TOTAL RECALL in Coming Soon Forum

0 Points

Forum Jump

TOTAL RECALL

Author	Comment
luluthebeast	TOTAL RECALL	Lead	[-]
Nov 13 10 2:43 PM Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	Like we really need this! http://www.variety.com/article/VR1118027436
professor liebstrum		#1	[-]
Nov 13 10 5:11 PM Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	Scary that this came out 20 years ago. I need to lie down. Russ Last Edited By: professor liebstrum Nov 13 10 5:44 PM. Edited 1 times.
rogueevolent		#2	[-]
Nov 13 10 6:03 PM Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	I'm starting to think Sid Terror (and I guess Joe Karlosi too) may really have a point. - Jay "We didn't come here to fight monsters, we're not equipped for it" -- Richard Carlson (Creature from the Black Lagoon)
Mark Morgan		#3	[-]
Nov 13 10 7:42 PM Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	I would like to accurately express my shock, distaste, and stunned disbelief for the subject of that Variety article you linked to, Lulu, but quite frankly there are no words ... but thankfully there are torches!!! C'mon gang, let's put Hollywood out of our misery before things get worse. Superman: Dreams save us! Dreams lift us up and transform us. And on my soul, I SWEAR ... Until my dream of a world where Dignity, Honor, and Justice become the reality we all share, I'll never stop fighting. EVER! Doctor Who: No, don't tell me! I'm a dangerous man when I don't know what I'm doing. Optimus Prime: Megatron must be stopped. No matter the cost! Godzilla: Rawr! Checkout my fan blog if you dare ... A Lone Fan Crying In The Wilderness
Godziwolf		#4	[-]
Nov 14 10 2:03 AM Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	luluthebeast wrote: Like we really need this! http://www.variety.com/article/VR1118027436 Maybe after two tries, they'll finally adapt the novel.
Joe Karlosi		#5	[-]
Nov 14 10 7:16 AM Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	Incredible, isn't it? A wild and way-out modern-feeling movie that still is potent today as it was 20 years ago. It "needs" to be redone just because of name value and the idea that it's "20 long years ago"? Pfffffffffffffffffttt. And it also goes to show what I always say about how 20 years difference today is nothing, and so little has changed. Compare the 'change' of 1990 -2010 to 1950 -1970.
CreepingBride		#6	[-]
Nov 14 10 12:11 PM Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	From the Variety article: "The 'Total Recall' reboot, to be directed by Len Wiseman from a script by Kurt Wimmer, will contemporize author Philip K. Dick's source story, 'We Can Remember It for You Wholesale.' Farrell's casting would help contemporize the pic, offering a stark contrast to Schwarzenegger's persona. [emphasis mine] "Contemporize"? That's really a word now? (To use this make-believe word twice in the span of two sentences is stylistically crappy writing, but let's set that aside for the moment.) When I first read this, I thought that it meant that they were going to set the movie in "contemporary times," which makes no sense if you know PKD's short-story (which is infinitely better than the steaming pile of rancid Schwarzenegger that is TOTAL RECALL). So now I'm guessing that "contemporize" means "make more palatable for contemporary viewers," in which case my follow-up question is: WTF? Twenty years doesn't count as "contemporary"? What's the time-limit on "contemporary"? For those of us who watch movies from the twenties, thirties, and forties, 20 years ago qualifies as "current events," not "ancient history"... Furthermore, how is the TOTAL RECALL reboot going to "contemporize" Dick's original story, as Variety claims? "We Can Remember It for You Wholesale" was published in 1966-- making a new movie out of it can't change that fact. Or does the presence of Farrell magically make short-stories written forty-four years ago more relevant to contemporary readers? I'm so confused... The SHOCK! / Son of SHOCK! Viewing Project blog
Dr Acula		#7	[-]
Mar 27 12 1:08 PM Reply Quote More My Recent Posts
delgadosaur		#8	[-]
Mar 27 12 1:30 PM Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	Uhhh...the footage looks cool to me.
SteveZodiak		#9	[-]
Mar 27 12 4:36 PM Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	For our generation, Total Recall by Arnold is contemporary. But by the younger generations standard, it is ancient. Since I never liked the first one much at all, I'd give the remake a chance. Why do I have to waste my time outwitting morons?
delgadosaur		#10	[-]
Mar 27 12 6:08 PM Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	I agree. Loved Robocop and really looked forward to Total Recall, and was let down. There's some cool stuff there, there really is, but some of the google-eyed stuff at the end and a few other things brought a silly element to what could have been a gritty story, and this new film seems to have a better grasp of it, at least in those first few shots.
Badfinger		#11	[-]
Mar 27 12 7:44 PM Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	I, likewise, agree. I'm a little surprised to see so much negativity about a remake of TOTAL RECALL. I wouldn't have expected anybody on here to care that much about it. There has already been remakes of other films of that period (THE THING, FRIGHT NIGHT). I only saw the Arnold film once at the theaters. I believe I enjoyed it but I didn't find it all that memorable (pun intended) and never watched it again. I will give the remake a chance.
Joe Karlosi		#12	[-]
