# Really? Really?



## Dannyalcatraz (Dec 13, 2013)

Did we need this?

http://movies.yahoo.com/news/ed-helms-firing-naked-gun-reboot-paramount-exclusive-130048618.html


----------



## Olgar Shiverstone (Dec 13, 2013)

Hollywood's never heard of an idea too bad to recycle, or a horse to dead to beat.


----------



## Kramodlog (Dec 13, 2013)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> Did we need this?



What do we really need? That is a better question. Do we need movies?


----------



## Bedrockgames (Dec 14, 2013)

Looks like the guys from Reno 911 are doing the script. A bit optimistic about it. It would be great to have more original material, but with comedy all that really matters is if the jokes are funny. If it ends up making me laugh as much as the original naked gun,then that is a success in my book.


----------



## Morrus (Dec 14, 2013)

Bedrockgames said:


> If it ends up making me laugh as much as the original naked gun,then that is a success in my book.




Now that's a high bar to set for success. A movie a quarter as funny as the original would still be rip-roaringly funny.

Though I think Airplane just about has the edge, surely.


----------



## sabrinathecat (Dec 14, 2013)

Why not just exhume Leslie Nielson's corpse, and have it on puppet strings? With a little CGI to touch it up?

That idea alone is probably funnier than this reboot would be.


----------



## delericho (Dec 14, 2013)

Bedrockgames said:


> Looks like the guys from Reno 911 are doing the script. A bit optimistic about it. It would be great to have more original material, but with comedy all that really matters is if the jokes are funny.




Actually, Leslie Nielsen proves this isn't true in the original "Naked Gun" (and "Airplane!" also). Many of the jokes he has to deliver are actually pretty terrible - the success of them is almost entirely in the delivery.

Which is why a remake of "Naked Gun" is doomed to fail - LN gave one of the truly irreplaceable performances.



> If it ends up making me laugh as much as the original naked gun,then that is a success in my book.




Of course. That would be brilliant. It won't, though.


----------



## Bedrockgames (Dec 14, 2013)

delericho said:


> Actually, Leslie Nielsen proves this isn't true in the original "Naked Gun" (and "Airplane!" also). Many of the jokes he has to deliver are actually pretty terrible - the success of them is almost entirely in the delivery.
> 
> Which is why a remake of "Naked Gun" is doomed to fail - LN gave one of the truly irreplaceable performances.




i agree delivery was a significant factor. But if you have a good delivery and good material, that can be even better, which is why i am optimistic. Not sure how well helms will do in that role. He is certainly a good straight man, but LN was unique and had more of a presence i think.




> Of course. That would be brilliant. It won't, though.




we'll see. I will wait until i see the movie to reach that conclusion.


----------



## Morrus (Dec 14, 2013)

I'm not a big fan of him, but I think Steve Carrell would have been better suited.


----------



## Bedrockgames (Dec 14, 2013)

Morrus said:


> I'm not a big fan of him, but I think Steve Carrell would have been better suited.




I quite like Steve Carrell, but for this particular role Helms feels like a better choice (still I anot sure he's the best choice). The thing about Drebin is you have to believe he can shoot an innocent person because he sincrely believes its the right the thing to do at the time, but still find him likeable. Something about Steve Carrell, he's almost too nice for that sort of role. Still Helms can definitely come off as not likeable, so who knows. Maybe they'll go in another direction though. Actually, Charlie Sheen might have beea bette choice. I know he hasnt leas a film in a while but he has been in plenty of these sorts of movies and can be a confident jerk but likeable.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Dec 14, 2013)

Bedrockgames said:


> I quite like Steve Carrell, but for this particular role Helms feels like a better choice (still I anot sure he's the best choice). The thing about Drebin is you have to believe he can shoot an innocent person because he sincrely believes its the right the thing to do at the time, but still find him likeable. Something about Steve Carrell, he's almost too nice for that sort of role. Still Helms can definitely come off as not likeable, so who knows. Maybe they'll go in another direction though. Actually, Charlie Sheen might have beea bette choice. I know he hasnt leas a film in a while but he has been in plenty of these sorts of movies and can be a confident jerk but likeable.




Then again, Sheen had the _Hot Shots_ movies...


----------



## rkwoodard (Dec 14, 2013)

*I agree*



Morrus said:


> Now that's a high bar to set for success. A movie a quarter as funny as the original would still be rip-roaringly funny.
> 
> Though I think Airplane just about has the edge, surely.




I agree that the Airplane movies were a bit funnier.

And stop calling me shirley.


----------



## Bedrockgames (Dec 14, 2013)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> Then again, Sheen had the _Hot Shots_ movies...




I enjoye the first one. Don't really recall the second one except for Rowan Atkinson's cameo toward the end. But whether or not these were good movies, i think sheen nailed the delivery for the kind of humor found in Naked Gun. Based on his performance on SNL John ham (dont know if I am spelling his name right) would probably be a good choice too.


