Sequels and Remakes, what a dilemma. I just finished watching Zombieland and it got me thinking. That was such a perfect movie. I would love for it to have a sequel only because I would love to have "more" of the story. That said however, a sequel would "have" to have the same actors in order for it to work plus a great continuation of the storyline. Of course, young Abigail Breslin is grown now so that would have to make a sequel occur a few years after the events we saw. Unless the filmmakers had anticipated the film doing well and filming a sequel at the same time along with the original story like they did with Lord of the Rings. So I am not sure if a sequel could in any way improve or at least continue the storyline. Still, perfect as the film is, it leaves me wanting more of the story. If I can never have more to the story then all I have left is to watch that film over and over again until I become bored with it.
Now I am watching Howard Hawks The Thing. I would love to see a remake of this but set in the 1950's period same as the original. Of course, the remake would have to be great notwithstanding.
So, where do you stand on these, sequels and remakes. Most fans end up not liking either. I would love to see a number of old Hammer movies remade and even some of the Universals. The criteria of course is that they are good, and the actors well chosen to fit the parts.
When a film is near perfect should there be any attempt made to make a sequel or a remake? Even if they can, should they?
Which brings us to another point, how many sequels or remakes actually hold their own or are at least well liked?
Can anyone name any?
Another point on the subject is though all of us have an affinity for the classics we often use the "classic" moniker as an "excuse" for "dated" acting styles or in some cases even bad acting, and that also goes for writing and directing as well. The term "classic" in my opinion only gets a film so far and only lets certain aspects of a movie slide. It is not the catch all excuse for everything that is awful about a film.
This is one of the reasons I enjoy the idea of a remake or sequel. We as movie watchers also grow older and hopefully that means our movie watching sensibilities evolve. That said, often remakes bring a film back up current with the evolved movie making techniques, writing and acting. Often times, if a film is set in a historical period the costumes, props and sets are vast improvements over those of the past. The issue though is always, can they make a sequel or remake well enough. In my opinion it does not have to surpass the original, just enhance the story somewhat and be "NOT" bad.
One example that comes to mind for me at least was Blade II. I thought that one was better than the original and definitely enhanced the story. I could have done without Blade III though. Hence the dilemma. How far should movie makers push it. I know we would all agree that if the sequel or remake is good then we will like it, goes without saying.
What I am asking though is even not knowing the outcome would you prefer they at least make the attempt in the crap shoot that it will be at maybe equal, possibly surpass or at the very least be entertaining and enhance the story?
Would you honestly say that if a film is near perfect then leave it alone and make no sequel or remake ever? or, do you like the idea at least of adding on to what was made? Taking the story a little further?
Here is a short list of films that I find near perfect and would love to see a sequel only sticking to horror/monster films mind you.
Zombieland
Trick R Treat
Remakes I might enjoy:
The Thing
Frankenstein Meets the Wolfman
Return of the Vampire - set period but updated.
Of course there are many more but I just wanted to name a few to start the discussion. With the remakes I would enjoy, I find these classics to either be perfect or near perfect but would love updated versions. I am just using these as a few examples for myself.
I would enjoy hearing others opinions on this with any suggestions of their own.
Yeah, I got a kick out of Zombieland and would have liked to see a continuation of the story. However it would have to be one heck of a story. How could you top offing effin' BILL MURRAY!
One problem with Zombieland: Rule 2 The Doubletap. Columbus is carrying a 12 gauge coach gun and no other apparent weapons. How does one double tap a side-by-side shotgun and do it without leaving yourself holding an empty shotgun?
Sequels can be pretty risky, Sometimes they can outshine the original. I am thinking in particular of Mad Max and The Road Warrior and Evil Dead and Evil Dead 2. An increased budget and an already established story made for improved sequels. Technically, though ED2 was a remake of ED . . .
Remakes can sometimes go too far. While I liked the remakes of Night of the Living Dead and Dawn of the Dead from a standpoint of production values and special effects, However, I still prefer the more gritty vision Romero had in the originals.
