#22 Posted on 3.2.02 2206.14 Reposted on: 3.2.09 2206.26
They're all Marvel licenses. Blade and X-Men did well. Marvel wants to make money on as many different books that they can. I can't blame them, I remember just four years ago when they were filing bankruptcy.
Since last post: 4722 days Last activity: 4717 days
#24 Posted on 3.2.02 2348.29 Reposted on: 3.2.09 2349.10
I've said it before and I'll say it again...Giving Jerry Bruckheimer and Michael Bay a project like "Pearl Harbor" was like giving Troma the right to remake "Gone with the Wind". Now Bay has a low-budget production company and he has to REMAKE stuff?!? He can't even come up with his own original material for slasher flicks?
Since last post: 2849 days Last activity: 2112 days
#25 Posted on 4.2.02 0319.57 Reposted on: 4.2.09 0329.02
Originally posted by dMpAt least if you 'change' history you don't repeat it.
Seriously. As long as it's said that this is an adaption I think it is alright. It can actually trigger people to go read about the original. It is what I have done several times.
However, it has bugged me with the Disney cartoons alot. They ran out of bros Grim (not taker and Kane) and those kinda stories so now they are taking 'legends' and raping them to fit their standards.
"...And I use that to f*ck them some place fairly uncomfortable." "What, like the back of a volkswagen ?" -Mallrats
Do they always point out that it's an adaption of fact though?
Case in point: U571. They needed a blurb saying that the movie was a fictional version of what happened to a bunch of British sub guys in WWII. I gather they had a line in the credits at the end, but everyone has left by that point. A small acknowledgement in the small print just doesn't cut it in as far as "getting the truth out" IMO.
You're totally right that it's a good thing if people go and hunt out the source material, but I don't think the average cinema customer will do that.
ALL ORIGINAL POSTS IN THIS THREAD ARE NOW AVAILABLE