----------



## The_Silversword (Dec 14, 2013)

More proof Hollywood is out of ideas...

http://screenrant.com/the-butterfly-effect-movie-reboot-ashton-kutcher/


----------



## Bedrockgames (Dec 14, 2013)

The_Silversword said:


> More proof Hollywood is out of ideas...
> 
> http://screenrant.com/the-butterfly-effect-movie-reboot-ashton-kutcher/




I only saw it once, when it first came out, but I quite liked the butterfly effect. It is an interesting subject for a film to explore. Not sure that a reboot is called for though.

i dont think the issue is they are out of ideas (there are hundreds of screenwriters with plenty of new ideas just waiting to be made into film). It is that they want a sure thing and reboots come with a built in audience. That said, they need to remake every movie and TV show ever made.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Dec 14, 2013)

It is more accurate to accuse Hollywood of becoming amazingly risk averse.


----------



## sabrinathecat (Dec 14, 2013)

I still get a laugh when I see Leslie Nielson in a straight dramatic role. He was good as a straight actor. I think he got pegged into comedy, and went along with it because it was fun.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Dec 14, 2013)

sabrinathecat said:


> I still get a laugh when I see Leslie Nielson in a straight dramatic role. He was good as a straight actor. I think he got pegged into comedy, and went along with it because it was fun.




_Forbidden Planet _remains one of my favorite classic Sci-Fi movies.


----------



## Deset Gled (Dec 15, 2013)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> It is more accurate to accuse Hollywood of becoming amazingly risk averse.




I think this hits the nail on the head.

Ed Helms starring in Thomas Lennon comedy centered based on a police premise is actually a reasonably solid base for me.  I like some of work from both the actor and writer, I think they could do well together, and it's a premise that's been done well a number of times.

The fact that the studio is pulling out the Naked Gun brand is just unfortunate marketing.  The suits want a well known name guarantee a minimum amount of pull, and they don't care at all about the original source.  I don't expect this will movie will be anything comparable to the original, but it has a chance to be decent in it's own right.

Kinda like Dark Shadows or Starship Troopers; unwatchable when considered part of the original source material, but quite enjoyable if considered as stand alone works.


----------



## Dog Moon (Dec 15, 2013)

Why would they need a remake of The Butterfly Effect?  What could they capture in that movie that they didn't capture in The Butterfly Effect, The Butterfly Effect 2 and The Butterfly Effect 3?

Note I never actually saw 2 or 3 even though I saw them available on Netflix....

I did enjoy the first movie though.  Enough so much that I actually bought it.


----------



## Zombie_Babies (Dec 16, 2013)

This sounds like a terrible idea.  Thing is, the Oldboy remake has sickened me far more.


----------



## Kramodlog (Dec 16, 2013)

I saw the original. I need to see the remake.


----------



## Mallus (Dec 16, 2013)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> _Forbidden Planet _remains one of my favorite classic Sci-Fi movies.



_Forbidden Planet_ remains one of my favorite movies. And my 2nd favorite Shakespeare adaptation behind Ian McKellan's wonderful _Richard III_ from the 90s. 

Is it too pat to link Hollywood's risk-aversion to the ever increasing cost of Hollywood movie making? My wife and I are big fans of old-Hollywood B-movies, the kind they "just don't make anymore". There's a treasure-trove of cost-effective creativity in many of those films, during the (many) decades in which they were made. Heck, my favorite film of all time is _Casablanca_ --yeah, I know, how cliche...-- which barely dodges B-movie status. 

Cinema's lost something without them. Despite the indie boom of the past 20 or so years.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Dec 16, 2013)

> Is it too pat to link Hollywood's risk-aversion to the ever increasing cost of Hollywood movie making?




Given the nature of Hollywood accounting, the willingness to cast roles based on star power rather than acting prowess (coupled with salary bloat), elevating SFX over story, the contractual shafts to movie houses, writers and outsider investors, and a tendency to make such extensive changes to underlying IP so that movie/TV adaptations rarely resemble the works from which they derive their names?

I can't give Hollywood any slack.  Too many of their problems are of their own making.


----------



## Hand of Evil (Dec 16, 2013)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> I can't give Hollywood any slack.  Too many of their problems are of their own making.




So, true and think it has been getting worse over the last 10+ years, great lack of talent in Hollywood these days.


----------



## Zombie_Babies (Dec 16, 2013)

goldomark said:


> I saw the original. I need to see the remake.




I don't want to.  I just can't understand why they did it.  Er, aside from having no original ideas and wanting cash.


----------



## MarkB (Dec 16, 2013)

Two things stood out for me in that article.



			
				Yahoo Movies said:
			
		

> the three films cumed $275 million.




This is a verb usage I haven't seen before. Is it new, or am I behind on Hollywood vernacular?



