Say 'allo to my lil' fren... Scarface reboot - Page 2 - AVS Forum
Forum Jump: 
Reply
 
Thread Tools
post #31 of 49 Old 12-05-2011, 12:21 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
Tulpa's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 10,021
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 58
Nah, they're not out of ideas. They just found out people would be willing to watch remakes and reboots (however you define it) until the cows come home, so why bother developing anything new?

There will always be filmmakers out there with new ideas, but the masses would rather see Thor 2: Electric Boogaloo.

Don't believe everything on the Interwebz! A duck's quack DOES echo!
Tulpa is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #32 of 49 Old 12-05-2011, 01:49 PM
AVS Special Member
 
adpayne's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Camp Lake,WI
Posts: 1,505
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 5 Post(s)
Liked: 37
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tulpa View Post

Except DePalma himself said he was remaking the film. And just about all the press refers to it as a remake. Again, Carpenter said he was remaking The Thing from Another World as The Thing, even though the plot, characters, and location are different. I don't know how you get more authoritative when the dudes behind it call it a remake.
If you want to define remake as using the same plot, characters, and location, that's fine, but that's a minority view.

Kinda hard for me to argue with that.

I guess in that sense, no one should get their panties in a bunch over these kind of remakes though. As they are telling a different story, and not rehashing the same plot.

Art
adpayne is offline  
post #33 of 49 Old 12-05-2011, 02:15 PM
AVS Special Member
 
FendersRule's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Northwest
Posts: 1,695
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Liked: 12
Yep, which is why I've been arguing that Evil Dead 2 REMADE Evil Dead 1 in the first 10 minutes, causing Evil Dead 1 to become irrelevant when it comes to the plot/story/continuity. People get their panties up in a bundle when I say that, but it's damned true.

The latest conceding to my point was, "Oh FendersRule, it's a "re-imagining." Remaking is the same thing as re-imaging. You take something, change it, make it different.

All of this is different than "reviewing." If Raimi showed flashbacks of Evil Dead 1, then it was simply be a "review" of the contents from the first film. The fact that it's all changed makes it a "remake."

Imagine being in school, and your professor gives you a "review" before the exam. Imagine the material being completely different from the actual learned material. That's not a review. That's a remake/re-imagining.
FendersRule is offline  
post #34 of 49 Old 12-06-2011, 11:16 PM - Thread Starter
AVS Addicted Member
 
joeblow's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Los Angeles, CA
Posts: 12,061
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2 Post(s)
Liked: 188
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tulpa View Post

Serials continue the same story, like Godfather, Godfather II, etc. If some dumb filmmaker decided to make his own adaptation of the Puzo novel into a new Godfather film, that would be a reboot, because the Godfather films established a serial story.

Again, the Scarface movies are standalone films. No sequels, no serial story. There's no rebooting to erase the previous continuity because the films are standalone. So the film can be remade over and over without it being considered a reboot.

If the Scarface films were part of a serial, then it would be a reboot (if the new film discards the previous films' continuity.)



Yeah, that's a shot for shot remake, but again, Carpenter's The Thing is a remake of The Thing from Another World, and the movies had diffrences. But they had the same source material, same ideas, and Carpenter EVEN SAID IT WAS A REMAKE.

Your definition of a remake as being shot for shot is too narrow and doesn't conform to what even the filmmakers like Carpenter and DePalma define as remakes. Reboots only apply to serial films and film franchises.

Just as I did after watching The People Under the Stairs, I strongly disagree with Carpenter.

Question: if Hollywood put out a new Scarface movie with a new actor playing poor immigrant Tony Montana in Miami showing his rise in the drug trade, stealing the boss' woman, and eventual violent death in a shoot out, what would you call it? A remake, right?

OK, so how do you differentiate the term "remake" for this upcoming new movie (same theme) presumably starring a new character from a different country into a new city with different plot lines?

In example A, we see a literal remake... taking most of the same components and republishing it. Example B is a completely different movie just like the two Scarfaces already published are completely different. Both examples can't be the same thing. You don't have to call this new movie a reboot, but it isn't a remake.

