#1
First thought:
(Invalid img)

What I had to do to my girlfriend:


And then just because:


Ouch. Right in the childhood.

I don't dislike Ed Helms, but I really don't think he's a good fit for this role. Nielsen was so good because deadpan was his bread and butter, while Helms' shtick typically involves much more overacting.

Who knows, he could do it well, but I think I would have preferred them to just leave the franchise alone. What do you guys think?

http://www.theverge.com/2013/12/13/5208076/ed-helms-will-star-as-frank-drebin-in-naken-gun-reboot
Last edited by ExDementia at Dec 14, 2013,
#6
Why is Hollywood intent on ruining every original franchise?
#7
This new film will be terrible. No one can fill Nielsen's shoes.
"If God exists, there's no way he is French" - Andrea Pirlo

S A D B O Y S
#11
Quote by Rossenrot
Shirley you must be kidding.

Mate, no one here is called Shirley, don't call us Shirley.
#12
Quote by ExDementia
No, but it's in honor of The Nielson.

If honouring him is your intention, it may be a good idea to spell his name correctly. It is spelt Nielsen, not Nielson.
"If God exists, there's no way he is French" - Andrea Pirlo

S A D B O Y S
#14
Just because Hollywood can't come up with anything good anymore doesn't mean they have to keep ruining all the great classics. But that's what they're doing and it's really getting under my skin. If they want to bring these movies to a new generation and make money then they need to re-release them in the theaters. Of-course with remastered sound and video quality. You just can't completely remake stuff like this.
#15
Quote by Way Cool JR.
Just because Hollywood can't come up with anything good anymore doesn't mean they have to keep ruining all the great classics. But that's what they're doing and it's really getting under my skin. If they want to bring these movies to a new generation and make money then they need to re-release them in the theaters. Of-course with remastered sound and video quality. You just can't completely remake stuff like this.

They totally can, and have been since forever, and you don't have to watch it either. I don't get why anyone complains about remakes. Either they're good and everyone is happy, or they're shit and you don't have to watch it. It's not like they're burning every copy of the originals; those will still be there for you to enjoy.
--------------╯╰--------------
A SIGNATURE.
--------------╮╭--------------
#17
Quote by DonGlover
They totally can, and have been since forever, and you don't have to watch it either. I don't get why anyone complains about remakes. Either they're good and everyone is happy, or they're shit and you don't have to watch it. It's not like they're burning every copy of the originals; those will still be there for you to enjoy.

I know that I don't have to watch them and I know they have been doing it for forever. The big difference is they use to be able to remake movies decently, now they can't. All that they do nowadays is butcher the original story lines and add a bunch of unnecessary smut and vulgarity. I'm all up for good remakes but will still always prefer the originals over them. But good remakes are long gone in the past.
#18
Quote by soundgarden1986
i had to look up ed helms who ed helms was

hes that guy that i dislike every role ive seen him in


So much this.
Wubba lubba dub dub!
#19
Quote by soundgarden1986
i had to look up ed helms who ed helms was

hes that guy that i dislike every role ive seen him in

Yep. And yet Nielsen was the most likeable guy you could possibly imagine.

Also, is it just me or is remaking comedies generally a shit idea?
#21
Quote by DonGlover
They totally can, and have been since forever, and you don't have to watch it either. I don't get why anyone complains about remakes. Either they're good and everyone is happy, or they're shit and you don't have to watch it. It's not like they're burning every copy of the originals; those will still be there for you to enjoy.


+1

People bitch about remakes, but they wouldn't be remade if you cvnts didn't go to watch them.

Fact is, the movie industry is a business, and known commodities sell a **** of a lot better than unknown commodities.

If you made two movies about the same concept, one from an unknown or original intellectual property, and the other with the moniker of a known intellectual property, the movies with from the known property will always outsell the unknown.
Quote by jrcsgtpeppers

If women can be annoyed there arent any women incongress I should be allowed to be pissed off there are no members of pink floyd or the beatles in congress.
#23
Oh **** this is going to be really bad like I'm not even hyped for this like I was Rise of the Triad where it becomes bad after I've bought it this will just be bad like Ed helms isn't even entertaining more like Ed BellEnd amirite but seriously I still listen to metal I'm not one of the 97% of teens that have moved on to rap and hip hop lms of u agre but please dontnhesitate to hit me up if you're in the European union (like I don't even care if its a civil European union or a real marriage like people are allowed to love u feel me)
#24
Quote by TunerAddict
+1

People bitch about remakes, but they wouldn't be remade if you cvnts didn't go to watch them.

Fact is, the movie industry is a business, and known commodities sell a **** of a lot better than unknown commodities.

If you made two movies about the same concept, one from an unknown or original intellectual property, and the other with the moniker of a known intellectual property, the movies with from the known property will always outsell the unknown.


Not always true. Some remake make money, more end up in the red.

It depends on what is being remade and who is in it, etc.

When they did the remake of "Psycho" with Vince Vaungh. Everyone said "that'll be a pile of crap. It got released, it was a pile, and no one went to see it and it lost money.

And I don't mean "did as well as the original" I mean didn't make more money than it's production budget.

Now, Horror movie remakes are usually profitable, because they're usually low budget (since the originals were probably REALLY low budget)

Remaking a movie no one cares about will probably make money. Remakes of "classics" almost always lose money. Even if the "classic" wasn't that good anyway.

Example: "The Bad News Bears" remake with Billy Bob Thorton did not earn it's budget back. (And a movie generally needs to make double it's budget back to be considered profitable by the studio. Marketing cost are not included in the "budget" they are separate.)

I can list tons if you would like.
Last edited by jugglingfreak at Dec 15, 2013,
#26
Quote by jugglingfreak
Not always true. Some remake make money, more end up in the red.

It depends on what is being remade and who is in it, etc.

When they did the remake of "Psycho" with Vince Vaungh. Everyone said "that'll be a pile of crap. It got released, it was a pile, and no one went to see it and it lost money.

And I don't mean "did as well as the original" I mean didn't make more money than it's production budget.

Now, Horror movie remakes are usually profitable, because they're usually low budget (since the originals were probably REALLY low budget)

Remaking a movie no one cares about will probably make money. Remakes of "classics" almost always lose money. Even if the "classic" wasn't that good anyway.

Example: "The Bad News Bears" remake with Billy Bob Thorton did not earn it's budget back. (And a movie generally needs to make double it's budget back to be considered profitable by the studio. Marketing cost are not included in the "budget" they are separate.)

I can list tons if you would like.



Overall making a movie that is an existing intellectual property is a much safer investment. It isn't my fault those studios wasted lots of money.
Quote by jrcsgtpeppers

If women can be annoyed there arent any women incongress I should be allowed to be pissed off there are no members of pink floyd or the beatles in congress.
#27
Quote by TunerAddict
Overall making a movie that is an existing intellectual property is a much safer investment. It isn't my fault those studios wasted lots of money.


Not always, you run the risk of alienating your "built in audience" (The thing that makes it a "safe investment).

The remakes that tend to succeed are:

1) slightly higher budget remakes of low budget movies (Usually Horror movies)

2) remakes of foreign films (because most of the people are too stupid to realize it's a remake)

3) remakes of older films (not classics, again because most of the people are too stupid to realize it's a remake) Example "Mr. Deeds" -2005 remake of "Mr. Deeds goes to Town" - 1936


Remakes of well known classics almost always fail. (There are a few exceptions like "True Grit" but they are few and far between..)