			
				Yahoo Movies said:
			
		

> Lennon and Garant recently wrote “Baywatch” for Paramount and “Rent a Ghost” for Fox




Hollywood bought up Rent-a-Ghost? Seriously? Is the pantomime horse still in it?


----------



## Kramodlog (Dec 16, 2013)

Zombie_Babies said:


> I don't want to.  I just can't understand why they did it.  Er, aside from having no original ideas and wanting cash.



Sounds like a lot of teens these days.


----------



## sabrinathecat (Dec 17, 2013)

Hollywood accounting: The writer of Forest Gump was approached about writing a sequel, and turned it down because he could not in good conscience support a project he knew was doomed to be a failure. According to Hollywood accounting, the movie was a failure. He had proof: he never received any royalty payment because according to Hollywood accounting, it hasn't made any profit yet.
In short, they way they worded the contract and set up the production company and distribution company, he got totally hosed.


----------



## Dog Moon (Dec 18, 2013)

Zombie_Babies said:


> I don't want to.  I just can't understand why they did it.  Er, aside from having no original ideas and wanting cash.




I don't want to see the remake either.  The first one was awesome...

The only reason I would want to see the remake is to see how they ruined a great movie.


----------



## Zombie_Babies (Dec 18, 2013)

Dog Moon said:


> I don't want to see the remake either.  The first one was awesome...
> 
> The only reason I would want to see the remake is to see how they ruined a great movie.




And that's no reason at all, I know.  The original is perfect - there was no need to remake it.  Just sad.


----------



## Dungeoneer (Dec 19, 2013)

sabrinathecat said:


> Hollywood accounting: The writer of Forest Gump was approached about writing a sequel, and turned it down because he could not in good conscience support a project he knew was doomed to be a failure. According to Hollywood accounting, the movie was a failure. He had proof: he never received any royalty payment because according to Hollywood accounting, it hasn't made any profit yet.
> In short, they way they worded the contract and set up the production company and distribution company, he got totally hosed.



Honestly, that guy is an idiot. EVERY Hollywood movie is made this way, has been for years. A production company is created to make the movie. That company will exist ONLY for as long as it takes to make and release the film. On paper, that company will carry all the expenses of the movie but get none of the profits (those go to the studio). If you let them draw up a contract that includes a percentage of this cut, you will of course get zero. But why would you do this, unless you know nothing about Hollywood and don't bother getting any advice??

Anyway, call me cynical, but I feel like the movie industry is getting sucked into an endless cycle of remakes and reboots. Looking forward to "Ultimate Spiderman" in a couple of years (it will be darker, edgier and possibly starring Justin Bieber!).


----------



## Zombie_Babies (Dec 19, 2013)

Dungeoneer said:


> Anyway, call me cynical, but I feel like the movie industry is getting sucked into an endless cycle of remakes and reboots. Looking forward to "Ultimate Spiderman" in a couple of years (it will be darker, edgier and possibly starring Justin Bieber!).




You're not cynical, you're right.  Er, or I'm cynical, too.  Yeah, one of those things.


----------



## Derren (Dec 19, 2013)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> Given the nature of Hollywood accounting, the willingness to cast roles based on star power rather than acting prowess (coupled with salary bloat), elevating SFX over story, the contractual shafts to movie houses, writers and outsider investors, and a tendency to make such extensive changes to underlying IP so that movie/TV adaptations rarely resemble the works from which they derive their names?
> 
> I can't give Hollywood any slack.  Too many of their problems are of their own making.




But it works, doesn't it?

Don't blame the producer. Blame the consumer.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Dec 19, 2013)

Derren said:


> But it works, doesn't it?
> 
> Don't blame the producer. Blame the consumer.




Your response in no way counters the core of my statement: Hollywood has become so risk averse that it is becoming scared of originality.  And a major reason behind that is because Hollywood's own business practices have made it difficult for the major studios to make money without being formulaic.

Does the consumer have a share in this? Certainly!

But its like farming: if you only grow one thng in one area, you deplete your soil and will be vulnerable to a shift in climate or pests.

Hollywood, in its growing fear of originality, is making it harder for itself to be profitable in the future.


----------



## sabrinathecat (Dec 19, 2013)

Dungeoneer said:


> Honestly, that guy is an idiot. EVERY Hollywood movie is made this way, has been for years. A production company is created to make the movie. That company will exist ONLY for as long as it takes to make and release the film. On paper, that company will carry all the expenses of the movie but get none of the profits (those go to the studio). If you let them draw up a contract that includes a percentage of this cut, you will of course get zero. But why would you do this, unless you know nothing about Hollywood and don't bother getting any advice??
> 
> Anyway, call me cynical, but I feel like the movie industry is getting sucked into an endless cycle of remakes and reboots. Looking forward to "Ultimate Spiderman" in a couple of years (it will be darker, edgier and possibly starring Justin Bieber!).




Yes, he should have had a lawyer read through the contract.
But if Hollywood wanted to do a sequel, they shouldn't have screwwed the guy over.


----------

