What's the latest movie you've seen?

[Gunpowder]

Originally Posted by Tinuvielsdreams

Ant man was fun. Loved Anttony, I haven't felt so "Awwwww" for an Ant since Honey I Shrunk the Kids

Just saw Ant-Man a few hours ago and I made that exact same correlation.

[JakeSully]

Originally Posted by THGhost

My 1,000th post.

In the last few days I've watched the original Mad Max trilogy, John Carter and just finished Oblivion.



I know all that. I've even read the original short story. But people still class it as a remake, plus it's easier just to call it a remake.

The Thing from Another World is indeed a really good movie and deserves its own Blu-ray release.

Not really, they share a similar name but they are 2 completely different films, there is no such film in 1951 called The Thing, just The Thing from Another World and people only call it a "remake" because of the earlier film but fans of Carpenter's film and the book know it's not a remake but rather a new adaptation. The name The Thing comes from the villain in the book yet Carpenter's film has only 2 homages to the earlier film like the title card and circle of men and those are it. Everything like the location (one in the north pole and the other the south), the nature/methods of the alien (the monster in Hawk's film has only one form being a vampiric bloodsucking vegetable humanoid Frankenstein who can reproduce itself but it wasn't the imitator from the original source material) where the other monster is a shapeshifting being that can imitate any living creature it touches, the characters and their background, the origin and discovery of the spaceship and all that are very worlds apart from each other. I consider them to be 2 separate adaptations, Hawks film is a very good movie but in reality its one of the worst book to film adaptations of all time just like The Running Man or The Lawmower Man or World War Z etc. where Carpenter's film is a standalone film that is an excellent adaptation of the source material and by far THE cinematic adaptation.

Somebody who makes a film based on the novel Moby Dick is not "remaking" John Huston's film. They're making a new film based on the same literary source material and that's what The Thing is. he definition of a remake is "a motion picture based on a film produced earlier" which is not the case with the John Carpenter film. A scene by scene copy of the original film (as Gus van Sant did uselessly with Hitchcock's Psycho), updated with more F/X or more gore and based on the screenplay of the earlier film or even on a screenplay not based on any existing source material like books, novellas and comics/graphic novels like say The Blob or Ocean's 11 are true remakes. That would be like saying that every Dracula movie is a "remake" of the Bela Lugosi film or the silent film Nosferatu which is factually incorrect. Obviously they are all separate adaptions of the Bram Stoker novel. Another good example are the films I Am Legend, The Omega Man and The Last Man on Earth all based on the Richard Matheson novel I Am Legend. None of the films have anything to do with each other aside from all being based on the same source material.Same goes for Nolan's Batman Trilogy which aren't remakes of the earlier Batman films while The Dark Knight is a sequel while not a remake of 89's Batman because of Joker and stuff as it's a completely different story with a different Joker as i consider Nolan's trilogy to be a separate adaptation of the comics and graphic novels. Calling a new film based on an old comic previously film or a new film based on a novel filmed before a remake cheapens it a bit, when like i said they are separate adaptations.

I just like to educate people the differences between remakes, adaptations and reboots.

Charlie and the Chocolate Factory, The Thing, Stephen King's The Shining, Lord of the Rings, Dredd, Dracula, Frankenstein, The Omega Man/I Am Legend, The Dark Knight Trilogy,Romeo and Juliet, A Christmas Carol, Amazing Spider-Man, Let Me In, the upcoming IT 2 part movies, War of the Worlds,Casino Royale, the upcoming Crow film etc. are adaptations of source material being books, novellas and comics. Including being separate adaptations.

Night of the Living Dead, The Fog, Halloween, Maniac, Hills Have eyes, A nightmare on Elm Street, The Texas Chainsaw Massacre, House on Haunted Hill, Ocean's 11, King Kong, Father of the Bride, The Nutty Professor, Ocean's 11, Thomas Crown Affair, Godzilla, Angels in the Outfield, The Fog etc. those are remakes in every sense of the word.

