This Should't be Happening


So . . . they're assuming that everyone's forgotten about the original by now? This is absolutely crazy! They're calling it a 'Disney Original'?! What is this madness? How can they even begin to think that this was a good idea? Whats next? The Breakfast Club? Can't Buy Me Love? How did they get permissions to do this? Juts goes to show how obnoxious the movie (if you can even call it that) industry has become! So preoccupied with remakes and reboots and keeping the children happy.

You're going to ruin a great movie, 'Disney Channel'.

reply

[deleted]

I heard they are remaking the Breakfast Club.

reply

[deleted]

FYI: Can't Buy Me Love was remade in 2003 as Love Don't Cost a Thing. Same plot with a black cast.

reply

Lemonade Mouth is actually based off of a book, not The Breakfast Club.

reply

So the book ripped off The Breakfast Club that spawned Lemonade Mouth... doesn't make it much better now does it?

reply

I agree what a sin holly wood does to make a buck!

reply

This is ridiculous!!!!

reply

I might be forced to watch this when I babysit but I just saw the trailer and I would much rather stick the original. This one looks horrible.

reply

Why do you care so much? It's just a stupid Disney Channel movie.

reply

, I care, I can't explain it, just do. Regardless of what anyone says they're going through with this. Maybe it's the fact that kids will watch this. Young, impressionable kids, who can't tell the difference from a remake and an original. The people on this website, those who are die-hard fans, will understand the struggle of listening to 'kids these days' talking about a movie they watched, only for you to figure out that it's a remake.
It's the fact that the message Hollywood is sending is unoriginality. Why waste time on new ideas when you can recycle old ones? In 10, maybe 20 years there'll be another version. Seven billion people in this world and they can't find a single person to write a new, improved story.
It's the fact that half of the people that tune in will be expecting a 'new, improved' version.
It's the fact that Disney has been going downhill for so long, it's a few stops short of the gutter.
It's the fact that the industry behind Disney Channel is doing the same thing over and over again, just to make a few bucks.
It's the fact that, as an aspiring something-or-other for the film industry, I don't want to be associated with the likes of this.

reply

Remakes have been happening since the beginning of cinema. This is nothing new. They use to remake a film three or four times in the same year. Remaking a movie over twenty years later is actually refreshing compared to how it used to be.

Kids use the internet. They're going to find out that it's a remake. If anything, it'll make them want to watch the original.

Everyone complains about lack of originality. Remakes are a lot harder to make than you think. Anyone can come up with a new idea. Having a new take on an old idea takes some skill. It takes skill to put a modern twist on an old movie.

People are not going to expect it to be as good as the original because this is made for TV whereas the original was in theaters. This movie is for kids, the original wasn't.

People complain about filmmakers making films to make a buck. But that's the reason why filmmakers make films. To make money. Wouldn't you feel cheated if you didn't make a single cent from all that hard work?

If you want to stop seeing films get remade, stop watching them. People keep seeing them, so studios keep them coming.

reply

Exactly. How many versions of The Three Musketeers are there? One for each generation at least, right?
The original came out when I was 6 and I love it. I actually watched this and it was great. At the start I thought it was only going to be a five for me but during the second half I realised it going to be a 7 or 8 :)

1987 version gets a 10

Funny entertaining movie, more like a sequel

reply

Not that it matters much, but as to "Disney Original", they can say that because the original movie was by Touchstone, which was Disney.

reply