|
Anyone remember the shot-for-shot remake of Psycho? "Bringing the film to a new generation" is also something else they use. /rambling |
WTF Hollywood.
•
Page 7
-
beastmaster 22,373 posts
Seen 4 days ago
Registered 17 years ago -
Not-a-reviewer 7,686 posts
Seen 4 days ago
Registered 7 years ago@beastmaster
It not being inspirational is the problem with it now is it?
This just sounds like one of those things people want to be upset about it because they like being upset about shit that isn’t going to make any difference to them.
Thee isn’t going to be a sudden shift so all films are female led, there’s no need to worry about the loss of male dominance in the film industry. It’s one film that might turn out to be intelligent and make a valid social commentary about women, alternatively it’ll be shit and forgotten about within a week of coming out. -
Not-a-reviewer 7,686 posts
Seen 4 days ago
Registered 7 years agobeastmaster wrote:
Which is nothing like this.
Anyone remember the shot-for-shot remake of Psycho?
"Bringing the film to a new generation" is also something else they use.
/rambling -
Decks 31,013 posts
Seen 5 hours ago
Registered 6 years agoThis just sounds like one of those things people want to be upset about it because they like being upset about shit that isn’t going to make any difference to them.
Welcome to the internet!! We also have pictures of cats. -
@reviewer Warner Bros own the rights and were accepting pitches for their existing properties on their books.
The authors won the pitch and are proceeding with production.
http://deadline.com/2017/08/lord-of-the-flies-scott-mcgehee-david-siegel-female-cast-warner-bros-william-golding-novel-1202158421/ -
There are no women on this forum. -
beastmaster 22,373 posts
Seen 4 days ago
Registered 17 years agoreviewer wrote:
Hmm...I don't have a problem with the film at all, although it may have come across that way.
@beastmaster
It not being inspirational is the problem with it now is it?
This just sounds like one of those things people want to be upset about it because they like being upset about shit that isn’t going to make any difference to them.
Thee isn’t going to be a sudden shift so all films are female led, there’s no need to worry about the loss of male dominance in the film industry. It’s one film that might turn out to be intelligent and make a valid social commentary about women, alternatively it’ll be shit and forgotten about within a week of coming out. -
Not-a-reviewer 7,686 posts
Seen 4 days ago
Registered 7 years agowhatfruitlivesagain wrote:
Might want to read what you link to.
@reviewer Warner Bros own the rights and were accepting pitches for their existing properties on their books.
The authors won the pitch and are proceeding with production.
http://deadline.com/2017/08/lord-of-the-flies-scott-mcgehee-david-siegel-female-cast-warner-bros-william-golding-novel-1202158421/
It took awhile for Warner Bros and their ICM Partners reps to work out the rights issues with the author’s estate
-
reviewer wrote:
.
whatfruitlivesagain wrote:
Might want to read what you link to.
@reviewer Warner Bros own the rights and were accepting pitches for their existing properties on their books.
The authors won the pitch and are proceeding with production.
http://deadline.com/2017/08/lord-of-the-flies-scott-mcgehee-david-siegel-female-cast-warner-bros-william-golding-novel-1202158421/
It took awhile for Warner Bros and their ICM Partners reps to work out the rights issues with the author’s estate
It's likely that they are making this film in order to maintain the rights with Warner Bros studios.
Warner Bros will have to pay a fee to the author's estate for each new production or a percentage depending on the original agreement the author or his estate signed with the studio.
But only Warner Bros have the option of making movies based on the book the Lord of the Flies.
Quote from the same article
" It was later turned into a 1990 Castle Rock film by director Harry Hook, which is how Warner Bros wound up with some of the rights."
Edited by whatfruitlivesagain at 12:51:51 01-09-2017 -
He did say they "own" the rights, not that they already "owned" the rights. It's an important distinction when making things up and linking to articles that almost prove your point. -
"When producers option a script, they are purchasing the right to buy certain rights to intellectual property. A general option fee is 10% of the cost of the rights, should the producers manage to secure full financing for their project and have it "greenlit". Because few projects actually manage to be greenlit, options allow producers to reduce their loss in the event that a project fails to come to fruition. Should the project be greenlit, an option provides a legally binding guarantee to purchase the film rights.
The contract for an option will specify the length of time it is valid for. If the producer is unable to have their project greenlit within the specified timeframe (e.g. two years), the option will expire. The rights holder can then put the previously optioned rights up for sale again. Or, the contract may allow the producer to renew the option for a certain price." -
Mola_Ram 26,187 posts
Seen 2 hours ago
Registered 9 years agoBest case scenario: it offers a neat take on the themes of the source material, and is enjoyable to boot.
