Total Recall......again

[sean]

http://trailers.apple.com/trailers/sony_pictures/totalrecall/

Thoughts?

[stevedmc]

http://trailers.apple.com/trailers/sony_pictures/totalrecall/

Thoughts?

This just reinforces what I've been saying. Hollywood has run out of ideas.

[dvonk]

Hollywood has run out of ideas.

definitely. however, this one does look better than the original... wouldnt take much, i guess. :lol:

[Dangermouse]

What, it's not in 3D ??

[stevedmc]

definitely. however, this one does look better than the original... wouldnt take much, i guess. :lol:

The coolest thing about Total Recal wasn't the special effects but it was the story. At the end of the movie you honestly didn't know if the whole thing had actually happened or if it was just a dream.

Special effects can't tell a story and never will. Most special efffects after the 80s (and early 90s) are just plain crap in my opinion. Before the 80s almost all special effects were scale models that people actually built. A stunt double was an actual human being who actually dedicated time training to do whatever was needed in a movie.

Now people don't build stuff for movies and stunt doubles aren't really needed anymore. All you really need is a nerd with a bag of donuts that can create a computer generated stunt double.

[dvonk]

The coolest thing about Total Recal wasn't the special effects but it was the story. At the end of the movie you honestly didn't know if the whole thing had actually happened or if it was just a dream.

Special effects can't tell a story and never will. Most special efffects after the 80s (and early 90s) are just plain crap in my opinion. Before the 80s almost all special effects were scale models that people actually built. A stunt double was an actual human being who actually dedicated time training to do whatever was needed in a movie.

Now people don't build stuff for movies and stunt doubles aren't really needed anymore. All you really need is a nerd with a bag of donuts that can create a computer generated stunt double.

a valid point, and i admit, there is something lost when CG is taken to the extreme (do you hear me, George Lucas?)... but i dont mind CG to make graphics that would be impossible or far too expensive to create in a 'real life' set or model. as far as a visual spectacle, i think the new movie will look more 'realistic,' if that makes any sense.

of course, i will be watching the new one to see if they have the 3-boobed alien prostitute in the bar. :hysterical:

[stevedmc]

a valid point, and i admit, there is something lost when CG is taken to the extreme (do you hear me, George Lucas?)... but i dont mind CG to make graphics that would be impossible to create in a 'real life' set or model. as far as a visual spectacle, i think the new movie will look more 'realistic,' if that makes any sense.

of course, i will be watching the new one to see if they have the 3-boobed alien prostitute in the bar. :hysterical:

Those fancy star ships in Star Wars IV were real scale models. The stuff in Star Wars III were nothing more than cartoons.

A cartoon will never look as realistic as a scale model in my opinion. The reason they use CGI these days is because it is cheap and an artist can whip up a space ship in minutes rather than months.

Space Odyssey 2001 is an excelent example of what can be created without computers with a proper budget and effort. This film was released back in 1968 at a time when not just any bozo could whip up a movie. It was done with a huge budget and took years to complete. This film combined an amazing story and the special effects still look far better than anything Hollywood has recently produced.

[sean]

definitely. however, this one does look better than the original... wouldnt take much, i guess. :lol:

No, I don't think it would take much to top the original.

[mluder]

Those fancy star ships in Star Wars IV were real scale models. The stuff in Star Wars III were nothing more than cartoons.


While it's true much of the dog fighting scenes in Ep III were done digitally, the majority of the film still used practical models and miniature sets built to scale and populated with actors shot in front of green screen.

I would refer you to this book "Sculpting a Galaxy" by head of the ILM model shop, Lorne Peterson.
http://www.amazon.com/Sculpting-Galaxy-Inside-Star-Model/dp/1933784032

It's not only full of cool insight behind the scenes but also some great photos of the models.

Cheers.
Steve

[dvonk]

Those fancy star ships in Star Wars IV were real scale models. The stuff in Star Wars III were nothing more than cartoons.

A cartoon will never look as realistic as a scale model in my opinion. The reason they use CGI these days is because it is cheap and an artist can whip up a space ship in minutes rather than months.

