YTMN Presents a Remake Rematch Thread

Discuss anything you want.
Post Reply
User avatar
Quite-Gone Genie
Posts: 22840
Joined: Sat Feb 20, 2010 4:36 pm

Re: YTMN Presents a Remake Rematch Thread

Post by Quite-Gone Genie » Mon Mar 24, 2014 3:25 am

They don't make photos like that anymore! Not without a filter app, anyway.
"So, you see, he was condemned to walk in darkness a quadrillion kilometres (we've adopted the metric system, you know)..."
██████████████████████████████████████████The Devil, The Brothers Karamazov
User avatar
YouTookMyName
Posts: 2227
Joined: Thu Jun 17, 2010 1:53 am

Re: YTMN Presents a Remake Rematch Thread

Post by YouTookMyName » Mon Mar 24, 2014 3:32 am

Quite-Gone Genie wrote:They don't make photos like that anymore! Not without a filter app, anyway.
True. Prints made in that era though were made on paper with bad blue dyes that eventually have faded away. I'd have had to jigger with it in Photoshop to make it look like it did when it came from Fox photo. Decided to leave it in the faded state.
Gort/YTMN left the forum due to trolling on August 25, 2018.
I had fun. Thanks for reading!

"The wealthy and powerful always remind us that cream rises to the top.
What they fail to acknowledge is that pond scum also rises to the top.
And there is a lot more pond scum in the world than there is cream.
If you become rich and powerful, I hope that you will be cream rather than pond scum." --YTMN

Rematch Resurrection Catalog for Rounds 1-4 New post 180721 -- YTMN's Remake Rematch Thread.
Thread Resurrected 21 Jul 2018. Thread abandoned 1 Aug 2017. Thread COMPLETE 25 May 14 (2d time!)


The Future Unreels
User avatar
YouTookMyName
Posts: 2227
Joined: Thu Jun 17, 2010 1:53 am

Re: YTMN Presents a Remake Rematch Thread

Post by YouTookMyName » Wed Mar 26, 2014 11:54 pm

While I work on the reviews and other posts for the Death Race Quickmatch, here's another photo, probably uninteresting to you, but it comes from that same photo album that's been fascinating to me for the past week.
Image
Here are my parents in London, England, in March 1973. Dad won a trip for the family in a sales contest. My brother was able to go, and he took this picture. I wanted to go, but I realized that it was past the drop date for courses in the University I attended. I had to have Organic Chemistry in order to graduate with a pre-medical degree. I was barely pulling a C in Organic Chemistry, and if I dropped, I would get an F for the course that semester. That grade would be averaged with whatever I made in a repeat of the course. I would have had to make a perfect A in order to have a C the second time. That would have been impossible, so I had to remain stateside. See, I had to have at least a C in order for the credits to count toward graduation.

Mom was 43 years old, and Dad was 44. My bro was 16. I was 20, and invisible to the English. On the last day of that March I would turn 21. Jedi, who would eventually be born on my birthday (making it his), was not even a gleam in his father's eye at that time.

Oh, the picture was made with my father's Minolta 110 Zoom SLR camera that used a pre-loaded plastic cartridge that had 16mm film in it. The format was called 110 film.

EDIT: Hmm. I just bothered to read the article about the camera. There is an error in the article, claiming that the camera was not made before 1976. I had already graduated from university and was employed as a Biologist by 1976. I'd had 3 years to regret having not gone to visit England. I can't correct the Wikipedia article, though, because I don't know the actual date when sales of the item commenced in the US. I thought Mom bought it for him for Christmas 1972, but I'm not sure. He might have bought it specifically for this trip, because I don't see any photos taken with it prior to that London trip. There are also photos taken on a Florida vacation featuring my brother with our cousin Roger, who died in an accident at age 17 in 1974. So the camera had to be made before '76. Sillypedia! :D
Gort/YTMN left the forum due to trolling on August 25, 2018.
I had fun. Thanks for reading!

"The wealthy and powerful always remind us that cream rises to the top.
What they fail to acknowledge is that pond scum also rises to the top.
And there is a lot more pond scum in the world than there is cream.
If you become rich and powerful, I hope that you will be cream rather than pond scum." --YTMN

Rematch Resurrection Catalog for Rounds 1-4 New post 180721 -- YTMN's Remake Rematch Thread.
Thread Resurrected 21 Jul 2018. Thread abandoned 1 Aug 2017. Thread COMPLETE 25 May 14 (2d time!)


The Future Unreels
User avatar
YouTookMyName
Posts: 2227
Joined: Thu Jun 17, 2010 1:53 am

Re: YTMN Presents a Remake Rematch Thread

Post by YouTookMyName » Sat Mar 29, 2014 2:34 am

Tech information posts are only 1/4 as interesting as a review or an essay. So this will hold you until Tuesday or so.
Gort/YTMN left the forum due to trolling on August 25, 2018.
I had fun. Thanks for reading!

"The wealthy and powerful always remind us that cream rises to the top.
What they fail to acknowledge is that pond scum also rises to the top.
And there is a lot more pond scum in the world than there is cream.
If you become rich and powerful, I hope that you will be cream rather than pond scum." --YTMN

Rematch Resurrection Catalog for Rounds 1-4 New post 180721 -- YTMN's Remake Rematch Thread.
Thread Resurrected 21 Jul 2018. Thread abandoned 1 Aug 2017. Thread COMPLETE 25 May 14 (2d time!)


The Future Unreels
User avatar
YouTookMyName
Posts: 2227
Joined: Thu Jun 17, 2010 1:53 am

Re: YTMN Presents a Remake Rematch Thread

Post by YouTookMyName » Sat Mar 29, 2014 2:34 am

Image
Image
A Comparison of Death Race 2000 (1975) & Death Race (2008)
The Writers

1975

Robert Thom and Charles B. Griffith share credit for the screenplay. Ib Melchior gets credit for the original short story on which the screenplay is based.

Ib Melchior is a writer and director born in 1917 in Denmark. He has 15 writing credits, the last two of which are for the two films in this Rematch. Melchior has 6 directorial credits at IMDb. I first saw his name as the writer of Reptilicus (1961), one of the worst movies I have ever seen, and still one of my favorite films of all time! Melchoir wrote and directed The Angry Red Planet (1959), and wrote the screenplay for Robinson Crusoe on Mars (1964), and The Time Travelers (1964). In addition, Melchior was the technical director (the person who switches the camera shots) for Tom Corbett, Space Cadet (1950 TV). And he was a special advisor on the film Lost in Space (1998).

Robert Thom has 20 writing credits at IMDb. For 1960 releases he wrote two screenplays, once of which was All the Fine Young Cannibals. He penned the screenplay for the controversial film Wild in the Streets (1968), and the 1975 Death Race 2000 which has generated two additional screen writing credits since.

Charles Griffith has 30 writing credits, and 10 acting credits for bit parts in some of the films he wrote. During 1957, 6 films were released that were shot from his screenplays. They included Attack of the Crab Monsters. He wrote A Bucket of Blood (1959) and Little Shop of Horrors (1960), both of which were produced by Roger Corman. In later years Griffith would get credits on remakes of 4 of his films from the 50s-70s.

Image
2008

Paul W.S. Anderson gets a screenplay credit, then Robert Thom, Charles B. Griffith, and Ib Melchior get the credits they have for the 1975 film.

Paul W. S. Anderson has a career that is a bit controversial because he makes films that people both love, and those they love to hate. Personally, I think Anderson has a uniquely angled vision, but I don't see him bringing it into play on all his films. As a writer he is known for violent action films, which he often also produces and directs. The Resident Evil series is his baby. But he also directed the two Mortal Kombat movies, which lowers him in the estimation of some film buffs. He introduced Alien vs. Predator to the world in 2004. He also brought a unique touch to The Three Musketeers (2011) and is responsible for Pompeii (2014). Anderson wrote and directed Death Race (2008) and wrote two follow-ups that he did not direct. Death Race 2 (2010) and Death Race: Inferno (2012) both of which were direct to video releases.




ImageImageGo back using these buttons.ImageImageImageImageImageImage



Image
Ib Melchior from Wikipedia
Robert Thom (writer) from Wikipedia
Charles B. Griffith from Wikipedia
topic
Just confirmed…Ib Melchior Posted on May 8, 2012 by Laura McCullough. from Operator 13 Productions
Down We Go Revisiting Renaissance man Robert Thom's prolific and hellish Hollywood visions By Louis Black, Fri., Aug. 10, 2007. from The Austin Chronicle
R.I.P. Charles B. Griffith Written by Joe D on October 3rd, 2007. from Film Forno
LITTLE SHOP OF HORRORS (1960) Sunday, October 7, 2012 from HOLLYWOOD MOVIES AND TV REVIEWS BY TYLER MICHAEL
Paul WS Anderson "The Future of 3D Filmmaking" September 18, 2010 from The Cinema Source
Gort/YTMN left the forum due to trolling on August 25, 2018.
I had fun. Thanks for reading!

"The wealthy and powerful always remind us that cream rises to the top.
What they fail to acknowledge is that pond scum also rises to the top.
And there is a lot more pond scum in the world than there is cream.
If you become rich and powerful, I hope that you will be cream rather than pond scum." --YTMN

Rematch Resurrection Catalog for Rounds 1-4 New post 180721 -- YTMN's Remake Rematch Thread.
Thread Resurrected 21 Jul 2018. Thread abandoned 1 Aug 2017. Thread COMPLETE 25 May 14 (2d time!)


The Future Unreels
User avatar
YouTookMyName
Posts: 2227
Joined: Thu Jun 17, 2010 1:53 am

Re: YTMN Presents a Remake Rematch Thread

Post by YouTookMyName » Sat Mar 29, 2014 2:36 am

Image
Image
A Comparison of Death Race 2000 (1975) & Death Race (2008)
At the Helm

1975

Paul Bartel is possibly most famous for directing a bizarre black comedy called Eating Raoul (1982). I remember when that film was reviewed by Siskel and Ebert on PBS. Bartel directed a film called Private Parts (1972) that isn't the famous one with what's his name. Bartel's earliest cinematic credits come from 1968, the film The Secret Cinema, a short film that he Produced, Directed and Wrote. The next year he wrote Utterly Without Redeeming Social Value (1969) another short film. In that film Bartel undertook the first of 91 acting roles that he garnered over his career. His last foray into the cinema was to play Osric in Michael Almereyda's production of Hamlet (2000), with Ethan Hawke as Hamlet. He appeared in two films released after his death (May 13, 2000). Death Race 2000 was his fourth directorial credit. Eating Raoul his 6th. He also got some notice for Scenes from the Class Struggle in Beverly Hills (1989).

Bartel's presence in the director's chair ensured that the Corman film of Ib Melchior's short story would be unconventional, and comedic in tone.

Image
2008

Paul W.S. Anderson directed (and wrote) this version of the Death Race story. Laziness overcame me and I simply cut and pasted what I wrote in the Writers tech post in here, because same stuff.

Paul W. S. Anderson has a career that is a bit controversial because he makes films that people both love, and those they love to hate. Personally, I think Anderson has a uniquely angled vision, but I don't see him bringing it into play on all his films. As a writer he is known for violent action films, which he often also produces and directs. The Resident Evil series is his baby. But he also directed the two Mortal Kombat movies, which lowers him in the estimation of some film buffs. He introduced Alien vs. Predator to the world in 2004. He also brought a unique touch to The Three Musketeers (2011) and is responsible for Pompeii (2014). Anderson wrote and directed Death Race (2008) and wrote two follow-ups that he did not direct. Death Race 2 (2010) and Death Race: Inferno (2012) both of which were direct to video releases.




ImageImageGo back using these buttons.ImageImageImageImageImageImage



Image
Eating Raoul photos. from Cineplex.com
Paul Bartel from Wikipedia
Paul W. S. Anderson from Wikipedia
Gort/YTMN left the forum due to trolling on August 25, 2018.
I had fun. Thanks for reading!

"The wealthy and powerful always remind us that cream rises to the top.
What they fail to acknowledge is that pond scum also rises to the top.
And there is a lot more pond scum in the world than there is cream.
If you become rich and powerful, I hope that you will be cream rather than pond scum." --YTMN

Rematch Resurrection Catalog for Rounds 1-4 New post 180721 -- YTMN's Remake Rematch Thread.
Thread Resurrected 21 Jul 2018. Thread abandoned 1 Aug 2017. Thread COMPLETE 25 May 14 (2d time!)


The Future Unreels
User avatar
YouTookMyName
Posts: 2227
Joined: Thu Jun 17, 2010 1:53 am

Re: YTMN Presents a Remake Rematch Thread

Post by YouTookMyName » Sat Mar 29, 2014 2:38 am

Image
Image
A Comparison of Death Race 2000 (1975) & Death Race (2008)
Behind the Lens

1975

Tak Fujimoto has shot 61 films in his career. Death Race 2000 was the fifth. He began collecting cinematography credits in 1970 when he was behind the lens of the documentary Chicago Blues. Four years later he shot two films, and in 1975 he photographed Death Race 2000 for Roger Corman and Paul Bartel. A decade later he was the man tapped to film Pretty in Pink (1986), and Ferris Bueller's Day Off (1986). Fujimoto's career took off even bigger-time in 1991 when he shot Silence of the Lambs. After this he was the DP on several high-profile productions including Gladiator (1992), Philadelphia (1993), The Sixth Sense (1999), The Replacements (2000). Fujimoto continued to work with Shyamalan on Signs, and The Happening. He continues to work, his latest completed project being Gods Behaving Badly (2013).
Image
2008

Scott Kevan has 41 DP credits so far. His first was in 1997 for shooting a TV movie called Roswell: Coverups & Close Encounters. His filmography includes a few fairly well-known titles, but nothing on the scale of Fujimoto's work, yet. Kevan is only 42 years old, so he still has a couple decades ahead of him to envision cinema pieces.




ImageImageGo back using these buttons.ImageImageImageImageImageImage



Image
Tak Fujimoto from Wikipedia
The Hollywood Fantasy Draft II – “Broken Ties” from goseetalk.com
Deep Water the Movie photo page
Gort/YTMN left the forum due to trolling on August 25, 2018.
I had fun. Thanks for reading!

"The wealthy and powerful always remind us that cream rises to the top.
What they fail to acknowledge is that pond scum also rises to the top.
And there is a lot more pond scum in the world than there is cream.
If you become rich and powerful, I hope that you will be cream rather than pond scum." --YTMN

Rematch Resurrection Catalog for Rounds 1-4 New post 180721 -- YTMN's Remake Rematch Thread.
Thread Resurrected 21 Jul 2018. Thread abandoned 1 Aug 2017. Thread COMPLETE 25 May 14 (2d time!)


The Future Unreels
User avatar
YouTookMyName
Posts: 2227
Joined: Thu Jun 17, 2010 1:53 am

Re: YTMN Presents a Remake Rematch Thread

Post by YouTookMyName » Sat Mar 29, 2014 2:39 am

Image
Image
A Comparison of Death Race 2000 (1975) & Death Race (2008)
In the Cutting Room

1975

Tina Hirsch first earned a screen credit as film editor for Utterly Without Redeeming Social Value (1969), after which she edited the car cult-classic Macon County Line (1974). Among her more noticeable gigs are Gremlins (1984), Explorers (1985), Dante's Peak (1997), and 16 episodes of The West Wing (2000-2001). She also did editorial duty on one of my favorite gonzo comedy films Captain Ron (1992). She and Niven Howie both have 37 editorial screen credits.

Image
2008

Niven Howie started out editing rock concert videos. By the time he cut Lock, Stock and Two Smoking Barrels (1998) he was moving into feature film editing. Howie edited Dawn of the Dead (2004), The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy (2005) and has cut three of the Resident Evil series.




ImageImageGo back using these buttons.ImageImageImageImageImageImage



Image
Tina Hirsch from Wikipedia
Tina Hirsch, B.A., A.C.E. School of Cinematic Arts Directory Profile from usc.edu
Niven Howie talking about "Resident Evil: Afterlife" [Interview] from Editor Under Construction blogspot By Staff on November 1, 2010.
Gort/YTMN left the forum due to trolling on August 25, 2018.
I had fun. Thanks for reading!

"The wealthy and powerful always remind us that cream rises to the top.
What they fail to acknowledge is that pond scum also rises to the top.
And there is a lot more pond scum in the world than there is cream.
If you become rich and powerful, I hope that you will be cream rather than pond scum." --YTMN

Rematch Resurrection Catalog for Rounds 1-4 New post 180721 -- YTMN's Remake Rematch Thread.
Thread Resurrected 21 Jul 2018. Thread abandoned 1 Aug 2017. Thread COMPLETE 25 May 14 (2d time!)


The Future Unreels
User avatar
YouTookMyName
Posts: 2227
Joined: Thu Jun 17, 2010 1:53 am

Re: YTMN Presents a Remake Rematch Thread

Post by YouTookMyName » Sat Mar 29, 2014 2:40 am

There, now. If those four posts don't make you excited, there are probably a lot of things that will. They're just not here.
Gort/YTMN left the forum due to trolling on August 25, 2018.
I had fun. Thanks for reading!

"The wealthy and powerful always remind us that cream rises to the top.
What they fail to acknowledge is that pond scum also rises to the top.
And there is a lot more pond scum in the world than there is cream.
If you become rich and powerful, I hope that you will be cream rather than pond scum." --YTMN

Rematch Resurrection Catalog for Rounds 1-4 New post 180721 -- YTMN's Remake Rematch Thread.
Thread Resurrected 21 Jul 2018. Thread abandoned 1 Aug 2017. Thread COMPLETE 25 May 14 (2d time!)


The Future Unreels
User avatar
YouTookMyName
Posts: 2227
Joined: Thu Jun 17, 2010 1:53 am

Re: YTMN Presents a Remake Rematch Thread

Post by YouTookMyName » Tue Apr 01, 2014 12:52 pm

Image

A Comparison of Death Race 2000 (1975) & Death Race (2008)
Not a Lot Worth Repeating

1975ImageImage

Matilda the Hun: Whoever named your car the Bull... was only half right!

^^^^^^^^^^^^vvvvvvvvvvvv^^^^^^^^^^^^vvvvvvvvvvvv^^^^^^^^^^^^vvvvvvvvvvvv^^^^^^^^^^^^vvvvvvvvvvvv
Cleopatra: It isn't my fault everyone scored before us. You should have gone after that boy scout camp like I told you!

Nero the Hero: I tried the goddamn boy scout camp. You know how fast those boy scouts move?

Cleopatra (spotting a family having a picnic at the roadside): Now here's something more your speed.

Nero the Hero: That'll be at least 200 points!

Cleopatra: If they scatter, go for the baby and the mother.

^^^^^^^^^^^^vvvvvvvvvvvv^^^^^^^^^^^^vvvvvvvvvvvv^^^^^^^^^^^^vvvvvvvvvvvv^^^^^^^^^^^^vvvvvvvvvvvv
Junior: Frankenstein! Frankenstein the legend, Frankenstein the indestructible! Sole survivor of the titanic pile-up of '95, only two-time winner of the Transcontinental Road Race... Frankenstein! Ripped up, wiped out, battered, shattered, creamed, and reamed... a dancer on the brink of death... Frankenstein, who lost a leg in '98, an arm in '99! With half a face and half a chest, and all the guts in the world, he's back!

^^^^^^^^^^^^vvvvvvvvvvvv^^^^^^^^^^^^vvvvvvvvvvvv^^^^^^^^^^^^vvvvvvvvvvvv^^^^^^^^^^^^vvvvvvvvvvvv
Harold: As the cars roar into Pennsylvania, the cradle of liberty, it seems apparent that our citizens are staying off the streets, which may make scoring particularly difficult, even with this year's rule changes. To recap those revisions: women are still worth 10 points more than men in all age brackets, but teenagers now rack up 40 points, and toddlers under 12 now rate a big 70 points. The big score: anyone, any sex, over 75 years old has been upped to 100 points.

^^^^^^^^^^^^vvvvvvvvvvvv^^^^^^^^^^^^vvvvvvvvvvvv^^^^^^^^^^^^vvvvvvvvvvvv^^^^^^^^^^^^vvvvvvvvvvvv
Grace Pander: She was a great, dear friend of mine and I shall remember her forever howling down that freeway in the sky, knocking over... the angels.

^^^^^^^^^^^^vvvvvvvvvvvv^^^^^^^^^^^^vvvvvvvvvvvv^^^^^^^^^^^^vvvvvvvvvvvv^^^^^^^^^^^^vvvvvvvvvvvv
Junior: Frankenstein scores! Frankenstein scores at last! But what kind of a score, boys and girls? Just 80 points out a possible big 700. What do you think, Gracie?

Grace Pander: Well, those doctors - dear friends of mine - have been pretty smug all these years setting up the old folks. Frankenstein must have decided it was their turn.

Harold: Which only goes to show that even the fearsome Frankenstein has a one-hundred-percent, red-blooded American sense of humor, heh heh.

^^^^^^^^^^^^vvvvvvvvvvvv^^^^^^^^^^^^vvvvvvvvvvvv^^^^^^^^^^^^vvvvvvvvvvvv^^^^^^^^^^^^vvvvvvvvvvvv
(Matilda runs her car over Calamity Jane's navigator, Pete, who is lying in the roadway working beneath the car)

Matilda the Hun (cheers): Blitzkreg! Ha-ha!

Calamity Jane (screaming): YOU LOUSY BITCH! I'll kill you for that! Nobody scores my navigator and gets away with it.

^^^^^^^^^^^^vvvvvvvvvvvv^^^^^^^^^^^^vvvvvvvvvvvv^^^^^^^^^^^^vvvvvvvvvvvv^^^^^^^^^^^^vvvvvvvvvvvv
^^^^^^^^^^^^vvvvvvvvvvvv^^^^^^^^^^^^vvvvvvvvvvvv^^^^^^^^^^^^vvvvvvvvvvvv^^^^^^^^^^^^vvvvvvvvvvvv



2008ImageImage

Nasty Teller: Cash or check?

Jensen Ames: Better make it cash.

(teller hands Jensen some money)

Jensen Ames: Three hundred dollars? I've worked a hundred and twenty hours in the last two weeks.

Nasty Teller: Cash fee. Next!

Jensen Ames: Cash fee?

Nasty Teller: You wanted cash, there's a fee. You want a check instead?

Jensen Ames: Seeing as how the company's out of business, not exactly.

^^^^^^^^^^^^vvvvvvvvvvvv^^^^^^^^^^^^vvvvvvvvvvvv^^^^^^^^^^^^vvvvvvvvvvvv^^^^^^^^^^^^vvvvvvvvvvvv
Lists: Jensen Garner Ames. Moved to the states at twenty-four years old. Named after a car, the Jensen Intercepter. A three time local speedway champion.

Jensen Ames: You've done your homework, or do you just know everything?

Coach: Jensen Intercepter. I had one. Handled like a school bus.

^^^^^^^^^^^^vvvvvvvvvvvv^^^^^^^^^^^^vvvvvvvvvvvv^^^^^^^^^^^^vvvvvvvvvvvv^^^^^^^^^^^^vvvvvvvvvvvv
Jensen Ames: So where's the ammo?

Gunner: We get that on race day.

Jensen Ames: Pity.

Coach: Yeah, everyone thinks that... the first time.

Jensen Ames: Thinks what?

Coach: About turning the guns on the guards. About escaping.

Jensen Ames: No, I wasn't thinking that.

Coach: Well I'm glad, because Hennessey's got electric kill switches on all the guns on all the cars. And all the guard towers are fortified, and their guns are bigger than your guns. Oh, did I mention the helicopters and also the fact that we're on an island here a mile from the nearest shoreline? The only way in or out of here is on that one skinny bridge you came in on.

^^^^^^^^^^^^vvvvvvvvvvvv^^^^^^^^^^^^vvvvvvvvvvvv^^^^^^^^^^^^vvvvvvvvvvvv^^^^^^^^^^^^vvvvvvvvvvvv
Coach (to Jensen, who is wearing Frankenstein's costume): Don't talk to the other drivers. Frank never did. Part of the mystique. Let the mask do the work.

^^^^^^^^^^^^vvvvvvvvvvvv^^^^^^^^^^^^vvvvvvvvvvvv^^^^^^^^^^^^vvvvvvvvvvvv^^^^^^^^^^^^vvvvvvvvvvvv
Jensen Ames: So what are you in for?

Case: They say I killed a cop.

Jensen Ames: Did you do it?

Case: Yeah.

Jensen Ames: Bad cop?

Case: Good cop... lousy husband.

