Nolan Fans

What the fuck is the point if it looks just like the original?

Have you seen Evil Dead 2013 (same production team)? It doesn't look just like the original, it's inspired by the iconic production design from the original but clearly isn't the same thing. For example, the clown:



But trailer will speak for itself tomorrow, I hope.

Here, Raimi speaks about it:

http://www.comingsoon.net/movies/news/4 ... ist-reboot

I don't get that filmmaking philosophy though. It seems inherently lazy and uninspiring. It'd be like finding a great Picasso sketch and tracing over it onto a new piece of paper or something akin to that.

ChristNolan wrote:I don't get that filmmaking philosophy though. It seems inherently lazy and uninspiring. It'd be like finding a great Picasso sketch and tracing over it onto a new piece of paper or something akin to that.

Cry me a river. That is basically argument for any remake ever... did you even read the article? If yes fine if not do it and wait for tomorrow at least.

m4st4 wrote:

ChristNolan wrote:I don't get that filmmaking philosophy though. It seems inherently lazy and uninspiring. It'd be like finding a great Picasso sketch and tracing over it onto a new piece of paper or something akin to that.

Cry me a river. That is basically argument for any remake ever... did you even read the article? If yes fine if not do it and wait for tomorrow at least.

Why are you so confrontational with me all the time?

ChristNolan wrote:

m4st4 wrote:

ChristNolan wrote:I don't get that filmmaking philosophy though. It seems inherently lazy and uninspiring. It'd be like finding a great Picasso sketch and tracing over it onto a new piece of paper or something akin to that.

Cry me a river. That is basically argument for any remake ever... did you even read the article? If yes fine if not do it and wait for tomorrow at least.

Why are you so confrontational with me all the time?

Was I? Erm... not really. I'm just saying it's a boring argument if you didn't actually bother to hear the other side. I mean Picasso sketches, seriously... you're either going to give it a fair shot or you won't. Raimi and the director speak about the original and their intentions fairly in the article and I liked Evil Dead 2013 so there's a bit of pre-installed faith there as well, from my side at least.

well let's take a look at this quote from the director:

“It’s a responsibility we take very seriously. We’re working to make a Poltergeist film that lives up to the original’s legacy.”

My question is "why?" Why is there is a need to live up to the already profound legacy of the original film?

This part:

“The original film commented on how we’ve let television get out of control, babysitting our kids,” says Raimi. “It’s only gotten worse with the handheld portable devices. Screens are everywhere.”

“The thing that keeps them a family is what they have to draw on, to stay sane, and also to win Madison back,” says Kenan. “The film is super-scary. And it’s scary on its own terms. I am excited to finally be able to share that with the world.”

is really the only thing that seems interesting about it. But all it means to me is that they're updating some minor parts of the premise for today, which seems unnecessary. You could essentially gather the same message from the original film.

In fact, you could make a completely different film with a different title and story that is influenced by Poltergeist and basically accomplish the same thing without having to ride its coattails.


IMHO

Yeah but there's one important thing... Poltergeist isn't The Exorcist or The Shining, it's Tobe Hooper doing Spielberg in the 80s, great fun, plenty of inspiration, but not exactly sacred grounds of cinema. I don't see why not.

To me it's crazier to re-do his Texas Chainsaw for the n-th time... ooh, let's do a found footage prequel.

But basically, shorter version, I'm always against pissing on the crew members before watching any of the footage (see: Fantastic Four thread), unless you release that Chappy poster first.

Sorry, m4, I gotta chime in on this one from a history standpoint.

Poltergeist (1982) is 100% Spielberg's film. Universal prevented him from directing any movies while he was preparing for E.T. but make no mistake Steven directed this movie. Hooper is director in name only.

And, don't get me started on Goldsmith's score ... amazing!

My beef: Evil Dead is Raimi's and a low-budget cult classic while Poltergeist is Spielberg's and a box office Beast in comparison.

Perhaps it's like the whole 'producers are the real leader on the film and the director is just a member of the crew' deal.
A bunch of stuff here:
http://www.poltergeist.poltergeistiii.com/really.html (in three parts).

But who knows, could be just an overblown misunderstanding wrapped in a half-misguided misinterpretation.