Arthur
Printed From: Progarchives.com
Category: Topics not related to music
Forum Name: General Polls
Forum Description: Create polls on topics not related to music
URL: http://www.progarchives.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=77440
Printed Date: June 16 2024 at 03:17
Software Version: Web Wiz Forums 11.01 - http://www.webwizforums.com
Topic: Arthur
Posted By: crimhead
Subject: Arthur
Date Posted: April 11 2011 at 13:57
| With respect to Dudley Moore I am torn on this one. The original was a quirky movie but Dudley was charming as the rich spoiled loveable drunk. I can't say that it should have been made with a different actor. Then again didn't we already see this movie in a sense with "Get me to the Greek"? Would Jim Carrey have been a better choice seeing that he is a physical comedic actor that can improvise? |
Replies:
Posted By: Atavachron
Date Posted: April 11 2011 at 15:15
|
the original was good, this one has potential; a young Arthur with more toys and rich absurdities.. Jim Carrey? He's not English, he's too old for what they're doing with it, and Russell Brand deserves a shot. |
Posted By: Evolver
Date Posted: April 11 2011 at 15:23
------------- Trust me. I know what I'm doing. |
Atavachron wrote:Posted By: crimhead
Date Posted: April 19 2011 at 02:12
| It appears that the movie going public has made up their mind on this. $22M over two weeks for this movie seems like they made a mistake in remaking it or in casting. |
Posted By: Icarium
Date Posted: April 19 2011 at 02:50
|
Arthur Pendragon -------------  
|
Posted By: seventhsojourn
Date Posted: April 19 2011 at 03:53
 |
Posted By: Jim Garten
Date Posted: April 19 2011 at 06:05
 x 2-------------  Jon Lord 1941 - 2012 |
Posted By: Tapfret
Date Posted: April 19 2011 at 08:28
|
Hollywood is over-full of bad actors and short on ideas, thus a slew of remakes stolen ideas from Europe and Asia.
------------- https://www.last.fm/user/Tapfret" rel="nofollow">  https://bandcamp.com/tapfret" rel="nofollow - Bandcamp |
Posted By: Vompatti
Date Posted: April 19 2011 at 08:37
| If it sells, yes. I haven't seen or even heard of either one. Who is Russell Brand? |
Posted By: thellama73
Date Posted: April 19 2011 at 09:07
|
I thought this poll was going to be about the Kinks album. :(
------------- 
|
Posted By: Jim Garten
Date Posted: April 19 2011 at 11:14
How sweet it must be to live in a world where you have no idea who this irritating twonk is:  I envy you  ------------- Jon Lord 1941 - 2012 |
Posted By: Icarium
Date Posted: April 19 2011 at 11:24
|
I thought this poll was about Arthur Pendragon -------------
|
Posted By: crimhead
Date Posted: April 19 2011 at 13:32
If it was it would have included a choice for one of Rick Wakeman's albums. |
Posted By: himtroy
Date Posted: April 19 2011 at 19:44
|
Yeah I thought it was pretty funny. I didn't arbitrarily hold it to the standards of the previous movie because of the 20 year gap, difference in modern humor, and the fact that people always complain about remakes. I work in a movie theatre and honestly other than Source Code it's the only movie out even worth watching. ------------- Which of you to gain me, tell, will risk uncertain pains of hell? I will not forgive you if you will not take the chance. |
Posted By: VanderGraafKommandöh
Date Posted: April 20 2011 at 07:03
|
Ouch. No. Russell Brand is indeed a twonk (and thanks Jim for using a word I love -- thanks to Red Dwarf and Timothy Spall too!) and should only be cast in films he's written himself, so people can find out how terrible he actually is. -------------   
|
Posted By: topographicbroadways
Date Posted: April 20 2011 at 08:55
|
It's never a good idea for Hollywood to remake anything. They never do it right, The Italian Job etc. uuurgh. And it isn't at all necessary either. If they were forced to donate all of the ridiculous profit this terrible film will make to a worthy charity the world would be a better place. And after they've had their money taken away have Russell Brand blindfolded, up against a wall and shot. -------------  
|
Posted By: Snow Dog
Date Posted: April 20 2011 at 08:59
|
I will stand up for Russell and say I like him. But that persona is bound to attract hate as well I guess.