^^^^^^^^^^^^vvvvvvvvvvvv^^^^^^^^^^^^vvvvvvvvvvvv^^^^^^^^^^^^vvvvvvvvvvvv^^^^^^^^^^^^vvvvvvvvvvvv
Jensen Ames (threatening to eject Case from the Monster) Did you kill the old Frank?

Case: I sabotaged his rear weapons.

Jensen Ames: Why?

Case: Hennessey. She said she'd sign my release papers. It's my life back.

Jensen Ames: You killed him too.

Case: I didn't kill him. He wouldn't quit! I just wanted to make sure he wouldn't win.

Jensen Ames: Why would Hennessey want that?

Case: To keep Frank here, racing.

Jensen Ames: And yesterday?

Case: I was trying to set you back.

Jensen Ames: So, I'm not supposed to win either. Just make it exciting.

^^^^^^^^^^^^vvvvvvvvvvvv^^^^^^^^^^^^vvvvvvvvvvvv^^^^^^^^^^^^vvvvvvvvvvvv^^^^^^^^^^^^vvvvvvvvvvvv
Hennessey (having always shown before a distinct aversion to crude language): Okay cocksucker. Fuck with me, and we'll see who shits on the sidewalk.

^^^^^^^^^^^^vvvvvvvvvvvv^^^^^^^^^^^^vvvvvvvvvvvv^^^^^^^^^^^^vvvvvvvvvvvv^^^^^^^^^^^^vvvvvvvvvvvv
^^^^^^^^^^^^vvvvvvvvvvvv^^^^^^^^^^^^vvvvvvvvvvvv^^^^^^^^^^^^vvvvvvvvvvvv^^^^^^^^^^^^vvvvvvvvvvvv


ImageImageGo back using these buttons.ImageImageImageImageImageImage



Image
Death Race 2000 quotes page at IMDb
Death Race (2008) quotes page at IMDb
Gort/YTMN left the forum due to trolling on August 25, 2018.
I had fun. Thanks for reading!

"The wealthy and powerful always remind us that cream rises to the top.
What they fail to acknowledge is that pond scum also rises to the top.
And there is a lot more pond scum in the world than there is cream.
If you become rich and powerful, I hope that you will be cream rather than pond scum." --YTMN

Rematch Resurrection Catalog for Rounds 1-4 New post 180721 -- YTMN's Remake Rematch Thread.
Thread Resurrected 21 Jul 2018. Thread abandoned 1 Aug 2017. Thread COMPLETE 25 May 14 (2d time!)


The Future Unreels
User avatar
YouTookMyName
Posts: 2227
Joined: Thu Jun 17, 2010 1:53 am

Re: YTMN Presents a Remake Rematch Thread

Post by YouTookMyName » Wed Apr 02, 2014 9:28 am

A Comparison of Death Race 2000 (1975) & Death Race (2008)
Image

IMDb link 6.2/10 with 16,497 votes -- RT-link 85% Tomatometer; 65% audience, with 25,188 user ratings

Year: 1975 Director: Paul Bartel -- Cast: David Carradine, Simone Griffeth, Sylvester Stallone, Mary Woronov, Roberta Collins, Martin Kove, Louisa Moritz -- Length: 80 min. Color/Stereo -- estimated budget: $300,000

Roger Corman has said that nearly all his films have had some kind of social message. Ib Melchior's short story The Racer is the source for the script that became Death Race 2000. The message of this cinematic story is that people love violence, and killing makes it ever so special. But that isn't the only message. The complete message would say that some people love violence that much, but not all people. (That's why there is a Resistance.) You might call the show within a film (the Race is broadcast live on television) "snuff TV."

When I watched the film for the fourth time my aim was to make notes of things I liked and did not like for the section below. But I found that I didn't have really strong feelings about the aspects of the movie.
Image
Although the film has a reputation for "campiness" when I watched it right after watching the 2008 remake, I saw much less campiness than is alleged. If you took the dialog from this movie and the production design from the 2008 movie, and melded them into a new film, it would still seem campy, but not 1960s-70s campy. It would seem double-ought campy, the way the 2008 film does.

I had always watched this film independently of its remake. In fact, I have actually watched the remake only when the DVD was first available from Blockbuster (remember that store?) and the night before I wrote these two reviews. Seeing them together and in the "reverse order" opened my eyes to some aspects of both films that I had never noticed.

Certain characters verge on the tediousness of Jar-Jar Binks. But if you're looking for campiness on the scale of the Batman TV series, you won't find it. Once the plot gets rolling, you can find satire, but the camp threads continue only in the guise of the automobile and costume designs, along with Sylvester Stallone's portrayal of Machine Gun Joe Viterbo.

Here are some aspects of the film and whether I like them or don't care for them:
Image
Like: The mild campiness of the film design keeps the grisly theme from being overwhelming. The point of the crowd loving violence is made just as well as if it were deadly serious in its approach. In one sense The Hunger Games and Battle Royale lose something by not being funny. Then again, times have changed and perhaps we are back to having a public who think that any hint of humor takes all the edge off a plot; they might think that humor has no place in seriousness. They might think that gray is more serious than green.

Like: Although the kills are shown, and there is fake blood splashed about, the cuts are only a few frames. The effect is mostly in the viewer's imagination. Because that's how they did things in those days.

Like: There is one line that solidifies just how twisted the regime in the film is, when a girl says to Frankenstein, "Scoring isn't killing, Mr. Frankenstein. It's part of the Race. You're a national hero."

Like: The selection of buildings to use for futuristic exteriors is well-done. It reminds me of what I learned about the 1975 version of Rollerball, where buildings were selected for exteriors based on their futuristic (read that "unusual") architecture.

Like: The photography is very nice considering the budget that Bartel had to work with. It is frequently imaginative, rather than being constantly bland and predictable.
Image
Don't Like: A few of the characters are so one-sided that they become grating. Junior Bruce, the play-by-play announcer is one of them.

Don't Like: There are one or two moments that are really bizarre and plot squelching, mainly the bedroom dance between Frankenstein and Annie Smith.

Image
It wouldn't be reasonable to complain about the low budget of the film and the shortcuts that had to be made to stay in budget. A lot of what I like a bit less about this film is related to the lower budget. It's a tongue-in-cheek presentation of an uncomfortable possibility: that what we now call reality television might spawn actual on-air killings as part of the entertainment of a program. The Ib Melchior short story The Racer (1956) is based in a 1939 experience Melchior had at the Indianapolis Motor Speedway when a racer was burned to death in a crash. In the preface to the book Reel Future Forest J. Ackerman wrote
During the races he sat with the wives of some of the racers. Suddenly, in the midst of one of the races, there was a disastrous wreck, and one of the drivers was killed. The woman Melchior was seated next to was the dead racer's wife. He then saw a crowd of people begin to push and shove toward the fiery crash site so that they could catch a glimpse of the mangled body. Every pair of field glasses was also trained on the grisly sight; at the same time, Melchior saw the look of shock and horror on the face of the woman seated beside him.
Melchior's story was written to be serious, although it doesn't totally lack humor. Paul Bartel's film was tongue-in-cheek, but not as zany as a Mad Magazine satire. Even the bubble of humor in which the film exists really cannot take the look of horror off the faces of those who watch it. If you allow yourself to imagine that the goings-on in Death Race 2000 are real, then it's horrifying.



ImageImageGo back using these buttons.ImageImageImageImageImageImage



Image
Death Race 2000 from Wikipedia
Paul Bartel from Wikipedia
David Carradine from Wikipedia
Simone Griffeth from Wikipedia
Sylvester Stallone from Wikipedia
Ib Melchior from Wikipedia
Roger Corman from Wikipedia
New World Pictures from Wikipedia
Frankenstein (Death Race) from Wikipedia
Death Race 2000 (1975) Trivia from IMDb
Death Race from giantbomb.com. "Death Race is a game for the arcades and NES based on the film "Death Race 2000". It struck controversy when it was released in 1976."
Gort/YTMN left the forum due to trolling on August 25, 2018.
I had fun. Thanks for reading!

"The wealthy and powerful always remind us that cream rises to the top.
What they fail to acknowledge is that pond scum also rises to the top.
And there is a lot more pond scum in the world than there is cream.
If you become rich and powerful, I hope that you will be cream rather than pond scum." --YTMN

Rematch Resurrection Catalog for Rounds 1-4 New post 180721 -- YTMN's Remake Rematch Thread.
Thread Resurrected 21 Jul 2018. Thread abandoned 1 Aug 2017. Thread COMPLETE 25 May 14 (2d time!)


The Future Unreels
User avatar
YouTookMyName
Posts: 2227
Joined: Thu Jun 17, 2010 1:53 am

Re: YTMN Presents a Remake Rematch Thread

Post by YouTookMyName » Thu Apr 03, 2014 9:15 am

A Comparison of Death Race 2000 (1975) & Death Race (2008)
Image

IMDb link 6.4/10 with 132,376 votes -- RT-link 43% Tomatometer; 62% audience, with 206,198 user ratings

Year: 2008 Director: Paul W. S. Anderson -- Cast: Jason Statham, Joan Allen, Ian McShane, Tyrese Gibson, Natalie Martinez -- Length: 105 min. Color/Stereo -- estimated budget: $45,000,000

This review continues to sound more negative than I actually feel about the movie. I watched only the theatrical release rather than the unrated version. Oh well, after editing this review for over a week, I think I'll just post it. It starts off in the linguistic style of the film itself:

Paul W. S. Anderson says in the making of feature on the DVD that this film isn't campy.

Bullshit.

It's at least as campy as the 1975 film, but in terms of 2008 notions. Modern campiness is dry and "gritty" but it's still just as sophomoric and goofy. Trouble is, the movie is disingenuous because it styles itself as "serious" when it is no such thing. That's the worst aspect of this film. It lies to itself. But it can't lie to you. You know there is nothing serious at all about this laughless violence/gun/car-porn flick. And the notion that it is "realistic" is a total piss. A blue million blank bullets make something realistic? Fuck, no! Using gross juvenile and coarse language makes it uncampy? Like hell. Shove the idea up your ass, dude! And the "humor" that is in the movie is as lifeless as the idea that it isn't campy. To wit--there is none. Wry, maybe, but not at all funny.
Image
But it's a thousand-fold more enjoyable as a film than, say, that Rollerball thing that I love to snicker at. At least at the end of Death Race you feel like you've seen something that tells a story.

The film is unforgivingly mean-spirited. "No one in this world is perfect. Heaven knows I'm not." There are a few lines in the film that are supposed to make this "situational" meanness okay. I guess someone thinks this is "tough," but it's citified-pansy ideas of toughness, not real toughness. Being mean is not the same as being tough. In fact, it's often the opposite in real life. But this film conflates the two, which is the epitome of non-realism: Takes two things that are not the same and mushes them together.

So, I suggest that you watch this movie without the claims of the producers in your mind at all. Just watch it and see how you respond. You'll no doubt notice that the cars look just as dumb as the ones in the 1975 film, but there is a lot of black paint and extra junk stuck onto them (much like the 1975 prop cars had extra junk stuck all over them) which must be more "serious." A Gatling gun in real life, especially if it is pointed at you, is not silly. In this film the gats are totally silly. What this film goes for is the idea, not the reality. Gats on cars! Fuckin' cool, dude! It would be damn difficult to aim machine guns from a moving car. If you hit anything you intended to it would be largely chance.

The enormous, hilarious dreadnought is a sort of cinematic idea, but the only thing really cool about it is its kill scene.
Image
Synths in the soundtrack fit really well here. I like the score.

As for the cars in the 1975 version being "campier" than the ones in the 2008: a theme car is a theme car whether it's green or black. Whether it has fangs sticking out the front or machine guns. Gray is not more serious than green.


Here are some aspects of the film and whether I like them or don't care for them:

Like: The opening sequence with the plant where Jensen Ames works closing down, is well-constructed.

Like: Joan Allen looks so smug when men are dying during the dreadnought attack.

Like: In this race there is no such thing as cheating.

Like: The editing is only frenetic during the race sequences.

Like: The prison walls have peeling paint.
Image
Like: Paul W. S. Anderson's films always have a style of visualization that is somewhat artistic, and very dramatic. Nearly always imaginative. If only the scripts were consistently as good as the images!

Like: Case (Mr. F.'s navigator) admits to killing her cop husband.

Like: The use of an abandoned locomotive factory for the prison adds some grunge and visual appeal to the sets that might not have been there.

Don't Like: The original Frankenstein is supposed to be able to see well enough to drive a race car with that mask? Come off it! (Oh, wait. That's the campiness that isn't supposed to be there. I get it.) At least the Statham character takes it off when he drives.

Don't Like: The road race is placed inside a high-security island prison where the only ones who will get offed are prisoners. Mean-spirited, but definitely waay watered-down from the social commentary of The Racer or of Death Race 2000. Sure, it's morally objectionable to think of people watching TV in order to see prisoners buy it, but there is a drastic shift in literary tone when the race is taken off the public streets, and the targets are no longer people trying to go about their business. The injustice is not only the deaths of civilians, but that the government would make the race into a 3-day anti-holiday for everyone, requiring them to be sequestered inside, in prison as it were until the Race is over. That is lost entirely in this version.
Image
Like: The graphics the we see representing what the home audience sees.

Don't Like: A man says to his co-workers, "Gentlemen, this should be interesting." Hah. The writers couldn't think of a damn thing to say. Actually, that's true not only in this scene. One of the least-quotable films I have ever watched. The movie might have been better with zero dialog.

Don't Like: So Many Cliches: being framed by a masked murderer. Betrayal. Unfairness. Brutality in prison. Snide guards. Tiresome list of "impossibles" which, of course, won't stop Statham. Rivals become buds. After a swap, the swapped individual comes driving up at the end. Ultra cliche. Reality TV leads to actual violence. Super ultra cliche.

Don't Like: It would be surprising if someone found a moment in this film surprising.

Don't Like: The ultra-swift editing within the early race sequences sucks the life out of them.

Don't Like: Even though the other-sex navigators are retained, except in the case of Machine Gun Joe, there are no female drivers, because all-male prison. That takes away something good that the original had, in my opinion. And there is no substantial jousting between driver and navigator except for Machine Gun Joe and his guy-navigators.

Image
I can't decide whether Anderson or his intended audiences lack imagination when I see a film like this. The first two Resident Evil films (my only two watches so far in that series) actually seem to have been made by a different writer/director from this Paul W.S. Anderson.

On balance I'd have to say that this film and its original are two different genres of films, that are even more asynchronous than the time periods in which each was made. To some extent each film reflects its contemporary social notions, but to another extent they should fall into the same "futurism" space, and they don't. The 1975 film makes a broad series of comments on humanity and social vagaries. The 2008 film makes one lame point about reality TV, and that's it.

But for a kid from the 21st century the 2008 film will probably be a more tolerable watch. Last, from IMDb trivia:
According to writer and director Paul W.S. Anderson, it's a prequel to Death Race 2000 (1975) set 15 to 20 years before even though it's actually set sometime after 2012.
and
Originally written as a sequel to Death Race 2000 (1975) titled Death Race 3000, a race around the world with futuristic hovering, invisible and transformer cars, but had to be rewritten due to production costs.
Glad they didn't make that one! If you like bullet dings, fiery explosions, and actors looking stunned when their characters realize they are about to die, this is the movie for you. Oh, yeah, and navigators with large bazongas.

And if you like what you see, there are two direct-to-disc releases that might be based on the same idea. I haven't seen them. Anderson wrote them but did not direct them.



ImageImageGo back using these buttons.ImageImageImageImageImageImage



Image
Death Race (film) from Wikipedia
Paul W. S. Anderson
Jason Statham
Joan Allen
Tyrese Gibson
Ian McShane
Natalie Martinez
Roger Corman from Wikipedia
Relativity Media from Wikipedia
Death Race (video game) from Wikipedia
Death Race 2 from Wikipedia
Death Race 3: Inferno from Wikipedia
Canadian Death Race from Wikipedia. "The Canadian Death Race is a 125 kilometer foot race through the Canadian rocky mountains in Grande Cache, Alberta. It includes three mountain summits, one major river crossing, and 17,000 feet of elevation change."
Frankenstein (Death Race) from Wikipedia
Death Race (2008) Trivia from IMDb
Gort/YTMN left the forum due to trolling on August 25, 2018.
I had fun. Thanks for reading!

"The wealthy and powerful always remind us that cream rises to the top.
What they fail to acknowledge is that pond scum also rises to the top.
And there is a lot more pond scum in the world than there is cream.
If you become rich and powerful, I hope that you will be cream rather than pond scum." --YTMN

Rematch Resurrection Catalog for Rounds 1-4 New post 180721 -- YTMN's Remake Rematch Thread.
Thread Resurrected 21 Jul 2018. Thread abandoned 1 Aug 2017. Thread COMPLETE 25 May 14 (2d time!)


The Future Unreels
User avatar
Gort
Posts: 9068
Joined: Fri Feb 26, 2010 8:50 pm
Location: Reducing some planet to a burned out cinder.

Re: YTMN Presents a Remake Rematch Thread

Post by Gort » Fri Apr 04, 2014 9:02 pm

So far, only two essay ideas have flown on this one. The rest won't race.

Thought of "Racial Composition of the Cast," but it's basically:
1975 - all white. 2008 has black persons, also. And Hispanic and even one Asian.

That's a short essay. I'd have to change the line above the essay blocks to say, "Click below to read some additional pointless sentences comparing these two films."

Costumes Compared
1975 - weird. 2008 - looks like prison uniforms, except for Joan Allen. Oh, and the navigators when they first arrive from the women's prison look like they stepped out of a music video.

So, it looks like I'm still revving only two essays for this Quickmatch.
Gort/YTMN left the forum due to trolling on August 25, 2018.
I had fun. Thanks for reading!

"The wealthy and powerful always remind us that cream rises to the top.
What they fail to acknowledge is that pond scum also rises to the top.
And there is a lot more pond scum in the world than there is cream.
If you become rich and powerful, I hope that you will be cream rather than pond scum." --YTMN

Rematch Resurrection Catalog for Rounds 1-4 New post 180721 -- YTMN's Remake Rematch Thread.
Thread Resurrected 21 Jul 2018. Thread abandoned 1 Aug 2017. Thread COMPLETE 25 May 14 (2d time!)


The Future Unreels
User avatar
YouTookMyName
Posts: 2227
Joined: Thu Jun 17, 2010 1:53 am

Re: YTMN Presents a Remake Rematch Thread

Post by YouTookMyName » Sat Apr 05, 2014 1:00 pm

A Comparison of Death Race 2000 (1975) & Death Race (2008)

Image
Adapted a Good Car Story Lately?

The DVD release of Death Race 2000 has an interview with Ib Melchoir, film director and writer, whose story The Racer was the basis for Roger Corman's 1975 production. Mr. Melchior relates in the interview video that his inspiration for the story was a real-life incident that occurred at the Indianapolis Motor Speedway when he was 22 years old. He was seated in the box with visitors and the wives of the racers, when a racer lost control of his car, and burned to death right across the roadway from the box. Melchior was seated next to the man's wife, and he found her reaction fitting and most moving. However, he found the reaction of fans in the stands to be disturbing. People stood to get a better view, took photos, and in every way enjoyed seeing this man die. That was in 1939. His short story based on the incident wasn't published until 1956. As he thought about that day, and projected this bloodlust into the future, he conceived of a story centered on a coast to coast road race in which racers get points for running over pedestrians.
Image
Melchior was not involved in the film at all, except as the author of the story that was adapted. He says that his story was not intended to be funny, but his opinion is that Roger Corman turned it on its head, and in doing so vastly improved the story.

Melchoir's original story begins:
Ib Melchoir wrote:Willie felt the familiar intoxicating excitement. His mouth was dry; his heart beat faster, all his senses seemed more aware than ever. It was a few minutes before 0800 hours--his time to start.

This was the day. From all the Long Island Starting Fields the Racers were taking off at 15-minute intervals. The sputter and roar of cars warming up were everywhere. The smell of oil and fuel fumes permeated the air. The hubbub of the great crowd was a steady din. This was the biggest race of the year--New York to Los Angeles--100,000 bucks to the winner! Willie was determined to better his winning record of last year.
Two pages further in we learn what the term "The Score" refers to in this race, as Willie talks to his co-driver, Hank:
Ib Melchoir wrote:"The Time isn't everything my friend. Whoever said the shortest distance between two points is a straight line? The Score counts too. And here's where we pick up our Score!"

The first Tragi-Acc never even knew the Racer had arrived. "The Bull" struck him squarely, threw him up in the air and let him slide off its plastiglass back, leaving a red smear behind and somewhat to the left of Willie--all in a split second....

Near Calvin College an imprudent coed found herself too far from cover when the Racer suddenly came streaking down the campus. Frantically she sprinted for safety, but she didn't have a chance with a driver like Willie behind the wheel. The razor sharp horn on the right fender sliced through her spine so cleanly that the jar wasn't even felt inside the car.

Leaving town the Racer was in luck again. An elderly woman had left the sanctuary of her stone-walled garden to rescue a straying cat. She was so easy to hit that Willie felt a little cheated.

At 1232 hours they were on the speedway headed for Kansas City.
I don't get the impression that Melchoir's story is entirely free of tongue-in-cheek attitude, but he didn't write it (he says) to be humorous. (This is despite the clear pun on the name Calvin Coolidge in the excerpt.)

There are no character names that carry over from the Ib Melchior short story to either movie. The driver is Willie, and his navigator is Hank.

But did you catch the words, "The razor sharp horn on the right fender sliced through her spine so cleanly that the jar wasn't even felt inside the car," in that short story excerpt? There are "horns" on Willie's car. Car horns, get it? Willie's car has a name, The Bull, and it has a bull-horn on the right fender (we presume the horn has an identical twin on the left fender). "Calamity" Jane Kelly's car in the 1975 film has horns on its fenders, and it's named The Bull. In one sequence she has a bullfight with a man who is flourishing a red cape, before spearing him with one of the horns on her car.
Image
Only the names of rival drivers Frankenstein and Machine Gun Joe carry over from the 1975 film to the 2008 remake. The two characters retain their rivalry. Frankenstein's car in both films is The Monster, but that name is used only once in each film. In the 1975 version, Frankenstein says to a girl who idolizes him, "You want me because I drive the Monster and wear this costume." The name of the car is made clear in the visual pun of the automobile styling. In the 2008 version we hear, "Time to meet the Monster," referring to Jensen's race car. There is no visual punnery in the 2008 film.
Image
The 2008 adaptation of the story is also not expressly humorous. In the remake the targets are not "other" than the drivers, they are simply the other drivers. Because of this change it is gutted of the social commentary within the story, although its existence becomes a possible commentary on the real intended viewers in 2008 -- the society for which the film was made.


Machine Gun Joe Viterbo is one of the victims of the Resistance in 1975, but the character with that name in the 2008 film doesn't die. All three stories take the idea of a race in which people die and treat the possibilities differently. Each has its own tone. The short story is very mildly tongue-in-cheek at times, but overall not. The 1975 film has obvious and subtle jokes flying nearly all the time, but maintains a core of serious dread. The 2008 film pretends to be serious, but it's just as over the top visually and in terms of violence as the 1975 film is with set design and sophomoric humor.
Image
Depending on your age and personality you'd be likely to pick one of them as the best telling of the tale, but I can't guess which one would have the greatest number of admirers.




ImageImageGo back using these buttons.ImageImageImageImageImageImage



Image
15 Underseen And Overlooked Dystopian Futures In Film from Indiewire (Death Race 2000 is one of them)
Death Race 2000 ‘Monster’ for sale 22 July 2011 "Own a slice of the best Worst Car Film ever made…"
The Cars Of Death Race Ray Wert at Jalopnik, Filed to: Death Race 6/03/08 3:00am. Specs of each of the cars in the 2008 film. "So without further ado, below the jump are the ten vehicles at the center of the new Paul W.S. Anderson-directed flick coming to a theater near you August 22nd, 2008 — along with all the details on the add-ons that make them 'special'"
Death Race (2008) Heavy Automotive Metal in a Rusty Pileup Soufflé By NATHAN LEE Published: August 21, 2008 "No fancy talk here, just solid, monosyllabic obscenities; no flights of digital fancy, just souped-up monster cars flipping end over end in a napalm blaze and crashing in a crunch of flaming metal ouch."
Death Race: Cars, Props, Races, Actions August 18, 2008 by Emanuel Levy. "The industrial character of the autos came from the gritty, bashed-up aesthetic, as these are machines built by the criminals. The actors loved their respective rides, complete with napalm, nitrous-oxide (NOS) tanks and ejector seats." & "Originally, the production intended to fake the weapons' gunfire, but Taylor convinced them otherwise. 'There's no better way than to just fire them the way they were meant to be fired,' he says. 'We put a very simple mechanical or electrical system in, based on the type of gun, so that it would fire the way it was supposed to.'"
History of the Indianapolis 500 – Part Two May 25, 2011 by Leigh Dorrington at sportscardigest.com
Mercedes-Benz W154
Die 500 Meilen von Indianapolis von Formel1.de
Gort/YTMN left the forum due to trolling on August 25, 2018.
I had fun. Thanks for reading!

