The princess bride (1 Viewer)

I love the Coen Brothers.

Rob Reiner made Princess Bride - he’s no slouch.

Cary Elwes was born for the role. Mandy freakin’ Patinkin. Wallace Shawn. Christopher Guest. Billy Crystal and Carole Kane as Mr. and Mrs. Miracle Max.

It’s thematic. It’s allegory. It’s crass and intelligent and touching all at the same time. It’s a gem of a movie.
 
Am I the only one a little annoyed that the original tweet refers to the movie as "Norman Lear's The Princess Bride?" I mean, I know he has an EP credit, but when I think of the creative forces behind that flick, I think of Goldman first, then Reiner.
 
There are some similarities to Fern Gully, except that Fern Gully was an eco-environmental film made within the context of a children's animated film. Avatar was a movie whose themes were much bigger and grander, dealing with 19th century European imperialism, conquest, subjugation of ethnic minorities, social, and economic displacement of ethnic tribal cultures, ways of life. It did have a bit of redemptive fantasy--white man has a change of heart about what his powerful civilization is about to do to a culturally rich, ancient alien civilization when they arrive in 3 months to completely terraform their whole planet, he refuses to,help pacify the natives, falls in love with a blue female alien tribeswoman, and helps fight his former human military superiors.

Avatar has more in common in terms of its themes and allegorical with Dances with Wolves than Fern Gully. The Last Samurai actually has a historical basis to it because it took place in 1878 during the Satsuma rebellion--where a few northern Japanese diamiyo were still resisting the Meiji Restoration's 1868 push to totally modernize Japan from a previously feudal political society to a Western styled parliamentary monarchy system---samurai class were outlawed, their small state stipends were stopped and ordered to turn over their swords, and despite how their depicted as decent, honorable warriors, in reality many of the rebellious samurai who led the Satsuma Rebellion were easily crushed by Japanese imperial troops. Now, one of the film's historical accuracies was that some of the Japanese imperial troops were trained by Western military officers--French, British, Russian, and American officers were brought in to modernize and train Japanese military. The Satsuma rebellion was the last major internal rebellion against ruling Meiji Japanese authorities and Meiji emperor, the great-grandfather of Emperor Hirohito. From 1868 to 1905, Japan successively modernized, industrialized it's social, political, and economic structures in 40.years what took many European countries 400 years to do organically.
 
who dis?



never heard of any of 'em



wut r dese?

 

clearly I am in dire need of not only cinematic but also moral edification
 
I just have a simple question, how would a remake ruin the original? That doesn't make sense to me. They could remake Christine and it could be the worst movie on the planet and yet it would not ruin the first one to me. If anything I would appreciate the original one more after seeing a bad remake. It's not like it would get erased from existence.
 
Last edited:
am I just wrong about this?

giphy.gif
 
I just have a simple question, how would a remake ruin the original?

Because of the studio moneygrab stigma that gets associated with the original film. Basically we are getting sold a product that we have already purchased but know it is "new and improved". Very seldom are the remakes/reboots considered good enough to stand on their own. The remake of True Grit is an exception to the rule because it stuck to the same storyline but with different actors. The difference comes from the cinematography, casting and acting performances compared to some other remakes. They spent money on the production and cared about the end product. They didn't just slap a bunch of bad acting and CGI on the screen and say here you go.


Exhibit A
1984
1568925274634.png

2016
1568925331377.png
 
Because of the studio moneygrab stigma that gets associated with the original film. Basically we are getting sold a product that we have already purchased but know it is "new and improved". Very seldom are the remakes/reboots considered good enough to stand on their own. The remake of True Grit is an exception to the rule because it stuck to the same storyline but with different actors. The difference comes from the cinematography, casting and acting performances compared to some other remakes. They spent money on the production and cared about the end product. They didn't just slap a bunch of bad acting and CGI on the screen and say here you go.


Exhibit A
1984
1568925274634.png

2016
1568925331377.png

Who cares about the moneygrab stigma? Technically every movie that's ever made is a moneygrab, they don't make them for free and they sure as shirt don't leave any money on the table. I just don't see how a remake that doesn't match the original somehow ruins it.
 

Create an account or login to comment

You must be a member in order to leave a comment

Create account

Create an account on our community. It's easy!

Log in

Already have an account? Log in here.

Users who are viewing this thread

    Back
    Top Bottom