My vote though? I really, really, really, really,really don't care. But the original wasn't a preciuos thing not to be messed with. It was alright. Nothing more. ------------- http://www.last.fm/user/Snow_Dog" rel="nofollow"> 
|
Posted By: topographicbroadways
Date Posted: April 20 2011 at 09:14
I agree on the original film but Hollywood remakes in general are just a terrible way that Hollywood filmmakers make more money with minimum effort and maximum profits. Really annoying to me. And with Russell Brand it isn't his "persona" that annoys me. He really, really, really, really, really, really just isn't funny in any way and his prancing around yelling it doesn't make it any funnier despite popular opinion.
-------------
|
Posted By: Snow Dog
Date Posted: April 20 2011 at 10:03
Oh..I think he's funny. ------------- http://www.last.fm/user/Snow_Dog" rel="nofollow">
|
Posted By: Tapfret
Date Posted: April 20 2011 at 10:19
|
I have to admit I rather enjoyed him in 'Forgetting Sarah Marshall". Of course, probably a large assortment of actors could have played that role.
------------- https://www.last.fm/user/Tapfret" rel="nofollow"> https://bandcamp.com/tapfret" rel="nofollow - Bandcamp |
Posted By: Jim Garten
Date Posted: April 20 2011 at 11:27
I saw the original on TV over the weekend (I was at my mother's & she was watching it, OK?!? ) & Dudley Moore played the part beautifully; an innocent, bumbling fool, pampered by money & no idea how to act in the real world. RB has one on screen persona & this has been beautifully described/analysed above: "He really, really, really, really, really, really just isn't funny in any way and his prancing around yelling it doesn't make it any funnier despite popular opinion" Before Dudley Moore came to the film he'd already proven himself to be an accomplished comedy performer/writer (not to mention musician); all RB has proven to me is there are limits to my pacifism. ------------- Jon Lord 1941 - 2012 |
Posted By: Snow Dog
Date Posted: April 20 2011 at 11:29
|
^ I am a huge fan of Dudley Moore Jim, and the film is OK, like I said.
Obviously you cannot please everyone. I am totally not surprised that RB is hated. His personality gaurantees that sort of reaction in some. ------------- http://www.last.fm/user/Snow_Dog" rel="nofollow">
|
Posted By: akamaisondufromage
Date Posted: April 20 2011 at 12:21
|
Big fan of Dudley
not of the other
Bet you wish you hadn't shown me how to post vids now!
------------- Help me I'm falling! |
Posted By: Dean
Date Posted: April 20 2011 at 12:59
|
Haven't seen the remake, don't want to. Remakes are always an ill considered idea IMO. The last half-decent remake was The 39 Steps from 1959, but even that wasn't as good (or critically aclaimed) as Hitchcock's original. There have been a few remakes that have been "adequate", but in the main they are worse. Remaking of European films is generally "okay" until you see the original, then it all falls apart when you see how much really did get lost in translation. Remaking films that rely on the comedic talents of one man are destined to fail before filming has even begun because the comparisions not only pit the films against each other, but the talent of the respective actors/comedians too.
However, in Brand's case it was neither foolhardy nor arogant to attempt this film, merely expedient given he is a one-trick pony with a limited career span, he needs to cash-in on his popularity while he can. ------------- What? |
Posted By: Jim Garten
Date Posted: April 21 2011 at 06:02
Fair point, well made  ------------- Jon Lord 1941 - 2012 |
Posted By: Slartibartfast
Date Posted: April 21 2011 at 07:32
|
A firm don't care from me. From the promo commercials I've seen, it doesn't appear to be a remake.