Los Angeles Lakers - 16 NBA Championships!

joeblow is offline  
post #35 of 49 Old 12-06-2011, 11:28 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
Tulpa's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 10,021
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 58
Quote:
Originally Posted by joeblow View Post

In example A, we see a literal remake... taking most of the same components and republishing it. Example B is a completely different movie just like the two Scarfaces already published are completely different. Both examples can't be the same thing. You don't have to call this new movie a reboot, but it isn't a remake.

They both fall under the banner of remake, as they're standalone films. As you said, they use the same theme, same title. You can call one a "hard remake" (remaking it shot for shot, or close to it) and the other a "soft remake" (making significant changes, while staying in the spirit of the source), but they're both remakes. If you want to use a new word to describe "soft remake", fine (although it's still semantically a remake), but reboot has a very specific definition.

A "reboot" only applies to film franchises or film series, as serial films build up a canon of stuff that following sequels have to abide by. A reboot says "okay, all that canon stuff? Forget about it, we're going back to the original idea and making a whole new series." Now maybe that new series sputters out, but the intent is that they're rebooting the entire franchise.

With standalone films, there's no canon, just the original film. Neither the original Scarface nor DePalma's were ever intended to be anything but standalone films. No sequels, no established canon. And so the remake moniker is applied. If Scarface had a sequel or two, then sure, a new film would be a reboot. But as long as they're standalone films, they're remakes.

Until someone comes out with Scarface 2: Cocaine Boogaloo, reboot doesn't apply.

Joeblow, you're wrong about the definitions, but at least you're a Lakers fan.

Don't believe everything on the Interwebz! A duck's quack DOES echo!
Tulpa is offline  
post #36 of 49 Old 12-07-2011, 10:28 AM - Thread Starter
AVS Addicted Member
 
