Why Must Hollywood Ruin Everything?

[Jason]

Farrellys to direct 'Three Stooges'

MGM has revived the long-gestating Peter and Bobby Farrelly Three Stooges project.

What's next, a new I Love Lucy movie?

[Siraris]

Why do you assume they will ruin it? I could understand if it was McD or the guys who did Date Movie, but I have pretty strong faith in the Farrelly brothers.

[ShivaX]

I think a better question is why they can't think of anything new? Or maybe why when they do remake something they think they're somehow so great they can make it "better" than the original?

[Siraris]

Originally Posted by ShivaX

I think a better question is why they can't think of anything new? Or maybe why when they do remake something they think they're somehow so great they can make it "better" than the original?

Perhaps they are huge fans of the Stooges, and want to pay them homage? Perhaps they have a great idea, and it could bring happiness and laughter into millions of peoples lives?

How can you even insinuate that they can't think of something new? Was Kingpin not "new" enough? Dumb and Dumber or Something about Mary? Stuck on You, Me Myself and Irene or Fever Pitch?

[ShivaX]

Originally Posted by Siraris

Perhaps they are huge fans of the Stooges, and want to pay them homage? Perhaps they have a great idea, and it could bring happiness and laughter into millions of peoples lives?

How can you even insinuate that they can't think of something new? Was Kingpin not "new" enough? Dumb and Dumber or Something about Mary? Stuck on You, Me Myself and Irene or Fever Pitch?

Theres something all those movies have in common (except Fever Pitch, which honestly I've never even heard of). I'm just sick of remakes. Its all Hollywood seems to make anymore and they always change something and make it terrible.

I have no problems with a movie that pays homage to the Three Stooges, but how about we just do that without making it The Three Stooges? Lots of filmmakers pay homage to things. Hell look at the Man with No Name trilogy, everything Tarantino has ever made. All homages, but not exact copies of the things hes praising with the same name and whatnot.

[Jason]

Originally Posted by Siraris

Why do you assume they will ruin it? I could understand if it was McD or the guys who did Date Movie, but I have pretty strong faith in the Farrelly brothers.

Shivax gave a great answer:

Its all Hollywood seems to make anymore and they always change something and make it terrible.

I have no problems with a movie that pays homage to the Three Stooges, but how about we just do that without making it The Three Stooges? Lots of filmmakers pay homage to things. Hell look at the Man with No Name trilogy, everything Tarantino has ever made. All homages, but not exact copies of the things hes praising with the same name and whatnot.

Honestly, they might make a funny movie out of it. But look at all the remakes that have been made the last few years. They all suck in compared to the originals. Instead of trying to remake or update the Stooges, why not make a homage to them or take the concept and of funny shorts like the Stooges and Abbot and Costello and do something similar? That would be a lot better than ruining the name and legacy of what has already been done and that millions still love.

[Psykoboy2]

Originally Posted by Jason

Albert and Costello

I'll chalk it up to a typo, but it's Abbot.

[Jason]

Originally Posted by Psykoboy2

I'll chalk it up to a typo, but it's Abbot.

Yup. That it was.

[KamaItachi]

Now, if they try to remake any of the Marx Brothers films, I will personally go over to their house and stab them.

[Siraris]

Originally Posted by Jason

Honestly, they might make a funny movie out of it. But look at all the remakes that have been made the last few years. They all suck in compared to the originals. Instead of trying to remake or update the Stooges, why not make a homage to them or take the concept and of funny shorts like the Stooges and Albert and Costello and do something similar? That would be a lot better than ruining the name and legacy of what has already been done and that millions still love.

Really? Can you qualify the statement that every remake over the past "few years" sucks compared to the original? I personally thought Chicago was very good, as was 3:10 to Yuma. I really enjoyed Charlie in the Chocolate Factory, Gone in 60 Seconds, and I heard Hairspray was a great film. Mama Mia garnered critical acclaim, and the Italian Job was a lot of fun. Man on Fire is one of my favorite films, and The Manchurian Candidate was terrific.