------------- Released date are often when it it impacted you but recorded dates are when it really happened... 
|
Posted By: Snow Dog
Date Posted: April 21 2011 at 08:08
|
Some remakes are quite good. Bedazzled was alright........but then you compare it to the Cook and Moore original and it's nowhere. Don't compare is best sometimes. ------------- http://www.last.fm/user/Snow_Dog" rel="nofollow">
|
Posted By: Dean
Date Posted: April 21 2011 at 08:37
Have any of these really improved on the original beyond a bit of CGI and a bigger name above the title? If the producer, director, star has something to prove, then take a real stinker and make it right... Battlefield Earth anyone? ------------- What? |
Posted By: Padraic
Date Posted: April 21 2011 at 08:41
Please let this only be a rumor. |
Posted By: Dean
Date Posted: April 21 2011 at 08:45
http://www.chacha.com/question/is-there-a-2001%3A-a-space-odyssey-remake-planned" rel="nofollow - http://www.chacha.com/question/is-there-a-2001%3A-a-space-odyssey-remake-planned ------------- What? |
Posted By: manofmystery
Date Posted: April 21 2011 at 09:39
Bedazzled was watchable for one reason:
 Would gladly follow her through the gates of hell.
Also, Russell Brand's problem is that he just isn't funny. He seems like a nice guy and he hit the wife lottery but he's just not a strong comedian. -------------  Time always wins. |
Posted By: Slartibartfast
Date Posted: April 21 2011 at 11:04
|
I think remakes and TV shows made into movies are best left for watching when they come on cable. Then you can just change the channel.
------------- Released date are often when it it impacted you but recorded dates are when it really happened...
|
Posted By: himtroy
Date Posted: April 21 2011 at 12:44
|
Yeah I thought Russel Brand was funny in the movie, but the whole dumb alcoholic persona is something that would amuse me. I also agree however that it isn't surprising that his personality draws lots of hate, as I thought I would despise him before I saw the movie. In fact almost everyone in here insulting the movie seems to have not seen it....and it's hardly a lazy remake as very little of it reflects the original. People just always need to complain, if it had been close to the original people would wine about it being a copy cat, if it differs people complain about it not holding true. Any time theres a remake people all get so upset and jump to bash it immediately. It is rather hard to come up with original movie concepts after a hundred years of making them, look at music post-developed technology(lets say 60's), even in that field people can't stop being repetitive. At least movie's are intentional remakes and not just horribly rehashed stories under a different name (aka every horror movie ever, every love movie ever).
------------- Which of you to gain me, tell, will risk uncertain pains of hell? I will not forgive you if you will not take the chance. |
Posted By: Dean
Date Posted: April 21 2011 at 13:49
So, every film that could be made has already been made and there is nothing new under the sun? On a simplistic level that may be true, but if that were truly the case then no new books would ever get written - it's not as if we get remakes of classic novels released every month - new this month Great Expectations by Dan Brown, next month sees the release of Stieg Larsson's version of The Woman in White. No, original works are out there being written every day, but for the money that even a low budget film costs, the risks are too high to take a punt on an untried story and even when they do take that risk, the desire to fiddle about and change the story to fit some Hollywood blueprint of the ideal movie wins out so we get the obligatory relocation to California/Miami/Chicago/New Yawk and the obligatory love interest and the obligatory car chase and the obligatory happy ending with the obligatory ironic twist and the obligatory moralising because test screenings before an arbitrary audience of freeloading couch spuds overdosed on sugar enriched popcorn and a gallon of iced Pepsi preferred the version where Hamlet is played by Will Smith as a plucky but downtrodden taxi driver from Brooklyn and he doesn't die at the end and rescues Ophelia in the knicker time by administering CPR, but they did think the CGI animation of Yorick's skull was a bit rubbish so perhaps James Earl Jones could dub a voice-over. Did I miss anything? ------------- What? |