Now, when you say you might enjoy a remake of The Thing, do you mean like Carpeter's remake? Or the 2011 film? Because the 2011 film was terrible :P
I could dive into this topic, type for eight hours, and still have more to say! Instead, I'll just say that most remake (not all) tend to be pale imitations of the originals. And sequels suffer from the Law of Diminishing Returns. By the time you get to Part 4 or 5, it's usually so watered down from the original, it ain't funny.
No offense but I'm not in this thing of sequels and remakes at all. The results are so often disappointing or simply meaningless. There are occasionally some interesting isolated initiatives, but too rarely.
Richard ;)
Quote from: Dr. Blasko on July 22, 2012, 09:12:50 AM
Now, when you say you might enjoy a remake of The Thing, do you mean like Carpeter's remake? Or the 2011 film? Because the 2011 film was terrible :P
I understood him to mean a remake of Howard Hawks' original
The Thing (1951)
John Carpenters'
The Thing (1982) was a remake.
Matthijs van Heijningen Jr.'s 2011 attempt was supposed to be a prequel to Carpenter's remake. :P
Prior to
The Thing, van Heijningen directed commercials for Toyota, Peugeot, Renault, Stella Artois, Pepsi, and Bud Light.
His only cinematic experience consisted of a music video and three short films(one a 13 min knockoff of Psycho) for a total of 34 minutes of movie directing.
If you want a $38 million tax write-off, here's your director . . .
Quote from: Dr. Blasko on July 22, 2012, 09:12:50 AM
Now, when you say you might enjoy a remake of The Thing, do you mean like Carpeter's remake? Or the 2011 film? Because the 2011 film was terrible :P
Fester "If you want a $38 million tax write-off, here's your director . . ." You kill me......
But yes, Fester is right. I meant the Howard Hawks production of the Thing. John Carpenters was a remake of sorts but also what I classify as an update. When I refer to a remake I mean an attempt to keep the film in its perspective time setting. Peter Jacksons King Kong for example was a remake as it was still set in roughly the same time period as the original. I like those, if they are done well, sometimes better than updates. I consider the Wolfman to be a remake even though they set the film in an earlier time frame it was still a period film rather than setting it in 2010 when it was made.
Quote from: Wolf Man on July 22, 2012, 12:53:50 PM
Fester "If you want a $38 million tax write-off, here's your director . . ." You kill me......
But yes, Fester is right. I meant the Howard Hawks production of the Thing. John Carpenters was a remake of sorts but also what I classify as an update. When I refer to a remake I mean an attempt to keep the film in its perspective time setting. Peter Jacksons King Kong for example was a remake as it was still set in roughly the same time period as the original. I like those, if they are done well, sometimes better than updates. I consider the Wolfman to be a remake even though they set the film in an earlier time frame it was still a period film rather than setting it in 2010 when it was made.
Well, that's The Thing from Another World. Interesting view on what is a remake. For me, a remake is a remake, is a remake, even if updated, since its still the same movie remade, just in a different way (which is what I prefer. I think Carpenter's The Thing is the perfect example of how to do a remake right)
The only sequel/re-make I liked, and it's one of my favorite movies, is the new Star Trek film. But to me, this film is a good mixture of a sequel and remake. Because they are alternating realities and still have the original Spock, I don't really consider this a remake or a sequal.
Who will produce a motion picture that respect the more traditional rules of the horror genre? Rules that have proved their worth repeatedly. How about inserting some primary emotions such as empathy and compassion? Do these emotions have become so useless?
I refuse to believe that the way of making movies nowadays is the correct and only way.