Space Odyssey 2001 is an excelent example of what can be created without computers with a proper budget and effort. This film was released back in 1968 at a time when not just any bozo could whip up a movie. It was done with a huge budget and took years to complete. This film combined an amazing story and the special effects still look far better than anything Hollywood has recently produced.

i heartly agree. my jab at Lucas was for Episodes I, II, and III. i am a dedicated fan of IV, V, & VI, and i feel he forgot his roots while making the prequel trilogy... but i think we have a thread for this somewhere, dont we? :wink:

i am a big fan of Stanley Kubrick, and 2001: A Space Odyssey is no exception. i have the Criterion Collection edition on LaserDisc.

we seem to mostly be in agreement... i guess what im trying to say is the original Total Recall kinda sucked. worth a laugh though. :lol:

[awildermode]

Kate Beckinsale is in this, count me in.

Heck, remake The Godfather with Kate Beckinsale, and I will go see it.

[DeLorean03]

Two words: ENOUGH remakes....

[jackb]

definitely. however, this one does look better than the original... wouldnt take much, i guess. :lol:

No, I don't think it would take much to top the original.
What?!?!?
OK, two things - Total Recall is one of the best movies. For the action, the effects, and of course the plot. It woudl take a LOT to top the original, number one. Number two, this remake looks lame anyway! Hell, that wasn't even a trailer! It was a commercial FOR a trailer!
I'm 50/50 on seeing this. The effects look sick, but NFW it will be better than the original. Speaking of which, it's time to watch it again.

[stevedmc]

Two words: ENOUGH remakes....

Amen

[Tillsy]

Remake?! What happened to the sequel that Janathan Frakes was working on, Arnie had even agreed to it prior to switching careers...

[thirdmanj]

Ok ok, shoot me now.... But I have high hopes for this. I'm normally very skeptical about these remakes of 80s classics (like Footloose, what an abortion). But in this case they have a chance to be more faithful to the story by PKD. Let's be honest, the Schwarzenegger one is a classic 80s Schwarzenegger flick, but it really wasn't a GOOD movie, and Paul Verhoeven was defiantly not in top form directing. It was damn cheesy. I'll always love it as a classic Schwarzenegger sci-fi, but I won't delude myself into remembering it as a timeless classic well done movie.

[Jeff K]

Those fancy star ships in Star Wars IV were real scale models. The stuff in Star Wars III were nothing more than cartoons.

A cartoon will never look as realistic as a scale model in my opinion. The reason they use CGI these days is because it is cheap and an artist can whip up a space ship in minutes rather than months.

Space Odyssey 2001 is an excelent example of what can be created without computers with a proper budget and effort. This film was released back in 1968 at a time when not just any bozo could whip up a movie. It was done with a huge budget and took years to complete. This film combined an amazing story and the special effects still look far better than anything Hollywood has recently produced.

The problem with CGI is not rendering real looking ships and effects - but the absurd camera angles that suspend the reality.

If you saw the movie "The Aviator" The shots of the Spruce Goose flying like it was being viewed by a bystander or chase plane were excellent.

The shot where the camera zoomed in on the Pilot (Hughes) made my brain scream "FAKE" because there is no way in realty to see that happen.

Jeff

[dvonk]

The problem with CGI is not rendering real looking ships and effects - but the absurd camera angles that suspend the reality.

there is definitely an art to making CG look good/blend seamlessly. if i find myself consciously aware of it, they failed to incorporate it properly.

and, since this seems to have morphed into a 'remake' thread, what about the 2012 remake of Red Dawn (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_Dawn_%282012_film%29)?

[stevedmc]

Terminator 3 was the last movie to do a good job with CGI. They didn't over use it. Remember the scene with the fire truck destroying a street? Believe it or not, most of that destruction was real.

But the movie with the best special effects of all time was Terminator 2.

[dvonk]

But the movie with the best special effects of all time was Terminator 2.

awesome flick.

[SIMid]

I wonder if he's still Hauser? :)

I'll still watch, im a sucker for sci-fi movies.

[DMCVegas]

of course, i will be watching the new one to see if they have the 3-boobed alien prostitute in the bar. :hysterical:

This was honestly the only reason that anyone at work wanted to see this movie. And then we pondered if the titties would be CGI as well. I'll just wait for some pirated screen caps and will save my money.

