List of some new movies and remakes that will be coming out in the near future

[Dr.Teufel Geist]

I don't think of prequels or sequels as remakes at all. When the moron from the TV show "Wings" decided to remake The Shining basically shot for shot, THAT was a remake (and a particularly awful one). When the "new" Psycho came out, same thing. The "new" Salem's Lot. etc etc. All wastes of time.

Prequels and sequels are not remakes. They're a continuation of a previous storyline. Who would call the latest Star Wars a remake of the original??

Who is this directed to?

[hammerfan]

I dread the new Conan film.At first it was going to be directed by Brett Ratner, which would be a disaster. They keep changing directors, now its the guy who did Pathfinder which was a total piece of s##t. I was hoping that Milius would direct or at least write it. (His writing on Rome made it the good show it was) Or get someone like McTiernan or Favreau behind it. I hear Ridley Scott is being approached about a reboot of Alien. Now that makes sense. But who would play Ripley? I vote for Amy Adams. She was pretty fiesty in the Night at the museum sequel.

[Gillman-Fan]

Guillermo Del Toro is the only person I'd trust a new Conan feature to. Terry Gilliam also has an excellent sense of the richness that this franchise needs and he knows his way around historically ambiguous period pieces.

[hammerfan]

I'd agree with Del Toro. But Gilliams' incoherent storylines and pseudo avant-garde style wouldnt suit a Conan flick. Knowing  Hollywood they will likely wind up with Michael Bay.

[Gillman-Fan]

Yeah, Gilliam would probably be too "thinky" for a Conan epic. You either like him or you don't . . . the fact that Hollywood can't pigeon-hole him makes him OK in my book.

[Dr.Teufel Geist]

I loved "Pathfinder", thought it was a good movie

[hammerfan]

You were in the minority Doc 

[Scatter]

Who is this directed to?

I'm too lazy to look back. And so are you. LOL!!

[BigShadow]

Hollywood is so dried up an useless, I believe they will try to remake almost every movie before doing something original.  I mean, how many novels are out there that can be turned into books.  Look at the work of R.A. Salvatore.  His books would make great movies and sequels.

[Dr.Cyclops]

Hollywood is so dried up an useless, I believe they will try to remake almost every movie before doing something original.  I mean, how many novels are out there that can be turned into books.  Look at the work of R.A. Salvatore.  His books would make great movies and sequels.

::)Agreed.
I think one of my biggest pet peeves regarding remakes, is once it's been remade, they never broadcast the original anymore.
Case in point:Dawn of the Dead (1978),one of the greatest movies of all time IMHO never gets shown.Instead we get the shoddy remake playing all the time,for the sole reason that it's newer.
I can think of many more examples,a few notable ones:
Texas Chainsaw Massacre
King Kong
Godzilla
Halloween
Hills have Eyes
The Fog
Planet of the Apes
These are soon to be joined by:
Carrie
Poltergeist

[Haunted hearse]

I don't think of prequels or sequels as remakes at all. When the moron from the TV show "Wings" decided to remake The Shining basically shot for shot, THAT was a remake (and a particularly awful one). When the "new" Psycho came out, same thing. The "new" Salem's Lot. etc etc. All wastes of time.

Prequels and sequels are not remakes. They're a continuation of a previous storyline. Who would call the latest Star Wars a remake of the original??

The "Moron" who decided to remake "The Shinning" was not Steven Weber from Wings.  He only appeared in it, and I think did a decent job.  The person behind the remake was Stephen King.  Stephen King wrote a decent read called "The Shinning."  Stanley Kubrick read the book, and made an even better movie out of it.  Because there were some changes from the original book, King detested Kubrick's movie.   The story was very personal to him, and I can get where he didn't like something that personal to him being changed.  King finally got an opportunity to make his own version of the story, and I have no doubt he was excited that people could at last see a filmed version of the way the story should look, including the "menacing" dancing plantlife, and CGI hoses with fangs.  In the end, all King managed to do, was show people that Kubrick could do a better job making a movie about a haunted hotel in Colorado, than King; and when it comes to dancing foliage  Disney did a much better job with the mushrooms and other plants in "Fantasia".  Fire-hoses with fangs?  better leave that to the people who make the Asylum movies and SciFy.