Richard ;)
With Carpenter's "The Thing" although it may have shown the alien much closer to the authors original vision it was set in the modern time frame of when it was made. I thought it lacked the same character the original had being set in the fifties. To me that was an update since it brought the entire storyline into current times. A lot of people really like that movie mind you. Howard Hawks "Thing" though was as perfect a movie could be for when it was made. That said, which brings us to the topic at hand, was it better to make a new one or just leave as it was. I believe most monster fans would agree that it was a good idea by Carpenter to update that with a remake. What if Carpenter's had not been very good, then would it still have been a good idea to attempt it or just leave it alone? I would rather see film makers attempt either an update or a remake rather than not attempt it. I prefer the risk of it turning out badly as opposed to not even trying. If Carpenter had not taken the risk then we would not have his version of the film at all. So if the film turns out bad, well, I at least try to cut them some slack since they gave it the attempt. As discussed though with the Munsters TV reboot, some things are better left alone if they really can't do anything with it to keep it at the very least close to what fans will expect. When film makers butcher the material then that is when it crosses the line and becomes sacrilege.
Rarely is a remake a good idea. In the case of Carpenter's "The Thing", I think it holds up a lot better, then if it had been set in the 1950's. No doubt then the film makers would have brought camp into it. With sequels, I liked "Shrek 2" and both of the "Toy Story" sequels, but that's kind of rare. Once something has been made, it would be for the best that folks stop trying to reinvent the wheel. I can't see how anybody's quality of life would be diminished if we nobody ever made another sequel or remake.
My thoughts on sequels and remakes.
Sequels--I can completely understand wanting to continue the story and I understand that film makers don't want to make the same movie, so most film makers change things around a bit to make it interesting. And there is the problem, when things are changed, they move away from what made the first film so good. A case in point are the movies Highlander 1 & 2. I saw Highlander and enjoyed the movie greatly. I heard about the sequel and did not understand where it could go, as the first pretty much ended the story. When I did see the sequel, the story line was so far away from the original that I had a hard time following it as I was constantly thinking, "But in the first one..." and could not get the stories to mesh. Now, we do have good sequels in the classics in Bride and Son of Frankenstein, along with the following films, and the Creature form the Black Lagoon series. Also, wether or not you like the series, the Harry Potter movies are good sequels. Another problem with sequels is, I think, writers seem to move away from story and concentrate on the killings. I am not a fan of slasher movies, and did not see the original Nightmare on Elm Street because I thought it was a slasher movie. My dad rented the movie and I enjoyed it immensely. I was dissappointed in the second and third ones so much that I did not see the forth and fifth. But it seemed as though the sequels I did see moved away from the story and more to Freddy tormenting and killing people which was not the focus of the first movie.
Remakes--This one is tricky. Either a film maker is a fan of and respects a movie so much that he or she wishes to do an updated version, or a the film maker wants to put "his brand" on a movie. Two cases of doing an updated version are both done by John Carpenter, the movies The Thing and Children of the Damned. I do think the 1982 version of The Thing was a remake even though Carpenter made the film closer to the original story. The Children of the Damned remake is also a great movie and I think it stands well with the original. I'm really not sure with one I like better. I wish I could comment on the Psycho remake, but I have never seen it. I remember hearing about it when it came out and my brother told me the director had a copy of the original and was using that so he could that to remake the movie shot by shot. I remember telling my brother "Then why remake it?" If I want to watch Psycho, I'll watch Hitchcock's. The Fog and Halloween remakes was a huge disappointments in my opinion. The Fog remake lacked any punch to it. And Halloween, to me it seemed that Micheal Myers was being made into some sort of hero.
In general, I look forward to sequels and remakes, but I do so with a bit of apprehension.
I almost forgot to mention the #1 reason for sequels and remakes--$$$$$$$$$
Quote from: Haunted hearse on July 22, 2012, 05:05:26 PM
Rarely is a remake a good idea. In the case of Carpenter's "The Thing", I think it holds up a lot better, then if it had been set in the 1950's. No doubt then the film makers would have brought camp into it. With sequels, I liked "Shrek 2" and both of the "Toy Story" sequels, but that's kind of rare. Once something has been made, it would be for the best that folks stop trying to reinvent the wheel. I can't see how anybody's quality of life would be diminished if we nobody ever made another sequel or remake.