joeblow's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Los Angeles, CA
Posts: 12,061
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2 Post(s)
Liked: 188
Yep! And for Christmas (beginning of season) we're getting D12 and CP3 under the tree, for Valentine's Day (All-Star break) PJax is coming out of retirement with roses in hand to take us back to the promised land, and for Easter (post-season) Magic Johnson will return from his visit to the Fountain of Youth wearing his favorite bunny ears to take over at the point position. At least those are the latest rumors from MyopicLakerFans.com.

~~~

A reboot is possible in film whether there is a series of movies or not. It is a singular act that either continues or it doesn't. So with your franchise/serial requirement to label something a reboot, I can't buy it.

To look at it that way means that Edward Norton's Hulk movie wasn't a reboot of Eric Bana's Hulk movie during the last decade because there will never be any Norton sequels (he was even booted from playing the character in The Avengers). That was 100% reboot in large part because Ang Lee's flick was so poorly received by fans. No one would try to claim it was a remake.

To me, remakes happen when you mostly cut 'n paste the elements of a previous release. Most of it is very familiar, mostly predictable, not much is radically changed. Depp's Wonka movie was a remake of Wilder's Wonka movie. Key adjective phrase: a lot is the same.

A reboot keeps some of the primary, broad concepts specifc to an earlier picture as a foundation and then builds an all new experience from it. Key adjective phrase: a lot is different.

So with Scarface releases, you have something much more radically different each time between the movies than the two Hulk movies had with each other. At least in that reboot the three (four?) primary characters are kept the same.... Bruce/Hulk, Betsy and General Ross. I'd only call this new film a remake if they take one of the first two stories and actually remake it. Going in a new direction, as is expected, is closer to a reboot.

Los Angeles Lakers - 16 NBA Championships!

joeblow is offline  
post #37 of 49 Old 12-07-2011, 10:59 AM
AVS Addicted Member
 
Tulpa's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 10,021
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 58
Quote:
Originally Posted by joeblow View Post


A reboot is possible in film whether there is a series of movies or not. It is a singular act that either continues or it doesn't. So with your franchise/serial requirement to label something a reboot, I can't buy it.

Reboot implies there a continuation of the film beyond the first one, and then they went back to remake the first one with the intent of making more sequels to the second one. Reboot of the continuity.

Standalone films don't do this, so they're remakes. Again, it can be a "hard" remake where it films very closely, or a "soft" remake where it's very different. And all shades in between. Remakes can cover a lot of ground.

Reboot, on the other hand, refers to a specific phenomenon in film franchises. It's not meant to apply to standalone films.

Words have definitions for a reason. You can call a lion a housecat, but that "housecat" is still going to eat you, because it is a lion.


Quote:


To look at it that way means that Edward Norton's Hulk movie wasn't a reboot of Eric Bana's Hulk movie during the last decade because there will never be any Norton sequels (he was even booted from playing the character in The Avengers). That was 100% reboot in large part because Ang Lee's flick was so poorly received by fans. No one would try to claim it was a remake.

They intended to make sequels (in both Hulk films) but neither did. But the intent was there. It's fuzzy, but since the intent was serial, reboot can be applied. But it has to have that continuity caveat. The filmmakers didn't keep it a secret that sequels were in the ballpark.

The Scarface films were NEVER intended to be a franchise. Louis Costillo from the 1932 version was never supposed to have anything to do with Tony Montana.

That continuity with the first film (or the discarding there of) what is needed to qualify for a reboot. DePalma never kept nor discarded the continuity, because there was none. That's what makes Scarface (1983 and the new one) remakes. Until someone comes out with Scarface 2, there's no continuity, no reboot.

And that's not just me. Any film studio also goes by it. Filmmakers go by it (look at their interviews, you can google them.) Critics go by it. Fans go by it. And most importantly, *I* go by it. (okay, kidding.)

Quote:



To me, remakes happen when you mostly cut 'n paste the elements of a previous release. Most of it is very familiar, mostly predictable, not much is radically changed. Depp's Wonka movie was a remake of Wilder's Wonka movie. Key adjective phrase: a lot is the same.


A reboot keeps some of the primary, broad concepts specifc to an earlier picture as a foundation and then builds an all new experience from it. Key adjective phrase: a lot is different.


So with Scarface releases, you have something much more radically different each time between the movies than the two Hulk movies had with each other. At least in that reboot the three (four?) primary characters are kept the same.... Bruce/Hulk, Betsy and General Ross. I'd only call this new film a remake if they take one of the first two stories and actually remake it. Going in a new direction, as is expected, is closer to a reboot.

But that's too narrow a definition in my opinion. And would apply the reboot definition to films that have NEVER had that moniker applied.

Again, Carpenter's film was a remake. Not just Carpenter, but filmmakers, critics, and fans refer to it as a remake. It's still an alien presence in an isolated icebound community, and both drew from "Who Goes There?" written by John Campbell. Remake.

Both Scarfaces drew from Al Capone's life. Sure, DePalma's went in a very different direction, but the comparisons of Al Capone and Tony Montana are still there. Remake.

Reboot implies that there is continuity. The Scarface films never implied that they were going to be any further than the individual films.

That makes them remakes. And it's not just me. This is the accepted definition of almost every filmmaker, critic, and the vast majority of fans. Not to mention dictionaries and reference materials. I even provided links (Yes, from Wikipedia, but those articles weren't written by someone with an axe to grind, they were using the same definitions everyone else was.)


Honestly, I see where you're coming from and can see your position. It's just not what the majority define as reboot. And I'm not alone, not even in this thread. I mean, you are using the phrase, "to me, a remake is" and "to me, a reboot is."

Don't believe everything on the Interwebz! A duck's quack DOES echo!
Tulpa is offline  
post #38 of 49 Old 12-07-2011, 12:38 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
Josh Z's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Planet Boston, source of the spice, Melange.
Posts: 19,912
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 140 Post(s)
Liked: 317
Although the "reboot" word had been tossed around at the time of its release, 'The Incredible Hulk' with Edward Norton is a sequel to 'Hulk' with Eric Bana, not a remake or a reboot. Aside from the actors being recast, the story takes place after the events of the first film and does not contradict any of the events of the first film. However, in order to minimize the association with a widely-disliked movie, 'Incredible Hulk' simply avoids referencing the earlier film or making overt connections to it. Nonetheless, if you watch them back-to-back, it's clear that 'Incredible Hulk' is meant to follow the same continuity as 'Hulk'.

The Hulk's presence in 'The Avengers' (played by Mark Ruffalo now) will be a spin-off that again follows the same official continuity. Ruffalo's Bruce Banner is meant to be the same person as Norton's Bruce Banner, who is the same person as Bana's Bruce Banner, just played by different actors in different entries.

Josh Z
Writer/Editor, High-Def Digest (Blog updated daily!)
Curator, Laserdisc Forever

My opinions are my own, and do not necessarily reflect those of my employers.

Josh Z is offline  
post #39 of 49 Old 12-08-2011, 04:55 PM - Thread Starter
AVS Addicted Member
 
joeblow's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Los Angeles, CA
Posts: 12,061
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2 Post(s)
Liked: 188
Quote:
Originally Posted by joeblow View Post

Yep! And for Christmas (beginning of season) we're getting D12 and CP3 under the tree, for Valentine's Day (All-Star break) PJax is coming out of retirement with roses in hand to take us back to the promised land, and for Easter (post-season) Magic Johnson will return from his visit to the Fountain of Youth wearing his favorite bunny ears to take over at the point position. At least those are the latest rumors from MyopicLakerFans.com.

That's one Christmas gift down, one more to go.