I cannot understand why you continue to suggest that they will "ruin the name and legacy" of the Three Stooges. If the movie is terrible, I don't even know how it ruins the name or the legacy. It's still there, you can still enjoy it, it's not destroying anything for you. If it's terrible, perhaps it will make you appreciate the original even more? Perhaps it will be fantastic, and you will love it. Your argument is purely hyperbole and conjecture, I just don't understand it.

And just for reference, it's Abbott, not Albert.

[Blue]

Originally Posted by Psykoboy2

I'll chalk it up to a typo, but it's Abbot.

You might even go so far as to say Abbott.

[Jason]

Originally Posted by Siraris

Really? Can you qualify the statement that every remake over the past "few years" sucks compared to the original? I personally thought Chicago was very good, as was 3:10 to Yuma. I really enjoyed Charlie in the Chocolate Factory, Gone in 60 Seconds, and I heard Hairspray was a great film. Mama Mia garnered critical acclaim, and the Italian Job was a lot of fun. Man on Fire is one of my favorite films, and The Manchurian Candidate was terrific.

I cannot understand why you continue to suggest that they will "ruin the name and legacy" of the Three Stooges. If the movie is terrible, I don't even know how it ruins the name or the legacy. It's still there, you can still enjoy it, it's not destroying anything for you. If it's terrible, perhaps it will make you appreciate the original even more? Perhaps it will be fantastic, and you will love it. Your argument is purely hyperbole and conjecture, I just don't understand it.

And just for reference, it's Abbott, not Albert.

Maybe I should have been more specific and said the remakes of comedies. You might disagree, but I think a remake of the Stooges would suck. Some things just don't need to be remade. You might think the Farrelly brothers can do a good job with it, I don't.

We'll have to agree to disagree I guess.

[Vermillion]

The problem is most of us don't realize most of the movies we grew up on were considered shitty remakes/spinoffs/alternative takes on classics by our parents.

Almost everything in hollywood is rechurned crap on a stick of something done before.

[Siraris]

Originally Posted by Jason

We'll have to agree to disagree I guess.

Or, we can just wait until the movie comes, and then draw a conclusion.

[Karmakin]

Originally Posted by Vermillion

Almost everything in hollywood is rechurned crap on a stick of something done before.

Everything...period..is an evolution of a previous idea, some good, some bad.

[ShivaX]

Originally Posted by Siraris

Really? Can you qualify the statement that every remake over the past "few years" sucks compared to the original? I personally thought Chicago was very good, as was 3:10 to Yuma. I really enjoyed Charlie in the Chocolate Factory, Gone in 60 Seconds, and I heard Hairspray was a great film. Mama Mia garnered critical acclaim, and the Italian Job was a lot of fun. Man on Fire is one of my favorite films, and The Manchurian Candidate was terrific.

A lot of those movies on the list are fairly terrible. Chicago was fine by all accounts as was 3:10 to Yuma. Everything else was either god-awful or worse than the original.

I haven't seen Man on Fire, so I'll exclude that one from the list as well.

I mean people will disagree on movies. You might like something and I might hate it and vice versa. A lot of the time these remakes go on the basis that people haven't seen the original and they're just trying to make money without making something new. Throw a big name in there and call it good.

I'm a movie snob, so I'll admit it pisses me off more than most, but it gets old and its becoming more and more common each year. Its like the networks and reality shows. They're trying to save money and play it safe rather try to make something new. Sequels tend to fall in this category too.

[Hotcod]

Originally Posted by ShivaX

I think a better question is why they can't think of anything new?

it's not that they can't it's beacuse people don't want new things... why do you think squeals are king in games and film? for the people making it it makes more sense to make a shitty 2nd film or a remake or an adaptation of something people already like than it is to spend time and effort working out new IPs that people may not like. Even if you make a bad film of the first kind people are likely to go see it just beacuse of what it is where as a bad film of the 2nd kind has a much harder time.

[fitbabits]

Q: Why must Hollywood ruin everything?

A: Because we encourage them to do so.

How else do you explain Tyler Perry movies, the Scary Movie series, etc.? We are to blame.

[Psykoboy2]

Originally Posted by Blue

You might even go so far as to say Abbott.

D'oh!

I fail at correcting fails.

[H.Bogard]

Back in my day there were less comic book adaptations/movie remakes and more original shit. Stupid kids with yer damn comic books, get off my lawn!