So I take it then that you believe that Bride of Frankenstein, Frankenstein Meets the Wolf Man, Son of Frankenstein, Ghost of Frankenstein, House of Frankenstein, House of Dracula, The Mummy's Curse, the Mummy's Tomb or any others of the many sequels including A&C meet all the monsters should not have been made or weren't good ideas?
I find it ironic, and you are not the only one who blasts sequels and remakes yet we all grew up watching and loving all the Universal sequels. If they had not been constantly trying to turn them out we would not have half, even a quarter of the films we have today. My point is that I am glad they churned those out. We can all argue diminished quality or storyline till we are blue in the face but we love all those movies just the same. That is why I prefer the film makers keep making the attempts.
Here is another example, 1998 Godzilla. I happen to like the film. I enjoy it and watch it at least once a year sometimes twice. However, all those who hated it will get their wish, maybe. Sometimes you have to have a Titanic accident to get enough life boats. Since the 98 Godzilla there is now a new Godzilla movie in the works that might give die hard fans everything they want. If they did not make the 98 Godzilla (some see it as Titanic) then we may not get the new updated version that potentially could correct all the things fans did not like about that one.
I applaud the courage it takes for a film maker to "try". There is always a gem waiting to be discovered. I remember reading about John Carpenters Halloween and all those who said you can't make a horror movie about just a guy in a mask. Damn did he ever prove them wrong. Halloween still tops all the lists for number one horror movie surpassing anything else. It got a remake too. I enjoy both movies and both visions from the Directors. I also really like Tyler Mane's performance in Zombie's Halloween. They are quite different though, no doubts.
Quote from: Wolf Man on July 23, 2012, 01:21:37 AM
So I take it then that you believe that Bride of Frankenstein, Frankenstein Meets the Wolf Man, Son of Frankenstein, Ghost of Frankenstein, House of Frankenstein, House of Dracula, The Mummy's Curse, the Mummy's Tomb or any others of the many sequels including A&C meet all the monsters should not have been made or weren't good ideas?
I find it ironic, and you are not the only one who blasts sequels and remakes yet we all grew up watching and loving all the Universal sequels. If they had not been constantly trying to turn them out we would not have half, even a quarter of the films we have today. My point is that I am glad they churned those out. We can all argue diminished quality or storyline till we are blue in the face but we love all those movies just the same. That is why I prefer the film makers keep making the attempts.
Here is another example, 1998 Godzilla. I happen to like the film. I enjoy it and watch it at least once a year sometimes twice. However, all those who hated it will get their wish, maybe. Sometimes you have to have a Titanic accident to get enough life boats. Since the 98 Godzilla there is now a new Godzilla movie in the works that might give die hard fans everything they want. If they did not make the 98 Godzilla (some see it as Titanic) then we may not get the new updated version that potentially could correct all the things fans did not like about that one.
I applaud the courage it takes for a film maker to "try". There is always a gem waiting to be discovered. I remember reading about John Carpenters Halloween and all those who said you can't make a horror movie about just a guy in a mask. Damn did he ever prove them wrong. Halloween still tops all the lists for number one horror movie surpassing anything else. It got a remake too. I enjoy both movies and both visions from the Directors. I also really like Tyler Mane's performance in Zombie's Halloween. They are quite different though, no doubts.
But at the same time the results are rarely convincing (and we all know it'll always remain a matter of personal taste and appreciation). There's something so negligible in the fact of trying until "it's done right". This is no bicycle riding! The margin of error seems endless in the industry. How many attempts do they need? Do we have to pay for this each time?
We're the consumers and they're the producers. Too often it's just a too free and too personal creative process. They perfectly know what we liked about the original meals, so go back to your kitchen and cook some more. But this time follow the ingredients carefully.