"The wealthy and powerful always remind us that cream rises to the top.
What they fail to acknowledge is that pond scum also rises to the top.
And there is a lot more pond scum in the world than there is cream.
If you become rich and powerful, I hope that you will be cream rather than pond scum." --YTMN

Rematch Resurrection Catalog for Rounds 1-4 New post 180721 -- YTMN's Remake Rematch Thread.
Thread Resurrected 21 Jul 2018. Thread abandoned 1 Aug 2017. Thread COMPLETE 25 May 14 (2d time!)


The Future Unreels
User avatar
YouTookMyName
Posts: 2227
Joined: Thu Jun 17, 2010 1:53 am

Re: YTMN Presents a Remake Rematch Thread

Post by YouTookMyName » Sat Apr 05, 2014 1:03 pm

A Comparison of Death Race 2000 (1975) & Death Race (2008)

Image
Roger Corman

Roger Corman has 408 credits as Producer or Executive Producer, to date. He also has 56 credits as Director. Corman has a shelf-full of Lifetime Achievement Awards. He is known for giving people a chance to make it, and many well-known directors and producers had their first engagement with creating cinema due to the grace of Roger Corman. He has arranged the financing for hundreds of films and television series, and is still going strong at 88 years old (on April 5, 2014). He was involved as Producer on both the films we're looking at in this Quickmatch. From IMDb we have this quote
I've never made the film I wanted to make. No matter what happens, it never turns out exactly as I hoped.
I can resonate to this sentiment, because out of my hundreds of non-fiction video productions over 20 years there was not a one that wasn't subject to some corner-cutting that was brought about by my clients' choices, that seemed to cheapen what I had worked so hard to achieve. In a few cases it was only the forced inclusion of some old VHS clips in a video that would otherwise have been fully produced in Betacam-SP quality. Broke my heart, each time. The rest of his career isn't like mine at all. The main thing is, my work was institutional and marketing stuff, and his was marketable stuff. He made many millions and ... I didn't.

Corman shot The Little Shop of Horrors (1960) in two days. It turned a profit. In fact, they say that only a handful of his films ever failed to become profitable. Not only that, he had a tremendous influence in Hollywood as well as independent cinema by offering so many chances to so many newcomers. So it is no surprise that Jane Ruhm, the costumer for the 1975 production, had never been in charge of costumes for a feature film before. The next year she was the costume designer for Hollywood Boulevard. Paul Chihara composed his first film score for this film, and he has composed the scores for 83 films since. Mostly TV movies, but a job is a job.

Corman was also the executive producer for the 2008 remake. I'm willing to bet that not nearly as many highly-placed technical people had a chance to try something for the very first time ever, on that film. Death Race (2008) was at the time the most expensive film Corman ever produced.

It says in the IMDb bio:
it could almost be said that it would be easier to name the top directors, actors, writers, creators in Hollywood who didn't get their start with Corman than those who did.
In the 1960's Corman started his own releasing company, and there were the predictable schlock horror pictures, but his New World Pictures also became the US distributor for
the films of Ingmar Bergman, Akira Kurosawa, Federico Fellini, François Truffaut, and others.
The man's achievements eclipse the mere popularization of cheaply made films that are usually fairly interesting, sometimes very entertaining. His foreign film imports introduced Americans to a number of the directors and classic foreign films that I learned about, or saw, during my film school years in the 1970s.

He always seems like such a pleasant man in his interviews, but something tells me he's not a man you'd want to be angry with you or your work! Yet, his generosity in dealing out first chances to people says that maybe I would be worried over nothing.





ImageImageGo back using these buttons.ImageImageImageImageImageImage



Image
Roger Corman from IMDb
roger corman movies - Google search results
How I Made A Hundred Movies In Hollywood And Never Lost A Dime by Roger Corman. at Amazon.com
Roger Corman biography from bio.com. "Soon Corman became known as the "B-movie king" for his output of low-budget films — about 350 in total — that grossed many times their production price."
ROGER CORMAN SPLATTERS THE WEB posted by Alex Riviello 10.15.2009 at CHUD.com "What’s that? Roger Corman isn’t making any more movies? Hah! The legend will never stop, and his latest project is going after the internet. Netflix just announced that they’ve teamed up with the man to produce a webseries called Splatter."
Gort/YTMN left the forum due to trolling on August 25, 2018.
I had fun. Thanks for reading!

"The wealthy and powerful always remind us that cream rises to the top.
What they fail to acknowledge is that pond scum also rises to the top.
And there is a lot more pond scum in the world than there is cream.
If you become rich and powerful, I hope that you will be cream rather than pond scum." --YTMN

Rematch Resurrection Catalog for Rounds 1-4 New post 180721 -- YTMN's Remake Rematch Thread.
Thread Resurrected 21 Jul 2018. Thread abandoned 1 Aug 2017. Thread COMPLETE 25 May 14 (2d time!)


The Future Unreels
User avatar
YouTookMyName
Posts: 2227
Joined: Thu Jun 17, 2010 1:53 am

Re: YTMN Presents a Remake Rematch Thread

Post by YouTookMyName » Sat Apr 05, 2014 1:43 pm

ImageImageImage
Next, The Champ (1931) vs. The Champ (1979)

I'll need a case of tissues to re-watch these. :D

No telling when I'll start to post, but once I begin it will take 14 days or less.

If you are interested in watching the films, here's a link to the Find-it post for the Quickmatch.

I'm going to go back through the thread when I'm done and see how many Rematches are like the Death Race one--where there were no comments posted at all!
Gort/YTMN left the forum due to trolling on August 25, 2018.
I had fun. Thanks for reading!

"The wealthy and powerful always remind us that cream rises to the top.
What they fail to acknowledge is that pond scum also rises to the top.
And there is a lot more pond scum in the world than there is cream.
If you become rich and powerful, I hope that you will be cream rather than pond scum." --YTMN

Rematch Resurrection Catalog for Rounds 1-4 New post 180721 -- YTMN's Remake Rematch Thread.
Thread Resurrected 21 Jul 2018. Thread abandoned 1 Aug 2017. Thread COMPLETE 25 May 14 (2d time!)


The Future Unreels
User avatar
Gort
Posts: 9068
Joined: Fri Feb 26, 2010 8:50 pm
Location: Reducing some planet to a burned out cinder.

Re: YTMN Presents a Remake Rematch Thread

Post by Gort » Thu Apr 17, 2014 8:13 pm

Alex, are you about caught up? :)

I've gotten the reviews written, the tech posts done, except I can't find photos online of most of these people! I'm working on essays, and then there are graphics to build. But I won't post everything at once. I'll stretch it out over...mmm...several days.
Gort/YTMN left the forum due to trolling on August 25, 2018.
I had fun. Thanks for reading!

"The wealthy and powerful always remind us that cream rises to the top.
What they fail to acknowledge is that pond scum also rises to the top.
And there is a lot more pond scum in the world than there is cream.
If you become rich and powerful, I hope that you will be cream rather than pond scum." --YTMN

Rematch Resurrection Catalog for Rounds 1-4 New post 180721 -- YTMN's Remake Rematch Thread.
Thread Resurrected 21 Jul 2018. Thread abandoned 1 Aug 2017. Thread COMPLETE 25 May 14 (2d time!)


The Future Unreels
User avatar
Quite-Gone Genie
Posts: 22840
Joined: Sat Feb 20, 2010 4:36 pm

Re: YTMN Presents a Remake Rematch Thread

Post by Quite-Gone Genie » Thu Apr 17, 2014 11:33 pm

Ha, I wish. I will read more when I can get to a screen that's bigger than a phone.
"So, you see, he was condemned to walk in darkness a quadrillion kilometres (we've adopted the metric system, you know)..."
██████████████████████████████████████████The Devil, The Brothers Karamazov
User avatar
YouTookMyName
Posts: 2227
Joined: Thu Jun 17, 2010 1:53 am

Re: YTMN Presents a Remake Rematch Thread

Post by YouTookMyName » Sat Apr 19, 2014 12:32 am

Image
Image
A Comparison of The Champ (1931) and The Champ (1979)
At the Helm


1931
King Vidor does not receive screen credit for directing this version of The Champ, although he is the only credited producer (of four total). Vidor directed 78 titles, produced 23 and wrote 28. He was born in 1894, and at age 19 he directed his first silent film. His first sound film was released in 1928. The next year he produced and directed Hallelujah (1929). Between 1929 and 1957 Vidor was nominated five times for Best Director Oscars, but did not win. His third nomination was for The Champ (1931). Vidor lived to age 88.

Image
1979
Franco Zeffirelli appears for the second time in our group of directors. Remember, he directed the 1968 version of Romeo and Juliet that we looked at in Round One. Zeffirelli's most recent film was a short in 2009, preceded by a Maria Callas documentary in 2002. He has worked both in theater and cinema, and is well regarded in both arenas. Zeffirelli has written opera libretti, served as a member of the Italian Parliament, and somehow has managed to work in directing 22 film productions in among all these accomplishments, so far. If you look at his IMDb page, you will see that he has helmed 22 opera productions for the stage, many of which were recorded as television programs also. He is best known for Romeo and Juliet (1968), for which he received a Best Director nomination at the Oscars and Golden Globes in 1969. Most of the awards he has won are for operatic productions.




ImageImageGo back using these buttons.ImageImageImageImageImageImage



Image
King Vidor silentsaregolden.com (photo source)
King Vidor from Wikipedia
Franco Zeffirelli from Wikipedia
FRANCO ZEFIRELLI Saturday, 2 October 2010 at thetraditionalcatholicfaith.blogspot.com (photo source)
Gort/YTMN left the forum due to trolling on August 25, 2018.
I had fun. Thanks for reading!

"The wealthy and powerful always remind us that cream rises to the top.
What they fail to acknowledge is that pond scum also rises to the top.
And there is a lot more pond scum in the world than there is cream.
If you become rich and powerful, I hope that you will be cream rather than pond scum." --YTMN

Rematch Resurrection Catalog for Rounds 1-4 New post 180721 -- YTMN's Remake Rematch Thread.
Thread Resurrected 21 Jul 2018. Thread abandoned 1 Aug 2017. Thread COMPLETE 25 May 14 (2d time!)


The Future Unreels
User avatar
YouTookMyName
Posts: 2227
Joined: Thu Jun 17, 2010 1:53 am

Re: YTMN Presents a Remake Rematch Thread

Post by YouTookMyName » Sat Apr 19, 2014 12:43 am

Quite-Gone Genie wrote:Ha, I wish. I will read more when I can get to a screen that's bigger than a phone.
Maybe I should make the text really big.
Gort/YTMN left the forum due to trolling on August 25, 2018.
I had fun. Thanks for reading!

"The wealthy and powerful always remind us that cream rises to the top.
What they fail to acknowledge is that pond scum also rises to the top.
And there is a lot more pond scum in the world than there is cream.
If you become rich and powerful, I hope that you will be cream rather than pond scum." --YTMN

Rematch Resurrection Catalog for Rounds 1-4 New post 180721 -- YTMN's Remake Rematch Thread.
Thread Resurrected 21 Jul 2018. Thread abandoned 1 Aug 2017. Thread COMPLETE 25 May 14 (2d time!)


The Future Unreels
User avatar
YouTookMyName
Posts: 2227
Joined: Thu Jun 17, 2010 1:53 am

Re: YTMN Presents a Remake Rematch Thread

Post by YouTookMyName » Sat Apr 19, 2014 6:43 pm

Image
Image
A Comparison of The Champ (1931) and The Champ (1979)
Lines You Might Like

These lines are taken from the srt files for each movie. Links for downloads in the weblinks at the bottom of the post.

1931ImageImageImage

(Andy "The Champ" Purcell and his son, Dink, are running along a dirt road while the Champ trains for a hoped-for boxing match)
Andy: Say, Dink, if them promoters get me that fight, I'm gonna buy you a horse.
Dink: Gee, a real horse?
Andy: Certainly. What do you think it is, a wooden horse? Hey, what happened to the atch-pay I sewed on the anny-fay?
Dink: Gee, I must have lost it. Does it ow-shay?
Andy: Well, I guess it's your underwear. It'll give you plenty of air through there, anyway.

==========================================================================================================
(The Champ and Dink are under the quilt on their bed, ready for sleep, but the Champ has just lost the support of fight promoters due to being drunk, and he's worried about what his son will think.)
Andy: You don't believe what they said about me being drunk the night I lost the Championship, do you, Dink?
Dink (without conviction): No.
Andy: All right. -- Boy, oh, boy, oh, boy. I'm gonna lay off the booze, word of honor. I'm not gonna gamble anymore. -- You hear what I said, Dink?
Dink: Yeah, I heard you, Champ.
Andy: You ain't mad at me, are you?
Dink: No, I ain't mad.
Andy: Well, goodnight, Dink.
Dink: Goodnight, Champ.

==========================================================================================================
(Linda is getting her photo made with her race horse. Dink and Jonah walk up to her.)
Dink: Say, lady, I wouldn't bet on that horse if I was you.
Linda Carlton: You wouldn't?
Dink: No. If you got any money, you better stick it on my horse here.
Linda Carlton: Is this your horse?
Dink: Sure, it's my horse.
Linda Carlton: Well, he's a pretty good-looking animal.
Dink: Pretty good-looking, my eye! He's gonna win the race today.
Linda Carlton: Well, I think if you know, I'll just have to put some money on him. What's his name?
Dink: Little Champ.
Linda Carlton: Little Champ? What's your name?
Dink: Dink. What's yours?
Linda Carlton: Linda.
Dink: Hi, Linda.
Linda Carlton: I think Dink's a pretty name.
Dink: Well, Linda ain't a bad name, either.
Linda Carlton: Tony...this young man says that his horse is gonna win this race.
Tony Carlton: Well, now, that may be a good hunch. What's the name of the horse?
Dink: Little Champ.
Tony Carlton: Little Champ, eh?
Dink: Yeah.
Tony Carlton: I'll tell you what I'll do. I'll bet $50 on him.
Dink: $50? Gee, that's a lot of money.
Linda Carlton: How about it, Dink? Is that a safe bet?
Jonah: Plenty safe! I'd bet my last two bits on him.
Linda Carlton: Say, Dink, I don't think I've met your little friend.
Dink: Oh, this is Jonah, my pal. Meet Miss Linda.
Jonah: Glad to know you, Miss Linda.
Linda Carlton: How do you do, Jonah? I'm glad to meet you.
Jonah: So am I.
Linda Carlton (to Dink): He's colored.
Dink (thinking she means the horse): So he is.
Linda Carlton: Kind of a pretty color.
(Dink looks at Little Champ)
Dink: Yeah, ain't it, Jonah?
Jonah: Sure.

==========================================================================================================
(Andy has a note saying that Dink's horse is worth $300 toward what Andy now owns Whitey, the casino owner.)
Whitey: Okay, Andy, sign it.
Andy: Gee! It is Dink's horse, Whitey. I must have gone nuts to gamble him away. Dink will die if he finds it out.
Whitey: I'll tell you what I'll do. If you can raise the money within a couple of days I'll let you have him back. We won't say nothing, Andy.

==========================================================================================================
(Goldie and Dink walk up outside the cell where Sponge and Andy are locked up. Andy has decided that he's no good for the kid, and intends to send him off to live with Linda.)
Goldie: Well, Andy, in again, huh?
Dink (holding a lunch sack up to the jail bars): Brought you something to eat, Champ.
Andy: I'm not hungry. (to Goldie) You take that kid over and pack up his clothes...and then...bring him over to the hotel to his mother.
Dink: What for?
Andy: Because I said so. You're going to stay with your mother from now on.
Dink: Oh, no, Champ, I want to stay with you.
Andy: You do? (begins to put on that he doesn't want Dink to stay) Well...that's tough because you're just out of luck. You're not going to.
Dink: What am I going to do with her?
Andy: Well, you're going to go to school...and learn something...and grow up to be somebody. I'm tired of feeding you. Let her feed you for a while. I don't like you anymore. You're hanging around every place that I go...and I don't like you, that's all.
(Dink is in tears, his voice quiet)
Dink: I won't eat so much, Champ. And I won't hang around you. I'll stay up at the Greek's and wait till you come home nights.
Andy: No. No.
Dink: I wish you wouldn't send me, Champ. Gee, I can go to school here. The Fathers asked me a lot of times. I could grow up to be somebody. Somebody like you.
Andy: No. You're going to go to your mother's. I'm not going to have any sniveling around. You're going to stay with her...and I'm not going to have any more backtalk from you now, that's all.
(Dink reaches through the bars toward his father.)
Dink: No, sir, Champ, I ain't going to go. I'm telling you I ain't gonna go! I'm telling you I ain't gonna...
Andy: You're going to go. -- You're going to your mother's now.
Dink: I don't want to go. Oh, no, I want to stay with you. Please!
Andy: You're not going to. You're going to your mother's, Dink.
Dink: I wanna stay with you...
Andy: No! No! No!
(Andy strikes at the boy through the bars in the cell, and Dink falls back, holding his face.)
Dink: Okay, Champ. I'll go if you don't want me.
Andy: Go on, scram out of here.
(Goldie takes Dink away. When they are gone, Andy begins to repeatedly pummel the concrete cell wall with his bare hand.)
Sponge: Cut it out, Champ! What are you trying to do?
Andy: Gee, I hit my kid.
(Andy continues to punch the wall, as his blood drains down the paint.)
Sponge: Don't do that, Champ, you're breaking your hand. Don't do it, Champ. What's the matter? You going crazy?

==========================================================================================================
(Andy is distraught, lying in the bed, having been told that a prize fight has been arranged for him.)
Andy: What's the difference? I don't care whether I fight or not.
(Dink appears at the door of the room, having run away from his mother's train at San Diego.)
Dink: Hello. Thought I'd come and see how you was.
Andy (sees tears in the boy's eyes): You got a cold, ain't you?
Dink: No, I'm just sort of crying.

==========================================================================================================
(Dink has seen the Mexican opponent that the Champ is set up to fight. He comes up to his father, who has been training, but is resting at the moment.)
Dink: You tired, Champ?
Andy: Well, I'm a little tired. I got a lot of catching up to do...but I'm doing it all right.
Dink: I want to talk to you about that.
Andy: About what?
Dink: Well, about this here fight racket. I don't seem to like it.
Andy: How come? I thought you was strong for it.
Dink: Well, I've been thinking it over, you know, Champ? -- I like you lots better when you're not training.
Andy: Yeah?
Dink: Yeah. Well, for instance, when you got a couple of drinks in you...well, you're a lot of fun.
Andy: I thought you didn't like me drinking.
Dink: Well, I was wrong, Champ. Now that you quit gambling I got practically nothing to spit on.

==========================================================================================================
==========================================================================================================


1979ImageImageImage

==========================================================================================================
(Billy Flynn has been out gambling, and has had good luck. He carries T.J. to the old car and sets him on it. He takes out little things he's bought and tosses them to all his friends gathered around.)
Billy: Everybody gets presents. These are all for the people here.
(Meanwhile T.J. sits in the car watching, but his dad doesn't give him anything.)
Billy (to Josie): Ask me what I got for T.J.
Josie: Hey, Billy, what did you get for T.J.?
Billy: What did I get for T.J.?
Voices: You forgot?.
Billy: How could I've forgotten my own son?
Voices: No.
Voice: Poor T.J.
Billy: Now, wait a minute. Maybe there was a little something. Got to think now. Let me see if I can find it. (Calls out) Mr. Riley?. Mr. Riley?. Would you bring that little thing I got for T.J.? Bring it right over here, please.
(Mr. Riley leads over a chestnut mare decked out with flowers.)
Voices: Oh, yes. She's Beautiful.
(Billy watches T.J. study the horse, but the boy just stands there.)
Billy: What's the matter?. Don't you like it? I could take it back.
T.J.: She's mine?
Billy: Yeah.
T.J.: All mine?
Billy: Yeah, she's all yours.
T.J.: Really, all mine?
Billy: Yeah.
(T.J. jumps out of the car and goes to the horse.)

==========================================================================================================
(T.J. is coaching his jockey, Jeff.)
T.J.: Jeffie?
Jeff: Yeah?
T.J.: Don't rate her. Don't rate her.
Jeff: Yeah. You told me already.
T.J.: Don't let her get boxed in.
Jeff: Yeah.
T.J.: Go to the front and improve your position.
Jeff: Sure. Relax, T.J., I'll ride the horse, you watch. Everything's cool, okay?.
(Jeff stands aside as Annie walks up to look at She's a Lady.)
Annie: That's some horse. Is she really yours?
T.J.: Yeah. Mine and my dad's.
Annie: Well, she's got an extremely attractive head. Good confirmation. What's her name?
T.J.: She's a Lady.
Annie: Whoever named her knew what he was talking about. She has good composure.
T.J.: Are you with that "sassy boy" lady?.
Annie: She's a personal friend of mine.
T.J.: Personal friend or not, don't bet on that horse. Bet on mine. You'll make a million! Believe me.
Annie: Well, I need a million.
T.J.: You got it. It's in the bag.
Annie: Okay. I'll bet her. But if she doesn't pay off, I'll come looking for you.
T.J.: Okay. The name is T.J. And if she does pay off, I'll come looking for you.
Annie (who has been walking away, turns to face T.J.): The name's Annie.
T.J.: Good luck, Annie.

==========================================================================================================
(Mike has told Annie that T.J. is on board. She goes to his stateroom, wanting to help him get ready for bed, but he's being self-sufficient and won't even let her pull his shoes off for him.)
Annie: Here, let me...
T.J.: I can do it. I don't know why these shoes keep on getting knots in them.
(Annie drops to the floor and reaches for the knotted shoe lace.)
Annie: Let your mother do...(She looks up at T.J. who is stunned, and skeptical) The Champ didn't tell you?
T.J.: Tell me what?
Annie: I'm your mother.
(T.J. slips off the bed and backs away from her, beginning to have tears in his eyes.)
T.J.: No, my mother's dead.
Annie: No, she's not.
T.J.: She's a beautiful angel.
Annie: No, she's not!
Annie: I'm here and I love you! I love you very much!
T.J.: You don't live with us. You're not married to Champ.
Annie: No, listen to me. Listen to me, T.J. You don't have to live with someone to love them. I love you!
T.J.: Do you love the Champ? Do you? Do you love him? No, you're not my mother.
Annie: No!
T.J.: You're not my mother.
Annie: No, please, listen to me. It's not that simple. Listen to me!
T.J.: Go away! Please, don't touch me! I don't want you! - I don't want you! Go away!
Annie: Timmy!
T.J.: I told you. Go away! Go away! I want Champ! I don't want you. I want the Champ! I want Champ! I want Champ! I don't want you! I want to go back to the Champ! Get out of here!
(Annie, stunned, goes out of the stateroom.)

==========================================================================================================
(Billy is running, T.J. is riding his bicycle beside him.)
Billy: Hey, T.J.?
T.J.: Yeah, Champ.
Billy: You got anything you want to tell me?
T.J.: No, Champ.
Billy: Why do you keep secrets from me, T.J.?
T.J.: I haven't been keeping secrets from you.
Billy: Yeah? What about Annie's letters? What about that?
T.J.: I'm sorry, Champ. Are you mad?
Billy: No, I ain't mad. I just like to know what's under my bed, that's all. I ain't mad. She can write you if she wants to. Come on, let's go! (Billy notices some people on the beach, swimming and sunbathing.)
T.J., come here! Come here, come here. Look at that, will you? They got the right idea. Come on, let's go for a swim.
(Billy sits down and begins to undress. T.J. drops his bike and sits beside his father to remove his tennis shoes.)
Billy: Come on. Come on. Last one in is a rotten egg. Did you write her back?
T.J.: Not yet.
Billy: Well...there's nothing wrong with that, either. Writing to your mother.
T.J. (grinning up at Billy): I'll write her tonight.
Billy: Good. Last one in is a rotten...Get your pants on! We're going to be arrested for nude bathing.

==========================================================================================================
(T.J. and his dad are playing in the ocean.)
T.J.: Champ?
Billy: Yeah.
T.J.: Did you love her?.
Billy: Who?
T.J.: Annie.
Billy: Of course I loved her. Why do you think we had you?

