Anyone excited about this remake ? Im going to watch it, no doubt. The original is one of my all time favourites.
http://youtube.com/watch?v=5EJ24Vu2htI
Heres the trailer, the movie looks ok, but I see no naked dancing or chanting :cry:
Printable View
Anyone excited about this remake ? Im going to watch it, no doubt. The original is one of my all time favourites.
http://youtube.com/watch?v=5EJ24Vu2htI
Heres the trailer, the movie looks ok, but I see no naked dancing or chanting :cry:
I doubt it'll reach the greatness of the original, but I might go see it just to find out how it'll turn out. :rolleyes2
The original = smurfING AMAZING
The remake = HOPE ITS GOING TO BE smurfING AMAZING
I cant wait to see it.
Ditto i can't wait to find out if it lives up to or flops >.<
(SPOILER)I hope it kicks ass !
Typical remake in that it makes completely unnecessary change to a classic film that needed no changes at all. Oh, and the change of location is something I find particularly annoying.
I've not seen the remake, obviously, but I really don't see why they even had to bother.
Same, The Wicker Man was great for various reasons, and I thought the Scottish location was one of them, cant Hollywood respect anything nowadays ?Quote:
Originally Posted by Heath
Oh I think Hollywood is very respectful. Look at the new The War of the Worlds film. That kept the original setting of late Nineteenth Century England and... Oh wait.Quote:
Originally Posted by DreddzSame, The Wicker Man was great for various reasons, and I thought the Scottish location was one of them, cant Hollywood respect anything nowadays ?Quote:
Originally Posted by Heath
I agree with Heath. This is a British cult classic, and Hollywood puts it stubby little finger in and twists the whole concept. I first heard of this remake when it's ad on a bus went by and I complained to my dad who give me his carefree opinion that it's all money, money, money and people don't give two hoots about making a good film these days.
Nicholas Cage in the lead role?, that makes as much sense as a one legged man entering an arse kicking contest. Having said that modern day remakes do tend to get people interested in the original version. Let's just see how bad a burning the critics will give this one
On the bright side it does mean that with Cage getting the lead role we get to see him burnt to death. :DQuote:
Originally Posted by mobiletype
It cannot fail to be better than the original.
I find remakes are NEVER a good as the originals fair enough they may have better effects ect., but they still cant be better than the original
I think the original's overrated. :p
The storyline was great, but I just found it boring.
Nicolas Cage + Movies = fail.
*crawls from underneath a rock..."the new 'Wickerman' movie is a remake?" and I thought I had seen all of the cult classics lol
...Wow, go figure. Hollywood is doing another remake...:rolleyes2
American remakes of Brittish films = :(
why cant people just accept the originals, the remakes are never as good (ie Charlie and The Chocolate Factory, The Italian Job etc), i will not go watch the new version of the wickerman, it also seems to have a lower age rating than the old one so there will be less cool pagan bits :p :choc:
Yeah, and probably no naked dancing :(Quote:
Originally Posted by Brian The Pink Shark
Im not a huge fan of remakes, originals all the way for me. I love and loathe the original because it terrified me and the ending has always upset me, but I love Edward Woodwood and Christopher Lee.
Sadly, remakes have become the new thing in Hollywood. Alfred Hitchcock's "The Birds" and John Carpenter's "Halloween" are also to be fed to the remake machine. I saw a list of movies lined up for future remakes somewhere...it angered me. :mad2:
looks cool enough, I might check it out
NOOOOO ! Im especially angry about Birds. I pray they keep there grubby mits of John Carpenters " The Thing ", as I heard rumors that it was a possibility that it would be remade.....Quote:
Originally Posted by Kain Strife
Don't be retarded. The Burton version of Charlie and the Chocolate Factory is the best version ever, including the book.Quote:
Originally Posted by Brian The Pink Shark
Edit: Why can't people just accept that remakes happen, and that if they don't like the remake the original doesn't cease to exist and can still be watched?
I accept that they happen, but that doesn't mean I like it. :mad2:
You don't have to, but making a fuss about it won't change anything. Hollywood aren't exactly going to care, and I've still yet to encounter a case where the original is destroyed. Usually the remake makes the original more visible and easier to get a hold of.
You're right, but it is still disconcerting to see your favorite old flick butchered by some hack/hacks...I'm not against remakes, just crappy remakes. Also, it would be nice to get a breather between onsloughts of remakes. Overindulgence points to lack of creativity in many cases.Quote:
Originally Posted by I'm my own MILF
Hollywood isn't going to care, no, but that's no reason why I shouldn't. The film itself is easy to get hold of here in Britain anyway, and I dare say that there are many places on the 'net to get it outside the UK.Quote:
Originally Posted by I'm my own MILF
It just annoys me that when these remakes come about they make completely unnecessary changes to the film. From what I know of the film, why the inclusion of killer bees? Why the change of location from Scotland to somewhere in the US? The idea of the main character being a virgin was "farfetched" (I think was the word they used on Wikipedia), despite this being a fairly important part of his character (and part of the reason he was to be sacrificed if I remember rightly).
On an unrelated note, I'm off to Scotland on Thursday to stay with my girlfriend. On Friday I'm hoping we're going to be going to Culzean Castle which was the manor of Lord Summerisle in the original. We were going to go last time but, sadly, didn't manage it.
I thought about watching it until I heard about Nicholas Cage's involvement. Someone charismatic like Johnny Depp might have done it well, but I'd have preferred a Scotsman like Ewan McGregor or (preferably) an unknown Scotsman. Or even an Englishman. Just somebody else...
I love the original, and I really don't have any interest in the remake. I mean how the HELL can you replace Christiphor Lee? (Yes I am fully aware that I can't spell.) I was talking with someone, could have been Iceglow, and we both joked about the fact that because it is Cage he will find some way out of getting burnt alive, pitty really, seeing Cage burnt alive is something I really would pay to see.
Ugh, another remake. And with Cage to boot. Definitely one to stay away from IMO. (I've seen the trailer too.)
Im not a fan of remakes, but I do agree and did prefer Burtons to the original, as did my gran who I thought wouldnt like it!Quote:
Don't be retarded. The Burton version of Charlie and the Chocolate Factory is the best version ever, including the book.
I couldn't say for myself. I do, personally, think Wilder made a much better Willy Wonka however. But we're deviating from the original topic.Quote:
Originally Posted by ~SapphireStar~
Does anyone know who they've got to replace Christopher Lee?
Shockingly, there seems to be no Lord Summersisle in the remake.
How can you have the Wicker Man without lord summerisle?
Some woman instead called Sister Summerisle takes the place of Christopher Lee. Ellen Burstyn is the actress playing Sister Summerisle.
Oh, hooray.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wikipedia