Richard ;)
Quote from: Wolf Man on July 23, 2012, 01:21:37 AM
So I take it then that you believe that Bride of Frankenstein, Frankenstein Meets the Wolf Man, Son of Frankenstein, Ghost of Frankenstein, House of Frankenstein, House of Dracula, The Mummy's Curse, the Mummy's Tomb or any others of the many sequels including A&C meet all the monsters should not have been made or weren't good ideas?
color]
Yes, imagine how much poorer my life would have been, if there had been no "Mad Max beyond Thunderdome", Disney's direct to video sequels (Including that little known gem "Fox and the Hounds 2") "The Escape Clause" "Mummy 3", Tim Burton's "Dark Shadows" and "Charlie and the Chocolate Factory", "The Haunting", "Thirteen Ghosts", and of course that splendid shot by shot remake of Psycho.
Oh, no one is saying there aren't some real stinkers out there for sequels. Lake Placid for example was actually praised by many critics and a surprisingly good movie for its genre. Its sequels however were nothing but T&A movies with bad CGI special effects. I agree also that Highlander was a great movie that suffered the indignity of very poor sequels. It happens. We all agree that we prefer to see them do the original justice in some way but I would still prefer that they try over not trying but also prefer that if they try then try to do it right.
I find it interesting though about Psycho. When a film gets remade it is often criticized for departing to much from the original or source material. Then when a film gets remade frame by frame it gets blasted for that too. Sometimes, I feel the film makers can't win no matter what they do.
And that is pretty much the main issue in this discussion.
Slavish recreation of an original is pretty much the same thing as colorizing it a la Turner.
or
Make it too different, and the fans of the originals call sacrilege.
Where does one as a director or producer draw the line? I really like the Jackson King Kong remake. However, I still prefer the original. It just feels better. I cannot put my finger on it, exactly. I know Jackson made his CG New York scenes as close as possible to the original-- mapping electronically from original photos and maps. But it still falls flat for me. I think what Jackson should have been looking for was a way to add a new angle to the story without killing the integrity of the original.
If I could figure that out, I would be at my Hollywood mansion sitting poolside and having my people calling your people about a time to do lunch. But here I am in Spokanistan typing this in a desperate effort to avoid mowing my lawn!
Now, the opposite of Jackson's solution to this dilemma arose with the "reboot" of Star Trek There were so many changes that the movie worked, and worked very well. Possibly this happened because the original Star Trek movie, Kirk VS V'Ger was so abysmal. Adding to that the sequels and The Next Generation movies, the franchise was so done over (or overdone?) that recreating it in a new direction was the only good option. For me, who was expecting something along the lines of a Star Trek version of Muppet Babies It was a very pleasant surprise.
Another remake that was so far from the original movie that it worked wonderfully in my opinion, was True Grit I liked the original--for a John Wayne(tm) movie But it had very little in common with Portis' book. The first True Grit was obviously made as a vehicle for Wayne and his screen persona. (That would also explain why LaBoeuf was so lamely played by Glen Campbell.) The Remake was so much closer to the mood and tone of the novel. And it had a more realistic and logical flow to the story.
Dang! Now, I've gotta mow. ::)
Quote from: Wolf Man on July 23, 2012, 02:55:36 PM
I find it interesting though about Psycho. When a film gets remade it is often criticized for departing to much from the original or source material. Then when a film gets remade frame by frame it gets blasted for that too. Sometimes, I feel the film makers can't win no matter what they do.
You might be right about how the Psycho shot for shot remake has been maligned. Vince Vaughn and Anne Heche really make you forget about Anthony Perkins and Janet Leigh. Furthermore it was in color, so that makes the scene where Vaughn is playing with himself true cinematic magic!