==========================================================================================================
Annie: I received my first letter from my son. From T.J.
Mike: Great!
Annie: Do you know how he signed it? "Your friend forever, Timothy Joseph Flynn."
Mike: How is he?
Annie: T.J.'s fine. He seems fine. It's Billy.
Mike: What about him?
Annie: Billy's making a comeback.
Mike: Every fighter dreams of a comeback.
Annie: Yes, but take me out of the picture and what have you got?
Mike: Walking horses?
Annie: Now, I don't think that Billy would go back into the ring if I hadn't come back into their lives.

==========================================================================================================
(Billy has gone several rounds against a man 13 years younger than he is. But a cut on his forehead is troubling Jackie and the doctor.)
Billy: I'm all right, Jackie. I'm all right.
Jackie: Doc, look at him.
Doc: Yeah, it looks bad. - I'm going to have to stop it, Jackie.
Billy: Look, don't do it, Doc.
T.J. (crying, speaking faintly right into his father's ear): Please, Champ, stop!
Doc: What day is it, Billy?.
Billy: It's Thursday. Thursday, May 23.
Doc: And where are we, Billy?.
Billy: Miami, in the forum.
Doc: Well, okay. I'll give him another round, but if that cut gets any worse...I'm going to have to stop it. Understand?

==========================================================================================================
Ring Announcer: Ladies and gentlemen. The winner, 43 seconds into Round 6...scoring and winning by a knockout...the former champion of the world, Billy Flynn.

==========================================================================================================
(Billy has been carried into his dressing room after collapsing in the corridor. He is jabbering, and apparently is blind.)
Billy: Where's my boy?
Jackie: He's right here, Billy. Here he is.
Billy: T.J., where are you?
T.J. (In tears, because he knows his father is badly injured.): Here I am.
Billy: T.J., Annie was here tonight, T.J. Wasn't that a nice thing?
T.J.: Yeah.
Billy: You invited her, didn't you?
T.J.: I wrote to her. ... You said to.
Billy: Yeah. It was nice of her to come. You know, T.J., you know, your...Annie and me. We did some silly things. Who knows why people do what they do? Nobody knows that, but she was...She's a good person. You know that.
T.J.: Champ.
Billy: You happy, kid? I won the fight. You happy?.
T.J.: Yeah. (Barely able to speak through his tears): The Champ...
Billy: Yeah.
T.J.: Always comes through...in the end.
Billy: That's right.

==========================================================================================================
==========================================================================================================




ImageImageGo back using these buttons.ImageImageImageImageImageImage



Image
The Champ (1931) English subtitles srt from subtitlesbank.com
The Champ (1979) English subtitles srt from subtitlesbank.com
Quotes 1931 IMDb page
Quotes 1979 IMDb page
Gort/YTMN left the forum due to trolling on August 25, 2018.
I had fun. Thanks for reading!

"The wealthy and powerful always remind us that cream rises to the top.
What they fail to acknowledge is that pond scum also rises to the top.
And there is a lot more pond scum in the world than there is cream.
If you become rich and powerful, I hope that you will be cream rather than pond scum." --YTMN

Rematch Resurrection Catalog for Rounds 1-4 New post 180721 -- YTMN's Remake Rematch Thread.
Thread Resurrected 21 Jul 2018. Thread abandoned 1 Aug 2017. Thread COMPLETE 25 May 14 (2d time!)


The Future Unreels
User avatar
YouTookMyName
Posts: 2227
Joined: Thu Jun 17, 2010 1:53 am

Re: YTMN Presents a Remake Rematch Thread

Post by YouTookMyName » Sun Apr 20, 2014 11:49 pm

A Comparison of The Champ (1931) & The Champ (1979)

I briefly considered adding Real Steel and The Clown to this Quickmatch, and expanding it to a Not-Quite-Remake Rematch, similar to the NQRR that I did in Round Two between Rear Window and Disturbia. As you can see, I settled on a couple essays.

Image
The Clown (1953)

IMDb link -- RT-link

Year: 1953 Director: Robert Z. Leonard -- Cast: Red Skelton, Jane Greer, Tim Considine, Loring Smith -- Length: 91 min. B&W/Mono -- est. budget: $887,000; est. box office: $2,099,000

Dodo and Dink
The first remake adaptation of The Champ was made in 1953, starring Red Skelton. The Clown. Dodo Delwyn (an unfortunate name for current times), is not a boxer in this adaptation, but a washed-up comedian too much into his cups to be anything other than a carnival clown. And the rest of the story is very similar to the 1931 film. The 8-year old son is named Dink. And Dink encourages his father to accept an offer to appear on television, which the man does. There are the same complications with Dink's mom wanting to see him, Dodo's gambling, and so forth. The film is credited as an adaptation of the 1931 film, so the borrowing is understandable. The ending scene is not as emotionally intense as that in either version of The Champ. But it still made my eyes water. Might have been something in the air. Tim Considine in his first theatrical movie does a good job of wrenching at your heartstrings when he realizes that his father is dead. But the scene is less than half the length of the same scene in The Champ. Also, Considine cries only about a tenth as many tears.
Image
I think the 1953 film was whacked over the head by the rather more formal style of the day. Dink's friend Joshua, who is black in the original movie, is replaced by a white kid. In fact, there are no black faces at all in The Clown, because the film world of 1953 was often lily-white. Black folks had their own cinema and separate but not really equal theaters.

A Close Copy
Red Skelton's style of physical comedy plays well in this film, forming the basis of Dodo's 30-minute television program, and a flashback of his time headlining at Flo Zigfield's New York theater. But many scenes play out with the original lines from The Champ, although they might be spoken in alternate locations and by different characters. One nice touch in The Clown is that Dink gets some of his father's comic timing, cracking wise when times are good. And Red Skelton turns out to be a more than competent dramatic actor.

On balance, there are aspects of the 1953 remake that detract from what the film could have been. But it is a clever reworking of the original story. Frances Marion is credited with the story, just as she is in the 1979 direct remake. (And Charles Bronson has a bit part as Eddie, a dice player in the film. Paul Vogel, who was DP on The Time Machine (1960) and High Society (1956) photographed the film.)
Image
Who's the Clown?
I would be hard-pressed to call either version of The Champ a kid's movie, (but people call Real Steel a kid's film.) The Clown is also not aimed at children. But the 1931 movie and its 1953 retread were made in a time where it was accepted that people would be bringing their children with them. Almost everything was "family fare," which means safe for kids, no more caustic in most ways than a PG film would be today. And many were closer to a 21st century G-rated movie.
Image


ImageImageGo back using these buttons.ImageImageImageImageImageImage



Image
The Clown (1953 film) from Wikipedia
Red Skelton from Wikipedia
The Red Skelton Show from Wikipedia
Tim Considine from Wikipedia
Robert Z. Leonard from Wikipedia
Jane Greer from Wikipedia
Gort/YTMN left the forum due to trolling on August 25, 2018.
I had fun. Thanks for reading!

"The wealthy and powerful always remind us that cream rises to the top.
What they fail to acknowledge is that pond scum also rises to the top.
And there is a lot more pond scum in the world than there is cream.
If you become rich and powerful, I hope that you will be cream rather than pond scum." --YTMN

Rematch Resurrection Catalog for Rounds 1-4 New post 180721 -- YTMN's Remake Rematch Thread.
Thread Resurrected 21 Jul 2018. Thread abandoned 1 Aug 2017. Thread COMPLETE 25 May 14 (2d time!)


The Future Unreels
User avatar
YouTookMyName
Posts: 2227
Joined: Thu Jun 17, 2010 1:53 am

Re: YTMN Presents a Remake Rematch Thread

Post by YouTookMyName » Mon Apr 21, 2014 1:01 pm

Image
Image
A Comparison of The Champ (1931) and The Champ (1979)
The Writers

1931
Frances Marion story. Ms. Marion was born in 1888, and began gathering screen writing credits in 1912. Notable credits for sound films include The Big House (1930), Min and Bill (1930), Dinner at Eight (1933). Her last screen credit while living was for the 1953 remake of The Champ, entitled The Clown. Most of Marion's career was spent writing silents. She wrote the novel that was adapted into the movie Molly and Me (1945). Interestingly, she was a combat correspondent during WWI. IMDb says she was the first woman to win a Best Original Screenplay Oscar (for The Big House in 1931, and The Champ in 1932). Wikipedia reports that she was the first person to win two Academy Awards. By 1926 she was earning $3000.00 a week as a screenwriter. The CPI inflation calculator converts that to the equivalent of $39,793.79 a week in 2014 terms! All told, Frances Marion produced 168 screen writing credits, plus she directed three silent films, acted in some and was also a producer.
Leonard Praskins dialogue continuity. Praskins began his writing career just as sound films came onto the scene, in 1928. He was a middle-aged guy at the time, already 32, but he continued to write for films until 1954, then switched to television in 1955. He had another 13 years of garnering TV screen credits. He wrote right up until he died at age 72 in October 1968. His last credit was for an episode of The Virginian television series, which was broadcast in 1968. Praskins had 46 titles credited to his pen during his career.
Wanda Tuchock additional dialogue. Between 1927 and 1959, Wanda Tuchock earned 31 screen writer credits. She both wrote and directed Finishing School (1934). Her second writing gig for credit was King Vidor's film Hallalujah! (1929). She retired from screen writing in 1959, but lived until 1985 (age 86).
Don Marquis dialogue uncredited. This man was the only one I recognized by name, and not for any movie scripts. No, his poetic stories featuring archie the cockroach and mehitabel the cat were popular enough, and, I guess, literary enough to have made it into the literature book my school used for 9th grade English class. Marquis has only 9 screen writing credits at IMDb, but he was born in 1878, and that means he was already 53 years old when he adjusted the dialog content of The Champ. Marquis only lived another 6 years, dying at age 59.
Image
1979
Walter Newman is credited alongside Frances Marion in the 1979 movie. Newman wrote the new screenplay. Despite an output of only 20 writing credits between 1951 and 1979, Newman was nominated for 3 Oscars and an Emmy. He wrote the Otto Preminger film The Man With the Golden Arm (1955) which is recognized as a good effort in depicting struggles with addictive substances. He wrote Billy Wilder's Ace in the Hole (1951). The remake of The Champ was his last screenplay. Newman lived until 1993. He moved over from writing radio copy in order to become a screen writer. IMDb says that Newman became furious with John Sturges' direction of The Magnificent Seven (1960), and had his name removed from the screen credits.




ImageImageGo back using these buttons.ImageImageImageImageImageImage



Image
Some of these writers don't even have entries in the English version of Wikipedia!
Frances Marion from Wikipedia
Leonard Praskins auf Deutsch von Wikipedia die freie Enzyklopädie
Wanda Tuchock en Français de Wikipédia L'encyclopédie libre
Walter Newman (screenwriter) from Wikipedia
Walter Newman; Radio and Film Writer October 16, 1993|BURT A. FOLKART | LA TIMES STAFF WRITER
Gort/YTMN left the forum due to trolling on August 25, 2018.
I had fun. Thanks for reading!

"The wealthy and powerful always remind us that cream rises to the top.
What they fail to acknowledge is that pond scum also rises to the top.
And there is a lot more pond scum in the world than there is cream.
If you become rich and powerful, I hope that you will be cream rather than pond scum." --YTMN

Rematch Resurrection Catalog for Rounds 1-4 New post 180721 -- YTMN's Remake Rematch Thread.
Thread Resurrected 21 Jul 2018. Thread abandoned 1 Aug 2017. Thread COMPLETE 25 May 14 (2d time!)


The Future Unreels
User avatar
YouTookMyName
Posts: 2227
Joined: Thu Jun 17, 2010 1:53 am

Re: YTMN Presents a Remake Rematch Thread

Post by YouTookMyName » Mon Apr 21, 2014 1:05 pm

A Comparison of The Champ (1931) & The Champ (1979)

I briefly considered adding Real Steel and The Clown to this Quickmatch, and expanding it to a Not-Quite-Remake Rematch, similar to the NQRR that I did in Round Two between Rear Window and Disturbia. As you can see, I settled on a couple essays.

Image
Real Steel (2011)

IMDb link -- RT-link

Year: 2011 Director: Shawn Levy -- Cast: Hugh Jackman, Dakota Goyo, Evangeline Lilly, Anthony Mackie -- Length: 127 min. Color/Stereo -- estimated budget: $110,000,000; est gross US $85,463,309

The story was indirectly adapted again in 2011 as Real Steel, a robot boxing movie that I saw and liked. But at that time I had not seen The Champ (either version). In 2012 when I saw the two main films for this Rematch, I saw the tremendous number of borrowings that Real Steel's writers made from the earlier films. In fact, Real Steel will remind you hugely of The Champ if you've seen either version of that story. No one involved with The Champ gets any credit for it, of course.
Image
Steel
An episode of The Twilight Zone that was broadcast in October 1963 was adapted from a short story by Richard Matheson: Steel. It is about a time when human boxing has been outlawed, and robots have replaced humans as the fighters in the ring. The focus is on a robot and its human owners/handlers, and what happens when the trio arrives in podunk for a desperation match. The story is about the two men, the owner (whose former boxing name was "Steel" Kelly) and his mechanic, and how the owner deals with a fatal breakdown of the ancient (7-year old) fighting machine Battling Maxo, just before the bout. As a short story, the plot centers around that bout, and that is all. The Twilight Zone adaptation is very close to the 1956 short story, which it should be, because Matheson himself wrote the pared-down teleplay.
Image
No Surprise Here
The short story Steel has no boy. There is no father that we know of. The short story is mostly unlike the adaptation for the 2011 movie, which is set in 2020. The adaptation of Steel for the 2011 film, though, is very much like The Champ! There is a father who used to be a successful, though not pinnacle boxer. He is now using a broken down robot to fight in low-life boxing leagues, at rodeos and such, nothing remotely big-time. Human boxing has become economically unfeasible with the excitement generated by bot on bot boxing matches. His young son, Max, is 11 when his mother dies. Max Kenton's aunt and her rich hubby show up, and she wants to get custody of the kid. Charlie Kenton makes an under the table deal to get $100K to give up the boy, but the aunt is going to Italy for two months, so Charlie will have to watch him until August. The boy actually has an ulterior motive, but he doesn't say so directly. However, he won't be left behind at Charlie's girlfriend's gym for the times when dad is on the road with the boxing bot. The kid is stubborn just like his dad. Charlie's latest mistake is to put his new bot, Noisy Boy into a main match, and it gets the snot beaten out of it. A quick $45K made into trash. Soon after, the boy stumbles upon Atom, a very old (built in early 2014) but still workable sparring robot that has been junked, and he persuades his father to refurbish the fighting bot for real matches. Atom becomes a champion (The People's Champion), of course. And the father comes to love his son. Of course. Well, "love" may be too strong a word, but he has at least begun to admire the kid by the end of the film.
Image
Steeling From the Best
Real Steel, although it is an emotionally-charged movie, is not a tearjerker like the two versions of The Champ, and The Clown. The Champ is not the only film Real Steel borrows from. User MANOS writing from Greece points out in his IMDb review: "I'm not saying it is that bad. You won't get bored and it is not as stupid as it could have been if you know what I mean. It's that there is NOTHING ORIGINAL about this movie. Every scene till the ending, we, as viewers, have chewed and swallowed over and over again." Liam Lacey wrote an article for theglobeandmail.com, last updated in 2012, that lines out just how much borrowing can be seen in Real Steel. No credit is given to the writers of the other films, perhaps because there seems to be no attempt to hide any of it. It says in the opening credits that it is "partly based on" the Richard Matheson story Steel.


Borrowing is Sometimes ... Okay
As for "originality," what remake can claim to be totally original? The lateral remake called Real Steel is at least enjoyable for a couple watches. As the Rotten Tomatoes blurb points out, the characterizations are pretty good. It is probably more enjoyable for 2014 audiences than The Clown would be. And watching Max Kenton dance with Atom in shadow mode always elicits a grin or two from viewers.
Image

ImageImageGo back using these buttons.ImageImageImageImageImageImage



Image
John Gatins screenplay, Real Steel (2011)
Dan Gilroy story, Real Steel (2011)
Jeremy Leven story, Real Steel (2011)
Richard Matheson original short story, Real Steel (2011)
Steel (The Twilight Zone) from Wikipedia
Real Steel from Wikipedia
Shawn Levy from Wikipedia
Real Steel: Pieced together from bits of other films, it's a reel steal from theglobeandmail.com by LIAM LACEY Last updated Monday, Sep. 10 2012, 2:40 PM EDT. Last updated Monday, Sep. 10 2012, 2:40 PM EDT "As it turns out, Real Steel, directed by Night at the Museum’s Shawn Levy, borrows so much from other films that it might better be titled Reel Steal: not only from The Champ, but from Rocky, the Transformers movies and even some Star Wars."
Real Steel at boxofficemojo.com
Welcome to the Real Steel Wiki! from wikia.com
Gort/YTMN left the forum due to trolling on August 25, 2018.
I had fun. Thanks for reading!

"The wealthy and powerful always remind us that cream rises to the top.
What they fail to acknowledge is that pond scum also rises to the top.
And there is a lot more pond scum in the world than there is cream.
If you become rich and powerful, I hope that you will be cream rather than pond scum." --YTMN

Rematch Resurrection Catalog for Rounds 1-4 New post 180721 -- YTMN's Remake Rematch Thread.
Thread Resurrected 21 Jul 2018. Thread abandoned 1 Aug 2017. Thread COMPLETE 25 May 14 (2d time!)


The Future Unreels
User avatar
YouTookMyName
Posts: 2227
Joined: Thu Jun 17, 2010 1:53 am

Re: YTMN Presents a Remake Rematch Thread

Post by YouTookMyName » Wed Apr 23, 2014 11:05 am

A Comparison of The Champ (1931) & The Champ (1979)

Image
The World's Saddest Movie

Crying at Movies Is Not Cool
The first film that ever made me cry was E.T., and I was 30 years old when I saw it! Other films had made me feel sad, notably Old Yeller. But I felt sad and afraid when Travis fell into the wild pig herd and was rescued by Yeller, who is also injured. I remember this was intense sadness, but there were no tears. Not even at the end of the film. I was only 5 when I saw it, so maybe I hadn't developed empathy beyond that point at the time.
Image
There are a lot of films that make me get wet-eyed these days. And it no longer annoys me, but in 1982, sitting in the theater beside my pregnant wife, I was terribly annoyed by my weeping. I recall thinking, "Spielberg, do you want me to cry at your movie, or watch it?" The scene that got to me is when E.T.'s heart light fades, and while Elliott stands beside the box the scientists have put the alien into, the boy begins to cry. For some reason it made me think of all the pets that I had known as a young boy, who had died -- and tears came.

I had never seen The Champ, either version. I don't know how the final scene of that tale would have affected me. Becoming a father seems to have had a great deal to do with my susceptibility to sentimental strains in films. I can watch movies that I saw as a child or a teen, and they didn't affect me then, and I blubber at certain parts of them, now. So, I understand the disgust of those who whine that a director is manipulating them with sentimental scenes, but I also know that the director is not expected to remove anything from his/her film that might touch you, just so you won't weep.

Crying at Movies is All Right
It doesn't make sense to expect not to ever cry at a scene in a film. Does anyone become upset over scenes in films that make them feel afraid? Happy? Horny? Someone might, but I've never read diatribes in forum threads about that. I've never read as a critique of a film that "it's too scary." Or that it's "too funny." But I've read comments that it's "too steeped in sentimentality." I always translate that (rightly or wrongly as ) "the film made me feel something."

Perhaps the performances of Jackie Cooper as Dink, and Ricky Schroder as T.J. would not have moved me to tears before I had nurtured a couple little guys who bear my last name through that age. But perhaps The Champ would have been the first movie to make me cry if I had seen it in 1979.
Image
Crying At Movies is Scientifically Useful!
When they needed a reliable way to make people feel emotional for psychological studies, "Robert Levenson, a psychology professor at the University of California, Berkeley, and his graduate student, James Gross," did research to find out which film clips might produce the desired results. They actually began work on this phase of their studies in 1988, and didn't have a settled list until 1995. They ultimately selected 16 clips, each of which would elicit only one emotional response from most viewers (all 16 were determined by scientific study, of course). Each selected clip tends to create one emotion in viewers, rather than one emotion tinged with another, or several others. The most effective producer of sadness is a clip from the end of the 1979 remake of The Champ.

Are We Held Back Too Far?
No matter how much I wonder about the ethics of making a child cry so intensely in order to play a part in a movie that isn't all that good when it comes down to it, or how much I ponder how the director got young Schroder to cry that way...I still find myself in tears. (To be honest, even selecting and editing the quotes post segment of subtitles from that scene made my eyes wet.) I cannot remove myself from the empathy that the scene evokes. And I think it has even more to do with experience than it does with empathy. Sure, there is the same effect that you have when someone begins laughing riotously, and all those watching find themselves laughing along. Sympathetic laughter or tears. But parenting makes you more attuned to young kids, and when they are unhappy you have an instinct to try to cheer them up. This kid, actually both boys in both versions of the film, are in a situation where there is no cheering them up. Yet there is still a tremendous imperative to at least comfort them. But you can't, because they are mere shadows on a screen of one type or another. (Which leads to frustration on the part of the viewer.)
Image
I can't find any published interviews from a grown-up Schroder saying how he feels about the scene, now. But there is a link to a Tonight Show interview in 1979 where the boy explains how he makes himself cry on camera. And on the DVD commentary, when the scene is finished, a grown-up Schroder admits that he is still proud of the scene. I'll take that as a comment on how he feels about it, because I have nothing else. He tells that he used his grandmother's death, which happened before shooting started, as his emotional goad to move himself to tears when necessary. And Voight admires the number of times the child Ricky Schroder went through the scene, always maintaining an intense level of emotion.

A Mirror Would be Handy
So, for those of you who are averse to "sentimentality" in movies, the next time you're silently grinning at some silly-headed goofball who doesn't like cussing, or nudity, or violence in films, think about your relationship with films that make you cry, and see if you don't share more with that goofball than you think you do at first: An irrational dislike of something very human appearing in the movies.



ImageImageGo back using these buttons.ImageImageImageImageImageImage



Image
Science Proves It: This Is the Saddest Movie Scene Ever By Megan Gibson, July 28, 2011 at time.com
saddest scene ever Google search results. For the terminally curious.
The Saddest Movie in the World How do you make someone cry for the sake of science? The answer lies in a young Ricky Schroder. By Richard Chin smithsonianmag.com July 21, 2011. "The Champ has been used in experiments to see if depressed people are more likely to cry than non-depressed people (they aren’t)."
Cute Ricky Schroder Tells Johnny Carson How He Can Cry from youtube
Ricky Schroder Interview (Merv Griffin Show 1980) from youtube
What's Wrong With Sentimentality? A conversation with Leslie Jamison, author of The Empathy Exams by Svati Kirsten Narula Apr 9 2014, 1:10 PM ET at The Atlantic.com "Part of what I’m interested in interrogating is this kind of collective shame that we feel about sentimentality, and I think sometimes that shame manifests as accusation—accusing a film or a piece of art of manipulating our emotions. And sometimes it can show up as self-recrimination."
Emotion Elicitation Using Films Gross, James L.; Levenson, Robert W. (1995). "Emotion Elicitation Using Films". Cognition & Emotion 9 (1): 87–108 (pdf)
Gort/YTMN left the forum due to trolling on August 25, 2018.
I had fun. Thanks for reading!

"The wealthy and powerful always remind us that cream rises to the top.
What they fail to acknowledge is that pond scum also rises to the top.
And there is a lot more pond scum in the world than there is cream.
If you become rich and powerful, I hope that you will be cream rather than pond scum." --YTMN

Rematch Resurrection Catalog for Rounds 1-4 New post 180721 -- YTMN's Remake Rematch Thread.
Thread Resurrected 21 Jul 2018. Thread abandoned 1 Aug 2017. Thread COMPLETE 25 May 14 (2d time!)


The Future Unreels
User avatar
YouTookMyName
Posts: 2227
Joined: Thu Jun 17, 2010 1:53 am

Re: YTMN Presents a Remake Rematch Thread

Post by YouTookMyName » Wed Apr 23, 2014 11:10 am

Image
Image
A Comparison of The Champ (1931) and The Champ (1979)
In the Cutting Room


1931
Hugh Wynn lived only until he was 38 years old. In that time he garnered 43 editorial credits. Wynn's first credit was for cutting He Who Gets Slapped (1924) and his last was for editing Kind Lady (1935). His last silent editorial job was for Buster Keaton's last silent picture, The Cameraman (1928) while his first sound film editing responsibilities came that same year on King Vidor's Show People (1928). The eleventh time Hugh Wynn sat down to cut sound and picture together it was for The Champ (1931), which might explain why the sound editing is quite well-done on such an early sound picture. The IMDb filmography page lacks a biographical link, so we cannot know what did poor Mr. Wynn in at such a young age.