Worst case scenario: It sucks, but probably no moreso than countless other shitty adaptations that get released every year. The source material keeps existing, and people can still read it.
Either way, I don't think it's much to get fussed over. -
Mola_Ram wrote:
thing is, unchecked patriarchal society IS the theme of the source material. how can you have any sort of take on that without men?
Best case scenario: it offers a neat take on the themes of the source material
eg 'heart of darkness' was mentioned earlier, but the 'theme' of that is not 'the congo', so coppola shifting it to vietnam isn't an intrinsic betrayal of the themes of the book. it's the same with most successful adaptations.
i can think of an exception - starship troopers is thematically very different (effectively the opposite) to the book, but that's a satirisation of a shitty book with a terrible worldview.
it's an interesting thought experiment as to how they could make lord of the flies have girls instead of boys and make it work, but i'm going to predict: it doesn't. -
Tonka 31,979 posts
Seen 1 hour ago
Registered 18 years agoFinally something that deserves getting upsett over
ITV Bromans
Asshatwashing ancient Rome -
Tonka 31,979 posts
Seen 1 hour ago
Registered 18 years agoAs if the Spartacus remake wasn't enough... -
Technoishmatt 5,365 posts
Seen 5 hours ago
Registered 7 years agoMola_Ram wrote:
Pretty sure there was an episode of Sliders where men had gone infertile, and the few that weere not were basically forced to be sex slaves, or something. Could have been an adaptation of Handmaid's Tale.
dankcushions wrote:
What point is that? Adaptations of stories are never 100% true to their source material - that's why they're called "adaptations".
it's like making 'the handmaid's tale' starring a man.
ridiculous use of the original material. it conceptually doesn't make sense with an all-girl cast. this is like when everyone got mad at the lady ghostbusters film, except this time they have a point.
(would totally be up for the handman's tale)
Edit:
Yup, Season 2, episode 4.
"Quinn, Rembrandt and Arturo are tagged as runaway breeders on a world where, due to a biological weapon outbreak, men are scarce and nations are in cutthroat competition to snag fertile men to repopulate."
Edited by Technoishmatt at 14:41:56 01-09-2017 -
Technoishmatt wrote:
Mad Maxine - Fury Road?
"Quinn, Rembrandt and Arturo are tagged as runaway breeders on a world where, due to a biological weapon outbreak, men are scarce and nations are in cutthroat competition to snag fertile men to repopulate."
Edited by whatfruitlivesagain at 14:58:15 01-09-2017 -
senso-ji 10,271 posts
Seen 8 hours ago
Registered 13 years agoThe most annoying thing about this thread is the wrong punctuation in the title. -
You got a point -
anephric 5,274 posts
Seen 6 days ago
Registered 14 years agoThe Two Ronnies did men as sex slaves waaaaay back.
Ahh, the good old days. -
I'm going out on a limb here and say I kind of share the OP's sentiments, although probably for different reasons (unless he's making his argument very poorly, and he should pick better wording either way)
What bothers me about this is that Hollywood is making a big point of it, as was the case with Ghostbusters et al.
Consider that we know exactly three things about the film:
1. Who's behind it
2. What it's a remake of
3. It features an all female cast
Say what you will but 3 sticks out like a sore thumb to me; obviously not the fact in itself but that it's one of literally the only three things we know at the moment.
If it's not meant to be a "big thing" and anyone who grumbles about it is a damned sexist, why make a point of it in the first place?
This is not like we get to hear the character are going to be impersonated by actresses so-and-so and such-and-such several months down the line and start to realize that it's played entirely by women. It's not like we get to see the first trailer and see they're all female.
No, the very first piece of news explicitly states that film A is being remade by person/company B with a cast of mainly/exclusively women.
That stinks to high heavens of easy trolling/provocation meant to spark a big debate like in this thread and thus a lot of free publicity via word of mouth.
Almost nobody complained when Orange Is the New Black was announced, even though it was an almost exclusively female cast. Heck, most people were really looking forward to it (with good reason IMO) The one difference is it was a new, original series, not a remake of an existing one with male characters swapped out for female ones being the one "original" aspect about it.
Had they made a remake of, say, Prison Break with women instead I'm dead certain the situation would have been quite different. -
There is going to be an all-female film version of Lord of the Flies. This is something that is not worth caring about unless someone forces you to see it against your will.
Sometimes posts may contain links to online retail stores. If you click on one and make a purchase we may receive a small commission. For more information, go here.