Mar 28 12 7:27 AM Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	Badfinger wrote: I, likewise, agree. I'm a little surprised to see so much negativity about a remake of TOTAL RECALL. I wouldn't have expected anybody on here to care that much about it. There has already been remakes of other films of that period (THE THING, FRIGHT NIGHT). I don't care about TOTAL RECALL; I saw the original (as it must now be referred to) when it came out and couldn't even make sense of it. But I do care about the lack of fresh ideas in Hollywood today and the ever-increasing reliance on remaking/rebooting movies more than they'd ever done before. I won't see the 'new' version of FRIGHT NIGHT; the 1985 version suits me fine. I did see the Carpenter THING back in a time when these modernized remakes weren't so out of control, and I think it improved on the talky '51 version. But it's extremely rare when that happens and it's not worth sifting through all the duds, in my opinion. "Guy named Squeamy got thrown from the fifth floor. He's deader'n a mackerel."
delgadosaur		#13	[-]
Mar 28 12 8:33 AM Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	Joe. No that you have to watch or like what I like, but for what it's worth the Fright Night remake is pretty good, while the Thing remake is actually a prequel and sits firmly in Alien Vs. Predator territory, where it's light not very good entertainment compared to the original films.
Joe Karlosi		#14	[-]
Mar 28 12 9:51 AM Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	delgadosaur wrote: Joe. No that you have to watch or like what I like, but for what it's worth the Fright Night remake is pretty good, while the Thing remake is actually a prequel and sits firmly in Alien Vs. Predator territory, where it's light not very good entertainment compared to the original films. Regarding the new version of THE THING, I have no desire to see it, especially since it's a prequel. Because for me, part of the effectiveness in Carpenter's version is that we don't see or know exactly what happened beforehand with the other crew who encountered The Thing. Spelling it out for us may kind of weaken the effectiveness of the '82 film. However, my nephew has expressed interest in renting the 2011 flick for one of our Movie Nights and bringing it over. Although I have no desire to see it at all, I'm not going to be difficult about it and if this event happens I'll watch it with an open mind and try to render a fair verdict. (However, I'm hoping he doesn't ever get around to it ). I've heard that the recent FRIGHT NIGHT is pretty good but I like my memory of FN to be the movie of 1985. When I saw it in the theater I felt it was the best "new modern vampire story" to come along in quite some time. I just have no interest in seeing it. "Guy named Squeamy got thrown from the fifth floor. He's deader'n a mackerel."
Omega Man		#15	[-]
Mar 28 12 10:42 AM Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	The Count of Monte Cristo (1908) The Count of Monte Cristo (1912) The Count of Monte Cristo (1913) The Count of Monte Cristo (1922) The Count of Monte Cristo (1934) The Count of Monte Cristo (1943) The Count of Monte Cristo (1951) The Count of Monte Cristo (1954) The Count of Monte Cristo (1973) The Count of Monte Cristo (1975) The Count of Monte Cristo (1991) The Count of Monte Cristo (1998) The Count of Monte Cristo (2002) "Dammit, it's jammed!" www.eccentric-cinema.com
SteveZodiak		#16	[-]
Mar 28 12 4:33 PM Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	Omega Man wrote: The Count of Monte Cristo (1908) The Count of Monte Cristo (1912) The Count of Monte Cristo (1913) The Count of Monte Cristo (1922) The Count of Monte Cristo (1934) The Count of Monte Cristo (1943) The Count of Monte Cristo (1951) The Count of Monte Cristo (1954) The Count of Monte Cristo (1973) The Count of Monte Cristo (1975) The Count of Monte Cristo (1991) The Count of Monte Cristo (1998) The Count of Monte Cristo (2002) I lost count of Monte Cristo. Why do I have to waste my time outwitting morons?
Gojira		#17	[-]
Mar 28 12 5:23 PM Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	The 1973 Monte Cristo was a decent cartoon adaptation. And the book was a boring slog after page 500...
Badfinger		#18	[-]
Mar 28 12 6:26 PM Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	Joe Karlosi wrote: delgadosaur wrote: Joe. No that you have to watch or like what I like, but for what it's worth the Fright Night remake is pretty good, while the Thing remake is actually a prequel and sits firmly in Alien Vs. Predator territory, where it's light not very good entertainment compared to the original films. Regarding the new version of THE THING, I have no desire to see it, especially since it's a prequel. Because for me, part of the effectiveness in Carpenter's version is that we don't see or know exactly what happened beforehand with the other crew who encountered The Thing. Spelling it out for us may kind of weaken the effectiveness of the '82 film. However, my nephew has expressed interest in renting the 2011 flick for one of our Movie Nights and bringing it over. Although I have no desire to see it at all, I'm not going to be difficult about it and if this event happens I'll watch it with an open mind and try to render a fair verdict. (However, I'm hoping he doesn't ever get around to it ). I've heard that the recent FRIGHT NIGHT is pretty good but I like my memory of FN to be the movie of 1985. When I saw it in the theater I felt it was the best "new modern vampire story" to come along in quite some time. I just have no interest in seeing it. The remake/prequel of THE THING was average at best. It didn't add anything new and lacked most of the elements that made the Carpenter version so good. I thought the FRIGHT NIGHT remake was garbage. I'm really surprised people on this board liked it. I have nothing kind to say about it.
Spoiler II		#19	[-]
Mar 28 12 11:06 PM Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	How can this remake not be good... the hero jumps off something exceedingly high at the end of the trailer!
delgadosaur		#20	[-]
Mar 29 12 8:23 AM Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	lol Spoiler, but it beats all the silly bug-eyed stuff at the end of the original. That was horrible and wrecked the movie for me.

<< Previous Topic Next Topic >>

Add Reply

Yuku free message boards

TOTAL RECALL

TOTAL RECALL