1979
Michael J. Sheridan has 21 editorial credits at IMDb. The Champ is the only drama in his list that I've seen. His first professional stints seem to be on a series of MGM documentaries celebrating Hollywood musicals, called That's Entertainment (he worked on all three films by that title) beginning in 1974, with the credit "apprentice film editor." He then had full editorial responsibility for another film documentary, Hooray for Hollywood (1975). After one editing gig in TV on the Logan's Run television series, Sheridan sat down and worked for Franco Zeffirelli on The Champ (1979). His most recent credit is as supervising editor on the documentary film James Dean: Forever Young (2005). Sheridan directed Hooray for Hollywood, and That's Entertainment! III (1994), as well as producing and writing the third That's Entertainment installment, and James Dean: Forever Young. Sheridan must love the documentary form, because in his later life he has edited and produced three documentary films. Since 1985 he has mixed theatrical releases with TV movies. His two awards nominations are for documentaries he worked on.




ImageImageGo back using these buttons.ImageImageImageImageImageImage



Image
Nothing on Sheridan. Only a French language article about Wynn. No photos of either man.
Hugh Wynn en Français de Wikipédia L'encyclopédie libre
Gort/YTMN left the forum due to trolling on August 25, 2018.
I had fun. Thanks for reading!

"The wealthy and powerful always remind us that cream rises to the top.
What they fail to acknowledge is that pond scum also rises to the top.
And there is a lot more pond scum in the world than there is cream.
If you become rich and powerful, I hope that you will be cream rather than pond scum." --YTMN

Rematch Resurrection Catalog for Rounds 1-4 New post 180721 -- YTMN's Remake Rematch Thread.
Thread Resurrected 21 Jul 2018. Thread abandoned 1 Aug 2017. Thread COMPLETE 25 May 14 (2d time!)


The Future Unreels
User avatar
YouTookMyName
Posts: 2227
Joined: Thu Jun 17, 2010 1:53 am

Re: YTMN Presents a Remake Rematch Thread

Post by YouTookMyName » Fri Apr 25, 2014 5:34 am

Image
Image
A Comparison of The Champ (1931) and The Champ (1979)
Behind the Lens


1931
Gordon Avil was the cinematographer for King Vidor's cult classic Hallelujah (1929). It was his first cinematographer credit. His fourth credit (and third for King Vidor) was for filming The Champ (1931). In 1955 Avil dabbled in television, and by two years later he was committed to the new medium. The rest of his career, through 1970 would be spent working for both the big screen and the home screen. Avil died in Barbados, West Indies in April, 1970, at 71 years of age. Of his theatrical work, The Champ is best known. Avil's last regular gig was shooting Hogan's Heroes; he lensed 141 episodes between 1965 and 1970.

Image
1979
Fred J. Koenekamp shot 91 films, TV movies and TV series in his career. I noticed that a large number of them are programs that I've seen, so I counted them without making an exhaustive list for you to plow through. There are 29 entries that I know I've seen, and a handful more that I might have. Koenekamp shared a Best Cinematography Oscar with Joseph Biroc in 1975 for The Towering Inferno (1974). He was nominated for his camera work on Patton (1970) and Islands in the Stream (1977). Koenekamp first worked as an uncredited assistant cameraman beginning with Kismet (1955) through The Hook (1963). In 1963 he became the credited director of photography for a TV series called The Lieutenant. I first saw Konekamp's work on 90 episodes of The Man From U.N.C.L.E. (1964-1967). The quality of films and television series that he worked on varied widely, but he probably always did his best to make them look good. Konekamp is still alive, but has not worked behind the camera (at least in credited roles) since 1999, when he earned his 91st screen credit. He will be 92 years old in November, 2014.




ImageImageGo back using these buttons.ImageImageImageImageImageImage



Image
More disappointment. No photos of Avil exist online, and biography pages are also lacking for Avil. Pretty good ASC page for Koenekamp, though.
FRED KOENEKAMP ASC Internet Encyclopedia of Cinematographers (photo source) "I went to MGM anticipating a month's work, and ended up staying there for 14 years."
Fred Koenekamp from Wikipedia
Gort/YTMN left the forum due to trolling on August 25, 2018.
I had fun. Thanks for reading!

"The wealthy and powerful always remind us that cream rises to the top.
What they fail to acknowledge is that pond scum also rises to the top.
And there is a lot more pond scum in the world than there is cream.
If you become rich and powerful, I hope that you will be cream rather than pond scum." --YTMN

Rematch Resurrection Catalog for Rounds 1-4 New post 180721 -- YTMN's Remake Rematch Thread.
Thread Resurrected 21 Jul 2018. Thread abandoned 1 Aug 2017. Thread COMPLETE 25 May 14 (2d time!)


The Future Unreels
User avatar
YouTookMyName
Posts: 2227
Joined: Thu Jun 17, 2010 1:53 am

Re: YTMN Presents a Remake Rematch Thread

Post by YouTookMyName » Fri Apr 25, 2014 5:37 am

A Comparison of The Champ (1931) and The Champ (1979)
The Champ (1931)
Image

IMDb link 7.3/10 with 1,661 votes RT-link 83% Tomatometer; 80% user rating with 543 votes

Year: 1931 Director: King Vidor -- Cast: Wallace Beery, Jackie Cooper, Irene Rich, Roscoe Ates, Edward Brophy, Jesse Scott -- Length: 86 min. B&W/Mono

In 1931 the Great Depression was two years old, post Stock Market crash of 1929. People were only beginning to realize that this thing was going to linger. In some regions of the US almost everyone was devastated by the economic downturn, but in other areas there were people who were well-off, living beside those whose fortunes were at an all-time low. The truth of that era was that most people continued to have jobs and to work, although they didn't make the kind of money they had in the 1920s. The trouble was that there were so many people, not as a percentage, just in sheer numbers, who could not find work, and many had no income. The Champ is set among those who have too little, who live near those who have plenty. And it involves a disrupted family whose "provider" is among the disadvantaged, while the mother is married to a wealthy man. But the child of the former couple lives with his father. His mother shows up, meets her son (who doesn't know her, and is unaware that she is his mother) and wants to give him the better life that she can.
Image
Now, the most prevalent and lasting aspect of this film and its remake is that it will most likely make you cry. If the film had been given a happy ending it would be much less substantial. I happen to believe that it gets rated lower simply because it has a deeply affecting scene at the end, and a lot of viewers don't like this kind of thing. They avoid anything in real life that might cause them to feel deep emotion, and they intend to do the same at the movie theater. Perhaps such people feel sentimentality-bombed by films such as this one, or Titanic (1997).

When I watched the film a second time looking for entries to put in the section below, I didn't find much to dislike. For a first-generation sound film it is quite well made in terms of production values. The acting is addressed below. The story is cleverly contrived, although it is most assuredly contrived. Despite the contrivance it still comes off with a natural flow.

If there was any point to the movie, any theme for contemplation, it would likely be the idea that life cannot be all jewels and gold-plate. There is a little rust and smashed mirrors to living, as well. Put this notion into the context of the Great Depression, and I think it has some validity.
Image
While pondering this film and any possible social symbolism that might be in it, I had to consider that it was a product of the early Great Depression. Perhaps Frances Marion and the producers wanted to make some kind of literary statement, so they concocted a story that embodies social forces as persons. Could it be? Would finding something "plausible" be too much of a stretch? The entire country had been knocked reeling, people had lost their livelihoods and life savings, even their families over the reckless stock market speculation of a minority. Keep in mind that boom-bust cycles had been the common way of life for the entire duration of US history before the New Deal. Could Ms. Marion have been constructing a subtle modern parable to support the idea that the New Deal was a better way to go forward? Let's over-think this and see.
The now-wealthy Linda Carlton used to be Linda Purcell, wife of the World Heavyweight Champion, Andy Purcell. But Andy had a penchant for reckless behavior, tending to drink and gamble. Linda left. The courts awarded custody of their son, "Dink," to Andy. This is dereliction of responsibility by the mother, in this case. But Andy doesn't always fulfill his parental responsibilities, and falls into financial ruin. Nonetheless, Dink loves and worships his father, whom he always calls the Champ. If Andy is symbolic of the financial powers in the US at the time, and Linda is symbolic of the government, then Dink becomes the symbol of the powerless. Imagine that, using a child to represent those without power in a nation! The continued reckless behavior of the financial sector, in this case gambling and drinking to excess, led to the continued poverty of the vast majority of Americans. But those same Americans continued to love the financially reckless. The government reappears, and offers a "better way" for Dink to go. Support of a financial nature, and, we presume, love as well so far as the fictional story goes. But despite constant protestations that he will clean up his act, Andy keeps slipping back into bad behavior. He gives up Dink, who goes to live with his mother, but is not satisfied to do so, and the boy returns to Andy. This bolsters Andy to take a fight, which he barely wins, but winning the fight (getting wealthy, he wins 20,000 1933 dollars) causes his heart to fail, and he dies, leaving Dink without support. Does that sound like the Great Depression? And who steps through the door to rescue the boy? His mother, representing "the government." She takes him away to a secure future of plenty.
So, you decide, if you choose to read that spoilerific analysis: is it plausible as an explanation of why such a story might be cobbled up by someone living in the early Great Depression? In brief: Abandonment by the government leaves the vast majority of Americans without support while the financially well-off play around with the money until disaster strikes! Pure speculation, but then that's what caused the Great Depression and the Great Recession, wasn't it?


Here are some aspects of the film and whether I like them or don't care for them:
Image
Like: The photography is quite excellent. Sometimes the camera is in motion. Sometimes it assumes an interesting angle of attack on the scene. The lighting is capable of showing off the dimensionality of the people and things in front of the lens. For the time it seems advanced, but then you have to remember that Sunrise and Wings were made four years earlier.

Like: The sound design seems well-crafted for the day.

Like: The film is as funny and charming as it is sober and depressing. In the opening scenes the chemistry between Jackie Cooper as young Dink Purcell, and Wallace Beery as his father is totally believable. They are witty, and charming, and it sets us up for a good tale. In a bizarre turn of the tables, Dink is acting more as the father to his degenerate paternal unit. With clever wit, the comedy continues, but begins to have more teeth as the show goes on. Then, the comedy turns to irony, and at the end to bitter desperation.

Like: Dink's best friend, Jonah, is a black kid. Jackie Cooper ended a five-year run in the Hal Roach short film series, Our Gang, in order to become Dink Purcell. Jackie had many black buds in Our Gang. In my mother's part of the state (she was born in 1930) it was not unusual at all for black and white children to play together. In my father's part of the state (he was born in 1928) this rarely if ever happened. In California, though, it was more like my mother's part of the state. (For comparison, in the 1953 remake, Jonah was replaced with some white kid as Dink's best friend.)
Image
Like: The production design is very good. The squalor of Dink's surroundings is believable, and well-rendered. His clothing is suitable only for the discard box, but he still wears the same tattered sweater and knickerbockers every day.

I had to dig for these unlikable points.

Don't Like: As a plot point, the Champ actually wins his bout against the Mexican national heavyweight champion, a man much younger and in better shape than Andy. But then the script kills him off. If it were a war movie that might be okay: soldier accomplishes his goal, saves his buddies, then he is shot and killed. That would work well for a war picture. It seems a bit drastic in a family drama. But under the spoiler tags above is a possible explanation of why the story was written as it was.

Don't Like: The film seems to have an overall notion that dads are not as good as moms when it comes to parenting. Of course, back then, that was what everybody just knew. The 1953 remake, The Clown has a scene that removes that idea for a moment (Paula, the ex-wife reassures her former husband that he's done a good job raising Dink), but like this 1931 version, at the end it reverts to "even if you have to kill Dad, let the kid live with mom." There is a scene where Andy Purcell forces Dink away from him, going so far as to hit the boy. Once again, you can read what's beneath the spoiler tags above.

Don't Like: Technical gripes--the fight scenes are too clearly under-cranked in order to speed up the action. Some of the acting is a little over-done, although cinema was in a transition of acting styles at the time. Beery and Cooper certainly employ a completely natural style of acting. Some of the other old hands use something more akin to stage acting. I'm not sure King Vidor would have easily noticed what we would consider over-acting, because he was also in the middle of the transition.

Don't Like: Only a couple years into sound film production, this movie has music only at the beginning and the end. That part is okay with me. It's the choice of music in one place that's unlikable. The final music is from Brahms Lullaby, which seems out of place for the ending, and just creepy.

Image
For any film historian this is a must-see. History hasn't conferred the adjective "great" on the film, but it endures after 83 years. It was re-made twice, and as you'll read in one of the essays, it spawned another sort of lateral remake (heavy borrowing) in 2011. The basic story is still serviceable, even if the trappings in which the story unfolds seem archaic. And the characterizations are worth at least one viewing. The only big negative will be for anyone who reacts in a strongly negative way to any hint of sentimentality (however naturally presented) in movies. If you're that person, stay away, for you shall hate it.



ImageImageGo back using these buttons.ImageImageImageImageImageImage



Image
The Champ (1931 film) from Wikipedia
King Vidor from Wikipedia
Frances Marion from Wikipedia
Wallace Beery from Wikipedia
Jackie Cooper from Wikipedia
Youngest Best Actor Oscar Nominee Dead at 88: Jackie Cooper from Alt Film Guide
Jackie Cooper, 1922-2011 Thursday, May 5, 2011 Posted by Mythical Monkey at 3:01 PM
Irene Rich from Wikipedia
Roscoe Ates from Wikipedia
Gort/YTMN left the forum due to trolling on August 25, 2018.
I had fun. Thanks for reading!

"The wealthy and powerful always remind us that cream rises to the top.
What they fail to acknowledge is that pond scum also rises to the top.
And there is a lot more pond scum in the world than there is cream.
If you become rich and powerful, I hope that you will be cream rather than pond scum." --YTMN

Rematch Resurrection Catalog for Rounds 1-4 New post 180721 -- YTMN's Remake Rematch Thread.
Thread Resurrected 21 Jul 2018. Thread abandoned 1 Aug 2017. Thread COMPLETE 25 May 14 (2d time!)


The Future Unreels
User avatar
YouTookMyName
Posts: 2227
Joined: Thu Jun 17, 2010 1:53 am

Re: YTMN Presents a Remake Rematch Thread

Post by YouTookMyName » Sat Apr 26, 2014 1:39 am

A Comparison of The Champ (1931) & The Champ (1979)

Image
Characters

It seems appropriate to admit that I didn't expect to like either of these movies. Honestly, the only thing I knew about them before I watched them in order to plan this Quickmatch was that little Ricky Schroder blubbers a lot at the end of the 1979 film. But I watched them in 2012 and found enough to compare. Then, as I reviewed the films a few more times I came to see the well-done aspects of the films. The sentimentality is largely superficial. The 1931 film got some Oscar nominations. Was there "Oscar bait" already that long ago?

What works the best with the two movies entitled The Champ, and with the 1953 remake (The Clown) and the ersatz remake (Real Steel) is the characters. In every case the relationship between the father and his young son has to carry the story. But there are other characters, the supporting characters, who create the world in which Andy/Dodo/Billy/Charlie live and raise their sons (Dink/Dink, T.J./Max).

The Dynamic Duo
It seems, although I could be wrong, that in all four films the father-son duo function more or less as a unit, responding almost in tandem to all the other characters. The panoply of supporting characters changes quite a bit from film to film. In all cases there is a married couple in which the wife has a vested interest in raising the boy. For the first three films that is the father's ex-wife, and the boy's mother. The essay on contrasts among the films points out that the borrowed story in Real Steel kills off the mom, and makes a maternal aunt the married woman who wants the boy. In the first three films the father figure deals with this woman with paranoid jealousy, not wanting to be deprived of his boon companion/son. Real Steel turns this on its head, and makes Charlie Kenton all too willing to sign over parental rights, and to get on with his life. When offered a chance to turn shedding the new-found offspring into cash, he does so. But, he only gets half up front. Later, he turns down the rest, having experienced the delightful humanity in Max, and having seen that the chip didn't fall very far from the block.
Image
Father and Son Roles across the Decades
It is the way in which Wallace Beery as Andy Purcell engages Dink that makes the first film so enjoyable. It also contributes a great deal to the emotional short-windedness a viewer might experience when watching the third act of the story. That same set-up is tried in The Clown, but it doesn't work as well. Perhaps because the director had his cast hold back on the tears. The 1950s were a notoriously at-arms-length decade. By 1979 the warmth has crept back in to the point that T.J. kisses his father's cheek more than once in the film. Ricky Shroder makes it clear that T.J. loves dad just as much as dad loves him. And the peripheral characters, step-dad included, admit that the lovable soul that Timmy has become is entirely due to Billy's raising of the kid. Real Steel has the greatest reach, having cast Charlie as the reluctant father. But cynical, brash Max shows his hand when his father sends him to his new home early. "I just wanted you to fight for me. That's all I ever wanted," the boy says to his father as he walks to the limousine that will carry him away to a life of luxury and plenty. Instead, Charlie has made it clear that he doesn't think of himself as a father, and doesn't really know how to do the job.

The World Around Them
Other characters, lawyers, promoters, gym managers, bookies, landlords, and others get involved in the four stories. Some are colorful, some are cardboard, but they all provide reflections for the main duo to play against. In the two versions of The Champ the casting in these roles is well-considered, since the actors/actresses in the parts give some dimensionality to their characters even if they are in the story for only a few minutes total. Mr. Goldstein, the former theatrical booking agent in The Clown is such a character, clearly fond of Dodo Delwyn, although the two had an explosive parting a few years before. The bookie who gets Little Champ, Dink's horse in the 1931 film is a rather stable, sturdy businessman, while the bookie in the 1979 version is a straw in the wind, changing his mind and showing up to pull She's a Lady away in a trailer after promising not to do that.
Image
There is a definite plot to each story, but there is a stronger current of cinematic character-study that bolsters each plot point. The events serve only to put the characters into new situations so that the writers can show off their understanding of human nature. And humans are shown in good light, bad light, and seen as the flawed but lovable critters we are.



ImageImageGo back using these buttons.ImageImageImageImageImageImage
Gort/YTMN left the forum due to trolling on August 25, 2018.
I had fun. Thanks for reading!

"The wealthy and powerful always remind us that cream rises to the top.
What they fail to acknowledge is that pond scum also rises to the top.
And there is a lot more pond scum in the world than there is cream.
If you become rich and powerful, I hope that you will be cream rather than pond scum." --YTMN

Rematch Resurrection Catalog for Rounds 1-4 New post 180721 -- YTMN's Remake Rematch Thread.
Thread Resurrected 21 Jul 2018. Thread abandoned 1 Aug 2017. Thread COMPLETE 25 May 14 (2d time!)


The Future Unreels
User avatar
YouTookMyName
Posts: 2227
Joined: Thu Jun 17, 2010 1:53 am

Re: YTMN Presents a Remake Rematch Thread

Post by YouTookMyName » Sat Apr 26, 2014 1:43 am

A Comparison of The Champ (1931) and The Champ (1979)

Image

IMDb link 6.7/10 with 5,090 votes -- RT-link 40% Tomatometer; 84% user rating with 7,549 votes

Year: 1979 Director: Franco Zeffirelli -- Cast: Jon Voight, Faye Dunaway, Ricky Schroder, Jack Warden, Joan Blondell, Elisha Cook Jr., Arthur Hill -- Length: 121 min. Color/Stereo -- Est. domestic total gross (box office mojo) $30,441,738

The 1979 remake of The Champ plays like a movie of the week. It is unclear what the affliction is, though. There was no Great Depression going on at that time. This film is about relationships between human beings. It remains an examination of the unevenness of life, how we have good moments, and then something terrible will happen. But we have to go on, even then. There are huge terrible moments, and there are small terrible moments. Some analogous to mountains, and others more like clumps of mud under the wheels.

The Champ contains moments of both kinds. For a viewer who wanted to remain insulated from any feeling other than anger and Schadenfreude, this would not be the film to watch. If you feel manipulated by this kind of movie, ask yourself: do you feel manipulated by Raging Bull, The Godfather, Apocalypse Now, Pulp Fiction, Clueless, 10 Things I Hate About You, Last Year at Marienbad, The Shining, or Tokyo Story?

In one regard, any dramatic or comedic enterprise that does not "manipulate" your emotions -- fails. Utterly fails. Unless it is a didactic documentary, that is. And that kind of film will probably manipulate you to sleep.
Image
I think the key to understanding the 1979 remake of The Champ is provided by a much older Ricky Schroder on the commentary track to the DVD release: "This is a love story," he says. And it is. It's a love story between a man and his 8-year old son. Threatened with losing the father-son bond, he feels sacrificial. With T.J. gone, there would be nothing left in life for Billy Flynn. I don't think the symbolic explanation that came to me as a way of understanding the original story fits for 1979.

And it's a little humbling to have to admit that the third time I watched the film, the note-taking pass, the time when I pay very close attention to any of these films, it seemed to have more artistry than artifice. Frankly, it's the same thing that happened with its predecessor. And look at the tremendous gulf between the critics and the audience in the RottenTomatoes results above.

As it turns out, I like this film much more than I intended to.

Here are some aspects of the film and whether I like them or don't care for them:

Like: This remake stays as faithful to the original as you can be with 48 years separating their release dates. It isn't slavish, but it doesn't try to update needlessly. After all, it's a story about human interaction and emotions that haven't really changed a lot over the past 10,000 years.
Image
Like: We get the usual opulent and gorgeous Zeffirelli photography. His DPs always light scenes impeccably, and Fred Koenekamp's work is not the exception, here. In editing Zeffirelli selects shots that are possibly there simply because they are beautiful to look at, and the rest of the film is photographed in a way that is beautiful to look at, even when the action is mundane.

Like: Just as the father-son chemistry between Beery and Cooper in 1931 seems so real, the choice of Jon Voight and Ricky Schroder to play Billy and Tim Flynn is a casting plus. Not only do they look like they might be related, the way they relate is like father and son, which makes the film delightful to watch for over 80% of RT voters. And me.

Like: Although there are a couple of scenes where Faye Dunaway's chosen method to represent her inner thoughts seems overextended and a touch hokey, for the most part she plays her character, Annie, very well. Zefferelli may be responsible for the awkward moments, because he often stylizes the physical part of his characters' interactions. Think of Romeo and Juliet (1968), for an example of this.
Image
Like: The film, harsh as it is from a father's perspective, makes the point that someone who walks away from parenthood is still the biological parent, and there is no logical reason to therefore prevent him/her from taking up the role at a later date. Billy's arguments for why Annie should not claim motherhood for a boy she never changed diapers for, never gave a bath, never wiped his nose, never put him to sleep, never sat with him when he was sick, all collapse when confronted with the fact that she is the boy's mother, no matter what. The film also makes the point that a father, without the help of a woman, can still be an excellent parent. And that parents share the children they have, neither one owns the kids.

Don't Like: Billy Flynn is nowhere near as likable as Andy Purcell. This makes it impossible to feel understanding when he slaps the kid. But I think this is the way the character is written, not some acting misstep on Voight's part. Billy is less trusting, more paranoid about Annie. This film is about Billy's hundred-percent emotional investment in his son, and his fear of losing T.J. to the boy's mother. That makes it more work for the audience to relate to Billy than it is to relate to Wallace Beery's character in the 1931 film. Perhaps that put off some of the critics, but doesn't get in the way of regular viewers.

Don't Like: Dave Grusin's score, which was nominated for an Oscar, is nonetheless rather bland, and in most places doesn't seem to serve the story. Grusin seems to be telling us how to feel, although he could have been caught in the transition between music setting the mood, and music reflecting the mood of scenes.

Don't Like: When faced with the potential loss of Timmy to his ex-wife, Billy Flynn goes overboard. He plans his own "heroic" demise. And he carries it through. But it's only because he cannot bear to face life with both his first love, Annie, gone to the arms of another man, and his more sustaining love, that for his son Tim, gone to the arms of his ex-wife. Billy is grown, but he is not beyond feeling abandoned all over again. And why shouldn't he? Annie and Mike can offer T.J. all the things that the world values most. And all he can offer is a father's concern. So his comeback represents a lasting memory for the boy as he grows to manhood. But what a twisted last memory. How wrong the plan goes! This is not a complaint about the film, it's just an aspect of the story, however well-acted and filmed, that I don't like. At the same time, we all understand that we're not supposed to like this part.
Image
Some won't like the sentimentality of this film. Others will see that it is a story that cannot be told without bringing some tears to the surface. Even 30-something Ricky Schroder (yes, he's gone back to using that first name) on the commentary track sniffles in a few places. The story gets to him. Obviously, he knows what he was doing as a little boy when acting the scenes. He knows the artifice from the inside out. But the structure, the things that happen, get to him even as a grown man.