~~~

A few points on the last two posts...


- C'mon, a new movie can't be called a reboot until its sequel is released? That makes no sense at all. And my definition isn't really all that narrow. It encompasses all movies based on a known property that make substantial changes.

- While the Hulk can be made by a skilled filmmaker to be technically a sequel, everyone involved and who watched it knows it was a reboot and no one calls it a sequel. I mean most of the work establishing the principal stuff was done in the comics anyway.

Los Angeles Lakers - 16 NBA Championships!

joeblow is offline  
post #40 of 49 Old 12-08-2011, 05:27 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
Tulpa's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 10,021
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 58
Quote:
Originally Posted by joeblow View Post

- C'mon, a new movie can't be called a reboot until its sequel is released? That makes no sense at all.

It makes sense because it applies to a film franchise. Godfather films were a franchise. They could be rebooted (it would be idiotic to do so, but it could happen) to discard what Coppola did and have the new filmmaker establish a whole new canon.

The Scarface films are standalone. Nothing to reboot, because they haven't established any franchise. The two Scarface films aren't sequels to each other nor have they established a canon of work.

Quote:


And my definition isn't really all that narrow. It encompasses all movies based on a known property that make substantial changes.

But again, that's not a definition that is accepted by the majority. I can see your point, but my point (remake = remaking one film, reboot = remaking the entire franchise) is equally valid and is the accepted definition (and I've posted links proving it, not to mention have had numerous conversations with people in films and who watch films where the subject has come up. No one refers to 1983 Scarface as a reboot.)

So if your "rebooting" definition is to hold sway, you got a lot of people to convince, mister.

Don't believe everything on the Interwebz! A duck's quack DOES echo!
Tulpa is offline  
post #41 of 49 Old 12-09-2011, 12:37 PM - Thread Starter
AVS Addicted Member
 