Totally agreed that the original was great Schwarzenegger action flick. That's what makes it great. Comparatively however, I think that I'll just read the original book instead:

http://www.sffaudio.com/images11/CITADELPRESSWeCanRememberItForYouWholesale565.jpg

After watching Blade Runner and then finally reading Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep? I decided to stick with reading Sci Fi books instead of watching the movies. Book is always better, yada yada yada, I know. More to the point the books contain both omitted details as well as complex themes that readers of such works can comprehend. Movies OTOH are consistantly dumbed down because the audiences are comprised of functioning trainables who can't be bothered to listen to anything except gunfire and deep bass explosions, let alone dialogue so the story always gets horribly butchered.

Hopefully Hollywood never gets to trashing other classic works like Neuromancer and Snow Crash.

[Dangermouse]

saw this at the weekend, and it's pretty poor, imho.

Wondered why they didn't name it "Complete Recall" or something like that, to distance themselves from Arnie, but maybe they were trying to link to him in some weird way.

[DeLorean03]

No shocker there. Hollywood needs to just be nuked until new ideas come out.... ENOUGH remakes.... and do we REALLY need a Paranormal Activity 4.....

[DMCVegas]

Now what we really need are movies that aren't just repeats, but needlessly cross-over into each other.

"Step up 2 Paranormal Activity"
People find out their house is haunted, and fight the ghosts using choreographed dance moves.

"I SAW nothing"
Woody Allen is kidnapped by average movie fans and forced to stop being neurotic and write stories where there are no frustrating characters or plots. Or they cut his arm off or something.

"Expendable Skits"
Has been action movie heros versus has been SNL stars. Lots of guns, impersonations, explosions, and dick jokes.

"American Pie presents: The environment is screwed"
A bunch of kids are trying to get laid while lamenting over environmental issues and what they can do about them. There will be monkeys masturbating in IMAX.


What we'll probably get.

"Generic Comic Book Movie"
It's either gonna be another flick recycled again, or some obscure character like Too Much Coffee Man. There will be action figures for your kids that have absolutely nothing at all to do with the film.

"Unrealistic Date Flick"
It's got a couple of hairless dudes that are either fighting over a chick, or she's fighting for their attention. Either way whomever she ends up with still isn't fully self sufficient. He either needs money for his car payment, or help with a resume or something. That or she has a yeast infection and he has to love her despite the discharge.

"Unrealistic Mid-Life Crisis Flick"
The same couple, just fast forward. He's got more hair in his ears than on his head, and likes to sleep allot. She's worried about the lines in her face, her yeast infection, and if their marriage is on the rocks. All the while they maintain an unrealistic lifestyle in a house that they could not possibly afford nor use. Meryl Streep is somewhere in this film.

"American Actress has a British Accent"
Plot isn't important. Movie is just a vehicle to show that the star can do accents.

"Quentin Tarantino Endorsed Foreign fighting flick"
It's hard to follow, but has gore, rape, and feet. You wouldn't normally watch it, but since it's got Tarantino's name attached, you'll get suckered into it and regret it.

"Untitled Tim Burton Project"
Don't know what it's about, but it'll star Johnny Depp & Helena Bonham Carter, and will recycle the Beetlejuice soundtrack. Again.

[Jonathan]

"Quentin Tarantino Endorsed Foreign fighting flick"

...You wouldn't normally watch it, but since it's got Tarantino's name attached, you'll get suckered into it and regret it.



I'll digress for a minute here. For anyone out there that likes to read novels, what the hell is up with all these big name authors attaching their name to a title, tricking the reader into buying it, only to realize later on that it was just some half-wit who wrote the story and not the big name author?

I found this with the Jason Bourne novels, even though this new guy has written about 6 or so of the new ones, but the biggest let down one was where I bought a James Patterson novel called Toys, only to get about 50 pages into it, thinking about how awful it was, and then finally clue in that Patterson didn't write it, he just somehow has his name on the cover (and spine) making it look so.

Are these guys so absorbed with their money making name that they contract out their own writing? Sorry millennial generation, everything I see out there "for sale" is pretty craptacular. I think I'll hop in the time machine and go back to the 80's where things weren't so shmitty.