The film has the operatic feel that you might expect if you know that Zeffirelli's career has been divided between stage productions of operas and making films of operas and Shakespearean plays, for the most part. The plot is streamlined, and is supported by characterizations. If you despise any sentimentality in film, stay away. But if you don't mind that aspect of stories, then pay attention to the audience at RottenTomatoes, and forget the critics' quibbles.



ImageImageGo back using these buttons.ImageImageImageImageImageImage



Image
The Champ (1979 film) from Wikipedia
Franco Zeffirelli from Wikipedia
Jon Voight from Wikipedia
Faye Dunaway from Wikipedia
Ricky Schroder from Wikipedia
The Champ 1979 at boxofficemojo.com
Emotion Elicitation Using Films Gross, James L.; Levenson, Robert W. (1995). "Emotion Elicitation Using Films". Cognition & Emotion 9 (1): 87–108 (pdf)
Gort/YTMN left the forum due to trolling on August 25, 2018.
I had fun. Thanks for reading!

"The wealthy and powerful always remind us that cream rises to the top.
What they fail to acknowledge is that pond scum also rises to the top.
And there is a lot more pond scum in the world than there is cream.
If you become rich and powerful, I hope that you will be cream rather than pond scum." --YTMN

Rematch Resurrection Catalog for Rounds 1-4 New post 180721 -- YTMN's Remake Rematch Thread.
Thread Resurrected 21 Jul 2018. Thread abandoned 1 Aug 2017. Thread COMPLETE 25 May 14 (2d time!)


The Future Unreels
User avatar
YouTookMyName
Posts: 2227
Joined: Thu Jun 17, 2010 1:53 am

Re: YTMN Presents a Remake Rematch Thread

Post by YouTookMyName » Sat Apr 26, 2014 1:48 am

A Comparison of The Champ (1931) & The Champ (1979)

Image
Some Comparisons

Outside Space
Dink and his father are first shown out of doors in the 1931 film. Later, when the boy is at his mother's home, he spends a lot of time in the open air on the veranda. In some scenes Dink is distant from his father, not in actual units of measurement, but in the way they are positioned within the frame. More than once, when Dink is inside (room, train car) he is looking out the window, as if longing for freedom from his current situation. Dink wants to be free; perhaps what he seeks liberation from is the responsibility that he faces in taking care of Andy day to day. The idea of "childhood" is just beginning to form in American culture. Even in the 1930s a lot of kids Dink's age have paying jobs. Child labor laws are not in place in all 48 States at that time. And in places where children under 13 are prohibited from working, 10-year olds will lie about their age. Attendance at school is not compulsory, so Dink hangs out of school, because being with his friend Joshua and with his father is more interesting.

Time takes the world to 1979, another version of the film is made with a different cast. The economy is a year away from a mild recession, times are pretty good. Timothy Joseph Flynn doesn't spend a lot of time looking out windows as if he's pent up. Instead, he is often roaming about the stables at Hialeah Park race track in Florida. T.J. gets to feed horses, help his father walk them, and attend races. He knows a lot about horses and the job that jockeys do. I can't recall any lines that tell what his educational status is. When Billy decides to take the fight, he says that one of the things he wants to provide for the boy is a good school. You can tell that T.J. is dismayed by his father's drinking and gambling, but he takes it in stride. Whereas Dink feels trapped, T.J. doesn't appear to feel trapped at all. Not until his mother shows up. The trap T.J. feels is that created by his mother's arrival, and the possibility that he might have to leave his father behind. He is the recipient of Childhood, by that time clearly established in America as a time to be mostly care-free. As a result of the societal changes, this youngster has some of the burden that Dink has in the 1931 original film, but for the most part he doesn't have to undress Billy and put him to bed. Instead, Billy, though drunk, takes care of his own needs. The contrast here is that Dink has to undress dad for bed, it's his obligation; T.J. helps out, but he isn't expected to do the work. It's a subtle difference, but one that lets Timmy be a more relaxed kid than Dink is.
Image
Colorful Grays
The 1931 film is rather opulent in photographic terms. A full tonal range is present in most scenes, sometimes tending toward the darker or lighter shades of gray. A lower contrast seems to represent happier times, but it might also represent times when Dink is where he doesn't want to be. Washed out might be a way of pointing out that the boy is not totally happy. At least it seems to be used that way the first time he goes to visit his mother's home. It's as if to say that his normal world has various shades, while his mother's environment is more pastel, fakey and monochromatic. And this is done with black & white film! The Zeffirelli film is colorful, and richly textured in visual terms. The tonal palette for Annie's world seems to be less saturated (in retrospect) than the "colorful" surroundings of Hialeah. One interesting contrast between the 1931 story and its 1979 reworking is that Dink climbs to the pinnacle of the hotel roof where his mother is staying, in order to see his father, who is waiting for him in the old Model T. But Billy drives away, and T.J. can't see him while visiting with Annie on the Phillips' yacht. In the 1931 film, it's as if Dink feels the difference between his mother and his father, her higher living standard, but he longs for, and has his roots in his father's level, and he has to see it in order to judge where he is.

Sets and Costumes
The costumes in the 1931 film are seedy in a studied way. For one thing, perusal of photographs from the period shows that cleanliness and shininess was not the concern in those days that it became after WWII. During the Depression it was even more difficult to keep things clean. (although some people tried; see the Shorpy.com links below) Well-worn clothing and shoes were the norm for a lot of people back then. The Zeffirelli film doesn't put the main characters in tattered clothes. Even across the ages, both Andy Purcell and Billy Flynn have old cars; Andy's is a Model T, Billy's is a 1960s era Cadillac. But Andy is unwashed, while Billy seems to have a bath every day. The same is true of Dink and T.J.
Image
Light as a Father
In the reviews, I mentioned the contrasting expectations of mothers and sons vs. fathers and sons, and it helps to toss in the 1953 and 2011 films for this discussion. In 1931 and even in 1953, the doxa (what everybody just knows) about mothers was that they were the natural best parents. So Andy Purcell does a good job raising Dink "in spite of" himself. He has a desire to be a good dad, but his inclinations are to do other things, and those things are not conducive to a smooth life for Dink. By 1953, Dodo Delwyn is told outright that "he has done a good job" raising Dink, but this is allowed to be due to his effort, and a hint of natural inclination to be a good parent. In the 1979 film, there is not a question of whether Billy is a good parent, and sufficient on his own. But there is the undercurrent that a boy needs to have his mother in his life. That he will be better off with her there.

The 2011 borrowed remake has a twisted version of all this: Charlie doesn't know Max. Max's mother was never married to Charlie, and she has died. It is not a mother who shows up to claim the boy, but his maternal aunt. And it is not the father who wants the boy, instead he shows up to sign away custody. Against his will he is "saddled" with Max for the summer while the aunt and uncle take a trip to Italy. Max is painfully aware that he could have gone to Italy, too, except some sort of deal was made. We're back to Charlie taking care of the boy, and falling for him, in spite of himself (is this the biological, genetic imperative of being the father to this boy?). Meanwhile, the aunt is the one who wants Max. She's a blood relative, but not as close genetically as Charlie, who never really wanted to raise (or to even meet) his son.

In both films entitled The Champ the father is 37 years old, a former World Heavyweight Boxing Champion who lost his title at age 30, and hasn't boxed since. Both boys are too young to have ever seen their father as a wealthy boxer. In both films the father got custody when the mother walked away from the marriage, because he was better able to provide for the child. And in both cases, drinking and gambling have reduced the father to a shadow of his former self. In The Clown I don't recall the father's age being mentioned, but the way he got custody was the same, he was better able to care for the child financially at the time of desertion by the mother. In Real Steel, the writers didn't borrow the reasons for the dad to have custody of his son, but still had to invent some mechanism to throw the two together. That plot device is discussed in the previous paragraph.
Image
And Your Point Is?
As with all the pairs, trios and quartets of films we have looked at in these Rematches, these four films are products of their own times. What is interesting in this grouping is that there are variations of texture and tone, while the basics of the plot vary less from film to film to film.

In certain of these Rematch comparisons the producers of the films involved are trying to be as outwardly different as possible, or so it seems. In the case of these four films we see a core of thematic elements that are the same in all the films, with slight massaging of what amounts to background details in order to establish differences. The father-son aspect is there in all the movies. The main story point of the central duo is the same in all four movies. It is the surrounding characters and details that change, the social milieu changes, but the central pair of characters still tumble through the plot with the same relationship to one another. The greatest difference comes in Real Steel, where the dad doesn't really want his spawn around--until he's there, and the kid refuses to be shoved aside.



ImageImageGo back using these buttons.ImageImageImageImageImageImage



Image
Great Depression from Wikipedia
The Great Depression from History.com
Short Subjects: 1938 from shorpy.com
When I Was a Kid: 1936 from shorpy.com
Forest Brook: 1956 from shorpy.com
It's Beginning to Look a Lot Like ... from shorpy.com
Archie and Veronica: 1940 from shorpy.com
535-07-5248 and Wife from shorpy.com
Shorpy: The Hundred-Year-Old Photo Blog By Justin Allen ~ January 11th, 2014 at the creosote journal blog
Hialeah Park Race Track from Wikipedia
doxa definition Google search results
Gort/YTMN left the forum due to trolling on August 25, 2018.
I had fun. Thanks for reading!

"The wealthy and powerful always remind us that cream rises to the top.
What they fail to acknowledge is that pond scum also rises to the top.
And there is a lot more pond scum in the world than there is cream.
If you become rich and powerful, I hope that you will be cream rather than pond scum." --YTMN

Rematch Resurrection Catalog for Rounds 1-4 New post 180721 -- YTMN's Remake Rematch Thread.
Thread Resurrected 21 Jul 2018. Thread abandoned 1 Aug 2017. Thread COMPLETE 25 May 14 (2d time!)


The Future Unreels
User avatar
YouTookMyName
Posts: 2227
Joined: Thu Jun 17, 2010 1:53 am

Re: YTMN Presents a Remake Rematch Thread

Post by YouTookMyName » Tue May 06, 2014 2:46 am

I had the two Thing flix that I don't own lined up back-to-back in my Flix Queue, and naturally, the first one (1951) came to me right on schedule, but the second (1982) suddenly went to "Long wait" and I got Ginger Snaps last Saturday, instead. Cool enough movie, but it doesn't help me wrap up this final Remake Rematch!.

Shit.

So, I used some birthday gift card fundage to buy the bloody 1982 thing in Blu-ray, because I'd rather see it in Blu anyhow, and at the same time I ordered 3:10 to Yuma (2007) in Blu, too. It was cheap. And the 1982 Thing film doesn't cost very much.

They will be here tomorrow, and I can get back to watching films and taking names.

I've owned the 2011 "prequel" since 2013. Hee hee. That's a lot of dates. Something I never experienced in my life.

So, I hope to have some posts up by this weekend. The dull boring tech posts are pretty much ready besides graphics builds.
Gort/YTMN left the forum due to trolling on August 25, 2018.
I had fun. Thanks for reading!

"The wealthy and powerful always remind us that cream rises to the top.
What they fail to acknowledge is that pond scum also rises to the top.
And there is a lot more pond scum in the world than there is cream.
If you become rich and powerful, I hope that you will be cream rather than pond scum." --YTMN

Rematch Resurrection Catalog for Rounds 1-4 New post 180721 -- YTMN's Remake Rematch Thread.
Thread Resurrected 21 Jul 2018. Thread abandoned 1 Aug 2017. Thread COMPLETE 25 May 14 (2d time!)


The Future Unreels
User avatar
YouTookMyName
Posts: 2227
Joined: Thu Jun 17, 2010 1:53 am

Re: YTMN Presents a Remake Rematch Thread

Post by YouTookMyName » Thu May 08, 2014 1:46 am

Aight! I've seen all three Things.

Now I can write the other two reviews.

I've seen the 2011 film only once. The day I bought the cheap Blu at Walmart I grabbed stills, because it came with a DVD also. Tonight, I finally watched the film and the two featurettes.

Now it's down to writin' writin' writin' and grafickin'.

Entering the last tunnel, we can see the light at the other end.
Gort/YTMN left the forum due to trolling on August 25, 2018.
I had fun. Thanks for reading!

"The wealthy and powerful always remind us that cream rises to the top.
What they fail to acknowledge is that pond scum also rises to the top.
And there is a lot more pond scum in the world than there is cream.
If you become rich and powerful, I hope that you will be cream rather than pond scum." --YTMN

Rematch Resurrection Catalog for Rounds 1-4 New post 180721 -- YTMN's Remake Rematch Thread.
Thread Resurrected 21 Jul 2018. Thread abandoned 1 Aug 2017. Thread COMPLETE 25 May 14 (2d time!)


The Future Unreels
User avatar
YouTookMyName
Posts: 2227
Joined: Thu Jun 17, 2010 1:53 am

Re: YTMN Presents a Remake Rematch Thread

Post by YouTookMyName » Sat May 10, 2014 12:42 am

A Comparison of The Thing from Another World (1951), The Thing (1982), and The Thing (2011)
Image

IMDb link 7.3/10 user rating with 15,128 votes -- RT-link 87% Tomatometer; 73% user rating with 7, 624 votes

Year: 1951 Director: Christian Nyby -- Cast: Margaret Sheridan, Kenneth Tobey, Robert Cornthwaite, James Arness -- Length: 87 min. B&W/Mono

This is a very "lateral" adaptation of John W. Campbell Jr's 1938 novella Who Goes There?. Who knows what producer Howard Hawks and director Nyby would have done if they had been able to? Would they have used the conceit of a shape-shifting alien specimen that Campbell features in his story (something that John Carpenter was able to attempt 31 years later)? Or would they have stuck with their contemporary-paranoid "Communists are lurking all around us, but don't worry, we have military types to save us" type of transmogrification?

The film lacks tension for the most part, at least for me, although the original short story was long on science and philosophy and short on action-movie stuff, too. "Who Goes There?" is a thinking person's short story, but not the 1951 film. It has a bit of the 1950s Sci-fi heavy-handedness; what I call the "This. Is. Important." effect. Other films of the era go even farther overboard in that regard, though. This one is almost light by comparison. Where this one gets heavy-handed is in the presentation of the paranoid military mindset as the appropriate way to approach the unknown. If you don't understand it, blow it up. It is the enemy. An alien creature's attempt to survive represents an alien invasion.
Image
It is sometimes difficult to follow what is going on. That problem becomes amplified when you have seen the movie before and should know what is going on. I haven't read to what extent other things are cut out of the finished movie, but I did read that there were closeups of the Thing shot. Trouble is, the makeup didn't stand up to closeups, so these were all dropped. This heightens the tension for some viewers, because we never get a really good image of the alien creature.

The main military character talks about the excitement of the scientists on Expedition 6 when they have brought back the frozen alien: "They're like 9 year olds drooling over a new fire engine." Can you come up with a more anti-intellectual line from any movie ever made? Well, there probably is one, but I haven't heard it.

Dr. Carrington's well-meaning desire to communicate with the alien creature is treated as the ill-placed wish of a buffoon. Carrington simply refuses to see the beast as an invader, taking its side and trying to get others to understand its point of view. He wants to study it for the sake of Science. Of course this was an unpopular refrain of the day, so his character gets slapped around by the very creature he wants to preserve. This is no doubt Howard Hawk's ultra-conservative politics being imposed onto a 1938 short story that has no politics to wave about. Carrington goes so far as to plant some of the seeds that were generated by an organ located in the creature's palm. Even this is played for creepiness. Why? Because on its home world the sentient carrots have grown up to live on animal blood. (That makes no sense! The vegetables in that world are self mobile.) So blood is used to feed the sprouts.

The film is a classic, but it still carries the wrong-headedness consistent with its time of birth. Watch it anyway, for an insight into what scared people back in the day.
Image
Here are some aspects of the film and whether I like them or don't care for them:

Like: There is an attempt made to incorporate certain of John Campbell's major points in the movie, but his most intellectual points are so truncated that they don't seem to be anything other than school-boy quarrels. For example, when the creature is still frozen in a block of ice there is a brief exchange over the possibility of microbes carried by the beast being infectious for earthlings. But it is cut short because, you know, too heady.
Don't Like: Everything that is interesting about the 1938 short story is left out or warped beyond recognition by the paranoic vision of the writers. They do pick up on the frightening realizations that come up as the characters of the print tale struggle with their new position as protectors of the human race. In the short story, to stop the "invader" the soldiers and scientists of the expedition recognize that they must die. That they must not leave where they are. But in this 1951 xenophobic exercise, the creature must die, not the humans. What I dislike about this is that a story rich with scientific and philosophical implications, and sporting a sacrificial morality is turned into a hyper-moralizing might is right tale.

Like: The script is cleverly written to trade on several strains of paranoia that apparently gripped the US following WWII. Attitudes about visitors were very parochial in certain parts of the US, not only rural places. The pop-culture fear of flying saucers was based in the fact that the idea of visitors from other worlds were mostly viewed as invaders. Scientists were the enemy of common sense after Oppenheimer and crew unleashed atomic power in the form of a tactical bomb. So, Dmitri Tiomkin's score telegraphs that something eerie is literally underfoot during the expedition to the magnetic anomaly as each crewman walks to the edges of the ice-encrusted craft from the sky. And it is a circle. One of the characters uses the term "flying saucer." I don't like what this represents concerning American attitudes of the time, but I recognize the cleverness of trading on these fears when making a fright flick.
Don't Like: This film represents an anti-intellectual bias that has been present in American discourse for a long time. It is probably a world-wide phenomenon, but at least in the US failure to understand another's point of view has long been a "reason" to make fun of it. The short story doesn't have any of this attitude, but science fiction films of the 1950s often have it in spades. Dr. Carrington is played as an egghead dumb-ass who simply doesn't understand "the other." Only the military guys know what is really up. That situation is not peculiar to this movie, though. I submit that the anti-military bias of the 1960s and 1970s stemmed from this kind of pro-militaristic jingoism in movie after movie.
Image
Like: The adaptation keeps the notion that the creature could take over the world,
Don't Like: but it goes for the low-brow conquest by numbers notion, rather than the short story's sophisticated cellular-level mimicking.

Don't Like: In retrospect, it seems that the structure of the title is a xenophobic ploy, probably trading on Cold War fears of them Ruskies, and the 20th century anti-immigrant bias of much of America. The phrase "The Thing" carries the "non-human if not us" characteristic of xenophobia. Of course, in the film the Thing is literally not a human being. The addition of "From Another World" to the title makes it clear that this critter is to be feared. It is unknown, therefore not to be trusted. It ain't us, so watch the skies. This from a short story called "Who Goes There?" which is a story about the invisible struggle of ideologies, things that you cannot see. Those who embrace a counter-ideology look just like you. And an ideology might transform someone you know into someone who is opposed to you, although they would look the same on the outside.

Like: The military boys learn quickly that the Thing is impervious to bullets. They learn soon after why -- it is a vegetable critter, yet they persist in their mindset of carrying guns with them everywhere they go! They are unable to adapt to the new reality. It's the only military negative that is put into the film. Possibly inadvertently.

Like: The sets are quite realistic. Some of the shots are exteriors on snow-swept Arctic frost, it seems. This set might have been built at Glacier National Park. Another scene, where the men form a circle to mark the outline of the spacecraft, was filmed at the RKO Ranch, allegedly in 100°F weather. And one set of scenes, no doubt the shots after the creature has cut the oil to the camp heaters, were filmed at a cold storage plant in Los Angeles. The normal temperature interiors are filmed on sets that are good at producing a sense of claustrophobia.
Image
Like: There is only one jump scene in the entire movie. Any other goosebumps you get are from tension.
Don't Like: The film never makes me feel tense.

Like: The required romantic thread in the story (between Nikki and Captain Pat Hendry) is played as a light diversion, at times bordering on being a running gag. But it's in there, ostensibly to draw the female audience member into the theater. Or at least to assuage her boredom if her boyfriend has made her come with him to see this science fiction fright flick.

Like: There is a pleasant, crowded sort of kinetics in the staging of the scenes of this film. There are often crowds of people present, making the station feel packed with humanity. In this regard it smacks of screwball comedy, but transferred from humor to fear.


In a small-scale way (the Thing itself) this film was the progenitor of modern films that wreak mayhem on innumerable humanoids simply because the humanoids are either already dead (zombies) or robots (never alive). It's okay to fry the Thing because it isn't human. Also, it's bad, and out to kill peeps. And it's ugly. And has thorns on its knuckles because it's not even an animal, it's a plant. It reproduces by making seeds that grow in dirt. Significantly "other." In fact, totally "other."

The location is changed from Antarctica to the North Pole. Why? Probably because that's all that separated us from the nasty Ruskies. Invasion of the Body Snatchers has the same theme, but it was gracious enough to not invoke the heroic military as the saviors of humankind. Armies have started more wars than religion has. Ian Morris (see link below) may disagree with me on the negative impacts of war over time. But, just as I wrote in the review of Bodysnatchers, the USA was one of the victorious Allies in WWII, and it hadn't been all that long since VE Day & VJ Day when The Thing From Another World came out. There was a big undercurrent of support for, and belief in the military. A huge number of American men were veterans of the war, or serving in the Korean conflict at the time. Why, we were making the world safe for democracy by opposing the horrid Communists that seemed to be creeping from behind every bush in our sacred land. It sounds like satire these days, but that's actually how people talked and wrote back in the late 1940s and early 1950s.
Image
It is impossible not to look at this 1951 film without seeing it through the lens of all that has happened in the world since then. On the other hand, a number of influential directors have said that the movie played a formative role in their careers, so it has had a larger scale influence on Hollywood and its subsequent development than you might think. It is a classic, no matter what flaws mar it for a 21st century viewer. And it isn't a bad movie at all. If you don't go along with the militaristic drumming, you can always make sport of it.




ImageImageGo back using these buttons.ImageImageImageImageImageImage



Image
The Thing from Another World from Wikipedia
The Thing from Another World (1951)
The Slaughter Bench of History Ian Morris Apr 11 2014, 1:38 PM ET at theatlantic.com "How war created civilization over the past 10,000 years—and threatens to destroy it in the next 40." and "My third conclusion is that as well as making people safer, the larger societies created by war have also — again, over the long run — made us richer."
Gort/YTMN left the forum due to trolling on August 25, 2018.
I had fun. Thanks for reading!

"The wealthy and powerful always remind us that cream rises to the top.
What they fail to acknowledge is that pond scum also rises to the top.
And there is a lot more pond scum in the world than there is cream.
If you become rich and powerful, I hope that you will be cream rather than pond scum." --YTMN

Rematch Resurrection Catalog for Rounds 1-4 New post 180721 -- YTMN's Remake Rematch Thread.
Thread Resurrected 21 Jul 2018. Thread abandoned 1 Aug 2017. Thread COMPLETE 25 May 14 (2d time!)


The Future Unreels
User avatar
Quite-Gone Genie
Posts: 22840
Joined: Sat Feb 20, 2010 4:36 pm

Re: YTMN Presents a Remake Rematch Thread

Post by Quite-Gone Genie » Sat May 10, 2014 12:52 am

Those articles about the saddest movie are pretty interesting, and the scenes the scientists picked were spot-on. The Google link had me looking for certain movies by name, seeing if they appeared in any studies. (They did.) I've had books make me teary-eyed too, especially The Pilgrim's Progress, which I started reading in an airport. I couldn't get past the author's "apology" at the beginning of the book without shedding some tears, so I shelved it for a year.
"So, you see, he was condemned to walk in darkness a quadrillion kilometres (we've adopted the metric system, you know)..."
██████████████████████████████████████████The Devil, The Brothers Karamazov
User avatar
YouTookMyName
Posts: 2227
Joined: Thu Jun 17, 2010 1:53 am

Re: YTMN Presents a Remake Rematch Thread

Post by YouTookMyName » Sat May 10, 2014 12:53 am

Image
Image
A Comparison of The Thing from Another World (1951), The Thing (1982), and The Thing (2011)
At the Helm

1951
Christian Nyby is the credited director of the 1951 film. But there is a possibility, based on cast remarks, that producer Howard Hawks is the (an) uncredited director of the film. Hawks was born in 1896 and was still directing films in 1970, only seven years before his death in 1977 (at age 81). Nyby has 66 director credits at IMDb, but only a handful are feature films; the rest are episodes of television series. The Thing from Another World is his first directorial credit. He has an Oscar nomination for Best Film Editing on Red River (1948), which was directed by Hawks and Arthur Rosson. In fact, Nyby edited 17 feature films between 1943 and 1952, many of them for Hawks. Nyby lived from 1913 to 1993, 80 years old when he died. He had not worked actively in television since 1975. Whether Hawks directed or co-directed the 1951 film is a question that can't be answered. Some of the cast and crew say he did, others deny it (including Nyby himself), and give Nyby sole directorial credit. With sources in conflict like that, we cannot know.
Image
1982
John Carpenter directed six short films between 1962 (age 14) and 1969. Then he directed a now-cult film called Dark Star (1974) at age 24. His next two projects have also become cult films (they have also been remade), Assault on Precinct 13 (1976) and Halloween (1978). Two made for TV movies followed. Then, The Fog (1980), Escape from New York (1981) and The Thing (1982). Carpenter is well known for the quirk of writing and performing the scores for most of his 28 directing credits. In 1995 Carpenter directed a remake of a British cult classic, Village of the Damned (1960). He has 38 writing credits, a number of which stem from characters and plot lines that he created for his earlier films that have been remade. That said, Carpenter does not receive a writer credit for the 2011 remake of The Thing (since it is positioned as a "prequel").


