Path: ...!weretis.net!feeder9.news.weretis.net!news.quux.org!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Arthur Lipscomb <arthur@alum.calberkeley.org>
Newsgroups: rec.arts.tv
Subject: Re: What Did You Watch? 2024-12-18 (Wednesday)
Date: Sat, 21 Dec 2024 13:43:16 -0800
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 130
Message-ID: <vk7cpl$7oo3$1@dont-email.me>
References: <vk1fbc$2tcju$1@dont-email.me> <vk2kl8$34lve$1@dont-email.me>
 <222425295.756437259.655779.anim8rfsk-cox.net@news.easynews.com>
 <vk5s3h$3ucc2$1@dont-email.me>
 <1921701780.756471194.323422.anim8rfsk-cox.net@news.easynews.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Sat, 21 Dec 2024 22:43:18 +0100 (CET)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="86e7e97f98880b1d0c3a1077263f0f08";
	logging-data="254723"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX18vjamGYczOyb83ElDMDhcBTNWhPhE7VrE="
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:eiows5mOQeRSubQmMgpyQfoW/gY=
X-Antivirus: Norton (VPS 241221-4, 12/21/2024), Outbound message
In-Reply-To: <1921701780.756471194.323422.anim8rfsk-cox.net@news.easynews.com>
X-Antivirus-Status: Clean
Content-Language: en-US
Bytes: 7930

On 12/21/2024 3:22 AM, anim8rfsk wrote:
> Arthur Lipscomb <arthur@alum.calberkeley.org> wrote:
>> On 12/20/2024 5:29 PM, anim8rfsk wrote:
>>> Arthur Lipscomb <arthur@alum.calberkeley.org> wrote:
>>>> On 12/19/2024 7:50 AM, Ian J. Ball wrote:
>>>>> Finished grading the final for the first of my two sections, and then
>>>>> did a little bit of finish up work on the lab class... With that, I got
>>>>> through:
>>>>>
>>>>> soaps: Y&R - Mon's ep. Billy tells Filis[sic!] his Revenge! plot against
>>>>> Victor; Filis balks at getting involved because of her kids - I wasn't
>>>>> sure if she agreed to participate or not. Sharon gets hypnotized by
>>>>> Traci's boyfriend, and remembers that she didn't run Filis off the road.
>>>>> Ian Ward eavesdrops on a conversation between Claire and Mariah & Tessa,
>>>>> while Aunt Jordan remembers back to when Ian Ward reeled her in on his
>>>>> Revenge! plot.
>>>>>     GH - Tue's ep. Bitch Carly wants Revenge!! on Drew (and Willow), but
>>>>> Jason tries to talk her down from that. Willow is working some public
>>>>> charity thing for Jordan, and of course Drew stops by to see her,
>>>>> witnessed by both a visibly displeased Jordan, and by Felicia. Nina,
>>>>> with Ava present, discusses Willow's upcoming potential divorce and
>>>>> custody case with lawyer Martin Gray. Curtis and Michael implement their
>>>>> plan to eject Drew from Aurora co., but Curtis gets it in writing from
>>>>> Michael up front. Despondent Josslyn discusses her grief with Trina, who
>>>>> understands the situation intimately because of Spencer's death.
>>>>>     DOOL - Tue's ep. Mostly stuff about Cat and her family, or Chad with
>>>>> Jack and Jennifer, and I really don't care much. NuGabi is already
>>>>> starting to work on seducing JJ - this girl's libido won't quit!!
>>>>>
>>>>> Broken Innocence (Tubi) - This 2024 effort is one of those flicks that
>>>>> gets you to wonder - if this film had had a budget, a better script, and
>>>>> better actors and better direction, would it have been a "good film"?
>>>>
>>>> I think that question applies to just about every bad movie, and the
>>>> answer is yes.
>>>>
>>>
>>> I’m not so sure about that. I love Batman 1966 but it’s full of cheap shots
>>> that you would think would benefit from a reshoot. But I’ve had discussions
>>> with people and we pretty much agree that if you made Batman 1966 into it
>>> technically better movie, it would probably not be as much fun to watch.
>>>
> 
> I re-watched it tonight. There’s less to be fixed than I would have
> thought. The main thing is, I would like them to use New York for all the
> shots of the city. It’s kind of embarrassing when they keep cutting
> back-and-forth from stock footage of New York footage of LA which hardly
> had any skyscrapers at the time.
> 
> 

But the Gotham City on the TV show felt like a small town with hardly 
any skyscrapers.  Weren't the New York shots supposed to be the UN in 
New York?  Or was it some Batversion of the UN?


>>
>> But don't forget, "better script."  I'm thinking Plan 9 Outer Space
>> redone as "Ed Wood" or "The Room" redone as "The Disaster Artist."  Two
>> examples of bad movies that mocked because they were so bad, yet given a
>> new *everything* it becomes entertaining.  Not a mock it level, but a
>> good actors with a good script level.
>>
>> Then there are the straight remakes like "Little Shop of Horrors"or
>> "The Thing." Not that the originals were necessarily bad movies, but
>> between the originals and the remakes, I'll take the remakes.
> 
> I think the 1951 version of THE THING (from another world) is one of the
> best movies ever made. Classic Howard Hawks.
> 
> I like the 1982 version as well. But from a rewatch viewpoint, the 1951
> version has it beat.
> 

I think I've only watched the 1951 version all the way through once, 
maybe twice. It's interesting as compared to the far superior John 
Carpenter version.  But other than as a curiosity I have no real use for 
it. ;-)

I don't think I could even force myself to watch it if I wasn't going to 
watch the remake next.  Unless maybe if I was going to pair it with 
"Creature" since "Creature" explicitly references it.  In fact a couple 
of years ago, I think I did just that.  I watched the 1951 version, the 
remake and "Creature" back to back.  And this is not a recommendation 
for "Creature." It is a horrible movie!  Best avoided.



>    "A Star
>> is Born" is a movie with multiple versions.  I watched all them and
>> didn't like any version, until the most recent version.
>>
> 
> I’ve never managed to sit through any version, even though I know people in
> the Kris Kristofferson one since it was shot here. And doesn’t another
> version star James Mason?
> 
> 
The 1954 version with Judy Garland.  I think TCM had a marathon one day 
starting with the 1937 version, and I recorded and watched them all. 
This was long before the most recent remake.  Somewhat interesting, and 
you wouldn't pick up on this if you haven't watched the 1937 version, 
but in the original version they were actors, then in 54 with Judy 
Garland and every version since, they've hired singers.

Even though I didn't like the original movie(s) I kept watching them 
because I felt there was definitely a good concept in there.  They just 
needed the right script, cast, director, etc. and eventually they made a 
version that I did like.  And for that, I'm glad I kept watching the 
remakes.

>> Or you can do it in reverse.  Think of all the great movies that had bad
>> remakes.  I think the criteria still applies regardless as to which
>> movie came first.
>>
> 
> People keep complaining about remakes of great movies. They’re right, they
> should be remaking movies that crashed and burned where there’s room for
> improvement.
> 

Yes, I *almost* said that.  I think it was a quote from Roger Ebert 
about remaking the bad movies instead of the good ones.  But I'm all for 
remaking the good ones too!  I know it's been in the works for forever, 
but just last month they gave a new announcement about the "Forbidden 
Planet" planet.  People are going apoplectic over the possible remake. 
But I really *liked* the original, and I would very much like to see 
where that story goes next with either a *good* remake or a *good* 
sequel.  As long as the movie is entertaining, I don't care if it's a 
remake or a sequel.