Kromm

Oh lord. The topic titular open mouth again. So yuck.

To me the issue is that there's no compelling reason to redo it. I can't see a twist on it or reinvention of it working, and yet if you don't do one, why do you need it? As evidenced by how little ANYONE remembers all of the followup Flintstones shows after the original (which to be fair, all which seemed to miss the point and treat it like a kids show--although that kind of made sense for the Saturday morning time slots they all had instead of the primetime slot of the original).

Barry Sonnefeld did a reboot of it around 1998 or 99 which was great, but tanked in the ratings. Malcolm McDowell played a very dark version of Roarke.

If the upcoming stinky looking Charlie's Angels movie is any indication? I doubt it. Although I suppose you could measure her by the silly Pitch Perfect movies too.

Probably that rapper named after a bottled water brand. Or... she's not in the game.

Watching this again, what really strikes me is what a phenomenal actress Yifei Liu appears to be. She communicated more in just a few looks in that scene with her family than most actresses manage in an entire movie.

Have you also given Household Name a shot? It's similarly an entree into business that doesn't suffer from being TOO focused on the numbers or intricacies. They use the theme "names you know" and run from there--making the telling more like a story rather than a lesson in a business class.

It's okay to feel that way, but I also recommend not being surprised if a lot of people disagree on the character, since The Ballad of Mulan predates Disney's version by like 1500 years and doesn't feature a hyperactive dragon. LOL

To be fair, Jumanji seems to have done this somewhat better. The whole notion of taking something nobody THOUGHT they needed an update to, and cleverly sitting it on top of the original without totally relying on it. But that seems to be the exception, not the rule. It's okay to answer the question "who said we needed this?" with "you will, after you see this". But really, the chances don't seem to me to be any better than the risks you take introducing a new franchise. Nobody NEEDED a remake of Jumanji. Or Charlie's Angels. Or almost any of these "requals". Or usually wanted them. Them working isn't due to a built in audience usually, it's the same kind of hit or miss as any movie.

"Is that Bawwwwbwas boy?" Heh. I think even just the sight of Nick Jonas' character in the trailer gives us a pretty good idea of where Spencer shows up.

So does she cut her hair in a part of the movie we aren't seeing, or has the pretense of her disguising herself as a man totally been taken out? I get that's there's a ton in the original film that doesn't score high on the political correctness/woke-scale these days and certainly expected big changes to the romance part of the story. But I don't see how you get around her disguising herself, and why she does that.

Just got back from seeing it. Controversial opinion time: The first one was better. That said... the difference was inches. This was still a really good film. And while there were a few bits I might have taken a different road with... they were minor. And then there was that ending. Well. the mid-credits thing. I will say... that really stunned me. It totally blindsided me (in a good way). I'm usually one to say I enjoy keeping to the spirit of the thing without slavishly copying the details. That's a big part of what I love about the first film. It FELT like Spider-Man, even while the details were totally different in many ways. And the twist is not that. It's a HUGE change. But I actually think it's an interesting direction and maybe great precisely because it's totally new ground and can simply show the character we know in a new situation. Not totally new, because Peter HAS famously been publicly outed in the comics before, but that was a.) an adult version and b.) wasn't outed in a way that made him Public Enemy #1. Spider-Man HAS been Public Enemy#1 a ton of times in the comics, but Peter Parker hasn't been. So that's new. So I'm cautiously optimistic about it. It's new, but it's not changing the character or core personality of Spider-Man, it's simply putting him in a unique situation. Some of the knock-on effects are interesting too. And I do understand being upset by them. This means Peter will never work at The Daily Bugle and interact directly with J. Jonah Jameson, for example. Then again, May isn't a doddering old woman ignorant of Spidey's identity who's constantly cooking him wheatcakes, so it's not like key elements aren't already different anyway. Peter is still a nerd. He still gets lucky and manages to date the hot girl in school. Spidey still wisecracks (not enough in this film--it's one of my issues with it). There's still just as much light in Spidey's life and surroundings as dark (that balance is the most important aspect). My gut feeling actually is that there's a good chance they won't actually go with a full version of Spidey/Peter as Public Enemy #1, but instead with a more nuanced version. I think (maybe even off-screen) Nick Fury (or the substitute we saw for him!) may step in and somehow have the credibility of that video discredited. But the cat will be out of the bag in many ways. The point won't be to have Spidey be on the run, it will be to hit those classic Spidey beats of him NOT being friends with the cops, NOT being popular with much of the public... frankly... NOT being an Avenger. Because this will enter into the range of our current "fake news" society. Putting out the truth won't undo the lie. This is a deliberate mirror of how our current leader, and most of his party, do business now. Put out the lie, and even if it's disproved or leaned back on, the seeds have been sown. Spidey won't be in jail. but he will no longer be joking around with cops (curious they edited that out of the movie, even though it was in the trailers), he will no longer be cheered by crowds or doing public appearances, and even some people he saves could turn on or distrust him now. The new aspect is how this will all work with May, MJ and Ned. All at risk from people out to get Spider-Man. Even with a cover story saying that Spidey isn't Peter, you can never undo the suspicion. And being publicly distrusted and thus bad from a P.R. standpoint, he likely won't be allowed to use Avengers resources. And finally Flash (so far such a minor character in this version of Spider-Man) comes into play. He's got some stuff to do now, based on if they have him turn on Spidey or the reverse and bond with Peter now. How they write Flash will be interesting. I'm on the fence about Gyllenhall and Mysterio overall. Not all of it worked for me. I liked that he wasn't a lone crazy and had his army of helpers. I like that he was genuinely crazy and not just greedy. But I found some of the acting choices, some moments, a bit odd. A bit off. But it was relatively minor stuff, again. I wonder if there was ever any truth to the rumor that Keaton was supposed to be in this (at least a little)? That said, I can see a potential setup for him being in the next one based on the new position Spidey will be in. Oh.. the very end? Okay, clearly it's S.W.O.R.D. And that's highly suggestive of Nova, Captain Marvel 2, and Guardians 3. But I bet only the fanboys/nerds realize the connections here. Then again, just knowing they're building something in space might be enough for most people. I'd say the single biggest shock to me (even more than the identity reveal) was J.K. Simmons. I gasped out loud at that casting choice. Was it a nod to the multiverse, since the rest of the movie veers away from commenting on that, or was it MORE than a nod?

They've always (collectively) been the hemorrhoids of Hollywood. The only difference now is that now tons of other people in that town have gone down that same path and made stupid un-Reality Shows.

I don't understand why anyone thinks people will be interested in Mischa Barton. Then again it's not like she has much else to do, so I'm guessing she came cheap.

There's too much in the book which doesn't play well for modern audiences. They'll definitely update it, like all adaptions do, the question is just how.