joeblow's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Los Angeles, CA
Posts: 12,061
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2 Post(s)
Liked: 188
David Stern is the Grinch who stole Christmas.


~~~

Neither word was invented solely for use with movies. And looking at how they work in other contexts shows why your definition doesn't work while the one I provided actually does.

Remake is very closely associated with the words duplicate and copy. Check the Thesaurus if you don't believe me. Popular songs are often remade over the years, not rebooted. These are songs that essentially sound the same in a predictable fashion with a few enhancements/tweaks here and there. If some architect said they wanted to remake the Twin Towers in memorial of the ones knocked down, we would know what his goal was and it wasn't to "reboot" the towers. If your wife tore her one-of-a-kind designer dress and wanted it replaced, she would pay to have it remade just like it was before, not rebooted. You can do this all day long.

Reboot is tied to the world of computers where it means to start fresh from scratch as you turn the computer off and restart it again. All your current work on the screen disappears with it. You clear out everything that has been done and begin again with an open template. You can access some of the old stuff as you wish, but often choose to liberally go in new directions. This is not a "remake" process, but a reboot process.

When viewed in this wider context, it is easy to see why movie remakes seek to mimic what was done before in a familiar way, while movie reboots instead start with some basic concepts and take them in all new directions for a new experience. It doesn't matter how many films are invloved to determine the proper label as a result.

Los Angeles Lakers - 16 NBA Championships!

joeblow is offline  
post #42 of 49 Old 12-09-2011, 12:51 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
Tulpa's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 10,021
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 58
Quote:
Originally Posted by joeblow View Post

Neither word was invented solely for use with movies.

I never said they were invented for movies, but the application in regards to movies is remake = standalone film, reboot = franchise. I really don't care how the words are used elsewhere, because my application is the accepted definition in regards to films. How it is used in songs and buildings is irrelevant, because we're talking about films, and films use remake = standalone film, reboot = franchise.

Remakes don't have to be an exact or near exact copy. They just have to work with a film already made.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Remake

Quote:


The term "remake" is generally used in reference to a movie which uses an earlier movie as the main source material, rather than in reference to a second, later movie based on the same source. For example, 2001's Ocean's Eleven is a remake of the 1960 film, while 1989's Batman is a re-interpretation of the comic book source material which also inspired 1966's Batman.

With some exceptions, remakes make significant character, plot, and theme changes. For example, the 1968 film The Thomas Crown Affair is centered on a bank robbery, while its 1999 remake involves the theft of a valuable piece of artwork. Similarly, when the 1969 film The Italian Job was remade in 2003, few aspects were carried over. Another notable example is the 1932 film Scarface which was remade in 1983 starring Al Pacino; whereas the setting of 1932 version is the illegal alcohol trade, the characters in the 1983 version are involved in cocaine smuggling. Sometimes a remake is made by the same director. For example, Yasujirō Ozu's black and white A Story of Floating Weeds was remade into the color Floating Weeds. Alfred Hitchcock remade his 1934 black and white The Man Who Knew Too Much in color in 1956; as did Cecil B. DeMille with his 1956 remake of his silent 1923 film The Ten Commandments. Most recently, in 2008, Michael Haneke made Funny Games U.S., his English-language remake of his original Funny Games (this is also an example of a shot-for-shot remake).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reboot_%28fiction%29

Quote:




The verb reboot, in media dealing with serial fiction, means to discard much or even all previous continuity in the series and start anew with fresh ideas.[1] Effectively, the writer(s) declare all established fictive history to be irrelevant to the new storyline, and start the series over as if brand-new.[1]

Through reboots, filmmakers can revamp and reinvigorate franchises to attract new fans and stimulate revenue.[1] Therefore, reboots can be seen as attempts to rescue franchises that have grown "stale".[2] They can also be a "safe" project for a studio, as a reboot with an established fan base is less risky (in terms of expected profit) than an entirely original work.[3]

And no, the Scarface films do not constitute a franchise.

Again, this isn't just me or the guys who wrote the wikipedia entries. The film industry, the filmmakers making remakes and reboots, critics, fans, lots of people use the definition as it stands.

And yes, I will hammer this into the ground, because as the words are used at this moment, I'm right.

Don't believe everything on the Interwebz! A duck's quack DOES echo!
Tulpa is offline  
post #43 of 49 Old 08-01-2013, 12:33 AM - Thread Starter
AVS Addicted Member
 
joeblow's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Los Angeles, CA
Posts: 12,061
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2 Post(s)
Liked: 188