Now for reboot.
DEFINITION*:
verb – to restart (a computer) by loading the operating system; boot again.
noun – an act or instance of restarting a computer.
This word, as the definition indicates, is a computer term and had no meaning prior to the advent of PCs in the home and at work. The term was hijacked by the motion picture industry in 2005 with Batman Begins. With four prior movies produced by Warner Bros., the last of which was an unmitigated disaster, the studio wanted everyone to know that this film was something new and unrelated to the previous series. It’s no secret that a movie series will sometimes ignore a movie that bombed and just move on with the series as if that embarrassing entry never happened, so WB could have done that with Christopher Nolan’s film. That wouldn’t exactly work, though, because Nolan wanted to tell the origins of Batman, something that had not been done successfully with any of the previous movies; his take would then be a prequel except for the fact that he wanted to include the Joker in his own sequel, thereby nullifying Tim Burton’s Batman. This discontinuity would confuse the audience–how could there be two Jokers, especially with completely different origins and behaviors? Simple, this was a new series that had nothing to do with the previous films. But it wasn’t a remake because, while based on the same source material, it told a completely different story. They needed a new way of explaining what they were doing–hence the cribbing from the computer world. Nolan's films are a separate adaptation as well besides franchise reboot.
Audiences bought it. They understood that the series was being “rebooted,” meaning that the old was being erased and a new “operating system” was being written in its place. The old series still existed, but this was a different take on the Batman mythology. The problem was that since the word “reboot” worked in this case, people began adopting it to refer to every instance of a new version of a known product.
Now, every remake , adaptation and sequel is called a reboot. Ghost Rider: Spirit of Vengeance is made by other people because the first one was deemed a bad movie, let’s call it a reboot to distance itself from the original! New versions of old horror movies are made and are dubbed “reboots,” even though they tell the same story as the original movies, though perhaps elaborating the story. Even though Halloween, Friday the 13th, and Nightmare on Elm Street all spawned multiple sequels, their “reboots” retold their origins. Guess what? Those are remakes. You can argue that the recent versions started the series over again, but unlike Batman Begins, they don’t do a completely different take on the material. Hell even Escape from New York and Poltergeist new movies are called "reboots" they are remakes and some call the upcoming 2 part IT a "reboot", nope it's another adaptation.
True reboots are:
Casino Royale since it truly started the series from scratch, adapting the first James Bond book Ian Flemming wrote (the only time the book was accurately adapted for the big screen), and ignored everything that came before (though Judi Dench reprising her role as M was confusing in this context). It's also a separate adaptation of the book and a direct one, not a remake of the 1967 film. The Amazing Spider-man did the Batman Begins route and ignoring an established series and telling another origin story as if it’s in an alternate universe.
Rise of the Planet of the Apes due to the fact that it tells the origins of how the apes took over out world but in a completely different manner than the movie it closely emulates, Conquest of the Planet of the Apes.
Star Trek is another example as it reboots the series back to basics in an alternate universe.
“Reboot” is a term that is not only incorrectly attributed to the wrong type of movies, but it is overused. It’s now jumped ship to other types of entertainment. Rather than use it as a catch-all for any adaptation, we need to return to using the correct terminologies

[Tinuvielsdreams]

Originally Posted by Gunpowder

Just saw Ant-Man a few hours ago and I made that exact same correlation.

Haha! I was hoping someone would see that too!
It should have been tea and oatmeal cookies, I think that is what it was

Watched another Paul Rudd movie right before Ant Man, "They came together". Had some Funny Parts, got a little ridiculous at times.
poking fun of romantic movies cliches

[JakeSully]

Originally Posted by Bauer536

In theaters:

Jurassic World - Not as bad as I thought it would be, but still not Jurassic Park.

Inside Out - Fantastic! Best Pixar film since Toy Story 3.

Minions - Not so good. Stupid, but with a few funny moments.


On DVD or Blu-Ray:


Inglorious Bastards (2009) - Great film! Watched it for the first time.

Catch Me If You Can - This a must see if none of you have seen it. Absolutely well-done.

Nice picks! Inside Out is definitely Pixar's comeback. I mean Brave was good but not great, Cars 2 was disappointing and Monsters University was fun but not satisfying.

What i saw in the past weeks.

Jurassic World: 3 times, the most fun movie of the summer and the best sequel in the franchise so far.

Ted 2: Quirkly sequel that i enjoyed.

Inside Out: Best Pixar movie since Toy Story 3 and a comeback.

[MikeandRaph87]

In the last week I have seen both The Warriors 1979 and Face/Off from 1997.

I enjoyed the fighting choreography in Warriors. I have been wanting to see it ever since they showed up alongside Heisenburg at Shredder's underworld meeting.Only seen the one scene with Luther calling them out.