2011
Matthijs van Heijningen, Jr. has directed one feature film. Prior to The Thing (2011) he directed three shorts and a video. He was assistant director and assistant editor on the film Voor een verloren soldaat (1992). He is the son and namesake of another Dutch producer.



ImageImageGo back using these buttons.ImageImageImageImageImageImage



Image
Christian Nyby from Wikipedia
Adam-12 photo gallery from kentmccord.com (Nyby photo)
John Carpetner Biography page at IMDb
John Carpenter from Wikipedia
JOHN CARPENTER – THE DAILY GRINDHOUSE INTERVIEW from dailygrindhouse.com
Matthijs van Heijningen, Jr.
Interview: Matthijs van Heijningen Jr. (director of The Thing) from quickflix.com.au
Gort/YTMN left the forum due to trolling on August 25, 2018.
I had fun. Thanks for reading!

"The wealthy and powerful always remind us that cream rises to the top.
What they fail to acknowledge is that pond scum also rises to the top.
And there is a lot more pond scum in the world than there is cream.
If you become rich and powerful, I hope that you will be cream rather than pond scum." --YTMN

Rematch Resurrection Catalog for Rounds 1-4 New post 180721 -- YTMN's Remake Rematch Thread.
Thread Resurrected 21 Jul 2018. Thread abandoned 1 Aug 2017. Thread COMPLETE 25 May 14 (2d time!)


The Future Unreels
User avatar
YouTookMyName
Posts: 2227
Joined: Thu Jun 17, 2010 1:53 am

Re: YTMN Presents a Remake Rematch Thread

Post by YouTookMyName » Sat May 10, 2014 1:13 am

Quite-Gone Genie wrote:Those articles about the saddest movie are pretty interesting, and the scenes the scientists picked were spot-on. The Google link had me looking for certain movies by name, seeing if they appeared in any studies. (They did.) I've had books make me teary-eyed too, especially The Pilgrim's Progress, which I started reading in an airport. I couldn't get past the author's "apology" at the beginning of the book without shedding some tears, so I shelved it for a year.
It seems the article in Smithsonian appeared while I was planning out these last few rematches, rather when I was putting 2 years' worth in line (not knowing whether I would ever finish them all), and I knew I had to include something about that research on sadness in the Rematch for The Champ!

I've had books make me tear up, too, but I don't remember any specific ones right now, other than Oliver Twist, when I was in Junior High School. Certain scenes in that story are gut-wrenching.
Gort/YTMN left the forum due to trolling on August 25, 2018.
I had fun. Thanks for reading!

"The wealthy and powerful always remind us that cream rises to the top.
What they fail to acknowledge is that pond scum also rises to the top.
And there is a lot more pond scum in the world than there is cream.
If you become rich and powerful, I hope that you will be cream rather than pond scum." --YTMN

Rematch Resurrection Catalog for Rounds 1-4 New post 180721 -- YTMN's Remake Rematch Thread.
Thread Resurrected 21 Jul 2018. Thread abandoned 1 Aug 2017. Thread COMPLETE 25 May 14 (2d time!)


The Future Unreels
User avatar
Ace
Posts: 23732
Joined: Fri Jun 18, 2010 11:11 pm
Contact:

Re: YTMN Presents a Remake Rematch Thread

Post by Ace » Sat May 10, 2014 1:27 am

Hmmm. This might motivate me to actually watch the Prequel and the Original Thing.
Co host of the Film Raiders Podcast.
Were on Spotify, Itunes, SoundCloud, Stitcher, TuneIn, Blubrr,Iheartradio and many more.
User avatar
YouTookMyName
Posts: 2227
Joined: Thu Jun 17, 2010 1:53 am

Re: YTMN Presents a Remake Rematch Thread

Post by YouTookMyName » Sun May 11, 2014 3:20 am

Ace wrote:Hmmm. This might motivate me to actually watch the Prequel and the Original Thing.
Yes, do! Then that would make two of us who have seen all three. :D
Gort/YTMN left the forum due to trolling on August 25, 2018.
I had fun. Thanks for reading!

"The wealthy and powerful always remind us that cream rises to the top.
What they fail to acknowledge is that pond scum also rises to the top.
And there is a lot more pond scum in the world than there is cream.
If you become rich and powerful, I hope that you will be cream rather than pond scum." --YTMN

Rematch Resurrection Catalog for Rounds 1-4 New post 180721 -- YTMN's Remake Rematch Thread.
Thread Resurrected 21 Jul 2018. Thread abandoned 1 Aug 2017. Thread COMPLETE 25 May 14 (2d time!)


The Future Unreels
User avatar
YouTookMyName
Posts: 2227
Joined: Thu Jun 17, 2010 1:53 am

Re: YTMN Presents a Remake Rematch Thread

Post by YouTookMyName » Mon May 12, 2014 7:45 am

A Comparison of The Thing from Another World (1951), The Thing (1982), and The Thing (2011)
Image

IMDb link 8.2/10 user rating with 190,993 votes -- RT-link 79% Tomatometer; 92% user rating with 127,336 votes

Year: 1982 Director: John Carpenter -- Cast: Kurt Russell, Wilford Brimley, T.K. Carter, David Clennon, Keith David, Richard Dysart, Richard Masur Richard Masur -- Length: 109 min. Color/Surround -- estimated budget: $15,000,000 - est. USA gross: $19,629,760

I saw this film for the first time on the same afternoon that I saw most of the 1951 adaptation. A Memphis TV station had a Saturday afternoon double feature. I remember thinking that Carpenter had really screwed up. That he had played with the story too much. I never read the original novella until 2014, so I was ignorant of how close this adaptation is to Campbell's 1938 idea, and how far off-base Hawks steered his 1951 film. I let the word "original" cloud my thinking the way people sometimes do with the word "new."

It is unclear to me why this film is worshiped to the extent that it is. Still, as I watched my new Blu-ray disk of it, I could find virtually nothing wrong with the movie. It's a little over-long, of course, but many good films are. John Carpenter says he was involved with the film for about a year, which is the most time he's ever been given to make a film. Although he loved the 1951 film, he read the original short story in college, so for his remake he decided to go back to the shape-shifter/imitator type of creature.
Image
Overall, this is the least dumb John Carpenter film I've ever seen. (I think I just said "this is the smartest John Carpenter film I've ever seen," except I said it backwards.) Maybe it's because of the source material (the print story, not the '51 movie), and the fact that a director able to regularly pull together a decent film in a few months' time, had a year to exercise his brains and smooth out the rough places.

Although the 1951 film is a classic, this is a better-conceived and better-made film all around. There is no wedged-in sex, or hint of it in a film that doesn't need it in order to hold attention well. There is no pro- or anti-military bravado. This is just a bunch of guys who are slowly realizing what they're up against. They're trying to fight back, but the odds against their success are pretty high.


Here are some aspects of the film and whether I like them or don't care for them:
Image
Like: The cast is well selected. Also, for whatever reason, Bill Lancaster resisted any urge to trump up some romantic story line by adding a female character to the film. The studio execs didn't insist that he go back and put in one or a dozen, either. I have to admire them for that. No doubt it was considered box-office suicide by some of the execs. It might be worth noting that the film wasn't well-received at first, grossing only $19 million against its $15 million budget. Some attribute this to competition from E.T. the Extraterrestrial. No one claims it's because of lack of a romantic subplot.

Like: The writers resisted the probable urge to have everything that can go wrong do so. Instead, they have a story that's constructed a bit like the original mystery short story where bits and pieces of knowledge about the Thing come to light as the occupants of US National Science Institute Antarctic Station 4 learn each point. And that's when we learn about those bits and pieces, as well.

Like: The testing scene in the station rec room is one of the best and most tension-filled scenes in any Carpenter film.

Like: The ending is not a happy one. Although it is left slightly open. This is a good change from the happy ending of the short story. There is no deus ex machina.
Image
Like: The film seems to be devoid of any political motivations. If there is any anti-alien sentiment in it, that sentiment is well-hidden. It is presented as a story of survival, and it pits an extraterrestrial attempting to survive against those who would become its human templates. The would-be templates also struggle to survive.

Like: At the beginning of the film the US station crew stop something that appears to their eyes to be brutally uncalled for. If you don't know what the dog is as you watch for the first time, you agree with them. The first time I saw the movie the entire show made little sense to me. I think this is another film in the category of No Way Out: if you know the ending it's much, much more enjoyable to watch. Makes a hell of a lot more sense, too.

Don't Like: To get down to the scary part of the tale, Carpenter leaves off the discovery of the ship and the frozen alien. This is disclosed in a visit to the Norwegian base camp, where MacReady discovers information about the alien life form. Then they go back and see the spaceship with the covering ice melted away. But this crew never sees the original alien creature.

Don't Like: The music is the least satisfying I've ever heard from Ennio Morricone. It is nonetheless capable of becoming Ohrwurm, boring into and getting stuck in a person's head. Where it bores you to death. I do like the "Ending Credits" cut, though. It, too, is Wurm, but it's a more tender Wurm. Unlike "Frontier Psychiatrist," it relinquishes its hold on the brain after a few hours without invocation of any exorcism. Or, perhaps the imitation process is complete at that point, and one does not know that one is no longer one's old self.
Image
Don't Like: Using explosions to destroy a creature where every tiny part is a complete animal is kind of stupid. No, it's actually totally stupid. But explosions are de rigueur for Hollywood action films, so we couldn't expect any thoughtful mounting of some other way to get rid of the creatures. We see that ice doesn't destroy it. And we are told that burning doesn't destroy the creature, either. Why not splode it, then? Splatter those tiny critters all over and make them so numerous you can never wipe them out!

Don't Like: The special creature effects are sometimes a bit beyond the pale. Not that they aren't cool. Plus, they don't look cheesy in the HD realm the way they do on VHS or DVD. But when they get going, they always go on just a bit too long. Until the scene with Norris and Doc Copper, that is.

Like: At its simplest and cheapest, the idea that the Thing imitates living creatures at the cellular level, thus producing copies that cannot be differentiated from the original, could be done with an actor playing his original character, and the Thing that takes over the original. But Carpenter spent the bucks to show something that is mentioned in the short story: the transition takes time, and it is often gross. The producers did not do the cheap thing (I should write the cheap Thing) but mounted some impressive animatronic creature effects like none seen up until that time. They are capable of creating some of the most fascinatingly dread-filled images ever filmed.
Image
If you haven't seen Carpenter's take on The Thing, see it soon.

Is this a great film? Not sure. But, to see something from a schlock film master like John Carpenter hang together as well as The Thing (1982) does, is a delight. No doubt Carpenter's own belief that this is his best film is true. This film has also become a classic film, it transcends its genre, and retains a lot of the philosophy of the original Campbell short story, which is a pleasant surprise. I have to call it John Carpenter's lifetime masterpiece.



ImageImageGo back using these buttons.ImageImageImageImageImageImage



Image
See the Cast of ‘The Thing’ Then and Now by Britt Hayes at Screen Crush
The Thing (1982 film) from Wikipedia
The Thing (1982) Roger Ebert January 1, 1982 "This time, though, despite some roughed-out typecasting and a few reliable stereotypes (the drunk, the psycho, the hero), he has populated his ice station with people whose primary purpose in life is to get jumped on from behind. The few scenes that develop characterizations are overwhelmed by the scenes in which the men are just setups for an attack by the Thing."
The Thing (1982) from boxofficemojo.com
1982 characters from TheThing wikia.com
Film: The Thing (1982) from tvtropes.org
Gort/YTMN left the forum due to trolling on August 25, 2018.
I had fun. Thanks for reading!

"The wealthy and powerful always remind us that cream rises to the top.
What they fail to acknowledge is that pond scum also rises to the top.
And there is a lot more pond scum in the world than there is cream.
If you become rich and powerful, I hope that you will be cream rather than pond scum." --YTMN

Rematch Resurrection Catalog for Rounds 1-4 New post 180721 -- YTMN's Remake Rematch Thread.
Thread Resurrected 21 Jul 2018. Thread abandoned 1 Aug 2017. Thread COMPLETE 25 May 14 (2d time!)


The Future Unreels
User avatar
YouTookMyName
Posts: 2227
Joined: Thu Jun 17, 2010 1:53 am

Re: YTMN Presents a Remake Rematch Thread

Post by YouTookMyName » Mon May 12, 2014 7:51 am

Image
Image
A Comparison of The Thing from Another World (1951), The Thing (1982), and The Thing (2011)
The Writers

1938 -- the novella
John W. Campbell Jr. Campbell has 4 screenwriting credits, three of which are for the films in this Multimatch. The other is for a story included in the TV series, Tales of Tomorrow, "The Machine" (1952). His real career was to be the editor of Astounding Science Fiction magazine. It was Campbell who fostered young science fiction writer Isaac Asimov.
Image
1951
Charles Lederer Screenplay. He is most famous for writing additional dialog for the 1931 screen adaptation of The Front Page, and its remake His Girl Friday (1940). He did the screenplay for several Cary Grant and Marilyn Monroe vehicles in the 1940s and 50s. In 1960 his screenplay for Ocean's Eleven garnered him his 4th Writer's Guild of America nomination for a screenplay.
John W. Campbell Jr. based on the story Who Goes There? by.
Howard Hawks uncredited. Hawks has 25 writer credits listed at IMDb, a dozen of which bear the explanatory note (uncredited).
Ben Hecht uncredited. Hecht has 160 writing credits, a dozen of which are posthumous (he died in 1964). We already know the name Ben Hecht (and Hawks) in this thread from Scarface (1931).


1982
Bill Lancaster Screenplay. The bulk of Lancaster's writing credits have the team name Bad News Bears in the title. All the rest is The Thing (1982). He won a Writer's Guild Award in 1977 for The Bad News Bears (1976).
John W. Campbell Jr. original story.


2011
Eric Heisserer has the 2011 screenplay credit. He was born in 1970, so it's not surprising that he has only 5 writer credits at IMDb. He wrote the screenplay for the remake of A Nightmare on Elm Street (2010), followed by Final Destination 5 (2011), then The Thing (2011). In 2013 he both wrote and directed Hours. Heisserer has a 2007 nomination for something I didn't know was considered by the Emmys. They now nominate and honor the cast and crew of broadband video productions.



ImageImageGo back using these buttons.ImageImageImageImageImageImage



Image
In 1975, Newsweek Warned that Science Fiction Was Taking Over from io9.com "The Golden Age of Science Fiction began in 1939, the year Asimov, Heinlein, A.E. van Vogt and Theodore Sturgeon began sending stories to Astounding Science Fiction's new editor, John W. Campbell. -- Campbell is an authentic sf hero. He gave his writers ideas for some of their best stories; he demanded real plots and plausible science; he was indifferent to complex characters and fine writing; he insisted that human beings were never to be defeated by extraterrestrials; and he paid his writers 1 cent a word (eventually 4 cents - about what sf magazines pay today)."
Charles Lederer from Wikipedia
The Ultimate Weapon (Uncertainty)-John W. Campbell (1936) from Wordpress
John W. Campbell from Wikipedia
Bill_Lancaster from Wikipedia
Eric Heisserer from Wikipedia
Interview: 'Hours' Director Eric Heisserer from Hollywood.com
Howard Hawks Pt. 1 from AFI.com
Howard Hawks from Wikipedia
Ben Hecht from Wikipedia
Gort/YTMN left the forum due to trolling on August 25, 2018.
I had fun. Thanks for reading!

"The wealthy and powerful always remind us that cream rises to the top.
What they fail to acknowledge is that pond scum also rises to the top.
And there is a lot more pond scum in the world than there is cream.
If you become rich and powerful, I hope that you will be cream rather than pond scum." --YTMN

Rematch Resurrection Catalog for Rounds 1-4 New post 180721 -- YTMN's Remake Rematch Thread.
Thread Resurrected 21 Jul 2018. Thread abandoned 1 Aug 2017. Thread COMPLETE 25 May 14 (2d time!)


The Future Unreels
User avatar
Hank
Posts: 2451
Joined: Tue Mar 02, 2010 12:17 am
Contact:

Re: YTMN Presents a Remake Rematch Thread

Post by Hank » Tue May 13, 2014 1:30 am

I have watched The Thing 1982 twice since I first saw it last year. I really like it... and it spawned a couple viewings of other Carpenter films because it got me interested. Soon after I slowed and then stopped. "I could find virtually nothing wrong with the movie. It's a little over-long, of course, but many good films are"... Agreed, and it also seems as though you wouldn't consider it one of your favorites... and neither do I. In fact, this thought has been eating at me. I'm hard pressed to think of another move that I should like so much that I don't consider one of my favorites. I mean, it's really good. Really good. As you mentioned--Carpenter's masterwork. I watch it with adoring eyes. But I'm just not sure what it is that I get hung up on.
User avatar
YouTookMyName
Posts: 2227
Joined: Thu Jun 17, 2010 1:53 am

Re: YTMN Presents a Remake Rematch Thread

Post by YouTookMyName » Wed May 14, 2014 8:44 am

Well, I just had a what-the-hell? moment. I won't say it went all the way to WTF?, but it came close enough.

I had the next post below ready to go after building graphics for about an hour, and everything was (fortunately) saved into the .txt file as bbcode, ready to post in this thread. I use Safari for Windows, which is no longer supported by Apple, to do these Rematch posts. I do this because it allows me to save a webarchive file of each thread page, one that contains all the images, and preserves the bbcode structure so that spoiler tags remain functional, rather than becoming mere graphic placeholders. I've been using this method since the beginning of the thread: build out the posts in Firefox or Chrome as Gort, copy the final bbcode, paste it into a Notepad++ document and save, then open Safari and place the text into the Rematch thread as YTMN. Adjust the contents posts, and the signature, and paste the signature into both users while the two browsers are open. Save the final versions of the altered pages from Safari as webarchive files.

So imagine my irritated puzzlement when Firefox closed, then Safari closed as I was getting ready to put the contents of the clipboard into place. The images were loading into the Safari window for page 38, the 2011 review code was on the clipboard ready to paste, and suddenly it was all quitting! I was beginning to figure that I'd need to restart and making a mental list of where my saves were. Then Windows automatically began installing updates and shutting down.

So, this is the first time I've ever been working on something on the desktop machine at 3:00am local time on Wednesday morning. Auto updates are set to work at that time. But I was a little shocked that Windows didn't warn me that it was ready to restart after installing the updates. I guess this explains why I sometimes awaken on Wednesday morning and find my computer at the selector window, offering me my choice of two users.

I had imagined that for a few seconds there is a warning dialogue box that says "Save your work, updates have been installed, and Windows will restart in 30 seconds" with the number counting down dramatically. There is no such dialogue box!

It all turned out okay, but it was a cognitive adventure, to say the least. 8-)
Gort/YTMN left the forum due to trolling on August 25, 2018.
I had fun. Thanks for reading!

"The wealthy and powerful always remind us that cream rises to the top.
What they fail to acknowledge is that pond scum also rises to the top.
And there is a lot more pond scum in the world than there is cream.
If you become rich and powerful, I hope that you will be cream rather than pond scum." --YTMN

Rematch Resurrection Catalog for Rounds 1-4 New post 180721 -- YTMN's Remake Rematch Thread.
Thread Resurrected 21 Jul 2018. Thread abandoned 1 Aug 2017. Thread COMPLETE 25 May 14 (2d time!)


The Future Unreels
User avatar
YouTookMyName
Posts: 2227
Joined: Thu Jun 17, 2010 1:53 am

Re: YTMN Presents a Remake Rematch Thread

Post by YouTookMyName » Wed May 14, 2014 8:45 am

A Comparison of The Thing from Another World (1951), The Thing (1982), and The Thing (2011)
Image

IMDb link 6.3/10 user rating with 74,125 votes -- RT-link 35% Tomatometer; 43% user reviews with 39,282 votes

Year: 2011 Director: Matthijs van Heijningen -- Cast: Mary Elizabeth Winstead, Joel Edgerton, Ulrich Thomsen, Adewale Akinnuoye-Agbaje, Kim Bubbs -- Length: 103 min. Color/Surround -- estimated budget: $38,000,000 - est. gross: $16,928,670 (USA) (17 November 2011)

Some reviews liken this film to fan fiction. It has been blasted by most reviewers who earn money for writing down their opinions, but the great unwashed masses don't like it very much better. Some critics say that what was done well is well-done, but the rest is slacker grade production. Perhaps the problem is with the conception of this remake as a "prequel" that somehow tells the same story as John Carpenter's film. In other words, the same thing that happened after the sled dog got to the US Antarctic compound at the beginning of the 1982 film, happens at the Norwegian site in this film, before the dog escapes.

Some critics ask, "Why bother?"
Image
Others take Carpenter's film as the gold standard, and this one just doesn't measure up only because of fan-blindness. But the criticism isn't all unjustified. The problem is, the harshest critics would never apply the same yardstick to the previous two movies. If they did, those films would come up lacking, as well. And in some of the same aspects.

For what this film is, a homage to Carpenter's version of John W. Campbell's short story, it's okay; it is a totally average picture, the kind that sells tickets these days, but there is some question about whether it adds anything new to the saga of The Thing.

This was not a commercially successful film in theaters. It may have recouped its expenses and gone wildly profitable in the video market. They never tell us those figures.
Image
In a worthwhile bow to modern sexual politics the main character of the 2011 pre-make is a woman. She is a strong and commanding woman, but she ends the film all alone. We don't know exactly what happens to her, or whether she has become a Thing. There is no indication that she has, but there is no certainty that she has not. This was probably the embedded hook for a possible sequel to the prequel, sending Kate Lloyd off to another station to begin the very exact thing happening all over again in another unnecessary movie. Then again, what movie is necessary? As for the addition of two women to the cast of the 2011 film, why not? The all-male cast version of The Thing was done as well as it can be in 1982. Kate is a fine, decisive leader.



Here are some aspects of the film and whether I like them or don't care for them:

Like: Van Heijningen's team put forth the effort to make the Norwegian facility look just like the sets used in the Carpenter film. The writers and crew had great fun tracking backwards to make sure certain things were in place like they were in Carpenter's Norwegian ice station.
Don't Like: But at other times, they didn't bother to follow what was established as the plot events in the earlier film. If you're setting yourself a benchmark, you should keep trying to hit it. For one example, the way the ice covering the spacecraft gets removed is different in the two films.

Like: Whenever possible the Things were practical animatronic objects, and certain limbs and twiddling tentacles and so forth were added with CGI. In fact, some of the criticism I've read about the "bad CGI" wasn't referring to CGI at all, because the effects were accomplished with miniatures or animatronics! You know what that means, don't you? CGI has gotten so good you can't tell real from fake if the fake is done well.
Image
Like: The photography is well-done, the compositing is spot on, the CGI blends with the animatronics almost perfectly in every case.

Like: The plot mechanisms concocted in order to get an axe in the wall, or a Thing with fused heads into this film and into exactly the same places they were in the 1982 film, are very clever. But that's why you should see the earlier film first, because that cleverness is much of what the 2011 film has going for it.

Like: The fillings scene in the rec room, which replaces the blood and wire test of the 1982 movie, is the only truly tense scene in this film. And it is well made. But it's like doing a dance you did before while wearing a white tuxedo, and this time slipping into a blue tuxedo, doing the same choreography, and calling it new. Then again, a remake is a remake. Has "re-" there at the beginning of the word. To be fair, the idea that leads to the scene is new to the entire history of Thing tales, and it makes story sense. It just doesn't seem to "add" anything.