The latest info on the project is below, along with a settlement of an earlier debate in this thread - the movie is officially not a remake, but a reboot as I've been saying:
Quote:
There’s a ton of curiosity about Universal‘s Scarface reboot since both the 1932 Chicago bootlegging film and 1983 Miami cocaine-dealing versions were so iconic. Understanding that, the studio according to my sources has been David Yatesrefining the script with several screenwriters and drafts while keeping all names and details under wraps. “Universal has been through a couple of drafts and now is very high on the current draft. The first stop is the director. This is before any conversations on talent or timing.”

I’ve learned that the studio is in final talks with British director David Yates who directed the final four films in the Harry Potter film series (#s 5, 6, 7, and 8 from 2007-2011) – and in my opinion should have won some Oscar nominations for them as the franchise grew dark and interesting under his helming. Though he normally works at Warner Bros, Yates has been the subject of considerable chatter over which film projects he’d do next.

A prolific TV director known for his gripping British TV six-part political thriller State Of Play (2003) and the Emmy-winning The Girl In The Café (2005), Yates is a founding member of Directors UK. He spectacularly made the transition to features thanks to Harry Potter and now is much in demand with the finish of that franchise. On Scarface, he will be tasked with updating the crime saga so it lives up to the Howard Hawks/Paul Muni and Brian De Palma-Al Pacino classics which both became part of popular culture.

This is not a remake or sequel but a reboot of a crime kingpin who through a ruthless campaign of ambition goes in hot pursuit of his American Dream – whatever that is in this decade. Ethnicity and geography were important in the first two versions so expect the same here. Former Universal head Marc Shmuger and his Global Produce banner is producing along with Martin Bregman who produced the Pacino version.

Los Angeles Lakers - 16 NBA Championships!

joeblow is offline  
post #44 of 49 Old 08-01-2013, 02:23 AM
AVS Special Member
 
thehun's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Wine country CA
Posts: 7,230
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 35
It's funny how some think if it's written then it must true.

The Hun
thehun is offline  
post #45 of 49 Old 08-01-2013, 04:26 AM
Moderator
 
PooperScooper's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Leominster MA
Posts: 19,764
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 42 Post(s)
Liked: 73
^^^ Yes. And since they can't come up with new ideas, why not copy something and say it's not quite copying and give it some hype by associating it with something known and successful.

larry

Opportunity is missed by most people because it is dressed in overalls and looks like work. -- Thomas Alva Edison
PooperScooper is offline  
post #46 of 49 Old 08-01-2013, 07:42 AM
AVS Addicted Member
 
Tulpa's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 10,021
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 58
Quote:
Originally Posted by joeblow View Post

The latest info on the project is below, along with a settlement of an earlier debate in this thread - the movie is officially not a remake, but a reboot as I've been saying:

I got this image of you setting up a google alert with "Scarface Reboot" and refreshing your computer furiously for the last year and a half. tongue.gif

And I still don't agree with that usage of the word reboot, no matter what Nikki Finke, editor-in-chielf of Deadline Hollywood may think.

Don't believe everything on the Interwebz! A duck's quack DOES echo!
Tulpa is offline  
post #47 of 49 Old 08-01-2013, 02:34 PM - Thread Starter
AVS Addicted Member
 
joeblow's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Los Angeles, CA
Posts: 12,061
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2 Post(s)
Liked: 188
She's on vacation. That was written by a junior staff member of the site so maybe it's not official and the debate can continue. wink.gif

As for the Google Alert comment directed at my posting of this update, I did wait an entire hour and thirteen minutes for someone else to put a link to it here after the article went up just before midnight . Since no one did, I decided to do it myself. I apologize for the delay.

Los Angeles Lakers - 16 NBA Championships!

joeblow is offline  
post #48 of 49 Old 08-01-2013, 03:02 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
Tulpa's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 10,021
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 58
Quote:
Originally Posted by joeblow View Post

I apologize for the delay.

You're forgiven. I can't hate on another Lakers fan. smile.gif

Don't believe everything on the Interwebz! A duck's quack DOES echo!
Tulpa is offline  
post #49 of 49 Old 08-01-2013, 06:27 PM
AVS Special Member
 
thedeskE's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Atlanta
Posts: 3,583
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 5 Post(s)
Liked: 64
Quote:
Originally Posted by PooperScooper View Post

^^^ Yes. And since they can't come up with new ideas, why not copy something and say it's not quite copying and give it some hype by associating it with something known and successful.

larry

Can't is not the word I'd use. Directors who were honest made noise about this 15 plus years ago.
I.Q. was not suddenly missing. It was shut out.
thedeskE is offline  
Reply Movies, Concerts, and Music Discussion

User Tag List

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
Email this Page Email this Page


Forum Jump: 

Posting Rules  
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off