Face/ Off showed that Cage has a wide range of acting ability while Travolta is lacking which makes it funny. Solid characterization in their rivalry which more than I would expect from this film. Quite a few plot holes all throughout the film which one has to forget to appreciate it. Still it was enjoyable.

[Powder]

This week I watched Terminator & The Running Man, both firsts for me. The former greatly surpassed the latter, though both were enjoyed. Aiming for Leon The Professional next.

[Xiewin]

Just saw Ant-man.

I personally thought it was fantastic.

[ProactiveMan]

Originally Posted by Powder

This week I watched Terminator & The Running Man, both firsts for me. The former greatly surpassed the latter, though both were enjoyed. Aiming for Leon The Professional next.

This is a big call considering I'm talking about Arnold Schwarzenegger, but I think the Running Man may contain his dumbest (read best) one-liners ever.

[AT-Man]

Saw Ant-Man yesterday, and it was great!

[Cure]

I saw Trainwreck. Really funny. The best parts were easily John Cena and Lebron James.

But man, even Cena's ass is muscular.

[SophieDem]

Inside out. Man, I'm such an animation freak. xD And it was a long time ago since I cried this hard.

[ProactiveMan]

I saw Mr Holmes on the weekend. It's pretty good, though it feels like it was made for TV. Ian Mckellen is pretty amazing to watch...

Spoiler:

...he plays old Sherlock Holmes and really old Sherlock Holmes differently, but not so that they feel like different characters. The effects of his dementia are subtle but profound, and sad and frightening at the same time. What I liked most of all is that it was still a mystery story; the character study didn't take over completely.

[THGhost]

Inside Out. Another instant classic from Pixar.

[Luke795]

Vacation. Not as good as the original.

[shuriken]

Saw Ant Man and it was great. Paul Rudd totally killed it. Everything about the movie worked so well, but it felt a little bit like an Iron Man parody TBH.

[joefsas]

Saw 'Labyrinth' for the first time yesterday. Won't be watching it again any time soon.
Bored the crap outta me if I'm honest.

[TheCanadiandrome]

Ant-Man, Thursday; Pixels last night! damn fine pair of movies

[MsMarvelDuckie]

Watched a movie called Ninja Assassin last night. It was- interesting. And bloody! Heh, seriously, though, for a $5 nib movie, it was pretty good, and had a better story and acting than I would have expected of a movie I've never heard of. And the fight scenes were awesome! lot of slo-mo "bullet-time" type stuff, blood and gore all over, real acrobatic and shadow-melding type stuff. And the soundtrack was pretty cool, too. We actually had fun watching it, even though HE was teasing me before we watched it about picking movies because they "look interesting" based on the cover.

[Slap-Happy]

Originally Posted by JakeSully

I just like to educate people the differences between remakes, adaptations and reboots.

Charlie and the Chocolate Factory, The Thing, Stephen King's The Shining, Lord of the Rings, Dredd, Dracula, Frankenstein, The Omega Man/I Am Legend, The Dark Knight Trilogy,Romeo and Juliet, A Christmas Carol, Amazing Spider-Man, Let Me In, the upcoming IT 2 part movies, War of the Worlds,Casino Royale, the upcoming Crow film etc. are adaptations of source material being books, novellas and comics. Including being separate adaptations.

Night of the Living Dead, The Fog, Halloween, Maniac, Hills Have eyes, A nightmare on Elm Street, The Texas Chainsaw Massacre, House on Haunted Hill, Ocean's 11, King Kong, Father of the Bride, The Nutty Professor, Ocean's 11, Thomas Crown Affair, Godzilla, Angels in the Outfield, The Fog etc. those are remakes in every sense of the word.

What? No it's not. Neither American Godzilla film is a remake of any Japanese one.

“Reboot” is a term that is not only incorrectly attributed to the wrong type of movies, but it is overused. It’s now jumped ship to other types of entertainment. Rather than use it as a catch-all for any adaptation, we need to return to using the correct terminologies

Studios use the term reboot for when they want to start a new franchise from an older film. If they're calling something a reboot, they want to make sequels to it.

[Purse Grabbin Puke]

Just saw Southpaw. I knew nothing about it going in other than it was a boxing movie. I was blown away at how good it was...but I couldn't help but wish this is what Rocky V would have been.