crafted more than how it was written. Also I was comparing it to Kubrick's version only, as I never read S. King's book.. The film from S. Kubrick is just such an incredible work of art IMO, that nothing could compare..did he really change the events of the book that much?
It's Kubrick's brilliant style that makes "The Shining" such an incredibe film. Even if it strays a great deal from King's novel, Kubrick makes it his own story..and that probably pissed off Stephen King to no end!
"IMdB; where 14 year olds can act like jaded 40 year old critics...'
Even if it strays a great deal from King's novel, Kubrick makes it his own story..and that probably pissed off Stephen King to no end!
As I mentioned in another post, i never read King's novel, so that wasn't an issue for me. But if you look at the film on it's own, it is technically speaking, a masterpiece. I had always liked the film, then a few years ago I saw it on a large screen, in it's original aspect ratio..and I was blown away by the visual splendor of it. On it's own, it is an incredible achievement. Maybe it should be looked at as a "re-imagining" of Stephen King's novel..film is a visual medium, and should be judged on that quality above all.
"IMdB; where 14 year olds can act like jaded 40 year old critics...'
[deleted]
We need a black Scout Finch and a white Tom Robinson!
shareI'm waiting for the Dr. Zhivago remake starring Megan Fox and Tom Cruise..and frankly I'm getting tired of waiting.
"IMdB; where 14 year olds can act like jaded 40 year old critics...'
The Omen was creepy
Damian, Omen II had it's moments, but there were many, many more moments of unintended hilarity.
Omen III was boring
--to me--
I haven't seen part 2 of this remake, but as I said in the other thread, I'm enjoying Zoe Saldana in this role. She's vulnerable and trusting yet curious and intuitive. This is what the role calls for. I love Mia Farrow in RB, but also found her bubbly-ness and fake British accent (like many actresses had in the 60's) grating. It's dated. The actors I do miss are John Cassavettes and Ruth Gordon. These actors were larger than life and breathed it into their roles. Guy is boring here. Marguaex is just ok.
I like this adaption so far, though I'm not crazy about the 'Omen' like gore. Hopefully part 2 will pick up the pace. Still it's an engrossing chiller.
~~
This is what the role calls for. I love Mia Farrow in RB, but also found her bubbly-ness and fake British accent (like many actresses had in the 60's) grating. It's dated.
I love the original and yet I don't even remember Rosemary having a British accent. Now I will have to watch it tonite...
Always be yourself... Unless you can be Batcatt
The original "Omen" trilogy is awesome, all minor classics of the horror genre IMO. Of course 2 and 3 are not in the same league as the first one..I would rather look at and listen to Mia Farrow's elegant performance in that "dated" Roman Polanski masterpiece, than endure that awful hack of an "actress" Zoe Zaldana destroying a classic; she was awful, as was the the entire abortion of a mini series that this was. What a piece of dog crap.
"IMdB; where 14 year olds can act like jaded 40 year old critics...'
So what you're really pissed about is the fact that the leading role was played by a bi-racial woman. Noted.
You do know that "The Shining" was re-made as a mini-series as well, right? The lead character was played by - get this - a white male. Are you not pissed off about that?
Just out of curiosity, why would someone be pissed off if a character written as white is played by someone white? And this seems to be a good place to inject that I'd be seriously pissed if the Dick Hallorann character were played by someone white (or even, for that matter, a black woman since we're talking about taking artistic liberties). But then, I was seriously pissed (not to mention disappointed) that Kubrick killed him off.
share