Don't Like: One entry will cover a multitude of things I don't like here, mainly that I have to agree with those who ask, "Why was this film even made?" and who claim it wasn't needed. The story is a complete rehash of the 1982 interpretation of John Campbell's short story. Nothing really new is added. In one or two places they dodge the scenes that were in the 1982 film, which they are trying to prequel, and that sort of blows their fanboyness a little. But I have to agree with those who ask that question. It's nothing but a showcase for CGI and practical effects that are 29 years better.
Image
I don't see the slacker-grade production that some critics claim to see in Van Heijningen's The Thing. I think it's a well made cinematic average-work, flawed in terms of story, a little over-long, yet neither terrible nor boring. But it isn't imbued with anything that brings about the feeling of "I'm glad I saw this" that the 1982 film induces (at least in me).

If you skip this movie and watch only the Carpenter version you won't be missing anything. If you watch both, watch this one second, as it was made second, because you'll already know everything that happens in this film simply by watching John Carpenter's movie. The Thing (2011) is not a clunky film by any means. It is thoughtfully made, and despite some claims that the acting is terrible, it isn't. You won't totally waste your time by watching this film. Just don't get the idea that you know the Carpenter movie if you watch the 2011 movie first. This idea is difficult to express, but I'll have a go at it: the 2011 film is called a "prequel" but it recaps exactly the same story, because the same thing happens at the US station in the 1982 version that had already happened at the Norwegian station within that film. You begin to realize this while watching Carpenter's masterpiece. The newest version is simply the telling of how those same things happened at the Norwegian station.

Maybe I can explain the point this way. Remember the Rob Zombie remake of Halloween? How he spends the first part of the movie explaining how a young Michael Myers became the Shape? Well, this entire movie is like the first part of the 2007 Halloween. As I wrote above, the main groove of the 2011 film is getting to see how the filmmakers came up with ways to make the events come to pass in this one; events that we get to see only as aftermath in the 1982 film.



ImageImageGo back using these buttons.ImageImageImageImageImageImage



Image
Movie Review: THE THING (2011) Is A Boring, Expensive Fan Film Published October 15, 2011 by Devin Faraci at Badass Digest. "In reality this new The Thing is nothing more than an expensive fan film, a movie that lifts elements of Carpenter’s classic whole but has no understanding of or feeling for them."
The Thing (2011) Roger Ebert October 12, 2011 "The contribution by John Carpenter was to take advantage of three decades of special effects to make his creatures Awful Gooey Things from Space. That was done well in his film, and it is done with even more technical expertise here — but to what point? The more you see of a monster, the less you get. It is the unseen, the imagined, that scares you."
The Thing (2011 film) from Wikipedia
New Cast and Story Details of ‘The Thing’ Prequel published 2010 by Amanda Schuckman at Screen Rant. "Universal, trust me. I’m a 24-year-old female, and at the end of the day I will still probably relate better and be more interested in Keith David’s character, Childs, from the original Thing than I will be in Kate Lloyd. If the characters are no good, The Thing prequel will be another failed attempt to revisit a stand-alone classic. Fingers crossed that won’t be the case."
Gort/YTMN left the forum due to trolling on August 25, 2018.
I had fun. Thanks for reading!

"The wealthy and powerful always remind us that cream rises to the top.
What they fail to acknowledge is that pond scum also rises to the top.
And there is a lot more pond scum in the world than there is cream.
If you become rich and powerful, I hope that you will be cream rather than pond scum." --YTMN

Rematch Resurrection Catalog for Rounds 1-4 New post 180721 -- YTMN's Remake Rematch Thread.
Thread Resurrected 21 Jul 2018. Thread abandoned 1 Aug 2017. Thread COMPLETE 25 May 14 (2d time!)


The Future Unreels
User avatar
YouTookMyName
Posts: 2227
Joined: Thu Jun 17, 2010 1:53 am

Re: YTMN Presents a Remake Rematch Thread

Post by YouTookMyName » Wed May 14, 2014 8:54 am

Hank wrote:In fact, this thought has been eating at me. I'm hard pressed to think of another move that I should like so much that I don't consider one of my favorites. I mean, it's really good. Really good. As you mentioned--Carpenter's masterwork. I watch it with adoring eyes. But I'm just not sure what it is that I get hung up on.
Perhaps you've hit upon the reason that I have this mental amorphous conglomeration of several hundred films that I like, but I don't number and order and declare as "favorites." :D

They are enjoyable to watch, for one or several reasons or another, yet I don't feel like spending the time to try to figure out where they fit into some "goodness" hierarchy.

And with four little brains to nurture, now, you certainly don't have time for working that out.

It's reassuring to read that you agree that a masterwork can be good, but not so good that you think it needs a numbered slot in your life!
Gort/YTMN left the forum due to trolling on August 25, 2018.
I had fun. Thanks for reading!

"The wealthy and powerful always remind us that cream rises to the top.
What they fail to acknowledge is that pond scum also rises to the top.
And there is a lot more pond scum in the world than there is cream.
If you become rich and powerful, I hope that you will be cream rather than pond scum." --YTMN

Rematch Resurrection Catalog for Rounds 1-4 New post 180721 -- YTMN's Remake Rematch Thread.
Thread Resurrected 21 Jul 2018. Thread abandoned 1 Aug 2017. Thread COMPLETE 25 May 14 (2d time!)


The Future Unreels
User avatar
YouTookMyName
Posts: 2227
Joined: Thu Jun 17, 2010 1:53 am

Re: YTMN Presents a Remake Rematch Thread

Post by YouTookMyName » Thu May 15, 2014 11:13 pm

Image
Image
A Comparison of The Thing from Another World (1951), The Thing (1982), and The Thing (2011)
Lines You Might Like
Actually, these films are not all that quotable, so I relied on pre-existing quotes pages for my sources. Mostly IMDb. I did place some links to scripts below, though, in case you want to do your own great lines searches.
1951ImageImageImage
Ned "Scotty" Scott: So few people can boast that they've lost a flying saucer and a man from Mars -all in the same day! Wonder what they'd have done to Columbus if he'd discovered America, and then mislaid it.
.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'
Dr. Arthur Carrington: You're doing more than breaking army orders. You're robbing science of the greatest secrets that ever came to it.
Hendry: You'd better go back, Doctor.
Dr. Arthur Carrington: Knowledge is more important than life, Captain. We've only one excuse for existing - to think, to find out, to learn.
Ned "Scotty" Scott: What can we learn from that thing except a quicker way to die?
Dr. Arthur Carrington: It doesn't matter what happens to us. Nothing counts except for our thinking. We thought our way into nature. We split the atom.
Eddie: Yes, and that sure made the world happy, didn't it?
.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'
Lt. Ken McPherson: Hey Pat! The heat's off in the mess hall!
Dr. Chapman: No more oil coming in.
Ned "Scotty" Scott: Pat, it's off in there, too. Could the tank be empty?
Dr. Chapman: Filled the day before yesterday.
Ned "Scotty" Scott: The main line could be plugged. You better run outside and fix it.
Hendry: And probably run smack into our visitor. He'll be waiting for you to do just that.
Lt. Ken McPherson: We underestimate this guy.
.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'
Dr. Arthur Carrington: I doubt that it *can* die... as we understand dying.
.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'
Dr. Arthur Carrington: You're acting like scared children.
Hendry: You're right, Doctor... I am scared.
.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'
Ned "Scotty" Scott: Here's the sixty-four dollar question - what do you do with a vegetable?
Nikki: Boil it.
Ned "Scotty" Scott: What did you say?
Nikki: Boil it... bake it... stew it... fry it?
.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'
Lt. Ken McPherson: What if he can read our minds?
Eddie: He'll be real mad when he gets to me.
.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'
Ned "Scotty" Scott (on the radio to Anchorage where reporters are gathered): All right, fellas, here's your story: North Pole, November Third, Ned Scott reporting. One of the world's greatest battles was fought and won today by the human race. Here at the top of the world a handful of American soldiers and civilians met the first invasion from another planet. A man by the name of Noah once saved our world with an ark of wood. Here at the North Pole, a few men performed a similar service with an arc of electricity. The flying saucer which landed here and its pilot have been destroyed, but not without causalities among our own meager forces. I would like to bring to the microphone some of the men responsible for our success... but as Senior Air force officer Captain Hendry is attending to demands over and above the call of duty... Doctor Carrington, the leader of the scientific expedition, is recovering from wounds received in the battle.
Eddie: (Softly) Good for you, Scotty.
Ned "Scotty" Scott: And now before giving you the details of the battle, I bring you a warning: Everyone of you listening to my voice, tell the world, tell this to everybody wherever they are. Watch the skies. Everywhere. Keep looking. Keep watching the skies!
.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'


1982ImageImageImage
(showing the remains of the dog-thing to the entire camp)
Dr. Blair: You see, what we're talkin' about here is an organism that imitates other life-forms, and it imitates 'em perfectly. When this thing attacked our dogs it tried to digest them... absorb them, and in the process shape its own cells to imitate them. This for instance. That's not dog. It's imitation. We got to it before it had time to finish.
Vance Norris: Finish what?
Dr. Blair: Finish imitating these dogs.
.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'
Garry: My God, what was happening to him?
MacReady: If it had more time to finish, it would have looked and sounded and acted just like Bennings!
Garry: I don't know what you're saying.
MacReady: That was one of those things out there trying to imitate him, Garry. C'mon.
Garry: MacReady, I know Bennings. I've known him for ten years. He's my friend.
MacReady: We gotta burn the rest of 'em.
.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'
MacReady: I know I'm human. And if you were all these things, then you'd just attack me right now, so some of you are still human. This thing doesn't want to show itself, it wants to hide inside an imitation. It'll fight if it has to, but it's vulnerable out in the open. If it takes us over, then it has no more enemies, nobody left to kill it. And then it's won.
.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'
Blair: (Destroying the radio with a fire ax) Nobody gets in or out of here! NOBODY! You guys think I'm crazy?! Well, that's fine! Most of you don't know what's going on around here, but I'm damn well sure some of you do! You think that thing wanted to be an animal?! No dog's gonna make it a thousand miles to the coast! You don't understand! That thing wanted to be US! A cell gets out, and it'll imitate everything on the face of the Earth! AND NOTHING CAN STOP IT!
.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'
MacReady: Watching Norris in there gave me the idea that maybe every part of you bastards is a whole. Every piece of you is self-sufficient, an animal unto itself. When a man bleeds, it's just tissue. But blood from one of you Things won't obey. It's a newly formed individual with a built-in desire to protect its own life. When attacked, your blood will try and survive — and crawl away from a hot needle, say.
.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'
Childs: If I was an imitation, a perfect imitation, how would you know if it was really me?
.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'
Childs: The explosions set the temperatures up all over the camp. But it won't last long though.
MacReady: When these fires go out, neither will we.
Childs: How will we make it?
MacReady: Maybe we shouldn't.
Childs: If you're worried about me...
MacReady: If we've got any surprises for each other, I don't think either one of us is in much shape to do anything about it.
Childs: Well... what do we do?
MacReady: (slumping back) Why don't we just wait here a little while? See what happens.
.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'



2011ImageImageImage
Adam Finch: (about Sander) In the three years that I have known him, this is the most excited I have ever seen him.
.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'
Adam Finch: You know, I never believed in this shit.
Jonas: I always did.
.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'
Adam Finch: So, I'm gonna die because I floss?
.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'
Sam Carter: I wanna know how the Cavaliers are doing?
Kate Lloyd: Hmm. I don't follow football.
Sam Carter: It's a basketball team. They play basketball.
Jameson: Barely. They're the Cavaliers, man.
.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'
Kate: Not all of us are human!
.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'
Colin: You think they're gonna pay a bonus for bringing home an alien instead of core samples?
.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'
Lars: (to Matias) That's not a dog! Start the helicopter now!
(both get into helicopter)
Lars: Get it up now! Come on!
.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'


ImageImageGo back using these buttons.ImageImageImageImageImageImage


Image
The subtitle links below aren't always direct transcriptions of the actual dialog in the film, nor are the scripts necessarily the produced versions.
Thing From Another World, The (1951) - English subtitles from podnapsi.com
The Thing (1982) - English subtitles from podnapsi.com
The Thing (2011) - English subtitles from podnapsi.com
The Thing from Another World (1951) Quotes IMDb page
The Thing (1982) Quotes IMDb page
The Thing (2011) Quotes IMDb page
THE THING FROM ANOTHER WORLD Lederer script as pdf, from outpost31.com
The Thing 1982 script draft two, at IMSDb
Thing, The (1982) movie script Lancaster script at screenplays for you
The Thing Heisserer script (as Ronald D. Moore) no date, pdf from outpost31.com
Gort/YTMN left the forum due to trolling on August 25, 2018.
I had fun. Thanks for reading!

"The wealthy and powerful always remind us that cream rises to the top.
What they fail to acknowledge is that pond scum also rises to the top.
And there is a lot more pond scum in the world than there is cream.
If you become rich and powerful, I hope that you will be cream rather than pond scum." --YTMN

Rematch Resurrection Catalog for Rounds 1-4 New post 180721 -- YTMN's Remake Rematch Thread.
Thread Resurrected 21 Jul 2018. Thread abandoned 1 Aug 2017. Thread COMPLETE 25 May 14 (2d time!)


The Future Unreels
User avatar
YouTookMyName
Posts: 2227
Joined: Thu Jun 17, 2010 1:53 am

Re: YTMN Presents a Remake Rematch Thread

Post by YouTookMyName » Thu May 15, 2014 11:21 pm

Seriously considering seeing the 2014 Godzilla tomorrow afternoon. In 3D.

But when I'm away from the promotional materials I lose my urge to do so.

Is this the power of marketing?
Gort/YTMN left the forum due to trolling on August 25, 2018.
I had fun. Thanks for reading!

"The wealthy and powerful always remind us that cream rises to the top.
What they fail to acknowledge is that pond scum also rises to the top.
And there is a lot more pond scum in the world than there is cream.
If you become rich and powerful, I hope that you will be cream rather than pond scum." --YTMN

Rematch Resurrection Catalog for Rounds 1-4 New post 180721 -- YTMN's Remake Rematch Thread.
Thread Resurrected 21 Jul 2018. Thread abandoned 1 Aug 2017. Thread COMPLETE 25 May 14 (2d time!)


The Future Unreels
User avatar
YouTookMyName
Posts: 2227
Joined: Thu Jun 17, 2010 1:53 am

Re: YTMN Presents a Remake Rematch Thread

Post by YouTookMyName » Sat May 17, 2014 6:16 pm

The nephew and I went to see the 2014 Godzilla yesterday afternoon. There were only 5 people in the theater. A ticket-taker I asked as we left the theater said there was a much larger crowd at the noon feature.

I've been distracted this morning pulling together web items that I might use to construct an additional essay for the Godzilla Remake Multimatch that I finished last 13 Oct. I don't know whether I will, or not.

I had to verify my memory, with Google Maps, to be sure that my younger son's apartment is located in the area of the M.U.T.O. nest in San Francisco. Yep, we first see it through the ChinaTown gate at Grant and Bush Streets. My son lives less than a block East of that intersection. And works very near where he lives, so both buildings would probably have been at the bottom of the pit. I can only hope that he would have been away from either place as the MUTOs rampaged. :D

Anyway, with all that going on I still managed to complete an essay for The Thing.
Gort/YTMN left the forum due to trolling on August 25, 2018.
I had fun. Thanks for reading!

"The wealthy and powerful always remind us that cream rises to the top.
What they fail to acknowledge is that pond scum also rises to the top.
And there is a lot more pond scum in the world than there is cream.
If you become rich and powerful, I hope that you will be cream rather than pond scum." --YTMN

Rematch Resurrection Catalog for Rounds 1-4 New post 180721 -- YTMN's Remake Rematch Thread.
Thread Resurrected 21 Jul 2018. Thread abandoned 1 Aug 2017. Thread COMPLETE 25 May 14 (2d time!)


The Future Unreels
User avatar
YouTookMyName
Posts: 2227
Joined: Thu Jun 17, 2010 1:53 am

Re: YTMN Presents a Remake Rematch Thread

Post by YouTookMyName » Sat May 17, 2014 6:17 pm

A Comparison of The Thing from Another World (1951), The Thing (1982), and The Thing (2011)

Image
Infection . . . or Invader?
John W. Campbell Jr.'s short story Who Goes There? begins with the denizens of an Antarctic scientific station debating whether the thing in the ice poses a danger of infection. They have brought the thing back from an expedition to a magnetic anomaly almost on top of the magnetic South pole of the earth. The spacecraft in which the thing arrived was burned up, after its magnesium shell caught fire when the explorers attempted to enter it using a thermite bomb. Now the frozen 20-million year-old critter is all they have. And they have to decide what to do with it. Thaw it? Or let it remain frozen? Perhaps return it to the hole they dug it out of and forget about it?
The giant meteorologist spoke again. "The problem is this. Blair wants to examine the thing. Thaw it out and make micro slides of its tissues and so forth. Norris doesn't believe that is safe, and Blair does. Dr. Copper agrees pretty much with Blair. Norris is a physicist, of course, not a biologist. But he makes a point I think we should all hear. Blair has described the microscopic life-forms biologists find living, even in this cold and inhospitable place. They freeze every winter, and thaw every summer--for three months--and live.

"The point Norris makes is--they thaw, and live again. There must have been microscopic life associated with this creature. There is with every living thing we know. And Norris is afraid that we may release a plague--some germ disease unknown to Earth--if we thaw those microscopic things that have been frozen there for twenty million years.

"Blair admits that such micro-life might retain the power of living. Such unorganized things as individual cells can retain life for unknown periods, when solidly frozen. The beast itself is as dead as those frozen mammoths they find in Siberia. Organized, highly developed life-forms can't stand that treatment.

"But micro-life could. Norris suggests that we may release some disease form that man, never having met it before, will be utterly defenseless against.

"Blair's answer is that there may be such still-living germs, but that Norris has the case reversed. They are utterly non-immune to man. Our life-chemistry probably--"

"Probably!" The little biologist's head lifted in a quick, birdlike motion. The halo of gray hair about his bald head ruffled as though angry. "Heh. One look--"

"I know," McReady acknowledged. "The thing is not Earthly. It does not seem likely that it can have a life-chemistry sufficiently like ours to make cross-infection remotely possible. I would say that there is no danger."

McReady looked toward Dr. Copper. The physician shook his head slowly. "None whatever," he asserted confidently. "Man cannot infect or be infected by germs that live in such comparatively close relatives as the snakes. And they are, I assure you," his clean-shaven face grimaced uneasily, "much nearer to us than--that."
This shows that in 1938 there were already people, including science fiction writers who had thought out the possibility that a micro-organism could do as much damage to earth life forms as a marauding macro-organism. H.G. Wells turned this around in the famous denouement to his 1897 novel The War of the Worlds. Our earthly bugs did in the invading Martian army.

Very quickly, Campbell's analytical Antarctic contingent of scientists and soldiers recognizes the truth: at least one of them is a monster, and if so much as a few cells of that monster were to be eaten by an albatross--the entire world would be relentlessly transformed into monsters. This would go until the "monsters" were the main life form on earth. It would be conquest without warfare. Total, and destructive only of the original and genuine genetics of earth. Nothing would look any different, of course, because the thing is a mimic. A perfect mimic.

Image

The Howard Hawks film discards this premise, making The Thing from Another World an invading vegetable life form. It could take over the world, but because it has to plant its seeds in soil, and they have to grow, it would be possible for noble humans to kill the baby Things, and spoil the invasion. Back in those days the humans had to win. Fire is seen as a way to destroy the invading vegetable, although bullets just pass through it without damaging it. The movie features what is thought to be the first full-body burn by a stunt man.

John Carpenter liked the 1951 film, but read the original story in college, so when it came his turn to remake the story, he went back to the original idea of an imitating organism. And that set the stage for the 2011 prequel-remake. Both these films treat the alien creature as a mimic, a thing that can imitate life forms at the cellular level, in effect becoming what it attacks. It acts more like an infection. I'm not certain that Jack Finney didn't borrow that idea when writing Invasion of the Body Snatchers.

In 1982, by the time the organism makes it to the USA station in Antarctica, it is no longer frozen. There is no debate to be had about whether to release it or not. It is loose, and the only option is whether to die, trying to contain it.

Image

From a biological standpoint an infection is an invasion! And the immune system does its best to ward off the infection by fighting back. Ice does no good against the short story alien, or those in the 1982/2011 story world. Fire seems to destroy the life of the organism, but its cells remain alive and able to mimic earth lifeforms. If such an invading organism came to earth there would likely be no stopping it. Without any immunological natural enemy, the organism would spread in the way kudzu has spread in the United States. Unimpeded.

Invader or infection? The only difference is the mechanism. The 1982 film posits the chilling notion that if the organism got loose on earth, it would take only 27,000 hours before every single organism on earth had been taken over by its imitation cells. The end result is the same scary one from the body-snatchers story: you look like you, but you aren't you, anymore.


ImageImageGo back using these buttons.ImageImageImageImageImageImage


Image
Kudzu Kerry O. Britton - U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Athens, Georgia, USA, and others. from dnr.state.il.us/Stewardship/cd/biocontrol. "Kudzu was widely promoted as a drought-resistant, high-nitrogen forage crop. Research in the 1930s examined optimum planting density, fertilization (Ahlgren, 1956), and the optimum time of mowing to maximize yield without depleting the kudzu root starch so much as to prevent regrowth each spring (Sturkie and Grimes, 1939). However, it proved difficult to bale."
Thermite from Wikipedia "Thermite usage is hazardous due to the extremely high temperatures produced and the extreme difficulty in smothering a reaction once initiated."
Who Goes There? – John W. Campbell, Jr. - PDF, EPUB from bookbay.org
Who Goes There?: The Novella That Formed the Basis of the Thing from Amazon.com
The War of the Worlds by H. G. Wells from gutenberg.org
Gort/YTMN left the forum due to trolling on August 25, 2018.
I had fun. Thanks for reading!

"The wealthy and powerful always remind us that cream rises to the top.
What they fail to acknowledge is that pond scum also rises to the top.
And there is a lot more pond scum in the world than there is cream.
If you become rich and powerful, I hope that you will be cream rather than pond scum." --YTMN

Rematch Resurrection Catalog for Rounds 1-4 New post 180721 -- YTMN's Remake Rematch Thread.
Thread Resurrected 21 Jul 2018. Thread abandoned 1 Aug 2017. Thread COMPLETE 25 May 14 (2d time!)


The Future Unreels
User avatar
YouTookMyName
Posts: 2227
Joined: Thu Jun 17, 2010 1:53 am

Re: YTMN Presents a Remake Rematch Thread

Post by YouTookMyName » Sun May 18, 2014 6:47 pm

Image
Image
A Comparison of The Thing from Another World (1951), The Thing (1982), and The Thing (2011)
In the Cutting Room

1951
Roland Gross edited his first feature film in 1943, and worked steadily on theatrical releases until 1955, when he edited the TV show Sheena: Queen of the Jungle. After that, he worked mostly in television, with an occasional foray into theatrical post-production.
Image
1982
Todd C. Ramsay worked with John Carpenter's film and soundtracks to put together the 1982 release. His 26 editorial credits include several high-profile pictures, beginning with Star Trek: The Motion Picture (1979). He then cut two films for John Carpenter, with The Thing being the second of those. I have heard of other films in his list of works, but I've only seen his first three.


2011
Peter Boyle was the film editor for the 2011 prequel, although he has equal billing with Julian Clarke. Their names are listed in alphabetical order. So it's possible they were equally responsible for different aspects of editorial. Both Boyle and Clarke have received Oscar nominations for their work. Boyle's nomination for Best Film Editing was for The Hours (20020), while Clarke was nominated for Best Achievement in Film Editing for District 9 (2010). Each has about an equal number of screen credits, as well. Boyle's 36 credits span from 1980 to 2014, while Clarke has been active between 2001 and current, with 30 credits to date. I have seen six films edited by Peter Boyle. I have seen 3 of Julian Clarke's works.



ImageImageGo back using these buttons.ImageImageImageImageImageImage



Image
Roland Gross from Wikipedia
Todd Ramsay from memory-alpha.org
Peter Boyle (film editor) from Wikipedia
Vancouver at the Oscars: District 9 film editor makes the cut By John Mackie, Vancouver Sun March 4, 2010 from vancouversun.com
Gort/YTMN left the forum due to trolling on August 25, 2018.
I had fun. Thanks for reading!

"The wealthy and powerful always remind us that cream rises to the top.
What they fail to acknowledge is that pond scum also rises to the top.
And there is a lot more pond scum in the world than there is cream.
If you become rich and powerful, I hope that you will be cream rather than pond scum." --YTMN

Rematch Resurrection Catalog for Rounds 1-4 New post 180721 -- YTMN's Remake Rematch Thread.
Thread Resurrected 21 Jul 2018. Thread abandoned 1 Aug 2017. Thread COMPLETE 25 May 14 (2d time!)


The Future Unreels
Post Reply