I too liked Peter Jacksons Kong. Yes, it had a few silly moments but when you love a material then a film like this, really long, gives you all it can give you. I went to see Ray Harryhausen not long ago and he was asked what he thought of Jackson's Kong. He said it was very realistic but lacked the dream like quality of the original. That it was too realistic. Perhaps that was what you were trying to put your finger on. As soon as he said it that did make sense. Still, something I found humorous was the fans who claimed it took forty minutes into the film to see Kong. And it did. But, watching the original Japanese version of Godzilla recently it took exactly that long to see Godzilla and you don't hear anyone complaining about that. One of the things I like about his film is that it really immerses you into the world of 1930's New York plus the adventure of the island itself. I could watch so many of the scenes over and over again just for all those, what are considered by some to be too realistic details. I love that attention to detail. That is the greatest thing about a period film is that if done well it transports you to another time and place.
Just a personal observation but I think many people are way too harsh on remakes or sequels. I am like many that don't like the real stinkers, and would always prefer a really good take on the material but there are some, no matter how good the film is just get peeved about little details that aren't absolutely to "their" personal liking. I respect those who choose not to see a sequel or remake because they do not wish to tarnish their view of the original. That is their personal choice. But why spend the money to go see it then run straight for the computer key board to bash the hell out of it. Perhaps I am just optimistic but I try to view a film as a couple of hours of entertainment and not much more. I enjoyed the recent The Thing prequel. Not a perfect film by any means and I had to go back and watch Carpenters again just to refresh my memory but I enjoyed it for what it was a revisit of the story. It also added a few more pieces to the puzzle. Whether or not it was a great film or even a good film isn't going to ruin my life. I enjoyed it, spent a few hours being entertained and because I have a life I did not feel the need to run to the computer to bash the crap out of the film. Just to clarify, not saying anyone is doing that in this discussion. That is not saying everyone shouldn't have an opinion. Sure they do. Express it. Did not like the film because of "A" or "B" and move on. Sometimes it just seems people become really obsessed with picking out every-little -detail in order to bash a film to utter pieces. If a person is that obsessed with how bad it is then simply chose not to see it. That is a respectable position to take.
I enjoyed True Grit alright but surprisingly, even though I am a fan of westerns really did not feel the urge to buy it. I still think one of John Wayne's best is The Cowboys. Plus, I would love to see a remake of that one. Would have been great to see Clint Eastwood do it, perhaps about ten years ago. He is a bit too old now maybe.
What other films would people love to see a sequel or remake? True Grit got me thinking so now I am curious.
"I went to see Ray Harryhausen not long ago and he was asked what he thought of Jackson's Kong. He said it was very realistic but lacked the dream like quality of the original. That it was too realistic."
That may just be it.
The whole feel of the original King Kong is different. Maybe that was the weakness of the original. Insanely detailed realistic images don't quite mesh with the unreal nature of a fantasy story.
"I enjoyed True Grit alright but surprisingly, even though I am a fan of westerns really did not feel the urge to buy it. I still think one of John Wayne's best is The Cowboys. Plus, I would love to see a remake of that one. Would have been great to see Clint Eastwood do it, perhaps about ten years ago. He is a bit too old now maybe. '
I liked the remade True Grit enough to buy a copy. But the only reason I have a copy of the John Wayne version is someone gave it to me. I've watched it maybe twice.
I could see a remake of The Cowboys, and I have to agree Clint Eastwood is undoubtedly too old now. Some cast possibilities might include Sam Shepard, Robert Douval, Tommy Lee Jones, or Sam Elliott.
By the way, have you seen Blackthorn? Its a sequel of sorts. Twenty years after his supposed 1908 death in Bolivia, Butch Cassidy decides to head home to the States. Sam Shepard plays Cassidy. It is a fascinating movie, sadly pretty much ignored in the US.
Wow, those are all good suggestions for a Cowboys remake. Some fine actors. No, have not seen or even heard of Blackthorn. I will have to look into that one. The history channel has done I believe several features on Butch Cassidy being still alive, that is whether he survived or not. I did not know they made a movie about it though. Very interesting.
Quote from: Wolf Man on July 23, 2012, 06:10:49 PM
What other films would people love to see a sequel or remake? True Grit got me thinking so now I am curious.
I would give the green light to a project on The Island of Dr. Moreau.
