Re: What Did You Watch? 2024-12-18 (Wednesday)

On 12/21/2024 3:22 AM, anim8rfsk wrote:

Arthur Lipscomb <arthur@alum.calberkeley.org> wrote:

On 12/20/2024 5:29 PM, anim8rfsk wrote:

Arthur Lipscomb <arthur@alum.calberkeley.org> wrote:

On 12/19/2024 7:50 AM, Ian J. Ball wrote:

Finished grading the final for the first of my two sections, and then
did a little bit of finish up work on the lab class... With that, I got
through:
>
soaps: Y&R - Mon's ep. Billy tells Filis[sic!] his Revenge! plot against
Victor; Filis balks at getting involved because of her kids - I wasn't
sure if she agreed to participate or not. Sharon gets hypnotized by
Traci's boyfriend, and remembers that she didn't run Filis off the road.
Ian Ward eavesdrops on a conversation between Claire and Mariah & Tessa,
while Aunt Jordan remembers back to when Ian Ward reeled her in on his
Revenge! plot.
    GH - Tue's ep. Bitch Carly wants Revenge!! on Drew (and Willow), but
Jason tries to talk her down from that. Willow is working some public
charity thing for Jordan, and of course Drew stops by to see her,
witnessed by both a visibly displeased Jordan, and by Felicia. Nina,
with Ava present, discusses Willow's upcoming potential divorce and
custody case with lawyer Martin Gray. Curtis and Michael implement their
plan to eject Drew from Aurora co., but Curtis gets it in writing from
Michael up front. Despondent Josslyn discusses her grief with Trina, who
understands the situation intimately because of Spencer's death.
    DOOL - Tue's ep. Mostly stuff about Cat and her family, or Chad with
Jack and Jennifer, and I really don't care much. NuGabi is already
starting to work on seducing JJ - this girl's libido won't quit!!
>
Broken Innocence (Tubi) - This 2024 effort is one of those flicks that
gets you to wonder - if this film had had a budget, a better script, and
better actors and better direction, would it have been a "good film"?

>
I think that question applies to just about every bad movie, and the
answer is yes.
>

>
I’m not so sure about that. I love Batman 1966 but it’s full of cheap shots
that you would think would benefit from a reshoot. But I’ve had discussions
with people and we pretty much agree that if you made Batman 1966 into it
technically better movie, it would probably not be as much fun to watch.
>

 I re-watched it tonight. There’s less to be fixed than I would have
thought. The main thing is, I would like them to use New York for all the
shots of the city. It’s kind of embarrassing when they keep cutting
back-and-forth from stock footage of New York footage of LA which hardly
had any skyscrapers at the time.
 

But the Gotham City on the TV show felt like a small town with hardly any skyscrapers.  Weren't the New York shots supposed to be the UN in New York?  Or was it some Batversion of the UN?

>
But don't forget, "better script."  I'm thinking Plan 9 Outer Space
redone as "Ed Wood" or "The Room" redone as "The Disaster Artist."  Two
examples of bad movies that mocked because they were so bad, yet given a
new *everything* it becomes entertaining.  Not a mock it level, but a
good actors with a good script level.
>
Then there are the straight remakes like "Little Shop of Horrors"or
"The Thing." Not that the originals were necessarily bad movies, but
between the originals and the remakes, I'll take the remakes.

 I think the 1951 version of THE THING (from another world) is one of the
best movies ever made. Classic Howard Hawks.
 I like the 1982 version as well. But from a rewatch viewpoint, the 1951
version has it beat.
 

I think I've only watched the 1951 version all the way through once, maybe twice. It's interesting as compared to the far superior John Carpenter version.  But other than as a curiosity I have no real use for it. ;-)
I don't think I could even force myself to watch it if I wasn't going to watch the remake next.  Unless maybe if I was going to pair it with "Creature" since "Creature" explicitly references it.  In fact a couple of years ago, I think I did just that.  I watched the 1951 version, the remake and "Creature" back to back.  And this is not a recommendation for "Creature." It is a horrible movie!  Best avoided.

   "A Star

is Born" is a movie with multiple versions.  I watched all them and
didn't like any version, until the most recent version.
>

 I’ve never managed to sit through any version, even though I know people in
the Kris Kristofferson one since it was shot here. And doesn’t another
version star James Mason?
 

The 1954 version with Judy Garland.  I think TCM had a marathon one day starting with the 1937 version, and I recorded and watched them all. This was long before the most recent remake.  Somewhat interesting, and you wouldn't pick up on this if you haven't watched the 1937 version, but in the original version they were actors, then in 54 with Judy Garland and every version since, they've hired singers.
Even though I didn't like the original movie(s) I kept watching them because I felt there was definitely a good concept in there.  They just needed the right script, cast, director, etc. and eventually they made a version that I did like.  And for that, I'm glad I kept watching the remakes.

Or you can do it in reverse.  Think of all the great movies that had bad
remakes.  I think the criteria still applies regardless as to which
movie came first.
>

 People keep complaining about remakes of great movies. They’re right, they
should be remaking movies that crashed and burned where there’s room for
improvement.
 

Yes, I *almost* said that.  I think it was a quote from Roger Ebert about remaking the bad movies instead of the good ones.  But I'm all for remaking the good ones too!  I know it's been in the works for forever, but just last month they gave a new announcement about the "Forbidden Planet" planet.  People are going apoplectic over the possible remake. But I really *liked* the original, and I would very much like to see where that story goes next with either a *good* remake or a *good* sequel.  As long as the movie is entertaining, I don't care if it's a remake or a sequel.