Really? I mean... really?
I think the obvious question here is.... why? And now they're dragging Edward Norton into it. I am decidedly skeptical.
Oh, and a review of Sweeney Todd will be coming soon, which should make the last post's title of "Musical #1" make a lot more sense. And a new muffins-based rating system. Promise.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
So Nate and I got in to an argument last night about whether or not it is too soon for a remake, considering the last Hulk movie came out...what, three or four years ago? I say yes. My rationale was based on Batman. Look how long its been since they did another Batman movie with a villan that has already been done (that being the Joker). It's been, like, 20 years or something. That, to me, is a respectable amount of time. Four years: not so much. Am I right? Come on, somebody back me up on this...
What would YOU consider the proper amount of time before remaking a movie about the exact same character (and I think we can all agree that sequels are a completely different story).
BTW this is a debate that complete disregards the quality (or lack thereof) of either Hulk movie. I never saw the last one, and obviously the next one hasn't been released yet, so I don't know. I'm arguing on principle alone here.
I think that a sequel and a remake are very different beasts. I guess I partially think it's weird to have a new Hulk movie so soon with a different actor as the protagonist. I didn't see the last one either, so I'm in no position to comment (not that that'll stop me) but in the context of the Batman movies, which frequently did have different actors playing Batman, I guess at least it's not unprecedented.
Yes, I agree with the fact that sequels and remakes are "completely different stories" (see above comment). And I guess Batman *can* be used as a precedent, but I would still categorize those as sequels, for some reason. I think it's a me thing, but...I don't know. They just feel like sequels, even with the changing actors and no reference to previous films.
Perhaps I just don't know enough about the Hulk character to sustain this argument. Maybe Batman feels like sequels because there are different villans, and I guess I am under the impression that the Hulk has no arch-nemesis (besides himself). Which would make a very boring remake/sequel/movie in general, so I hope I'm wrong.
Post a Comment