Quote from: Caveman on July 23, 2012, 07:05:11 PM
I would give the green light to a project on The Island of Dr. Moreau.
Wow, really? Hasn't that movie been remade numerous times?
Still, you never know if maybe they could turn out a better version. Oddly enough, while my avatar speaks for itself, I never really cared much for that movie. If they did make a remake though I would most likely see it.
Quote from: Wolf Man on July 23, 2012, 07:23:08 PMWow, really? Hasn't that movie been remade numerous times?
Those I know:
Island of Lost Souls (1932) :) :) :)
Blood Creature (1959) :)
The Island of Dr. Moreau (1977) :) :)
The Island of Dr. Moreau (1996)...this is where it hurts.
Quote from: Caveman on July 23, 2012, 07:46:26 PM
Those I know:
Island of Lost Souls (1932) :) :) :)
Blood Creature (1959) :)
The Island of Dr. Moreau (1977) :) :)
The Island of Dr. Moreau (1996)...this is where it hurts.
That last Moreau movie . . .Gag!
Could Kilmer or Brando have been more awful?
I mean, even if they tried?
About a 12 on the Creep-O-Meter. :P
Wolf Man.
I am quite sure Cassidy did not die in Bolivia. I was raised in Utah and most of the Parker family still lives in the small town of Circleville. His real name was Robert Leroy Parker. On several occasions, I spoke with his littlest sister Lula Parker Bettenson. She always claimed that "Bob," her brother lived under an assumed name and died in the Pacific Northwest. Lula never would reveal where he died.
The History Channel, while great entertainment has told enough whoppers that I rarely trust anything I see there. I don't know what evidence they presented, but I have personally seen more than enough evidence to support his return to the USA.
Blackthorn was filmed on location in Bolivia, and it is worth viewing just for the scenery. However, it is in my opinion, Sam Shepard's most powerful performance.
It has been awhile since I saw that History Channel special but I do remember them mentioning a sister who said he survived and returned home. Perhaps they got that one right but I know what you mean about the details.
Have you see the Hatfields and McCoys miniseries or have been following it? I only caught a few minutes of it on AFN but it looked decent. I read a review where they said it was not very historically accurate but it looked like it was gritty and well acted from what I could tell.
Quote from: Wolf Man on July 23, 2012, 10:29:28 PM
It has been awhile since I saw that History Channel special but I do remember them mentioning a sister who said he survived and returned home. Perhaps they got that one right but I know what you mean about the details.
Have you see the Hatfields and McCoys miniseries or have been following it? I only caught a few minutes of it on AFN but it looked decent. I read a review where they said it was not very historically accurate but it looked like it was gritty and well acted from what I could tell.
Haven't caught it. I'll have to check it out. I know there is a spate of Hatfield/McCoy Non-fiction books released lately. BTW, Bill Bettenson, Lula Parker Bettenson's great grandson has released a book called
Butch Cassidy, My Uncle. If I find and read it, I'll let you know what I think.
The original novella "Who Goes There?", originally published in 1938, was a lot closer to Carpenter's version than Hawkes' Carrot Man. Both were great films, though. Interestingly enough, George Clooney tried to mount a live TV production based on "Who Goes There?" after doing "Fail Safe" (2000). The project was abandoned after it was determined the special effects would be impractical in a live broadcast.
I know what you mean Fester. I could not believe when I searched Hatfield and McCoy's that there were so many films about them and then I was shocked I had never seen any of them. I would love to hear how that book turns out if you do find it. I received a phone call once from Hollywood out of the blue asking for stock footage of the James gangs last hold up. The call came in the middle of the day and caught me completely by surprise. I had to ask how they go my number because I was not listed anywhere and the guy said my card was being passed around as an historian and expert on the old west. So what blew my mind was how in the heck did my card end up in the hands of a Hollywood producer. I was running at the time a historical organization that conducted reenactments. I was handing out my cards a lot to spectators but who knew that one of them would end up in the hands of a producer. You just never know I guess.